A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

The Moon: 100M years younger than thought



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 23rd 13, 06:02 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of the

event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the

Solar System's elapsed-time table ...



http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html


The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became a white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.

Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?

How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?

  #2  
Old September 23rd 13, 06:53 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Hägar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,511
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of
the

event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the

Solar System's elapsed-time table ...



http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html


The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are
only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having
survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became a
white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.

Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?

How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?

*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do with
the Moon ???

Notice to Moron GuthBall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius
It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping insanity.


  #3  
Old September 24th 13, 03:13 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Monday, September 23, 2013 10:53:05 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of


the




event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the




Solar System's elapsed-time table ...








http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html




The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are

only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having

survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became a

white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.



Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?



How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?



*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do with

the Moon ???



Notice to Moron GuthBall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius

It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping insanity..


Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely indoctrinated to believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to say.

The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of 6371 km radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our Arctic ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing like Earth has to offer.

  #4  
Old September 24th 13, 04:57 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:17:45 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

On Monday, September 23, 2013 10:53:05 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message




...




On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:




Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time of




the








event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in the








Solar System's elapsed-time table ...
















http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html








The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system are




only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff having




survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and became


a




white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.








Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?








How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?








*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do


with




the Moon ???








Notice to Moron GuthBall:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius




It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping insanity.




Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely indoctrinated to

believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to say.



The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of 6371 km

radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our Arctic

ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing like

Earth has to offer.



*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the oblique

impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its

gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense than

your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that means) and

your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how the

moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your brainfatrz, nor

any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me, even

though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just trust

me. Right.



Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's theory

stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.


They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus untrustworthy.

Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that 2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and seasonal tilt.. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been none of those extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented humans as of prior to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of their natural environment with any moon, even though their having accomplished far better resolution paintings or depictions of smaller items of much less survival importance.

Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's nothing the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering alternatives seems only logical, especially since the Apollo era (extensively run by those of Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing of any objective proof that can be independently verified.

A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our Arctic ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy planet if it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly when this took place is what needs to be further researched and estimated as based upon the best available evidence instead of simply based entirely upon computer simulations that can be made and/or modified in order to suit whatever end results are being paid for.

Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind) were all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between day or night, summer or winter?





  #5  
Old September 24th 13, 07:22 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:03:59 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:17:45 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message




...




On Monday, September 23, 2013 10:53:05 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:




"Brad Guth" wrote in message








...








On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:18:31 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:








Even though the Earth/Planet X impact theory hasn't changed, the time


of








the
















event has slipped by a 100 Million years, a mere blink of the eye in


the
















Solar System's elapsed-time table ...
































http://news.yahoo.com/moon-100-milli...121148745.html
















The likely planets, planetoids and asteroids of the Sirius star system


are








only at most 256 million years old, and at least some of that stuff


having








survived Sirius(b) when it converted from an enormous red giant and


became




a








white dwarf as of roughly 64 million years ago.
















Can gold deposits be carbon dated, or even lead dated?
















How about the age dating of carbonado, or even paramagnetic basalt?
















*** What does any of your insanity laced ranting and raving have to do




with








the Moon ???
















Notice to Moron GuthBall:








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius








It's a fun read, but I doubt it'll do anything for your creeping


insanity.








Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely indoctrinated


to




believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to say.








The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of 6371


km




radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our Arctic




ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing like




Earth has to offer.








*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the oblique




impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its




gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense


than




your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that means)


and




your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how the




moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your brainfatrz,


nor




any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me, even




though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just trust




me. Right.








Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's theory




stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.




They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they

keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of

extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus

untrustworthy.



Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that

2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less

telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and seasonal

tilt. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been none of those

extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented humans as of prior

to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of their natural environment

with any moon, even though their having accomplished far better resolution

paintings or depictions of smaller items of much less survival importance..



Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's nothing

the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering alternatives seems

only logical, especially since the Apollo era (extensively run by those of

Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing of any objective proof that can be

independently verified.



A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our Arctic

ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy planet if

it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly when this took

place is what needs to be further researched and estimated as based upon the

best available evidence instead of simply based entirely upon computer

simulations that can be made and/or modified in order to suit whatever end

results are being paid for.



Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind) were

all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between day or

night, summer or winter?





*** So, other than a lot of hot air, idiotic babble and the nebulous phrase

"must be further researched", which in scientific terms means that you're

totally clueless, you have NOTHING but your cock-eyed, homebrewed "it came

from Sirius" postulation. Don't even bother to answer, unless you have

links to proof your hare-brained schemes ... but then, having no facts never

stopped you before. Read it and weep, you dip****:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis


That paramagnetic and physically dark moon could be a hundred million years newer than previously thought, or it could even be of only 256 million years old if it were contributed to our solar system by the recent demise of Sirius(b).

Until we actually get ourselves there and proceed to dig/excavate into it, we really don't seem to know what it's made of, or much less of how new or old it actually is.

Perhaps China will help us out.

  #6  
Old September 24th 13, 07:53 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:57:02 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely indoctrinated to


believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to say.



The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of 6371 km




radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our Arctic




ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing like




Earth has to offer.








*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the oblique




impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its




gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense than




your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that means) and




your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how the




moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your brainfatrz, nor




any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me, even




though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just trust




me. Right.








Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's theory




stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.




They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus untrustworthy.



Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that 2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and seasonal tilt. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been none of those extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented humans as of prior to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of their natural environment with any moon, even though their having accomplished far better resolution paintings or depictions of smaller items of much less survival importance.



Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's nothing the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering alternatives seems only logical, especially since the Apollo era (extensively run by those of Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing of any objective proof that can be independently verified.



A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our Arctic ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy planet if it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly when this took place is what needs to be further researched and estimated as based upon the best available evidence instead of simply based entirely upon computer simulations that can be made and/or modified in order to suit whatever end results are being paid for.



Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind) were all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between day or night, summer or winter?


How do you know they didn't run alternative simulations? For cripes sake, Guthball, how do you think the current model is the MOST LIKELY?
  #7  
Old September 24th 13, 07:55 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:22:04 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:


That paramagnetic and physically dark moon could be a hundred million years newer than previously thought, or it could even be of only 256 million years old if it were contributed to our solar system by the recent demise of Sirius(b).



Until we actually get ourselves there and proceed to dig/excavate into it, we really don't seem to know what it's made of, or much less of how new or old it actually is.



Perhaps China will help us out.


LOL, and there's two Guthball hallmarks: 1. His cut & paste remark about "paramagnetic and physically dark moon" and 2. His insinuating we've never actually been to the moon.
  #8  
Old September 24th 13, 09:26 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:53:13 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:57:02 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:



Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely indoctrinated to




believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to say.






The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of 6371 km








radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our Arctic








ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing like








Earth has to offer.
















*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the oblique








impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its








gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense than








your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that means) and








your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how the








moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your brainfatrz, nor








any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me, even








though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just trust








me. Right.
















Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's theory








stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.








They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus untrustworthy.








Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that 2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and seasonal tilt. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been none of those extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented humans as of prior to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of their natural environment with any moon, even though their having accomplished far better resolution paintings or depictions of smaller items of much less survival importance..








Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's nothing the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering alternatives seems only logical, especially since the Apollo era (extensively run by those of Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing of any objective proof that can be independently verified.








A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our Arctic ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy planet if it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly when this took place is what needs to be further researched and estimated as based upon the best available evidence instead of simply based entirely upon computer simulations that can be made and/or modified in order to suit whatever end results are being paid for.








Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind) were all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between day or night, summer or winter?




How do you know they didn't run alternative simulations? For cripes sake, Guthball, how do you think the current model is the MOST LIKELY?


I've nicely asked of those in charge, to allow us outsiders to run a few thousand alternative simulations, and thus far they and their brown-nosed minions like yourself have refused.

Remember that we have already paid for everything published thus far (multiple times over), including our having paid for those supercomputers and of wherever they are set up, as well as we get to pay for their energy consumption, maintenance and upgrades along with picking up the tab for most those running whatever simulations. So, perhaps the very least they should do is entertain us with some of our own spendy stuff.

  #9  
Old September 25th 13, 05:38 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:04:02 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:53:13 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:57:02 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:








Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely


indoctrinated to








believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to


say.












The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of


6371 km
















radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our


Arctic
















ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing


like
















Earth has to offer.
































*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the


oblique
















impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its
















gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense


than
















your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that


means) and
















your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how


the
















moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your


brainfatrz, nor
















any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me,


even
















though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just


trust
















me. Right.
































Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's


theory
















stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.
















They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they


keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of


extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus


untrustworthy.
















Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that


2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less


telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and


seasonal tilt. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been


none of those extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented


humans as of prior to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of


their natural environment with any moon, even though their having


accomplished far better resolution paintings or depictions of smaller


items of much less survival importance.
















Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's


nothing the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering


alternatives seems only logical, especially since the Apollo era


(extensively run by those of Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing


of any objective proof that can be independently verified.
















A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our


Arctic ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy


planet if it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly


when this took place is what needs to be further researched and


estimated as based upon the best available evidence instead of simply


based entirely upon computer simulations that can be made and/or


modified in order to suit whatever end results are being paid for.
















Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind)


were all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between


day or night, summer or winter?








How do you know they didn't run alternative simulations? For cripes sake,


Guthball, how do you think the current model is the MOST LIKELY?




I've nicely asked of those in charge, to allow us outsiders to run a few

thousand alternative simulations, and thus far they and their brown-nosed

minions like yourself have refused.



Remember that we have already paid for everything published thus far

(multiple times over), including our having paid for those supercomputers

and of wherever they are set up, as well as we get to pay for their energy

consumption, maintenance and upgrades along with picking up the tab for most

those running whatever simulations. So, perhaps the very least they should

do is entertain us with some of our own spendy stuff.





*** So you're saying they should let low-life, under the table payola, leaky

boat repair bozos like you run their Supercomputers, when you're too stupid

to fix your News Reader so that it doesn't display hundreds of empty lines

with nothing but insert arrow sign in them ???

Yea right. You need a Frontal Lobotomy.


Your mainstream LLPOF status quo is noted, as is your Zionist Nazi version of being a republican redneck FUD-master.
  #10  
Old September 25th 13, 12:49 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:26:52 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:53:13 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:57:02 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:








Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely indoctrinated to








believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to say.












The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of 6371 km
















radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our Arctic
















ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing like
















Earth has to offer.
































*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the oblique
















impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its
















gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense than
















your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that means) and
















your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how the
















moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your brainfatrz, nor
















any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me, even
















though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just trust
















me. Right.
































Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's theory
















stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.
















They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus untrustworthy.
















Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that 2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and seasonal tilt. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been none of those extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented humans as of prior to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of their natural environment with any moon, even though their having accomplished far better resolution paintings or depictions of smaller items of much less survival importance.
















Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's nothing the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering alternatives seems only logical, especially since the Apollo era (extensively run by those of Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing of any objective proof that can be independently verified.
















A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our Arctic ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy planet if it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly when this took place is what needs to be further researched and estimated as based upon the best available evidence instead of simply based entirely upon computer simulations that can be made and/or modified in order to suit whatever end results are being paid for.
















Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind) were all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between day or night, summer or winter?








How do you know they didn't run alternative simulations? For cripes sake, Guthball, how do you think the current model is the MOST LIKELY?




I've nicely asked of those in charge, to allow us outsiders to run a few thousand alternative simulations, and thus far they and their brown-nosed minions like yourself have refused.



Remember that we have already paid for everything published thus far (multiple times over), including our having paid for those supercomputers and of wherever they are set up, as well as we get to pay for their energy consumption, maintenance and upgrades along with picking up the tab for most those running whatever simulations. So, perhaps the very least they should do is entertain us with some of our own spendy stuff.


LOL, you'd know just how to walk in and run such simulations on a supercomputer?
 




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
Famous Martian meteorite younger than thought Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 16th 10 06:10 AM
FWD: Got $100M to spare? Have we got a deal for you... OM History 2 August 11th 05 11:58 PM
Around the Moon for $100M! Joe Strout Policy 53 August 11th 05 06:40 PM
SpaceX Thought experiment -a Saturn V class vehicle within 10 years? Tom Cuddihy Policy 25 June 19th 05 09:40 PM
Bush the younger's return to the Moon. John History 4 January 19th 04 04:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 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.