|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#491
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:41:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, David
Johnston made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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? Yes, there is. In case you haven't noticed, he's out of his mind. Please stop encouraging him. |
#492
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 31, 12:41 pm, David Johnston wrote:
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. Be sure to let us know when you do. 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. OK, if you can actually believe in whatever our government records have to offer (obviously you'll believe in anything government published), but lo and behold they're mostly Zionist/Nazi types within DARPA, and as such they get to spend as much of our hard earned loot with no accounting or other strings attached. They also have an unlimited supply of brown-nosed clowns and throughly dumbfounded minions like yourself. .. - Brad Guth |
#493
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 31, 3:24*pm, 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. 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 Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. American |
#494
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, American wrote: Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. The most "notable" thing about your "essay" is the "superfluous" use of "quotation marks" throughout. It's "difficult" to tell whether you're using them as "scare quotes" or as "emphasis". The first "possibility" simply means that you place "quotation marks" around things you want to imply "doubt" about in the reader's "mind". The second "possibility" is that you are using the "quotation" marks not to delineate "what someone said" but simply to make people pay more "attention" to the specific words you thing are "important". What does an ancient Sumerian legend mistaken as a prophecy have to do with solar eclipses and the big bang? Do you not believe that the "Big Bang" happened? Are you "familiar" with the "evidence" for the "Big Bang"? Do you think that your little pet "hypothesis" about multiple "Big Bangs" is new? -- 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. |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 31, 5:56*pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , *American wrote: Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). *If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. The most "notable" thing about your "essay" is the "superfluous" use of "quotation marks" throughout. It's "difficult" to tell whether you're using them as "scare quotes" or as "emphasis". The first "possibility" simply means that you place "quotation marks" around things you want to imply "doubt" about in the reader's "mind". The second "possibility" is that you are using the "quotation" marks not to delineate "what someone said" but simply to make people pay more "attention" to the specific words you thing are "important". What does an ancient Sumerian legend mistaken as a prophecy have to do with solar eclipses and the big bang? Do you not believe that the "Big Bang" happened? Are you "familiar" with the "evidence" for the "Big Bang"? Do you think that your little pet "hypothesis" about multiple "Big Bangs" is new? -- 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. Too bad that the absence of italics formed text puts google software back in the luddite category. (I could do without the exaggerated dramatization of the non-italicized lingo) Quotations DO seem to be somewhat "superflous" - sort of like "eyebrows" that are supposed to be "raised" everytime they're being used. As to your alluding to the fact that some "ancient Sumerian legend" (I put quotes around these words to emphasize that they are "yours"), I'm under the impression that this idea (legend mistaken as a prophecy) makes one believe that certain FACTS are being misconstrued in order to interfere with the actual purpose and design of this habitable part of the galaxy as being more by "accident" than it was by "grand design". My question to you is, if life on this planet was by "accident", then is the human species just some kind of "excretion" of a larger consciousness, being full of some nature of co-dependency, or if life was by some "grand design", then is our ultimate purpose in life to seek out with all of our might who our Creator actually is? If you can answer either of these questions, then I can also assume that either (1) the perfectly fitted solar eclipse is also an "accident", or (2) the solar eclipse is NOT an accident and was "put" there by some grand design(er). If your answer is (1), then I can prove to you that the Magyary phenomenon (1961) revealed that the Sun actually deprived the Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth during a solar eclipse. Why is this important? This is important because it makes the present universe just another superfluous one among an infinite number of parallel universes, with an infinite number of earth/moon vs. earth w/o moon systems. So which one are you going to pick? Let me give you a hint: Even if you pick either system, you still haven't narrowed the choice down to the "right choice". If however, your choice is (2), then you are on at least the right track in believing that by some grand design, the Sun deprived the Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth for a "reason". Now, if you are one who does not believe in an absolute "reason" for all that exists in this universe, then you must either decide that (1) a bridge to the unknown must be made by faith, or (2) a bridge to the unknown must be made by "reason". Which one do you believe? American |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, American wrote: On May 31, 5:56*pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , *American wrote: Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). *If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. The most "notable" thing about your "essay" is the "superfluous" use of "quotation marks" throughout. It's "difficult" to tell whether you're using them as "scare quotes" or as "emphasis". The first "possibility" simply means that you place "quotation marks" around things you want to imply "doubt" about in the reader's "mind". The second "possibility" is that you are using the "quotation" marks not to delineate "what someone said" but simply to make people pay more "attention" to the specific words you thing are "important". What does an ancient Sumerian legend mistaken as a prophecy have to do with solar eclipses and the big bang? Do you not believe that the "Big Bang" happened? Are you "familiar" with the "evidence" for the "Big Bang"? Do you think that your little pet "hypothesis" about multiple "Big Bangs" is new? -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L. Too bad that the absence of italics formed text puts google software back in the luddite category. Alternatively, you could write as though every word was important. If you didn't think every word was important, why include the unimportant ones? You remind me of people who deface their textbooks with highlighter. (I could do without the exaggerated dramatization of the non-italicized lingo) Quotations DO seem to be somewhat "superflous" - sort of like "eyebrows" that are supposed to be "raised" everytime they're being used. As to your alluding to the fact that some "ancient Sumerian legend" (I put quotes around these words to emphasize that they are "yours"), I'm under the impression that this idea (legend mistaken as a prophecy) makes one believe that certain FACTS are being misconstrued in order to interfere with the actual purpose and design of this habitable part of the galaxy How is "this ... part of the galaxy" more "habitable" than any other? This galaxy is, for the most part, not habitable. The Earth is habitable, but it's a special place. as being more by "accident" than it was by "grand design". My question to you is, if life on this planet was by "accident", then is the human species just some kind of "excretion" of a larger consciousness, being full of some nature of co-dependency, or if life was by some "grand design", then is our ultimate purpose in life to seek out with all of our might who our Creator actually is? I don't grant the premises on which you base the answers to your arbitrary either/or question. If you can answer either of these questions, I read it as one question with only two possible answers. then I can also assume that either (1) the perfectly fitted solar eclipse is also an "accident", or (2) the solar eclipse is NOT an accident and was "put" there by some grand design(er). That's silly. First, it's not perfectly fitted. It's only perfect some of the time and only right about now in the Earth's history. You might as well ask how Niagra Falls got placed so close to all the tourist shops. If your answer is (1), then I can prove to you that the Magyary phenomenon (1961) revealed that the Sun actually deprived the Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth during a solar eclipse. There have been plenty of solar eclipses since then, both total and annular, and apparently no one has repeated Magyary's results. Why is this important? This is important because it makes the present universe just another superfluous one among an infinite number of parallel universes, with an infinite number of earth/moon vs. earth w/o moon systems. So which one are you going to pick? Let me give you a hint: Even if you pick either system, you still haven't narrowed the choice down to the "right choice". If however, your choice is (2), then you are on at least the right track in believing that by some grand design, the Sun deprived the Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth for a "reason". Now, if you are one who does not believe in an absolute "reason" for all that exists in this universe, then you must either decide that (1) a bridge to the unknown must be made by faith, or (2) a bridge to the unknown must be made by "reason". Which one do you believe? So you tie together a disparate set of facts and claims and create some kind of dialetic which is supposed to lead me to the correct philosophical position, and you want me to put up with your badgering? -- 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. |
#497
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 31, 1:32 pm, American wrote:
On May 31, 3:24 pm, 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. 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 Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. American I do favor the MBB(mullti-big-bang), as well as subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even a few black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass and subsequently ends up as a white dwarf and having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby firmly believe in the notions of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively between Sol and Sirius that has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, that which transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time. . - Brad Guth |
#498
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
I tend to favor the MBB(multiple-big-bang) theory over the singular BB
as Old Testament certified, as well as I favor subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even responsible for a few wandering black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass before it subsequently ends up as an impressive white dwarf, thereby having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby must firmly believe in the sorts of orbital mechanics as based upon the regular laws of physics, as equally favoring notions on behalf of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively strong between Sol and Sirius, that which has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, as having transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time because, most everything used to be closer together. . - Brad Guth On May 31, 1:32 pm, American wrote: On May 31, 3:24 pm, 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. 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 Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. American |
#499
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: I tend to favor the MBB(multiple-big-bang) theory over the singular BB as Old Testament certified, as well as I favor subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even responsible for a few wandering black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass before it subsequently ends up as an impressive white dwarf, thereby having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby must firmly believe in the sorts of orbital mechanics as based upon the regular laws of physics, as equally favoring notions on behalf of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively strong between Sol and Sirius, that which has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, as having transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time because, most everything used to be closer together. . - Brad Guth I believe in kittens and apple pies, and playing hockey on Sunday mornings. I believe that the fog is brought to annoy my roommate, who likes to dry out his hockey equipment in the backyard under the warming sun. But kittens in pies are a bad idea. I believe in moonlit nights, listening to the howl of BART as its electric paddles scrape along the third rail. I believe in countersteering and ATGATT, as well as reflective tape and as many auxiliary lights as the law and the alternator will permit. At least I have facts to back up my beliefs. -- 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. |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Jun 1, 3:00 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: I tend to favor the MBB(multiple-big-bang) theory over the singular BB as Old Testament certified, as well as I favor subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even responsible for a few wandering black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass before it subsequently ends up as an impressive white dwarf, thereby having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby must firmly believe in the sorts of orbital mechanics as based upon the regular laws of physics, as equally favoring notions on behalf of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively strong between Sol and Sirius, that which has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, as having transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time because, most everything used to be closer together. . - Brad Guth I believe in kittens and apple pies, and playing hockey on Sunday mornings. I believe that the fog is brought to annoy my roommate, who likes to dry out his hockey equipment in the backyard under the warming sun. But kittens in pies are a bad idea. I believe in moonlit nights, listening to the howl of BART as its electric paddles scrape along the third rail. I believe in countersteering and ATGATT, as well as reflective tape and as many auxiliary lights as the law and the alternator will permit. At least I have facts to back up my beliefs. Too bad those supposed "beliefs" can't be run within a good public owned supercomputer and of their physics based simulations, especially in the fully 3D interactive eye-candy mode. BTW; last time I'd checked, a theory was just a theory that so happened to function within the what-if but regular laws of physics, instead of having to be skewed along and otherwise protected by your faith-based conditional laws of physics. Clearly you and others of your kind are not even remotely trying, other than to topic/author stalk and bash everything in sight that rocks your boat. .. - 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 08:13 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | Astronomy Misc | 13 | December 15th 03 08:13 PM |