|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: 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. Never said they did, although how would they have know of whatever shook their 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. That's skewed out of context, and not at all of what I'd meant. You know exactly what I meant, and so what does that make you? 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. Tell that to folks on death row, or to those mostly innocent Muslims (in addition to the million + already dead) about to die because of the immoral actions of your resident warlord(GW Bush). 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. I said nothing of hot air, but of having suggested upon gravity/tidal interactions causing unavoidable friction that's unavoidably causing heat that's unavoidably causing "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? Ever heard of blueshift? (it's what the light of stars tend to do as we head towards them) Not everything off-world (external to our solar system) is continually in redshift. As cosmic stuff interacts and essentially blows up, whereas some of the cosmic flak is unavoidably headed directly towards us. What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"? By all measure you'd care to make, or to have others make, our sun is a relatively passive star, and our physically dark moon is of truly horrific item that's big, nearby and having relatively massive crust. 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. Two thirds of tidal/gravity interaction with Earth's crust and internal substance, as opposed to roughly one third via our solar tidal induced action is what I'm talking about. Earth as a whole (including it's thin atmosphere down to our superheated core of perhaps liquid thorium) is roughly 98.5% fluid to such tidal/gravity interaction. 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 Earth is slowing down. And this is related to the moon how, exactly? In addition to the mutual tidal interactions, perhaps our highly electrostatic charged moon that's unavoidably gathering surface mass, is also unavoidably losing its low-density core of sodium mass at a greater proportion than Earth. Of thorium, uranium and radium among other radioactive and common heavy elements should be sticking with that moon of ours. 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." ミChris 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. Better to be an honest kook than a fellow rusemaster of your brown- nosed mainstream status quo that's in denial of your denial. . - Brad Guth |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof wrote: 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"? Our moon is more than a thousand fold greater in mass ratio than any other known moon in relationship to its planet. The gravity/tidal energy influence upon Earth is absolutely horrific, Can you put that in numbers? not to mention the secondary/recoil worth of IR. Recoil of infrared. Right. Our sun is minor and/or passive compared to either Sirius A or B. Our sun as a whole radiates far less gamma than our physically dark and naked (aka anticathode) little moon. Actually, the sun is about 2% heavier than Sirius B, which is a white dwarf and only about .0024 as luminous than the sun. What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"? BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's called blueshift), Oh, is *that* what it's called when the Doppler effect of a light source that's moving toward us shifts its spectrum towards the blue? and that closing velocity is increasing. I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe. -- 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." 気hris L. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: I guess that means you're a bigot No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here, analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook. that's in denial of your nayism. So you're saying I'm in metadenial. Kook or bigot, which is better? Kook. Bigots are generally mean. If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your excuse? You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better. -- 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." 気hris L. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: I guess that means you're a bigot No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here, analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook. that's in denial of your nayism. So you're saying I'm in metadenial. Kook or bigot, which is better? Kook. Bigots are generally mean. If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your excuse? You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L. You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic. . - Brad Guth |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
"Timberwoof" wrote in message
... In article , eyeball wrote: Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only Mr. Guth? Because he's wrong about 90% of the time. Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop responding to his posts! |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 21, 6:02 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof wrote: 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"? Our moon is more than a thousand fold greater in mass ratio than any other known moon in relationship to its planet. The gravity/tidal energy influence upon Earth is absolutely horrific, Can you put that in numbers? not to mention the secondary/recoil worth of IR. Recoil of infrared. Right. Our sun is minor and/or passive compared to either Sirius A or B. Our sun as a whole radiates far less gamma than our physically dark and naked (aka anticathode) little moon. Actually, the sun is about 2% heavier than Sirius B, which is a white dwarf and only about .0024 as luminous than the sun. What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"? BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's called blueshift), Oh, is *that* what it's called when the Doppler effect of a light source that's moving toward us shifts its spectrum towards the blue? and that closing velocity is increasing. I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L. Your insurmountable nayism and science ****ology is noted. Now go out and do more good work for your pretend-atheists friends (Art Deco and such). . - Brad Guth |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 21, 6:15 pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Timberwoof" wrote in message ... In article , eyeball wrote: Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only Mr. Guth? Because he's wrong about 90% of the time. Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop responding to his posts! Is that what Hitler told you to say, or was it something from your Old Testament? .. - Brad Guth |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: I guess that means you're a bigot No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here, analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook. that's in denial of your nayism. So you're saying I'm in metadenial. Kook or bigot, which is better? Kook. Bigots are generally mean. If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your excuse? You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ミChris L. You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic. Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking my motives and education? -- 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." 気hris L. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article ,
"Alan Erskine" wrote: "Timberwoof" wrote in message ... In article , eyeball wrote: Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only Mr. Guth? Because he's wrong about 90% of the time. Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop responding to his posts! Okay, dammit! -- 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." 気hris L. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 21, 11:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: I guess that means you're a bigot No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here, analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook. that's in denial of your nayism. So you're saying I'm in metadenial. Kook or bigot, which is better? Kook. Bigots are generally mean. If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your excuse? You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ミChris L. You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic. Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking my motives and education? -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L. It seems the planet Venus and that of our physically dark moon are not exactly as having been scripted to us by those having "the right stuff" (meaning of our NASA and/or Apollo related folks that seem oddly faith-based and thus sticking to those Old Testament guns). You seem deathly afraid of others discovering or much less sharing the truth. Are you afraid? According to www.beforeus.com it seems we don't really know all that much about Earth. . - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | LIBERATOR | Space Station | 39 | April 22nd 06 08:40 AM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | anon | Space Station | 1 | April 19th 06 07:54 PM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | honestjohn | Misc | 2 | April 19th 06 05:55 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | History | 13 | December 15th 03 08:13 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | Astronomy Misc | 13 | December 15th 03 08:13 PM |