A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old January 17th 07, 10:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.space.history,sci.astro.seti
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om

In spite of BA's infomercial gauntlets and flak of lies upon lies,
apparently Earth gets itself super cold w/o our trusty moon. Imagine
that, the regular laws of physics and I'm still right as rain. I wonder
if my observationology is also as right as those SAR images of Venus
have been suggesting for seven years and counting?

Too bad that our own nearby moon remains as so taboo/nondisclosure, so
much so that even MEL1/(moon's L1) is still off limits. I guess there's
something dark and scary out there.

I believe it's very true and open minded to accept that God, God's ETs
as his/her little minion helpers, or possibly if given hundreds of
billions of years via the purely random happenstance of cosmic energies
and fluctuations, or at least such as within our local 225 million year
galactic clock, and otherwise as due to that pesky little gravity thing
of essentially everything being in orbit about something other that's of
equal or better mass, is what could bring the likes of our solar system
into close contact of the Sirius Oort cloud (such as every 100,000 some
odd years) for a serious game of foreign DNA/RNA exchange via orbital
mechanics and lithobraking panspermia.

In somewhat better words;
Utilizing salty and otherwise icy (Sedna or Ceres like) orbs as proto
moons providing a viable means on behalf of transferring life as we know
it; Seems rather old hat, so why the hell not?

Lithopanspermia and you


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d4bf86bb57cb6e


http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

I have no faith based or other purely scientific or physics problems
with the likes of multi teratonne lithobraking transfers of minerals,
salty ice and of the sorts of DNA/RNA life within that cosmic ice as we
know it, abd that's even if such opportunities having been intentionally
taken advantage of by way of sufficiently intelligent ETs having a
master plan.

"Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly
doable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...989431,00.html
"To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores
survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals.
The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals."

To honestly think a little outside the 'Earth only' box of evolution
that somehow favored none other than the human species; If much larger
than microbe/spore life as we know it were surrounded or otherwise
covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick and passengers within
could easily have survived the transfer, especially if such mergers were
of a sucker-punch glancing blow from behind, in which case you wouldn't
even require the Buick.

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com
Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
may have seeded life to Mars by this method.


Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was
almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed
by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird
agenda.

Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a
stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus
each and very 19 month cycle.

Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought
it was usually the other way around).

When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?

Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during
and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention
or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon
of ours?

Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having
that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent?

Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o
summer/winter)?

Why did early/proto Venus have a beard?

Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty?

An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o
Moon" and a few other topics excluded/banished (as "Mailgate: Message
not available" or simply getting dropped out of sight), from within the
rec.org.mensa Mailgate/Usenet index?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy Brad Guth Astronomy Misc 1 November 8th 03 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.