life supporting atmospheres

In article ,
wrote:

snip

other than atmosphere and water the most important thing on a planet
would be the magnetic field. A large moon orbiting a planet has a very
large impact on the sustainability of that magnetic field. a planet
the size of earth or even mars will have a magnetic field for awhile
even without a moon. without that magnetic field then the atmosphere
will eventually burn off not too mention the high levels of radation
that the planet will be subjected to. So in order to have a planet
sustain life on a planet The large moon would be totally necessary.

The Moon has nothing to do with sustaining the Earth's magnetic field,
which originates in the liquid outer core of the planet.

--
Odysseus

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:24:09 -0600, Odysseus
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

snip

other than atmosphere and water the most important thing on a planet
would be the magnetic field. A large moon orbiting a planet has a very
large impact on the sustainability of that magnetic field. a planet
the size of earth or even mars will have a magnetic field for awhile
even without a moon. without that magnetic field then the atmosphere
will eventually burn off not too mention the high levels of radation
that the planet will be subjected to. So in order to have a planet
sustain life on a planet The large moon would be totally necessary.

The Moon has nothing to do with sustaining the Earth's magnetic field,
which originates in the liquid outer core of the planet.

are you serious? I mean for real do you even know what you are talking
about? I mean think about for a few minutes and stop thinking that you
are smarter than most people because obviously you are not. Why do you
think that there are still volcanos on earth? how is it that the core
has not cooled already?

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 06:04:12 -0700, wrote:

ARE YOU INSANE? DON'T FEED THE ****ING TROLL, GOOFBALL!

Saul Levy


are you calling me a troll? with you half wit one liners that make no
sense.. EVER HEARD OF A CAPS LOCK dumbass

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:28:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 06:04:12 -0700, wrote:



ARE YOU INSANE? DON'T FEED THE ****ING TROLL, GOOFBALL!



Saul Levy





are you calling me a troll? with you half wit one liners that make no

sense.. EVER HEARD OF A CAPS LOCK dumbass

Rabbi Saul Levy is extra special. Any reply to him is only proving how his faith-based FUD takes control and essentially trashes topics and replies by anyone he doesn't like. His intellectual terrorist job is to topic/author stalk and to discredit anyone contributing to these public Usenet/newsgroups.

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

My "Heavy Air Atmosphere Theory" is proving itself each week. This week 3 states had high floods. Inch of rain each hour.WOW My boat is much needed. Pictures of the boat made full page,and now can be seen on Facebook. Will sell the plans for %$.00 and painting and Chief Grey Cloud WOW TreBert

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:24:09 -0600, Odysseus
wrote:

snip

The Moon has nothing to do with sustaining the Earth's magnetic field,
which originates in the liquid outer core of the planet.

are you serious? I mean for real do you even know what you are talking
about? I mean think about for a few minutes and stop thinking that you
are smarter than most people because obviously you are not. Why do you
think that there are still volcanos on earth? how is it that the core
has not cooled already?

It was once very hot indeed, and there's a lot of insulating material
around it, but it's true the interior of the Earth has not cooled as
fast as simple thermodynamics would suggest -- this was noted by Lord
Kelvin in the XIX century and was an important problem for early
geological theories positing an age in the billions of years.
Radioactivity is thought to be the principal source of excess heat,
since the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment anyway; although there's
little of the 'hottest' material left, the longer-lived isotopes of
uranium, thorium, and potassium are still reasonably abundant and
contribute a large proportion of the ~44 TW of heat the Earth radiates
into space, something like two-thirds of the total.

By what mechanism do you think the Moon influences the Earth's magnetic
field, or keeps the planet's interior hot? If you're thinking of tidal
friction, the tidal forces in the Earth-Moon system are not nearly
strong enough to account for the observed excess, producing only about a
tenth as much heat as the radioisotopes in the mantle do.

--
Odysseus

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 01:29:07 -0600, Odysseus
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:24:09 -0600, Odysseus
wrote:

It was once very hot indeed, and there's a lot of insulating material
around it, but it's true the interior of the Earth has not cooled as
fast as simple thermodynamics would suggest -- this was noted by Lord
Kelvin in the XIX century and was an important problem for early
geological theories positing an age in the billions of years.

do you realize just how much uranium would be needed to generate that
kind of heat?

Radioactivity is thought to be the principal source of excess heat,
since the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment anyway; although there's
little of the 'hottest' material left, the longer-lived isotopes of
uranium, thorium, and potassium are still reasonably abundant and
contribute a large proportion of the ~44 TW of heat the Earth radiates
into space, something like two-thirds of the total.

By what mechanism do you think the Moon influences the Earth's magnetic
field, or keeps the planet's interior hot? If you're thinking of tidal
friction, the tidal forces in the Earth-Moon system are not nearly
strong enough to account for the observed excess, producing only about a
tenth as much heat as the radioisotopes in the mantle do.

well lets see. first lets start with a few obvious clues. Venus doesnt
have a magnetic field also has no moon.
Mars has no magnetic field also no large moon. mercury does have a
magnetic field however the proximity of the sun may provide enough
gravity to allow mercury to have a monten core

and yes tidal friction caused by the large moon most certainly would
provide enough heat energy from friction to keep the core hot. you may
be thinking about the moon tidally moving the continents but that has
nothing to do with it. they dont go down near deep enough to keep the
core of the earth at the temprature that it is at.but the friction
from the liquid core as the moon pulls it from side to side would be
plenty.

and as the moon goes round and round and pulls the liquid iron or
whatever else it is around you get the eletric charge and volia you
get an instant magnetic field.

I think that maybe you watch too many movies or something

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

Actually, a life supporting atmosphere should be allowed to cover a fairly wide scope with genetic evolution and/or adaptation, not to mention what applied physics and its scientific levels of technology can help life of all sorts to survive in places thought too lethal for Goldilocks.

Without good intelligence and applied technology, much if not the vast majority of Earth is not Goldilocks suitable.

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

Earth's moon helps to airdate water,so fish can breath. Rain puts water on land surface so fresh watyer life can live . All life came out of the oceans one way or another. In about 25,000 years we will have found planets that do not have a land surface,and all life is found under their one vast ocean. Think of two of Jupiter's planets and you get the picture. TreBert

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

Actually, a life supporting atmosphere should be allowed to cover a fairly
wide scope with genetic evolution and/or adaptation, not to mention
what applied physics and its scientific levels of technology can help
life of all sorts to survive in places thought too lethal for
Goldilocks.

Without good intelligence and applied technology, much if not the vast majority of Earth is not Goldilocks suitable.

It would seem that you have failed to realize what goldilox means or
actually is. Goldilox is just a area in which the ability to sustain
at atmosphere such as the earth can survive with life. saying that
that a vast majority of earth is not that way means nothing. if only
one square mile was able to support life then that would mean earth
was in a goldiliox zone. if only one square inch was able to support
life then that would mean earth is in the goldilox zone.