|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 5:25 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: You still don't get it, as well as you're still avoiding the primary intent or focus of this topic, So explain it in simple words. I don't go in for subtlety; it's too easily lost or misinterpreted. mostly because yourself and others of your pretend-atheism kind So this is all about God now? are deathly afraid of what could become a better truth than what you've been telling us. So now you've even got God on your side that the moon recently got here? Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing or otherwise as puppeteered with those status quo strings attached or of that clown hand up my butt. Oh, a clever way of saying that you're not well-educated in the basics of astronomy and are thus free to come up with your own creative bull**** and insist that it's God's own truth. BTW, at half the orbital distance, the moon's tidal influence would have had Earth nearly continually flooded to death with those monster tides of four times as great, not to mention of whatever was going on under the crust of Earth. Okay, So what? Most of Earth's erosion via flooding is of recent times No, it isn't. Plenty of geological evidence exists that shows that erosion has been going on since there was water on the planet. since the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly? -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L. This topic is about our running off a few million simulations until we get it right. Obviously it wouldn't matter one way or another to your mindset, so why exactly are you even here, in this topic? Size, mass, velocity incoming trajectory or angle of attack, softness (including atmosphere) or the physical morphing of each orb, and so forth are the basic considerations. At the right attack angle, velocity and merging along with the same direction of flow, whereas even a Venus like planet w/moon could merge into our solar system in the same way a given asteroid makes itself known, whereas a lithobraking encounter simply gives us a multitude of other simulation options for accomplishing the same thing. There is no vector which will accomplish what you want it to. As I wrote elsewhere, if the moon is going slowly enough to be captured into Earth orbit, it most likely will end up falling into the sun. Less likely is an Earth encounter, but again, there the most likely end is a catastrophic lithobraking. If it's going fast enough to avoid that, then it will not go into Earth orbit. And your term "lithobraking" is ludicrous: There are no scars on either Earth or Moon to support that concept. No computer simulations are needed. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 10:22 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 5:32 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 19, 12:48 am, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article om, BradGuth wrote: Darwin123 wrote: Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit. What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious! And your silly response isn't science. Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there? What's rigid For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid.. This would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal effects, and its composition must be accounted for.) 98.5% fluid Earth You're welcome to explain that number. Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. Perhaps once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious. The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used toilet paper. Brad, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best you're going to get. As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is that 2+2 is always equal to 4. This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make then different that what we have found out about them time and time again. Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific. Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations take place, and the sooner the better. BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff. Your evidence? It's all visual, on the internet, and every bit as good as gold. Sorry to hear that you're blind. You've given us a few hints to that evidence, such as pictures of the apparent wobble of Saturn's axis and the change of the Earth's terminator as it orbits ... and you clearly misinterpreted what you saw. As for pictures of an Earth without a moon 12,000 years ago ... there are none. I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those other liars you associate with. And you never disparage the honesty or intelligence of your debate opponents. I only return the warm and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and bashing with all the love and affection can muster. Since you have no topic constructive intentions, where's the problem? IOW, since I don't agree with you and you've been unable to answer any of the simple and obvious questions I've put to you, you feel justified in calling me an idiot. I gotcha. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. As I'd said from the get go, you're not helping this topic any better off than a fifth grader, if that much. Don't you just hate such kids that never stop asking questions, and never otherwise lend a hand? In many ways, we're all less than fifth graders to what a good supercomputer with its fully 3D interactive simulator represents. . - Brad Guth |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , Damien Valentine wrote: Mr.Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Everybody in the World Except Mr.Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it leave there?). An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth. A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became so nearly circular in that short a time. An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning.. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ETHChris L. What part of this "Earth w/o Moon" topic don't you get? What part of my questions above did you not understand? Why is it so insurmountable to the likes of supposedly smart folks like yourself, and why are you so deathly afraid of your own shadow w/ o moon? I don't grant your premise. The question that Damien asked was, what would persuade me that your hypothesis is correct? I gave some reasonable criteria. Unlike yours, they're straightforward and obvious.. They don't require a lot of fancy supercomputation or guesswork. They only require some physical evidence. If you think that's insurmountable, then that pretty much wraps it up for your hypothesis. Why are human notations of that era not "physical evidence"? They're not physical evidence of an lunar impact on the Earth. It seems smart humans like yourself send other humans to their death as based upon far less evidence. I would not trust my life on any scientific or engineering analysis you propose. Taking life out of a given environment by way of altering its sun and/ or giving such a moon, is in most instances not going to terminate all of its DNA code. Most known forms of life adapt, especially to a better environment than had been previously existing. Earth w/o moon would have been a cold and nasty planet, with roughly a third the ocean tides, of much less salt and w/o tilt of a nearly monoseason environment. You're welcome and encouraged to expand on each of those points ... which I think you've got all wrong. Especially the salty bit. Earth wasn't always so salty. Much of Earth's salt is of a deposit, similar as to most of Earth's water that didn't emerge from within. Perhaps those cosmic snowballs were salty. So you've said. A lot. But there is no such thing as proof by assertion. Take away that horrific moon and Earth would start to freeze up again, Why? Why not? How much interactive tidal/gravity energy does it take holding onto that moon? Where do you think that kind of energy goes? (not to mention the secondary IR influx) You're the one making the claim that the moon's presence keeps the earth from freezing. You do the math to back up that claim. If you can't, then it's so much hot air. our oceans becoming more and more cesspool like because of having only a solar tide to work with, I thought they'd freeze. To a much greater extent, as w/o moon and of a near monoseason they should freeze nearly to the tropics unless there's another nearby source of stellar energy added to what our passive sun had to offer. That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law? What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"? as well as seeing much fewer of those life essential geothermal events taking place. You think the moon causes the earth's internal heat? Then whence the ancient volcanism? That's a little skewed out of context, isn't it. It's not an all or nothing situation, because there's still a solar tide. No, it's neither skewed nor out of context. You're welcome to present your equations to show how much of the Earth's internal heat comes from solar and lunar tidal effects. Again, without such math, your claim is empty. Eventually we'd lose the bulk of our magnetosphere to boot, Why? Why not? It's going away at roughly -.05%/year as is, so lo and behold, it looks as though something inside is slowing down. And this is related to the moon how, exactly? and then only the most rad-hard of DNA would survive upon dry land, whereas we frail humans would have to extensively habitat underground or underwater in order to protect us from the solar and cosmic influx that's not exactly DNA friendly. If conditions were so bad before the moon arrived, how could any life have evolved? And none of this, by the way, answers my questions. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L. Your profound nayism is noted. Are you related to Art Deco? Nope. If I had all the answers and knew all there was to know, as such I'd be in charge of your private parts, meaning I'd own the likes of yourself. Don't flatter yourself. What is it about my using the phrase 'computer simulation' that's so entirely over your head, plus over that other head of Damien Valentine? It's not over my head. The problem I have is that since you don't have a basic scientific knowledge, you are unable to even write down basic equations that need to be solved to represent your hypotheses. Since math fails you (or you fail to use it), you try to do all your thinking semantically, and come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions that you cannot back up with evidence or even good theory. And you want others to do your computational homework for you. I guess that means you're a kook. I guess that means you're a bigot that's in denial of your nayism. Kook or bigot, which is better? If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your excuse? . - Brad Guth |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 20, 10:22 pm, Timberwoof wrote: IOW, since I don't agree with you and you've been unable to answer any of the simple and obvious questions I've put to you, you feel justified in calling me an idiot. I gotcha. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ĐChris L. As I'd said from the get go, you're not helping this topic any better off than a fifth grader, if that much. Don't you just hate such kids that never stop asking questions, and never otherwise lend a hand? I have helped. By asking pertinent questions, I have pointed out fallacies in your reasoning. Now run along and fix your hypothesis. In many ways, we're all less than fifth graders to what a good supercomputer with its fully 3D interactive simulator represents. Speak for yourself. -- 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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 10:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: That's funny. No other star is anywhere near enough to add to the sun's heat. Ever hear of the inverse-square law? What's with that adjective "passive", anyway. Is that thrown in for effect the way you describe the moon as "horrific"? Our moon is more than a thousand fold greater in mass ratio than any other known moon in relationship to its planet. The gravity/tidal energy influence upon Earth is absolutely horrific, not to mention the secondary/recoil worth of IR. Our sun is minor and/or passive compared to either Sirius A or B. Our sun as a whole radiates far less gamma than our physically dark and naked (aka anticathode) little moon. BTW, we're currently headed back towards Sirius at 7.5+ km/s (it's called blueshift), and that closing velocity is increasing. .. - Brad Guth |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , Damien Valentine wrote: Mr.Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did exist in its present orbit before...10,500 BC, if I understand you right? (I'm also interested in your reasons for dating the creation or capture of the Moon to 10,500 BC exactly, rather than say 11,000 BC or 10,000 BC.) Everybody in the World Except Mr.Guth, what would you need to persuade you that the Moon did not exist in its present orbit before 10,500 BC? An explanation for the moon's origin (where did it come from, how did it leave there?). An explanation for the moon's compositional similarity to the Earth. A plausible mechanism for the earth's gravitational capture of the moon without impact (as there's no evidence of such an impact either on the Earth or on the moon) and an explanation of how the moon's orbit became so nearly circular in that short a time. An explanation of how all life on Earth suddenly, readily, and completely adapted to the moon's presence, especially "primitive" life forms that appear to have lived in tidal pools since the beginning. -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. In other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all- inclusive answers to absolutely everything, or else you're not the least bit interested, except interested enough as to topic/author stalk, bash and likely impose as much banishment as possible. Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old Testament), or what? How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof naysay items? . - Brad Guth |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 20, 5:57*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 19, 12:48 am, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , *BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , *BradGuth wrote: Darwin123 wrote: * * *Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit. What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious! And your silly response isn't science. Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there? What's rigid For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal effects, and its composition must be accounted for.) 98.5% fluid Earth You're welcome to explain that number. Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. *Perhaps once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious. The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used toilet paper. Brad, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best you're going to get. As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is that 2+2 is always equal to 4. This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make then different that what we have found out about them time and time again. Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific. Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations take place, and the sooner the better. You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation? BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff. Says you! I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I don't know what you're talking about. *You must be thinking of those other liars you associate with. Sure Brad... |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
Mr. Guth? Who else has the nerve to stand up to the ridicule of these boards and say what needs to be said?!!! On Mar 21, 2:25 pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 19, 12:48 am, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: Darwin123 wrote: Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit. What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious! And your silly response isn't science. Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there? What's rigid For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal effects, and its composition must be accounted for.) 98.5% fluid Earth You're welcome to explain that number. Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. Perhaps once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious. The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used toilet paper. Brad, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best you're going to get. As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is that 2+2 is always equal to 4. This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make then different that what we have found out about them time and time again. Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific. Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations take place, and the sooner the better. You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation? BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff. Says you! I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those other liars you associate with. Sure Brad... |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 21, 11:25 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 19, 12:48 am, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: Darwin123 wrote: Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit. What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious! And your silly response isn't science. Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there? What's rigid For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal effects, and its composition must be accounted for.) 98.5% fluid Earth You're welcome to explain that number. Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. Perhaps once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious. The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used toilet paper. Brad, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best you're going to get. As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is that 2+2 is always equal to 4. This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make then different that what we have found out about them time and time again. Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific. Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations take place, and the sooner the better. You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation? All simulations are orchestrated. Good grief, get over it. BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff. Says you! And says anyone else with eyes and half an honest brain. Where exactly does that leave you? I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those other liars you associate with. Sure Brad... And your better deductive observationaly as based upon your superior image enlargements, and compared to whatever other planetary geology is ????? .. - Brad Guth |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On Mar 21, 12:07 pm, eyeball wrote:
Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only Mr. Guth? Who else has the nerve to stand up to the ridicule of these boards and say what needs to be said?!!! On Mar 21, 2:25 pm, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 19, 6:37 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Mar 19, 12:48 am, BradGuth wrote: On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 9:03 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: Darwin123 wrote: Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit. What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era, or for that matter of our moon with its soft, low density or semi-hollow core, and otherwise covered by as great as a 268 km thick layer of salty ice? LOL! That whole paragraph is hilarious! And your silly response isn't science. Do you want me to answer every single questionable assumption in there? What's rigid For the purposes of orbital interactions, a very good first-approximation can be done by assuming the Earth is rigid. This would be good enough for most no-impact interactions. (For longer-term interactions, such as the effect of the earth's tides on the moon's orbital period over the past four billion years, you have to include the effects of the water. Io, a moon of Jupiter, gets heated up by tidal effects, and its composition must be accounted for.) 98.5% fluid Earth You're welcome to explain that number. Look under your two left feet, starting as of 15 km down. Perhaps once your nayism is moderated is when we can get serious. The rest of your status quo or bust rant isn't worth as much as used toilet paper. Brad, as much as you hate it sometimes the status quo is the best you're going to get. As much as you might hate the fact that 2+2 equals 4, THAT is the way it is and it is NEVER going to change. You might reshape, review, see it from another angle and so on and so forth but the bottom line is that 2+2 is always equal to 4. This is the same with Venus and the moon. You seem to want to make then different that what we have found out about them time and time again. Claiming them as being different than what is already known about them because you hate the status quo is not only silly it isn't scientific. Good, as then you'll see to it that these perfectly honest simulations take place, and the sooner the better. You mean as opposed to a dishonest simulation? BTW, Venus has some kind of intelligent other life existing/coexisting within that toasty but energy rich environment, or at least they had once been there long enough as to have built some seriously big stuff. Says you! I've never claimed Venus wasn't hot, or that our physically dark moon wasn't seriously hot by day and otherwise cold as hell by night, so I don't know what you're talking about. You must be thinking of those other liars you associate with. Sure Brad... Of what needs to be said is obviously far more than the status quo of what their pretend-atheism can deal with. Of course the same could be said of Hitler or GW Bush not taking kindly to the truth, or having given any crapolla about their collateral damage and carnage of the mostly innocent. .. - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth | BradGuth | Policy | 523 | June 20th 08 07:17 PM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | LIBERATOR | Space Shuttle | 39 | April 22nd 06 08:40 AM |
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 |