Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic. I was thinking more like a 90% kill-
off, or perhaps less horrific if our ET intelligent designers came to
our rescue.
.. - Brad Guth

On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth







wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Do the fully 3D interactive simulations, and report back.
.. - Brad Guth

On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth







wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of
what you are used to. See how well you survive.

On May 30, 10:13 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of
what you are used to. See how well you survive.

I'd rather go the other way, towards 96 bar, at less than 1% O2 and
99% H2.

BTW, the encounter of an icy proto-moon most likely kook a good
portion of our atmosphere away.
.. - Brad Guth

On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:42:21 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 30, 10:13 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of
what you are used to. See how well you survive.

I'd rather go the other way, towards 96 bar, at less than 1% O2 and
99% H2.

There s no reason why such an event would pick and choose which
molecules to take.


BTW, the encounter of an icy proto-moon most likely kook a good
portion of our atmosphere away.
. - Brad Guth

An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

On May 31, 12:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:42:21 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 30, 10:13 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of
what you are used to. See how well you survive.

I'd rather go the other way, towards 96 bar, at less than 1% O2 and
99% H2.

There s no reason why such an event would pick and choose which
molecules to take.



BTW, the encounter of an icy proto-moon most likely took a good
portion of our atmosphere away.
. - Brad Guth

An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going
on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot)

And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever
proves ????

Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so
deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned
supercomputers?

Why are you folks always so afraid to uncover truths, and much worse
at sharing truths?
.. - Brad Guth

Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif

Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently
only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the
relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely
moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that
existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth.

Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as
impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow.

In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would
also have required an impact with something of considerably larger
diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that
moon arrived at Earth.

Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type
of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid
that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase
ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had
recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into
that white dwarf.

Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been
deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy.
. – Brad Guth

On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

If that's what your simulation has to say, then so be it. We look
forwards to having a look-see at those complex though impressive
computer simulated results.

BTW; Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif

Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently
only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the
relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely
moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that
existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth.

Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as
impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow.

In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would
also have required an impact with something of considerably larger
diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that
moon arrived at Earth.

Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type
of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid
that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase
ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had
recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into
that white dwarf.

Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been
deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy.
. – Brad Guth

On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going
on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot)

And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever
proves ????

I have no such thing.


Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so
deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned
supercomputers?

Is there some reason why you accuse everyone who thinks that you are
an idiot of working for DARPA? DARPA only employs about 140 people.