Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,
Damien Valentine wrote:

Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?

(I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
10,000 BC.)

Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
10,500 BC?

An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it
leave there?).

An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth.

A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon
without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the
Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became
so nearly circular in that short a time.

An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and
completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life
forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get?

What part of my questions above did you not understand?

Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks
like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/
o moon?

I don't grant your premise. The question that Damien asked was, what
would persuade me that your hypothesis is correct? I gave some
reasonable criteria. Unlike yours, they're straightforward and obvious.
They don't require a lot of fancy supercomputation or guesswork. They
only require some physical evidence. If you think that's insurmountable,
then that pretty much wraps it up for your hypothesis.

Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
environment.

You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.

Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,

Why?

our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
a solar tide to work with,

I thought they'd freeze.

as well as seeing much fewer of those life
essential geothermal events taking place.

You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
ancient volcanism?

Eventually we'd lose the
bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,

Why?

and then only the most rad-hard of
DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.

If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
have evolved?

And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.

--
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.

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
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.

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, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best
you're going to get.

As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way
it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see
it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is
that 2+2 is always equal to 4.

This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make
then different that what we have found out about them time and time
again.

Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them
because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific.

Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations
take place, and the sooner the better.

BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting
within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had
once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff.

Your evidence?

I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
other liars you associate with.

And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate
opponents.

--
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.

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
Your insecurity problem is? Is your pretend-atheist God terrestrial
limited?

You will soon enough be marched into a sealed chamber where you can breathe
an approximation of the Venusian atmosphere.

BTW, I do not believe in the singular BB, especially if it's supposed
to be of the one and only creation of the one and only universe.
. - Brad Guth


On Mar 20, 4:05 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Rogue objects, Brad? Then I take it you believe in Nibiru, Nemesis
and Planet X? lmao!

None of those exist, of course. lmao!

Saul Levy

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
This is exactly what such nifty simulators should be darn good at
doing, and with hardly even pushing but a few of those 2048 extremely
fast CPUs within the NASA/JPL supercomputer. Millions of fully 3D
interactive simulation variations should technically become doable
within hours if not minutes, telling us where the most likely source
of our moon originated from, of which is not my having to say that a
rogue item of sufficient mass and density smacking itself hard enough
(possibly somewhat retrograde) into an Earth like planet couldn't have
created such a moon.

Obviously rogue cosmic stuff runs into all sorts of other stuff on a
regular basis, and as such there's no good reason as to suggest that
our wussy little solar system with its extremely passive sun is
somehow immune, or that a lithobraking encounter form of capturing
items into nearly circular orbits is somehow impossible.

There is a good chance that our Oort cloud of icy debris has from time
to time interacted with the Sirius Oort cloud of much greater icy
items. If anything had gotten pushed away or allowed to drift from
Sirius-B as having gone red giant, there's a reasonable enough chance
that our solar system could have been situated in the right place at
the right time to have picked up an item or two.
. - Brad Guth




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 20, 5:25 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
You still don't get it, as well as you're still avoiding the primary
intent or focus of this topic,

So explain it in simple words. I don't go in for subtlety; it's too
easily lost or misinterpreted.

mostly because yourself and others of
your pretend-atheism kind

So this is all about God now?

are deathly afraid of what could become a
better truth than what you've been telling us.

So now you've even got God on your side that the moon recently got here?

Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing or otherwise as
puppeteered with those status quo strings attached or of that clown
hand up my butt.

Oh, a clever way of saying that you're not well-educated in the basics
of astronomy and are thus free to come up with your own creative
bull**** and insist that it's God's own truth.

BTW, at half the orbital distance, the moon's tidal influence would
have had Earth nearly continually flooded to death with those monster
tides of four times as great, not to mention of whatever was going on
under the crust of Earth.

Okay, So what?

Most of Earth's erosion via flooding is of
recent times

No, it isn't. Plenty of geological evidence exists that shows that
erosion has been going on since there was water on the planet.

since the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going
to see.

Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

--
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.

This topic is about our running off a few million simulations until we
get it right. Obviously it wouldn't matter one way or another to your
mindset, so why exactly are you even here, in this topic?

Size, mass, velocity incoming trajectory or angle of attack, softness
(including atmosphere) or the physical morphing of each orb, and so
forth are the basic considerations.

At the right attack angle, velocity and merging along with the same
direction of flow, whereas even a Venus like planet w/moon could merge
into our solar system in the same way a given asteroid makes itself
known, whereas a lithobraking encounter simply gives us a multitude of
other simulation options for accomplishing the same thing.
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,
Damien Valentine wrote:

Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?

(I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
10,000 BC.)

Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
10,500 BC?

An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it
leave there?).

An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth.

A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon
without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the
Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became
so nearly circular in that short a time.

An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and
completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life
forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get?

What part of my questions above did you not understand?

Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks
like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/
o moon?

I don't grant your premise. The question that Damien asked was, what
would persuade me that your hypothesis is correct? I gave some
reasonable criteria. Unlike yours, they're straightforward and obvious.
They don't require a lot of fancy supercomputation or guesswork. They
only require some physical evidence. If you think that's insurmountable,
then that pretty much wraps it up for your hypothesis.

Why are human notations of that era not "physical evidence"?

It seems smart humans like yourself send other humans to their death
as based upon far less evidence.


Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
environment.

You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.

Earth wasn't always so salty. Much of Earth's salt is of a deposit,
similar as to most of Earth's water that didn't emerge from within.
Perhaps those cosmic snowballs were salty.


Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,

Why?

Why not? How much interactive tidal/gravity energy does it take
holding onto that moon? Where do you think that kind of energy goes?
(not to mention the secondary IR influx)


our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
a solar tide to work with,

I thought they'd freeze.

To a much greater extent, as w/o moon and of a near monoseason they
should freeze nearly to the tropics unless there's another nearby
source of stellar energy added to what our passive sun had to offer.


as well as seeing much fewer of those life
essential geothermal events taking place.

You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
ancient volcanism?

That's a little skewed out of context, isn't it. It's not an all or
nothing situation, because there's still a solar tide.


Eventually we'd lose the
bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,

Why?

Why not? It's going away at roughly -.05%/year as is, so lo and
behold, it looks as though something inside is slowing down.


and then only the most rad-hard of
DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.

If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
have evolved?

And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.

--
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.

Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco?

If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd
be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of
yourself.

What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so
entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien
Valentine?
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 20, 5:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
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.

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, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best
you're going to get.

As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way
it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see
it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is
that 2+2 is always equal to 4.

This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make
then different that what we have found out about them time and time
again.

Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them
because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific.

Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations
take place, and the sooner the better.

BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting
within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had
once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff.

Your evidence?

It's all visual, on the internet, and every bit as good as gold.
Sorry to hear that you're blind.


I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
other liars you associate with.

And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate
opponents.

I only return the warm and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and
bashing with all the love and affection can muster. Since you have no
topic constructive intentions, where's the problem?
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
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

om,

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, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best
you're going to get.

As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way
it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see
it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is
that 2+2 is always equal to 4.

This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make
then different that what we have found out about them time and time
again.

Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them
because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific.

Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations
take place, and the sooner the better.

BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting
within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had
once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff.

Your evidence?

It's all visual, on the internet, and every bit as good as gold.
Sorry to hear that you're blind.

You've given us a few hints to that evidence, such as pictures of the
apparent wobble of Saturn's axis and the change of the Earth's
terminator as it orbits ... and you clearly misinterpreted what you saw.

As for pictures of an Earth without a moon 12,000 years ago ... there
are none.


I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
other liars you associate with.

And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate
opponents.

I only return the warm and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and
bashing with all the love and affection can muster. Since you have no
topic constructive intentions, where's the problem?

IOW, since I don't agree with you and you've been unable to answer any
of the simple and obvious questions I've put to you, you feel justified
in calling me an idiot. I gotcha.

--
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.

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,
Damien Valentine wrote:

Mr. Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist
in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right?

(I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or
capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or
10,000 BC.)

Everybody in the World Except Mr. Guth, what would you need to
persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before
10,500 BC?

An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it
leave there?).

An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth.

A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon
without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the
Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became
so nearly circular in that short a time.

An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and
completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life
forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ETHChris L.

What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get?

What part of my questions above did you not understand?

Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks
like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/
o moon?

I don't grant your premise. The question that Damien asked was, what
would persuade me that your hypothesis is correct? I gave some
reasonable criteria. Unlike yours, they're straightforward and obvious.
They don't require a lot of fancy supercomputation or guesswork. They
only require some physical evidence. If you think that's insurmountable,
then that pretty much wraps it up for your hypothesis.

Why are human notations of that era not "physical evidence"?

They're not physical evidence of an lunar impact on the Earth.

It seems smart humans like yourself send other humans to their death
as based upon far less evidence.

I would not trust my life on any scientific or engineering analysis you
propose.

Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/
or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all
of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a
better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon
would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the
ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason
environment.

You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ...
which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit.

Earth wasn't always so salty. Much of Earth's salt is of a deposit,
similar as to most of Earth's water that didn't emerge from within.
Perhaps those cosmic snowballs were salty.

So you've said. A lot. But there is no such thing as proof by assertion.

Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again,

Why?

Why not? How much interactive tidal/gravity energy does it take
holding onto that moon? Where do you think that kind of energy goes?
(not to mention the secondary IR influx)

You're the one making the claim that the moon's presence keeps the earth
from freezing. You do the math to back up that claim. If you can't, then
it's so much hot air.

our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only
a solar tide to work with,

I thought they'd freeze.

To a much greater extent, as w/o moon and of a near monoseason they
should freeze nearly to the tropics unless there's another nearby
source of stellar energy added to what our passive sun had to offer.

That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's
heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law?

What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for
effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"?

as well as seeing much fewer of those life
essential geothermal events taking place.

You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the
ancient volcanism?

That's a little skewed out of context, isn't it. It's not an all or
nothing situation, because there's still a solar tide.

No, it's neither skewed nor out of context. You're welcome to present
your equations to show how much of the Earth's internal heat comes from
solar and lunar tidal effects. Again, without such math, your claim is
empty.

Eventually we'd lose the
bulk of our magnetosphere to boot,

Why?

Why not? It's going away at roughly -.05%/year as is, so lo and
behold, it looks as though something inside is slowing down.

And this is related to the moon how, exactly?

and then only the most rad-hard of
DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to
extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us
from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly.

If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life
have evolved?

And none of this, by the way, answers my questions.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco?

Nope.

If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd
be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of
yourself.

Don't flatter yourself.

What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so
entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien
Valentine?

It's not over my head. The problem I have is that since you don't have a
basic scientific knowledge, you are unable to even write down basic
equations that need to be solved to represent your hypotheses. Since
math fails you (or you fail to use it), you try to do all your thinking
semantically, and come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions that you
cannot back up with evidence or even good theory. And you want others to
do your computational homework for you.

I guess that means you're a kook.

--
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.

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 20, 5:25 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
You still don't get it, as well as you're still avoiding the primary
intent or focus of this topic,

So explain it in simple words. I don't go in for subtlety; it's too
easily lost or misinterpreted.

mostly because yourself and others of
your pretend-atheism kind

So this is all about God now?

are deathly afraid of what could become a
better truth than what you've been telling us.

So now you've even got God on your side that the moon recently got here?

Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing or otherwise as
puppeteered with those status quo strings attached or of that clown
hand up my butt.

Oh, a clever way of saying that you're not well-educated in the basics
of astronomy and are thus free to come up with your own creative
bull**** and insist that it's God's own truth.

BTW, at half the orbital distance, the moon's tidal influence would
have had Earth nearly continually flooded to death with those monster
tides of four times as great, not to mention of whatever was going on
under the crust of Earth.

Okay, So what?

Most of Earth's erosion via flooding is of
recent times

No, it isn't. Plenty of geological evidence exists that shows that
erosion has been going on since there was water on the planet.

since the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going
to see.

Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

This topic is about our running off a few million simulations until we
get it right. Obviously it wouldn't matter one way or another to your
mindset, so why exactly are you even here, in this topic?

Size, mass, velocity incoming trajectory or angle of attack, softness
(including atmosphere) or the physical morphing of each orb, and so
forth are the basic considerations.

At the right attack angle, velocity and merging along with the same
direction of flow, whereas even a Venus like planet w/moon could merge
into our solar system in the same way a given asteroid makes itself
known, whereas a lithobraking encounter simply gives us a multitude of
other simulation options for accomplishing the same thing.

There is no vector which will accomplish what you want it to. As I wrote
elsewhere, if the moon is going slowly enough to be captured into Earth
orbit, it most likely will end up falling into the sun. Less likely is
an Earth encounter, but again, there the most likely end is a
catastrophic lithobraking. If it's going fast enough to avoid that, then
it will not go into Earth orbit. And your term "lithobraking" is
ludicrous: There are no scars on either Earth or Moon to support that
concept.

No computer simulations are needed.

--
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 20, 10:22 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
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

om,

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, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best
you're going to get.

As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way
it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see
it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is
that 2+2 is always equal to 4.

This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make
then different that what we have found out about them time and time
again.

Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them
because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific.

Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations
take place, and the sooner the better.

BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting
within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had
once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff.

Your evidence?

It's all visual, on the internet, and every bit as good as gold.
Sorry to hear that you're blind.

You've given us a few hints to that evidence, such as pictures of the
apparent wobble of Saturn's axis and the change of the Earth's
terminator as it orbits ... and you clearly misinterpreted what you saw.

As for pictures of an Earth without a moon 12,000 years ago ... there
are none.

I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon
wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I
don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those
other liars you associate with.

And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate
opponents.

I only return the warm and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and
bashing with all the love and affection can muster. Since you have no
topic constructive intentions, where's the problem?

IOW, since I don't agree with you and you've been unable to answer any
of the simple and obvious questions I've put to you, you feel justified
in calling me an idiot. I gotcha.

--
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.

As I'd said from the get go, you're not helping this topic any better
off than a fifth grader, if that much. Don't you just hate such kids
that never stop asking questions, and never otherwise lend a hand?

In many ways, we're all less than fifth graders to what a good
supercomputer with its fully 3D interactive simulator represents.
. - Brad Guth