Art wrote:
"And?"

My point is that Art is full of it when he says people in the space
industry don`t have a clue about "Surface dust on the orbiting
Universe".

Art is likely to say that the experts` dust isn`t Art`s dust. Art`s dust
would best be gone with the wind and Gaussian antennas.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Clark wrote:

Isn't amazing how these academic idylls of civil discourse (populated
by gentlemany of infinite wisdom) crumble into viper's nests when you
arrive? The term correlation comes to mind, but I don't know what
word it would be in your vocabulary so as to make the concept
meaningful to you.

For others who haven't read that comic strip, Arthur has proven
Einstein was wrong! Well, proven in the sense that Arthur proves
anything. Which is to say "he said so." After all, there is nothing
mentioned about anything specific from Einstein (special theory?
general theory? the photon theory? the cosmological constant?). That
is best left to our imagination as Arthur has dismissed it all with a
wave of the hand, whiting out Einstein's name on the Nobel prize to
pencil in Art.


http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra...st_060223.html

Is a nice little understandable and believable bit on moon dust.

Created in a massively electrically charged environment by a constant
rain of micreometeorites.

http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/moon8.htm

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyGXe_p...c_truefake.htm

and with shapes that have both microspheres and

Michael Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

Isn't amazing how these academic idylls of civil discourse (populated
by gentlemany of infinite wisdom) crumble into viper's nests when you
arrive? The term correlation comes to mind, but I don't know what
word it would be in your vocabulary so as to make the concept
meaningful to you.

For others who haven't read that comic strip, Arthur has proven
Einstein was wrong! Well, proven in the sense that Arthur proves
anything. Which is to say "he said so." After all, there is nothing
mentioned about anything specific from Einstein (special theory?
general theory? the photon theory? the cosmological constant?). That
is best left to our imagination as Arthur has dismissed it all with a
wave of the hand, whiting out Einstein's name on the Nobel prize to
pencil in Art.


http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra...st_060223.html

Is a nice little understandable and believable bit on moon dust.

Created in a massively electrically charged environment by a constant
rain of micreometeorites.

http://faculty.rmwc.edu/tmichalik/moon8.htm

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9......


and with shapes that have both microspheres and


Ack! sorry - I pasted that too long url and accidentally sent the
message instead of undoing what I did. mea maxima culpa!

Point is, that the source and composition of the lunar dust is well
known. We can even duplicate it here on earth.

There isn't anything magic about dust that consists of a combination of
microspheres and hook ended fractured rocks. Put that in a highly
charged environment, and no strange and incomprehensible theories are
needed to explain why it sticks to things.

It's shape, size, and static......



And now for Art.

Art, the dust in not specifically something that is roaming around the
universe in packs. The dust or lunar soil is composed of fractured and
spheroidal minerals mixed in with meteoriodal material from the little
buggers that hit the moon and formed those fragements.

The reason that there is a lot of that stuff on the moon as compared to
the earth is because metoroids hit the moon with regularity, and once
formed, tend to stay there. On earth only the larger meteoroids make it
to the surface (yeah, I know a meteoroid is one that makes it to the
surface) and once there, they become assimilated, and are hard to find.

Occam's razor isn't always correct, but in this case.....

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"And?"

My point is that Art is full of it when he says people in the space
industry don`t have a clue about "Surface dust on the orbiting
Universe".

Art is likely to say that the experts` dust isn`t Art`s dust. Art`s dust
would best be gone with the wind and Gaussian antennas.


All physical properties of Moon dust are easily accounted for by anyone
who took and passed High School science. No strange physics is needed.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

It is believed that in prehistoric times,
an ice comet collided with the
earth with so much force at a
spot near the Yucatan Peninsula,
that a chunk was dislodged and hurled
into orbit. This collected and compacted
becoming the earth`s moon.

I think you will find that the Earth had two moons, and the one in a
decaying orbit hit the Earth - creating the (now burried) crater, as well as
leavin us with a somewhat thinner crust. The bit of green cheeze out there,
over our heads, is as old as the "inner Earth", but like the Earth, it is
steadily growing as more space debris arrives.

If a comet had struck the Earth, then just the sheer momentum would have
destroyed it, if it had been big enough to hurl something out of the Earths
gravity. Even the Manson comet was not that big, and look at the size of
that crater ;-)

But back to space dust - Fred Hoyle (a well-know scientist from Yorkshire,
England) pointed out that we all have noses with the holes underneath so
that our air-intake is sheltered from the debris and diseases that are
falling from space. Fred also invented the term "Big Bang", although he
meant it sarcastically, in true Yorkshire fashion. (Eeeeeeee bah gum! The's
nowt as odd as fowk!)

If you guys want to read hard science without any mathematical
equations, read ATOM by Larry Krause...
This is as close as you can get to understanding cosmology without
having to take a PhD in physics at the university... If you read this
and take the time to think and understand what he is sayiing I
'garontee' you will see the world in a whole new way...

denny - an old farm boy who never wondered about the ability of cow
**** to stick to your shoes... and "Two quarks for Muster Mark"

In article ,
Harry wrote:

It is believed that in prehistoric times,
an ice comet collided with the
earth with so much force at a
spot near the Yucatan Peninsula,
that a chunk was dislodged and hurled
into orbit. This collected and compacted
becoming the earth`s moon.

I think you will find that the Earth had two moons, and the one in a
decaying orbit hit the Earth - creating the (now burried) crater, as well as
leavin us with a somewhat thinner crust. The bit of green cheeze out there,
over our heads, is as old as the "inner Earth", but like the Earth, it is
steadily growing as more space debris arrives.

As I understand it, the current "mainstream" thinking is that there
were numerous collision events, of greatly different magnitudes, and
very far apart in time.

It's now believed that quite early in the lifetime of the solar
system, when the planets were accreting out of a large dust-ring
around the young Sun, a planetoid of roughly the size of Mars collided
with the proto-Earth, striking a glancing blow. This impact shattered
the smaller body and did really serious damage to the larger (probably
re-melting much of it) and threw a lot of material back up into orbit
around the (now-larger) Earth. Much of this material eventually fell
back to the surface, some escaped entirely, and most of the rest
eventually formed the moon. This event occurred quite a few billions
of years ago.

The impact at what is now Chicxulub in the Yucatan was a lot more
recent (65 million years ago) and involved a much smaller body
(perhaps 10 miles across). Current mainstream thinking is that this
impact was probably the coup de grace for most of the dinosaurs... it
was one of the largest impacts in the history of Earth, but
there are geologic records of earlier impacts that left larger
craters (the Vredefort and Sudbury structures).

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

While the geologic record for Chicxulub is well documented the
commonly known "fact" that this caused the dinosaurs to die out is
debatable since their demise was spread over millions years covering
both pre and post Chicxulub impact; not just over a few weeks or
months, or even a few hundred years..
The seabed record does show Chicxulub caused a drop in temperatures
for some time period and significant species losses.. There have been
a number of other massives die offs seen in the fossil records that
are not well explained and not all can be tied to an impact...

The other issues you point out, such as the genesis of the earth's
moon coming by impact from an extra solar body is the currently
accepted theory of mainstream cosmologists, less a maverick or two...

denny

In article .com,
Denny wrote:

While the geologic record for Chicxulub is well documented the
commonly known "fact" that this caused the dinosaurs to die out is
debatable since their demise was spread over millions years covering
both pre and post Chicxulub impact; not just over a few weeks or
months, or even a few hundred years..

Oh, I agree... that's why I used the phrase "coup de grace" and "most
of the dinosaurs". There's good evidence that there was a lot of
ecological stress from other causes (e.g. volcanism, change in ocean
circulation patterns, etc.) which had been reducing the diversity and
population of many Dinosauria for quite some time before the Chicxulub
impact. And, of course, mainstream scientists now believe that one
branch of the Dinosauria survived right up until present times.

The seabed record does show Chicxulub caused a drop in temperatures
for some time period and significant species losses..

I've seen one report which indicates that the area in which this
asteroid hit consisted of rock which was unusually rich in sulphur,
thus leading to a more severe sulphate-particle "nuclear winter"
effect than what might have occurred if the impact had been elsewhere.

One way or the other, it was probably a rather rotten time to be on
this particular planet.

There have been
a number of other massives die offs seen in the fossil records that
are not well explained and not all can be tied to an impact...

Agreed. Life, and death, are both rather complex matters :-)

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:38:39 -0700, art wrote:

As an aside, what has this got to do with the focus (eg. antennas) of
this forum? Did the moderators kick you out of eHam?

Every thing!
They are static particles that rest on diamagnetic materials
used for antennas. These particular lunar particle coverings was
predicted more than a hundred years ago by the masters which
is before radio was even thought of . I would have thought
that the subject of antennas would fit right in here!

Well Arthur,

Some several silent days have passed on this subject that is going
nowhere - it seems to mimic your forced retirement at eHam (or are
both due to the wholesale lack of interest?).

However, in keeping some semblance of a technical discussion on
antennas (I have to review just which group this is), then some
technical enquiry is in order (which I admit has a slim prospect of
any coherent answer).

So, does the
a.) absence
b.) presence
of lunar particle coverings on my antenna
c.) improve DX
d.) exclude DX
5.) does not matter

To repeat a message that hinged on the outcome of the Battle of the
Coral Sea:
"The World Wonders."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC