Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:01:01 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:



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

OOPS! taboo/nondisclosure (aka need to know)

The answer is, not at all. At least not by the ice.

On May 25, 12:09 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:01:01 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:

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

OOPS! taboo/nondisclosure (aka need to know)

The answer is, not at all. At least not by the ice.

I suppose a 100 megaton would cause such ice to move and otherwise
vaporise, although that in of itself takes away a great deal of
energy. Say if given a one km radius of 3 meter thick ice is 2.355e6
m3 of such ice that needs to get displaced and/or melted. (more likely
a 10 km radius = 230e6 tonnes of ice)

Seems likely that amount of ice would moderate that kind of nuclear
blast energy in more ways than just thermal energy, because as a
physical blast or shockwave shield itself is going to take quite a bit
of that kinetic energy away too.

So, your "not at all" is perhaps yet another one of those special
conditional laws of physics in order to suit your interpretation
that'll benefit your side of this rant.
. - Brad Guth

On May 25, 12:06 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:45:08 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 24, 5:08 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
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,

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

Does it matter?

Apparently not to you. You prefer to spout gibberish, the more
incoherent, the better.

So in your superior gibberish of special/conditional laws of physics;
how much colder (inside and out) would Earth be w/o moon?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 25, 12:05 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:52:16 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
You know better, as so many and even myself can tell

You can't. You just take it for granted that everyone "knows" these
things in your head.

Why bother making things up, when the truth is so much better?

The truth about what?





all sorts of
stories about government, corporate and faith-based screw ups.

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

No, I don't.

Then give us your best swag as to whatever created those extremely
large but shallow craters.

Meteorite impact. We have them on Earth too but they don't last as
long.

That's funny,

yawn I should have know you wouldn't be able to actually carry on a
responsive conversation. Can't think of something to say? Go ape****
and start accusing people of being part of the conspiracy.

Typical Zionist DARPA response noted. Is denial of real evidence and
of the faith-based skewed history that's absolutely chuck full of
errors and intentional disinformation, as well as evidence denial or
banishment your standard failsafe mode of operation?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 25, 12:02 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:44:51 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:14 am, "a425couple" wrote:
"Matt Giwer" wrote

Timberwoof wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
The early or proto-human species as of during and then shortly after
the very last ice-age this Earth w/moon is ever going to see,
Hm. And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
On sci.astro.seti Brad is our comic relief. Posting to him is wasted. He
is
impervious to reason and physics.

Thanks Matt, got kinda interested, read wikipedia - moon, then Cruithne,
then Lilith. Interesting side-bar quote, "Due to the many readily apparent
holes in Lilith's supportive argument (not least of which is her general
defiance of the laws of gravity) the actual physical existence of this
astronomical object is believed only by fringe groups comparable to the Flat
Earth Society."

To BradGuth, seems to my unschooled in this area logic,
that the biggest flaw in your thoughts comes from fact,
"The Moon is in synchronous rotation, meaning that it keeps nearly the same
face turned towards the Earth at all times. Early in the Moon's history, its
rotation slowed and became locked in this configuration as a result of
frictional effects associated with tidal deformations caused by the Earth."
That would probably take a REAL considerable time -
i.e. much over 13,000 years.
Unless of course, it was just created then and there,
almost exactly as we now observe it to be.

Venus as it passes extremely close by every 19 months, as such is
nearly as moon like tidal locked to Earth.

What's your basis for this claim?

Direct observational or observationology (other than the visible
spectrum) via radar imaging that tells us exactly which way a given
face of Venus is facing Earth.


What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?

You have presented no reason to think such a thing is possible.

Yes I have, but no matter the possible or not, it's still capable of
being supercomputer simulated in full interactive 3D animated eye-
candy mode.


While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
came from?

How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
tilt?

The planets of the solar system vary widely in their range of axial
tilts. There is nothing especially unusual about Earth's.

Other than indications that before having our moon there existed a
nearly monoseason environment, because there was only a small amount
of seasonal tilt, although having a somewhat greater elliptical orbit
and roughly a third the ocean tidal action taking place would have
made the tropics quite survivable by us humans, regardless of how much
polar ice expanded.
.. - Brad Guth

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 25, 12:05 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:52:16 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
You know better, as so many and even myself can tell

You can't. You just take it for granted that everyone "knows" these
things in your head.

Why bother making things up, when the truth is so much better?

The truth about what?





all sorts of
stories about government, corporate and faith-based screw ups.

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

No, I don't.

Then give us your best swag as to whatever created those extremely
large but shallow craters.

Meteorite impact. We have them on Earth too but they don't last as
long.

That's funny,

yawn I should have know you wouldn't be able to actually carry on a
responsive conversation. Can't think of something to say? Go ape****
and start accusing people of being part of the conspiracy.

Typical Zionist DARPA response noted. Is denial of real evidence

You never present evidence. All you do is say something like "what
about the shallow craters on the Moon" and expect that to mean
something to someone else and then accuse people of working for DARPA
as if DARPA doesn't have better things to do than harass a netkook.

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:15:32 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 25, 12:06 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:45:08 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 24, 5:08 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
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,

Do you really think anyone knows what the hell you are talking about?

Does it matter?

Apparently not to you. You prefer to spout gibberish, the more
incoherent, the better.

So in your superior gibberish of special/conditional laws of physics;
how much colder (inside and out) would Earth be w/o moon?

I don't know. Never looked into the matter and I have no idea why you
think it's important.

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:13:34 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 25, 12:09 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:01:01 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:

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

OOPS! taboo/nondisclosure (aka need to know)

The answer is, not at all. At least not by the ice.

I suppose a 100 megaton would cause such ice to move and otherwise
vaporise, although that in of itself takes away a great deal of
energy. Say if given a one km radius of 3 meter thick ice is 2.355e6

The ice that is one kilometer away doesn't matter to the sub. Only
the ice that is above the sub will have any relationship to the sub's
survival prospects and it won't make more difference than the water
above the sub.

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:32:23 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Venus as it passes extremely close by every 19 months, as such is
nearly as moon like tidal locked to Earth.

What's your basis for this claim?

Direct observational or observationology (other than the visible
spectrum) via radar imaging that tells us exactly which way a given
face of Venus is facing Earth.

No, tell me where I can look it up. I'm not just going to take your
word for it. Oh, by the way, why does it matter?



What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?

You have presented no reason to think such a thing is possible.

Yes I have,

No, you really haven't.

but no matter the possible or not, it's still capable of
being supercomputer simulated in full interactive 3D animated eye-
candy mode.

Why would anyone bother to do the simulation without some reason to
think that it is possible?



While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
came from?

How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
tilt?

The planets of the solar system vary widely in their range of axial
tilts. There is nothing especially unusual about Earth's.

Other than indications that before having our moon there existed a
nearly monoseason environment,

What are these indications?

David Johnston wrote:

:On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:32:23 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:
:
:
: Venus as it passes extremely close by every 19 months, as such is
: nearly as moon like tidal locked to Earth.
:
: What's your basis for this claim?
:
:Direct observational or observationology (other than the visible
:spectrum) via radar imaging that tells us exactly which way a given
:face of Venus is facing Earth.
:
:No, tell me where I can look it up. I'm not just going to take your
:word for it. Oh, by the way, why does it matter?
:

It matters because, as usual, the Guthball is confused.

AT INFERIOR CONJUNCTION the same face of Venus is always toward the
Earth. The rest of the time it is not.

:
:
:
: What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of
: an icy proto-moon (be it complex)?
:
: You have presented no reason to think such a thing is possible.
:
:Yes I have,
:
:No, you really haven't.
:

And he never will. Reality simply doesn't intrude into Guthballoonia.

:
:but no matter the possible or not, it's still capable of
:being supercomputer simulated in full interactive 3D animated eye-
:candy mode.
:
:Why would anyone bother to do the simulation without some reason to
:think that it is possible?
:

Particularly when anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of
physics knows the whole idea is sheer and utter balderdash.

:
:
:
: While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin
: came from?
:
: How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal
: tilt?
:
: The planets of the solar system vary widely in their range of axial
: tilts. There is nothing especially unusual about Earth's.
:
:Other than indications that before having our moon there existed a
:nearly monoseason environment,
:
:What are these indications?
:

And when does he think "before having our moon" is. Since his answer
to that is totally ********, that should tell you how much credence to
give the rest of the Guthball's ideas.

Now please, let him retire back to the darkness of the bit bucket,
where he can wank to his heart's content...

--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.