|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#491
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, American wrote: On May 31, 5:56*pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , *American wrote: Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). *If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. The most "notable" thing about your "essay" is the "superfluous" use of "quotation marks" throughout. It's "difficult" to tell whether you're using them as "scare quotes" or as "emphasis". The first "possibility" simply means that you place "quotation marks" around things you want to imply "doubt" about in the reader's "mind". The second "possibility" is that you are using the "quotation" marks not to delineate "what someone said" but simply to make people pay more "attention" to the specific words you thing are "important". What does an ancient Sumerian legend mistaken as a prophecy have to do with solar eclipses and the big bang? Do you not believe that the "Big Bang" happened? Are you "familiar" with the "evidence" for the "Big Bang"? Do you think that your little pet "hypothesis" about multiple "Big Bangs" is new? -- 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. Too bad that the absence of italics formed text puts google software back in the luddite category. Alternatively, you could write as though every word was important. If you didn't think every word was important, why include the unimportant ones? You remind me of people who deface their textbooks with highlighter. (I could do without the exaggerated dramatization of the non-italicized lingo) Quotations DO seem to be somewhat "superflous" - sort of like "eyebrows" that are supposed to be "raised" everytime they're being used. As to your alluding to the fact that some "ancient Sumerian legend" (I put quotes around these words to emphasize that they are "yours"), I'm under the impression that this idea (legend mistaken as a prophecy) makes one believe that certain FACTS are being misconstrued in order to interfere with the actual purpose and design of this habitable part of the galaxy How is "this ... part of the galaxy" more "habitable" than any other? This galaxy is, for the most part, not habitable. The Earth is habitable, but it's a special place. as being more by "accident" than it was by "grand design". My question to you is, if life on this planet was by "accident", then is the human species just some kind of "excretion" of a larger consciousness, being full of some nature of co-dependency, or if life was by some "grand design", then is our ultimate purpose in life to seek out with all of our might who our Creator actually is? I don't grant the premises on which you base the answers to your arbitrary either/or question. If you can answer either of these questions, I read it as one question with only two possible answers. then I can also assume that either (1) the perfectly fitted solar eclipse is also an "accident", or (2) the solar eclipse is NOT an accident and was "put" there by some grand design(er). That's silly. First, it's not perfectly fitted. It's only perfect some of the time and only right about now in the Earth's history. You might as well ask how Niagra Falls got placed so close to all the tourist shops. If your answer is (1), then I can prove to you that the Magyary phenomenon (1961) revealed that the Sun actually deprived the Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth during a solar eclipse. There have been plenty of solar eclipses since then, both total and annular, and apparently no one has repeated Magyary's results. Why is this important? This is important because it makes the present universe just another superfluous one among an infinite number of parallel universes, with an infinite number of earth/moon vs. earth w/o moon systems. So which one are you going to pick? Let me give you a hint: Even if you pick either system, you still haven't narrowed the choice down to the "right choice". If however, your choice is (2), then you are on at least the right track in believing that by some grand design, the Sun deprived the Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth for a "reason". Now, if you are one who does not believe in an absolute "reason" for all that exists in this universe, then you must either decide that (1) a bridge to the unknown must be made by faith, or (2) a bridge to the unknown must be made by "reason". Which one do you believe? So you tie together a disparate set of facts and claims and create some kind of dialetic which is supposed to lead me to the correct philosophical position, and you want me to put up with your badgering? -- 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. |
#492
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 31, 1:32 pm, American wrote:
On May 31, 3:24 pm, BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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, If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no macroscopic life left afterward. If that's what your simulation has to say, then so be it. We look forwards to having a look-see at those complex though impressive computer simulated results. BTW; Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth. Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow. In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would also have required an impact with something of considerably larger diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that moon arrived at Earth. Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into that white dwarf. Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy. . – Brad Guth Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. American I do favor the MBB(mullti-big-bang), as well as subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even a few black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass and subsequently ends up as a white dwarf and having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby firmly believe in the notions of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively between Sol and Sirius that has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, that which transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time. . - Brad Guth |
#493
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
I tend to favor the MBB(multiple-big-bang) theory over the singular BB
as Old Testament certified, as well as I favor subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even responsible for a few wandering black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass before it subsequently ends up as an impressive white dwarf, thereby having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby must firmly believe in the sorts of orbital mechanics as based upon the regular laws of physics, as equally favoring notions on behalf of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively strong between Sol and Sirius, that which has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, as having transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time because, most everything used to be closer together. . - Brad Guth On May 31, 1:32 pm, American wrote: On May 31, 3:24 pm, BradGuth wrote: On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 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, If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no macroscopic life left afterward. If that's what your simulation has to say, then so be it. We look forwards to having a look-see at those complex though impressive computer simulated results. BTW; Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth. Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow. In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would also have required an impact with something of considerably larger diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that moon arrived at Earth. Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into that white dwarf. Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy. . – Brad Guth Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru") interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big Bang" proponent. So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where the "Big Bang" process starts all over again. Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel" universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are currently "sequestered" to. American |
#494
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: I tend to favor the MBB(multiple-big-bang) theory over the singular BB as Old Testament certified, as well as I favor subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even responsible for a few wandering black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass before it subsequently ends up as an impressive white dwarf, thereby having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby must firmly believe in the sorts of orbital mechanics as based upon the regular laws of physics, as equally favoring notions on behalf of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively strong between Sol and Sirius, that which has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, as having transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time because, most everything used to be closer together. . - Brad Guth I believe in kittens and apple pies, and playing hockey on Sunday mornings. I believe that the fog is brought to annoy my roommate, who likes to dry out his hockey equipment in the backyard under the warming sun. But kittens in pies are a bad idea. I believe in moonlit nights, listening to the howl of BART as its electric paddles scrape along the third rail. I believe in countersteering and ATGATT, as well as reflective tape and as many auxiliary lights as the law and the alternator will permit. At least I have facts to back up my beliefs. -- 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. |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Jun 1, 3:00 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: I tend to favor the MBB(multiple-big-bang) theory over the singular BB as Old Testament certified, as well as I favor subsequent galactic encounters that can't but help generate rogue stars, planets, proto- moons and even responsible for a few wandering black holes here and there. I also believe that when a 6 solar mass star goes through its red- giant phase, that it tends to lose 5 solar mass before it subsequently ends up as an impressive white dwarf, thereby having lost much of its tidal radius for holding onto whatever planets and their moons. I thereby must firmly believe in the sorts of orbital mechanics as based upon the regular laws of physics, as equally favoring notions on behalf of the interstellar tidal radius, such as the mutual tidal influence that's collectively strong between Sol and Sirius, that which has us on a 105~110 thousand year cycle, as having transpired a bit more frequently as we go back in time because, most everything used to be closer together. . - Brad Guth I believe in kittens and apple pies, and playing hockey on Sunday mornings. I believe that the fog is brought to annoy my roommate, who likes to dry out his hockey equipment in the backyard under the warming sun. But kittens in pies are a bad idea. I believe in moonlit nights, listening to the howl of BART as its electric paddles scrape along the third rail. I believe in countersteering and ATGATT, as well as reflective tape and as many auxiliary lights as the law and the alternator will permit. At least I have facts to back up my beliefs. Too bad those supposed "beliefs" can't be run within a good public owned supercomputer and of their physics based simulations, especially in the fully 3D interactive eye-candy mode. BTW; last time I'd checked, a theory was just a theory that so happened to function within the what-if but regular laws of physics, instead of having to be skewed along and otherwise protected by your faith-based conditional laws of physics. Clearly you and others of your kind are not even remotely trying, other than to topic/author stalk and bash everything in sight that rocks your boat. .. - Brad Guth |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 13, 2:20 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message dakotatelephone... He's going to claim the Moon only recently went into Earth orbit - a few thousand years ago, no doubt brought here by aliens. :-) So, then, the Moon was an alien nuclear waste dumping ground? ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** That's entirely possible, especially since it's so gamma producing like no other moon, planet or even that of our sun. An icy proto-moon is also providing a darn good interstellar craft, as well as nicely thermal insulated and otherwise ideally shielded from cosmic and local gamma. Must also be the reason(s) why most everything of JAXA/Selene has become so unusually taboo/nondisclosure rated. BTW, the 2e20 N/sec worth of holding onto our moon is always twice as tidal force worthy as our sun. If that mutual tidal force of 2e20 N/ sec were converted into hourly energy, it's absolutely impressive as all get out, even if only 0.0001% of that force--energy becomes global warming worthy. If our trusty moon were to be relocated out to Earth's L1, and interactively kept there for obtaining roughly 3+% worth of solar isolation, as such we'd still have half the amount of tidal action to deal with. Because that relocated moon always being in alignment with our sun, those ocean tides would never change amplitude or their 24 hour cycle. If the moon were somehow to be eliminated, we'd still have roughly a third the tidal action, but at least our badly polluted environment would then be having a singular 24 hour tidal cycle that was always as regular as high noon, and lowest tides as regular as midnight, as well as Earth would be getting extremely cold from the inside out. Those supercomputer simulations would have easily proven all of this out, but sadly they are taboo/nondisclosure or simply DARPA need-to-know rated. It seems them nifty Google-Groups gold stars are no longer working, at least not for me. One of my lose cannons must have nailed their DARPA status quo (upsetting their apple cart or rocking their good ship LOLLIPOP). Of course few if none others were into giving out those gold stars, no matters how interesting the contributed topic or reply. When so much of DARPA/newsgroups are of such silly or intentionally misleading/diversion topics, it’s interesting how the really good topics or replies can’t seem to be given any of them Google-Groups gold stars. I wonder why them DARPA Gods of Usenet/newsgroups are upset enough to banish them gold stars. Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
#497
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Jun 7, 12:37*pm, BradGuth wrote:
That's entirely possible, especially since it's so gamma producing like no other moon, planet or even that of our sun. Cite. Links please. You once said the moon was extremely salty. Cite. Links please. Thanks. |
#498
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Jun 9, 1:40*pm, wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:37*pm, BradGuth wrote: That's entirely possible, especially since it's so gamma producing like no other moon, planet or even that of our sun. Cite. Links please. You once said the moon was extremely salty. Cite. Links please. Thanks. Cite yourself. Our NASA supposedly took pictures within the gamma spectrum, and our moon indicated as rather nicely gamma worthy as all get out. I think most of that gamma was secondary/recoil photons, although some of that gamma must have been directly from the radioactive moon itself. The sodium cloud that surrounds our moon by more than 8r, and trails by 900,000 km may be of the metallic mineral of sodium, although the extremely low density of the moon's core might otherwise suggest there's plain old salt that's sequestered below that unusually thick crust. Earth seems to have received way more than its fair share of salt. So, where's the moon salt hiding, and for that matter where's all the Mars salt hiding?? - Brad Guth |
#499
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Jun 9, 1:40*pm, wrote:
Cite. Links please. You once said the moon was extremely salty. Cite. Links please. Thanks. Mr. Guth neither cites nor researches. He simply asserts. Apparently, his unpublished "subjective opinion" -- which at this point I am forced to read as "made up out of whole cloth" -- is supposed to be worth more to us than published, objective findings from generations of professionals. (Not to mention plain common sense.) We established this at least as far back as the "there are no Paleolithic depictions of the Moon" farce...and probably farther back than that. Why is this thread still active? |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Jun 9, 8:42*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 9, 1:40*pm, wrote: On Jun 7, 12:37*pm, BradGuth wrote: That's entirely possible, especially since it's so gamma producing like no other moon, planet or even that of our sun. Cite. Links please. You once said the moon was extremely salty. Cite. Links please. Thanks. Cite yourself. Our NASA supposedly took pictures within the gamma spectrum, and our Only word worth any of your gamma salt is "supposedly." I have n-ASS-a moon rocks - $1,000ea. Ca$h only. moon indicated as rather nicely gamma worthy as all get out. *I think most of that gamma was secondary/recoil photons, although some of that gamma must have been directly from the radioactive moon itself. The sodium cloud that surrounds our moon by more than 8r, and trails by 900,000 km may be of the metallic mineral of sodium, although the extremely low density of the moon's core might otherwise suggest there's plain old salt that's sequestered below that unusually thick crust. Earth seems to have received way more than its fair share of salt. wrt what? your french fries? So, where's the moon salt hiding, and for that matter where's all the Mars salt hiding?? Where's those sources hiding I requested? |
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 |