Re: Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?

On Feb 11, 4:40 am, "John Kepler" <jekep...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
40 years is completely meaningless.

Based on what laws of orbital mechanics? Let me guess....you had a hard
time with improper fractions back in 4th grade?

Keep guessing Sherlock. You are the one lacking division. Divide 40 by
4 Million.
Again (3rd and final time) I'm saying 40 years of data is absolutely
insignificant and meaningless.
Here's an anology if your heart missed a beat in you 40 years of life,
which I'm sure it has somewhere along the path. You'd be saying oh man
I'm in trouble. While Steve your doctor would say, let me examine you
longer. Well we simply cannot examine *all* the moon's intricate
elliptical movements and wobbles because we'd need to observe millions
of years of movement data.


And as I also said, not even 1000

years of distance data is to solve where the moon will be billions of
years from now.

Scooter....how long do you feel you need to observe a trajectory before you
can mathmatically calculate and predict said trajectory?

Wow! We've hit a wall Batman! Trajectory is NOT part of a cycle. If
you can prove this *current* (extremely short range) outward movment
of the moon will *continue*, you definitely deserve a Nobel award. You
might be alone by saying so too, however not taking bets on how many
fools who call themselves scientists might side with you.


We'd need much! much! much! more movement data before

anyone could sanely use as an argument one way or the other.

Again....based on WHAT flavor of physics and mathmatics?

Reality. Start with basic common sense. Does the body good.

"unseen eliptical cycle"?????

Exactly.

But thanks for the debate. Love it.

Figures you'd bring up the term "debate"....like yammering and "concensus"
is a substitute for calculation! Scooter....if it can't be expressed in
numbers, it's an opinion, not a fact...and all you've brought to this is
opinion to refute physics.

Maybe the term "debate" stems from the fact that we're discussing
theories that would alter events billions of years from now? Just a
thought.


I await your "righteously indignant", and probably profanity-filled attempt
at flaming! To quote another scientist confronting a "debater", "It still
moves!"

On contrary, I began this thread to do the exact opposite. Keep the
insults to a minimum. But if this seems too hard for your John, try
another thread. There are plenty of trolls on usenet to keep your life
fulfilled if you enjoy trolling.


John

"The principal difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has
limits!" A. Einstein

Figures that you'd coin Einstein .. who was proven to be stupid .. the
genius part is in question.

Steve

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush Strums as New Orleans drowns
    ... >> photons to travel coherently in saying: ... From where I sit, that looks like genius. ... >> Conducting doesn't take require conducting genius. ... Doug Wickstrom ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Comet impact in the Eastern United States - Feasibility of Evacuation
    ... They have random bursts of outgassing that change their ... trajectory, pretty much constantly. ... uncertainty very large; parallel to it defines an interval of latitudes. ... Are you saying it's basically a chaotic system? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Bushs big F-U to Obama and McCain...
    ... If McCain was saying that you'd be saying it's a good thing. ... We already know how a dumb guy does, I think it's time to give the ... genius a chance. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Gasquets brilliance
    ... news: mvjf32trsd55bvdv7tb8kalurnh8m506hl@xxxxxxxxxx ... genius is a tougher call. ... They were saying much the same about Fed 5 years ago and look what ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Bidens daughter on her way to prison!
    ... Hasn't the right wing been saying that the kids should be off limits? ... The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. ... "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)