Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
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." ETHChris L.

What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get?

What part of my questions above did you not understand?

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?

I don't grant your premise. The question that Damien asked was, what
would persuade me that your hypothesis is correct? I gave some
reasonable criteria. Unlike yours, they're straightforward and obvious..
They don't require a lot of fancy supercomputation or guesswork. They
only require some physical evidence. If you think that's insurmountable,
then that pretty much wraps it up for your hypothesis.

Why are human notations of that era not "physical evidence"?

They're not physical evidence of an lunar impact on the Earth.

It seems smart humans like yourself send other humans to their death
as based upon far less evidence.

I would not trust my life on any scientific or engineering analysis you
propose.

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.

You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.

Earth wasn't always so salty. Much of Earth's salt is of a deposit,
similar as to most of Earth's water that didn't emerge from within.
Perhaps those cosmic snowballs were salty.

So you've said. A lot. But there is no such thing as proof by assertion.

Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,

Why?

Why not? How much interactive tidal/gravity energy does it take
holding onto that moon? Where do you think that kind of energy goes?
(not to mention the secondary IR influx)

You're the one making the claim that the moon's presence keeps the earth
from freezing. You do the math to back up that claim. If you can't, then
it's so much hot air.

our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
a solar tide to work with,

I thought they'd freeze.

To a much greater extent, as w/o moon and of a near monoseason they
should freeze nearly to the tropics unless there's another nearby
source of stellar energy added to what our passive sun had to offer.

That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's
heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law?

What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?

as well as seeing much fewer of those life
essential geothermal events taking place.

You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
ancient volcanism?

That's a little skewed out of context, isn't it. It's not an all or
nothing situation, because there's still a solar tide.

No, it's neither skewed nor out of context. You're welcome to present
your equations to show how much of the Earth's internal heat comes from
solar and lunar tidal effects. Again, without such math, your claim is
empty.

Eventually we'd lose the
bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,

Why?

Why not? It's going away at roughly -.05%/year as is, so lo and
behold, it looks as though something inside is slowing down.

And this is related to the moon how, exactly?



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.

If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
have evolved?

And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco?

Nope.

If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd
be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of
yourself.

Don't flatter yourself.

What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so
entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien
Valentine?

It's not over my head. The problem I have is that since you don't have a
basic scientific knowledge, you are unable to even write down basic
equations that need to be solved to represent your hypotheses. Since
math fails you (or you fail to use it), you try to do all your thinking
semantically, and come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions that you
cannot back up with evidence or even good theory. And you want others to
do your computational homework for you.

I guess that means you're a kook.

I guess that means you're a bigot that's in denial of your nayism.
Kook or bigot, which is better?

If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access
to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your
excuse?
. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 20, 10:22 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:

IOW, since I don't agree with you and you've been unable to answer any
of the simple and obvious questions I've put to you, you feel justified
in calling me an idiot. I gotcha.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

As I'd said from the get go, you're not helping this topic any better
off than a fifth grader, if that much. Don't you just hate such kids
that never stop asking questions, and never otherwise lend a hand?

I have helped. By asking pertinent questions, I have pointed out
fallacies in your reasoning. Now run along and fix your hypothesis.

In many ways, we're all less than fifth graders to what a good
supercomputer with its fully 3D interactive simulator represents.

Speak for yourself.

--
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.

On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:

That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's
heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law?

What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?

Our moon is more than a thousand fold greater in mass ratio than any
other known moon in relationship to its planet. The gravity/tidal
energy influence upon Earth is absolutely horrific, not to mention the
secondary/recoil worth of IR.

Our sun is minor and/or passive compared to either Sirius A or B. Our
sun as a whole radiates far less gamma than our physically dark and
naked (aka anticathode) little moon.

BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's
called blueshift), and that closing velocity is increasing.
.. - 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.

In other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all-
inclusive answers to absolutely everything, or else you're not the
least bit interested, except interested enough as to topic/author
stalk, bash and likely impose as much banishment as possible.

Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old
Testament), or what?

How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof
naysay items?
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 20, 5:57*pm, BradGuth wrote:
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.

You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation?


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.


Says you!

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.

Sure Brad...

Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
Mr. Guth?
Who else has the nerve to stand up to the ridicule of these boards and
say what needs to be said?!!!
On Mar 21, 2:25 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, BradGuth wrote:



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.

You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation?



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.

Says you!

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.

Sure Brad...

On Mar 21, 11:25 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, BradGuth wrote:



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.

You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation?

All simulations are orchestrated. Good grief, get over it.


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.

Says you!

And says anyone else with eyes and half an honest brain. Where
exactly does that leave you?


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.

Sure Brad...

And your better deductive observationaly as based upon your superior
image enlargements, and compared to whatever other planetary geology
is ?????
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 21, 12:07 pm, eyeball wrote:
Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
Mr. Guth?
Who else has the nerve to stand up to the ridicule of these boards and
say what needs to be said?!!!
On Mar 21, 2:25 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, BradGuth wrote:

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.

You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation?

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.

Says you!

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.

Sure Brad...



Of what needs to be said is obviously far more than the status quo of
what their pretend-atheism can deal with. Of course the same could be
said of Hitler or GW Bush not taking kindly to the truth, or having
given any crapolla about their collateral damage and carnage of the
mostly innocent.
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
eyeball wrote:

Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
Mr. Guth?

Because he's wrong about 90% of the time.

Who else has the nerve to stand up to the ridicule of these boards and
say what needs to be said?!!!

I'm not sure I agree with your implication. Does it "need to be said"
that Venus had intelligent life at one time?

--
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.

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

n other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all-
inclusive answers to absolutely everything,

No, just the half-dozen questions I asked the other day.

or else you're not the
least bit interested, except interested enough as to topic/author
stalk, bash and likely impose as much banishment as possible.

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old
Testament), or what?

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof
naysay items?

Nope. You can discuss Panspermia all you want. I think it just begs the
question of how life began. If it could have started earlier on some
other planet and then brought here, wouldn't it just be simpler to let
it start here again? The business about life being imported from
elsewhere just adds unnecessary complexity.

--
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.