The Moon: 100M years younger than thought

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:38:20 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:04:02 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message



...



On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:53:13 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:



On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:57:02 AM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:















Our moon wasn't likely made of Earth, as we've been purely



indoctrinated to















believe, but then you'll believe anything your ZNR buddies have to



say.























The size of item which created its 2500 km crater was perhaps one of



6371 km































radius, that was a glancing blow also responsible for creating our



Arctic































ocean basin. Its paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust is nothing



like































Earth has to offer.































































*** Look, moron ... at least they ran computer aided tests on the



oblique































impact of planet X and the subesquent formation of the Moon and its































gradually increasing orbital distance ... so it makes a lot more sense



than































your pulled-out-of-your-ass tlithobreaking theory (whatever that



means) and































your incessant rants about the imminent encounter with Sirius and how



the































moon came from ... you have not documentation on any of your



brainfatrz, nor































any supportive data ... just like the Liberal you are ... trust me,



even































though I am a Community Organizer, I cam make it all better ... just



trust































me. Right.































































Until definitive proof is offered to the contrary, Mr. Hartmann's



theory































stands the test of logic and repeatability by simulations.































They are so deathly afraid to run any alternative simulations, that they



keep running out of Depends. Even the very best impactor simulations of



extremely large and massive items is woefully deficient and thus



untrustworthy.































Your Operation Paperclip buddies still can not explain what created that



2500 km diameter crater nor whatever happened to its impactor, much less



telling us how and when our planet got its Arctic ocean basin and



seasonal tilt. As discovered and interpreted thus far, there has been



none of those extremely survival intelligent and artistically talented



humans as of prior to 10,000 BC as having depicted their version of



their natural environment with any moon, even though their having



accomplished far better resolution paintings or depictions of smaller



items of much less survival importance.































Your public funded computer simulations are just that, and there's



nothing the least bit objective about any of it. So, considering



alternatives seems only logical, especially since the Apollo era



(extensively run by those of Operation Paperclip) accomplished nothing



of any objective proof that can be independently verified.































A lithobraking encounter via a glancing blow would have created our



Arctic ocean basin, the antipode of Antarctica and having tilted our icy



planet if it were impacted by a 7.5e22 kg icy planetoid. As to exactly



when this took place is what needs to be further researched and



estimated as based upon the best available evidence instead of simply



based entirely upon computer simulations that can be made and/or



modified in order to suit whatever end results are being paid for.































Are you going to suggest that early humans (like those of your kind)



were all badly nearsighted, and didn't even know the difference between



day or night, summer or winter?















How do you know they didn't run alternative simulations? For cripes sake,



Guthball, how do you think the current model is the MOST LIKELY?







I've nicely asked of those in charge, to allow us outsiders to run a few



thousand alternative simulations, and thus far they and their brown-nosed



minions like yourself have refused.







Remember that we have already paid for everything published thus far



(multiple times over), including our having paid for those supercomputers



and of wherever they are set up, as well as we get to pay for their energy



consumption, maintenance and upgrades along with picking up the tab for most



those running whatever simulations. So, perhaps the very least they should



do is entertain us with some of our own spendy stuff.











*** So you're saying they should let low-life, under the table payola, leaky



boat repair bozos like you run their Supercomputers, when you're too stupid



to fix your News Reader so that it doesn't display hundreds of empty lines



with nothing but insert arrow sign in them ???



Yea right. You need a Frontal Lobotomy.



Your mainstream LLPOF status quo is noted, as is your Zionist Nazi version of being a republican redneck FUD-master.

Yep, it's all a conspiracy....

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:50:19 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:

Yep, it's all a conspiracy....

Yep, it's all about covering thy butt and job security.

Since when will people like yourself not kill in order to keep their public-funded jobs, or any job?

Since when is the MIC not rated as nondisclosure?

Since when do brown-nose minions not do exactly as they are being told?

Since when have you ever helped another human that your weren't being ordered to help?

Since when have you contributed anything via off-the-job expertise and personal resources?

Since when has your pathetic life of FUD amounted to more than another squat?

You don't even know how to make your newsreader function, much less accomplish an internet search.

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:49:51 AM UTC-7, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:26:52 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

How do you know they didn't run alternative simulations? For cripes sake, Guthball, how do you think the current model is the MOST LIKELY?



I've nicely asked of those in charge, to allow us outsiders to run a few thousand alternative simulations, and thus far they and their brown-nosed minions like yourself have refused.



Remember that we have already paid for everything published thus far (multiple times over), including our having paid for those supercomputers and of wherever they are set up, as well as we get to pay for their energy consumption, maintenance and upgrades along with picking up the tab for most those running whatever simulations. So, perhaps the very least they should do is entertain us with some of our own spendy stuff.


LOL, you'd know just how to walk in and run such simulations on a supercomputer?

Yes, I know how to specify simulation parameters and how to apply variables so as to modify the end result. If given remote access I could run our public-funded supercomputer, using its public-funded software that only needs to be given its instructions of which items of mass are coming and going at various angles (orbital trajectories) and their initial velocities. Assuming more than one item entered our solar system along with our moon, kinda makes a very big difference.

Are you suggesting that scads of public-funded simulation software doesn't already exist to manage three or even four bodies in dynamic motion, plus lithobraking considerations of further complex computations, as easily sped up in a 3D interactive simulation by a millionfold?

Obviously our moon can be impacted by something really big, and manage to survive with only a 2500 km diameter crater, as well our planet can survive whatever created our Arctic ocean basin and gave us our seasonal tilt.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...

snip GuthBall delusions of Grandeur


Yes, I know how to specify simulation parameters and how to apply variables
so as to modify the end result. If given remote access I could run our
public-funded supercomputer, using its public-funded software that only
needs to be given its instructions of which items of mass are coming and
going at various angles (orbital trajectories) and their initial velocities.
Assuming more than one item entered our solar system along with our moon,
kinda makes a very big difference.


*** Perhaps then you could regale us all with links to your scientific
simulations details and test run results, that you so adamantly claim to
have partaken in ...***

Are you suggesting that scads of public-funded simulation software doesn't
already exist to manage three or even four bodies in dynamic motion, plus
lithobraking considerations of further complex computations, as easily sped
up in a 3D interactive simulation by a millionfold?

*** Apart from babbling nonsense, you don't have a clue, you little
****-ant. Again, if it is that easy, show us the proof.

I'm sure the "crickets" will get a chirping workout on this request

snip remaining GuthBall nonsense

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:11:16 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...



snip GuthBall delusions of Grandeur





Yes, I know how to specify simulation parameters and how to apply variables

so as to modify the end result. If given remote access I could run our

public-funded supercomputer, using its public-funded software that only

needs to be given its instructions of which items of mass are coming and

going at various angles (orbital trajectories) and their initial velocities.

Assuming more than one item entered our solar system along with our moon,

kinda makes a very big difference.





*** Perhaps then you could regale us all with links to your scientific

simulations details and test run results, that you so adamantly claim to

have partaken in ...***



Are you suggesting that scads of public-funded simulation software doesn't

already exist to manage three or even four bodies in dynamic motion, plus

lithobraking considerations of further complex computations, as easily sped

up in a 3D interactive simulation by a millionfold?



*** Apart from babbling nonsense, you don't have a clue, you little

****-ant. Again, if it is that easy, show us the proof.



I'm sure the "crickets" will get a chirping workout on this request



snip remaining GuthBall nonsense

Snip and cricket-chirp all you like, as the results of supercomputer simulations for capturing an icy planetoid of 7.5e22 kg to begin with, as such can be worked out to suit the end-result that I'm looking for.

The only theory you've ever taken seriously is the brow-nosed theory of redneck minions always sucking up to others of energy and public-funded, because your whole life has been nothing but public and/or energy consumer funded plus on-the-job training, and paid for as only the Oligarchs and Bilderbergs see fit to extort out of the rest of us.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:11:16 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...



snip GuthBall delusions of Grandeur





Yes, I know how to specify simulation parameters and how to apply
variables

so as to modify the end result. If given remote access I could run our

public-funded supercomputer, using its public-funded software that only

needs to be given its instructions of which items of mass are coming and

going at various angles (orbital trajectories) and their initial
velocities.

Assuming more than one item entered our solar system along with our moon,

kinda makes a very big difference.





*** Perhaps then you could regale us all with links to your scientific

simulations details and test run results, that you so adamantly claim to

have partaken in ...***



Are you suggesting that scads of public-funded simulation software doesn't

already exist to manage three or even four bodies in dynamic motion, plus

lithobraking considerations of further complex computations, as easily
sped

up in a 3D interactive simulation by a millionfold?



*** Apart from babbling nonsense, you don't have a clue, you little

****-ant. Again, if it is that easy, show us the proof.



I'm sure the "crickets" will get a chirping workout on this request



snip remaining GuthBall nonsense

Snip and cricket-chirp all you like, as the results of supercomputer
simulations for capturing an icy planetoid of 7.5e22 kg to begin with, as
such can be worked out to suit the end-result that I'm looking for.

The only theory you've ever taken seriously is the brow-nosed theory of
redneck minions always sucking up to others of energy and public-funded,
because your whole life has been nothing but public and/or energy consumer
funded plus on-the-job training, and paid for as only the Oligarchs and
Bilderbergs see fit to extort out of the rest of us.


Crickets ... crickets ... crickets

*** As I thought ... nothing but more GuthBallian word salad.

Grow up and get a real job, you dunce ...

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:54:41 PM UTC-4, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...



On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:11:16 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message



...







snip GuthBall delusions of Grandeur











Yes, I know how to specify simulation parameters and how to apply

variables



so as to modify the end result. If given remote access I could run our



public-funded supercomputer, using its public-funded software that only



needs to be given its instructions of which items of mass are coming and



going at various angles (orbital trajectories) and their initial

velocities.



Assuming more than one item entered our solar system along with our moon,



kinda makes a very big difference.











*** Perhaps then you could regale us all with links to your scientific



simulations details and test run results, that you so adamantly claim to



have partaken in ...***







Are you suggesting that scads of public-funded simulation software doesn't



already exist to manage three or even four bodies in dynamic motion, plus



lithobraking considerations of further complex computations, as easily

sped



up in a 3D interactive simulation by a millionfold?







*** Apart from babbling nonsense, you don't have a clue, you little



****-ant. Again, if it is that easy, show us the proof.







I'm sure the "crickets" will get a chirping workout on this request







snip remaining GuthBall nonsense



Snip and cricket-chirp all you like, as the results of supercomputer

simulations for capturing an icy planetoid of 7.5e22 kg to begin with, as

such can be worked out to suit the end-result that I'm looking for.



The only theory you've ever taken seriously is the brow-nosed theory of

redneck minions always sucking up to others of energy and public-funded,

because your whole life has been nothing but public and/or energy consumer

funded plus on-the-job training, and paid for as only the Oligarchs and

Bilderbergs see fit to extort out of the rest of us.





Crickets ... crickets ... crickets



*** As I thought ... nothing but more GuthBallian word salad.



Grow up and get a real job, you dunce ...

LOL...."word salad"....I like that.