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.

Never said they did, although how would they have know of whatever
shook their 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.

That's skewed out of context, and not at all of what I'd meant. You
know exactly what I meant, and so what does that make you?


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.

Tell that to folks on death row, or to those mostly innocent Muslims
(in addition to the million + already dead) about to die because of
the immoral actions of your resident warlord(GW Bush).


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.

I said nothing of hot air, but of having suggested upon gravity/tidal
interactions causing unavoidable friction that's unavoidably causing
heat that's unavoidably causing "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?

Ever heard of blueshift? (it's what the light of stars tend to do as
we head towards them) Not everything off-world (external to our solar
system) is continually in redshift. As cosmic stuff interacts and
essentially blows up, whereas some of the cosmic flak is unavoidably
headed directly towards us.


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

By all measure you'd care to make, or to have others make, our sun is
a relatively passive star, and our physically dark moon is of truly
horrific item that's big, nearby and having relatively massive crust.


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.

Two thirds of tidal/gravity interaction with Earth's crust and
internal substance, as opposed to roughly one third via our solar
tidal induced action is what I'm talking about. Earth as a whole
(including it's thin atmosphere down to our superheated core of
perhaps liquid thorium) is roughly 98.5% fluid to such tidal/gravity
interaction.


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 Earth is slowing down.

And this is related to the moon how, exactly?

In addition to the mutual tidal interactions, perhaps our highly
electrostatic charged moon that's unavoidably gathering surface mass,
is also unavoidably losing its low-density core of sodium mass at a
greater proportion than Earth. Of thorium, uranium and radium among
other radioactive and common heavy elements should be sticking with
that moon of ours.


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.

Better to be an honest kook than a fellow rusemaster of your brown-
nosed mainstream status quo that's in denial of your denial.
. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

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,

Can you put that in numbers?

not to mention the
secondary/recoil worth of IR.

Recoil of infrared. Right.

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.

Actually, the sun is about 2% heavier than Sirius B, which is a white
dwarf and only about .0024 as luminous than the sun.

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

BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's
called blueshift),

Oh, is *that* what it's called when the Doppler effect of a light source
that's moving toward us shifts its spectrum towards the blue?

and that closing velocity is increasing.

I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at
that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is
roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe.

--
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:

I guess that means you're a bigot

No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.

that's in denial of your nayism.

So you're saying I'm in metadenial.

Kook or bigot, which is better?

Kook. Bigots are generally mean.

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?

You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.

--
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 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
I guess that means you're a bigot

No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.

that's in denial of your nayism.

So you're saying I'm in metadenial.

Kook or bigot, which is better?

Kook. Bigots are generally mean.

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?

You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.

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

You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic.
. - Brad Guth

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
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.

Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
responding to his posts!

On Mar 21, 6:02 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
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,

Can you put that in numbers?

not to mention the
secondary/recoil worth of IR.

Recoil of infrared. Right.

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.

Actually, the sun is about 2% heavier than Sirius B, which is a white
dwarf and only about .0024 as luminous than the sun.

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

BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's
called blueshift),

Oh, is *that* what it's called when the Doppler effect of a light source
that's moving toward us shifts its spectrum towards the blue?

and that closing velocity is increasing.

I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at
that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is
roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe.

--
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.

Your insurmountable nayism and science ****ology is noted. Now go out
and do more good work for your pretend-atheists friends (Art Deco and
such).
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 21, 6:15 pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Timberwoof" wrote in message

...

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.

Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
responding to his posts!

Is that what Hitler told you to say, or was it something from your Old
Testament?
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
I guess that means you're a bigot

No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.

that's in denial of your nayism.

So you're saying I'm in metadenial.

Kook or bigot, which is better?

Kook. Bigots are generally mean.

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?

You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.

--
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.

You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic.

Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking my motives and
education?

--
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 ,
"Alan Erskine" wrote:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
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.

Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
responding to his posts!

Okay, dammit!

--
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 21, 11:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
I guess that means you're a bigot

No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.

that's in denial of your nayism.

So you're saying I'm in metadenial.

Kook or bigot, which is better?

Kook. Bigots are generally mean.

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?

You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.

--
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.

You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic.

Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking my motives and
education?

--
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.

It seems the planet Venus and that of our physically dark moon are not
exactly as having been scripted to us by those having "the right
stuff" (meaning of our NASA and/or Apollo related folks that seem
oddly faith-based and thus sticking to those Old Testament guns).

You seem deathly afraid of others discovering or much less sharing the
truth. Are you afraid?

According to www.beforeus.com it seems we don't really know all
that much about Earth.

. - Brad Guth