Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Mar 20, 2:35*pm, BradGuth 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?

A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
control those in charge of such public supercomputers.

I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
process?

Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.

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?

"Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. *What exactly is
so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
moon?

Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
rubbed anyone the wrong way.

On Mar 24, 2:29 pm, Damien Valentine wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth 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?

A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
control those in charge of such public supercomputers.

I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
process?

If I were Einstein, as such I would not likely need any stinking
supercomputer. However, since most of us are clearly not smarter than
a fifth grader, and because there are so many complex considerations
and potential variables, is why a multitude of complex instructions
for a given simulation are going to be necessary before getting this
conjecture somewhat within the ballpark, so to speak.

I'm thinking that it's going to take a village of us idiots to pull
this one off, even with that NASA/JPL 2048 CPU supercomputer doing
most all that it can.

Once having simulated a glancing lithobraking blow to mother Earth,
whereas the icy proto-moon survives and ends up in orbit (possibly
taking a second or third bounce off Earth if need be), as such would
yield the next phase of polishing and/or fine tuning this proto-moon
encounter for achieving the best possible results.


Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.

That's perfectly terrific science, and where might one get to review
upon such Cro-Magnon moon like calendars?


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?

"Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
moon?

Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
rubbed anyone the wrong way.

Rubbing folks the wrong way is apparently what Usenet is all about,
because otherwise any number of worldly good should have been
accomplished as of more than a decade ago. Perhaps long after the
next spendy and lethal decade is when something via Google groups/
usenet will actually matter. Don't hold your breath.
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
Damien Valentine wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:35*pm, BradGuth 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?

A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
control those in charge of such public supercomputers.

I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
process?

Brad Guth isn't interested in peer review. Peer review is an unhelpful
obstruction to the creative process which binds one to the status quo
thinking of the ivory tower mainstream.

Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.

Oh, look: cave paintings of the moon, which Brad said weren't the
http://www.crystalinks.com/calendarearly.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/975360.stm

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?

"Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. *What exactly is
so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
moon?

Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
rubbed anyone the wrong way.

--
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:

On Mar 24, 2:29 pm, Damien Valentine wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth 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?

A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
control those in charge of such public supercomputers.

I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
process?

If I were Einstein, as such I would not likely need any stinking
supercomputer. However, since most of us are clearly not smarter than
a fifth grader,

I assume you are speaking for yourself.

and because there are so many complex considerations
and potential variables, is why a multitude of complex instructions
for a given simulation are going to be necessary before getting this
conjecture somewhat within the ballpark, so to speak.

I'm thinking that it's going to take a village of us idiots to pull
this one off, even with that NASA/JPL 2048 CPU supercomputer doing
most all that it can.

Yep, since you idiots have no clue how to even state the problem in a
concise mathematical way. (If you did, you'd realize right away that
there's no scenario that will work. None.)

Once having simulated a glancing lithobraking blow to mother Earth,
whereas the icy proto-moon survives and ends up in orbit (possibly
taking a second or third bounce off Earth if need be), as such would
yield the next phase of polishing and/or fine tuning this proto-moon
encounter for achieving the best possible results.

What makes you think anything living on the Earth could survive that?

Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.

That's perfectly terrific science, and where might one get to review
upon such Cro-Magnon moon like calendars?

http://www.google.com/search?q=cro-m...=utf-8&oe=utf-
8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

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?

"Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
moon?

Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
rubbed anyone the wrong way.

Rubbing folks the wrong way is apparently what Usenet is all about,
because otherwise any number of worldly good should have been
accomplished as of more than a decade ago. Perhaps long after the
next spendy and lethal decade is when something via Google groups/
usenet will actually matter. Don't hold your breath.

Yeah, whatever.

--
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:

Of course, my previous notions of relocating our physically dark moon
out to Earth's L1 is yet another perfectly viable topic,

You wanna do what?

http://www.physics.montana.edu/facul.../lagrange.html

Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints? L1 is not a
gravitationally stable place to put anything.

or
intellectual and technological worthy argument/rant, that which I'm
fairly certain other rabbi and faith-based warlord supporters much
like Saul Levy also wouldn't accept or much less allow others to
safely ponder without fear of their Usenet butts getting put on a
stick, even if this perfectly viable alternative meant the very best
all-around and do-everything salvation on behalf of human and most all
other life Earth. Go figure, as to why the rabbi likes of Saul Levy
are so continually opposed to the salvation of Earth. (it's exactly as
though these infowar spewing rusemasters and of their brown-nosed
minion clowns want Earth to self destruct, and the sooner the better)
Perhaps our Saul Levy is actually a sleeper-cell Muslim that's cloaked
as a pretend-atheist.

Is Saul Levy actually smarter than a fifth grader?

Nice rant. That's about the fastest I've seen you run into the weeds.

--
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 24, 6:16 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Of course, my previous notions of relocating our physically dark moon
out to Earth's L1 is yet another perfectly viable topic,

You wanna do what?

http://www.physics.montana.edu/facul.../lagrange.html

Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints? L1 is not a
gravitationally stable place to put anything.

I didn't say it would be easy or much less passive, did I?

I have solutions for interactively keeping that moon within the halo
orbit of Earth's L1.


or
intellectual and technological worthy argument/rant, that which I'm
fairly certain other rabbi and faith-based warlord supporters much
like Saul Levy also wouldn't accept or much less allow others to
safely ponder without fear of their Usenet butts getting put on a
stick, even if this perfectly viable alternative meant the very best
all-around and do-everything salvation on behalf of human and most all
other life Earth. Go figure, as to why the rabbi likes of Saul Levy
are so continually opposed to the salvation of Earth. (it's exactly as
though these infowar spewing rusemasters and of their brown-nosed
minion clowns want Earth to self destruct, and the sooner the better)
Perhaps our Saul Levy is actually a sleeper-cell Muslim that's cloaked
as a pretend-atheist.

Is Saul Levy actually smarter than a fifth grader?

Nice rant. That's about the fastest I've seen you run into the weeds.

--
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.

Good grief, you're no help at all, and not much fun either.
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 24, 6:13 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,







BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:29 pm, Damien Valentine wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth 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?

A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
control those in charge of such public supercomputers.

I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
process?

If I were Einstein, as such I would not likely need any stinking
supercomputer. However, since most of us are clearly not smarter than
a fifth grader,

I assume you are speaking for yourself.

and because there are so many complex considerations
and potential variables, is why a multitude of complex instructions
for a given simulation are going to be necessary before getting this
conjecture somewhat within the ballpark, so to speak.

I'm thinking that it's going to take a village of us idiots to pull
this one off, even with that NASA/JPL 2048 CPU supercomputer doing
most all that it can.

Yep, since you idiots have no clue how to even state the problem in a
concise mathematical way. (If you did, you'd realize right away that
there's no scenario that will work. None.)

Once having simulated a glancing lithobraking blow to mother Earth,
whereas the icy proto-moon survives and ends up in orbit (possibly
taking a second or third bounce off Earth if need be), as such would
yield the next phase of polishing and/or fine tuning this proto-moon
encounter for achieving the best possible results.

What makes you think anything living on the Earth could survive that?

Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.

That's perfectly terrific science, and where might one get to review
upon such Cro-Magnon moon like calendars?

http://www.google.com/search?q=cro-m...r&ie=utf-8&oe=...
8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a



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?

"Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
moon?

Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
rubbed anyone the wrong way.

Rubbing folks the wrong way is apparently what Usenet is all about,
because otherwise any number of worldly good should have been
accomplished as of more than a decade ago. Perhaps long after the
next spendy and lethal decade is when something via Google groups/
usenet will actually matter. Don't hold your breath.

Yeah, whatever.

--
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 profound nayism is noted. When's your WWIII starting?
. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 24, 6:16 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Of course, my previous notions of relocating our physically dark moon
out to Earth's L1 is yet another perfectly viable topic,

You wanna do what?

http://www.physics.montana.edu/facul.../lagrange.html

Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints? L1 is not a
gravitationally stable place to put anything.

I didn't say it would be easy or much less passive, did I?

Why do that?

I have solutions for interactively keeping that moon within the halo
orbit of Earth's L1.

I don't believe you.

--
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 24, 6:10 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,
Damien Valentine wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth 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?

A few million simulations as I would indirectly instruct and/or
control those in charge of such public supercomputers.

I'm sorry; I'm having some trouble here. Would you please explain how
this scheme is consistent with the principles of independent peer
review? That is, how we can be sure that there have been no
procedural mistakes or personal biases, if only one person -- whether
you or someone else -- is "instructing and controlling" the entire
process?

Brad Guth isn't interested in peer review. Peer review is an unhelpful
obstruction to the creative process which binds one to the status quo
thinking of the ivory tower mainstream.

Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

There are several widely recognized examples of lunar calendars from
the Paleolithic period, dated between 20,000 and 30,000 BC. I'm not
an expert on Cro-Magnon archaeology by any means, but the arguments
used to show that these are in fact lunar calendars (rather than
abstract or random symbols) do seem reasonable.

Oh, look: cave paintings of the moon, which Brad said weren't thehttp://www.crystalinks.com/calendare...ure/975360.stm

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?

"Everybody in the World" = 6.7 billion, of which seems a little
mainstream skewed/offset if not entirely incorrect. What exactly is
so terribly wrong or insurmountable with our having a more recent
moon?

Timberwoof is right, I was being hyperbolic. I beg your pardons if it
rubbed anyone the wrong way.

--
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.

"Lunar calendars are believed to be the oldest calendars invented by
mankind. Cro-Magnon people are claimed to have invented one around
32,000 BC."

"are claimed to have invented" is science?

For something as big or bigger than any other influence upon life on
Earth (second only to the sun), seems that moon wasn't getting
depicted as very large. Perhaps it was orbiting much further away and
not nearly as bright (unlikely), or perhaps those early humans had
extremely poor eye sight.

BTW, the age of those drawings within caves at Lascaux France are only
estimated at 15,000 BP (not proven). They could be as recent as
12,000 BP or possibly even somewhat more recent.

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
depictions of that big old moon.
. - Brad Guth

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
depictions of that big old moon.
.. - Brad Guth

Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?

31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud)
"Indeed, the Land Of *******s was born from the sea
only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few days after the
Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of it,"

He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?