🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:04:18 GMT, russotto@wanda.pond.com (Matthew
Russotto) wrote:

>>> >>>Tectonically inactive or not, what value is the knowledge of the exact
>>> >>>distance to a point on the irregular surface of the Moon from a point
>>> >>>on the irregular surface of the Earth to within 3 cm.? What is known
>>> >>>of the stability of the lunar mirror?
>>> >>
>>> >>As I said, you're emitting pure noise.
>>> >
>>> >Having trouble with the truth? :)
>>> 
>>> Like I said, pure noise.  I can answer some of your objections, but
>>> you'll just come up with more, until you find one outside my expertise
>>> and proclaim yourself the victor.  I'm not going to play the little
>>> human ferret for you, that's someone else's job.
>>
>>Grumble mutter "you rang?"
>>
>>The lunar emitter is stable as hell, since Luna is not tectonically active.
>
>Yeah, we've already been throught that one.  I suppose roachy has
>other objections ready, like how the reflector is affected by wind and
>waves or something.  Now we're on the (rather stupid) objection that
>distance from a point on the surface to a point on the surface means
>nothing, ignoring the facts that 

I'm glad that you have realized a reflector is not an emitter. There
is no evidence of any measurable `emissions' from the Moon. Some
reflected light from the Sun and maybe the lazar on Earth.
>
>1) We know the relationship between the surface points and the
>respective centers of gravity and

`Surface points' have nothing to do with center of gravity or center
of mass if you know the difference.

>2) The figure in question was about distance changes over time, not
>absolute distances.

Another swift revision. I think what you are trying to express is `the
position of a point in space, and its apparent separation from another
point in space'. But neither point is known to have a fixed position
relative to the theoretical `center of gravity'.  You are discussing
BASA toys as if they had some significance beyond toys in a game among
academics vying for government money to play with their toys.

I won't even indulge you and point out that there is no way to be sure
that the measurement is the closest approximation of the two points,
because your whole proposition is utterly fictitious and part of an
academic game with tax money as the stake. You approach celestial
objects as if they were perfect little toys performing in your
isolated little toy perfect system. Can you spell JUNK SCIENCE?