Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On May 23, 4:23 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:08:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth







wrote:
On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:27:10 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 22, 10:35 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 20, 12:30 pm, David Johnston wrote:

How would it survive the collision and why would it would end up in
such a circular orbit? - Hide quoted text -

Obviously, humans couldn't.

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

Don't know about moon rubber, but Earth was certainly a soft touch.

That icy proto-moon was also somewhat physically protected by the
thick layer of salty ice.

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

And your archive of all those fully interactive 3D simulations as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics is represented exactly
where?

Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

Tell me how the off-world laws of physics are different?

Why doesn't the tidal radius of others stars matter? (especially on
behalf of those in blueshift because they is closing in on one
another)
.. - Brad Guth

On May 23, 7:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:29:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 22, 10:37 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:53:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 10:45 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Oh really? So what would it be then?

Now you want us to believe that even objective science that's fully
peer replicated is at risk?

Of what?

Good grief, what else is left?

Isn't an honestly subjective train of though worth anything nowadays?
If not, then most of whatever came associated with the name of
Einstein is certainly at risk.

Of what?

Of his being a Jewish intellectual cartel puppet.

Oh. So nothing real then.

You say governments and powerful corporations never tell lies? You
say the moon with them horrific but shallow craters isn't real? You
say the off-world laws of physics are not real?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 23, 9:06*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On May 23, 7:52 pm, wrote:





On May 23, 4:06 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On May 23, 8:21 am, wrote:

On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

Absolutely, but what ice?

Where's all that ice today?

Your manic bipolar mindset is showing its ugly head again. *And here
you've boldly stated that Einstein was essentially a phony from the
very get go. *Now I'm not exactly certain which mainstream puppet is
telling the truth, or even the half truth.

Is that why you and others of your DARPA kind wouldn't dare run off
those simulations?
. - Brad Guth

No hidden agendas or motives, just trying to see where the ice came
from and where it went. Evasion noted.

Dumb and dumber noted, as well as your denial of being in denial, or
rather DARPA damage-control noted.

When will you spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo (aka Dark
Side) ever learn?

Productive responses. Not.


BTW, *I'd thought Oort clouds were icy (somewhat worse off than those
icy Saturn rings). *So, how exactly does one migrate through the
realms of such Oort clouds without getting icy?
. - Brad Guth

Evasion still noted.

On May 23, 10:35 pm, wrote:
On May 23, 9:06 pm, BradGuth wrote:







On May 23, 7:52 pm, wrote:

On May 23, 4:06 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On May 23, 8:21 am, wrote:

On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

Absolutely, but what ice?

Where's all that ice today?

Your manic bipolar mindset is showing its ugly head again. And here
you've boldly stated that Einstein was essentially a phony from the
very get go. Now I'm not exactly certain which mainstream puppet is
telling the truth, or even the half truth.

Is that why you and others of your DARPA kind wouldn't dare run off
those simulations?
. - Brad Guth

No hidden agendas or motives, just trying to see where the ice came
from and where it went. Evasion noted.

Dumb and dumber noted, as well as your denial of being in denial, or
rather DARPA damage-control noted.

When will you spooks and moles of the mainstream status quo (aka Dark
Side) ever learn?

Productive responses. Not.


BTW, I'd thought Oort clouds were icy (somewhat worse off than those
icy Saturn rings). So, how exactly does one migrate through the
realms of such Oort clouds without getting icy?
. - Brad Guth

Evasion still noted.

? evasion ?

Are you saying them Oort clouds are not icy?

Are you saying them rings around Saturn are not icy?

How about the Kuiper belt and of them KBOs, are they not icy?

Speak up and tell us village idiots what is not icy out there?
.. - Brad Guth

On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:13:19 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 23, 7:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:29:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 22, 10:37 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:53:13 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 10:45 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Oh really? So what would it be then?

Now you want us to believe that even objective science that's fully
peer replicated is at risk?

Of what?

Good grief, what else is left?

Isn't an honestly subjective train of though worth anything nowadays?
If not, then most of whatever came associated with the name of
Einstein is certainly at risk.

Of what?

Of his being a Jewish intellectual cartel puppet.

Oh. So nothing real then.

You say governments and powerful corporations never tell lies?

No, I don't.

You
say the moon with them horrific but shallow craters isn't real?

No, I don't.

You
say the off-world laws of physics are not real?

There is no special set of laws of physics for off world.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:10:53 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 23, 4:23 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:08:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth







wrote:
On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:27:10 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 22, 10:35 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 20, 12:30 pm, David Johnston wrote:

How would it survive the collision and why would it would end up in
such a circular orbit? - Hide quoted text -

Obviously, humans couldn't.

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

Don't know about moon rubber, but Earth was certainly a soft touch.

That icy proto-moon was also somewhat physically protected by the
thick layer of salty ice.

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

And your archive of all those fully interactive 3D simulations as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics is represented exactly
where?

Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

Tell me how the off-world laws of physics are different?

They aren't.


Why doesn't the tidal radius of others stars matter?

Matter to what?

On Fri, 23 May 2008 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 23, 4:10 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
David Johnston wrote:

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

This certainly rules out the harder cheeses, like Parmesan and
Asiago...and surprisingly, even Green Cheese like Sapsago...given all
the craters, I'd say Swiss Cheese is the most likely candidate, as it
has a somewhat rubbery texture also. ;-)

Pat

Add lots of ice as a protective shell to most anything and it'll
survive an encounter with Earth.

No, it won't. Ice is rigid and transmits physical shock quite well.

On May 24, 2:43 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 23, 4:10 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
David Johnston wrote:

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

This certainly rules out the harder cheeses, like Parmesan and
Asiago...and surprisingly, even Green Cheese like Sapsago...given all
the craters, I'd say Swiss Cheese is the most likely candidate, as it
has a somewhat rubbery texture also. ;-)

Pat

Add lots of ice as a protective shell to most anything and it'll
survive an encounter with Earth.

No, it won't. Ice is rigid and transmits physical shock quite well.

I't's not as rigid as the same thickness of solid basalt, especially
of mineral rich basalts.

The mostly ocean covered surface of Earth is anything but rigid,
especially if its crust were merely 5 km thick.

I'm talking about an icy proto-moon of perhaps 2000 km radius. That's
262 km of salty ice, snow and fluffy dry-ice crystals that's anything
but all that rigid.

How about when we secretly atomic bombed Antarctica, what were the
surface craters (if any) under all of that snow and solid ice?

How well protected from a nuclear surface blast is a submarine hiding
under 3~4 meters worth of the Arctic polar ice cap?
.. - Brad Guth

"David Johnston" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 06:53:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 23, 4:10 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
David Johnston wrote:

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

This certainly rules out the harder cheeses, like Parmesan and
Asiago...and surprisingly, even Green Cheese like Sapsago...given all
the craters, I'd say Swiss Cheese is the most likely candidate, as it
has a somewhat rubbery texture also. ;-)

Pat


The revenuers, would have to look for work. I mean no Moonshine..........
;-)
diddly

On May 24, 2:42 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:10:53 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 23, 4:23 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:08:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 23, 7:43 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:27:10 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 22, 10:35 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:51:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 20, 12:30 pm, David Johnston wrote:

How would it survive the collision and why would it would end up in
such a circular orbit? - Hide quoted text -

Obviously, humans couldn't.

I'm asking how the moon could survive a collision with the Earth. Is
it made out of rubber?

Don't know about moon rubber, but Earth was certainly a soft touch.

That icy proto-moon was also somewhat physically protected by the
thick layer of salty ice.

No degree of thickness of ice would keep the moon from shattering from
such an impact.

And your archive of all those fully interactive 3D simulations as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics is represented exactly
where?

Tell me, are you familiar with the Roche Limit?

Tell me how the off-world laws of physics are different?

They aren't.

Your DARPA/NASA and their Apollo fiasco proves otherwise, though I'd
agree that off-world physics as equal to terrestrial physics should
have applied.

The stellar tidal radius and especially of the mutual tidal radius or
diameter of any good pair or more of substantial stars can't be so
easily excluded in order to suit your Old Testament mindset.


Why doesn't the tidal radius of others stars matter?

Matter to what?

Obviously not to a DARPA lover like yourself, as obviously nothing
matters as long as it isn't allowed to rock your mainstream status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP.
.. - Brad Guth