Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

In article ,
"Alan Erskine" wrote:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article
,
eyeball wrote:

Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
Mr. Guth?

Because he's wrong about 90% of the time.

Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
responding to his posts!

Okay, dammit!

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On Mar 21, 11:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 21, 6:04 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
I guess that means you're a bigot

No, I'm not a bigot. I didn't prejudge you. I read your posts here,
analyzed them, and concluded that you're a kook.

that's in denial of your nayism.

So you're saying I'm in metadenial.

Kook or bigot, which is better?

Kook. Bigots are generally mean.

If I were half as smart as yourself, and especially if having access
to such a supercomputer, I'd be sharing and giving. What's your
excuse?

You can whine about my being a meanie if it makes you feel better.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

You're the one that can't constructively contribute to this topic.

Why don't you stick to the topic instead of attacking my motives and
education?

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

It seems the planet Venus and that of our physically dark moon are not
exactly as having been scripted to us by those having "the right
stuff" (meaning of our NASA and/or Apollo related folks that seem
oddly faith-based and thus sticking to those Old Testament guns).

You seem deathly afraid of others discovering or much less sharing the
truth. Are you afraid?

According to www.beforeus.com it seems we don't really know all
that much about Earth.

. - Brad Guth

On Mar 21, 11:28 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article ,
"Alan Erskine" wrote:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article
,
eyeball wrote:

Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
Mr. Guth?

Because he's wrong about 90% of the time.

Then take it as 100%; that you'll never change his opinion and stop
responding to his posts!

Okay, dammit!

Don't tell me that you're caving in, as in giving up the ghost (sort
to speak).

Do you always do what others tell you to do?

In addition to what I've discovered, and my having been trying to
share for the past 8+ years and counting, it seems there's lots more
to behold about good old Earth that's worth our knowing and sharing,
such as the many interesting discoveries and subsequent topics within
the following link:
www.beforeus.com

I can't be absolutely certain about other intelligent life still
existing/coexisting on Venus, but at least the regular laws of physics
and of the best available science can't possibly exclude such, because
even us humans along with a sufficient degree of applied technology
could make a go of it, especially as representing ETs capable of
getting ourselves to/from Venus would in of itself offer more than
sufficient technological expertise for accommodating an extended stay
in spite of all that geothermally forced environment of Venus being so
geologically newish, hot and nasty from the bottom up.

Too bad you're being told what to think by the MIB likes of "Alan
Erskine".
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 21, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
n other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all-
inclusive answers to absolutely everything,

No, just the half-dozen questions I asked the other day.

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.

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old
Testament), or what?

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof
naysay items?

Nope. You can discuss Panspermia all you want. I think it just begs the
question of how life began. If it could have started earlier on some
other planet and then brought here, wouldn't it just be simpler to let
it start here again? The business about life being imported from
elsewhere just adds unnecessary complexity.

--
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.

And you're saying that you are so entirely dumbfounded past the point
of no return, in that figuring out a 32+ km/s arriving proto-moon
that's extremely icy and going to give Earth a somewhat slow rear-
ender sort of lithobraking sucker-punch, as such is too much for the
all-knowing likes of yourself to figure out.

In that case, we're not even on the same set of tracks, if even on the
same planet.

BTW, I'm not the least bit opposed to local panspermia, or that of
intelligent design of whatever happenstance worth of random
creationism on behalf of weird and complex life doing its purely
terrestrial evolutionary thing over a given billion years or whatever
it takes, as well as for such mutations having transpired upon other
planets and moons of sufficient worth.

However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
local evolution could muster.

We are NOT alone within this universe, nor even alone within this
solar system. But then it simply doesn't matter to a naysayer in
perpetual denial like yourself, does it.
. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
n other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all-
inclusive answers to absolutely everything,

No, just the half-dozen questions I asked the other day.

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.

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old
Testament), or what?

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof
naysay items?

Nope. You can discuss Panspermia all you want. I think it just begs the
question of how life began. If it could have started earlier on some
other planet and then brought here, wouldn't it just be simpler to let
it start here again? The business about life being imported from
elsewhere just adds unnecessary complexity.

--
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.

And you're saying that you are so entirely dumbfounded past the point
of no return, in that figuring out a 32+ km/s arriving proto-moon
that's extremely icy and going to give Earth a somewhat slow rear-
ender sort of lithobraking sucker-punch, as such is too much for the
all-knowing likes of yourself to figure out.

No. You're saying that. It is, however, too much for you to figure out.

I don't know what you mean by "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch". It's a completely nonscientific description
of a mythical event. "Rear-ender ... sucker-punch" is meaningless in
this context. Perhaps Nando Rondellotappakeg would be interested in the
moon intentionally, deceptively punching out a distracted Earth in the
back of the head. But that's okay, I suppose: since you have no concept
of orbital mechanics or the laws of motion, you prefer to think about
things by using adjectives and adverbs instead of numbers.

I disagree with your characterization of 32 km/s as "somewhat slow". The
moon's present orbital speed about the Earth is about 1 km/s, or "pretty
fast". The Earth's escape velocity is 11 km/s, or "really fast". 32 km/s
is "way too fast". If the moon were to smash into the earth at that
speed, at any angle, it would destroy the surface of the earth and
nothing would survive. If the moon passed by the earth at that speed
without hitting it--that is, no "lithobraking" as you quaintly put
it--it would cause some nasty tides, both oceanic and lithospheric. ...
for which there is, once again, no evidence.

Now the earth's orbital speed about the sun is roughly 30 km/s. You
didn't state whether the moon's speed was relative to Earth or to the
sun, except perhaps with the florid "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch" phrase. So if you say the moon arrived
tangent to the Earth's orbit at a relative speed of 2 km/s, you still
need to calculate the moon's acceleration as it approaches the Earth.
And you need to explain how the moon got into that particular trajectory
in the first place.

In either case, you have to explain how the moon changed its trajectory
from an interplanetary one to an earth-orbital one. Big rockets?

The biggest problem with your "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch" scenario is, as I have stated before and you
have tried to explain away with the Arctic basin, there's no evidence
for it.

It didn't happen that way, it could not have happened that way.

Now maybe I misunderstood what you think happened. That's because you
don't have a clue how it happened and you want someone else to do your
physics homework for you. That's not going to happen. You need to learn
basic astronomy and physics and work the problem out for yourself.

In that case, we're not even on the same set of tracks, if even on the
same planet.

I'll go along with that.

BTW, I'm not the least bit opposed to local panspermia,

"local panspermia". What the hell does that mean?

or that of
intelligent design of whatever happenstance worth of random
creationism on behalf of weird and complex life doing its purely
terrestrial evolutionary thing over a given billion years or whatever
it takes, as well as for such mutations having transpired upon other
planets and moons of sufficient worth.

However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
local evolution could muster.

That's a different argument entirely. The simple fact is that it did
happen. Your phrase "purely random" means you don't understand jack ****
about evolution and are thus not in a position to make any judgments
whatsoever about it.

We are NOT alone within this universe, nor even alone within this
solar system. But then it simply doesn't matter to a naysayer in
perpetual denial like yourself, does it.

We have no evidence for other life ... yet, and there's no evidence
against it. I highly doubt we're the only ones ... but we haven't been
here very long, and interstellar travel and communications is damn hard
to accomplish.

And still ... if life didn't get its start on the Earth, then how did it
start wherever it did? If life on Earth evolved with help from an
ancient spacefaring civilization, then where did they come from? Is it
turtles all the way down?

But that's just another attempt at distraction. The moon has been with
the Earth for a long time. It did not arrive recently. Your claim is
ludicrous, and your whining about my naysaying isn't going to provide
you with any evidence for your opinion.

--
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.

On Mar 23, 1:15 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 21, 5:51 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
n other words, you want little old dyslexic me to give the all-
inclusive answers to absolutely everything,

No, just the half-dozen questions I asked the other day.

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.

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

Are you being just a wee bit all terrestrial or bust (aka Old
Testament), or what?

No, not really. I'd just like answers to the half-dozen questions I
asked the other day.

How about panspermia? Is that yet another one of those Timberwoof
naysay items?

Nope. You can discuss Panspermia all you want. I think it just begs the
question of how life began. If it could have started earlier on some
other planet and then brought here, wouldn't it just be simpler to let
it start here again? The business about life being imported from
elsewhere just adds unnecessary complexity.

--
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.

And you're saying that you are so entirely dumbfounded past the point
of no return, in that figuring out a 32+ km/s arriving proto-moon
that's extremely icy and going to give Earth a somewhat slow rear-
ender sort of lithobraking sucker-punch, as such is too much for the
all-knowing likes of yourself to figure out.

No. You're saying that. It is, however, too much for you to figure out.

I don't know what you mean by "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch". It's a completely nonscientific description
of a mythical event. "Rear-ender ... sucker-punch" is meaningless in
this context. Perhaps Nando Rondellotappakeg would be interested in the
moon intentionally, deceptively punching out a distracted Earth in the
back of the head. But that's okay, I suppose: since you have no concept
of orbital mechanics or the laws of motion, you prefer to think about
things by using adjectives and adverbs instead of numbers.

I disagree with your characterization of 32 km/s as "somewhat slow". The
moon's present orbital speed about the Earth is about 1 km/s, or "pretty
fast". The Earth's escape velocity is 11 km/s, or "really fast". 32 km/s
is "way too fast". If the moon were to smash into the earth at that
speed, at any angle, it would destroy the surface of the earth and
nothing would survive. If the moon passed by the earth at that speed
without hitting it--that is, no "lithobraking" as you quaintly put
it--it would cause some nasty tides, both oceanic and lithospheric. ...
for which there is, once again, no evidence.

Now the earth's orbital speed about the sun is roughly 30 km/s. You
didn't state whether the moon's speed was relative to Earth or to the
sun, except perhaps with the florid "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch" phrase. So if you say the moon arrived
tangent to the Earth's orbit at a relative speed of 2 km/s, you still
need to calculate the moon's acceleration as it approaches the Earth.
And you need to explain how the moon got into that particular trajectory
in the first place.

In either case, you have to explain how the moon changed its trajectory
from an interplanetary one to an earth-orbital one. Big rockets?

The biggest problem with your "somewhat slow rear-ender sort of
lithobraking sucker-punch" scenario is, as I have stated before and you
have tried to explain away with the Arctic basin, there's no evidence
for it.

It didn't happen that way, it could not have happened that way.

Now maybe I misunderstood what you think happened. That's because you
don't have a clue how it happened and you want someone else to do your
physics homework for you. That's not going to happen. You need to learn
basic astronomy and physics and work the problem out for yourself.

In that case, we're not even on the same set of tracks, if even on the
same planet.

I'll go along with that.

BTW, I'm not the least bit opposed to local panspermia,

"local panspermia". What the hell does that mean?

or that of
intelligent design of whatever happenstance worth of random
creationism on behalf of weird and complex life doing its purely
terrestrial evolutionary thing over a given billion years or whatever
it takes, as well as for such mutations having transpired upon other
planets and moons of sufficient worth.

However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
local evolution could muster.

That's a different argument entirely. The simple fact is that it did
happen. Your phrase "purely random" means you don't understand jack ****
about evolution and are thus not in a position to make any judgments
whatsoever about it.

We are NOT alone within this universe, nor even alone within this
solar system. But then it simply doesn't matter to a naysayer in
perpetual denial like yourself, does it.

We have no evidence for other life ... yet, and there's no evidence
against it. I highly doubt we're the only ones ... but we haven't been
here very long, and interstellar travel and communications is damn hard
to accomplish.

And still ... if life didn't get its start on the Earth, then how did it
start wherever it did? If life on Earth evolved with help from an
ancient spacefaring civilization, then where did they come from? Is it
turtles all the way down?

But that's just another attempt at distraction. The moon has been with
the Earth for a long time. It did not arrive recently. Your claim is
ludicrous, and your whining about my naysaying isn't going to provide
you with any evidence for your opinion.

--
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.

Unlike yourself, I'm not nearly as all-knowing and/or as nearly
bigoted past the point of no return.

So, if your vast expertise can ever get bothered enough to help this
topic along, as such I'd certainly share every bit of the credits for
that kind of constructive feedback. However, it's entirely clear that
you have no honest intentions of ever doing squat on behalf of anyone
else, which means you must be at least related to Art Deco and company
of his brown-nosed minions.

With your superior nayism, at least you might rethink about creating a
black hole in your name, especially since you seem to have such a
surplus cache of either antimatter or dark energy that's going to
waste.

Haven't you ever wondered as to why yourself and others of your status
quo or bust kind get so huffy, at the mere dreaded thought of anyone
else being the least bit right? (doesn't that kind of mindset remind
us of Art Deco or William Mook?)

Face the facts, that you have no such objective evidence of Earth
having that moon or a seasonal tilt as of prior to 10,500 BC, as a
lively time when highly intelligent humans had been coexisting just
about everywhere it wasn't getting frozen solid by each and every
crystal clear night.
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 23, 3:23 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Prove it, Brad! lmao!

You can't even define your terms! lmao!

Saul Levy

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:02:32 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
However, w/o 100 billion years worth, or that of intelligent design
having some say, I'd give damn slim odds of ever coming up with the
likes of us humans as based upon the limited amount of Earthly
exposure and of purely random happenstance of whatever cosmic and
local evolution could muster.
. - Brad Guth

Outside of your Old Testament, what terms or special conditions would
rabbi Saul Levy accept?
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
Timberwoof wrote:

snip

I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at
that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is
roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe.

I think you need to check your arithmetic: AFAICT the above is wrong by
ten orders of magnitude.

7.5 km/s ~= 1/40,000 c;

9 light-years * 40,000/c = 360,000 years.

Calculated a different way, using somewhat more precise figures (from
Simbad) this time:

8.60 LY ~= 81.4 trillion km;

8.14e13 km / 7.6 km/s = 1.1e13 s;

1.1e13 s = 3.4e5 a or 340,000 years.

Of course these calculations ignore the tangential speed:

sqrt((-546 mas/a)^2 + (-1223 mas/a)^2) ~= 1.34"/a;

8.60 LY * tan(1.34") = 5.58e-5 LY;

5.58e-5 LY/a = 5.58e-5 c = 16.8 km/s, and

5.58e-5 LY/a * 3.4e5 a = 19 LY.

So the 'passing' component of the relative motion of the Sirian and
Solar systems is more than twice as great as the 'closing' component.
Sirius's blue-shift will decline over time, becoming a red-shift in
perhaps a hundred thousand years. By the time we get to where it was, so
to speak, it will be more than twice as far away as it is now.

--
Odysseus

In article
,
eyeball wrote:

Why...oh why...does everyone insist on arguing with the one and only
Mr. Guth?

snip

Why, oh why, does 'everyone' insist on top-posting, while quoting at
length material not directly addressed by their comments?

--
Odysseus

On Mar 23, 3:58 pm, Odysseus wrote:
In article
,

Timberwoof wrote:

snip

I'm not exactly worried. Though Sirius is only nine light-years away, at
that speed it will take a long time for us to meet. "A long time" is
roughly 3E15 years or about a million times the age of the universe.

I think you need to check your arithmetic: AFAICT the above is wrong by
ten orders of magnitude.

7.5 km/s ~= 1/40,000 c;

9 light-years * 40,000/c = 360,000 years.

Calculated a different way, using somewhat more precise figures (from
Simbad) this time:

8.60 LY ~= 81.4 trillion km;

8.14e13 km / 7.6 km/s = 1.1e13 s;

1.1e13 s = 3.4e5 a or 340,000 years.

Of course these calculations ignore the tangential speed:

sqrt((-546 mas/a)^2 + (-1223 mas/a)^2) ~= 1.34"/a;

8.60 LY * tan(1.34") = 5.58e-5 LY;

5.58e-5 LY/a = 5.58e-5 c = 16.8 km/s, and

5.58e-5 LY/a * 3.4e5 a = 19 LY.

So the 'passing' component of the relative motion of the Sirian and
Solar systems is more than twice as great as the 'closing' component.
Sirius's blue-shift will decline over time, becoming a red-shift in
perhaps a hundred thousand years. By the time we get to where it was, so
to speak, it will be more than twice as far away as it is now.

--
Odysseus

Odysseus,
Thanks for that perfectly constructive feedback, as being of a more
believable number of years if our elliptical path towards Sirius
doesn't pick up any mutual closing speed, and there wasn't a 'passing'
component issue.

What if there's a little something elliptical and speeding up about
each of our stellar paths?

Is the 3D elliptical path of Sirius fully plotted, as well as our 3D
elliptical path?

Do not most elliptical paths pick up velocity as they approach a given
gravity will or tidal pull of a stellar mass?

What else gets our solar system into a beneficial gravity alignment
with the Sirius star/solar system?
.. - Brad Guth