Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

Timberwoof wrote:
In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 26, 2:38 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:45 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article

om,

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:13 pm, "Sunny" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message


roups.co m...

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than
12,500 BP is not going prove that Earth always had a moon
and a seasonal tilt, that is unless such older caves are
much older and proven as such having depictions of that big
old moon. . - Brad Guth

Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads
claim ?

31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud) "Indeed, the Land Of *******s
was born from the sea only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few
days after the Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of
it,"

He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?

You know, this topic is not about Earth always having that
moon. Perhaps the entro of this topic wasn't making that
clear enough.

If you folks can specify as to where the gravity/tidal energy
that's derived from our orbiting mascon is going, as into
other than making heat for our global environment, please do
just that.

Why other than adding heat to the oceans? That's the right
answer. Friction heats things up.

So, Earth as a whole being at least 98.5% fluid, where exactly is
all of that gravity/tidal energy going?

Into adding heat to the water. It's not very much. It's not
measurable, but you could calculate it.

Earth's oceans are not 0.1% of what's fluid about our planet.

What part or portion of the binding gravity/tidal 2e20 N worth of
centripetal force per each and every second are you electing to
forget about?

You tell me. If you're going to pretend to know so much, then you
calculate the answers yourself.

Been there and done that, as well as having posted such a swag, of
which is more than you have done.


For example; How much of our magnetosphere is affected by
and/or caused by having such a nearby and horrifically
massive moon?

I have news for you. Magnetic fields aren't affected by mass;
they're affected by electrical charge and magnetism.

I have news that Earth is 98.5% fluid. Go figure otherwise.

This doesn't change the answer to your question: the moon's mass
does not directly affect the earth's magnetic field.

But indirectly it does? (so what's the difference?)

If the moon's orbit slows the Earth's rotation, that affects ever so
slightly how the core creates the magnetic field. But the moon itself
has little direct effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

So, by your conditional laws of physics, Earth getting impacted and
seasonal tilted by an icy proto-moon that didn't create, modify or
otherwise since cause any part of or having since dragged upon Earth's
magnetosphere because it always existed as is from the very get-go.
(now that's what I'd call interesting science w/o numbers)


And hah. The moon is only .012 the mass of the earth, yet to
you that's "horrifically massive". You're still stunk on
adjectives instead of numbers.

That moon is well over a thousand fold more massive per planet
ratio than any other.

So? It still has no effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

And our peer replicated science for this is ?????

Satellites and lunar probes measuring magnetic fields.

Oddly again w/o actual numbers outside of whatever's interpreted and
published by what our faith-based NASA has to say.

And your public accessible science from the moon's L1 is ???????

What was the worth of our magnetosphere prior to getting impacted by
our icy proto-moon, say as of 25,000 BP?

BTW, as related to Earth, what's the ongoing energy and polarity of
our moon?


You're such a deeply profound naysayer, aren't you.

No, I'm not.

Guess what; your "No, I'm not" is even worse yet, as being a naysayer
in denial. . - Brad Guth

No, it isn't. You're wrong. You can't prove I'm a naysayer.

I also can't prove that Muslims had WMD, but I can prove there's a
million and counting worth of dead Muslims anyway, not to mention the
$5+ trillion per year of your global inflation to deal with. (are you
naysay guys good, or what)
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 16, 12:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:
The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see, as such
were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
their era.

However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
nearly as clear as by day.

Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
ours.

What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
BP?

Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
rated?
. - Brad Guth

I'm to guess, there's some kind of silly insider bylaws imposed
against whatever computer simulations of Earth w/o moon, and only much
worse yet of our getting impacted by an icy proto-moon, at that as of
merely the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. Go
figure, as to where the 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force is
otherwise going?
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 16, 12:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:

snip whinging about The Scientific Establishment not having a mind
sufficiently open to accept Brag Guth's Velikovskian flights of fancy
which even he cannot date consistently to 10,500 YA or 25,000 YA.)

I'm to guess, there's some kind of silly insider bylaws imposed
against whatever computer simulations of Earth w/o moon,

You're only ****ed off because you don't understand the math and you
can't get anyone to do it for you.

and only much
worse yet of our getting impacted by an icy proto-moon, at that as of
merely the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see.

Maybe it has to do with there being zero evidence for that event.

Go
figure, as to where the 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force is
otherwise going?

Into slowing down the Earth's rotation and sending the moon farther
away.

--
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.

On Mar 29, 10:33 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:

snip whinging about The Scientific Establishment not having a mind
sufficiently open to accept BragGuth'sVelikovskian flights of fancy
which even he cannot date consistently to 10,500 YA or 25,000 YA.)

I'm to guess, there's some kind of silly insider bylaws imposed
against whatever computer simulations of Earth w/o moon,

You're only ****ed off because you don't understand the math and you
can't get anyone to do it for you.

and only much
worse yet of our getting impacted by an icy proto-moon, at that as of
merely the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see.

Maybe it has to do with there being zero evidence for that event.

Go
figure, as to where the 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force is
otherwise going?

Into slowing down the Earth's rotation and sending the moon farther
away.

--
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.

Unlike yourself, I'll stick with those pesky regular laws of physics
and of the best available peer replicated science that can also be
simulated to your black heart's content, of which thus far your
insider skewed track on this argument can't manage go to all that far
back in time, on behalf of showing Earth as always having that
horrific orbiting mascon of ours, that is unless the human species
surviving the last ice-age were nearly blind, still walking on all
fours and otherwise too dumbfounded to ever take a step outside of
their rather nicely hand painted and hand carved caves.

There's 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force that's ongoing per
each and every orbiting second, and to think you folks don't much care
to admit that any portion of such force converted into internal,
surface and atmospheric friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth as becoming
thermal energy is simply not nearly as stealth or invisible as were
all of those Muslim WMD, or as forever lost as those NASA/Apollo cows
that are never coming home.

For some odd reason(s), each of our spendy and impressive public
owned supercomputer simulators are taboo/nondisclosure or sequestered
as purely need-to-know worthy, in that even the most fundamental
basics of interactive 3D orbital simulations viewing the passage of
Venus along with Earth or even of elsewhere above the horizon of our
moon, as so easily viewed from our physically dark moon, is
continually kept off-limits, much less available for running those
complex simulations on behalf of this topic.

Of course our official and unofficial spooks and moles of the
mainstream status quo like yourself don't have viable truth options,
other than going along with whatever those often Semitic MIB in charge
of your private parts are telling their brown-nosed minions to do, or
else.
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 24, 10:54*pm, BradGuth wrote:

"are claimed to have invented" is science?

It may be, if there's a valid reason for the claims. Like I said, I'm
not an archaeoastronomical expert myself, but there are folks who
are. I would suggest, if their findings are that disturbing to
you...and if you are seriously proposing this hypothesis and not just
dicking around on the Internet...that you go to the archaeological
journals, and perhaps a few textbooks, and find out what those reasons
are, and deal with the matter on that basis. "It doesn't look like
the Moon to me" is a classic Argument from Personal Ignorance, and at
any rate, I doubt very much if the actual claims made in the
literature are so simplistic as "It looks sort of like the Moon to
me".

For something as big or bigger than any other influence upon life on
Earth (second only to the sun), seems that moon wasn't getting
depicted as very large. *Perhaps it was orbiting much further away and
not nearly as bright (unlikely), or perhaps those early humans had
extremely poor eye sight.

Or perhaps, like almost everyone else on the planet Earth before the
Renaissance, Paleolithic artists had no sense of perspective or scale.

BTW, the age of those drawings within caves at Lascaux France are only
estimated at 15,000 BP (not proven). *They could be as recent as
12,000 BP or possibly even somewhat more recent.

Yes, sir. There are, of course, plenty of older cave paintings and
bone artifacts which are taken as evidence for the claim.

On Mar 31, 5:31 pm, Damien Valentine wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:54 pm, BradGuth wrote:

"are claimed to have invented" is science?

It may be, if there's a valid reason for the claims. Like I said, I'm
not an archaeoastronomical expert myself, but there are folks who
are. I would suggest, if their findings are that disturbing to
you...and if you are seriously proposing this hypothesis and not just
dicking around on the Internet...that you go to the archaeological
journals, and perhaps a few textbooks, and find out what those reasons
are, and deal with the matter on that basis. "It doesn't look like
the Moon to me" is a classic Argument from Personal Ignorance, and at
any rate, I doubt very much if the actual claims made in the
literature are so simplistic as "It looks sort of like the Moon to
me".

For something as big or bigger than any other influence upon life on
Earth (second only to the sun), seems that moon wasn't getting
depicted as very large. Perhaps it was orbiting much further away and
not nearly as bright (unlikely), or perhaps those early humans had
extremely poor eye sight.

Or perhaps, like almost everyone else on the planet Earth before the
Renaissance, Paleolithic artists had no sense of perspective or scale.

BTW, the age of those drawings within caves at Lascaux France are only
estimated at 15,000 BP (not proven). They could be as recent as
12,000 BP or possibly even somewhat more recent.

Yes, sir. There are, of course, plenty of older cave paintings and
bone artifacts which are taken as evidence for the claim.

Your "plenty of older cave paintings and bone artifacts which are
taken as evidence for the claim" is also not hard/objective science.

The actual first hand interpretations of such evidence is what I'm
looking for.

Apparently your claim or wishful status quo thinking is just as
subjective as mine, therefore it's an equal/equal rant-to-rant that
can't be supported by any peer accepted form of objective science, or
even via any given supercomputer simulation if my version can't be
just as equally run through the same nifty eye-candy generating
technology of such computer simulations.

BTW, this topic is about Earth w/o moon, not Earth w/moon.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 31, 7:05*pm, BradGuth wrote:

Your "plenty of older cave paintings and bone artifacts which are
taken as evidence for the claim" is also not hard/objective science.

The actual first hand interpretations of such evidence is what I'm
looking for.

I'm glad we agree! So go find them. I'm not obliged to do your
homework for you. A gentleman named Alexander Marshack seems to have
pioneered the theory. There are lots of books and periodicals with
words like "Archaeology" and "Archaeoastronomy" and "Paleolithic Art"
in their titles, that carry his work further. You, as the one with
the deep and abiding interest in proving them wrong, are responsible
for reading them.

At the very least, talk to an actual archaeologist about your
hypothesis -- I'm sure there's an "Archaeology" group somewhere on
Usenet -- and pay close attention to what he or she says.

Apparently your claim or wishful status quo thinking is just as
subjective as mine, therefore it's an equal/equal rant-to-rant that
can't be supported by any peer accepted form of objective science, or
even via any given supercomputer simulation if my version can't be
just as equally run through the same nifty eye-candy generating
technology of such computer simulations.

I feel the need to point out that your statement here is all one
sentence. Weak grammar is a symptom of several mental illnesses,
which may be one reason why folks on Usenet seem to think you're
crazy. The full stop is your friend.

Your statement is also irrelevant. I will tell you exactly once more,
Mr. Guth, because I am beginning to find it boring: our relative
degrees of ignorance are not what makes your hypothesis credible, or
incredible. Until you've done some kind of basic research on the
topic you're expressing opinions about, they remain mere opinions, and
neither I nor anyone else is obliged to accept them as factual...or
even likely.

BTW, this topic is about Earth w/o moon, not Earth w/moon.

I'm not entirely sure what that means. Surely, even on Usenet,
someone is permitted to point out why someone else might be wrong?

On Apr 5, 11:05 am, Damien Valentine wrote:
On Mar 31, 7:05 pm, BradGuth wrote:

Your "plenty of older cave paintings and bone artifacts which are
taken as evidence for the claim" is also not hard/objective science.

The actual first hand interpretations of such evidence is what I'm
looking for.

I'm glad we agree! So go find them. I'm not obliged to do your
homework for you. A gentleman named Alexander Marshack seems to have
pioneered the theory. There are lots of books and periodicals with
words like "Archaeology" and "Archaeoastronomy" and "Paleolithic Art"
in their titles, that carry his work further. You, as the one with
the deep and abiding interest in proving them wrong, are responsible
for reading them.

At the very least, talk to an actual archaeologist about your
hypothesis -- I'm sure there's an "Archaeology" group somewhere on
Usenet -- and pay close attention to what he or she says.

Apparently your claim or wishful status quo thinking is just as
subjective as mine, therefore it's an equal/equal rant-to-rant that
can't be supported by any peer accepted form of objective science, or
even via any given supercomputer simulation if my version can't be
just as equally run through the same nifty eye-candy generating
technology of such computer simulations.

I feel the need to point out that your statement here is all one
sentence. Weak grammar is a symptom of several mental illnesses,
which may be one reason why folks on Usenet seem to think you're
crazy. The full stop is your friend.

Your statement is also irrelevant. I will tell you exactly once more,
Mr. Guth, because I am beginning to find it boring: our relative
degrees of ignorance are not what makes your hypothesis credible, or
incredible. Until you've done some kind of basic research on the
topic you're expressing opinions about, they remain mere opinions, and
neither I nor anyone else is obliged to accept them as factual...or
even likely.

BTW, this topic is about Earth w/o moon, not Earth w/moon.

I'm not entirely sure what that means. Surely, even on Usenet,
someone is permitted to point out why someone else might be wrong?

Why of course you don't understand what "this topic is about Earth w/o
moon, not Earth w/moon" means.

I have no problems with others kindly pointing out various incorrect
notions or ideas, as long as there's something/anything of objective
science along with the regular laws of physics backing that up. This
is a subjective rant of mine, as based upon the limited or entirely
missing objective science on behalf of the mainstream status quo
insisting that Earth always had that horrific mass of a nearby moon.
Sorry if I do not entirely buy into their subjective science, as
representing the one and only worthy rant in town.

For some reason your version(s) of Earth w/moon gets public funded,
public published and otherwise supercomputer simulated to death, and
of others or this one of mine gets the usual status quo or bust kind
of boot.

I can't even so much as rant on behalf of relocating our moon out to
Earth L1 without starting WWIII, as your status quo or bust kind of
naysay flak gets thick and lethal right off the bat. It's as though
I've pushed that do-not-push button.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 20, 2:35*pm, BradGuth wrote:

Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

WHOA!

Brad, you know there's no ancient cave etchings of a moon? How you
know this? This is impossible unless you've been to every cave in the
world personally or hired a team to seek out every nook, cranny and
rock crevice.

Two: Was there no sun etchings either? If there was, how do you know
that a portion of the sun etchings weren't actually the moon? The moon
can appear really bright in the dead of night right? How about stars?
Nothing too?

Interested in your follow up here despite the thread being a month
old.

Thanks,
Steve

On May 13, 2:58 am, wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, BradGuth wrote:

Actually, unless you're hiding stuff, there's no cave paintings or
other artifacts having indications of any moon, of seasons or of
monster tides as of times more recent than 10,500 BC, or is there.
When exactly is the first human graphic, painting or other kind of
notation that's reasonably moon, season or tide like?

WHOA!

Brad, you know there's no ancient cave etchings of a moon? How you
know this? This is impossible unless you've been to every cave in the
world personally or hired a team to seek out every nook, cranny and
rock crevice.

Two: Was there no sun etchings either? If there was, how do you know
that a portion of the sun etchings weren't actually the moon? The moon
can appear really bright in the dead of night right? How about stars?
Nothing too?

Interested in your follow up here despite the thread being a month
old.

Thanks,
Steve

Thanks for the constructive/informative feedback.

Of surviving within the last ice-age, there's no way that an Earth w/
moon would not have been appreciated and likely recorded as such, by
those extremely survival intelligent folks.

Deductive thinking is what puts Earth not only w/o moon but also w/o
our seasonal tilt as of prior to 12,500 BP. If there are no
significant seasons, you don't bother to migrate. If there's no moon
you don't hunt and gather at night, much less make notations or
adjustments due to this absolutely weird moon (cold nighttime sun) or
of those significant ocean tides.

Putting your supposedly educated self in their more ice-age place,
you'd last at best a few days. So obviously you wouldn't have the
time of day or night to make notations of hardly if anything except
your final demise.

I believe Earth has been hit by an icy proto-moon, likely more often
than once, whereas each encounter having delivered another load of
salty ice. I believe a glancing 2 km/s (+/- whatever) encounter could
be simulated to show exactly how this took place.
.. - Brad Guth