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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.