|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
"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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
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. So what's your point? What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of an icy proto-moon (be it complex)? 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? .. - Brad Guth |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 16, 5:55 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , 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. Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly? I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that extremely big old moon The kind of evidence you insist on is expected to be lacking; the kind of evidence people show you instead, you ignore. In this topic, those other conjectures or best SWAG of whatever you call the one and only truth doesn't count. What opening part of the goodwill jest or intent of this topic didn't you understand? as of prior to 12,500 BP. "As of prior to". What the hell does that mean? How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000 km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass. How about you show how the moon would be captured into a nearly circular orbit? As I'd said before, that such needs a good supercomputer, because it's not nearly as simple or as clear-cut as you suggest. The encounter velocity could have been of a fairly low velocity, as a rear-ender sort of glancing sucker-punch that induced the bulk of Earth's seasonal tilt. Working this what-if in reverse order may prove as worthy enough to start off with. Are you suggesting that velocity, gravity, angle of a glancing encounter or transfer of icy mass plays no part in this? OOPS! how about a Venus like planet w/moon cruising past but just well enough outside of Earth's L1? (but do you even get where I'm going with this?) How many hundred basic what-ifs would you like to ponder? 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 * as of prior to 12,500 BP * somewhat more recent * some time after Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with three digits of accuracy? I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in my old age and all. That doesn't speak well for your hypothesis. Nor does this dyslexic wordage encryption that I have to continually deal with, speak well on my behalf. Sorry about that. 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. Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about anything before, oh, several thousand years BC. You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as well as dumb and dumber? Instead of explaining it, you've descended into ad-hominem. If "ad-hominem" is what you call sharing the truth as best can be deductively interpreted, then so be it. 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? What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit? For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a few million simulations. Are you game? You don't need a supercomputer to do that calculation. You just need some basic understanding of algebra and the math of orbital mechanics ... which I strongly urge you to become familiar with. In other words, the sorts of all-knowing folks like yourself would not dare run off a few million of those complex (aka trial and error) multibody simulations, as required in order to fine-tune and thus polish and nail this one down. (no status quo or bust kind of surprise there) How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to this fundamental change in the environment? If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't you adapt, or at least die trying? That's not an answer to the question. Yes, it actually was a very good answer that you and others of your terrestrial-only w/moon kind refuse to accept. You can put complex sea life into a dark lab with only an artificial sun and moon, or of using just one or the other, and subsequently trick that sequestered life into adapting and/or mutating within hardly any time at all, as to adapting to whatever artificial stimulus you'd care to impose. Lack of gravity is yet another adaptation that gets a fast mutation result or response, though usually it's not for the better. 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? I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science". The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence the other way. Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?) To try what? I'd like to see you come up with simple calculations that show how the Earth could have captured the moon and leave it in a near-circular orbit as far back as astronomical records have been kept. You don't need a supercomputer to do that. If you can't possibly help, then perhaps myself or others will have to do just that. BTW, I've already proposed several viable encounter alternatives outside of this current topic. Of course each and every one is likely too complex for mere words or numbers that you'll continually twist in order disqualify at each and every turn in the road, especially complex with so much energy taking place and the transfer of such icy mass taken away from our proto-moon is what leaves much for that supercomputer of extremely complex simulations to work with. I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish his results. You have a right to think whatever you like. In other words, you don't believe what I said but you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to refute it. I didn't say that, but if you like making it look and/or sound as though I'm another all-knowing village idiot like yourself, then so be it. By all means, never think outside the that cozy mainstream box, as you might get that brown-nose of yours bent out of shape. BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities? (Please visithttp://www.top500.org/andtell us which ones you're talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.) You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to our NASA. No, I don't. Tell me its name, who made it, who runs it, and I could research it. Good freaking grief almighty on a stick, do a basic 'search for' *** NASA Supercomputer ***, it has 2048 fast CPUs and spendy butt loads of absolutely everything else necessary. I believe it's within the hands of NASA's JPL. Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/ federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned? Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely everything, and then some? A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount) and without their having since taken income or property tax depreciation deductions are there? That's all off-topic and has nothing to do with your thesis. Well aren't you extra special, and isn't that too freaking bad because, it's my topic. Don't like it! then create your own status quo or bust topic. Pretend that such public owned supercomputers don't exist all you want. .. - Brad Guth |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 17, 7:11 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:55 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , 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. Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly? I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that extremely big old moon The kind of evidence you insist on is expected to be lacking; the kind of evidence people show you instead, you ignore. In this topic, those other conjectures or best SWAG of whatever you call the one and only truth doesn't count. What opening part of the goodwill jest or intent of this topic didn't you understand? as of prior to 12,500 BP. "As of prior to". What the hell does that mean? How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000 km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass. How about you show how the moon would be captured into a nearly circular orbit? As I'd said before, that such needs a good supercomputer, because it's not nearly as simple or as clear-cut as you suggest. The encounter velocity could have been of a fairly low velocity, as a rear-ender sort of glancing sucker-punch that induced the bulk of Earth's seasonal tilt. Working this what-if in reverse order may prove as worthy enough to start off with. Are you suggesting that velocity, gravity, angle of a glancing encounter or transfer of icy mass plays no part in this? OOPS! how about a Venus like planet w/moon cruising past but just well enough outside of Earth's L1? (but do you even get where I'm going with this?) How many hundred basic what-ifs would you like to ponder? 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 * as of prior to 12,500 BP * somewhat more recent * some time after Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with three digits of accuracy? I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in my old age and all. That doesn't speak well for your hypothesis. Nor does this dyslexic wordage encryption that I have to continually deal with, speak well on my behalf. Sorry about that. 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. Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about anything before, oh, several thousand years BC. You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as well as dumb and dumber? Instead of explaining it, you've descended into ad-hominem. If "ad-hominem" is what you call sharing the truth as best can be deductively interpreted, then so be it. 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? What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit? For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a few million simulations. Are you game? You don't need a supercomputer to do that calculation. You just need some basic understanding of algebra and the math of orbital mechanics ... which I strongly urge you to become familiar with. In other words, the sorts of all-knowing folks like yourself would not dare run off a few million of those complex (aka trial and error) multibody simulations, as required in order to fine-tune and thus polish and nail this one down. (no status quo or bust kind of surprise there) How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to this fundamental change in the environment? If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't you adapt, or at least die trying? That's not an answer to the question. Yes, it actually was a very good answer that you and others of your terrestrial-only w/moon kind refuse to accept. You can put complex sea life into a dark lab with only an artificial sun and moon, or of using just one or the other, and subsequently trick that sequestered life into adapting and/or mutating within hardly any time at all, as to adapting to whatever artificial stimulus you'd care to impose. Lack of gravity is yet another adaptation that gets a fast mutation result or response, though usually it's not for the better. 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? I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science".. The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence the other way. Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?) To try what? I'd like to see you come up with simple calculations that show how the Earth could have captured the moon and leave it in a near-circular orbit as far back as astronomical records have been kept. You don't need a supercomputer to do that. If you can't possibly help, then perhaps myself or others will have to do just that. BTW, I've already proposed several viable encounter alternatives outside of this current topic. Of course each and every one is likely too complex for mere words or numbers that you'll continually twist in order disqualify at each and every turn in the road, especially complex with so much energy taking place and the transfer of such icy mass taken away from our proto-moon is what leaves much for that supercomputer of extremely complex simulations to work with. I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish his results. You have a right to think whatever you like. In other words, you don't believe what I said but you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to refute it. I didn't say that, but if you like making it look and/or sound as though I'm another all-knowing village idiot like yourself, then so be it. By all means, never think outside the that cozy mainstream box, as you might get that brown-nose of yours bent out of shape. BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities? (Please visithttp://www.top500.org/andtellus which ones you're talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate..) You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to our NASA. No, I don't. Tell me its name, who made it, who runs it, and I could research it. Good freaking grief almighty on a stick, do a basic 'search for' *** NASA Supercomputer ***, it has 2048 fast CPUs and spendy butt loads of absolutely everything else necessary. I believe it's within the hands of NASA's JPL. Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/ federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned? Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely everything, and then some? A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount) and without their having ... read more » Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit. Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated, but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or Sirius. If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture, then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and every interaction. If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred. By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, 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. So what's your point? "extremely close"? Look, orbital mechanics has no room for wishy-washy nonmathematical, qualitative analysis. The *only* way that you can make any sense out of orbits is to provide concrete numbers with which people can do calculations. Simple examples: The moon at its farthest is closer than Venus at its closest. So how do you say that the moon is closer than extremely close? Mars at its closest is closer than Venus at its farthest. How do you say that? Pretty far and really far? And Jupiter is really really far, but Saturn is extremely far? Without numbers, it's all useless. What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of an icy proto-moon (be it complex)? The part about how there's no scar on the Earth and how the Earth's surface is a lot older than 12,000 years. While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin came from? It's not all that terrific. It just doesn't have any continental crust in it. Just like the other oceans. Certainly not from the moon hitting it and ending up in a circular equatorial orbit. How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal tilt? Probably when a Mars-size planet hit the Proto-Earth sometime after the Iron Catastrophe, early in the formation of the solar system. (BTW, most of that planet is not in orbit around the Earth.) -- 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
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, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated, but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or Sirius. Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify absolutely every nitpicken detail. How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to create the arctic ocean basin? If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture, then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and every interaction. If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred. By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline? Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of denial? Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper. Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps 8.5e22 kg. If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact velocity of just 2 km/s, then further adjust that velocity of contact in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would demand. Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having increased our seasonal tilt. .. - Brad Guth |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 17, 7:44 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , 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. So what's your point? "extremely close"? Look, orbital mechanics has no room for wishy-washy nonmathematical, qualitative analysis. The *only* way that you can make any sense out of orbits is to provide concrete numbers with which people can do calculations. Venus gets to within 100X that distance of our moon, and for its size that's nearly NEO worthy. As I'd said, we'll need that supercomputer running off those millions of what-if simulations. Simple examples: The moon at its farthest is closer than Venus at its closest. So how do you say that the moon is closer than extremely close? Mars at its closest is closer than Venus at its farthest. How do you say that? Pretty far and really far? And Jupiter is really really far, but Saturn is extremely far? Without numbers, it's all useless. What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of an icy proto-moon (be it complex)? The part about how there's no scar on the Earth and how the Earth's surface is a lot older than 12,000 years. What kind of a scar does an icy proto-moon (with a thick and steaming atmosphere of its own) make, as it impacts an icy terrestrial ocean? While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin came from? It's not all that terrific. It just doesn't have any continental crust in it. Just like the other oceans. Certainly not from the moon hitting it and ending up in a circular equatorial orbit. How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal tilt? Probably when a Mars-size planet hit the Proto-Earth sometime after the Iron Catastrophe, early in the formation of the solar system. (BTW, most of that planet is not in orbit around the Earth.) At least you admit that such multibody encounters do happen. Good grief, unfortunately you're not hardly trying, except all that you can muster in order to foil this argument. There's likely more to this plot than just a simple two hard-body interaction. Thought I'd said we needed a supercomputer, and otherwise not your nayism mindset that's forever mainstream cesspool stuck in the muck, that which simply isn't nearly supercomputer worthy. .. - Brad Guth |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, 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, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious! Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated, but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or Sirius. Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify absolutely every nitpicken detail. Yeah, basically. You're known for not telling your whole hypothesis in one go. You make it up as you go along... How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to create the arctic ocean basin? You tell us. If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture, then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and every interaction. If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred. By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline? Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of denial? Can you tell us why you always resort to ad-hominem attacks whenever someone shows that your hypothesis is so fundamentally flawed? Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper. Can we use real evidence for our figures instead of made-up fantasy? Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps 8.5e22 kg. On what basis? If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact velocity of just 2 km/s, Did you pull that number out of the air, your hat, or your ass? then further adjust that velocity of contact in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would demand. Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having increased our seasonal tilt. IOW, you want us to do your homework for 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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 7:44 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , 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. So what's your point? "extremely close"? Look, orbital mechanics has no room for wishy-washy nonmathematical, qualitative analysis. The *only* way that you can make any sense out of orbits is to provide concrete numbers with which people can do calculations. Venus gets to within 100X that distance of our moon, and for its size that's nearly NEO worthy. No, it's not. Unlike you, it's in a fairly stable orbit. As I'd said, we'll need that supercomputer running off those millions of what-if simulations. Seems like a waste of time to me. It's so hard for you to use present circumstances to extrapolate into the past that you want to calculate huge numbers of possible starting conditions and hope that one of them results in what we see today. Never mind that it's a chaotic (that's a technical term with a specific meaning. You better learn it before you argue it or use it yourself) system and the slightest change in starting conditions can yield enormous changes in the final result. Never mind that if nothing is found, you can always say that one didn't look hard enough. That technique is not scientific. Simple examples: The moon at its farthest is closer than Venus at its closest. So how do you say that the moon is closer than extremely close? Mars at its closest is closer than Venus at its farthest. How do you say that? Pretty far and really far? And Jupiter is really really far, but Saturn is extremely far? Without numbers, it's all useless. What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of an icy proto-moon (be it complex)? The part about how there's no scar on the Earth and how the Earth's surface is a lot older than 12,000 years. What kind of a scar does an icy proto-moon (with a thick and steaming atmosphere of its own) make, as it impacts an icy terrestrial ocean? Are you not aware of the Chixulub impact and what that did? You're asking us to believe something immensely more massive and in the geologic recent past ... yet there's zero evidence for it. While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin came from? It's not all that terrific. It just doesn't have any continental crust in it. Just like the other oceans. Certainly not from the moon hitting it and ending up in a circular equatorial orbit. How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal tilt? Probably when a Mars-size planet hit the Proto-Earth sometime after the Iron Catastrophe, early in the formation of the solar system. (BTW, most of that planet is not in orbit around the Earth.) At least you admit that such multibody encounters do happen. -ed. Good grief, unfortunately you're not hardly trying, I don't have to. except all that you can muster in order to foil this argument. There's likely more to this plot than just a simple two hard-body interaction. Thought I'd said we needed a supercomputer, and otherwise not your nayism mindset that's forever mainstream cesspool stuck in the muck, that which simply isn't nearly supercomputer worthy. Feh. More ad-hominem. You don't have the faintest clue about orbital mechanics and you want someone else to do your handwaving calculations for 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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , 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, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious! And your silly response isn't science. Go figure, especially since you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came from. Simple considerations of energy and momentum won't allow it. Simple equations. The real system may very well have been more complicated, but then you have to provide us with a simple approximation of the forces involved. You haven't done this with either the moon or Sirius. Let me guess, you're not actually ever going to help unless I specify absolutely every nitpicken detail. Yeah, basically. You're known for not telling your whole hypothesis in one go. You make it up as you go along... Right, just like your resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) makes up WMD, except in my case there's not a million of mostly innocent Muslims dead, and I haven't even caused a multi-trillion dollar debt or massive global inflation. How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to create the arctic ocean basin? You tell us. It's a serious bunch of energy, and there's even an online crater calculator that'll indirectly get us in the ballpark. If you can't tell us what force interaction produced the capture, then there is absolutely no way to do a computer simulation. Or rather, there are trillions of different force interactions that can produce the capture you seem sure of. There is no way, with all the computers in the world running in parallel, that one can test each and every interaction. If there are no plausible force laws known, there is no plausible computer simulation. You just claim the capture occurred. By the way, did you come up with this prehistory yourself? You keep on making comments from left field as though we should know what you are talking about. You never really explained why Sirius was closer rather than any other star, why the moon contains salt, or any other claim. Could you please provide us with some chain of reference for your model? Or are you connected to psychic hotline? Can I ask if you are a deductive thinking human, or is it another Borg like collective or some kind of weird faith-based swarm thing of denial? Can you tell us why you always resort to ad-hominem attacks whenever someone shows that your hypothesis is so fundamentally flawed? It's because you're not exactly helping this argument/rant, are you. BTW, Einstein was a touch flawed, as well as a few dozen others. Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper. Can we use real evidence for our figures instead of made-up fantasy? As I'd said, whatever makes you a happy camper, as I'll give you all the credit as long as you return the favor by not excluding my goodwill intentions by name, as a team effort that simply would not have happened if it wasn't for my long standing and pesky insistence in the first place. If you want Earth as more solid and of less atmosphere, go for it. If you want that icy proto-moon of less diameter and worth only 7.5e22 kg, then so be it. Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps 8.5e22 kg. On what basis? How about on the basis that I said so. If you've got better numbers, then go with that. If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact velocity of just 2 km/s, Did you pull that number out of the air, your hat, or your ass? All of the above. 2 km/s is just a given swag of a starting point, nothing more. Why, don't you think a given computer and physics software can deal with making those sorts of adjustments per simulation? Would you rather use 10 km/s or 12 km/s, because if then it's all fine by me, all because the simulations should soon enough favor whatever is most likely. then further adjust that velocity of final contact in order to suit whatever a deep ocean basin forming effort would demand. Select the angle of contact that could have best created or having increased our seasonal tilt. IOW, you want us to do your homework for you. What homework? Just plug it in, along with +/- whatever, as well as add whatever else is related into that 2048 CPU supercomputer, and let it rip off a few million variations. Shouldn't take but a few minutes past GO at the extreme performance of that spendy public supercomputer. .. - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | LIBERATOR | Space Station | 39 | April 22nd 06 08:40 AM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | anon | Space Station | 1 | April 19th 06 07:54 PM |
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 |