Got that whatever BC Moon ?

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:772239bfe8a9b80496be6401940753b1.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

The Usenet MIB borg collective of MI/NSA spooks and moles are certainly
hard at trying to terminate my poor old PC. Gee whiz, I can't but
wonder why I'm worth all that much trouble, unless it's because I'm
sharing too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.

Perhaps all the flak is because of our 100,000 some odd +/- year or +/-
century encounters with the Sirius star/solar system, that had been of
more frequent orbital encounters in our multiple ice age cycle past,
whereas of lately we've had that pesky moon of our's to deal with as of
the last ice age this planet will ever see. Take away our moon and
Earth gets cold. Relocate our moon at Earth's L1 and we extensively
cool off mother Earth in spite of whatever we've managed to do to our
frail environment (perhaps creating a touch too much shade, which is
still better off than not having enough shade).

Unfortunately, ESAs Venus EXPRESS mission is no longer alive, as sadly
MI/NSA~NASA has pretty much nailed their science coffins shut. Having
thus far excluded their robust PFS instrument from sharing in the
geothermal truth about Venus is actually mainstream's faith-based status
quo doing exactly what they do best. However, we don't have to believe
their every word, nor do be have to take their damage control ultimatums
as though being the word of God.

As geothermally heated from the active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and of this taking of energy is even free of any
artificial CO2 potential), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly renewable
to boot.

Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and geothermally active
nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as scientifically and
especially faith based off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics simply can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers getting terminated, if not worse.

JFK had honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult
like authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU.

I happen to totally agree with the intent of honest renewable energy
topics, of promoting as much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a
composite of solar PV, stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in
fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe footprint of energy density
that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr/m2), that's likely to advance to the
50 kw/m2 level in the near future. Along with a national power grid
infrastructure, the areas best suited for this form of renewable energy
extraction can pick up as much as 75% of our future needs, along with
15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear (meaning near zero coal and oil).
Nations without hydroelectric or nuclear potential would obviously have
to make due with supplementing LNG and perhaps h2o2 in order to obtain
their maximum benefit with the least pollution from whatever fossil or
biofuel alternatives.

However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps their best all-inclusive
birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without a
tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and GW
deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is for going along with our utilizing
nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal
and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our global energy needs. So,
I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear. After all, there are
more than a few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't
be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and
oil spendy or otherwise unavailable, the only viable alternative may
come down to WW-III.

BTW; for this and most any other topic argument sake, the laws of
energy still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kw or 1 kwhr or
1 kjhr because, a jhr is still worth 3600 joules. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting, pillaging and
raping mother Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.

These Usenet big-energy folks that are the best at infomercial spewing
and for usually being directly or indirectly industry paid-for as
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the pro green/renewables of constructive
contributions have to share, treated as though we're their big-energy
approved toilet-paper.

BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and it's real in more ways than
one. At least we can honestly say that it's partially (10%~25%) caused
by humanity, and that there are direct and indirect environmental
consequences of our past, present and future actions. However, because
of the vast amount of required energy, the continued thawing of Earth
since the last ice age this planet will ever see, is not entirely our
fault.

Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of promoting all that's pro big-energy and of having to
protect their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus
seeing those usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on
steroids, whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems
as though rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it
must be offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.

Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" / by William Elliot

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...4e1a7a3d8636ec

The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our recently
obtained moon, which isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by
humanity (at best I'd buy into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we
all departed this Earth and let nature take its planetology course, this
Earth would continue to thaw from the last ice age this planet will ever
see. As long as we have that pesky moon of ours, ice age trapped
methanes and CO2 will in fact keep "Bubbling Through Seafloor Creates
Undersea Hills", though at a reduced rate if the human factor were
entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_relea...aull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, another truth being told that we're not supposed to know
about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our magnetosphere
has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.

Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons that have little if any trouble
getting through to the surface that getting a little extra sooty and
otherwise polluted by the day, which includes less snow and ice coverage
that means upon average a lower global albedo, that in turn represents
an even better sol and moon energy absorber that in turn keeps our
nighttime atmosphere more cloud covered due to the increased levels of
h2o in our atmosphere.

This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)

Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...=smart&p=1/211

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...990d88e00958f4

Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).

Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.

Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth--L1
However Sol--Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol--L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)

However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon
that's causing us all sorts of grief.

In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.

BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon--planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.

If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.

On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking, that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo or whatever
faith based gasket, then perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) has a perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as
non-caring job without ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and
others of your kind.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"TheEnigmaMachine" wrote in message
...
Probe will go to Phobos to bring back samples of Brad's brain...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6324923.stm


poor guy. no wonder he's so confused.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:0c23f4dfadab425ba8a1d2fe1ab60f99.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Obviously I'm right about Earth not having that moon as any time prior
to that last ice age. Sorry about all of that.

Without much question, our space policy sucks, while there's Life on
Venus is no lie. However, in spite of our dumbfounded selves and the
likes of our silly infomercial spewing NASA, and that of their fearless
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), there's plenty of what needs to get
accomplished that'll help to insure a future quality of terrestrial life
that's a whole lot less lethal and otherwise made affordable to most.

Because our moon's physically dark surface is actually made hotter by
day via solar influx energy than is the surface of Venus getting solar
heated, and it's certainly sufficiently naked enough as to being
cosmic/solar reactive as all get out, not to mention the unavoidable
tidal affects that get introduced into our polluted terrestrial
environment, are each representing perfectly good reasons for relocating
our moon further away from Earth, such as ideally locked into Earth's L1
sweet spot, even if it means a little interactive station-keeping effort
is in order.

In addition to all the other bad environmental news coming our way,
Earth may soon enough be w/o its nifty magnetosphere (at least running
on near empty), thus making our GW fiasco a somewhat minor issue for
those of us without sufficient loot for a good enough shelter or a
viable resource of affordable rad-hard food. In other pesky words,
where the hell is all of that supposed intelligent design expertise in
DNA/RNA genetics when you need it?

Since accomplishing most anything upon or even anywhere near our
hocus-pocus moon (where those regular laws of physics apparently do not
apply), which seems as though our moon is rather Usenet
taboo/nondisclosure (especially Mailgate/Usenet off limits), and since
folks here in this silly Usenet land of all that's spook/mole
orchestrated as mostly anti-think-tank as much naysayism as they can
muster, or otherwise stuck in their usual damage control cesspool mode
that simply can't manage to behave themselves, much less focus
constructively upon the original topic at hand; here's yet another of
my constructive GS(global shading) contributions, of related research
work that's in progress, to share and share alike:

Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged for whatever reason(s) from within mother Earth, whereas
more likely as having materialized from an incoming glancing sucker
punch, such as by that of a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth
having received a nasty blow (say having created an arctic ocean basin
like impression, along with causing that seasonal tilt), by a very icy
proto-moon (possibly of 4,000 km).

For a brief example of this argument; If the orbital distance were made
half and thus the velocity would have to double because the mutual
gravity of attraction would have become 4X, therefore we'd have
introduced 16 fold more inside and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy
to deal with, and I'm not all that sure mother Earth would have stayed
glued together at that level of horrific gravitional and internal tidal
forced trauma, much less for cutting that orbital distance by yet
another half (making its previous orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of
4.092 km/s) would have to impose yet another 16 fold factor, or rather
suggesting 256 fold worse global warming trauma than what we currently
are suffering from the existing tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects
as is.

The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up, soon becomes a real physics ****-off; How
much time did it take for that moon which supposedly emerged from within
Earth, to have reached the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having
migrated from 96,100 km out to where it's currently operating at 384,400
km? (thus far, none of those spendy computer simulations seem clean
enough)

If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
for ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy
that's coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's
actually imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet--moon
energy that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or
going as to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real
energy.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity...tion_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:

object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters

grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg

Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth--L1

However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such a mascon into no longer orbiting us,
there's actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is
simply rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this
mutual and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol--Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity, as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of all that implied energy:

As for the sol--moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules

object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules

Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.

In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.

Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.

1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules

Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules

There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.

The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules

Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw

At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2

Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.

The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14.1 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2

However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.

Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.

Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger pro-NASA/Apollo analogies can
be run as fully 3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you
certainly wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the new and
improved truth, now would we.

Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life's
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.

Perhaps if the status quo gets its usual brown-nosed Skull and Bones
worth of big-energy buttology certified way, whereas life on Venus
(though naked humanly hot) isn't looking quite as bad off as we've been
faith-based mainstream informed. Either we take Venus or perhaps China
can accommodate a few million wealthy souls within their 1e9 m3
LSE-CM/ISS, or sterage class accommodations for the rest of us village
idiots as their minions living deep within our moon as Earth recovers
from WW-III and all else that's going to hell.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Without our moon; how cold could Earth get?
-
Brad Guth

This following was a reply to a perfectly nifty contribution via
"rick_sobie".
rick_sobie:
There was no moon, or surely, they would have drawn it,
in some cave, at least once. Somewhere you would think.

We seem to have obtained those 10,000 BC and of much older images in
the realm of 15,000 BC, if not a bit older, of such intelligent
records sharing perfectly valid indications by way of such old art as
having depicted our environment illuminated by the sun, though as
always w/o moon. The moon became a part of human culture as of
something more recent than 10,000 BC, as did those indications of
folks having to migrate due to the seasonal changes which didn't seem
to be the case before noticing that we had such a moon and those nofty
tides to deal with.

I think the moon for what it really is, might have been depicted
by the short funny people of South America.
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica146.jpg
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica147.jpg
I tend to agree. So what's the approximate age of the "Labyrinthina"
moon?

Noah's most recent flood of perhaps 2250 ~ 2350 BC is yet another
indication of Earth having been impacted, and most likely getting our
environment further deposited with additional ice, that which most
likely got here by way of our icy proto-moon, that's also remaining
nearby as a somewhat unusually salty orb. However, besides the
ongoing thaw from the last ice age Earth will ever see, whereas the
original flood(s) of 5,000 ~ 5600 BC or perhaps the initial big one of
9600 BC is what could easily have been derived from the initial impact
by such as an icy proto-moon, as well as for that event having
established Earth's seasonal tilt. By all rights there would have
been multiple secondary shards of that salty ice raining down upon
Earth, whereas from time to time as those massive spacebergs of salty
moon ice having returned via their associated orbital path, returning
to the approximate origin of that initial lunar impact being Earth and
naturally of their own origin being the moon itself. (I'm thinking
Arctic ocean basin forming, as such being one of the more likely
points of initial contact, and in any event it most likely wasn't a
one time icy encounter, meaning there should have been multiple floods
over an extended period of time, not to mention a few antipode events)

Earth's reformation via multiple impacts and of those unavoidable
antipode related events is every bit as real of planetology formation
as it gets. Those massive yet unusually shallow craters upon our moon
(due to that surface having been protected by a thick layer of ice) is
proof positive that such horrific sorts of cosmic or local solar
system encounters did in fact happen. However, mention the Bible and
all of hell breaks lose within most any scientific realm, especially
by way of those pretending at being Old Testament thumpers that claim
to know all there is to know, but only if it's in a very Jewish way.

Here's yet another best effort research paper via "trustbible", that's
worth our considering, as to having shared this alternative view that
happens to include notions of getting Mars involved, of which at best
is only remotely possible. I still don't entirely agree with that
notion of Mars, especially since it's well enough understood that Mars
hasn't even its fair share of salt, although our moon is in fact
somewhat salty and otherwise downright weird about having such an
unusual geology of formation that's clearly not being allowed as
honestly understood, at least not to nearly the extent of what we're
learning about Mars that was apparently a mostly fresh water little
planetology environment before having lost its protective
magnetosphere.
http://www.trustbible.com/noah.htm
I'm not saying the Bible is as trustworthy as we'd like it to be,
however it's certainly next to the best available record of actual
events that took place, along with loads of faith-based
embellishments, with obviously some subjective analogy applications on
behalf of those interpretations, by having improved upon whatever
others likely wanted to believe, because it gave further meaning or
greater importance as to their existence (unfortunately, that's still
the infomercial forced norm as of today, including as to how our
government typically gets whatever published into textbooks, pretty
much as they'd like to stick, as representing their one and only
record of what's not exactly or even remotely accurate as to what
actually happened, or much less honest as to why such things happened)
-
Brad Guth