I'm thinking that life upon Earth may simply have been a wee bit
pre-ice-age iffy, as having been situated a little too far away from our
sun that simply wasn't quite as active and thereby as radiating as it is
today, especially if Earth were having to manage without benefit of such
a nearby moon. Proto-Earth obviously once upon a time offered a nearly
Venus like atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and
obviously of having sustained such complex happenstance of life, but
perhaps not offering all that much environmental quality nor of
sufficient diversity, and especially if still limited to the
below-surface environment, and worse yet if the bulk of mother Earth's
above surface environment had otherwise been so often and so nearly
entirely sub-frozen solid for so much of the time, as clearly indicated
by way of those ice core samples depicting each of the many ice-ages
that were consistently worse off per each proceeding ice-age cycle,
that's having represented such an extensive energy differential in so
much so that it simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital
mechanics w/o moon, nor that of sufficient solar energy fluctuation
cycles.

As further pointed by Henry Kroll's research, whereas there's no
apparent possibility of a lunar orbital fluctuation that's capable of
being associated with all of those previous ice-age cycles, but only
involving that of the latest thaw which seems to have no apparent end in
sight. This seems to suggest that our salty and once upon a time icy
proto-moon hasn't been orbiting around Earth for quite as long as we've
been informed, much less having been created by way of any Mars like
impactor.

However, it's perfectly interesting to taking a little notice as to how
much orbital energy that moon of ours currently represents.

Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf

The associated centrifugal energy of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2.00076e20
joules

The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25

Therefore, if leaving us at 40 mm/yr = 2.00076e20/25 = 8.00304e18
joules/yr

8.00304e18/8.76e3 = .91359e15 joules per hour = 913.6e12 jhr

913.6e12 jhr / 3.6e3 = 253.8e9 joules/sec (recession energy = 254
gigajoules)

A second calculation that's based upon a bit more robust assesment of
gravitation force gets this amount of energy a little more impressive;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...14/i4/moon.asp
Is the moon really old? by "Dr Don DeYoung . . . if the earth moon
system is as old as evolutionists say, we should have lost our moon long
ago."

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

If Dr. Don DeYong's 30e18 kgf were correct; therefore 30e18 kgf *
9.80665 = 294.2e18 Joules

At the supposed ongoing recession of 0.04 m/yr = 294.2e18/25 = 11.768e18
J/yr

Per second: 11.768e18/31.536e6 = .373161e12 or 373.161e9 J (recession
energy = 373 gigajoules)

In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and I've not yet taken into account
the amount of extra tidal energy that's having to compensate for the
drag coefficient nor of the reflected IR of whatever the physically dark
moon has to offer, whereas this still represents a rather terrific
amount of energy that's obviously powerful enough to have affected
platetonics and perhaps towards keeping our outer shell that's
surrounding our molten iron core in motion and thus extensively pumping
up and otherwise sustaining the highly beneficial if not critically
essential magnetosphere that's in the process of failing us at the rate
of 0.05%/year, as much as global warming has been roasting us.

Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we know it
wouldn't have stood much of a chance in this otherwise sub-frozen hell
of our having evolved or otherwise having coexisted upon Earth. From
other research and of reasonable conjectures that fit entirely within
the regular laws of planetology physics, we've also been informed that
early Earth and therefore most likely prior to our having a moon we had
a 50+ bar (Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere.

As it is (w/o drag coefficient), by the hour it seems a great deal of
available energy either way.
Brad Guth: 254 gj * 3.6e3 = 914.4e12 j/hr
Don DeYoung: 373 gj * 3.6e3 = 1,343e12 j/hr

Even going by way of my less impressive numbers of 914 terajoules/hr,
excluding the fact that our moon was obviously once upon a time much
closer and having been receding at a much faster rate, whereas the more
likely arrival and subsequent impact of our once upon a time icy
proto-moon, that which currently represents an absolutely horrific
amount of ongoing applied energy, plus having accommodated the extremely
beneficial tidal affects, that if this orbital energy were removed from
our environment would cause great harm in many ways other than the loss
of it's nifty moonshine and of it's reflectively good IR albedo that's
also a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of sustaining our
environment, and so much so beneficial that if this moon were to be
removed is where Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of life,
but our environment would also unavoidably and rather extensively ice up
to quite an extent.

I believe that life upon this Earth was simply too far away from the sun
if it were having to manage without benefit of our moon, and it only
gets worse yet if life were having to manage without a substantial
magnetosphere. Intelligent/intellectual life on Earth as we know it
simply couldn't have evolved and having matured and survived above the
surface without the enormous energy influx benefits of the moon.
Unfortunately, not only is the moon still moving itself away from us,
but so has the magnetosphere been dropping off by roughly .05%/year.

Others having similar notions but sharing somewhat different conclusions
as to Earth w/o moon are still somewhat skewed by the supposed science
associated with our having explored our physically dark, salty and
otherwise extremely reactive/anticathode naked moon, as though it's no
longer such a big deal.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235...n/no_moon.html

Unfortunately, all forms of recorded history or otherwise of earlier
depicted history are those limited to the time since our last ice-age.
It's exactly as though we hadn't a moon prior to then, and it's also as
though intelligent/intellectual life upon Earth hadn't existed/coexisted
to any extent prior to the last ice-age.

I totally agree that proto-life as formulating below the surface was
perfectly doable without a moon, whereas the core energy of mother Earth
would have been doing it's thing of radiating and venting geothermal
energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus
unavoidably creating a great deal of complex opportunity for the random
happenstance chemistry of life to have eventually gotten off to a good
start (although our best efforts thus far haven't managed to simulate
nor otherwise having accomplished such DNA formulation on behalf of even
having created the most basic form of such proto-life). Using the soil
and/or of the available water and thereby mud certainly counts as a
viable shield against the otherwise lethal solar and cosmic radiation,
as well as for having the 50+ bar worth of an early atmosphere would
have extensively if not entirely protected early life on Earth w/o moon
and w/o magnetosphere.

My fundamental two part question is; How would the purely terrestrial
evolution of intelligence have been influenced or otherwise related to
having or not having a moon, and/or that of our not having or as per
having a magnetosphere that's essentially of what's defending our
relatively thin remainder of an atmosphere?

Part two of the above question; Excluding the basic intelligence worth
of survival that's proven as often a whole lot smarter than what many
humans seem to have at their disposal, what if anything does human
intellectual intelligence of rational/irrational thought (including our
learned and thus cultivated bigotry, greed and arrogance) have to do
with planetology or that of various orbital mechanics?

PLANETARY SCIENCE: HISTORY OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE / as published in
Nature and ScienceWeek
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031017-1.htm
Perhaps this should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the box is
extremely lethal.
It should also have addressed the fundamental physics as to what other
sorts of glancing impactor could have given enough rotational energy to
have initially started the outer surface rotating as different than our
molten interior, thus giving us the active magnetosphere to start with.

Clearly our thinking has been primarily limited or rather sequestered by
way of whatever our spendy mainstream infomercial-science has to guide
us by, whereas our NASA and thereby mostly religious faith approved Mars
impactor notion has been their all-knowing and apparently the one and
only viable alternative, that's sufficiently similar to the Alen Guth
BIG-BANG theory that's very compatible with the pro-intelligent/creation
and thus within the pro-faith realm of God, that is unless you wouldn't
mind losing all credibility and most likely your job plus seeing your
entire career and of everything associated going down the nearest
space-toilet, at least that's how insecure and/or immoral most religious
cults and of their political partnerships have managed in the past, and
of how they would still most likely deal with such fools that would
suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved and thus certified by way of
God's pagan replacement(NASA). At least that's my honest impression as
based upon this anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from hell, that which
has no apparent intentions of their cutting the rest of us any slack.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG