|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
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. That seems a wee bit drastic. I was thinking more like a 90% kill- off, or perhaps less horrific if our ET intelligent designers came to our rescue. .. - Brad Guth |
#482
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: 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. That seems a wee bit drastic. Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left. The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust. |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: 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. That seems a wee bit drastic. Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left. The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust. You have such little faith... When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they always self destruct? Do the fully 3D interactive simulations, and report back. .. - Brad Guth |
#484
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote: On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote: On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: 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. That seems a wee bit drastic. Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left. The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust. You have such little faith... When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they always self destruct? Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of what you are used to. See how well you survive. |
#485
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 30, 10:13 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote: On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: 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. That seems a wee bit drastic. Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left. The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust. You have such little faith... When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they always self destruct? Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of what you are used to. See how well you survive. I'd rather go the other way, towards 96 bar, at less than 1% O2 and 99% H2. BTW, the encounter of an icy proto-moon most likely kook a good portion of our atmosphere away. .. - Brad Guth |
#486
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:42:21 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote: On May 30, 10:13 am, David Johnston wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote: On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: 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. That seems a wee bit drastic. Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left. The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust. You have such little faith... When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they always self destruct? Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of what you are used to. See how well you survive. I'd rather go the other way, towards 96 bar, at less than 1% O2 and 99% H2. There s no reason why such an event would pick and choose which molecules to take. BTW, the encounter of an icy proto-moon most likely kook a good portion of our atmosphere away. . - Brad Guth An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy proto-Moon. |
#487
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 31, 12:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:42:21 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 30, 10:13 am, David Johnston wrote: On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote: On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: 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. That seems a wee bit drastic. Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left. The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust. You have such little faith... When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they always self destruct? Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of what you are used to. See how well you survive. I'd rather go the other way, towards 96 bar, at less than 1% O2 and 99% H2. There s no reason why such an event would pick and choose which molecules to take. BTW, the encounter of an icy proto-moon most likely took a good portion of our atmosphere away. . - Brad Guth An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy proto-Moon. There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot) And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever proves ???? Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned supercomputers? Why are you folks always so afraid to uncover truths, and much worse at sharing truths? .. - Brad Guth |
#488
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth. Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow. In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would also have required an impact with something of considerably larger diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that moon arrived at Earth. Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into that white dwarf. Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy. . – Brad Guth |
#489
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
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. If that's what your simulation has to say, then so be it. We look forwards to having a look-see at those complex though impressive computer simulated results. BTW; Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth. Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow. In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would also have required an impact with something of considerably larger diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that moon arrived at Earth. Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into that white dwarf. Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy. . – Brad Guth |
#490
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote: An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy proto-Moon. There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot) And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever proves ???? I have no such thing. Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned supercomputers? Is there some reason why you accuse everyone who thinks that you are an idiot of working for DARPA? DARPA only employs about 140 people. |
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 08:13 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | Astronomy Misc | 13 | December 15th 03 08:13 PM |