Proof The Moon was Captured

On Oct 30, 2:24*pm, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth









wrote:
On Oct 24, 4:17 am, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:59:15 -0700, "H gar" wrote:

"G=EMC^2" wrote in message
....
Its a nice sphere. If blown from Earth lots of good physics would keep
it from ending up so round. Think about the reasons TeBet

*** Here's a little something for idiots like yourself and that
other dumb-ass GuthBall ... what the hell, let's throw Painintheass
into the mix as well, you all possess the same mental deficiency
genes:

http://www.psi.edu/epo/moon/moon.html

You just won't let it alone, will you.

Yes sirree! The Giant Impact Hypothesis!

I. Velikovsky would be so proud!

Here is yet another possibility - the GCH:
In the Gentle Capture Hypothesis (GCH), the Moon formed in almost the
same orbit as the Earth. The Earth was out front at first and
absorbed nearly all of the iron and other good stuff, while the
trailing Moon absorbed only the dregs.

The Earth's and Moon's Solar orbits were so close together that it
took a very long time for the Earth to finally come all the way back
around and catch up to the Moon. When it did catch up, as it
approached the Moon, it gently captured (and was captured by) the
smaller orb. The Moon then began a slow and steady scalloped orbit
with the Earth around the Sun...

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/...ng/convex.html

At first, the Moon was a distance from Earth that was just a little
farther than the Roche limit, so it did not break up from tidal
pressures. At that time the Earth and Moon rotated very fast - a day
on Earth back then was a bit less than 8 hours long. Due to tidal
friction, both Earth's and Moon's spin slowed down. As they slowed
their spin speeds, the Moon also got a little farther away from Earth
each year. Later, the Moon's rotation speed slowed to a point where
it was synchronized, "tidal locked" with Earth. After that, the Moon
always showed the same face toward the Earth.

Ever since the Earth's and Moon's gentle capture of each other, and
down to the present day, the Earth and Moon have exchanged places each
month in their orbits around the Sun. Part of the month finds the
Moon closer to the Sun, and the other part of the month the Earth is
closer to the Sun. As they slowly change their relative orbital
positions, at one point the Earth is out in front and leads the Moon
around the Sun. Then about two weeks later, the Earth lags and the
Moon goes out in front.

The Earth-Moon orbital relationship - It's not your father's two-body
problem anymore.

Your version of a very gradual and non-contact or soft capture method
seems doable, although it doesn't explain the how, where and when that
2500 km diameter crater was formed, nor the how and when our Arctic
ocean basin got formed, and not to mention the Antarctic continent
that seems as though rather antipode formed instead of a tectonic
forced process.

The scientific answers to those questions are well-known, Brad. *The
craters on the Moon, as well as those found on Earth that haven't been
obliterated by the effects of time, happened after the Earth and Moon
had formed together. *There was still quite a bit of smaller debris
flying around the Solar system. *The Moon actually acted as a
protector for the Earth. *The Moon's gravitation would see to it that
most of those small objects would hit it before they had a chance to
hit the Earth.
So, that moon used to represent a larger target and conceivably more
mass than Earth. That's good to know.


The other science you need to look at is "plate tectonics". *It will
show you that the Arctic basin formed as the land mass broke up and
the newly formed continents began to spread out from each other.
That's certainly one theory, although why wouldn't existing plate
tectonics happen before and after having been impacted by a glancing
blow?


Your soft capture idea also doesn't uncover as to how that moon got
such an extremely thick and paramagnetic basalt crust, especially when
the average crust of Venus probably isn't worth half that of what
Earth has to work with, and our moon offers at least twice and even
three fold what average crust thickness is that of our planet.

The makeup of the surface of the Moon is almost exactly the same as
the makeup of the Earth's crust.
The mostly basalt crust of Earth isn't nearly as paramagnetic as that
of our physically dark moon.


*That is one reason why the Giant
Impact Hypothesis can be compelling to many scientists. *To me, the
similar crust makeups of Earth and Moon, coupled together with the
fact that the Moon has very little iron, and the fact that Earth has
the lion's share of the iron, supports my proposal extremely well.

How does an ocean mass of water that only gradually materialized over
a billion years, which offers only 1 g/cm3 density manage to cause 3+
g/cm3 of fused and extremely tough basalt to sink or morph and leaving
but less than a 5 km crust thickness from the always molten rock
below?

Now that's an excellent question. *I've always wondered how the ocean
waters stay above that crust and don't seep down and disappear from
the surface.
Mainly molecular buoyancy is what allows water and ice to float above
bedrock.


Not a soul in Usenet/newsgroups (including yourself) can stipulate
with any objective certainty as to when Earth got its latest seasonal
tilt, nor what triggered the sudden ice-age thaw as of 11,712 years
ago (as having been confirmed by multiple ice core samples taken from
around the world).

You're correct, because there has not been a way found to objectively
determine when and how the seasonal tilt came about, nor how multiple
ice ages in the last 2 million years or so came to be and then thawed
out. *Before that, the Earth's climate had been pretty stable for at
least 20 million years. *More evidence is being gathered and studied
as we speak.

You and all others combined also can't seem to find any old cave art
depicting our enormous and extremely nighttime vibrant moon or even
that of seasons depicted as of prior to 11,712 years ago, and not that
extremely good examples of much older cave art with more than
sufficient resolution depicting a whole lot smaller details of far
less important context doesn't exist.

Well, I told you about the cave art I studied at the National Museum
in Nairobi, Kenya. *You can choose to believe or disbelieve, but I
know what I saw with my own eyes.
Again, nothing remotely moon like as of 10,500 BC or before.

The naked white disk or crescent as their cold nighttime sun or
representing their nighttime and daytime moon-god with all sorts of
clearly visible surface details of at least ten fold greater
resolution than other details they'd carved or painted, seems unlikely
to have not been better depicted for exactly as it appeared so big and
vibrant within their crisp and clear nighttime of hunting, gathering
and safely traveling via moonlight or godlight.

I'll go with their being genetically nearsighted and otherwise having
global weather as continuously cloudy.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Oct 24, 9:34*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 24, 4:17*am, Painius wrote:









On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:59:15 -0700, "H gar" wrote:

"G=EMC^2" wrote in message
....
Its a nice sphere. If blown from Earth lots of good physics would keep
it from ending up so round. *Think about the reasons *TeBet

*** Here's a little something for idiots like yourself and that
other dumb-ass GuthBall ... what the hell, let's throw Painintheass
into the mix as well, you all possess the same mental deficiency
genes:

http://www.psi.edu/epo/moon/moon.html

You just won't let it alone, will you.

Yes sirree! *The Giant Impact Hypothesis!

I. Velikovsky would be so proud!

Here is yet another possibility - the GCH:
In the Gentle Capture Hypothesis (GCH), the Moon formed in almost the
same orbit as the Earth. *The Earth was out front at first and
absorbed nearly all of the iron and other good stuff, while the
trailing Moon absorbed only the dregs.

The Earth's and Moon's Solar orbits were so close together that it
took a very long time for the Earth to finally come all the way back
around and catch up to the Moon. *When it did catch up, as it
approached the Moon, it gently captured (and was captured by) the
smaller orb. *The Moon then began a slow and steady scalloped orbit
with the Earth around the Sun...

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/...ng/convex.html

At first, the Moon was a distance from Earth that was just a little
farther than the Roche limit, so it did not break up from tidal
pressures. *At that time the Earth and Moon rotated very fast - a day
on Earth back then was a bit less than 8 hours long. *Due to tidal
friction, both Earth's and Moon's spin slowed down. *As they slowed
their spin speeds, the Moon also got a little farther away from Earth
each year. *Later, the Moon's rotation speed slowed to a point where
it was synchronized, "tidal locked" with Earth. *After that, the Moon
always showed the same face toward the Earth.

Ever since the Earth's and Moon's gentle capture of each other, and
down to the present day, the Earth and Moon have exchanged places each
month in their orbits around the Sun. *Part of the month finds the
Moon closer to the Sun, and the other part of the month the Earth is
closer to the Sun. *As they slowly change their relative orbital
positions, at one point the Earth is out in front and leads the Moon
around the Sun. *Then about two weeks later, the Earth lags and the
Moon goes out in front.

The Earth-Moon orbital relationship - It's not your father's two-body
problem anymore.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Your version of a very gradual and non-contact or soft capture method
seems doable, although it doesn't explain the how, where and when that
2500 km diameter crater was formed, nor the how and when our Arctic
ocean basin got formed, and not to mention the Antarctic continent
that seems as though rather antipode formed instead of a tectonic
forced process.

Your soft capture idea also doesn't uncover as to how that moon got
such an extremely thick and paramagnetic basalt crust, especially when
the average crust of Venus probably isn't worth half that of what
Earth has to work with, and our moon offers at least twice and even
three fold what average crust thickness is that of our planet.

How does an ocean mass of water that only gradually materialized over
a billion years, which offers only 1 g/cm3 density manage to cause 3+
g/cm3 of fused and extremely tough basalt to sink or morph and leaving
but less than a 5 km crust thickness from the always molten rock
below?

Not a soul in Usenet/newsgroups (including yourself) can stipulate
with any objective certainty as to when Earth got its latest seasonal
tilt, nor what triggered the sudden ice-age thaw as of 11,712 years
ago (as having been confirmed by multiple ice core samples taken from
around the world).

You and all others combined also can't seem to find any old cave art
depicting our enormous and extremely nighttime vibrant moon or even
that of seasons depicted as of prior to 11,712 years ago, and not that
extremely good examples of much older cave art with more than
sufficient resolution depicting a whole lot smaller details of far
less important context doesn't exist.

*http://groups.google.com/groups/search
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

Moons craters are all explained,the largest down to craters in
craters.Farside its even worse. Its capture all the way. Explosion
to work has to answer questions like. Where is Earth's iron? TeBet

On 10/30/2012 5:24 PM, Painius wrote:

The other science you need to look at is "plate tectonics". It will
show you that the Arctic basin formed as the land mass broke up and
the newly formed continents began to spread out from each other.

Your soft capture idea also doesn't uncover as to how that moon got
such an extremely thick and paramagnetic basalt crust, especially when
the average crust of Venus probably isn't worth half that of what
Earth has to work with, and our moon offers at least twice and even
three fold what average crust thickness is that of our planet.

The makeup of the surface of the Moon is almost exactly the same as
the makeup of the Earth's crust. That is one reason why the Giant
Impact Hypothesis can be compelling to many scientists. To me, the
similar crust makeups of Earth and Moon, coupled together with the
fact that the Moon has very little iron, and the fact that Earth has
the lion's share of the iron, supports my proposal extremely well.

How does an ocean mass of water that only gradually materialized over
a billion years, which offers only 1 g/cm3 density manage to cause 3+
g/cm3 of fused and extremely tough basalt to sink or morph and leaving
but less than a 5 km crust thickness from the always molten rock
below?

Now that's an excellent question.


Note to Goth: That means that ALL your other questions were stupid.


I've always wondered how the ocean
waters stay above that crust and don't seep down and disappear from
the surface.


Perhaps it is YOU that needs to study plate tectonics.






--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. �亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/im...logo_large.jpg

On Oct 30, 7:58*pm, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Oct 24, 9:34*am, Brad Guth wrote:









On Oct 24, 4:17*am, Painius wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:59:15 -0700, "H gar" wrote:

"G=EMC^2" wrote in message
...
Its a nice sphere. If blown from Earth lots of good physics would keep
it from ending up so round. *Think about the reasons *TeBet

*** Here's a little something for idiots like yourself and that
other dumb-ass GuthBall ... what the hell, let's throw Painintheass
into the mix as well, you all possess the same mental deficiency
genes:

http://www.psi.edu/epo/moon/moon.html

You just won't let it alone, will you.

Yes sirree! *The Giant Impact Hypothesis!

I. Velikovsky would be so proud!

Here is yet another possibility - the GCH:
In the Gentle Capture Hypothesis (GCH), the Moon formed in almost the
same orbit as the Earth. *The Earth was out front at first and
absorbed nearly all of the iron and other good stuff, while the
trailing Moon absorbed only the dregs.

The Earth's and Moon's Solar orbits were so close together that it
took a very long time for the Earth to finally come all the way back
around and catch up to the Moon. *When it did catch up, as it
approached the Moon, it gently captured (and was captured by) the
smaller orb. *The Moon then began a slow and steady scalloped orbit
with the Earth around the Sun...

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/...ng/convex.html

At first, the Moon was a distance from Earth that was just a little
farther than the Roche limit, so it did not break up from tidal
pressures. *At that time the Earth and Moon rotated very fast - a day
on Earth back then was a bit less than 8 hours long. *Due to tidal
friction, both Earth's and Moon's spin slowed down. *As they slowed
their spin speeds, the Moon also got a little farther away from Earth
each year. *Later, the Moon's rotation speed slowed to a point where
it was synchronized, "tidal locked" with Earth. *After that, the Moon
always showed the same face toward the Earth.

Ever since the Earth's and Moon's gentle capture of each other, and
down to the present day, the Earth and Moon have exchanged places each
month in their orbits around the Sun. *Part of the month finds the
Moon closer to the Sun, and the other part of the month the Earth is
closer to the Sun. *As they slowly change their relative orbital
positions, at one point the Earth is out in front and leads the Moon
around the Sun. *Then about two weeks later, the Earth lags and the
Moon goes out in front.

The Earth-Moon orbital relationship - It's not your father's two-body
problem anymore.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Your version of a very gradual and non-contact or soft capture method
seems doable, although it doesn't explain the how, where and when that
2500 km diameter crater was formed, nor the how and when our Arctic
ocean basin got formed, and not to mention the Antarctic continent
that seems as though rather antipode formed instead of a tectonic
forced process.

Your soft capture idea also doesn't uncover as to how that moon got
such an extremely thick and paramagnetic basalt crust, especially when
the average crust of Venus probably isn't worth half that of what
Earth has to work with, and our moon offers at least twice and even
three fold what average crust thickness is that of our planet.

How does an ocean mass of water that only gradually materialized over
a billion years, which offers only 1 g/cm3 density manage to cause 3+
g/cm3 of fused and extremely tough basalt to sink or morph and leaving
but less than a 5 km crust thickness from the always molten rock
below?

Not a soul in Usenet/newsgroups (including yourself) can stipulate
with any objective certainty as to when Earth got its latest seasonal
tilt, nor what triggered the sudden ice-age thaw as of 11,712 years
ago (as having been confirmed by multiple ice core samples taken from
around the world).

You and all others combined also can't seem to find any old cave art
depicting our enormous and extremely nighttime vibrant moon or even
that of seasons depicted as of prior to 11,712 years ago, and not that
extremely good examples of much older cave art with more than
sufficient resolution depicting a whole lot smaller details of far
less important context doesn't exist.

*http://groups.google.com/groups/search
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

Moons craters are all explained,the largest down to craters in
craters.Farside its even worse. *Its capture all the way. *Explosion
to work has to answer questions like. Where is Earth's iron? TeBet

More water in the Earth than on its surface. If explosion most of rock
and dust would have fallen back to Earth,gone into deep space,but to
be put in orbit would be impossible. Think how we put objects in obit.
We make them side step the Earth,and that can't be done easily. Seems
I have to be the one that points imperial thinkers in the right
direction. TreBert

On Oct 31, 6:24*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:58*pm, "G=EMC^2" wrote:









On Oct 24, 9:34*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 24, 4:17*am, Painius wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:59:15 -0700, "H gar" wrote:

"G=EMC^2" wrote in message
...
Its a nice sphere. If blown from Earth lots of good physics would keep
it from ending up so round. *Think about the reasons *TeBet

*** Here's a little something for idiots like yourself and that
other dumb-ass GuthBall ... what the hell, let's throw Painintheass
into the mix as well, you all possess the same mental deficiency
genes:

http://www.psi.edu/epo/moon/moon.html

You just won't let it alone, will you.

Yes sirree! *The Giant Impact Hypothesis!

I. Velikovsky would be so proud!

Here is yet another possibility - the GCH:
In the Gentle Capture Hypothesis (GCH), the Moon formed in almost the
same orbit as the Earth. *The Earth was out front at first and
absorbed nearly all of the iron and other good stuff, while the
trailing Moon absorbed only the dregs.

The Earth's and Moon's Solar orbits were so close together that it
took a very long time for the Earth to finally come all the way back
around and catch up to the Moon. *When it did catch up, as it
approached the Moon, it gently captured (and was captured by) the
smaller orb. *The Moon then began a slow and steady scalloped orbit
with the Earth around the Sun...

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/...ng/convex.html

At first, the Moon was a distance from Earth that was just a little
farther than the Roche limit, so it did not break up from tidal
pressures. *At that time the Earth and Moon rotated very fast - a day
on Earth back then was a bit less than 8 hours long. *Due to tidal
friction, both Earth's and Moon's spin slowed down. *As they slowed
their spin speeds, the Moon also got a little farther away from Earth
each year. *Later, the Moon's rotation speed slowed to a point where
it was synchronized, "tidal locked" with Earth. *After that, the Moon
always showed the same face toward the Earth.

Ever since the Earth's and Moon's gentle capture of each other, and
down to the present day, the Earth and Moon have exchanged places each
month in their orbits around the Sun. *Part of the month finds the
Moon closer to the Sun, and the other part of the month the Earth is
closer to the Sun. *As they slowly change their relative orbital
positions, at one point the Earth is out in front and leads the Moon
around the Sun. *Then about two weeks later, the Earth lags and the
Moon goes out in front.

The Earth-Moon orbital relationship - It's not your father's two-body
problem anymore.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Your version of a very gradual and non-contact or soft capture method
seems doable, although it doesn't explain the how, where and when that
2500 km diameter crater was formed, nor the how and when our Arctic
ocean basin got formed, and not to mention the Antarctic continent
that seems as though rather antipode formed instead of a tectonic
forced process.

Your soft capture idea also doesn't uncover as to how that moon got
such an extremely thick and paramagnetic basalt crust, especially when
the average crust of Venus probably isn't worth half that of what
Earth has to work with, and our moon offers at least twice and even
three fold what average crust thickness is that of our planet.

How does an ocean mass of water that only gradually materialized over
a billion years, which offers only 1 g/cm3 density manage to cause 3+
g/cm3 of fused and extremely tough basalt to sink or morph and leaving
but less than a 5 km crust thickness from the always molten rock
below?

Not a soul in Usenet/newsgroups (including yourself) can stipulate
with any objective certainty as to when Earth got its latest seasonal
tilt, nor what triggered the sudden ice-age thaw as of 11,712 years
ago (as having been confirmed by multiple ice core samples taken from
around the world).

You and all others combined also can't seem to find any old cave art
depicting our enormous and extremely nighttime vibrant moon or even
that of seasons depicted as of prior to 11,712 years ago, and not that
extremely good examples of much older cave art with more than
sufficient resolution depicting a whole lot smaller details of far
less important context doesn't exist.

*http://groups.google.com/groups/search
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

Moons craters are all explained,the largest down to craters in
craters.Farside its even worse. *Its capture all the way. *Explosion
to work has to answer questions like. Where is Earth's iron? TeBet

More water in the Earth than on its surface. If explosion most of rock
and dust would have fallen back to Earth,gone into deep space,but to
be put in orbit would be impossible. Think how we put objects in obit.
We make them side step the Earth,and that can't be done easily. Seems
I have to be the one that points imperial thinkers in the right
direction. *TreBert

I would not say impossible, though highly improbable would certainly
fit the mainstream interpretations about our moon.

With regard to "more water in the Earth than on its surface", I'd have
to agree because, H2 and O2 are not uncommon elements. Our moon
should have water within or under it's terrifically thick, fused and
paramagnetic crust of basalt. Those physically dark and paramagnetic
moon rocks of 3.5 g/cm3 density can be found in many locations right
here on Earth, although the basalt of Earth isn't nearly as dense
(usually of less than 3 g/cm3) nor is it nearly as paramagnetic. I
have samples of both Earth and moon basalt.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”