|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 26, 5:44 pm, josephus wrote:
BradGuth wrote: On May 25, 2:43 pm, josephus wrote: lets talk about accelerations. and the definition of excess escape velocity. first off an orbit is constrained and the energy function is negative. -- a fact of life any bound orbit will have negative energy. so a circular orbit is V^2 = GM/R to escape completely from the orbit. the V = (2)^1/2 * Vcircular. that little bit of extra energy will escape the system. in real terms that little bit of energy would be 1.4121 times any circurlar speed to escape from that orbit. whether elliptical or circular. a. a moon would escape from the earth b a planet would escape from the sun. any passing object ( sirius or any other sun) would exchange energy with the planets and moons and as it swoops by. they would bobble and leave the solar system. the problem is delineated in "Astrodynamics" by Bates, Mueller and White. Dover 1971 easy reading If you know a little bit of calculus and and lot of algebra. thats ok Brad does not read that kind of stuff. josephus Why is josephus having to talk as though less than child? Are you Muslim, and thus deathly afraid of using computers, or cameras? In addition to your having ignored the Sirius star/solar system recent loss of 4+ solar mass, and having further ignored the stellar binary considerations that would become trinary once our solar system was close enough. So, where’s that supercomputer simulation? 4+ solar mass loss? did you just make that up. please show us a reference to a news release or even, god forbid, a juried magazine. otherwise this is just an unsupported assertion by imagination. An impressive Sirius-B went from 6 solar mass, into its red giant phase and rather quickly spent itself all the way down to one solar mass of a white dwarf, whereas Sirius-A most likely picked up one of those solar mass units, of which leaves the Sirius star system short 4 solar mass. Apparently you have not even bothered to run the basic of moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves otherwise. How sad and pathetic at the same time. why dont you look up celestial mechanics and orbital motions For pretty much the same reason you're not doing as I'd nicely asked. This limited method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you ever run the basic online crater simulator? (apparently not) http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ . - Brad Guth josephus -- It is true that the person making the claim should show the proof that is approved by the opposition. brad the clueless tries to pass the research of to the opposition. and that is not how science is done. Since nothing outside the mainstream box is ever approved by your intellectual cartel opposition, perhaps you should tell, why are you here? . - Brad Guth |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth
have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby moon of ours. How sad. Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars like encounter. A truly supercomputer driven simulation in full blown 3D interactive eye-candy animation would do a damn fine job of proving this out, that not each an every encounter is an all inclusive merging of the two bodies, especially when the encounter velocity isn’t there to begin with. This following method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you ever bothered to run a few what-if encounters through this basic online crater simulator? http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ BTW, like being back in elementary grade school, I've had to correct a few of those pesky robo-moderations or robo-revisions that keep connecting key words to whatever's handy, as intended so that a common newsgroup or internet 'search for' my name along with that of our moon, Venus or even Sirius should not work properly. Funny how DARPA's Google of Usenet/newsgroups is so deathly afraid of whatever I have to say. . - Brad Guth On Mar 29, 7:46 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 16, 12:31 pm, 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, as such were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of their era. However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night nearly as clear as by day. Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered, whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of ours. What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500 BP? Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure rated? . -BradGuth I'm to guess, there's some kind of silly insider bylaws imposed against whatever computer simulations of Earth w/o moon, and only much worse yet of our getting impacted by an icy proto-moon, at that as of merely the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. Go figure, as to where the 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force is otherwise going? . - Brad Guth |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth You start your argument by poisoning it against anyone who might disagree. That's a surefire sign that you are about to post balderdash. have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby moon of ours. The simulations would not prove anything. Yet you write as though you already know what the simulations will show. But it's easy enough to show that your scenario won't work: There is no way for the moon to have escaped the orbit of Sirius or one of its planets, traveled here, and inserted itself into a nearly circular orbit around the Earth. How sad. How sad indeed that you won't go out and learn the basics of how orbits work. Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars like encounter. Earth as a mass of rocks, yes, with splattering all over the place. But Earth with a fragile ecosystem on its outer skin, no. This is like looking at a bunch of bricks and boards scattered through a neighborhood and saying that the house survived the encounter with the tornado. A truly supercomputer driven simulation in full blown 3D interactive eye-candy animation would do a damn fine job of proving this out, that not each an every encounter is an all inclusive merging of the two bodies, especially when the encounter velocity isnąt there to begin with. No, it wouldn't. If the moon isn't moving very fast then it would not get here to begin with. And it would stay around the Earth longer and thus be accelerated by it longer and thus end up going faster. And when the moon gets too close, even slowly, it breaks up because of tidal forces. This following method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you ever bothered to run a few what-if encounters through this basic online crater simulator? http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ The crater simulator is not written to handle moon-sized objects hitting earth-sized objects. BTW, like being back in elementary grade school, I've had to correct a few of those pesky robo-moderations or robo-revisions that keep connecting key words to whatever's handy, as intended so that a common newsgroup or internet 'search for' my name along with that of our moon, Venus or even Sirius should not work properly. Funny how DARPA's Google of Usenet/newsgroups is so deathly afraid of whatever I have to say. Paranoia of this sort is typical of kooks. Why are you trying so desperately to be mistaken for one? I'm not afraid of what you have to say; it's mildly entertaining. -- 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. |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 28, 8:44 am, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth You start your argument by poisoning it against anyone who might disagree. That's a surefire sign that you are about to post balderdash. For the most part I've been correct about those topic/author stalking types, except they is actually far worse off than anything I could manage to say about them. There is also the unwritten law of my having to return the warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and affection that I can muster. have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby moon of ours. The simulations would not prove anything. Yet you write as though you already know what the simulations will show. But it's easy enough to show that your scenario won't work: There is no way for the moon to have escaped the orbit of Sirius or one of its planets, traveled here, and inserted itself into a nearly circular orbit around the Earth. Your profound nayism is noted. So, besides your being deathly afraid to fully simulate any of this theory, exactly why are you here? How sad. How sad indeed that you won't go out and learn the basics of how orbits work. Been there, done that, need supercomputer. Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars like encounter. Earth as a mass of rocks, yes, with splattering all over the place. But Earth with a fragile ecosystem on its outer skin, no. This is like looking at a bunch of bricks and boards scattered through a neighborhood and saying that the house survived the encounter with the tornado. You have such little faith in nature, as well as in the intellectual fortitude of those of us that simply would not just lay down and die off peacefully, just to suit your silly mindset. A truly supercomputer driven simulation in full blown 3D interactive eye-candy animation would do a damn fine job of proving this out, that not each an every encounter is an all inclusive merging of the two bodies, especially when the encounter velocity isnąt there to begin with. No, it wouldn't. If the moon isn't moving very fast then it would not get here to begin with. And it would stay around the Earth longer and thus be accelerated by it longer and thus end up going faster. And when the moon gets too close, even slowly, it breaks up because of tidal forces. Can your supercomputer simulator show us that kind of nasty reaction, and in the NASA usual of their 3D animated eye-candy mode? This following method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you ever bothered to run a few what-if encounters through this basic online crater simulator? http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ The crater simulator is not written to handle moon-sized objects hitting earth-sized objects. True enough, as it can only manage to cope with much larger and faster encounters. The author of that basic simulator can do as much theory polishing as you'd like. BTW, like being back in elementary grade school, I've had to correct a few of those pesky robo-moderations or robo-revisions that keep connecting key words to whatever's handy, as intended so that a common newsgroup or internet 'search for' my name along with that of our moon, Venus or even Sirius should not work properly. Funny how DARPA's Google of Usenet/newsgroups is so deathly afraid of whatever I have to say. Paranoia of this sort is typical of kooks. Why are you trying so desperately to be mistaken for one? I'm not afraid of what you have to say; it's mildly entertaining. Now you're calling the regular laws of physics and best available science as "paranoia"? Perhaps this effort is for a similar but more sanitary reason as to why your nose is always so mainstream brown. . - Brad Guth |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
Earth w/o moon would be much colder and most likely deep into the next
ice-age. There would still be ocean tides of roughly one third and of a 24 hour basis, and Earth would likely have some degree of seasonal tilt, as well as over the long term odds of having pole flipping or wobble to deal with, as well as Earth's orbit being more elliptical. BTW, human soot laced with CO2, NOx and lots of other nifty and nasty byproducts does cause global dimming, of which in turn releases mother natures flatulence of methanes and CO2 as well as Radon(Rn222) as millions of acres each year keep burning to the ground, not to mention uncontrolled coal fires that are mostly underground, and even a few too many of those coal fires of the recently exposed and/or eroded surface. At the ongoing rate of natural and artificial burning of our fossil and bio fuels, we'll be lucky to stretch this ongoing game of pillaging and raping mother nature for all she's worth much past the next century, without dire consequences and bloodshed like never seen before. The very gradual increase (meaning hardly measurable outside of the usual 11 year cycle) in sunspot energy is not causing us much grief, although it is certainly not helping to cool us off. Our trusty moon with its mutually interactive tidal energy worth of 2e20 N/sec is however in charge of what has been thawing us out from the very last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. Sorry about that. 2e20 N * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 N/hr Do the math any which way you'd care to convert whatever small portion (say not more than 0.1% and not less than 0.0001%) of that force into the unavoidable internal friction of thermal energy, then remember that it's ongoing 24/7/365. There's also the moon secondary worth of IR, plus always its gamma and X-rays to contend with, of which wouldn't be such a problem if our protective magnetosphere wasn't fading away at .05%/year. DARPA/NASA knows all of this and so much more. .. - Brad Guth |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 15, 8:39 am, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: I'd like you to explain how that salty icy proto moon escaped that far-off sun's gravity, traveled across the cold interstellar distance in reasonable time, and arrived here with a speed slow enough to get captured by Earth and enter a near-circular orbit. Sirius-B burned through or essentially lost 4x to 5x solar mass. . - BG Demonstrate some calculations for us, Brad. Show how fast the moon would have had to travel to get from Sirius to here if it left before Sirius B became a white dwarf. Hell, I'd like to know what spectroscopic evidence you have for calling the moon salty and icy. Deductive speculation, as to where our environment most likely obtained so much water and salt as having been deposited into our environment. . - BG That's not spectroscopic evidence, that's a flight of fancy. -- 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 supposed expertise in astrophysics is clearly superior to most, although not even Einstein could work out such complex multibody details on paper without a darn good supercomputer at his disposal. Earth w/o moon would clearly be much colder and most likely deep into the next ice-age. There would still be ocean tides of roughly one third and of a 24 hour basis, and Earth would likely have some degree of seasonal tilt, as well as over the long term odds of having pole flipping or wobble to deal with, as well as Earth's orbit being more elliptical. A compromise would be to relocate our moon to Earth’s L1, and interactively keeping it there. A good supercomputer simulation will prove out every micro detail of this alternative, as well as for the +/- environmental considerations, and the same goes for simulating the Sirius thing of going into its red giant phase that likely gave us that moon and possibly even Venus to begin with. Interstellar interactions are common place, as are intergalactic encounters that generate any number of rogue stars and spare planes as well as potential proto-moons. BTW, human soot laced with CO2, NOx and lots of other nifty and nasty byproducts does cause global dimming, of which in turn releases mother natures flatulence of methanes and CO2 as well as Radon(Rn222) as millions of acres each year keep burning to the ground, not to mention uncontrolled coal fires that are mostly underground, and even a few too many of those coal fires of the recently exposed and/or eroded surface. At the ongoing rate of natural and artificial burning of our fossil and bio fuels, we'll be lucky to stretch this ongoing game of pillaging and raping mother nature for all she's worth much past the next century, without dire consequences and bloodshed like never seen before. The very gradual increase (meaning hardly measurable outside of the usual 11 year cycle) in sunspot energy is not causing us much grief, although it is certainly not helping to cool us off. Our trusty moon with its mutually interactive tidal energy worth of 2e20 N/sec is however in charge of what has been thawing us out from the very last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. Sorry about that. 2e20 N * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 N/hr Do the math any which way you'd care to convert whatever small portion (say not more than 0.1% and not less than 0.0001%) of that force into the unavoidable internal friction of thermal energy, then remember that it's ongoing 24/7/365. There's also the moon secondary worth of IR, plus always its gamma and X-rays to contend with, of which wouldn't be such a problem if our protective magnetosphere wasn't fading away at .05%/year. DARPA/NASA knows all of this and so much more. . - Brad Guth |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 15, 8:32 am, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On May 14, 9:30 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: You are very correct, as it's the fluid within Earth that's by far the most important interacting tidal worthy substance of mass that's unavoidably interacting with our unusually massive, nearby and fast moving moon. "No amount of physics or science" and certainly not a mathematical equation in sight. All this speculation is easier to do with adjectives and adverbs. One has to start somewhere. And then one has to continue. But you've been suck in your "start somewhere" of using just adjectives and semantic logic to do your thinking for you. "What else floats?" "Very small rocks." What the hell did you expect; absolute objective proof-positive evidence first? No. Just some sensible thinking backed up by observations and equations. Except in the case of your extraordinary claims about the moon: Here all anyone really wants is some extraordinary evidence. Nothing major. -- 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. As I'd said before, it'll take some serious computational expertise, as well as trial and error simulations for polishing this theory. Clearly you are not the least bit interested in helping. There is no theory about the 2e20 N/sec of mutual tidal interaction between Earth and our moon, because that's objectively as proof positive as it gets, and I'd suppose the interstellar worth of tidal interactions would go pretty much the same way. . - Brad Guth |
#478
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On May 15, 8:32 am, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On May 14, 9:30 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: You are very correct, as it's the fluid within Earth that's by far the most important interacting tidal worthy substance of mass that's unavoidably interacting with our unusually massive, nearby and fast moving moon. "No amount of physics or science" and certainly not a mathematical equation in sight. All this speculation is easier to do with adjectives and adverbs. One has to start somewhere. And then one has to continue. But you've been suck in your "start somewhere" of using just adjectives and semantic logic to do your thinking for you. "What else floats?" "Very small rocks." What the hell did you expect; absolute objective proof-positive evidence first? No. Just some sensible thinking backed up by observations and equations. Except in the case of your extraordinary claims about the moon: Here all anyone really wants is some extraordinary evidence. Nothing major. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L. As I'd said before, it'll take some serious computational expertise, as well as trial and error simulations for polishing this theory. Clearly you are not the least bit interested in helping. There is no theory about the 2e20 N/sec of mutual tidal interaction between Earth and our moon, because that's objectively as proof positive as it gets, and I'd suppose the interstellar worth of tidal interactions would go pretty much the same way. You don't accept any mathematical theory of tidal effects because you'd be able to calculate that at interstellar distances it's negligible. -- 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. |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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, If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no macroscopic life left afterward. |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 29, 9:06 am, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On May 15, 8:32 am, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On May 14, 9:30 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: You are very correct, as it's the fluid within Earth that's by far the most important interacting tidal worthy substance of mass that's unavoidably interacting with our unusually massive, nearby and fast moving moon. "No amount of physics or science" and certainly not a mathematical equation in sight. All this speculation is easier to do with adjectives and adverbs. One has to start somewhere. And then one has to continue. But you've been suck in your "start somewhere" of using just adjectives and semantic logic to do your thinking for you. "What else floats?" "Very small rocks." What the hell did you expect; absolute objective proof-positive evidence first? No. Just some sensible thinking backed up by observations and equations. Except in the case of your extraordinary claims about the moon: Here all anyone really wants is some extraordinary evidence. Nothing major. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L. As I'd said before, it'll take some serious computational expertise, as well as trial and error simulations for polishing this theory. Clearly you are not the least bit interested in helping. There is no theory about the 2e20 N/sec of mutual tidal interaction between Earth and our moon, because that's objectively as proof positive as it gets, and I'd suppose the interstellar worth of tidal interactions would go pretty much the same way. You don't accept any mathematical theory of tidal effects because you'd be able to calculate that at interstellar distances it's negligible. -- 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 can tell that funny one to all of those galactic encounters, and of stars that apparently explode for implode or no apparent reason, not to mention whatever a black hole encounter represents. . - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth | BradGuth | Policy | 523 | June 20th 08 07:17 PM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | LIBERATOR | Space Shuttle | 39 | April 22nd 06 08:40 AM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | honestjohn | Misc | 2 | April 19th 06 05:55 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | History | 13 | December 15th 03 09:13 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | Astronomy Misc | 13 | December 15th 03 09:13 PM |