Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On May 24, 2:40 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:13:19 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 23, 7:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:29:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 22, 10:37 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:53:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 10:45 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Oh really? So what would it be then?

Now you want us to believe that even objective science that's fully
peer replicated is at risk?

Of what?

Good grief, what else is left?

Isn't an honestly subjective train of though worth anything nowadays?
If not, then most of whatever came associated with the name of
Einstein is certainly at risk.

Of what?

Of his being a Jewish intellectual cartel puppet.

Oh. So nothing real then.

You say governments and powerful corporations never tell lies?

No, I don't.

You know better, as so many and even myself can tell all sorts of
stories about government, corporate and faith-based screw ups.


say the moon with them horrific but shallow craters isn't real?

No, I don't.

Then give us your best swag as to whatever created those extremely
large but shallow craters.


you say the off-world laws of physics are not real?

There is no special set of laws of physics for off world.

I agree, except for a good deal of our Apollo missions, the weirdness
of dark matter, dark energy and your standard black holes that could
be containing antimatter, plus don't forget about plain old ice in
space that oddly is still a mystery of unknown physics, as well as the
science on behalf of testing ice in space, as never having been peer
replicated to any point of certainty.
.. - Brad Guth

On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:08:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 24, 2:43 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 23, 4:10 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
David Johnston wrote:

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

This certainly rules out the harder cheeses, like Parmesan and
Asiago...and surprisingly, even Green Cheese like Sapsago...given all
the craters, I'd say Swiss Cheese is the most likely candidate, as it
has a somewhat rubbery texture also. ;-)

Pat

Add lots of ice as a protective shell to most anything and it'll
survive an encounter with Earth.

No, it won't. Ice is rigid and transmits physical shock quite well.

I't's not as rigid as the same thickness of solid basalt, especially
of mineral rich basalts.

The mostly ocean covered surface of Earth is anything but rigid,
especially if its crust were merely 5 km thick.

I'm talking about an icy proto-moon of perhaps 2000 km radius. That's
262 km of salty ice, snow and fluffy dry-ice crystals that's anything
but all that rigid.

How about when we secretly atomic bombed Antarctica, what were the
surface craters (if any) under all of that snow and solid ice?

If we had secretly atomic bombed Antartica then there would have been
craters there.


How well protected from a nuclear surface blast is a submarine hiding
under 3~4 meters worth of the Arctic polar ice cap?
. - Brad Guth

On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 24, 2:40 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:13:19 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 23, 7:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:29:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 22, 10:37 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:53:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 10:45 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Oh really? So what would it be then?

Now you want us to believe that even objective science that's fully
peer replicated is at risk?

Of what?

Good grief, what else is left?

Isn't an honestly subjective train of though worth anything nowadays?
If not, then most of whatever came associated with the name of
Einstein is certainly at risk.

Of what?

Of his being a Jewish intellectual cartel puppet.

Oh. So nothing real then.

You say governments and powerful corporations never tell lies?

No, I don't.

You know better, as so many and even myself can tell

You can't. You just take it for granted that everyone "knows" these
things in your head.

all sorts of
stories about government, corporate and faith-based screw ups.


say the moon with them horrific but shallow craters isn't real?

No, I don't.

Then give us your best swag as to whatever created those extremely
large but shallow craters.

Meteorite impact. We have them on Earth too but they don't last as
long.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

Tell me how the off-world laws of physics are different?

They aren't.

Your DARPA/NASA and their Apollo fiasco proves otherwise,

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

though I'd
agree that off-world physics as equal to terrestrial physics should
have applied.

The stellar tidal radius and especially of the mutual tidal radius or
diameter of any good pair or more of substantial stars can't be so
easily excluded in order to suit your Old Testament mindset.

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?


Why doesn't the tidal radius of others stars matter?

Matter to what?

Obviously not to a DARPA lover like yourself, as obviously nothing
matters as long as it isn't allowed to rock your mainstream status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP.

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

On May 24, 5:08 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

Tell me how the off-world laws of physics are different?

They aren't.

Your DARPA/NASA and their Apollo fiasco proves otherwise,

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

Does it matter? (apparently to some it does)


though I'd agree that off-world physics as equal to terrestrial physics
should have applied.

The stellar tidal radius and especially of the mutual tidal radius or
diameter of any good pair or more of substantial stars can't be so
easily excluded in order to suit your Old Testament mindset.

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

Is there such a thing as a manic bipolar disorder of denial (MBDD)?
If so, I don't have that.


Why doesn't the tidal radius of others stars matter?

Matter to what?

Obviously not to a DARPA lover like yourself, as obviously nothing
matters as long as it isn't allowed to rock your mainstream status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP.

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

If you can't "search for" or otherwise ask nicely, so what's the
difference.

The good parts of DARPA are actually quite interesting and forward
looking, whereas the dark side of DARPA is just about as bad as you
can get. I'm not convinced their good offsets their bad.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 24, 5:07 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth


wrote:
On May 24, 2:40 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:13:19 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 23, 7:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:29:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 22, 10:37 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:53:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 10:45 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Oh really? So what would it be then?

Now you want us to believe that even objective science that's fully
peer replicated is at risk?

Of what?

Good grief, what else is left?

Isn't an honestly subjective train of though worth anything nowadays?
If not, then most of whatever came associated with the name of
Einstein is certainly at risk.

Of what?

Of his being a Jewish intellectual cartel puppet.

Oh. So nothing real then.

You say governments and powerful corporations never tell lies?

No, I don't.

You know better, as so many and even myself can tell

You can't. You just take it for granted that everyone "knows" these
things in your head.

Why bother making things up, when the truth is so much better?


all sorts of
stories about government, corporate and faith-based screw ups.

say the moon with them horrific but shallow craters isn't real?

No, I don't.

Then give us your best swag as to whatever created those extremely
large but shallow craters.

Meteorite impact. We have them on Earth too but they don't last as
long.

That's funny, as in real funny coming from such a brown-nosed clown
like yourself.

BTW, why do you feel the need or MI5/CIA requirement as to quote
everything?
.. - BG

On May 24, 5:01 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:08:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 24, 2:43 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 23, 4:10 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
David Johnston wrote:

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

This certainly rules out the harder cheeses, like Parmesan and
Asiago...and surprisingly, even Green Cheese like Sapsago...given all
the craters, I'd say Swiss Cheese is the most likely candidate, as it
has a somewhat rubbery texture also. ;-)

Pat

Add lots of ice as a protective shell to most anything and it'll
survive an encounter with Earth.

No, it won't. Ice is rigid and transmits physical shock quite well.

I't's not as rigid as the same thickness of solid basalt, especially
of mineral rich basalts.

The mostly ocean covered surface of Earth is anything but rigid,
especially if its crust were merely 5 km thick.

I'm talking about an icy proto-moon of perhaps 2000 km radius. That's
262 km of salty ice, snow and fluffy dry-ice crystals that's anything
but all that rigid.

How about when we secretly atomic bombed Antarctica, what were the
surface craters (if any) under all of that snow and solid ice?

If we had secretly atomic bombed Antarctica then there would have been
craters there.

Ice craters, or crust craters? (I doubt crust craters if protected by
nearly 4 km of old ice, or even of one km thick ice)


How well protected from a nuclear surface blast is a submarine hiding
under 3~4 meters worth of the Arctic polar ice cap?

OOPS! taboo/nondisclosure (aka need to know)
.. - Brad Guth

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:44:51 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On Mar 17, 9:14 am, "a425couple" wrote:
"Matt Giwer" wrote

Timberwoof wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see,
Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
On sci.astro.seti Brad is our comic relief. Posting to him is wasted. He
is
impervious to reason and physics.

Thanks Matt, got kinda interested, read wikipedia - moon, then Cruithne,
then Lilith. Interesting side-bar quote, "Due to the many readily apparent
holes in Lilith's supportive argument (not least of which is her general
defiance of the laws of gravity) the actual physical existence of this
astronomical object is believed only by fringe groups comparable to the Flat
Earth Society."

To BradGuth, seems to my unschooled in this area logic,
that the biggest flaw in your thoughts comes from fact,
"The Moon is in synchronous rotation, meaning that it keeps nearly the same
face turned towards the Earth at all times. Early in the Moon's history, its
rotation slowed and became locked in this configuration as a result of
frictional effects associated with tidal deformations caused by the Earth."
That would probably take a REAL considerable time -
i.e. much over 13,000 years.
Unless of course, it was just created then and there,
almost exactly as we now observe it to be.

Venus as it passes extremely close by every 19 months, as such is
nearly as moon like tidal locked to Earth.

What's your basis for this claim?


What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?

You have presented no reason to think such a thing is possible.


While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
came from?

How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
tilt?

The planets of the solar system vary widely in their range of axial
tilts. There is nothing especially unusual about Earth's.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:52:16 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


You know better, as so many and even myself can tell

You can't. You just take it for granted that everyone "knows" these
things in your head.

Why bother making things up, when the truth is so much better?

The truth about what?



all sorts of
stories about government, corporate and faith-based screw ups.

say the moon with them horrific but shallow craters isn't real?

No, I don't.

Then give us your best swag as to whatever created those extremely
large but shallow craters.

Meteorite impact. We have them on Earth too but they don't last as
long.

That's funny,

yawn I should have know you wouldn't be able to actually carry on a
responsive conversation. Can't think of something to say? Go ape****
and start accusing people of being part of the conspiracy.

On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:45:08 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 24, 5:08 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

Tell me how the off-world laws of physics are different?

They aren't.

Your DARPA/NASA and their Apollo fiasco proves otherwise,

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

Does it matter?

Apparently not to you. You prefer to spout gibberish, the more
incoherent, the better.