In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 17, 7:44 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:14 am, "a425couple" wrote:
"Matt Giwer" wrote

Timberwoof wrote:
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,
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.

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.

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?

"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.

Venus gets to within 100X that distance of our moon, and for its size
that's nearly NEO worthy.

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.

--
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.