🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3B9FC5D5.55962DBA@clark.net>,
Tiny Human Ferret  <klaatu@clark.net> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3ba98469.6306618@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>,
>> Professor Vonroach <vonroach@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:39:19 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 

1) We know the relationship between the surface points and the
respective centers of gravity and

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

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
=====
                    Get Caught Reading, Go To Jail!
      A message from the Association of American Publishers
Free Dmitry Sklyarov!                              DMCA delenda est!
http://www.freedmitry.org