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

Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 19th 08, 07:00 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Timberwoof[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default 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  
Old March 19th 08, 03:37 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 07:52 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 10:00 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Damien Valentine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 10:35 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 10:57 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 11:04 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Timberwoof[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 11:36 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 11:37 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Timberwoof[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default 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  
Old March 20th 08, 11:53 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.