I'm into thinking that life upon this 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 nicely
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 sufficient lunar orbital fluctuation that's
capable of being associated with all of those previous ice-age cycles,
whereas if anything that moon was cruising so much closer and thus would
have been more so moderating if not having prevented the deep cycle of
ice-ages, but otherwise we believe that out moon has only been involved
with that of the latest thaw which seems to have no apparent end in
sight. This seems to suggest that our currently still salty and
otherwise 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 as converted in joules of energy gets this amount of
applied 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 have I included the reflected IR of whatever
that 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 sufficient motion and thus
extensively pumping up and otherwise sustaining the highly beneficial if
not critically essential magnetosphere, that's unfortunately in the
process of failing us at the rate of 0.05%/year, perhaps every bit as
much as global warming has been roasting us.

Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we've known
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,
is when we had a 50+ bar (Venus like) worth of a highly protective
atmosphere.

As it is (w/o drag coefficient or secondary IR), 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 would have 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, in that if this amount of orbital
energy were removed from our environment would cause a great deal of
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, especially if it were having to manage without benefit of our moon,
and it only gets worse yet if life were having to manage without benefit
of 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 and
physical modualtion 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. (I think those two factors are
somewhat related to one another)

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 of a 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 extensively if not entirely limited to the
time since our last ice-age. It's exactly as though we hadn't a moon
prior to that badly frozen time, and it's also as though whatever
intelligent/intellectual life upon Earth hadn't actually
existed/coexisted to any extent prior to the last ice-age.

I totally agree that proto-life as having formulated below the surface
and even within salty ice 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 opportunities for the random happenstance and chemistry on
behalf of local and panspermia 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 forms 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
our having or not having a moon, and/or that of our not having or as per
having a viable 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 being 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 plus
faith-based 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
continually gets published and otherwise promoted at public expense,
that's sufficiently similar to the Alan Guth accelerating
expansion/BIG-BANG theory that's certainly very compatible with the
pro-intelligent/creation and thus within the pro-faith realm of God as
being the general rule, 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