On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:

Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.

What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for
that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow
core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of
salty ice?

LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious!

And your silly response isn't science.

Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there?

What's rigid

For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good
first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This
would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term
interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's
orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the
effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal
effects, and its composition must be accounted for.)

98.5% fluid Earth

You're welcome to explain that number.

Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. Perhaps
once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious.

The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used
toilet paper.
. - Brad Guth


having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era

You're welcome to provide evidence for that claim.

moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core

And that one. Got any lunar seismic and orbital fluctuation data? Nope.

otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice?

Our moon? The one up in the sky? That's a ridiculous claim disprovable
by the simplest spectroscopic investigations as well as by any college
geology professor who received samples from the Apollo project. (An
acquaintance of mine did. No ice, no salt.)

Go figure, especially since
you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came
from.

Yes, I can. Have done. Will do again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Or...ogic_evolution
I favor the Giant Impact hypothesis.



Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple
equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated,
but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the
forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or
Sirius.

Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify
absolutely every nitpicken detail.

Yeah, basically. You're known for not telling your whole hypothesis in
one go. You make it up as you go along...

Right, just like your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) makes up WMD,
except in my case there's not a million of mostly innocent Muslims
dead, and I haven't even caused a multi-trillion dollar debt or
massive global inflation.

Red herring.

How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to
create the arctic ocean basin?

You tell us.

It's a serious bunch of energy, and there's even an online crater
calculator that'll indirectly get us in the ballpark.

So why didn't you?



If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture,
then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or
rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can
produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the
computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and
every interaction.
If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible
computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred.
By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You
keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what
you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was
closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any
other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference
for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline?

Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another
Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of
denial?

Can you tell us why you always resort to ad-hominem attacks whenever
someone shows that your hypothesis is so fundamentally flawed?

It's because you're not exactly helping this argument/rant, are you.

Why should I help you rant?

BTW, Einstein was a touch flawed, as well as a few dozen others.

So were Becher, Kennelly, Dawson, Beech, Bozo, and Lord Spagthorpe.

Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper..

Can we use real evidence for our figures instead of made-up fantasy?

As I'd said, whatever makes you a happy camper, as I'll give you all
the credit as long as you return the favor by not excluding my
goodwill intentions by name, as a team effort that simply would not
have happened if it wasn't for my long standing and pesky insistence
in the first place.

If you want Earth as more solid and of less atmosphere, go for it.

If you want that icy proto-moon of less diameter and worth only 7.5e22
kg, then so be it.

This is not about what you think I want, it's about what your hypothesis
wants: data.

Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps
8.5e22 kg.

On what basis?

How about on the basis that I said so.

Not good enough. That's a highly improper appeal to authority.

If you've got better numbers,
then go with that.

I don't believe the scenario would work for any size impactor.

If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact
velocity of just 2 km/s,

Did you pull that number out of the air, your hat, or your ass?

All of the above. 2 km/s is just a given swag of a starting point,
nothing more. Why, don't you think a given computer and physics
software can deal with making those sorts of adjustments per
simulation?

It doesn't take a computer. The initial estimates for translunar orbits
and orbits to other planets were done with pencil and paper.

Would you rather use 10 km/s or 12 km/s, because if then it's all fine
by me, all because the simulations should soon enough favor whatever
is most likely.

The problem is that you don't have the faintest clue about how orbits
work. That means you don't know how to calculate them ... and you need
to to support your hypothesis. And I'm not going to do your homework for
you. This is your responsibility if you want to convince anyone. And if
you don't actually want to convince anyone, then be quiet.

then further adjust that velocity of final contact
in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would
demand.

Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having
increased our seasonal tilt.

IOW, you want us to do your homework for you.

What homework? Just plug it in, along with +/- whatever, as well as
add whatever else is related into that 2048 CPU supercomputer, and let
it rip off a few million variations. Shouldn't take but a few minutes
past GO at the extreme performance of that spendy public
supercomputer.

Again, you miss the point.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.