|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Timberwoof wrote: You claim to observe that prehistoric humans did not record the moon until after 10,500 BC and conclude that the moon did not arrive until then. The recent arrival hypothesis demands an awful lot from orbital dynamics, and you even propose an impact that left the Earth pretty much untouched: There's no geologic evidence for that event whatsoever. From a physics standpoint it's much better to assume that the moon has been here all along. There's even geologic evidence for it, as has been ignored elsewhere. So let's consider the cave paintings at Lascaux. There's no moon down there, nit there aren't any stars there either, nor do the sun, clouds, or rain appear. Does that mean that the skies were empty until after that period of history? No ... that's a bit far-fetched. I suspect that since the caves were ... caves ... that the people who painted down there did not put sky things on the walls. That's a much better assumption that the idea that the moon wasn't here. Right, if you say so. Perhaps they were always blind as well as dumbfounded about most everything outside of those caves. But then, if not the least bit intelligent, I don't grant your premise. The Cro-Magnon people are our ancestors. (Maybe not yours.) how the hell did they manage to survive? (were they being taken care of?) By hunting reindeer. -- 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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 19, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 18, 10:00 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Timberwoof wrote: You claim to observe that prehistoric humans did not record the moon until after 10,500 BC and conclude that the moon did not arrive until then. The recent arrival hypothesis demands an awful lot from orbital dynamics, and you even propose an impact that left the Earth pretty much untouched: There's no geologic evidence for that event whatsoever. From a physics standpoint it's much better to assume that the moon has been here all along. There's even geologic evidence for it, as has been ignored elsewhere. So let's consider the cave paintings at Lascaux. There's no moon down there, nit there aren't any stars there either, nor do the sun, clouds, or rain appear. Does that mean that the skies were empty until after that period of history? No ... that's a bit far-fetched. I suspect that since the caves were ... caves ... that the people who painted down there did not put sky things on the walls. That's a much better assumption that the idea that the moon wasn't here. Right, if you say so. Perhaps they were always blind as well as dumbfounded about most everything outside of those caves. But then, if not the least bit intelligent, I don't grant your premise. The Cro-Magnon people are our ancestors. (Maybe not yours.) how the hell did they manage to survive? (were they being taken care of?) By hunting reindeer. -- 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. That figures, as being just as likely dumbfounded as our Apollo wizards having "the right stuff" for supposedly having walked on their guano island like and xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated moon. . - Brad Guth |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 1:00 pm, Damien Valentine wrote:
Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or control those in charge of such public supercomputers. (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there. When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like? Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent moon? .. - Brad Guth |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:48 am, BradGuth wrote: 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, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best you're going to get. As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is that 2+2 is always equal to 4. This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make then different that what we have found out about them time and time again. Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific. Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations take place, and the sooner the better. BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff. I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those other liars you associate with. .. - Brad Guth |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, Damien Valentine wrote: Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it leave there?). An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth. A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became so nearly circular in that short a time. An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning. -- 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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , Damien Valentine wrote: Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it leave there?). An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth. A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became so nearly circular in that short a time. An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning. -- 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. What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get? Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/ o moon? Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/ or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason environment. Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again, our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only a solar tide to work with, as well as seeing much fewer of those life essential geothermal events taking place. Eventually we'd lose the bulk of our magnetosphere to boot, and then only the most rad-hard of DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly. . - Brad Guth |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 1:00 pm, Damien Valentine wrote: Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or control those in charge of such public supercomputers. You've set the bar impossibly high: you yourself have demonstrated that you do not know enough about orbital mechanics to give anyone instructions on how to do this. You also seem to have a hidden agenda about ownership and use of "public" supercomputers. (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there. When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like? That's your region of expertise, isn't it? You've researched all known early art for references to the moon, and its total lack of lunar imagery before 10,500 BC (or YA, depending on your post) is what led you to this remarkable hypothesis. Why is your entire scope of evidence in hypothetical simulations and early cave paintings? Why do you not include any actual physical evidence or deductions one might reasonably make from current lunar orbital physics? Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. Oh, geeze, Brad. Give the guy a break. He was engaging in a bit of hyperbole and indicating that you are the only person in the world who thinks the moon got there recently. I thought he meant everyone else on this newsgroup. What exactly is so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent moon? You mean aside from what other people have been telling you? Let's start with your proposed initial condition: The earth is alone is its orbit around the sun. Somewhere else there's the moon, hurtling along at some speed relative to Earth that is slower than the earth's escape velocity. There is no such configuration of Sun, Earth, and pre-capture moon that will enable the moon to eventually enter into an orbit around the Earth. No matter what you do, the moon will hit the sun, hit the earth, or never get anywhere near here. The moon will inevitably gain so much speed from its fall into the solar system that it will either hit the earth or pass it by never to return. Consider that there's also the rule that things have to work in both time directions. The laws or orbital mechanics don't know about forwards or backwards in time. There's no current orbit of the moon which will eventually expell it into interplanetary space, even if you run the earth's tidal effects backwards. In fact, if you do that, what you get is that the moon was pretty damn close to the Earth roughly at the time the Earth was first created. And then there's a collision of the type your hypothesis cannot allow. It's simple Newtonian physics which, despite all your complaints, are used quite successfully to predict the orbits of planets and other objects in the solar system. -- 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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 2:37 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 1:00 pm, Damien Valentine wrote: Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or control those in charge of such public supercomputers. You've set the bar impossibly high: you yourself have demonstrated that you do not know enough about orbital mechanics to give anyone instructions on how to do this. You also seem to have a hidden agenda about ownership and use of "public" supercomputers. (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there. When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like? That's your region of expertise, isn't it? You've researched all known early art for references to the moon, and its total lack of lunar imagery before 10,500 BC (or YA, depending on your post) is what led you to this remarkable hypothesis. Why is your entire scope of evidence in hypothetical simulations and early cave paintings? Why do you not include any actual physical evidence or deductions one might reasonably make from current lunar orbital physics? Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? "Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. Oh, geeze, Brad. Give the guy a break. He was engaging in a bit of hyperbole and indicating that you are the only person in the world who thinks the moon got there recently. I thought he meant everyone else on this newsgroup. What exactly is so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent moon? You mean aside from what other people have been telling you? Let's start with your proposed initial condition: The earth is alone is its orbit around the sun. Somewhere else there's the moon, hurtling along at some speed relative to Earth that is slower than the earth's escape velocity. There is no such configuration of Sun, Earth, and pre-capture moon that will enable the moon to eventually enter into an orbit around the Earth. No matter what you do, the moon will hit the sun, hit the earth, or never get anywhere near here. The moon will inevitably gain so much speed from its fall into the solar system that it will either hit the earth or pass it by never to return. Consider that there's also the rule that things have to work in both time directions. The laws or orbital mechanics don't know about forwards or backwards in time. There's no current orbit of the moon which will eventually expell it into interplanetary space, even if you run the earth's tidal effects backwards. In fact, if you do that, what you get is that the moon was pretty damn close to the Earth roughly at the time the Earth was first created. And then there's a collision of the type your hypothesis cannot allow. It's simple Newtonian physics which, despite all your complaints, are used quite successfully to predict the orbits of planets and other objects in the solar system. -- 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. You still don't get it, as well as you're still avoiding the primary intent or focus of this topic, mostly because yourself and others of your pretend-atheism kind are deathly afraid of what could become a better truth than what you've been telling us. Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing or otherwise as puppeteered with those status quo strings attached or of that clown hand up my butt. BTW, at half the orbital distance, the moon's tidal influence would have had Earth nearly continually flooded to death with those monster tides of four times as great, not to mention of whatever was going on under the crust of Earth. Most of Earth's erosion via flooding is of recent times since the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. . - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth | BradGuth | Policy | 523 | June 20th 08 07:17 PM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | LIBERATOR | Space Shuttle | 39 | April 22nd 06 08:40 AM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | honestjohn | Misc | 2 | April 19th 06 05:55 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | History | 13 | December 15th 03 09:13 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | Astronomy Misc | 13 | December 15th 03 09:13 PM |