On Oct 24, 6:02*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:54*pm, Double-A wrote:









On Oct 23, 6:25*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:

On Oct 23, 9:02*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 23, 5:44*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:

Its a nice sphere. If blown from Earth lots of good physics would keep
it from ending up so round. *Think about the reasons *TeBet

It also has extremely big and yet relatively shallow dents that didn't
manage to destroy it, indicating that it was a well formed and nicely
aged sphere of fused paramagnetic basalt prior to getting impacted, or
simply as having survived a glancing blow by something the size of an
icy Earth that needed an Arctic ocean basin and a seasonal tilt.

Captures via lithobraking seems to be offering a lot better
probability than our peers have been letting on.

At the very least, encountering such an icy planetoid that became our
moon would have caused massive global flooding, among other issues.

*http://groups.google.com/groups/search
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

Brad it shows imperial thinkers jump on a bad theory,and rather defend
it than admit they goofed. *Sad but there are other bad theories that
they won't drop. *TreBert

If the moon had split off from the Earth, there should have been lots
of water and atmosphere in its early history. *No evidence of that.

Double-A

Earth has lots and lots of iron. Moon has very little iron. That alone
should have lite a bulb in the brain's of imperial thinkers. Well its
just a bad theory. To be honest I had a bad theory once. I did have
the brains to drop it. *It was gravity is a space pressure,and the
core of stars are a pressure cooker. * *Get the picture *TreBert

The physically dark moon also has an extremely thick and paramagnetic
basalt crust that's unlike any geology of Earth. The vast majority of
Earth basalt of 3+ g/cm3 isn't paramagnetic to 10% of what moon basalt
and carbonado of 3.5+ g/cm3 has to offer.