On Mar 16, 5:55 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth 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