Icy ProtoMoon, and of the Lithobraking Arrival

Terrestrial research wizards such as the deductive expertise of
Velikovsky and a few others may actually have been on the right set of
tracks all along, whereas just having been a little skewed here and
there (forced into swag mode), and obviously without all of the
available history along with the nifty amounts of new and improved
science that's existing and well documented as of today. For one
example, ice-core samples that's going back nearly a million years, were
not a part of Velikovsky's research.

The mere dreaded revision thoughts of an icy ProtoMoon and of it's
lithobraking arrival is not another topic joke. I believe this
perfectly GW related topic simply represents the regular laws of physics
and the slim but otherwise reasonable odds of this event happening,
especially if such an icy ProtoMoon had been thrown our way from a
sufficiently nearby star/solar system, and as though gravity dragged
and/or accommodated into our solar system along with the arrival of
Venus (possibly as a moon as once having belonged to Venus).

I also tend to believe that "Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon" is also
somewhat interrelated to one another, as well as having been unavoidably
interrelated to the somewhat recent arrival of our moon as having
established the global tilt that shifted us away from being a nearly
monoseason planet with only solar driven tides, and for otherwise as
having deposited quite a fair amount of salty ice plus a little
sequestered DNA code if not substantial other life within for the
environment of Earth to deal with.

In the distant past, our Earth was clearly a bit more surface
roundish/smooth as having hosted somewhat less vertically imposing
terrain from ocean depths to the peaks of mountainous creations that
transpired rather quickly (as though having been antipode induced into
existence), and certainly as having shown much less erosion as having
since been deposited into our oceans or as otherwise having to deal with
on land, and of what little surface water there was already here to
behold was much less salty and either extensively sub-frozen and/or at
least getting monoseason frosted enough as to reaching that icy line of
frost to within the tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. This nearly monoseason
of Earth's early environment was also allowing those early forms of
humanity to essentially staying put, demanding few if any migrations
except within the relatively temperate life zone as associated within
the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn, that is unless something truly horrific
of geophysics emerged from within the planetology of Earth and/or of
mother nature's surface environment was taking place, whereas I believe
most everything north or south of their Cancer/Capricorn frost line
would have been at risk of having been compromised if not unlivable for
much of the time, especially throughout a typical ice-age deep freezing
cycle that lasted for a good ten to twenty some odd thousands of years
at a whack.

Here's the latest of topic related news that I'd thought you folks can
use, or perhaps not (depending on your mindset), as to my somewhat
dyslexic way of having contemplated on behalf of the most accepted
what-if our moon had in fact been made entirely of Earth, whereas of 1
Ga those resulting tidal affects would have been at least half if not
nearly twice again as impressive (if not nearly tsunami worthy), and of
2 Ga would have been generating those somewhat continuous tsunami class
of bulging tidal waves as worth a few good magnitudes of their having
been 5 to 10 times worse off than nowadays, not to mention what our
molten mantle being seriously motivated along via such horrific mascon
forces, as a somewhat super-rotation mass of thermal and magnetic force
taking place just below the crust of Earth.

If we gave our moon a supposed lifespan of being 4 Ga (4 billion years
old)

moon @0.0 Ga = 384,400 km from Earth / orbital energy 2e20 joules

moon @ -1 Ga = 332,000 km from Earth / orbital energy 3e20 joules

moon @ -2 Ga = 256,000 km from Earth / orbital energy 5e20 joules

moon @ -3 Ga = 192,000 km from Earth / orbital energy 8e20 joules
(possibly 1e21 joules)

moon @ -4 Ga = 0.0 km as supposedly emerging itself from Earth
(antipode launch force/energy at 6 km/s = 5.3e30 J ????

Secondary impact/antipode ejected mass 7.35e22 x 2 = 14.7e22 kg
(I'm using 2x the mass of our moon because not everything that goes up
would have become moon)

Geophysical whatever antipode launch exit velocity of roughly 6 km/s
Ke = .5MV2 7.35e22 x 36e6 = 265e28 joules
Kf = MV2 14.7e22 x 36e6 = 529e28 joules

Of course, silly Kroll and myself are perhaps still the two most
resident village idiots (AKA messengers from hell) as having been
leaning ourselves towards the more likely icy protomoon sort of impact,
as having delivered a very salty and rather substantially tera-iceberg
worth of a glancing sucker-punch (perhaps having involved more than one
such lithobraking and lunar iceberg deploying encounter) that which
established the major extent of Earth's tilt (thereby having created
seasons) and otherwise having subsequently produced the likes of our
Arctic ocean basin and/or Hudson Bay, along with the geophysical
antipode result having produced the sorts of horrific vertical land mass
and otherwise extremely mountainous terrain, as having been rather
abruptly pushed up at roughly those 180 degree longitude/latitude
antipode locations, with lots of other interesting geophysics taking
place in between.

Since there's no apparent scientific nor physics related argument
against really big and nasty stuff having in fact impacted Earth from
time to time, and since the regular laws of physics and/or of
planetology should not have changed, whereas this icy ProtoMoon arrival
as of the last ice age seems to offer a viable degree of it's own
what-if on behalf of representing a perfectly rational set of arguments,
that's at least worth keeping on the public table so that others having
an honest thought from their open mindset might constructively
contribute as to sharing their expertise or best swag, instead of merely
enforcing upon and/or hiding behind the usual mainstream naysayism, and
of otherwise having to apply evidence denial and/or total author/topic
banishment upon this argument.

How Asteroids Trigger Volcanos / By Robert Roy Britt
A few other words of wisdom about Earth getting a serious hicky via
asteroid;
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._030204-1.html
Unfortunately, this author doesn't contribute anything as to whatever a
glancing blow via an icy protomoon might have represented. Therefore,
whatever horrific impact created ocean basins and/or antipode results
are not a part of this equation. However the following sub-topic is at
least an honest consideration as to what such a impactor of having
produced local and/or antipode induced event(s) might have helped to
have created the likes of Hawaii.

Asteroid May Have Created Hawaii

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...id_010731.html
"Rocking the other side of the planet"

"Mark Boslough and his colleagues at Sandia National Laboratories have
modeled asteroid impacts. In a 1996 paper, they predicted that the
seismic energy from an impact travels through the Earth and is strongly
focussed at the antipode to the impact, near the boundary of the crust
and the hot, molten mantle."

Of course mountains that were not created via volcanic process and are
less old than you'd think, and seemingly as having been created within
an extremely short amount of time, whereas these horrific vertical
formations seem as though more antipode generated than not.

This somewhat testy "Icy ProtoMoon" and of it's "Lithobraking Arrival"
as an ongoing research topic represents that within my open mindset
there's a great deal of our past, present and future that's at stake of
getting revised, of which nearly everything under the sun that's
apparently orbiting our infomercial bulging and otherwise badly polluted
flat Earth is at risk of falling off the edge, such as most everything
from their Old Testament certified 'Big Bang' theory to that of our
supposedly having walked on the moon is at risk. Sorry about that.
Secondly, clearly my extremely poor old PC and that of my limited
Mailgate/Usenet access are still each getting summarily stalked, trashed
and/or terminated via spermware/****ware at every possible turn in this
extremely bumpy Usenet road, as though I'm somehow the ultimate bad guy
that's responsible for rocking a bit more than my fair share of their
good ship LOLLIPOP.

I totally agree with the few and far between likes of 'tomcat', such as
focusing our clearly limited though honestly deductive research talents
and zilch worth of resources upon reviewing the notion of placing such a
super-sized whopper of a worthy mascon that's representing such a nearby
moon into orbiting a given icy monoseason planet, that which otherwise
still has a good amount of a fluid core and at least some degree of
surface fluids (including the surrounding atmosphere) to work with, that
can obviously be influenced and/or tidal forced, simply has to involve
an ongoing taking of and/or giving process of transferring energy as
related to the unavoidable gravity/tidal physics, for the very same
reason why a satellite as set into safely orbiting our nearly naked moon
is eventually dragged to it's demise unless having applied ION or some
other means of reaction thrust. Therefore, the orbital mechanics of
mascon physics as related to global warming is very real.

A three body worth of such interactive mascon orbital physics seems all
the more complex, and that of a forth body situation is nearly as
complicated and supercomputer worthy task as astrophysics tends to get
(especially if such were involving various Lithobraking events). I
happen think we're dealing with at the very least a 5+ multi-body
situation, along with all sorts of complex variables. (sorry about that)
-
Brad Guth


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

A little further proof that I'm more than sufficiently right, especially
about the sorts of incest cloned Old Testament thumping farts of this
extensively naysay Usenet (anti-think-tank from hell) that would much
rather allow the putting of ne of their own kind on a stick than not,
which means they obviously wouldn't so much as help out with any given
math or improved words as along as the rest of us village idiots are not
on a media domination par with their mainstream status quo that intends
to dominate and big-time profit from this badly failing environment, no
matters what. (I believe it's exactly what certain religious types have
always done best).

It seems the 'Lithobreaking/Lithobraking Arrival' of our icy protomoon
has been technically doable without having extensively vaporised either
orb. Such a lithobraking encounter of having created the Arctic Ocean
basin for example would have likely given added tilt to Earth's axis,
and subsequently given us seasons to go along with those new and greatly
improved tides that at first must have been rather massively tsunami
class of such impact plus tidal forced events.

At the time of this encounter, Earth had a somewhat more robust
atmosphere and a good deal of it's own protective surface ice
(especially at either monoseason pole), and certainly the salty and icy
protomoon had it's own frosty atmosphere to spare, whereas combined
these atmospheres and of either surface as having been protected by a
thick layer of ice would have helped to buffer the lithobraking sort of
glancing blow involving these two icy orbs.

As a result, I'd say 25% of life upon Earth was somewhat terminated upon
impact, whereas a fair percentage of the rest as having been situated
within the frost free Tropic zone of Cancer/Capricorn may have managed
to survive, with those situated at roughly 120 degrees in either
direction being the least affected, except for the eventual tilt that
established the seasons and of those affected by the increase in ocean
levels, or taken off guard by some of the new panspermia of deposited
life as having arrived safely within that salty moon ice. As a whole,
I'd say that the original status of life on Earth may have been cut down
to to something far less than 25% of whatever coexisted prior to the
impact, as these few survivors most likely invented all sorts of gods in
order to deal with the sort of outcome that only a worthy god that was
seriously ****ed could have been responsible for.

Even the likes of Carl Sagan and many others before his time, and most
certainly of those ever since, have had access to the sorts of science
that proves such intergalactic and thus unavoidably interactive solar
system mergers of various bodies were in fact taking place, and
obviously proving not everything that goes bump in the night gets
vaporised, especially if it were protected by a thick layer of salty ice
as such glancing blows were taking place.

Supercomputers of today can rather nicely 3D interactively simulate just
about anything that's allowed to be given the opportunity. What odds
are you folks giving that this honest conjecture of Earth being impacted
by an icy protomoon will never see such a supercomputer simulation or
much less 'made for TV' NOVA world class of animated production, whereas
they've otherwise been using such publicly funded and thus tax avoidance
supercomputers every hour of every day for our entertainment and for
having produced those fantastic eye-popping loads of such eye-candy and
brain-sucking infomercials that are intended to keep us spending our
very last hard earned and multi-taxable dollar until we drop.
-
Brad Guth


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

Who says that our mutually perpetrated cold-wars are over? (I think
they're just getting warmed up)

Trick questions; Why did Venus lose it's moon? and Where did that
Venusian moon go?

Usenet SETI or whatever brown-nosed science/space/planetology or
life/evolution related group is clearly stuck within their perpetual Old
Testament of an artificial black hole that offers their purely need to
know science and even skewed history to boot, and otherwise it's all
based upon infomercial hyped this or infomercial hyped that, as in take
it or leave it. Guess what, folks, I have elected to leave it in the
nearest space-toilet, where it belongs.

In spite of NASA's supposed expertise and all-knowing wizardly God like
mindset of global damn near everything domination (much like our
resident LLPOF warlord GW Bush is about fossil and yellowcake fuels),
apparently the Mars co2 inventory (even though most of it can be seen)
is essentially unknown. How the hell can this be the case?

We do not seem to have the most fundamental basics of even our very own
moon/Earth and of solar related science to go by. There's not even
hard-science pertaining to raw ice coexisting in nearby space, much less
upon or within our salty moon. Yet at nearly all cost be damned, we're
headded off to visit all sorts of planets and moons that we couldn't
possibly benefit from in a thousand years, whereas by then we'll not
have sufficient or otherwise affordable energy resources in order to
launch another LEO spy satellite, much less mount an interplanetary
mission.

Is the bulk inventory of CO2 on Mars yet another one of those
taboo/nondisclosure fiascos, like most anything we'd like to honestly
know about our physically dark, salty and cosmic morgue of a moon that's
keeping us a little extra tidal forced GW toasty, or much less that of
appreciating our extremely nearby and rather newish planetology of
Venus?

Dry ice as Martian snow, as such is not hardly getting compacted,
especially not while at Mars gravity and near vacuum, whereas at best we
might see a maximum density of 0.15 g/cm3 (roughly 10% of highly
compacted or clear/solid CO2), although the typical or average co2/snow
density might be more like that of 0.05 g/cm3, with lighter drifts
representing as little as 0.01 g/cm3.

Therefore, a given Mars winter that's capable of covering a vast area
with frozen CO2, but at most building up 2 meters of such wussy dry
snow, isn't hardly of any bulk mass of CO2 to start off with, especially
since so much of that fluffy coverage is less than a tenth meter in
depth.

Fluid Core Size of Mars from Detection of the Solar Tide
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/300/5617/299
"The solar tidal deformation of Mars, measured by its k2 potential Love
number, has been obtained from an analysis of Mars Global Surveyor radio
tracking. The observed k2 of 0.153 ± 0.017 is large enough to rule out a
solid iron core and so indicates that at least the outer part of the
core is liquid. The inferred core radius is between 1520 and 1840
kilometers and is independent of many interior properties, although
partial melt of the mantle is one factor that could reduce core size.
Ice-cap mass changes can be deduced from the seasonal variations in air
pressure and the odd gravity harmonic J3, given knowledge of cap mass
distribution with latitude. The south cap seasonal mass change is about
30 to 40% larger than that of the north cap."

After all of this precious time and loot invested, it looks as though
the Mars core energy/heat transfer rate is still up for grabs, although
a little more is known about Earth's core.

Earth's core thermal transfer or "heat flow" of what eventually becomes
surface to atmosphere to space transfer = 25.43 mw/m2
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21354
"Extrapolating to the entire surface of the core gave a total heat flow
of about 13 trillion watts."

Mars core "heat flow" is obviously next to zilch, if any more than a
fractional mw/m2 by the time of exiting away from the surface. Starting
off at a tidal moon like core temperature of supposedly 1727°C (as based
entirely upon theories rather than hard-science) isn't hardly good
enough to make toast.

The Venus core "heat flow" is also up for grabs, although it's more than
likely truly horrific (especially taking into account the numerous
active lava, hot muds and gas venting of what's obviously geothermal
[newish planetology] driven and existing just about damn near any place
you'd care to venture), as in off the scale of likely being worthy of
transferring nearly a joule/m2 if not considerably greater. No wonder
it's so freaking hot and nasty on Venus, with far more energy that's
trying to exit than getting contributed by the sun. (suggesting that
unlike the subfrozen and nearly dead to the core of Mars, Venus isn't
verry old)
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:

Who says that our mutually perpetrated cold-wars are over? (I think
they're just getting warmed up)

Trick questions; Why did Venus lose it's moon? and Where did that
Venusian moon go?

Usenet SETI or whatever brown-nosed science/space/planetology or
life/evolution related group is clearly stuck within their perpetual Old
Testament of an artificial black hole that offers their purely need to

[screed flush]

I'm going out on a limb here and will make the assertion that "Brad
Guth" is really just someone's class project in perl scripting. Pretty
well done, I'd say.