|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 10:22 am, 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? Good grief; just do a basic search for three little words; Earth Venus lock, and lo and behold it should be somewhat near the top of the stack of such topics and numerous web pages that have posted this peer replicated knowledge for more than the past decade. 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. The introduction to this topic was not about Earth always having that moon, or was that part simply not clear enough? 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? Why would anyone bother to climb mount Everest, or try to fly like a bird or swim like a whale? Are you saying we shouldn’t bother with getting educated, much less with cultivating any sort of an independently deductive mindset? Isn’t the quest of better knowledge worth anything nowadays? Isn’t theory testing allowed within your mainstream mindset? Or is being just another Borg of the mainstream collective status quo always good enough? 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? As of prior to 12,500 BP, the best available science thus far tells us there were no apparent human or animal migrations pertaining to seasonal changes, as well as no indications of significant ocean tidal considerations or that pesky matter of such highly survival intelligent populations of early humans ever taking notice of that big old moon as of much prior to 12,500 BP. If I’m having to first guess at a given what-if lithobraking encounter; how about considering our Arctic ocean basin, and loads of antipode generated mountains on the other side of this planet w/moon that’ll never see another ice age. Have you ever run the basic online crater simulator? http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ . – Brad Guth |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, BradGuth wrote: 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. A better cite would be... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Orbit_and_rotation "[Venus] reaches inferior conjunction every 584 days, on average." 584 days / 365 day * 12 months = 19.2 months However, "Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with the Earth, is unknown." 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, Well, you've presented what you thought were reasons, but they've been disputed. but no matter the possible or not, it's still capable of being supercomputer simulated in full interactive 3D animated eye- candy mode. They have also simulated what would happen if dinosaurs were recreated and ran amuck on a tropical island. It proves nothing. 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. But you've presented no evidence that any of this happened, and you've ignored other evidence that contradicts it. -- 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. |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 10:43 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
David Johnston wrote: :On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:32:23 -0700 (PDT), 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. Word games by "Fred J. McCall". Very good of you to offer that other perfectly correct way of restating exactly what I'd said by way of inferring tidal-lock or that which is directly associated with our tidal radius. Venus has one too, you know. : : : : 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. Oops! Did I upset your Zionist/Nazi DARPA cart? Is your mainstream status quo good ship LOLLIPOP rocking? : :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. Why are you folks so downright testy about this or 99% of most everything else that needs to get simulated/tested? : : : : 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... And the dark side mutation of your nayism mindset was genetically caused by what? .. - Brad Guth |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 10:19 am, David Johnston wrote:
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. But as anyone should take notice as to how the thermonuclear melting of such ice is going to subtract and/or divert or merely reflect energy, as well as spread out the physical shockwave to at least some measurable extent. Though I’d accept that a 100 MT blast at the icy surface would likely terminate if not at least incapacitate whatever submarine that was directly below. . – Brad Guth |
#455
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 10:17 am, David Johnston wrote:
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. That’s where those public owned supercomputer driven simulations come into play, because it’s of no simple matter to figure out what might or might not be the case, of whatever 2e20 N/sec of mutual tidal radius interactions would add/subtract from our environment. . – Brad Guth |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 10:16 am, David Johnston wrote:
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. The original large diameter crater is clearly an indication of a major impact with something of a larger diameter and a whole lot softer than itself, as well as suggesting via deductive logic that our proto-moon as once upon a time having a thick layer of ice, snow and perhaps a few km worth of fluffy dry-ice on deck. . – Brad Guth |
#457
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
In article
, 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? How long is a piece of string? 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. Again, you're just talking in adjectives. You've thrown in a few numbers here and there so it looks scientific, but you haven't shown your math. So your explanation is rejected. Besides, there's no evidence that anyone ever detonated such a warhead in the Antarctic, so the question is moot. -- 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. |
#458
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 12:28 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: A better cite would be...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Orbit_and_rotation "[Venus] reaches inferior conjunction every 584 days, on average." 584 days / 365 day * 12 months = 19.2 months However, "Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with the Earth, is unknown." That's very true enough and directly usable for this argument. The Venus orbit is not unaffected by the tidal radius of 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, Well, you've presented what you thought were reasons, but they've been disputed. Only within your totally subjective=objective mindset that's manic bipolar into accepting absolutely anything via your government or from their DARPA/NASA as the one and only word of your white Semitic God(s). but no matter the possible or not, it's still capable of being supercomputer simulated in full interactive 3D animated eye- candy mode. They have also simulated what would happen if dinosaurs were recreated and ran amuck on a tropical island. It proves nothing. It goes a long ways towards proving as to what's reasonably possible, and of what isn't. 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. But you've presented no evidence that any of this happened, and you've ignored other evidence that contradicts it. Yes I have, and no I have not. Terribly sorry about that. .. - Brad Guth |
#459
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 12:32 pm, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , 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? How long is a piece of string? As long as you'd care to make it, such as nearly from our moon to Earth is technically doable, and of otherwise almost unlimited if deployed out past the moon's L2. 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. Again, you're just talking in adjectives. You've thrown in a few numbers here and there so it looks scientific, but you haven't shown your math. So your explanation is rejected. Besides, there's no evidence that anyone ever detonated such a warhead in the Antarctic, so the question is moot. Are you suggesting that our government has no secrets and tells no lies? That's OK because, you would knowingly reject your own mother if you ever realized what unusual orifice you'd emerged out of. .. - Brad Guth |
#460
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
On May 25, 12:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:
As of prior to 12,500 BP, the best available science thus far tells us there were no apparent human or animal migrations pertaining to How the "F" can anyone know what occured 12,500 without robust, reliable, detailed records being made and kept safe for 12,500 years ??! What "F"ing best available science are you referring to ??! None exists! Grow up little dreamer. You appear fairly educated and somewhat bright here and there, yet you subtract this notion with a single paragraph. |
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 |