The Moons craters

Again, how do we know the same face of the moon has always faced the earth?

Sorry, I have only the written history of humanity of evidence, so I "only" have 4000+ years of evidence that it hasn't changed.  Of course, there is scientific evidence of that, but since most of that is predicated on the assumption that the Moon orbits the Earth while the Earth spins on its axis, I am going to assume that you won't accept the science.

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

What indications are those?  I have yet to see any indication of that.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on October 08, 2008, 01:38:14 AM

The same face of the Moon is always facing the Earth.  If the Moon is accelerating in the same direction as the Earth, this would put all of the impacts on the far side of the Moon.

Again, how do we know the same face of the moon has always faced the earth?

First off, the earth doesn't always face the same face of the moon.

Lunar libration causes a slow rolling effect wherein we're able to see 59% percent of the moons surface at various times.

Second off, not all current theories cite a moon that has always faced the earth. It very well might not have. The far side is much more heavily impacted though, so it's been in this position for a good percentage of the earths existence. Whether or not this side has always faced the earth is irrelevant, because meteors still continue to hit our visible side. During the Leonids, Taurids, and Geminids they are visible with a half decent telescope and a lot of patience.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on October 08, 2008, 01:38:14 AM

If we look at the effect of gravitation, the much more massive Earth, only 3000 miles from a 32 mile diameter Moon, would seemingly prevent impacts of meteorites anywhere but along the edges of the Moon.

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

FE explanations of the stellar bodies are backed up with observations of the flat earth.
FE explanations of the flat earth are backed up with observations of the stellar bodies.

@ amateurastronomer: these animations are great

Second off, not all current theories cite a moon that has always faced the earth. It very well might not have. The far side is much more heavily impacted though, so it's been in this position for a good percentage of the earths existence. Whether or not this side has always faced the earth is irrelevant, because meteors still continue to hit our visible side. During the Leonids, Taurids, and Geminids they are visible with a half decent telescope and a lot of patience.

While I can understand this with the orbital mechanics that associated with RE, the mechanics of the FE model make this unlikely.  Even then, as you mention, there are far more impacts on the far side than the near side.

Of course, part of that evidence is images of the heavy cratering on the far side; definitely NASA propaganda.

@ amateurastronomer: these animations are great

No no, that's not me... I nicked that one from wikipedia. Look up lunar libration.
I just don't like hotlinking.

I just don't like hotlinking.

There's something we have in common. I'll only ever hotlink if it's a website that I trust won't delete the image, like Wikipedia. If it's an image I find on some obscure website, I'll save it and then upload it to TinyPic.

I believe gravitational drag locked the moons rotation to it's orbit around the earth. FE Theory, devoid of Newtonian gravity, would have a hard time explaining that.

But I'm happy to let it pass.

In the classical FE model, the moon could be weighted on one side. As it is pushed upwards by Dark Energy, the heavier side would face the Earth.

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

FE diameter = 24,900 miles
FE thickness=1000 miles*
12,450^2*pi*1000 = 486,954,715,288 cubic miles

Moon diameter = 32 miles
4/3*pi*16^3= 17,157 cubic miles

Ski, are you suggesting that the moon is 28,382,276 times as dense as the FE? 

*since no one actually knows the true thickness of the FE, I used what I would consider a very low estimate.  The actual thickness (and therefore, volume) is probably much more.

Ski, are you suggesting that the moon is 28,382,276 times as dense as the FE? 

Can you prove otherwise?

Quote from: markjo on October 08, 2008, 08:59:20 AM

Ski, are you suggesting that the moon is 28,382,276 times as dense as the FE? 

Can you prove otherwise?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? 

Ski is the one who stated that the moon is more massive than the FE.  I just want to see if he understands what he is proposing.  It seems that there could be some serious bendy light ramifications if this is true in the FE model.

Are you asking me to prove a negative? 

No, I am asking you to prove a positive: that the moon is less than 28,382,276 times as dense as the FE.

Ski is the one who stated that the moon is more massive than the FE.  I just want to see if he understands what he is proposing.

He probably does. He's not stupid.

Quote from: markjo on October 08, 2008, 11:13:18 AM

Are you asking me to prove a negative? 

No, I am asking you to prove a positive: that the moon is less than 28,382,276 times as dense as the FE.

Shouldn't it be Ski's responsibility to prove that the moon is more massive than the FE seeing as he is the one that made the assertion?

But, being the nice guy I am, if you will provide me with either the actual mass of the FE and the moon or the average density of both bodies, along with the actual diameter and thickness of the FE (1000 miles thick was just a wild guess on my part), then I will be happy to run the numbers.  Since we are discussing an FE model, I think it only fair that FE provide the data (I wouldn't want you to accuse me of an unfair RE bias).

Quote from: Ski on October 08, 2008, 01:57:43 AM

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

I'd like you to cite one.

It exhibits gravitation and the earth does not. I suppose the moon might simply be more energetic than the earth and not more massive, but it seems less likely.

may i mention that the calculated density is big enough to start nuclear fusion

Quote from: goldstein on October 08, 2008, 03:56:14 AM

Quote from: Ski on October 08, 2008, 01:57:43 AM

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

I'd like you to cite one.

It exhibits gravitation and the earth does not. I suppose the moon might simply be more energetic than the earth and not more massive, but it seems less likely.

Hydrogen has a density of .08988 g/L and Iridium has a density of 22.42 g/cc.  Iridium is 249,441 times more dense than Hydrogen.  If the FE were made of Hydrogen and the moon were made of Iridium, the FE would still be many times more massive than the moon.

weren't we talking about...like...craters are something like that? How did we get into nuclear fusion?

Quote from: Ski on October 08, 2008, 11:36:56 AM

Quote from: goldstein on October 08, 2008, 03:56:14 AM

Quote from: Ski on October 08, 2008, 01:57:43 AM

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

I'd like you to cite one.

It exhibits gravitation and the earth does not. I suppose the moon might simply be more energetic than the earth and not more massive, but it seems less likely.

Hydrogen has a density of .08988 g/L and Iridium has a density of 22.42 g/cc.  Iridium is 249,441 times more dense than Hydrogen.  If the FE were made of Hydrogen and the moon were made of Iridium, the FE would still be many times more massive than the moon.

Well, I suppose I'd be disappointed if I had proposed the earth was made of Hydrogen and the moon of Iridium.

may i mention that the calculated density is big enough to start nuclear fusion

will a FEer kindly adress this point that iznih brought up?
and, as for what the make up of FE and the moon are, what markjo is saying is that whatever they are made of, it is impossible given the current mass.

Well, I suppose I'd be disappointed if I had proposed the earth was made of Hydrogen and the moon of Iridium.

Then perhaps you should reconsider this statement.

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

That is, unless you know of some reasonable explanation of how a tiny moon can be more massive than a rather large FE.

I take it markjo doesn't believe in neutron stars?

What does nuclear fusion have to do anything? Nuclear fusion is possible on earth.

he was aying that nuclear fusion will occur at such a density as the one described.
this might not end well for the moon. a cataclismic nuclear fusion eruption would occur... i guess

i dont know enough about the subject

he was aying that nuclear fusion will occur at such a density as the one described.
this might not end well for the moon. a cataclismic nuclear fusion eruption would occur... i guess

i dont know enough about the subject

So why don't neutron stars undergo nuclear fusion?

Quote from: sphere_man on October 08, 2008, 10:11:58 PM

he was aying that nuclear fusion will occur at such a density as the one described.
this might not end well for the moon. a cataclismic nuclear fusion eruption would occur... i guess

i dont know enough about the subject

So why don't neutron stars undergo nuclear fusion?

Neutron stars cannot exist in FE anyway. What's the point of your question?

Neutron stars cannot exist in FE anyway. What's the point of your question?

Why can't they?

So why don't neutron stars undergo nuclear fusion?

Lack of the materials necessary.  A neutron star is the remnant of a star that has already collapsed into a supernova because of that lack of fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

Still waiting on an explanation of this claim, as well as what those indications are.

Lack of the materials necessary.  A neutron star is the remnant of a star that has already collapsed into a supernova because of that lack of fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Just because they don't exist doesn't mean that they can't. There is no physical law preventing neutron stars from existing in FET.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on October 08, 2008, 11:28:17 PM

Lack of the materials necessary.  A neutron star is the remnant of a star that has already collapsed into a supernova because of that lack of fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Just because they don't exist doesn't mean that they can't. There is no physical law preventing neutron stars from existing in FET.

But a good zeteticist would not accept their existence until they have been observed. Anything else would be evil conventional science.

But a good zeteticist would not accept their existence until they have been observed. Anything else would be evil conventional science.

I didn't say they existed. I said they can exist.