A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 17th 08, 06:14 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
a425couple
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

"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.


  #12  
Old March 17th 08, 10:44 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

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?

What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?

While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
came from?

How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
tilt?
.. - Brad Guth
  #13  
Old March 18th 08, 12:11 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Mar 16, 5:55 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


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.


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


I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within
the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific
record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that
extremely big old moon


The kind of evidence you insist on is expected to be lacking; the kind
of evidence people show you instead, you ignore.


In this topic, those other conjectures or best SWAG of whatever you
call the one and only truth doesn't count.

What opening part of the goodwill jest or intent of this topic didn't
you understand?


as of prior to 12,500 BP.


"As of prior to". What the hell does that mean?

How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000
km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass.


How about you show how the moon would be captured into a nearly circular
orbit?


As I'd said before, that such needs a good supercomputer, because it's
not nearly as simple or as clear-cut as you suggest. The encounter
velocity could have been of a fairly low velocity, as a rear-ender
sort of glancing sucker-punch that induced the bulk of Earth's
seasonal tilt. Working this what-if in reverse order may prove as
worthy enough to start off with.

Are you suggesting that velocity, gravity, angle of a glancing
encounter or transfer of icy mass plays no part in this?

OOPS! how about a Venus like planet w/moon cruising past but just
well enough outside of Earth's L1? (but do you even get where I'm
going with this?)

How many hundred basic what-ifs would you like to ponder?


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


* as of prior to 12,500 BP
* somewhat more recent
* some time after


Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on
accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with
three digits of accuracy?


I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in
my old age and all.


That doesn't speak well for your hypothesis.


Nor does this dyslexic wordage encryption that I have to continually
deal with, speak well on my behalf. Sorry about that.


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.


Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about
anything before, oh, several thousand years BC.


You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as
well as dumb and dumber?


Instead of explaining it, you've descended into ad-hominem.


If "ad-hominem" is what you call sharing the truth as best can be
deductively interpreted, then so be it.


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?


What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it
achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit?


For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone
to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a
few million simulations. Are you game?


You don't need a supercomputer to do that calculation. You just need
some basic understanding of algebra and the math of orbital mechanics
... which I strongly urge you to become familiar with.


In other words, the sorts of all-knowing folks like yourself would not
dare run off a few million of those complex (aka trial and error)
multibody simulations, as required in order to fine-tune and thus
polish and nail this one down. (no status quo or bust kind of surprise
there)


How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to
this fundamental change in the environment?


If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't
you adapt, or at least die trying?


That's not an answer to the question.


Yes, it actually was a very good answer that you and others of your
terrestrial-only w/moon kind refuse to accept. You can put complex
sea life into a dark lab with only an artificial sun and moon, or of
using just one or the other, and subsequently trick that sequestered
life into adapting and/or mutating within hardly any time at all, as
to adapting to whatever artificial stimulus you'd care to impose.
Lack of gravity is yet another adaptation that gets a fast mutation
result or response, though usually it's not for the better.


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?


I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science".
The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for
which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence
the other way.


Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream
status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?)


To try what? I'd like to see you come up with simple calculations that
show how the Earth could have captured the moon and leave it in a
near-circular orbit as far back as astronomical records have been kept.
You don't need a supercomputer to do that.


If you can't possibly help, then perhaps myself or others will have to
do just that.

BTW, I've already proposed several viable encounter alternatives
outside of this current topic. Of course each and every one is likely
too complex for mere words or numbers that you'll continually twist in
order disqualify at each and every turn in the road, especially
complex with so much energy taking place and the transfer of such icy
mass taken away from our proto-moon is what leaves much for that
supercomputer of extremely complex simulations to work with.


I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or
that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to
show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer
time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish
his results.


You have a right to think whatever you like.


In other words, you don't believe what I said but you have absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to refute it.


I didn't say that, but if you like making it look and/or sound as
though I'm another all-knowing village idiot like yourself, then so be
it. By all means, never think outside the that cozy mainstream box,
as you might get that brown-nose of yours bent out of shape.


BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities?
(Please visithttp://www.top500.org/andtell us which ones you're
talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate.)


You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned
supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to
our NASA.


No, I don't. Tell me its name, who made it, who runs it, and I could
research it.


Good freaking grief almighty on a stick, do a basic 'search for' ***
NASA Supercomputer ***, it has 2048 fast CPUs and spendy butt loads of
absolutely everything else necessary. I believe it's within the
hands of NASA's JPL.


Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/
federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned?


Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group
of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so
as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their
supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely
everything, and then some?


A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private
supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having
since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount)
and without their having since taken income or property tax
depreciation deductions are there?


That's all off-topic and has nothing to do with your thesis.


Well aren't you extra special, and isn't that too freaking bad
because, it's my topic. Don't like it! then create your own status
quo or bust topic. Pretend that such public owned supercomputers
don't exist all you want.
.. - Brad Guth


  #14  
Old March 18th 08, 03:18 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Darwin123
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Mar 17, 7:11 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 5:55 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:



In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:54 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


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.


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


I've been there and done that, as well as just having explained within
the entro-statement as to what's oddly missing from the scientific
record, that seems to fail us if trying to give this planet that
extremely big old moon


The kind of evidence you insist on is expected to be lacking; the kind
of evidence people show you instead, you ignore.


In this topic, those other conjectures or best SWAG of whatever you
call the one and only truth doesn't count.

What opening part of the goodwill jest or intent of this topic didn't
you understand?



as of prior to 12,500 BP.


"As of prior to". What the hell does that mean?


How about a moon encounter, somewhat like Apophis 99942, except 4000
km in diameter and 8.5e22 kg worth of icy mass.


How about you show how the moon would be captured into a nearly circular
orbit?


As I'd said before, that such needs a good supercomputer, because it's
not nearly as simple or as clear-cut as you suggest. The encounter
velocity could have been of a fairly low velocity, as a rear-ender
sort of glancing sucker-punch that induced the bulk of Earth's
seasonal tilt. Working this what-if in reverse order may prove as
worthy enough to start off with.

Are you suggesting that velocity, gravity, angle of a glancing
encounter or transfer of icy mass plays no part in this?

OOPS! how about a Venus like planet w/moon cruising past but just
well enough outside of Earth's L1? (but do you even get where I'm
going with this?)

How many hundred basic what-ifs would you like to ponder?





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


* as of prior to 12,500 BP
* somewhat more recent
* some time after


Make up your mind! If you're so uncertain about the date (and so keen on
accurate supercomputer simulations) when why do y ou present it with
three digits of accuracy?


I'm uncertain about a great many things, especially as of lately, in
my old age and all.


That doesn't speak well for your hypothesis.


Nor does this dyslexic wordage encryption that I have to continually
deal with, speak well on my behalf. Sorry about that.





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.


Seems as if they didn't keep very good records of any kind about
anything before, oh, several thousand years BC.


You can't read? or are you also claiming as being legally blind as
well as dumb and dumber?


Instead of explaining it, you've descended into ad-hominem.


If "ad-hominem" is what you call sharing the truth as best can be
deductively interpreted, then so be it.



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?


What if you explain where the moon came from and by what mechanism it
achieved such a nicely almost-circular orbit?


For that I'll need to access our public supercomputer that's on lone
to NASA, and I'll even require some of your expertise for setting up a
few million simulations. Are you game?


You don't need a supercomputer to do that calculation. You just need
some basic understanding of algebra and the math of orbital mechanics
... which I strongly urge you to become familiar with.


In other words, the sorts of all-knowing folks like yourself would not
dare run off a few million of those complex (aka trial and error)
multibody simulations, as required in order to fine-tune and thus
polish and nail this one down. (no status quo or bust kind of surprise
there)



How do you propose that every living thing on earth suddenly adapted to
this fundamental change in the environment?


If you were relocated to another planet, say Mars or Venus; wouldn't
you adapt, or at least die trying?


That's not an answer to the question.


Yes, it actually was a very good answer that you and others of your
terrestrial-only w/moon kind refuse to accept. You can put complex
sea life into a dark lab with only an artificial sun and moon, or of
using just one or the other, and subsequently trick that sequestered
life into adapting and/or mutating within hardly any time at all, as
to adapting to whatever artificial stimulus you'd care to impose.
Lack of gravity is yet another adaptation that gets a fast mutation
result or response, though usually it's not for the better.





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?


I don't grant your premise that this is the "best available science"..
The notion that the moon arrived recently is scientific quackery for
which there is zero evidence and for which there is plenty of evidence
the other way.


Is that why you're so deathly afraid to try? (because you mainstream
status quo doesn't like having its boat rocked?)


To try what? I'd like to see you come up with simple calculations that
show how the Earth could have captured the moon and leave it in a
near-circular orbit as far back as astronomical records have been kept.
You don't need a supercomputer to do that.


If you can't possibly help, then perhaps myself or others will have to
do just that.

BTW, I've already proposed several viable encounter alternatives
outside of this current topic. Of course each and every one is likely
too complex for mere words or numbers that you'll continually twist in
order disqualify at each and every turn in the road, especially
complex with so much energy taking place and the transfer of such icy
mass taken away from our proto-moon is what leaves much for that
supercomputer of extremely complex simulations to work with.



I also don't grant your premises that such simulations are being run or
that they are being kept secret. It wouldn't take a supercomputer to
show that the moon arrived recently, so no one's wasting supercomputer
time on that problem. And if someone were doing that work, he'd publish
his results.


You have a right to think whatever you like.


In other words, you don't believe what I said but you have absolutely no
evidence whatsoever to refute it.


I didn't say that, but if you like making it look and/or sound as
though I'm another all-knowing village idiot like yourself, then so be
it. By all means, never think outside the that cozy mainstream box,
as you might get that brown-nose of yours bent out of shape.



BTW, what public-owned supercomputers? Do you mean ones at universities?
(Please visithttp://www.top500.org/andtellus which ones you're
talking about. Then please explain what sort of math you think this
would take and which type of supercomputer would be most appropriate..)


You know exactly what I'm speaking of when I say public owned
supercomputer, such as the spendy 2048 CPU monster that's on lone to
our NASA.


No, I don't. Tell me its name, who made it, who runs it, and I could
research it.


Good freaking grief almighty on a stick, do a basic 'search for' ***
NASA Supercomputer ***, it has 2048 fast CPUs and spendy butt loads of
absolutely everything else necessary. I believe it's within the
hands of NASA's JPL.



Is there anything of our NASA or of most other government or state/
federal/tax funded whatever that isn't public owned?


Don't most corporations tend to lease and/or trade within their group
of sub-corporations or of their tax-avoidance offshore operations, so
as to wright off at least twice of whatever they paid for their
supercomputers, just so that the rest of us get to pay for absolutely
everything, and then some?


A whole lot better question is; how many entirely private
supercomputers (meaning as privately purchased as retail and having
since paid their full share of income and sales taxes on that amount)
and without their having


...

read more »


Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.
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.
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?
  #15  
Old March 18th 08, 04:44 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Timberwoof[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

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.

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.

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.)

--
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.
  #16  
Old March 18th 08, 05:14 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

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?


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.

How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to
create the arctic ocean basin?


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?

Give Earth whatever mass and fluid softness makes you a happy camper.

Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps
8.5e22 kg.

If you like, give the lithobraking encounter a glancing contact
velocity of just 2 km/s, then further adjust that velocity of 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.
.. - Brad Guth
  #17  
Old March 18th 08, 05:38 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

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.

As I'd said, we'll need that supercomputer running off those millions
of what-if simulations.


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?


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.

Good grief, unfortunately you're not hardly trying, 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.
.. - Brad Guth
  #18  
Old March 18th 08, 06:03 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Timberwoof[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

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!


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...

How much encounter impact morphing energy would it have taken to
create the arctic ocean basin?


You tell us.

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?

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?

Give that icy proto-moon a worthy diameter of 4000 km and perhaps
8.5e22 kg.


On what basis?

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?

then further adjust that velocity of 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.

--
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.
  #19  
Old March 18th 08, 06:10 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
Timberwoof[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 799
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

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.
  #20  
Old March 18th 08, 07:04 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,soc.history.what-if,alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

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. Go figure, especially since
you can't tell us objectively where that older than Earth moon came
from.


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.


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.


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.

BTW, Einstein was a touch flawed, as well as a few dozen others.


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.


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. If you've got better numbers,
then go with that.


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?

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.


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.
.. - Brad Guth
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:13 PM
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA Ami Silberman Astronomy Misc 13 December 15th 03 09:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.