Also note that if the Moon’s surface gravity is actually 64% of Earth’s, the Moon must necessarily be 3.87 times as massive and dense as it has been thought - and indeed measured - to be. That discrepancy will certainly be a hurdle to the widespread adoption of this theory.
And assuming that another intelligent civilization has already picked up our TV broadcasts, we’ve got at least a few decades before they pick up “The Jersey Shore” and decide that we must be destroyed.
You obviously have never had cats. Everything’s flip-flopped with cats. 
Do Earth’s tides also give a ballpark figure into the mass of the Moon?
“Mathematics Got Too Extreme [for me to understand]”… Duh! What, are you to stupid to understand his incredible “Mad Math Skillz”? :rolleyes:
Awww, I fucked up! Now I have to kill myself to expiate my sin…
Yes, though the matter is complicated by the Sun’s influence on tides. Yet it’s clear that if the Moon were anything like 4 times as dense as it really is, the story of tides on Earth would be very different.
Thank you all I appreciate all the insight (not the insults in posts with no factual value whatsoever). Let me ask another question (because this is the forum for it), if mass and gravity have a direct relationship, and the far side of the moon has generally a higher altitude of a full mile, wouldn’t the far side have a much higher gravity? It seems like we are generalizing 1/6 for the whole surface. Especially since we used the Doppler Effect with satellites (like someone just mentioned) to figure this out in the first place (in the 50s), wouldn’t the rotational lock of the moon cause problems in using this method?
Wanna give us your insight on the factual value of your own posts?
You mean, do you want me to give you the biographies of those people I listed? They are/were real people. It was a factual question. Look at what forum this is.
I mean:
What factual value to answering the OP is contained within your post?
You could also relate which posts you feel contained insults of no factual value whatsoever. That would help us include more factual value in our insults.
Anything threatening national security can be withheld by both the government and Nasa, legally. That is a fact. The OP asked why we haven’t found any aliens yet. See where I’m going with this?
This paragraph is so chock full of misapprehensions I’m not even certain where to start addressing them. You are clearly trying to find a lapse of semantic rigor or some kind of anomaly to shoehorn in a “Aha! Gotcha!” moment to bring us back around to Lunar landing hoaxes, top secret government facilities with indistinguishable-from-magic alien technologies, and probably sasquatch hunting and the Jersey Devil, too. If you had an actual interest in this topic and wanted to understand enough to critically evaluate both the accepted explanations and the “alternative” theories, you’d actually educate yourself in the mechanics rather than repeat uninformed glurgage from shady websites with no basis in reality.
As for any kind of conspiracy involving faking or altering significant details of the Apollo program, that would require that tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians to collaborate in a massive cabal. Any effort to conceal the “true” value of the Moon’s gravity as supposed by the poster in question would require hundreds of thousands of other engineers and scientists (some of whom I know personally or have worked with) to agree to hide the actual values used in computing orbits and trajectories. Obviously this goes well beyond grossly improbable and becomes only the kind of conspiracy that could exist in a Dan Brown novel.
Stranger
Does it involve following a white rabbit down a hole and consuming a number of psychoactive substances?
Stranger
The Moon has some significant gravitational anomalies, many associated with some of the larger impact areas. But the biggest of these apparently have less than 1% variation from the average. So the generalization of 1/6[sup]th[/sup] of Earth’s gravity seems to be pretty good over the entire surface of the Moon.
Thats ok you needn’t worry about my post’s general questions regarding the moon. Your first paragraph had no attempt at any type of answer, one of which I just got from Xema (thanks). Regarding your second paragraph, all 15,000 people at Nasa are not respnsible for the release of images. It takes one guy to airbrush something, and the remaining 14,900 people can abide by the waivers and contracts they signed. How about another general question? How come Nasa released onlly 1% of the images from the Clementine mission in '94? Why did many of those original releases contain smudges?
Citation needed.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=731
I apologize since my math is so terrible (got a D in calc in college) I misplaced the decimal in my head. 170,000/1.8 million = still so small an amount that its a little suspicious.
I’m going to guess you didn’t score to high in reading comprehension or logic, either.
The cite you provide doesn’t indicate that only 170,000 images were released out of the total 1.8 million images taken. However, a bit of Google-Fu uncovers the Naval Research Lab webpage on the Clementine mission indicates that the “Clementine Lunar Image Browser (CLIB) Version 1.5…allows access to over 170,000 Clementine images and includes a new interface that allows the user to zoom in to any location on the moon.” In other words, they picked ~170,000 images that allowed them to make a nearly complete mosaic of the Moon, stitched them together, and put it in a form that is easily accessible to someone with a web browser. That doesn’t mean that they classified, concealed, or otherwise withheld the other images; just that other images were redundant or at altitude angles that were not useful for the purpose of making the mosaic map. Obviously putting such a map together requires a lot of both image processing (to make the color saturation and intensity levels match) and cartography (to make certain that everything is in the right place) and there is no benefit in doing this to redundant or suboptimal images.
However, grabbing onto this number as an apparent discrepancy allows websites of such high repute as Abovetopsecret.com and thelivingmooon.com spin out spurious tales of vast government conspiracies concealing alien artifacts, secret moon bases, and antigravity propulsion without any basis whatsoever. The second site, for instance, takes a bunch of image artifacts (which as anyone who has ever been involved in high resolution CMOS image analysis knows are unfortunately all too common, especially when processed images are produced by interlacing and aliasing) and try to use them to prove that there are huge structures and a flying finned craft. (Why a mooncraft would need fins is a question that goes unasked in this forum of otherwise salient and critical examination.)
If I seem short of temper on this topic, it is in no small part because I am routinely approached by ignoramuses who, upon hearing that I am a “rocket scientist” (not really, although I do with rocket structures, propulsion systems, and associated mechanical hardware) who espouse the same kind of flaketastical theories about government conspiracies, aliens among us, the secret Russian space weapon program, et cetera, and no amount of hard evidence, informed criticism, or basic knowledge of mechanics dissuades them from even the most ludicrous assertions. When I point out that I’ve been to some of the facilities they list as being storehouses for extraterrestrial technology and that there was nothing more interesting than Romanian knockoffs of 'Fifties-era Soviet equipment, they argue that the bases are just a cover for the real thing, presumably hidden in some subterranean vault that would make a Bond villain squeal like a schoolgirl. (I’ve never gotten a clear answer on who builds these vast underground chambers, and how they conceal the location and purpose from a bunch of loudmouth construction workers.) In the end, such people, as reef shark is doing, attempt to latch on to any apparent discrepancy and use it to “prove” that the conventional and seemingly rational explanation is actually a smokescreen for the Big Secret. Debating with such people is like pig wrestling, as they’ll just twist another direction and start screeching rather than to make any effort to consider why their bullshit theory seems so tenuously supported by anything approximating a fact.
Stranger
Yeah, but that’s still probably what the poster in question was thinking of.