Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
BradGuth
the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
their era.
However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
nearly as clear as by day.
Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
ours.
What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
BP?
Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
rated?
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<c420c384-b7bd-4c01...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
> was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> their era.
Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
> However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
* as of prior to 12,500 BP
* somewhat more recent
* some time after
Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on
accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with
three digits of accuracy?
> that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> nearly as clear as by day.
>
> Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
> depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
> whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
> highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
> and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
> tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
> ours.
Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about
anything before, oh, several thousand years BC.
> What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
> of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
> BP?
What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it
achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit?
How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to
this fundamental change in the environment?
> Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
> behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
> available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
> rated?
I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science".
The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for
which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence
the other way.
I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or
that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to
show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer
time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish
his results.
BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities?
(Please visit http://www.top500.org/ and tell us which ones you're
talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c420c384-b7bd-4c01-b313-5109b0b92...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> > the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> > were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> > surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> > as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
> > was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> > their era.
>
> Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within
the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific
record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that
extremely big old moon as of prior to 12,500 BP.
How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000
km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass.
>
> > However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> > recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
>
> * as of prior to 12,500 BP
> * somewhat more recent
> * some time after
>
> Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on
> accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with
> three digits of accuracy?
I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in
my old age and all.
>
> > that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> > any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> > absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> > environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> > time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> > nearly as clear as by day.
>
> > Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
> > depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
> > whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
> > highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
> > and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
> > tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
> > ours.
>
> Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about
> anything before, oh, several thousand years BC.
You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as
well as dumb and dumber?
>
> > What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
> > of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
> > BP?
>
> What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it
> achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit?
For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone
to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a
few million simulations. Are you game?
>
> How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to
> this fundamental change in the environment?
If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't
you adapt, or at least die trying?
>
> > Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
> > behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
> > available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
> > rated?
>
> I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science".
> The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for
> which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence
> the other way.
Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream
status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?)
>
> I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or
> that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to
> show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer
> time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish
> his results.
You have a right to think whatever you like.
>
> BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities?
> (Please visithttp://www.top500.org/and tell us which ones you're
> talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
> would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.)
You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned
supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to
our NASA.
Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/
federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned?
Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group
of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so
as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their
supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely
everything, and then some?
A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private
supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having
since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount)
and without their having since taken income or property tax
depreciation deductions are there?
. - Brad Guth
brad
> The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> their era.
evolutionary left turn you
took .
> However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
> that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> nearly as clear as by day.
Do you hunt and gather by winter
moonlight ?
> Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at
having
> depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
> whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
> highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
> and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
> tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
> ours.
Seems , as such like , otherwise ; at least to
me.
What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
> of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
> BP?
>
> . - Brad Guth
W.H. Bradley counted varves in the Green River Formation and estimated
the associated epoch lasted 5 - 8 my . In total 650m thick . Holmes ,
" Principles of Physical Geology "
BradGuth
> On Mar 16, 4:31 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> > the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> > were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> > surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> > as of today could muster. " survival intelligent " ?absolutely. > > As such they had often recorded whatever
> > was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> > their era.
>
> And if they were here to read your posts they'd be dismayed at the
> evolutionary left turn you took .
You think they too had a false elected LLPOF warlord as their resident
leader, along with puppet strings attached to some weird faith-based
mindset of global domination?
>
> > However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> > recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
> > that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> > any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> > absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> > environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> > time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> > nearly as clear as by day.
>
> Do you hunt and gather by winter moonlight ?
If I and my family or community needed food, fuel or shelter, as such
if need be I'd be out there hunting and gathering by starlight, and if
having moonlight, all the better.
>
> > Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at
> > having
> > depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
> > whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
> > highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
> > and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
> > tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
> > ours.
>
> W.H. Bradley counted varves in the Green River Formation and estimated
> the associated epoch lasted 5 - 8 my . In total 650m thick . Holmes ,
> " Principles of Physical Geology "
If you like that sort of swag, and its what makes you a happy camper,
then so be it. I'm not saying that Earth is young, just suggesting
that it didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500 BP. Earth could
have had some other orbiting factors, even another mascon worthy moon
as of prior to 12,500 BP, although none of that offers an answer as to
accounting for those multiple 100,000 year ice-age cycles (of shorter
cycles as going back in time).
Interstellar rogue stuff happens all the time, and as such rogue items
are either going to lithobrake and/or semi-destruct by way of
encountering something along its path, or otherwise it's going to
eventually end up orbiting something along its path, if not returning
to its origin.
. - Brad Guth
Matt Giwer
> In article
> <c420c384-b7bd-4c01...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
>> the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
>> were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
>> surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
>> as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
>> was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
>> their era.
> Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
On sci.astro.seti Brad is our comic relief. Posting to him is wasted. He is
impervious to reason and physics.
--
The good thing about the new Roman Catholic deadly sins is that no matter
how hard we try most of us can't commit them. Take becoming obscenely
wealthy. I have tried to do that for decades and have remained among the
righteous.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3955
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Timberwoof
<220ae8c5-b1e7-4821...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > W.H. Bradley counted varves in the Green River Formation and estimated
> > the associated epoch lasted 5 - 8 my . In total 650m thick . Holmes ,
> > " Principles of Physical Geology "
>
> If you like that sort of swag, and its what makes you a happy camper,
> then so be it. I'm not saying that Earth is young, just suggesting
> that it didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500 BP. Earth could
> have had some other orbiting factors, even another mascon worthy moon
> as of prior to 12,500 BP, although none of that offers an answer as to
> accounting for those multiple 100,000 year ice-age cycles (of shorter
> cycles as going back in time).
So you're saying that fossils that were probably created by the moon's
tidal effects were not, but were caused by some other equally heavy
object, but which was light enough to have allowed the ice ages to
happen.
... Even though you have not come up with any reason why the moon's
presence in the past 12000 years is supposed to have stopped ice ages,
which have been happening at roughly 100,000-year intervals for the past
roughly half a million years.
> Interstellar rogue stuff happens all the time,
Why couldn't "Interstellar rogue stuff" be responsible for the ice ages
even with the moon present pretty much since the Earth was created?
> and as such rogue items
> are either going to lithobrake
You mean hitting something.
> and/or semi-destruct by way of
> encountering something along its path, or otherwise it's going to
> eventually end up orbiting something along its path, if not returning
> to its origin.
Have you done the math for Earth-moon orbital capture?
Timberwoof
<5ee0117c-e925-420f...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof
> <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c420c384-b7bd-4c01-b313-5109b0b92...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> > > the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> > > were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> > > surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> > > as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
> > > was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> > > their era.
> >
> > Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
>
> I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within
> the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific
> record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that
> extremely big old moon
The kind of evidence you insist on is expected to be lacking; the kind
of evidence people show you instead, you ignore.
> as of prior to 12,500 BP.
"As of prior to". What the hell does that mean?
> How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000
> km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass.
How about you show how the moon would be captured into a nearly circular
orbit?
> > > However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> > > recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
> >
> > * as of prior to 12,500 BP
> > * somewhat more recent
> > * some time after
> >
> > Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on
> > accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with
> > three digits of accuracy?
>
> I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in
> my old age and all.
That doesn't speak well for your hypothesis.
> > > that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> > > any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> > > absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> > > environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> > > time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> > > nearly as clear as by day.
> >
> > > Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
> > > depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
> > > whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
> > > highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
> > > and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
> > > tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
> > > ours.
> >
> > Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about
> > anything before, oh, several thousand years BC.
>
> You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as
> well as dumb and dumber?
Instead of explaining it, you've descended into ad-hominem.
> > > What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
> > > of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
> > > BP?
> >
> > What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it
> > achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit?
>
> For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone
> to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a
> few million simulations. Are you game?
You don't need a supercomputer to do that calculation. You just need
some basic understanding of algebra and the math of orbital mechanics
... which I strongly urge you to become familiar with.
> > How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to
> > this fundamental change in the environment?
>
> If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't
> you adapt, or at least die trying?
That's not an answer to the question.
> > > Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
> > > behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
> > > available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
> > > rated?
> >
> > I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science".
> > The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for
> > which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence
> > the other way.
>
> Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream
> status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?)
To try what? I'd like to see you come up with simple calculations that
show how the Earth could have captured the moon and leave it in a
near-circular orbit as far back as astronomical records have been kept.
You don't need a supercomputer to do that.
> > I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or
> > that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to
> > show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer
> > time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish
> > his results.
>
> You have a right to think whatever you like.
In other words, you don't believe what I said but you have absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to refute it.
> > BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities?
> > (Please visithttp://www.top500.org/and tell us which ones you're
> > talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
> > would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.)
>
> You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned
> supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to
> our NASA.
No, I don't. Tell me its name, who made it, who runs it, and I could
research it.
> Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/
> federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned?
>
> Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group
> of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so
> as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their
> supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely
> everything, and then some?
>
> A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private
> supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having
> since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount)
> and without their having since taken income or property tax
> depreciation deductions are there?
That's all off-topic and has nothing to do with your thesis.
BradGuth
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article
> > <c420c384-b7bd-4c01-b313-5109b0b92...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> >> the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> >> were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> >> surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> >> as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
> >> was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> >> their era.
> > Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
>
> On sci.astro.seti Brad is our comic relief. Posting to him is wasted. He is
> impervious to reason and physics.
Is that why you're all so deathly afraid of what such good
supercomputer eye-candy simulations as based upon the regular laws of
physics and of the best available science might actually depict?
Is that why your semitic dominated Usenet that's so deathly afraid of
its own cloak and dagger shadow continually runs key words together
with whatever adjoining words, so that a normal "search for" on behalf
of the most recent of topic contributions simply doesn't properly
function?
Seems I'm the only one here having an open and otherwise deductive
mindset, as obviously you folks are consistently the ones having to
exclude deductive thinking, having to use conditional physics and
otherwise having to exclude evidence, as well as your having to stalk,
bash and banish those who dare rock your mainstream boat.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <220ae8c5-b1e7-4821-9298-d6c883beb...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > W.H. Bradley counted varves in the Green River Formation and estimated
> > > the associated epoch lasted 5 - 8 my . In total 650m thick . Holmes ,
> > > " Principles of Physical Geology "
>
> > If you like that sort of swag, and its what makes you a happy camper,
> > then so be it. I'm not saying that Earth is young, just suggesting
> > that it didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500 BP. Earth could
> > have had some other orbiting factors, even another mascon worthy moon
> > as of prior to 12,500 BP, although none of that offers an answer as to
> > accounting for those multiple 100,000 year ice-age cycles (of shorter
> > cycles as going back in time).
>
> So you're saying that fossils that were probably created by the moon's
> tidal effects were not, but were caused by some other equally heavy
> object, but which was light enough to have allowed the ice ages to
> happen.
Clearly you're looking at every possible weird angle in order to
distort or force out of context the greater intent and goodwill of
this topic.
What I'm saying is that a few million simulations by way of our best
supercomputer(s) couldn't possibly hurt one damn thing.
If you want to forever believe in some previous conjecture or best
mainstream SWAG that is government and/or of whatever's faith-based
published as being the one and only interpretation that's worth all
the tea in China, so to speak, then so be it.
>
> ... Even though you have not come up with any reason why the moon's
> presence in the past 12000 years is supposed to have stopped ice ages,
> which have been happening at roughly 100,000-year intervals for the past
> roughly half a million years.
You've got to be kidding. Clearly your nayism mindset is in charge of
your private parts, and/or you have absolutely not a freaking clue
about physics. Do you even think or much less read what you type?
This topic of mine isn't new, as I've tried multiple times before to
get this notion across, and lo and behold it seems nothing has changed
about this anti-think-tank Usenet from naysay hell on Earth. If this
Usenet were of any more nayism, as such it would turn itself into a
black hole, sucking the life out of anything that dares touch or even
gets close to its nayism event horizon.
>
> > Interstellar rogue stuff happens all the time,
>
> Why couldn't "Interstellar rogue stuff" be responsible for the ice ages
> even with the moon present pretty much since the Earth was created?
I'd agree that an interstellar encounter on the order of an elliptical
100,000 year orbital cycle (more frequent as going back in time) is by
far the most likely cause of our previous ice-ages and subsequent
thaws w/o moon. However, w/moon it has become next to impossible for
this planet to recycle itself back into another ice-age, even if all
human factors were removed and we remained furthest away from the
impressive Sirius star/solar system may forever preclude this planet
from seeing another ice-age.
>
> > and as such rogue items are either going to lithobrake
>
> You mean hitting something.
Correct, such as in a direct blow, or as more than likely a glancing
blow, whereas best accomplished as a rear-end sucker-punch kind of
glancing encounter is what could extract sufficient encounter velocity
and transfer of icy mass that could have placed such an icy proto-moon
into orbiting Earth. This may have actually taken more than one
encounter, somewhat like a certain NEO that has been getting closer
each time it comes by.
>
> > and/or semi-destruct by way of
> > encountering something along its path, or otherwise it's going to
> > eventually end up orbiting something along its path, if not returning
> > to its origin.
>
> Have you done the math for Earth-moon orbital capture?
No I have not, because I'm either not nearly as Einstein smart as
others like yourself, or more than likely because it's actually
extremely complex considering all of the weird multibody and physical
encounter factors involved. Therefore, we need to employ a
supercomputer that has all of the required physics software within its
vast archive of accomplishing such complex matters as we essentially
go back in time, rather than forward as you folks keep insisting can
be accomplished by way of any old PC.
. - Brad Guth
a425couple
> >> The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> >> the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see,
> On sci.astro.seti Brad is our comic relief. Posting to him is wasted. He
is
> impervious to reason and physics.
Thanks Matt, got kinda interested, read wikipedia - moon, then Cruithne,
then Lilith. Interesting side-bar quote, "Due to the many readily apparent
holes in Lilith's supportive argument (not least of which is her general
defiance of the laws of gravity) the actual physical existence of this
astronomical object is believed only by fringe groups comparable to the Flat
Earth Society."
To BradGuth, seems to my unschooled in this area logic,
that the biggest flaw in your thoughts comes from fact,
"The Moon is in synchronous rotation, meaning that it keeps nearly the same
face turned towards the Earth at all times. Early in the Moon's history, its
rotation slowed and became locked in this configuration as a result of
frictional effects associated with tidal deformations caused by the Earth."
That would probably take a REAL considerable time -
i.e. much over 13,000 years.
Unless of course, it was just created then and there,
almost exactly as we now observe it to be.
BradGuth
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote
>
> > Timberwoof wrote:
Venus as it passes extremely close by every 19 months, as such is
nearly as moon like tidal locked to Earth. So what's your point?
What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?
While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
came from?
How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
tilt?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <5ee0117c-e925-420f-b87c-91c5b6462...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof
> > <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <c420c384-b7bd-4c01-b313-5109b0b92...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> > > > the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> > > > were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> > > > surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> > > > as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
> > > > was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> > > > their era.
>
> > > Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
>
> > I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within
> > the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific
> > record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that
> > extremely big old moon
>
> The kind of evidence you insist on is expected to be lacking; the kind
> of evidence people show you instead, you ignore.
In this topic, those other conjectures or best SWAG of whatever you
call the one and only truth doesn't count.
What opening part of the goodwill jest or intent of this topic didn't
you understand?
>
> > as of prior to 12,500 BP.
>
> "As of prior to". What the hell does that mean?
>
> > How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000
> > km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass.
>
> How about you show how the moon would be captured into a nearly circular
> orbit?
As I'd said before, that such needs a good supercomputer, because it's
not nearly as simple or as clear-cut as you suggest. The encounter
velocity could have been of a fairly low velocity, as a rear-ender
sort of glancing sucker-punch that induced the bulk of Earth's
seasonal tilt. Working this what-if in reverse order may prove as
worthy enough to start off with.
Are you suggesting that velocity, gravity, angle of a glancing
encounter or transfer of icy mass plays no part in this?
OOPS! how about a Venus like planet w/moon cruising past but just
well enough outside of Earth's L1? (but do you even get where I'm
going with this?)
How many hundred basic what-ifs would you like to ponder?
>
> > > > However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> > > > recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
>
> > > * as of prior to 12,500 BP
> > > * somewhat more recent
> > > * some time after
>
> > > Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on
> > > accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with
> > > three digits of accuracy?
>
> > I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in
> > my old age and all.
>
> That doesn't speak well for your hypothesis.
Nor does this dyslexic wordage encryption that I have to continually
deal with, speak well on my behalf. Sorry about that.
>
> > > > that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> > > > any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> > > > absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> > > > environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> > > > time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> > > > nearly as clear as by day.
>
> > > > Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
> > > > depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
> > > > whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
> > > > highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
> > > > and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
> > > > tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
> > > > ours.
>
> > > Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about
> > > anything before, oh, several thousand years BC.
>
> > You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as
> > well as dumb and dumber?
>
> Instead of explaining it, you've descended into ad-hominem.
If "ad-hominem" is what you call sharing the truth as best can be
deductively interpreted, then so be it.
>
> > > > What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
> > > > of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
> > > > BP?
>
> > > What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it
> > > achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit?
>
> > For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone
> > to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a
> > few million simulations. Are you game?
>
> You don't need a supercomputer to do that calculation. You just need
> some basic understanding of algebra and the math of orbital mechanics
> ... which I strongly urge you to become familiar with.
In other words, the sorts of all-knowing folks like yourself would not
dare run off a few million of those complex (aka trial and error)
multibody simulations, as required in order to fine-tune and thus
polish and nail this one down. (no status quo or bust kind of surprise
there)
>
> > > How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to
> > > this fundamental change in the environment?
>
> > If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't
> > you adapt, or at least die trying?
>
> That's not an answer to the question.
Yes, it actually was a very good answer that you and others of your
terrestrial-only w/moon kind refuse to accept. You can put complex
sea life into a dark lab with only an artificial sun and moon, or of
using just one or the other, and subsequently trick that sequestered
life into adapting and/or mutating within hardly any time at all, as
to adapting to whatever artificial stimulus you'd care to impose.
Lack of gravity is yet another adaptation that gets a fast mutation
result or response, though usually it's not for the better.
>
> > > > Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
> > > > behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
> > > > available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
> > > > rated?
>
> > > I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science".
> > > The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for
> > > which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence
> > > the other way.
>
> > Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream
> > status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?)
>
> To try what? I'd like to see you come up with simple calculations that
> show how the Earth could have captured the moon and leave it in a
> near-circular orbit as far back as astronomical records have been kept.
> You don't need a supercomputer to do that.
If you can't possibly help, then perhaps myself or others will have to
do just that.
BTW, I've already proposed several viable encounter alternatives
outside of this current topic. Of course each and every one is likely
too complex for mere words or numbers that you'll continually twist in
order disqualify at each and every turn in the road, especially
complex with so much energy taking place and the transfer of such icy
mass taken away from our proto-moon is what leaves much for that
supercomputer of extremely complex simulations to work with.
>
> > > I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or
> > > that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to
> > > show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer
> > > time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish
> > > his results.
>
> > You have a right to think whatever you like.
>
> In other words, you don't believe what I said but you have absolutely no
> evidence whatsoever to refute it.
I didn't say that, but if you like making it look and/or sound as
though I'm another all-knowing village idiot like yourself, then so be
it. By all means, never think outside the that cozy mainstream box,
as you might get that brown-nose of yours bent out of shape.
>
> > > BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities?
> > > (Please visithttp://www.top500.org/andtell us which ones you're
> > > talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
> > > would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.)
>
> > You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned
> > supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to
> > our NASA.
>
> No, I don't. Tell me its name, who made it, who runs it, and I could
> research it.
Good freaking grief almighty on a stick, do a basic 'search for' ***
NASA Supercomputer ***, it has 2048 fast CPUs and spendy butt loads of
absolutely everything else necessary. I believe it's within the
hands of NASA's JPL.
>
> > Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/
> > federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned?
>
> > Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group
> > of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so
> > as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their
> > supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely
> > everything, and then some?
>
> > A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private
> > supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having
> > since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount)
> > and without their having since taken income or property tax
> > depreciation deductions are there?
>
> That's all off-topic and has nothing to do with your thesis.
Well aren't you extra special, and isn't that too freaking bad
because, it's my topic. Don't like it! then create your own status
quo or bust topic. Pretend that such public owned supercomputers
don't exist all you want.
. - Brad Guth
Darwin123
> > > > talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
> > > > would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.)
>
> > > You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned
> > > supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to
> > > our NASA.
>
> > No, I don't. Tell me its name, who made it, who runs it, and I could
> > research it.
>
> Good freaking grief almighty on a stick, do a basic 'search for' ***
> NASA Supercomputer ***, it has 2048 fast CPUs and spendy butt loads of
> absolutely everything else necessary. I believe it's within the
> hands of NASA's JPL.
>
>
>
> > > Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/
> > > federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned?
>
> > > Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group
> > > of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so
> > > as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their
> > > supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely
> > > everything, and then some?
>
> > > A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private
> > > supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having
> > > since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount)
> > > and without their having
>
>
> read more »
Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.
Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple
equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated,
but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the
forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or
Sirius.
If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture,
then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or
rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can
produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the
computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and
every interaction.
If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible
computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred.
By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You
keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what
you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was
closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any
other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference
for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline?
Timberwoof
<4976073f-6b57-45a3...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
"extremely close"? Look, orbital mechanics has no room for wishy-washy
nonmathematical, qualitative analysis. The *only* way that you can make
any sense out of orbits is to provide concrete numbers with which people
can do calculations.
Simple examples: The moon at its farthest is closer than Venus at its
closest. So how do you say that the moon is closer than extremely close?
Mars at its closest is closer than Venus at its farthest. How do you say
that? Pretty far and really far? And Jupiter is really really far, but
Saturn is extremely far? Without numbers, it's all useless.
> What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
> an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?
The part about how there's no scar on the Earth and how the Earth's
surface is a lot older than 12,000 years.
> While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
> came from?
It's not all that terrific. It just doesn't have any continental crust
in it. Just like the other oceans. Certainly not from the moon hitting
it and ending up in a circular equatorial orbit.
> How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
> tilt?
Probably when a Mars-size planet hit the Proto-Earth sometime after the
Iron Catastrophe, early in the formation of the solar system. (BTW, most
of that planet is not in orbit around the Earth.)
BradGuth
>
> Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
> bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.
What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for
that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow
core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of
salty ice?
>
> Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple
> equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated,
> but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the
> forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or
> Sirius.
Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify
absolutely every nitpicken detail.
How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to
create the arctic ocean basin?
>
> If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture,
> then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or
> rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can
> produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the
> computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and
> every interaction.
> If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible
> computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred.
> By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You
> keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what
> you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was
> closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any
> other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference
> for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline?
Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another
Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of
denial?
Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper.
Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps
8.5e22 kg.
If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact
velocity of just 2 km/s, then further adjust that velocity of contact
in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would
demand.
Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having
increased our seasonal tilt.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <4976073f-6b57-45a3-87e8-e462cc41b...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Venus gets to within 100X that distance of our moon, and for its size
that's nearly NEO worthy.
As I'd said, we'll need that supercomputer running off those millions
of what-if simulations.
>
> Simple examples: The moon at its farthest is closer than Venus at its
> closest. So how do you say that the moon is closer than extremely close?
> Mars at its closest is closer than Venus at its farthest. How do you say
> that? Pretty far and really far? And Jupiter is really really far, but
> Saturn is extremely far? Without numbers, it's all useless.
>
> > What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
> > an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?
>
> The part about how there's no scar on the Earth and how the Earth's
> surface is a lot older than 12,000 years.
What kind of a scar does an icy proto-moon (with a thick and steaming
atmosphere of its own) make, as it impacts an icy terrestrial ocean?
>
> > While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
> > came from?
>
> It's not all that terrific. It just doesn't have any continental crust
> in it. Just like the other oceans. Certainly not from the moon hitting
> it and ending up in a circular equatorial orbit.
>
> > How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
> > tilt?
>
> Probably when a Mars-size planet hit the Proto-Earth sometime after the
> Iron Catastrophe, early in the formation of the solar system. (BTW, most
> of that planet is not in orbit around the Earth.)
At least you admit that such multibody encounters do happen.
Good grief, unfortunately you're not hardly trying, except all that
you can muster in order to foil this argument. There's likely more to
this plot than just a simple two hard-body interaction.
Thought I'd said we needed a supercomputer, and otherwise not your
nayism mindset that's forever mainstream cesspool stuck in the muck,
that which simply isn't nearly supercomputer worthy.
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<dcab4f8c-3dd1-428a...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin123 wrote:
> >
> > Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
> > bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.
>
> What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
> great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for
> that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow
> core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of
> salty ice?
LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious!
> > Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple
> > equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated,
> > but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the
> > forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or
> > Sirius.
>
> Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify
> absolutely every nitpicken detail.
Yeah, basically. You're known for not telling your whole hypothesis in
one go. You make it up as you go along...
> How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to
> create the arctic ocean basin?
You tell us.
> > If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture,
> > then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or
> > rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can
> > produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the
> > computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and
> > every interaction.
> > If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible
> > computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred.
> > By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You
> > keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what
> > you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was
> > closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any
> > other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference
> > for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline?
>
> Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another
> Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of
> denial?
Can you tell us why you always resort to ad-hominem attacks whenever
someone shows that your hypothesis is so fundamentally flawed?
> Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper.
Can we use real evidence for our figures instead of made-up fantasy?
> Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps
> 8.5e22 kg.
On what basis?
> If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact
> velocity of just 2 km/s,
Did you pull that number out of the air, your hat, or your ass?
> then further adjust that velocity of contact
> in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would
> demand.
>
> Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having
> increased our seasonal tilt.
IOW, you want us to do your homework for you.
Timberwoof
<e41f8c60-ad78-4392...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, it's not. Unlike you, it's in a fairly stable orbit.
> As I'd said, we'll need that supercomputer running off those millions
> of what-if simulations.
Seems like a waste of time to me. It's so hard for you to use present
circumstances to extrapolate into the past that you want to calculate
huge numbers of possible starting conditions and hope that one of them
results in what we see today. Never mind that it's a chaotic (that's a
technical term with a specific meaning. You better learn it before you
argue it or use it yourself) system and the slightest change in starting
conditions can yield enormous changes in the final result.
Never mind that if nothing is found, you can always say that one didn't
look hard enough.
That technique is not scientific.
> > Simple examples: The moon at its farthest is closer than Venus at its
> > closest. So how do you say that the moon is closer than extremely close?
> > Mars at its closest is closer than Venus at its farthest. How do you say
> > that? Pretty far and really far? And Jupiter is really really far, but
> > Saturn is extremely far? Without numbers, it's all useless.
> >
> > > What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
> > > an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?
> >
> > The part about how there's no scar on the Earth and how the Earth's
> > surface is a lot older than 12,000 years.
>
> What kind of a scar does an icy proto-moon (with a thick and steaming
> atmosphere of its own) make, as it impacts an icy terrestrial ocean?
Are you not aware of the Chixulub impact and what that did? You're
asking us to believe something immensely more massive and in the
geologic recent past ... yet there's zero evidence for it.
> > > While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
> > > came from?
> >
> > It's not all that terrific. It just doesn't have any continental crust
> > in it. Just like the other oceans. Certainly not from the moon hitting
> > it and ending up in a circular equatorial orbit.
> >
> > > How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
> > > tilt?
> >
> > Probably when a Mars-size planet hit the Proto-Earth sometime after the
> > Iron Catastrophe, early in the formation of the solar system. (BTW, most
> > of that planet is not in orbit around the Earth.)
>
> At least you admit that such multibody encounters do happen.
-ed.
> Good grief, unfortunately you're not hardly trying,
I don't have to.
> except all that
> you can muster in order to foil this argument. There's likely more to
> this plot than just a simple two hard-body interaction.
>
> Thought I'd said we needed a supercomputer, and otherwise not your
> nayism mindset that's forever mainstream cesspool stuck in the muck,
> that which simply isn't nearly supercomputer worthy.
Feh. More ad-hominem. You don't have the faintest clue about orbital
mechanics and you want someone else to do your handwaving calculations
for you.
Robert Casey
>
> However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
> that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> nearly as clear as by day.
>
You have to invent reading and writing before you could record things
first. That didn't happen until around 10,000 BC. Before that, nobody
could write down "The Moon just showed up last month"...
And most people, even after reading and writing was invented, wouldn't
bother to record stuff that everyone already knows about. Especially if
writing materials are expensive and hard to obtain.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <dcab4f8c-3dd1-428a-94ef-18e7d990b...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Darwin123 wrote:
>
> > > Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
> > > bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.
>
> > What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
> > great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for
> > that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow
> > core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of
> > salty ice?
>
> LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious!
And your silly response isn't science. Go figure, especially since
you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came
from.
>
> > > Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple
> > > equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated,
> > > but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the
> > > forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or
> > > Sirius.
>
> > Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify
> > absolutely every nitpicken detail.
>
> Yeah, basically. You're known for not telling your whole hypothesis in
> one go. You make it up as you go along...
Right, just like your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) makes up WMD,
except in my case there's not a million of mostly innocent Muslims
dead, and I haven't even caused a multi-trillion dollar debt or
massive global inflation.
>
> > How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to
> > create the arctic ocean basin?
>
> You tell us.
It's a serious bunch of energy, and there's even an online crater
calculator that'll indirectly get us in the ballpark.
>
> > > If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture,
> > > then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or
> > > rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can
> > > produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the
> > > computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and
> > > every interaction.
> > > If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible
> > > computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred.
> > > By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You
> > > keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what
> > > you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was
> > > closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any
> > > other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference
> > > for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline?
>
> > Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another
> > Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of
> > denial?
>
> Can you tell us why you always resort to ad-hominem attacks whenever
> someone shows that your hypothesis is so fundamentally flawed?
It's because you're not exactly helping this argument/rant, are you.
BTW, Einstein was a touch flawed, as well as a few dozen others.
>
> > Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper.
>
> Can we use real evidence for our figures instead of made-up fantasy?
As I'd said, whatever makes you a happy camper, as I'll give you all
the credit as long as you return the favor by not excluding my
goodwill intentions by name, as a team effort that simply would not
have happened if it wasn't for my long standing and pesky insistence
in the first place.
If you want Earth as more solid and of less atmosphere, go for it.
If you want that icy proto-moon of less diameter and worth only 7.5e22
kg, then so be it.
>
> > Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps
> > 8.5e22 kg.
>
> On what basis?
How about on the basis that I said so. If you've got better numbers,
then go with that.
>
> > If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact
> > velocity of just 2 km/s,
>
> Did you pull that number out of the air, your hat, or your ass?
All of the above. 2 km/s is just a given swag of a starting point,
nothing more. Why, don't you think a given computer and physics
software can deal with making those sorts of adjustments per
simulation?
Would you rather use 10 km/s or 12 km/s, because if then it's all fine
by me, all because the simulations should soon enough favor whatever
is most likely.
>
> > then further adjust that velocity of final contact
> > in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would
> > demand.
>
> > Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having
> > increased our seasonal tilt.
>
> IOW, you want us to do your homework for you.
What homework? Just plug it in, along with +/- whatever, as well as
add whatever else is related into that 2048 CPU supercomputer, and let
it rip off a few million variations. Shouldn't take but a few minutes
past GO at the extreme performance of that spendy public
supercomputer.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
private parts that are not otherwise in perpetual denial of being in
denial.
. - Brad Guth
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.
Stephen Malbon
> someone shows that your hypothesis is so fundamentally flawed?
knows everything.
Timberwoof
<fd7952d7-a040-4aab...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <dcab4f8c-3dd1-428a-94ef-18e7d990b...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Darwin123 wrote:
> >
> > > > Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
> > > > bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.
> >
> > > What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
> > > great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for
> > > that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow
> > > core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of
> > > salty ice?
> >
> > LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious!
>
> And your silly response isn't science.
Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there?
> What's rigid
For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good
first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This
would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term
interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's
orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the
effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal
effects, and its composition must be accounted for.)
> 98.5% fluid Earth
You're welcome to explain that number.
> having perhaps as
> great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era
You're welcome to provide evidence for that claim.
> moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core
And that one. Got any lunar seismic and orbital fluctuation data? Nope.
> otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice?
Our moon? The one up in the sky? That's a ridiculous claim disprovable
by the simplest spectroscopic investigations as well as by any college
geology professor who received samples from the Apollo project. (An
acquaintance of mine did. No ice, no salt.)
> Go figure, especially since
> you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came
> from.
Yes, I can. Have done. Will do again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Origin_and_geologic_evolution
I favor the Giant Impact hypothesis.
> > > > Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple
> > > > equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated,
> > > > but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the
> > > > forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or
> > > > Sirius.
> >
> > > Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify
> > > absolutely every nitpicken detail.
> >
> > Yeah, basically. You're known for not telling your whole hypothesis in
> > one go. You make it up as you go along...
>
> Right, just like your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) makes up WMD,
> except in my case there's not a million of mostly innocent Muslims
> dead, and I haven't even caused a multi-trillion dollar debt or
> massive global inflation.
Red herring.
> > > How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to
> > > create the arctic ocean basin?
> >
> > You tell us.
>
> It's a serious bunch of energy, and there's even an online crater
> calculator that'll indirectly get us in the ballpark.
So why didn't you?
> > > > If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture,
> > > > then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or
> > > > rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can
> > > > produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the
> > > > computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and
> > > > every interaction.
> > > > If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible
> > > > computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred.
> > > > By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You
> > > > keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what
> > > > you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was
> > > > closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any
> > > > other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference
> > > > for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline?
> >
> > > Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another
> > > Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of
> > > denial?
> >
> > Can you tell us why you always resort to ad-hominem attacks whenever
> > someone shows that your hypothesis is so fundamentally flawed?
>
> It's because you're not exactly helping this argument/rant, are you.
Why should I help you rant?
> BTW, Einstein was a touch flawed, as well as a few dozen others.
So were Becher, Kennelly, Dawson, Beech, Bozo, and Lord Spagthorpe.
> > > Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper.
> >
> > Can we use real evidence for our figures instead of made-up fantasy?
>
> As I'd said, whatever makes you a happy camper, as I'll give you all
> the credit as long as you return the favor by not excluding my
> goodwill intentions by name, as a team effort that simply would not
> have happened if it wasn't for my long standing and pesky insistence
> in the first place.
>
> If you want Earth as more solid and of less atmosphere, go for it.
>
> If you want that icy proto-moon of less diameter and worth only 7.5e22
> kg, then so be it.
This is not about what you think I want, it's about what your hypothesis
wants: data.
> > > Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps
> > > 8.5e22 kg.
> >
> > On what basis?
>
> How about on the basis that I said so.
Not good enough. That's a highly improper appeal to authority.
> If you've got better numbers,
> then go with that.
I don't believe the scenario would work for any size impactor.
> > > If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact
> > > velocity of just 2 km/s,
> >
> > Did you pull that number out of the air, your hat, or your ass?
>
> All of the above. 2 km/s is just a given swag of a starting point,
> nothing more. Why, don't you think a given computer and physics
> software can deal with making those sorts of adjustments per
> simulation?
It doesn't take a computer. The initial estimates for translunar orbits
and orbits to other planets were done with pencil and paper.
> Would you rather use 10 km/s or 12 km/s, because if then it's all fine
> by me, all because the simulations should soon enough favor whatever
> is most likely.
The problem is that you don't have the faintest clue about how orbits
work. That means you don't know how to calculate them ... and you need
to to support your hypothesis. And I'm not going to do your homework for
you. This is your responsibility if you want to convince anyone. And if
you don't actually want to convince anyone, then be quiet.
> > > then further adjust that velocity of final contact
> > > in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would
> > > demand.
> >
> > > Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having
> > > increased our seasonal tilt.
> >
> > IOW, you want us to do your homework for you.
>
> What homework? Just plug it in, along with +/- whatever, as well as
> add whatever else is related into that 2048 CPU supercomputer, and let
> it rip off a few million variations. Shouldn't take but a few minutes
> past GO at the extreme performance of that spendy public
> supercomputer.
Again, you miss the point.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.
BradGuth
Are we being silly, or what?
Do you also deny being a pretend-atheist?
What does impressive cave paintings of 15,000 BC and of those more
recent as of recent as 10,500 BC have to do with words?
I guess in you case, a picture regardless of its authenticity isn't
even worth one word.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <fd7952d7-a040-4aab-8146-42ae7bae7...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. Perhaps
once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious.
The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used
toilet paper.
. - Brad Guth
>
> > having perhaps as
> > great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era
>
> You're welcome to provide evidence for that claim.
>
> > moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core
>
> And that one. Got any lunar seismic and orbital fluctuation data? Nope.
>
> > otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice?
>
> Our moon? The one up in the sky? That's a ridiculous claim disprovable
> by the simplest spectroscopic investigations as well as by any college
> geology professor who received samples from the Apollo project. (An
> acquaintance of mine did. No ice, no salt.)
>
> > Go figure, especially since
> > you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came
> > from.
>
> Yes, I can. Have done. Will do again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Origin_and_geologic_evolution
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.
BradGuth
Do tell us more, about how poor old and dyslexic me "knows
everything".
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<cc774eda-ec0b-4f5a...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
You claim to observe that prehistoric humans did not record the moon
until after 10,500 BC and conclude that the moon did not arrive until
then.
The recent arrival hypothesis demands an awful lot from orbital
dynamics, and you even propose an impact that left the Earth pretty much
untouched: There's no geologic evidence for that event whatsoever. From
a physics standpoint it's much better to assume that the moon has been
here all along. There's even geologic evidence for it, as has been
ignored elsewhere.
So let's consider the cave paintings at Lascaux. There's no moon down
there, nit there aren't any stars there either, nor do the sun, clouds,
or rain appear. Does that mean that the skies were empty until after
that period of history? No ... that's a bit far-fetched.
I suspect that since the caves were ... caves ... that the people who
painted down there did not put sky things on the walls. That's a much
better assumption that the idea that the moon wasn't here.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.
Stan Engel
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ea42fb9-4e16-45f7...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 16, 5:42 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <220ae8c5-b1e7-4821-9298-d6c883beb...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So you're saying that fossils that were probably created by the moon's
>> tidal effects were not, but were caused by some other equally heavy
>> object, but which was light enough to have allowed the ice ages to
>> happen.
>
> Clearly you're looking at every possible weird angle in order to
> distort or force out of context the greater intent and goodwill of
> this topic.
>
> What I'm saying is that a few million simulations by way of our best
> supercomputer(s) couldn't possibly hurt one damn thing.
Brad, you wouldn't know what to do with a supercomputer. I can see a retard
like you trying to talk to it like on Lost in Space.
Since you're greatly concerned about Venus, I suggest you be put into a
sealed chamber where the atmosphere and temperature of Earth's neighbor are
approximated.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
BradGuth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <cc774eda-ec0b-4f5a-abd8-dbc27b6ec...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Right, if you say so. Perhaps they were always blind as well as
dumbfounded about most everything outside of those caves. But then,
if not the least bit intelligent, how the hell did they manage to
survive? (were they being taken care of?)
. - BG
Timberwoof
<6fad5a5c-bf1f-44aa...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't grant your premise. The Cro-Magnon people are our ancestors.
(Maybe not yours.)
> how the hell did they manage to
> survive? (were they being taken care of?)
By hunting reindeer.
Eric Chomko
Brad, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best
you're going to get.
As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way
it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see
it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is
that 2+2 is always equal to 4.
This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make
then different that what we have found out about them time and time
again.
Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them
because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <6fad5a5c-bf1f-44aa-aeac-37b60d5ed...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
That figures, as being just as likely dumbfounded as our Apollo
wizards having "the right stuff" for supposedly having walked on their
guano island like and xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated moon.
. - Brad Guth
Damien Valentine
in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
(I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
10,000 BC.)
Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
10,500 BC?
BradGuth
> Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
> in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
control those in charge of such public supercomputers.
>
> (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
> capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
> 10,000 BC.)
Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?
>
> Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> 10,500 BC?
"Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
moon?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations
take place, and the sooner the better.
BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting
within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had
once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff.
I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
other liars you associate with.
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<e3bd528b-8812-44b5...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Damien Valentine <vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it
leave there?).
An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth.
A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon
without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the
Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became
so nearly circular in that short a time.
An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and
completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life
forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <e3bd528b-8812-44b5-988a-f2acce722...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get?
Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks
like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/
o moon?
Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
environment.
Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,
our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
a solar tide to work with, as well as seeing much fewer of those life
essential geothermal events taking place. Eventually we'd lose the
bulk of our magnetosphere to boot, and then only the most rad-hard of
DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<99c237cc-099d-4d4d...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 1:00 pm, Damien Valentine <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
> > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
>
> A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
> control those in charge of such public supercomputers.
You've set the bar impossibly high: you yourself have demonstrated that
you do not know enough about orbital mechanics to give anyone
instructions on how to do this.
You also seem to have a hidden agenda about ownership and use of
"public" supercomputers.
> > (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
> > capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
> > 10,000 BC.)
>
> Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
> other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
> monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
> When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
> notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?
That's your region of expertise, isn't it? You've researched all known
early art for references to the moon, and its total lack of lunar
imagery before 10,500 BC (or YA, depending on your post) is what led you
to this remarkable hypothesis.
Why is your entire scope of evidence in hypothetical simulations and
early cave paintings? Why do you not include any actual physical
evidence or deductions one might reasonably make from current lunar
orbital physics?
> > Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > 10,500 BC?
>
> "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
> mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect.
Oh, geeze, Brad. Give the guy a break. He was engaging in a bit of
hyperbole and indicating that you are the only person in the world who
thinks the moon got there recently. I thought he meant everyone else on
this newsgroup.
> What exactly is
> so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
> moon?
You mean aside from what other people have been telling you?
Let's start with your proposed initial condition: The earth is alone is
its orbit around the sun. Somewhere else there's the moon, hurtling
along at some speed relative to Earth that is slower than the earth's
escape velocity. There is no such configuration of Sun, Earth, and
pre-capture moon that will enable the moon to eventually enter into an
orbit around the Earth. No matter what you do, the moon will hit the
sun, hit the earth, or never get anywhere near here. The moon will
inevitably gain so much speed from its fall into the solar system that
it will either hit the earth or pass it by never to return.
Consider that there's also the rule that things have to work in both
time directions. The laws or orbital mechanics don't know about forwards
or backwards in time. There's no current orbit of the moon which will
eventually expell it into interplanetary space, even if you run the
earth's tidal effects backwards. In fact, if you do that, what you get
is that the moon was pretty damn close to the Earth roughly at the time
the Earth was first created. And then there's a collision of the type
your hypothesis cannot allow.
It's simple Newtonian physics which, despite all your complaints, are
used quite successfully to predict the orbits of planets and other
objects in the solar system.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <99c237cc-099d-4d4d-8c8b-855cf8c78...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
You still don't get it, as well as you're still avoiding the primary
intent or focus of this topic, mostly because yourself and others of
your pretend-atheism kind are deathly afraid of what could become a
better truth than what you've been telling us.
Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing or otherwise as
puppeteered with those status quo strings attached or of that clown
hand up my butt.
BTW, at half the orbital distance, the moon's tidal influence would
have had Earth nearly continually flooded to death with those monster
tides of four times as great, not to mention of whatever was going on
under the crust of Earth. Most of Earth's erosion via flooding is of
recent times since the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going
to see.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
limited?
BTW, I do not believe in the singular BB, especially if it's supposed
to be of the one and only creation of the one and only universe.
. - Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 4:05 pm, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net> wrote:
> Rogue objects, Brad? Then I take it you believe in Nibiru, Nemesis
> and Planet X? lmao!
>
> None of those exist, of course. lmao!
>
> Saul Levy
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This is exactly what such nifty simulators should be darn good at
> >doing, and with hardly even pushing but a few of those 2048 extremely
> >fast CPUs within the NASA/JPL supercomputer. Millions of fully 3D
> >interactive simulation variations should technically become doable
> >within hours if not minutes, telling us where the most likely source
> >of our moon originated from, of which is not my having to say that a
> >rogue item of sufficient mass and density smacking itself hard enough
> >(possibly somewhat retrograde) into an Earth like planet couldn't have
> >created such a moon.
>
> >Obviously rogue cosmic stuff runs into all sorts of other stuff on a
> >regular basis, and as such there's no good reason as to suggest that
> >our wussy little solar system with its extremely passive sun is
> >somehow immune, or that a lithobraking encounter form of capturing
> >items into nearly circular orbits is somehow impossible.
>
> >There is a good chance that our Oort cloud of icy debris has from time
> >to time interacted with the Sirius Oort cloud of much greater icy
> >items. If anything had gotten pushed away or allowed to drift from
> >Sirius-B as having gone red giant, there's a reasonable enough chance
> >that our solar system could have been situated in the right place at
> >the right time to have picked up an item or two.
> > . - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<36bf512d-ed3e-4894...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You still don't get it, as well as you're still avoiding the primary
> intent or focus of this topic,
So explain it in simple words. I don't go in for subtlety; it's too
easily lost or misinterpreted.
> mostly because yourself and others of
> your pretend-atheism kind
So this is all about God now?
> are deathly afraid of what could become a
> better truth than what you've been telling us.
So now you've even got God on your side that the moon recently got here?
> Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing or otherwise as
> puppeteered with those status quo strings attached or of that clown
> hand up my butt.
Oh, a clever way of saying that you're not well-educated in the basics
of astronomy and are thus free to come up with your own creative
bullshit and insist that it's God's own truth.
> BTW, at half the orbital distance, the moon's tidal influence would
> have had Earth nearly continually flooded to death with those monster
> tides of four times as great, not to mention of whatever was going on
> under the crust of Earth.
Okay, So what?
> Most of Earth's erosion via flooding is of
> recent times
No, it isn't. Plenty of geological evidence exists that shows that
erosion has been going on since there was water on the planet.
> since the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going
> to see.
Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Timberwoof
<36a854a3-ce2c-449f...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.
>
> What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get?
What part of my questions above did you not understand?
> Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks
> like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/
> o moon?
I don't grant your premise. The question that Damien asked was, what
would persuade me that your hypothesis is correct? I gave some
reasonable criteria. Unlike yours, they're straightforward and obvious.
They don't require a lot of fancy supercomputation or guesswork. They
only require some physical evidence. If you think that's insurmountable,
then that pretty much wraps it up for your hypothesis.
> Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
> or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
> of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
> better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
> would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
> ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
> environment.
You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.
> Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,
Why?
> our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
> a solar tide to work with,
I thought they'd freeze.
> as well as seeing much fewer of those life
> essential geothermal events taking place.
You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
ancient volcanism?
> Eventually we'd lose the
> bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,
Why?
> and then only the most rad-hard of
> DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
> extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
> from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.
If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
have evolved?
And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.
Timberwoof
<ed169e23-124e-4b68...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your evidence?
> I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
> wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
> don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
> other liars you associate with.
And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate
opponents.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Stan Engel
> Your insecurity problem is? Is your pretend-atheist God terrestrial
> limited?
You will soon enough be marched into a sealed chamber where you can breathe
an approximation of the Venusian atmosphere.
--
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <36bf512d-ed3e-4894-b2e8-6575e5857...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
This topic is about our running off a few million simulations until we
get it right. Obviously it wouldn't matter one way or another to your
mindset, so why exactly are you even here, in this topic?
Size, mass, velocity incoming trajectory or angle of attack, softness
(including atmosphere) or the physical morphing of each orb, and so
forth are the basic considerations.
At the right attack angle, velocity and merging along with the same
direction of flow, whereas even a Venus like planet w/moon could merge
into our solar system in the same way a given asteroid makes itself
known, whereas a lithobraking encounter simply gives us a multitude of
other simulation options for accomplishing the same thing.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
<36a854a3-ce2c-449f-a82a-afc951bfe...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Why are human notations of that era not "physical evidence"?
It seems smart humans like yourself send other humans to their death
as based upon far less evidence.
>
> > Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
> > or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
> > of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
> > better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
> > would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
> > ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
> > environment.
>
> You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
> which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.
Earth wasn't always so salty. Much of Earth's salt is of a deposit,
similar as to most of Earth's water that didn't emerge from within.
Perhaps those cosmic snowballs were salty.
>
> > Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,
>
> Why?
Why not? How much interactive tidal/gravity energy does it take
holding onto that moon? Where do you think that kind of energy goes?
(not to mention the secondary IR influx)
>
> > our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
> > a solar tide to work with,
>
> I thought they'd freeze.
To a much greater extent, as w/o moon and of a near monoseason they
should freeze nearly to the tropics unless there's another nearby
source of stellar energy added to what our passive sun had to offer.
>
> > as well as seeing much fewer of those life
> > essential geothermal events taking place.
>
> You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
> ancient volcanism?
That's a little skewed out of context, isn't it. It's not an all or
nothing situation, because there's still a solar tide.
>
> > Eventually we'd lose the
> > bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,
>
> Why?
Why not? It's going away at roughly -.05%/year as is, so lo and
behold, it looks as though something inside is slowing down.
>
> > and then only the most rad-hard of
> > DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
> > extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
> > from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.
>
> If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
> have evolved?
>
> And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco?
If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd
be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of
yourself.
What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so
entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien
Valentine?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <ed169e23-124e-4b68-81e6-2fd26b226...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
It's all visual, on the internet, and every bit as good as gold.
Sorry to hear that you're blind.
>
> > I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
> > wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
> > don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
> > other liars you associate with.
>
> And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate
> opponents.
I only return the warm and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and
bashing with all the love and affection can muster. Since you have no
topic constructive intentions, where's the problem?
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<d8f5aee5-0dc4-4e7c...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
You've given us a few hints to that evidence, such as pictures of the
apparent wobble of Saturn's axis and the change of the Earth's
terminator as it orbits ... and you clearly misinterpreted what you saw.
As for pictures of an Earth without a moon 12,000 years ago ... there
are none.
> > > I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
> > > wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
> > > don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
> > > other liars you associate with.
> >
> > And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate
> > opponents.
>
> I only return the warm and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and
> bashing with all the love and affection can muster. Since you have no
> topic constructive intentions, where's the problem?
IOW, since I don't agree with you and you've been unable to answer any
of the simple and obvious questions I've put to you, you feel justified
in calling me an idiot. I gotcha.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Timberwoof
<f546f1eb-1911-4b3f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > emptying chamber pots in your direction." <ETH>Chris L.
> >
> > > What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get?
> >
> > What part of my questions above did you not understand?
> >
> > > Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks
> > > like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/
> > > o moon?
> >
> > I don't grant your premise. The question that Damien asked was, what
> > would persuade me that your hypothesis is correct? I gave some
> > reasonable criteria. Unlike yours, they're straightforward and obvious.
> > They don't require a lot of fancy supercomputation or guesswork. They
> > only require some physical evidence. If you think that's insurmountable,
> > then that pretty much wraps it up for your hypothesis.
>
> Why are human notations of that era not "physical evidence"?
They're not physical evidence of an lunar impact on the Earth.
> It seems smart humans like yourself send other humans to their death
> as based upon far less evidence.
I would not trust my life on any scientific or engineering analysis you
propose.
> > > Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
> > > or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
> > > of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
> > > better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
> > > would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
> > > ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
> > > environment.
> >
> > You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
> > which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.
>
> Earth wasn't always so salty. Much of Earth's salt is of a deposit,
> similar as to most of Earth's water that didn't emerge from within.
> Perhaps those cosmic snowballs were salty.
So you've said. A lot. But there is no such thing as proof by assertion.
> > > Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,
> >
> > Why?
>
> Why not? How much interactive tidal/gravity energy does it take
> holding onto that moon? Where do you think that kind of energy goes?
> (not to mention the secondary IR influx)
You're the one making the claim that the moon's presence keeps the earth
from freezing. You do the math to back up that claim. If you can't, then
it's so much hot air.
> > > our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
> > > a solar tide to work with,
> >
> > I thought they'd freeze.
>
> To a much greater extent, as w/o moon and of a near monoseason they
> should freeze nearly to the tropics unless there's another nearby
> source of stellar energy added to what our passive sun had to offer.
That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's
heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law?
What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?
> > > as well as seeing much fewer of those life
> > > essential geothermal events taking place.
> >
> > You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
> > ancient volcanism?
>
> That's a little skewed out of context, isn't it. It's not an all or
> nothing situation, because there's still a solar tide.
No, it's neither skewed nor out of context. You're welcome to present
your equations to show how much of the Earth's internal heat comes from
solar and lunar tidal effects. Again, without such math, your claim is
empty.
> > > Eventually we'd lose the
> > > bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,
> >
> > Why?
>
> Why not? It's going away at roughly -.05%/year as is, so lo and
> behold, it looks as though something inside is slowing down.
And this is related to the moon how, exactly?
> > > and then only the most rad-hard of
> > > DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
> > > extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
> > > from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.
> >
> > If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
> > have evolved?
> >
> > And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.
> >
> > --
> > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> > "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L.
>
> Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco?
Nope.
> If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd
> be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of
> yourself.
Don't flatter yourself.
> What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so
> entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien
> Valentine?
It's not over my head. The problem I have is that since you don't have a
basic scientific knowledge, you are unable to even write down basic
equations that need to be solved to represent your hypotheses. Since
math fails you (or you fail to use it), you try to do all your thinking
semantically, and come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions that you
cannot back up with evidence or even good theory. And you want others to
do your computational homework for you.
I guess that means you're a kook.
Timberwoof
<b653bddf-5d72-402a...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L.
>
> This topic is about our running off a few million simulations until we
> get it right. Obviously it wouldn't matter one way or another to your
> mindset, so why exactly are you even here, in this topic?
>
> Size, mass, velocity incoming trajectory or angle of attack, softness
> (including atmosphere) or the physical morphing of each orb, and so
> forth are the basic considerations.
>
> At the right attack angle, velocity and merging along with the same
> direction of flow, whereas even a Venus like planet w/moon could merge
> into our solar system in the same way a given asteroid makes itself
> known, whereas a lithobraking encounter simply gives us a multitude of
> other simulation options for accomplishing the same thing.
There is no vector which will accomplish what you want it to. As I wrote
elsewhere, if the moon is going slowly enough to be captured into Earth
orbit, it most likely will end up falling into the sun. Less likely is
an Earth encounter, but again, there the most likely end is a
catastrophic lithobraking. If it's going fast enough to avoid that, then
it will not go into Earth orbit. And your term "lithobraking" is
ludicrous: There are no scars on either Earth or Moon to support that
concept.
No computer simulations are needed.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <d8f5aee5-0dc4-4e7c-b88c-f70cd2b30...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
As I'd said from the get go, you're not helping this topic any better
off than a fifth grader, if that much. Don't you just hate such kids
that never stop asking questions, and never otherwise lend a hand?
In many ways, we're all less than fifth graders to what a good
supercomputer with its fully 3D interactive simulator represents.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f546f1eb-1911-4b3f-bdff-7e05d50ea...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > <36a854a3-ce2c-449f-a82a-afc951bfe...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <e3bd528b-8812-44b5-988a-f2acce722...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Damien Valentine <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
>
> > > > > > (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
> > > > > > capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
> > > > > > 10,000 BC.)
>
>
> > Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco?
>
> Nope.
>
> > If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd
> > be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of
> > yourself.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.
>
> > What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so
> > entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien
> > Valentine?
>
> It's not over my head. The problem I have is that since you don't have a
> basic scientific knowledge, you are unable to even write down basic
> equations that need to be solved to represent your hypotheses. Since
> math fails you (or you fail to use it), you try to do all your thinking
> semantically, and come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions that you
> cannot back up with evidence or even good theory. And you want others to
> do your computational homework for you.
>
> I guess that means you're a kook.
I guess that means you're a bigot that's in denial of your nayism.
Kook or bigot, which is better?
If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access
to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your
excuse?
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<859ad78c-4c3f-443c...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L.
>
> As I'd said from the get go, you're not helping this topic any better
> off than a fifth grader, if that much. Don't you just hate such kids
> that never stop asking questions, and never otherwise lend a hand?
I have helped. By asking pertinent questions, I have pointed out
fallacies in your reasoning. Now run along and fix your hypothesis.
> In many ways, we're all less than fifth graders to what a good
> supercomputer with its fully 3D interactive simulator represents.
Speak for yourself.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>
> heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law?
>
> What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
> effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?
Our moon is more than a thousand fold greater in mass ratio than any
other known moon in relationship to its planet. The gravity/tidal
energy influence upon Earth is absolutely horrific, not to mention the
secondary/recoil worth of IR.
Our sun is minor and/or passive compared to either Sirius A or B. Our
sun as a whole radiates far less gamma than our physically dark and
naked (aka anticathode) little moon.
BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's
called blueshift), and that closing velocity is increasing.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <e3bd528b-8812-44b5-988a-f2acce722...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Damien Valentine <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
>
> > (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
> > capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
> > 10,000 BC.)
>
> > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > 10,500 BC?
>
> An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it
> leave there?).
>
> An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth.
>
> A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon
> without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the
> Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became
> so nearly circular in that short a time.
>
> An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and
> completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life
> forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
In other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all-
inclusive answers to absolutely everything, or else you're not the
least bit interested, except interested enough as to topic/author
stalk, bash and likely impose as much banishment as possible.
Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old
Testament), or what?
How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof
naysay items?
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation?
>
> BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting
> within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had
> once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff.
>
Says you!
> I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
> wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
> don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
> other liars you associate with.
Sure Brad...
eyeball
Mr. Guth?
Who else has the nerve to stand up to the ridicule of these boards and
say what needs to be said?!!!
BradGuth
All simulations are orchestrated. Good grief, get over it.
>
> > BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting
> > within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had
> > once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff.
>
> Says you!
And says anyone else with eyes and half an honest brain. Where
exactly does that leave you?
>
> > I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
> > wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
> > don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
> > other liars you associate with.
>
> Sure Brad...
And your better deductive observationaly as based upon your superior
image enlargements, and compared to whatever other planetary geology
is ?????
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Of what needs to be said is obviously far more than the status quo of
what their pretend-atheism can deal with. Of course the same could be
said of Hitler or GW Bush not taking kindly to the truth, or having
given any crapolla about their collateral damage and carnage of the
mostly innocent.
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<6e773bc2-0a79-45a2...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
eyeball <eyeball...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
> Mr. Guth?
Because he's wrong about 90% of the time.
> Who else has the nerve to stand up to the ridicule of these boards and
> say what needs to be said?!!!
I'm not sure I agree with your implication. Does it "need to be said"
that Venus had intelligent life at one time?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Timberwoof
<713825df-49d3-4214...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> n other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all-
> inclusive answers to absolutely everything,
No, just the half-dozen questions I asked the other day.
> or else you're not the
> least bit interested, except interested enough as to topic/author
> stalk, bash and likely impose as much banishment as possible.
No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.
> Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old
> Testament), or what?
No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.
> How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof
> naysay items?
Nope. You can discuss Panspermia all you want. I think it just begs the
question of how life began. If it could have started earlier on some
other planet and then brought here, wouldn't it just be simpler to let
it start here again? The business about life being imported from
elsewhere just adds unnecessary complexity.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f546f1eb-1911-4b3f-bdff-7e05d50ea...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > <36a854a3-ce2c-449f-a82a-afc951bfe...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <e3bd528b-8812-44b5-988a-f2acce722...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Damien Valentine <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
>
> > > > > > (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
> > > > > > capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
> > > > > > 10,000 BC.)
>
Never said they did, although how would they have know of whatever
shook their Earth?
>
> > It seems smart humans like yourself send other humans to their death
> > as based upon far less evidence.
>
> I would not trust my life on any scientific or engineering analysis you
> propose.
That's skewed out of context, and not at all of what I'd meant. You
know exactly what I meant, and so what does that make you?
>
> > > > Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
> > > > or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
> > > > of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
> > > > better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
> > > > would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
> > > > ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
> > > > environment.
>
> > > You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
> > > which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.
>
> > Earth wasn't always so salty. Much of Earth's salt is of a deposit,
> > similar as to most of Earth's water that didn't emerge from within.
> > Perhaps those cosmic snowballs were salty.
>
> So you've said. A lot. But there is no such thing as proof by assertion.
Tell that to folks on death row, or to those mostly innocent Muslims
(in addition to the million + already dead) about to die because of
the immoral actions of your resident warlord(GW Bush).
>
> > > > Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,
>
> > > Why?
>
> > Why not? How much interactive tidal/gravity energy does it take
> > holding onto that moon? Where do you think that kind of energy goes?
> > (not to mention the secondary IR influx)
>
> You're the one making the claim that the moon's presence keeps the earth
> from freezing. You do the math to back up that claim. If you can't, then
> it's so much hot air.
I said nothing of hot air, but of having suggested upon gravity/tidal
interactions causing unavoidable friction that's unavoidably causing
heat that's unavoidably causing "hot air".
>
> > > > our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
> > > > a solar tide to work with,
>
> > > I thought they'd freeze.
>
> > To a much greater extent, as w/o moon and of a near monoseason they
> > should freeze nearly to the tropics unless there's another nearby
> > source of stellar energy added to what our passive sun had to offer.
>
> That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's
> heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law?
Ever heard of blueshift? (it's what the light of stars tend to do as
we head towards them) Not everything off-world (external to our solar
system) is continually in redshift. As cosmic stuff interacts and
essentially blows up, whereas some of the cosmic flak is unavoidably
headed directly towards us.
>
> What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
> effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?
By all measure you'd care to make, or to have others make, our sun is
a relatively passive star, and our physically dark moon is of truly
horrific item that's big, nearby and having relatively massive crust.
>
> > > > as well as seeing much fewer of those life
> > > > essential geothermal events taking place.
>
> > > You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
> > > ancient volcanism?
>
> > That's a little skewed out of context, isn't it. It's not an all or
> > nothing situation, because there's still a solar tide.
>
> No, it's neither skewed nor out of context. You're welcome to present
> your equations to show how much of the Earth's internal heat comes from
> solar and lunar tidal effects. Again, without such math, your claim is
> empty.
Two thirds of tidal/gravity interaction with Earth's crust and
internal substance, as opposed to roughly one third via our solar
tidal induced action is what I'm talking about. Earth as a whole
(including it's thin atmosphere down to our superheated core of
perhaps liquid thorium) is roughly 98.5% fluid to such tidal/gravity
interaction.
>
> > > > Eventually we'd lose the
> > > > bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,
>
> > > Why?
>
> > Why not? It's going away at roughly -.05%/year as is, so lo and
> > behold, it looks as though something inside Earth is slowing down.
>
> And this is related to the moon how, exactly?
In addition to the mutual tidal interactions, perhaps our highly
electrostatic charged moon that's unavoidably gathering surface mass,
is also unavoidably losing its low-density core of sodium mass at a
greater proportion than Earth. Of thorium, uranium and radium among
other radioactive and common heavy elements should be sticking with
that moon of ours.
>
> > > > and then only the most rad-hard of
> > > > DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
> > > > extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
> > > > from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.
>
> > > If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
> > > have evolved?
>
> > > And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.
>
> > > --
> > > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> > > "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> > > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.
>
> > Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco?
>
> Nope.
>
> > If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd
> > be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of
> > yourself.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.
>
> > What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so
> > entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien
> > Valentine?
>
> It's not over my head. The problem I have is that since you don't have a
> basic scientific knowledge, you are unable to even write down basic
> equations that need to be solved to represent your hypotheses. Since
> math fails you (or you fail to use it), you try to do all your thinking
> semantically, and come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions that you
> cannot back up with evidence or even good theory. And you want others to
> do your computational homework for you.
>
> I guess that means you're a kook.
Better to be an honest kook than a fellow rusemaster of your brown-
nosed mainstream status quo that's in denial of your denial.
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<94a4d0dd-ff69-43b2...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof
> <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's
> > heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law?
> >
> > What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
> > effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?
>
> Our moon is more than a thousand fold greater in mass ratio than any
> other known moon in relationship to its planet. The gravity/tidal
> energy influence upon Earth is absolutely horrific,
Can you put that in numbers?
> not to mention the
> secondary/recoil worth of IR.
Recoil of infrared. Right.
> Our sun is minor and/or passive compared to either Sirius A or B. Our
> sun as a whole radiates far less gamma than our physically dark and
> naked (aka anticathode) little moon.
Actually, the sun is about 2% heavier than Sirius B, which is a white
dwarf and only about .0024 as luminous than the sun.
What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?
> BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's
> called blueshift),
Oh, is *that* what it's called when the Doppler effect of a light source
that's moving toward us shifts its spectrum towards the blue?
> and that closing velocity is increasing.
I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at
that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is
roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe.
Timberwoof
<6fbb0c07-97ac-427e...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that means you're a bigot
No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.
> that's in denial of your nayism.
So you're saying I'm in metadenial.
> Kook or bigot, which is better?
Kook. Bigots are generally mean.
> If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access
> to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your
> excuse?
You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <6fbb0c07-97ac-427e-a441-52cbaeaed...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess that means you're a bigot
>
> No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
> analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.
>
> > that's in denial of your nayism.
>
> So you're saying I'm in metadenial.
>
> > Kook or bigot, which is better?
>
> Kook. Bigots are generally mean.
>
> > If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access
> > to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your
> > excuse?
>
> You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic.
. - Brad Guth
Alan Erskine
news:timberwoof.spam-23...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> In article
> <6e773bc2-0a79-45a2...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> eyeball <eyeball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
> > Mr. Guth?
>
> Because he's wrong about 90% of the time.
Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
responding to his posts!
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <94a4d0dd-ff69-43b2-b2d1-97d209906...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Your insurmountable nayism and science fuckology is noted. Now go out
and do more good work for your pretend-atheists friends (Art Deco and
such).
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:timberwoof.spam-23...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
>
> > In article
> > <6e773bc2-0a79-45a2-b719-46066c4b2...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > eyeball <eyeball2002...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
> > > Mr. Guth?
>
> > Because he's wrong about 90% of the time.
>
> Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
> responding to his posts!
Is that what Hitler told you to say, or was it something from your Old
Testament?
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<bbda9c8f-5a6b-4414...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking my motives and
education?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ãChris L.
Timberwoof
"Alan Erskine" <alan.e...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Okay, dammit!
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bbda9c8f-5a6b-4414-af2c-6410032a4...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <6fbb0c07-97ac-427e-a441-52cbaeaed...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I guess that means you're a bigot
>
> > > No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
> > > analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.
>
> > > > that's in denial of your nayism.
>
> > > So you're saying I'm in metadenial.
>
> > > > Kook or bigot, which is better?
>
> > > Kook. Bigots are generally mean.
>
> > > > If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access
> > > > to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your
> > > > excuse?
>
> > > You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.
>
> > > --
> > > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> > > "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
>
> > You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic.
>
> Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking my motives and
> education?
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
It seems the planet Venus and that of our physically dark moon are not
exactly as having been scripted to us by those having "the right
stuff" (meaning of our NASA and/or Apollo related folks that seem
oddly faith-based and thus sticking to those Old Testament guns).
You seem deathly afraid of others discovering or much less sharing the
truth. Are you afraid?
According to < www.beforeus.com > it seems we don't really know all
that much about Earth.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <ZYZEj.1210$n8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
> >news:timberwoof.spam-23...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> > > In article
> > > <6e773bc2-0a79-45a2-b719-46066c4b2...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > eyeball <eyeball2002...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
> > > > Mr. Guth?
>
> > > Because he's wrong about 90% of the time.
>
> > Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
> > responding to his posts!
>
> Okay, dammit!
Don't tell me that you're caving in, as in giving up the ghost (sort
to speak).
Do you always do what others tell you to do?
In addition to what I've discovered, and my having been trying to
share for the past 8+ years and counting, it seems there's lots more
to behold about good old Earth that's worth our knowing and sharing,
such as the many interesting discoveries and subsequent topics within
the following link:
www.beforeus.com
I can't be absolutely certain about other intelligent life still
existing/coexisting on Venus, but at least the regular laws of physics
and of the best available science can't possibly exclude such, because
even us humans along with a sufficient degree of applied technology
could make a go of it, especially as representing ETs capable of
getting ourselves to/from Venus would in of itself offer more than
sufficient technological expertise for accommodating an extended stay
in spite of all that geothermally forced environment of Venus being so
geologically newish, hot and nasty from the bottom up.
Too bad you're being told what to think by the MIB likes of "Alan
Erskine".
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <713825df-49d3-4214-834e-b65206439...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
And you're saying that you are so entirely dumbfounded past the point
of no return, in that figuring out a 32+ km/s arriving proto-moon
that's extremely icy and going to give Earth a somewhat slow rear-
ender sort of lithobraking sucker-punch, as such is too much for the
all-knowing likes of yourself to figure out.
In that case, we're not even on the same set of tracks, if even on the
same planet.
BTW, I'm not the least bit opposed to local panspermia, or that of
intelligent design of whatever happenstance worth of random
creationism on behalf of weird and complex life doing its purely
terrestrial evolutionary thing over a given billion years or whatever
it takes, as well as for such mutations having transpired upon other
planets and moons of sufficient worth.
However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
local evolution could muster.
We are NOT alone within this universe, nor even alone within this
solar system. But then it simply doesn't matter to a naysayer in
perpetual denial like yourself, does it.
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<1942662f-0068-474d...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L.
>
> And you're saying that you are so entirely dumbfounded past the point
> of no return, in that figuring out a 32+ km/s arriving proto-moon
> that's extremely icy and going to give Earth a somewhat slow rear-
> ender sort of lithobraking sucker-punch, as such is too much for the
> all-knowing likes of yourself to figure out.
No. You're saying that. It is, however, too much for you to figure out.
I don't know what you mean by "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch". It's a completely nonscientific description
of a mythical event. "Rear-ender ... sucker-punch" is meaningless in
this context. Perhaps Nando Rondellotappakeg would be interested in the
moon intentionally, deceptively punching out a distracted Earth in the
back of the head. But that's okay, I suppose: since you have no concept
of orbital mechanics or the laws of motion, you prefer to think about
things by using adjectives and adverbs instead of numbers.
I disagree with your characterization of 32 km/s as "somewhat slow". The
moon's present orbital speed about the Earth is about 1 km/s, or "pretty
fast". The Earth's escape velocity is 11 km/s, or "really fast". 32 km/s
is "way too fast". If the moon were to smash into the earth at that
speed, at any angle, it would destroy the surface of the earth and
nothing would survive. If the moon passed by the earth at that speed
without hitting it--that is, no "lithobraking" as you quaintly put
it--it would cause some nasty tides, both oceanic and lithospheric. ...
for which there is, once again, no evidence.
Now the earth's orbital speed about the sun is roughly 30 km/s. You
didn't state whether the moon's speed was relative to Earth or to the
sun, except perhaps with the florid "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch" phrase. So if you say the moon arrived
tangent to the Earth's orbit at a relative speed of 2 km/s, you still
need to calculate the moon's acceleration as it approaches the Earth.
And you need to explain how the moon got into that particular trajectory
in the first place.
In either case, you have to explain how the moon changed its trajectory
from an interplanetary one to an earth-orbital one. Big rockets?
The biggest problem with your "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch" scenario is, as I have stated before and you
have tried to explain away with the Arctic basin, there's no evidence
for it.
It didn't happen that way, it could not have happened that way.
Now maybe I misunderstood what you think happened. That's because you
don't have a clue how it happened and you want someone else to do your
physics homework for you. That's not going to happen. You need to learn
basic astronomy and physics and work the problem out for yourself.
> In that case, we're not even on the same set of tracks, if even on the
> same planet.
I'll go along with that.
> BTW, I'm not the least bit opposed to local panspermia,
"local panspermia". What the hell does that mean?
> or that of
> intelligent design of whatever happenstance worth of random
> creationism on behalf of weird and complex life doing its purely
> terrestrial evolutionary thing over a given billion years or whatever
> it takes, as well as for such mutations having transpired upon other
> planets and moons of sufficient worth.
>
> However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
> having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
> likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
> exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
> local evolution could muster.
That's a different argument entirely. The simple fact is that it did
happen. Your phrase "purely random" means you don't understand jack shit
about evolution and are thus not in a position to make any judgments
whatsoever about it.
> We are NOT alone within this universe, nor even alone within this
> solar system. But then it simply doesn't matter to a naysayer in
> perpetual denial like yourself, does it.
We have no evidence for other life ... yet, and there's no evidence
against it. I highly doubt we're the only ones ... but we haven't been
here very long, and interstellar travel and communications is damn hard
to accomplish.
And still ... if life didn't get its start on the Earth, then how did it
start wherever it did? If life on Earth evolved with help from an
ancient spacefaring civilization, then where did they come from? Is it
turtles all the way down?
But that's just another attempt at distraction. The moon has been with
the Earth for a long time. It did not arrive recently. Your claim is
ludicrous, and your whining about my naysaying isn't going to provide
you with any evidence for your opinion.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <1942662f-0068-474d-949b-00616dccb...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing and/or as nearly
bigoted past the point of no return.
So, if your vast expertise can ever get bothered enough to help this
topic along, as such I'd certainly share every bit of the credits for
that kind of constructive feedback. However, it's entirely clear that
you have no honest intentions of ever doing squat on behalf of anyone
else, which means you must be at least related to Art Deco and company
of his brown-nosed minions.
With your superior nayism, at least you might rethink about creating a
black hole in your name, especially since you seem to have such a
surplus cache of either antimatter or dark energy that's going to
waste.
Haven't you ever wondered as to why yourself and others of your status
quo or bust kind get so huffy, at the mere dreaded thought of anyone
else being the least bit right? (doesn't that kind of mindset remind
us of Art Deco or William Mook?)
Face the facts, that you have no such objective evidence of Earth
having that moon or a seasonal tilt as of prior to 10,500 BC, as a
lively time when highly intelligent humans had been coexisting just
about everywhere it wasn't getting frozen solid by each and every
crystal clear night.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> Prove it, Brad! lmao!
>
> You can't even define your terms! lmao!
>
> Saul Levy
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
> >having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
> >likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
> >exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
> >local evolution could muster.
Outside of your Old Testament, what terms or special conditions would
rabbi Saul Levy accept?
. - Brad Guth
Odysseus
<timberwoof.spam-A7...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at
> that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is
> roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe.
I think you need to check your arithmetic: AFAICT the above is wrong by
ten orders of magnitude.
7.5 km/s ~= 1/40,000 c;
9 light-years * 40,000/c = 360,000 years.
Calculated a different way, using somewhat more precise figures (from
Simbad) this time:
8.60 LY ~= 81.4 trillion km;
8.14e13 km / 7.6 km/s = 1.1e13 s;
1.1e13 s = 3.4e5 a or 340,000 years.
Of course these calculations ignore the tangential speed:
sqrt((-546 mas/a)^2 + (-1223 mas/a)^2) ~= 1.34"/a;
8.60 LY * tan(1.34") = 5.58e-5 LY;
5.58e-5 LY/a = 5.58e-5 c = 16.8 km/s, and
5.58e-5 LY/a * 3.4e5 a = 19 LY.
So the 'passing' component of the relative motion of the Sirian and
Solar systems is more than twice as great as the 'closing' component.
Sirius's blue-shift will decline over time, becoming a red-shift in
perhaps a hundred thousand years. By the time we get to where it was, so
to speak, it will be more than twice as far away as it is now.
--
Odysseus
Odysseus
<6e773bc2-0a79-45a2...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
eyeball <eyeball...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
> Mr. Guth?
<snip>
Why, oh why, does 'everyone' insist on top-posting, while quoting at
length material not directly addressed by their comments?
--
Odysseus
BradGuth
> In article
> <timberwoof.spam-A7382E.19021721032...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Odysseus,
Thanks for that perfectly constructive feedback, as being of a more
believable number of years if our elliptical path towards Sirius
doesn't pick up any mutual closing speed, and there wasn't a 'passing'
component issue.
What if there's a little something elliptical and speeding up about
each of our stellar paths?
Is the 3D elliptical path of Sirius fully plotted, as well as our 3D
elliptical path?
Do not most elliptical paths pick up velocity as they approach a given
gravity will or tidal pull of a stellar mass?
What else gets our solar system into a beneficial gravity alignment
with the Sirius star/solar system?
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> eyeball <eyeball2002...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
> > Mr.Guth?
>
> <snip>
>
> Why, oh why, does 'everyone' insist on top-posting, while quoting at
> length material not directly addressed by their comments?
>
> --
> Odysseus
Some times it's just the way Google Usenet offers up the reply page,
other times it's that some of us like to give new comers another way
of getting the entro or intent of the topic.
Most others and I usually do not top-post, thus "everyone" is not
doing as you say. Those intent upon making Usenet as painful and/or
as useless as possible are the ones often at fault for the topic/
author stalking, of top-posting and/or quoting absolutely each and
every reply, as well as frequent topic renaming and even hijacking and/
or cloning it into other weird (off-topic) groups, or otherwise simply
dropping of the intended cross-posting so that others lose track of
whatever the original author was having to put up with such mainstream
clownism that's often faith-based or highly politically skewed.
I put these Usenet bad-guys at 99.9%, thereby leaving 0.1% of us for
honestly contributing in a constructive or informative way, of sharing
ideas and using our deductive reasoning as to interpreting the
information within a given topic.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> How about some truth, instead of your made up drivel, Brad? lmao!
>
> Saul Levy
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:37:31 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 23, 3:23 pm, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Prove it, Brad! lmao!
>
> >> You can't even define your terms! lmao!
>
> >> Saul Levy
>
> >> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>
> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
> >> >having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
> >> >likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
> >> >exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
> >> >local evolution could muster.
> >> >. - Brad Guth
>
> >Outside of your Old Testament, what terms or special conditions would
> >rabbi Saul Levy accept?
> >. - Brad Guth
Why is rabbi Saul Levy so deathly afraid and/or officially forbidden
from having to follow the intended cross-posting rules of this topic?
Why is rabbi Saul Levy having to (Art Deco like) continually topic/
author stalk and otherwise having to speak at and on behalf of so many
others?
Is Saul Levy in charge of their private parts, or is this topic/author
stalking and bashing policy just another one of those pesky Zionist
Hitler puppet things??
This topic of "Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth" is clearly about the
much colder environment of Earth without having a moon or all that
much of a seasonal tilt, and just a third as much ocean tide, as of
prior to the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see.
Of course, my previous notions of relocating our physically dark moon
out to Earth's L1 is yet another perfectly viable topic, or
intellectual and technological worthy argument/rant, that which I'm
fairly certain other rabbi and faith-based warlord supporters much
like Saul Levy also wouldn't accept or much less allow others to
safely ponder without fear of their Usenet butts getting put on a
stick, even if this perfectly viable alternative meant the very best
all-around and do-everything salvation on behalf of human and most all
other life Earth. Go figure, as to why the rabbi likes of Saul Levy
are so continually opposed to the salvation of Earth. (it's exactly as
though these infowar spewing rusemasters and of their brown-nosed
minion clowns want Earth to self destruct, and the sooner the better)
Perhaps our Saul Levy is actually a sleeper-cell Muslim that's cloaked
as a pretend-atheist.
Is Saul Levy actually smarter than a fifth grader?
. - Brad Guth
Damien Valentine
> > Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
> > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
>
> A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
> control those in charge of such public supercomputers.
I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
process?
> Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
> other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
> monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
> When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
> notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?
There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.
> > Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > 10,500 BC?
>
> "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
> mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
> so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
> moon?
Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
rubbed anyone the wrong way.
BradGuth
> On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
> > > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
>
> > A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
> > control those in charge of such public supercomputers.
>
> I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
> this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
> review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
> procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
> you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
> process?
If I were Einstein, as such I would not likely need any stinking
supercomputer. However, since most of us are clearly not smarter than
a fifth grader, and because there are so many complex considerations
and potential variables, is why a multitude of complex instructions
for a given simulation are going to be necessary before getting this
conjecture somewhat within the ballpark, so to speak.
I'm thinking that it's going to take a village of us idiots to pull
this one off, even with that NASA/JPL 2048 CPU supercomputer doing
most all that it can.
Once having simulated a glancing lithobraking blow to mother Earth,
whereas the icy proto-moon survives and ends up in orbit (possibly
taking a second or third bounce off Earth if need be), as such would
yield the next phase of polishing and/or fine tuning this proto-moon
encounter for achieving the best possible results.
>
> > Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
> > other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
> > monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
> > When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
> > notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?
>
> There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
> the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
> an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
> used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
> abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.
That's perfectly terrific science, and where might one get to review
upon such Cro-Magnon moon like calendars?
>
> > > Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> > > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > > 10,500 BC?
>
> > "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
> > mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
> > so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
> > moon?
>
> Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
> rubbed anyone the wrong way.
Rubbing folks the wrong way is apparently what Usenet is all about,
because otherwise any number of worldly good should have been
accomplished as of more than a decade ago. Perhaps long after the
next spendy and lethal decade is when something via Google groups/
usenet will actually matter. Don't hold your breath.
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<b00d1014-47e4-473d...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Damien Valentine <vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
> > > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
> >
> > A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
> > control those in charge of such public supercomputers.
>
> I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
> this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
> review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
> procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
> you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
> process?
Brad Guth isn't interested in peer review. Peer review is an unhelpful
obstruction to the creative process which binds one to the status quo
thinking of the ivory tower mainstream.
> > Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
> > other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
> > monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
> > When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
> > notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?
>
> There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
> the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
> an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
> used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
> abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.
Oh, look: cave paintings of the moon, which Brad said weren't there:
http://www.crystalinks.com/calendarearly.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/975360.stm
> > > Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> > > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > > 10,500 BC?
> >
> > "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
> > mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
> > so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
> > moon?
>
> Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
> rubbed anyone the wrong way.
--
Timberwoof
<cc0517ed-2b27-4b60...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2:29 pm, Damien Valentine <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
> > > > in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?
> >
> > > A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
> > > control those in charge of such public supercomputers.
> >
> > I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
> > this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
> > review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
> > procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
> > you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
> > process?
>
> If I were Einstein, as such I would not likely need any stinking
> supercomputer. However, since most of us are clearly not smarter than
> a fifth grader,
I assume you are speaking for yourself.
> and because there are so many complex considerations
> and potential variables, is why a multitude of complex instructions
> for a given simulation are going to be necessary before getting this
> conjecture somewhat within the ballpark, so to speak.
>
> I'm thinking that it's going to take a village of us idiots to pull
> this one off, even with that NASA/JPL 2048 CPU supercomputer doing
> most all that it can.
Yep, since you idiots have no clue how to even state the problem in a
concise mathematical way. (If you did, you'd realize right away that
there's no scenario that will work. None.)
> Once having simulated a glancing lithobraking blow to mother Earth,
> whereas the icy proto-moon survives and ends up in orbit (possibly
> taking a second or third bounce off Earth if need be), as such would
> yield the next phase of polishing and/or fine tuning this proto-moon
> encounter for achieving the best possible results.
What makes you think anything living on the Earth could survive that?
> > > Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
> > > other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
> > > monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
> > > When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
> > > notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?
> >
> > There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
> > the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
> > an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
> > used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
> > abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.
>
> That's perfectly terrific science, and where might one get to review
> upon such Cro-Magnon moon like calendars?
http://www.google.com/search?q=cro-magnon+lunar+calendar&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-
8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> > > > Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> > > > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > > > 10,500 BC?
> >
> > > "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
> > > mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
> > > so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
> > > moon?
> >
> > Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
> > rubbed anyone the wrong way.
>
> Rubbing folks the wrong way is apparently what Usenet is all about,
> because otherwise any number of worldly good should have been
> accomplished as of more than a decade ago. Perhaps long after the
> next spendy and lethal decade is when something via Google groups/
> usenet will actually matter. Don't hold your breath.
Yeah, whatever.
Timberwoof
<6e4e4626-9092-4f59...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, my previous notions of relocating our physically dark moon
> out to Earth's L1 is yet another perfectly viable topic,
You wanna do what?
http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html
Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints? L1 is not a
gravitationally stable place to put anything.
> or
> intellectual and technological worthy argument/rant, that which I'm
> fairly certain other rabbi and faith-based warlord supporters much
> like Saul Levy also wouldn't accept or much less allow others to
> safely ponder without fear of their Usenet butts getting put on a
> stick, even if this perfectly viable alternative meant the very best
> all-around and do-everything salvation on behalf of human and most all
> other life Earth. Go figure, as to why the rabbi likes of Saul Levy
> are so continually opposed to the salvation of Earth. (it's exactly as
> though these infowar spewing rusemasters and of their brown-nosed
> minion clowns want Earth to self destruct, and the sooner the better)
> Perhaps our Saul Levy is actually a sleeper-cell Muslim that's cloaked
> as a pretend-atheist.
>
> Is Saul Levy actually smarter than a fifth grader?
Nice rant. That's about the fastest I've seen you run into the weeds.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <6e4e4626-9092-4f59-ab06-0466cc9a3...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course, my previous notions of relocating our physically dark moon
> > out to Earth's L1 is yet another perfectly viable topic,
>
> You wanna do what?
>
> http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html
>
> Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints? L1 is not a
> gravitationally stable place to put anything.
I didn't say it would be easy or much less passive, did I?
I have solutions for interactively keeping that moon within the halo
orbit of Earth's L1.
>
> > or
> > intellectual and technological worthy argument/rant, that which I'm
> > fairly certain other rabbi and faith-based warlord supporters much
> > like Saul Levy also wouldn't accept or much less allow others to
> > safely ponder without fear of their Usenet butts getting put on a
> > stick, even if this perfectly viable alternative meant the very best
> > all-around and do-everything salvation on behalf of human and most all
> > other life Earth. Go figure, as to why the rabbi likes of Saul Levy
> > are so continually opposed to the salvation of Earth. (it's exactly as
> > though these infowar spewing rusemasters and of their brown-nosed
> > minion clowns want Earth to self destruct, and the sooner the better)
> > Perhaps our Saul Levy is actually a sleeper-cell Muslim that's cloaked
> > as a pretend-atheist.
>
> > Is Saul Levy actually smarter than a fifth grader?
>
> Nice rant. That's about the fastest I've seen you run into the weeds.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Good grief, you're no help at all, and not much fun either.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <cc0517ed-2b27-4b60-a4cb-d8585c147...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> 8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
>
>
>
> > > > > Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> > > > > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > > > > 10,500 BC?
>
> > > > "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
> > > > mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
> > > > so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
> > > > moon?
>
> > > Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
> > > rubbed anyone the wrong way.
>
> > Rubbing folks the wrong way is apparently what Usenet is all about,
> > because otherwise any number of worldly good should have been
> > accomplished as of more than a decade ago. Perhaps long after the
> > next spendy and lethal decade is when something via Google groups/
> > usenet will actually matter. Don't hold your breath.
>
> Yeah, whatever.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Your profound nayism is noted. When's your WWIII starting?
. - Brad Guth
Timberwoof
<ad44c74c-2b70-4bee...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:16 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6e4e4626-9092-4f59-ab06-0466cc9a3...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Of course, my previous notions of relocating our physically dark moon
> > > out to Earth's L1 is yet another perfectly viable topic,
> >
> > You wanna do what?
> >
> > http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html
> >
> > Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints? L1 is not a
> > gravitationally stable place to put anything.
>
> I didn't say it would be easy or much less passive, did I?
Why do that?
> I have solutions for interactively keeping that moon within the halo
> orbit of Earth's L1.
I don't believe you.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <b00d1014-47e4-473d-bde8-37f435fc6...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
> > > > persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
> > > > 10,500 BC?
>
> > > "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
> > > mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
> > > so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
> > > moon?
>
> > Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
> > rubbed anyone the wrong way.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
"Lunar calendars are believed to be the oldest calendars invented by
mankind. Cro-Magnon people are claimed to have invented one around
32,000 BC."
"are claimed to have invented" is science?
For something as big or bigger than any other influence upon life on
Earth (second only to the sun), seems that moon wasn't getting
depicted as very large. Perhaps it was orbiting much further away and
not nearly as bright (unlikely), or perhaps those early humans had
extremely poor eye sight.
BTW, the age of those drawings within caves at Lascaux France are only
estimated at 15,000 BP (not proven). They could be as recent as
12,000 BP or possibly even somewhat more recent.
At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
depictions of that big old moon.
. - Brad Guth
OM
<timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints?
...Sure he does. They were used essentially as "Green Stamps" for the
Chicken Ranch. Earn enough of them, and you could turn them in for
special rewards at the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
Not that Guthball would know what to do with a woman if he had one...
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
BradGuth
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:16:19 -0700, Timberwoof
>
> >Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints?
>
> ...Sure he does. They were used essentially as "Green Stamps" for the
> Chicken Ranch. Earn enough of them, and you could turn them in for
> special rewards at the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
>
> Not that Guthball would know what to do with a woman if he had one...
>
> OM
I take it that your brain transplant didn't take. Are you planning to
sue their socks off? (I would)
. - Brad Guth
Sunny
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8a5afea-6d97-4cb9...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
depictions of that big old moon.
. - Brad Guth
Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?
31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud)
"Indeed, the Land Of Bastards was born from the sea
only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few days after the
Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of it,"
He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?
Landy
"Sunny" <womba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QC1Gj.2510$n8....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d8a5afea-6d97-4cb9...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
> not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
> is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
> depictions of that big old moon.
> . - Brad Guth
>
> Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?
No - he's just another fuckwit.
Dale Carlson
wrote:
>Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?
No. We generally ignore him. Pointless to do otherwise, and
replying to his posts is irritating to many...
Dale
..."Sunny, thank you for the truth you've let me see.
Sunny, thank you for the facts from A to Z.
My life was torn like a windblown sand,
then a rock was formed when we held hands.
Sunny one so true, I love you." :)
Rand Simberg
<womba...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>
>"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d8a5afea-6d97-4cb9...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
>not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
>is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
>depictions of that big old moon.
>. - Brad Guth
>
>Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?
Yes.
He's insane. Killfile him.
BradGuth
> The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
> the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
> were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
> surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
> as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
> was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
> their era.
>
> However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
> recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
> that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
> any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
> absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
> environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
> time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
> nearly as clear as by day.
>
> Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
> depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
> whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
> highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
> and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
> tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
> ours.
>
> What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
> of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
> BP?
>
> Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
> behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
> available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
> rated?
> . - Brad Guth
Interesting how the all-knowing Zionists (aka pretend Atheists) of
Usenet can't allow a few million simulations via any public owned
supercomputer, that which should only take at most a few hours of
those extremely fast CPUs to run off in fully 3D interactive mode of
nifty eye-candy, like their spiffy science infomercials via NOVA and
NASA does all the time. Of course for some odd reason those same
interactive 3D orbital simulators still can't manage to find Venus as
viewed from the physically dark moon of ours, so perhaps at best they
simply can not accomplish this more complex task without melting down
all 2048 of those extremely fast CPUs and frying terabytes of memory
per CPU.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You know, this topic is not about Earth always having that moon.
Perhaps the entro of this topic wasn't making that clear enough.
If you folks can specify as to where the gravity/tidal energy that's
derived from our orbiting mascon is going, as into other than making
heat for our global environment, please do just that.
For example; How much of our magnetosphere is affected by and/or
caused by having such a nearby and horrifically massive moon?
. - Brad Guth