|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
As per usual, your nayism is clearly in charge of your intellectual
private parts that are not otherwise in perpetual denial of being in denial. . - Brad Guth Timberwoof wrote: 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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: 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. Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there? What's rigid For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal effects, and its composition must be accounted for.) 98.5% fluid Earth You're welcome to explain that number. having perhaps as great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era You're welcome to provide evidence for that claim. moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core And that one. Got any lunar seismic and orbital fluctuation data? Nope. otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? Our moon? The one up in the sky? That's a ridiculous claim disprovable by the simplest spectroscopic investigations as well as by any college geology professor who received samples from the Apollo project. (An acquaintance of mine did. No ice, no salt.) Go figure, especially since you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came from. Yes, I can. Have done. Will do again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Or...ogic_evolution I favor the Giant Impact hypothesis. 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. Red herring. 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. So why didn't you? 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. Why should I help you rant? BTW, Einstein was a touch flawed, as well as a few dozen others. So were Becher, Kennelly, Dawson, Beech, Bozo, and Lord Spagthorpe. 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. This is not about what you think I want, it's about what your hypothesis wants: data. 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. Not good enough. That's a highly improper appeal to authority. If you've got better numbers, then go with that. I don't believe the scenario would work for any size impactor. 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? It doesn't take a computer. The initial estimates for translunar orbits and orbits to other planets were done with pencil and paper. 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. The problem is that you don't have the faintest clue about how orbits work. That means you don't know how to calculate them ... and you need to to support your hypothesis. And I'm not going to do your homework for you. This is your responsibility if you want to convince anyone. And if you don't actually want to convince anyone, then be quiet. 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. Again, you miss the point. -- 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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 16, 8:49 pm, Robert Casey wrote:
BradGuth wrote: 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. You have to invent reading and writing before you could record things first. That didn't happen until around 10,000 BC. Before that, nobody could write down "The Moon just showed up last month"... And most people, even after reading and writing was invented, wouldn't bother to record stuff that everyone already knows about. Especially if writing materials are expensive and hard to obtain. Are we being silly, or what? Do you also deny being a pretend-atheist? What does impressive cave paintings of 15,000 BC and of those more recent as of recent as 10,500 BC have to do with words? I guess in you case, a picture regardless of its authenticity isn't even worth one word. .. - Brad Guth |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: 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. Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there? What's rigid For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal effects, and its composition must be accounted for.) 98.5% fluid Earth You're welcome to explain that number. Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. Perhaps once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious. The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used toilet paper. . - Brad Guth having perhaps as great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era You're welcome to provide evidence for that claim. moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core And that one. Got any lunar seismic and orbital fluctuation data? Nope. otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? Our moon? The one up in the sky? That's a ridiculous claim disprovable by the simplest spectroscopic investigations as well as by any college geology professor who received samples from the Apollo project. (An acquaintance of mine did. No ice, no salt.) Go figure, especially since you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came from. Yes, I can. Have done. Will do again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Or...ogic_evolution I favor the Giant Impact hypothesis. 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. Red herring. 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. So why didn't you? 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. Why should I help you rant? BTW, Einstein was a touch flawed, as well as a few dozen others. So were Becher, Kennelly, Dawson, Beech, Bozo, and Lord Spagthorpe. 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. This is not about what you think I want, it's about what your hypothesis wants: data. 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. Not good enough. That's a highly improper appeal to authority. If you've got better numbers, then go with that. I don't believe the scenario would work for any size impactor. 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? It doesn't take a computer. The initial estimates for translunar orbits and orbits to other planets were done with pencil and paper. 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. The problem is that you don't have the faintest clue about how orbits work. That means you don't know how to calculate them ... and you need to to support your hypothesis. And I'm not going to do your homework for you. This is your responsibility if you want to convince anyone. And if you don't actually want to convince anyone, then be quiet. 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. Again, you miss the point. -- 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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 16, 8:49 pm, Robert Casey wrote: BradGuth wrote: 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. You have to invent reading and writing before you could record things first. That didn't happen until around 10,000 BC. Before that, nobody could write down "The Moon just showed up last month"... And most people, even after reading and writing was invented, wouldn't bother to record stuff that everyone already knows about. Especially if writing materials are expensive and hard to obtain. Are we being silly, or what? Do you also deny being a pretend-atheist? What does impressive cave paintings of 15,000 BC and of those more recent as of recent as 10,500 BC have to do with words? I guess in you case, a picture regardless of its authenticity isn't even worth one word. You claim to observe that prehistoric humans did not record the moon until after 10,500 BC and conclude that the moon did not arrive until then. The recent arrival hypothesis demands an awful lot from orbital dynamics, and you even propose an impact that left the Earth pretty much untouched: There's no geologic evidence for that event whatsoever. From a physics standpoint it's much better to assume that the moon has been here all along. There's even geologic evidence for it, as has been ignored elsewhere. So let's consider the cave paintings at Lascaux. There's no moon down there, nit there aren't any stars there either, nor do the sun, clouds, or rain appear. Does that mean that the skies were empty until after that period of history? No ... that's a bit far-fetched. I suspect that since the caves were ... caves ... that the people who painted down there did not put sky things on the walls. That's a much better assumption that the idea that the moon wasn't here. -- 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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Mar 16, 5:42 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: So you're saying that fossils that were probably created by the moon's tidal effects were not, but were caused by some other equally heavy object, but which was light enough to have allowed the ice ages to happen. Clearly you're looking at every possible weird angle in order to distort or force out of context the greater intent and goodwill of this topic. What I'm saying is that a few million simulations by way of our best supercomputer(s) couldn't possibly hurt one damn thing. Brad, you wouldn't know what to do with a supercomputer. I can see a retard like you trying to talk to it like on Lost in Space. Since you're greatly concerned about Venus, I suggest you be put into a sealed chamber where the atmosphere and temperature of Earth's neighbor are approximated. If you want to forever believe in some previous conjecture or best mainstream SWAG that is government and/or of whatever's faith-based published as being the one and only interpretation that's worth all the tea in China, so to speak, then so be it. ... Even though you have not come up with any reason why the moon's presence in the past 12000 years is supposed to have stopped ice ages, which have been happening at roughly 100,000-year intervals for the past roughly half a million years. You've got to be kidding. Clearly your nayism mindset is in charge of your private parts, and/or you have absolutely not a freaking clue about physics. Do you even think or much less read what you type? This topic of mine isn't new, as I've tried multiple times before to get this notion across, and lo and behold it seems nothing has changed about this anti-think-tank Usenet from naysay hell on Earth. If this Usenet were of any more nayism, as such it would turn itself into a black hole, sucking the life out of anything that dares touch or even gets close to its nayism event horizon. Interstellar rogue stuff happens all the time, Why couldn't "Interstellar rogue stuff" be responsible for the ice ages even with the moon present pretty much since the Earth was created? I'd agree that an interstellar encounter on the order of an elliptical 100,000 year orbital cycle (more frequent as going back in time) is by far the most likely cause of our previous ice-ages and subsequent thaws w/o moon. However, w/moon it has become next to impossible for this planet to recycle itself back into another ice-age, even if all human factors were removed and we remained furthest away from the impressive Sirius star/solar system may forever preclude this planet from seeing another ice-age. and as such rogue items are either going to lithobrake You mean hitting something. Correct, such as in a direct blow, or as more than likely a glancing blow, whereas best accomplished as a rear-end sucker-punch kind of glancing encounter is what could extract sufficient encounter velocity and transfer of icy mass that could have placed such an icy proto-moon into orbiting Earth. This may have actually taken more than one encounter, somewhat like a certain NEO that has been getting closer each time it comes by. and/or semi-destruct by way of encountering something along its path, or otherwise it's going to eventually end up orbiting something along its path, if not returning to its origin. Have you done the math for Earth-moon orbital capture? No I have not, because I'm either not nearly as Einstein smart as others like yourself, or more than likely because it's actually extremely complex considering all of the weird multibody and physical encounter factors involved. Therefore, we need to employ a supercomputer that has all of the required physics software within its vast archive of accomplishing such complex matters as we essentially go back in time, rather than forward as you folks keep insisting can be accomplished by way of any old PC. . - Brad Guth -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 18, 9:21 pm, "Stan Engel" wrote:
????? ? .. - BG |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 16, 8:49 pm, Robert Casey wrote: BradGuth wrote: 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. You have to invent reading and writing before you could record things first. That didn't happen until around 10,000 BC. Before that, nobody could write down "The Moon just showed up last month"... And most people, even after reading and writing was invented, wouldn't bother to record stuff that everyone already knows about. Especially if writing materials are expensive and hard to obtain. Are we being silly, or what? Do you also deny being a pretend-atheist? What does impressive cave paintings of 15,000 BC and of those more recent as of recent as 10,500 BC have to do with words? I guess in you case, a picture regardless of its authenticity isn't even worth one word. You claim to observe that prehistoric humans did not record the moon until after 10,500 BC and conclude that the moon did not arrive until then. The recent arrival hypothesis demands an awful lot from orbital dynamics, and you even propose an impact that left the Earth pretty much untouched: There's no geologic evidence for that event whatsoever. From a physics standpoint it's much better to assume that the moon has been here all along. There's even geologic evidence for it, as has been ignored elsewhere. So let's consider the cave paintings at Lascaux. There's no moon down there, nit there aren't any stars there either, nor do the sun, clouds, or rain appear. Does that mean that the skies were empty until after that period of history? No ... that's a bit far-fetched. I suspect that since the caves were ... caves ... that the people who painted down there did not put sky things on the walls. That's a much better assumption that the idea that the moon wasn't here. Right, if you say so. Perhaps they were always blind as well as dumbfounded about most everything outside of those caves. But then, if not the least bit intelligent, how the hell did they manage to survive? (were they being taken care of?) .. - BG |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 9:16 pm, Timberwoof wrote: You claim to observe that prehistoric humans did not record the moon until after 10,500 BC and conclude that the moon did not arrive until then. The recent arrival hypothesis demands an awful lot from orbital dynamics, and you even propose an impact that left the Earth pretty much untouched: There's no geologic evidence for that event whatsoever. From a physics standpoint it's much better to assume that the moon has been here all along. There's even geologic evidence for it, as has been ignored elsewhere. So let's consider the cave paintings at Lascaux. There's no moon down there, nit there aren't any stars there either, nor do the sun, clouds, or rain appear. Does that mean that the skies were empty until after that period of history? No ... that's a bit far-fetched. I suspect that since the caves were ... caves ... that the people who painted down there did not put sky things on the walls. That's a much better assumption that the idea that the moon wasn't here. Right, if you say so. Perhaps they were always blind as well as dumbfounded about most everything outside of those caves. But then, if not the least bit intelligent, I don't grant your premise. The Cro-Magnon people are our ancestors. (Maybe not yours.) how the hell did they manage to survive? (were they being taken care of?) By hunting reindeer. -- 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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 19, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , *BradGuth wrote: 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. |
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 |