Re: Hi Nancy :-))

Bill Nelson wrote:
> Since the Moon is in free-fall, it is weightless.
> The poster fails to discern the difference between 
> mass and weight.

“Snicker, snicker, snicker, she has her term wrong again.”  Weight was
used, during the exercise which sci.astro astronomers and mathematicians
participated in without getting distracted as Bill apparently cannot
manage to do, as meaning THE GRAVITY PULL THAT A PARTICULAR MASS HAS
UPON ANOTHER.  The exercise was gleaning a figure to plug into Newton’s
equations, based on the reality of what granite weights on the surface
of the Earth, and what this would equate to at the distance that the
Moon is.  We had then, the mass, the distance, and the speed, which
showed that Newton does NOT work when applied to the Moon.  This was an
exercise where reality and all the factors were placed on the table at
the same time, not the kind of divide and conquer approach you use to
avoid reality.   Both Newton’s “laws” and the law of Gravity were placed
on the same table (they don’t fit together when applied to the Moon).
The mass and distance and speed of the Concord and satellites were
placed there (they don’t fit with the Moon staying up there).

1. Establish the mass of the Earth and the Moon
2. Distance is known for Moon, Concord, and satellites
3. Speed is known
4. Oops!  But Bill Nelson will rescue you!  You can all go back to
   sleep! He’ll snicker about terms and claim the Moon is weightless!