"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
message ink.net
What exactly is your constipated problem with your intellectual
flatulence this time?
Geesh, is that the best you can do? I'm insulted you couldn't be more
creative.
In any case, truth hurts, doesn't it?
In any case, I'm certainly glad that I'm not a Thrid Reich collaborating
minion, much less brown-nosed and intellectually butt-wipe worthy like
yourself.
Obviously I'm right about out moon being downright hot-hot-hot, and
freaking nasty to boot! I'm also right about Venus being somewhat
newish though survivable, that is only if you weren't such a naysay
bigot.
Here's my Usenet hot potato, as offered once more for the old gipper:
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon would have been so much worse off than
our merely getting excessively thawed out. Good thing we have that
nearby moon responsible for most of our global warming, and for
representing our last ice age thaw which this Earthly environment will
ever see.
Henry Kroll and myself are into our usual exploratory research and
subsequent deductive thinking, whereas we're still proposing that
intelligent/intellectual life as having evolved entirely 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, and especially extra
iffy should Earth be having to manage this task without the enormous
benefits of such a nearby moon.
Proto-Earth had obviously once upon a time offered a nearly Venus like
atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and obviously
having sustained such complex happenstance of extremely large and
somewhat bulky life, but perhaps not offering all that much
environmental quality nor of sufficient diversity, and especially if
still limited to existing within or of the below-surface environment,
and so much worse yet if the majority 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 planetology worth of environmental energy
differential, whereas in so much difference that such vast global
thermal cycles simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital
mechanics without involving our moon, nor likely of sufficient solar
energy fluctuation cycles without having to involve another sun.
Unfortunately, this simple task of our asking others to contribute
constructively on what's clearly outside their cozy mainstream status
quo box, whereas obviously that's not exactly going down without a damn
good fight, as that sort of fair and balanced open mindset simply hasn't
been transpiring as of long before we came along, at least not without
involving a few dead bodies of those mindset upon sustaining their one
and only outlook, which has been cultivated in order to suit their one
and only pagan faith-based interpretation, and unfortunately that sort
of naysay mindset simply can't be altered regardless of the physics and
best available science that's replicated.
Something else of a stellar like significant influence has allowed Earth
to freeze so extensively, and then to have thawed on the 100,000 year
cycle. The only problem with this well established history is that by
now we should have been deep into our next freeze cycle.
It is thought by many that human activity alone has been the culprit, as
of lately having contributed so extensively to our failing environment,
in that we humans alone are the primary cause of the accellerated global
warming fiasco that's showing us no remorse. The best available science
tends to support this analogy, although if life and of orbital mechanics
were only so simple, as such I'd agree that human contributions and
otherwise direct damage to our environment has been sufficiently proven
as having an affect that's anything but beneficial to our long term
quality of life.
As further pointed by Henry Kroll's and my ongoing research, there has
been no apparent indications of sufficient lunar orbital fluctuations
that's in any way capable of itself being associated with all of those
previous ice-age cycles, in fact if there's anything that's
scientifically and being orbital physics perfectly clear, is that our
moon had been unavoidably cruising so much closer and therefore would
have been more so moderating to our environment, if not having entirely
prevented such previous deep cycles of ice-ages.
We also believe the best available evidence and science we've got
demonstrates that our moon has only been involved with that of the
latest thaw, which seems to have no apparent end in sight. This analogy
from the best available science is what's suggesting 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'd been informed, much less
having been created by way of any Mars like impactor.
Taking a little notice as to how much orbital energy that moon of ours
currently represents, and thereby affording an unavoidable inside and
out influence upon Earth's environment.
Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf
Converting those terrific gravity related Newtons worth of such orbital
kgf into raw energy of joules (Newton = 0.1 kg/m/s) and (1 kg/m/s =
9.80665 joules):
The associated centrifugal energy worth of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2e20
joules
The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25:1
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 also converted into 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; 30e18 kgf * 9.807 = 2.94e20
Joules
At the supposed ongoing recession of .04 m/yr = 2.942e20/25 = 11.768e18
J/yr
The subsequent energy of recession per second:
11.77e18/31.54e6 = .3732e12 or 373.2e9 J (recession energy = 373
gigajoules)
-
In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and trust that 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 and FIR worth of whatever else 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 Earth's
platetonics and perhaps towards keeping that inner laler that's up
against our outer shell that's surrounding our molten iron core in a
sufficient tidal motion, thereby 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 Global warming lethal with
10,000 deaths per year currently attributed to various skin cancers that
are directly caused by the excess amounts of cosmic, solar and lunar
derived gamma nad hard-X-ray energy that's getting through our
insignificant atmosphere, that's going to leave us in great strides as
the magnetosphere fails to fend off those solar winds.
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 w/o
moon. From other research and of perfectly reasonable conjectures that
fit entirely within the regular laws of planetology physics, from which
we've also been informed that early Earth and therefore most likely
prior to our having a moon, is when this environment had a 50+ bar
(Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere, that obviously
represented early life upon Earth didn't require the benefits of any
moon or that of the stabilized magnetosphere.
As it is (w/o drag coefficient or secondary IR/FIR), and especially if
going by the hour, it seems as though a great deal of available
recession 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 if created via a Mars impactor would have been initially
receding at the much faster rate of 6+ km/s at it exited the physical
real of Earth's surface, whereas the more likely arrival and subsequent
glancing impact of our once upon a time icy proto-moon (that which
currently represents such an absolutely horrific amount of ongoing
applied energy), plus having ever since accommodated those extremely
beneficial tidal affects (inside and out), in that if this amount of
existing 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/FIR worthy albedo that's also
representing a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of
sustaining our environment that's still thawing out from the last ice
age, and we believe so much so beneficial that if this moon as is were
to be removed, whereas Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of
mostly jellyfish life, but our environment would also unavoidably and
rather extensively start to ice itself up to quite an extent.
We believe that life upon this Earth was simply situated a bit too far
away from the sun, especially if it were having to manage without the
enormous benefits of our moon, and it only gets worse yet if this life
were having to manage upon the surface without the extra 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 and thermal moderation 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. (we 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 (Earth's
revolving mascon), as though it's no longer such a big deal.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235...n/no_moon.html
Unfortunately, all forms of human recorded history or otherwise of
earlier proto-human 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 obtained a moon prior to that cycle of a badly frozen
time, and it's also as though whatever's intelligent/intellectual life
upon this Earth hadn't actually existed/coexisted to any extent prior to
the last ice-age. So, what's so entirely different as to our last ice
age and of the subsequent thaw?
I totally agree that proto-life as having formulated under a much
thicker atmosphere, below the surface and even from 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 of venting geothermal
energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus
unavoidably having created 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 from scratch on behalf of even having created the
most basic forms of such intelligent 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 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.
Earth’s atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs
by; Octave Levenspiel, Thomas J. Fitzgerald and Donald Pettit
"Our sister planet and nearest neighbor, Venus, has an atmosphere of 90
bar pressure, consisting of 96% CO2 (5). Why should Earth be so
different? Ronov measured the equivalent of at least 55 bar of CO2 tied
up as carbonates around the world (6), whereas Holland estimates that at
least 70 bar of CO2 is bound as carbonate materials (7). These
carbonates had to come from the atmosphere, by way of the oceans, so we
propose that, after the original oxidation of CH4 and CO, Earth’s early
atmosphere was at very high pressure, up to 90 bar, and that it
consisted primarily of CO2."
http://journals.iranscience.net:800/...l/12learn.html
This extra pressure and of mostly CO2 would also have represented a
great deal of buoyancy, that should have made life for the larger
species (as well known to roam about Earth's surface as of millions of
years ago) considerably more bearable and even flyable at great bulk.
Therefore, large scale life as we know evolved, as well as having
gradually adjusted to such pressure and even as surviving within the
concentrations of CO2 and sulphurs. CO2 alone (especially of dry CO2)
is not even taboo to life as we know it, whereas even in great amounts
and under such terrific pressure is just representing a different
environment that takes a little getting used to, in much the same as
other life upon Earth that survives at great ocean depths and near to
where it's hot enough to melt certain alloys has been proven as doable.
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 a given species 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
thoughts (including that of 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 one should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the
box is extremely lethal, whereas perhaps this report should also have
addressed the fundamental physics as to what other sorts of glancing
impactor(s) could have given enough rotational energy to have initially
started the outer surface rotating as different than our molten
interior, or simply having mascon motivated our Earth's interior, thus
giving us our actively mascon motivated magnetosphere to start with.
Clearly our previous mainstream thinking has been primarily limited or
rather sequestered free thought by way of whatever our spendy mainstream
infomercial-science plus faith-based and thus skewed science had to
guide us by, whereas our NASA and thereby mostly based upon their
religious faith approved Mars impactor notion has been representing
their all-knowing and apparently the one and only viable alternative (as
though God had spoken), that which continually gets published and
otherwise promoted at public expense, that's also sufficiently similar
to the Alan Guth accelerating expansion/BIG-BANG or "Inflationary
Universe" theory that's certainly very compatible with the
pro-intelligent/creation and thus keeping within the pro-faith based
realm of God's creation 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 remains as how they would still most likely deal with such
fools as outsiders that would suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved
and thus certified and accepted by way of God's pagan
replacement(NASA/Apollo). At least that's my honest impression as based
upon how this anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from hell treats
whatever's rocking their boat, that which clearly has no apparent
intentions of their cutting the rest of us any slack.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server -
http://www.Mailgate.ORG