Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon

I'm thinking that life upon Earth may simply have been a wee bit
pre-ice-age iffy, as having been situated a little too far away from our
sun that simply wasn't quite as active and thereby as radiating as it is
today, especially if Earth were having to manage without benefit of such
a nearby moon. Proto-Earth obviously once upon a time offered a nearly
Venus like atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and
obviously of having sustained such complex happenstance of life, but
perhaps not offering all that much environmental quality nor of
sufficient diversity, and especially if still limited to the
below-surface environment, and worse yet if the bulk of mother Earth's
above surface environment had otherwise been so often and so nearly
entirely sub-frozen solid for so much of the time, as clearly indicated
by way of those ice core samples depicting each of the many ice-ages
that were consistently worse off per each proceeding ice-age cycle,
that's having represented such an extensive energy differential in so
much so that it simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital
mechanics w/o moon, nor that of sufficient solar energy fluctuation
cycles.

As further pointed by Henry Kroll's research, whereas there's no
apparent possibility of a lunar orbital fluctuation that's capable of
being associated with all of those previous ice-age cycles, but only
involving that of the latest thaw which seems to have no apparent end in
sight. This seems to suggest that our salty and once upon a time icy
proto-moon hasn't been orbiting around Earth for quite as long as we've
been informed, much less having been created by way of any Mars like
impactor.

However, it's perfectly interesting to taking a little notice as to how
much orbital energy that moon of ours currently represents.

Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf

The associated centrifugal energy of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2.00076e20
joules

The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25

Therefore, if leaving us at 40 mm/yr = 2.00076e20/25 = 8.00304e18
joules/yr

8.00304e18/8.76e3 = .91359e15 joules per hour = 913.6e12 jhr

913.6e12 jhr / 3.6e3 = 253.8e9 joules/sec (recession energy = 254
gigajoules)

A second calculation that's based upon a bit more robust assesment of
gravitation force gets this amount of energy a little more impressive;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...14/i4/moon.asp
Is the moon really old? by "Dr Don DeYoung . . . if the earth moon
system is as old as evolutionists say, we should have lost our moon long
ago."

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

If Dr. Don DeYong's 30e18 kgf were correct; therefore 30e18 kgf *
9.80665 = 294.2e18 Joules

At the supposed ongoing recession of 0.04 m/yr = 294.2e18/25 = 11.768e18
J/yr

Per second: 11.768e18/31.536e6 = .373161e12 or 373.161e9 J (recession
energy = 373 gigajoules)

In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and I've not yet taken into account
the amount of extra tidal energy that's having to compensate for the
drag coefficient nor of the reflected IR of whatever the physically dark
moon has to offer, whereas this still represents a rather terrific
amount of energy that's obviously powerful enough to have affected
platetonics and perhaps towards keeping our outer shell that's
surrounding our molten iron core in motion and thus extensively pumping
up and otherwise sustaining the highly beneficial if not critically
essential magnetosphere that's in the process of failing us at the rate
of 0.05%/year, as much as global warming has been roasting us.

Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we know it
wouldn't have stood much of a chance in this otherwise sub-frozen hell
of our having evolved or otherwise having coexisted upon Earth. From
other research and of reasonable conjectures that fit entirely within
the regular laws of planetology physics, we've also been informed that
early Earth and therefore most likely prior to our having a moon we had
a 50+ bar (Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere.

As it is (w/o drag coefficient), by the hour it seems a great deal of
available energy either way.
Brad Guth: 254 gj * 3.6e3 = 914.4e12 j/hr
Don DeYoung: 373 gj * 3.6e3 = 1,343e12 j/hr

Even going by way of my less impressive numbers of 914 terajoules/hr,
excluding the fact that our moon was obviously once upon a time much
closer and having been receding at a much faster rate, whereas the more
likely arrival and subsequent impact of our once upon a time icy
proto-moon, that which currently represents an absolutely horrific
amount of ongoing applied energy, plus having accommodated the extremely
beneficial tidal affects, that if this orbital energy were removed from
our environment would cause great harm in many ways other than the loss
of it's nifty moonshine and of it's reflectively good IR albedo that's
also a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of sustaining our
environment, and so much so beneficial that if this moon were to be
removed is where Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of life,
but our environment would also unavoidably and rather extensively ice up
to quite an extent.

I believe that life upon this Earth was simply too far away from the sun
if it were having to manage without benefit of our moon, and it only
gets worse yet if life were having to manage without a substantial
magnetosphere. Intelligent/intellectual life on Earth as we know it
simply couldn't have evolved and having matured and survived above the
surface without the enormous energy influx benefits of the moon.
Unfortunately, not only is the moon still moving itself away from us,
but so has the magnetosphere been dropping off by roughly .05%/year.

Others having similar notions but sharing somewhat different conclusions
as to Earth w/o moon are still somewhat skewed by the supposed science
associated with our having explored our physically dark, salty and
otherwise extremely reactive/anticathode naked moon, as though it's no
longer such a big deal.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235...n/no_moon.html

Unfortunately, all forms of recorded history or otherwise of earlier
depicted history are those limited to the time since our last ice-age.
It's exactly as though we hadn't a moon prior to then, and it's also as
though intelligent/intellectual life upon Earth hadn't existed/coexisted
to any extent prior to the last ice-age.

I totally agree that proto-life as formulating below the surface was
perfectly doable without a moon, whereas the core energy of mother Earth
would have been doing it's thing of radiating and venting geothermal
energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus
unavoidably creating a great deal of complex opportunity for the random
happenstance chemistry of life to have eventually gotten off to a good
start (although our best efforts thus far haven't managed to simulate
nor otherwise having accomplished such DNA formulation on behalf of even
having created the most basic form of such proto-life). Using the soil
and/or of the available water and thereby mud certainly counts as a
viable shield against the otherwise lethal solar and cosmic radiation,
as well as for having the 50+ bar worth of an early atmosphere would
have extensively if not entirely protected early life on Earth w/o moon
and w/o magnetosphere.

My fundamental two part question is; How would the purely terrestrial
evolution of intelligence have been influenced or otherwise related to
having or not having a moon, and/or that of our not having or as per
having a magnetosphere that's essentially of what's defending our
relatively thin remainder of an atmosphere?

Part two of the above question; Excluding the basic intelligence worth
of survival that's proven as often a whole lot smarter than what many
humans seem to have at their disposal, what if anything does human
intellectual intelligence of rational/irrational thought (including our
learned and thus cultivated bigotry, greed and arrogance) have to do
with planetology or that of various orbital mechanics?

PLANETARY SCIENCE: HISTORY OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE / as published in
Nature and ScienceWeek
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031017-1.htm
Perhaps this should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the box is
extremely lethal.
It should also have addressed the fundamental physics as to what other
sorts of glancing impactor could have given enough rotational energy to
have initially started the outer surface rotating as different than our
molten interior, thus giving us the active magnetosphere to start with.

Clearly our thinking has been primarily limited or rather sequestered by
way of whatever our spendy mainstream infomercial-science has to guide
us by, whereas our NASA and thereby mostly religious faith approved Mars
impactor notion has been their all-knowing and apparently the one and
only viable alternative, that's sufficiently similar to the Alen Guth
BIG-BANG theory that's very compatible with the pro-intelligent/creation
and thus within the pro-faith realm of God, that is unless you wouldn't
mind losing all credibility and most likely your job plus seeing your
entire career and of everything associated going down the nearest
space-toilet, at least that's how insecure and/or immoral most religious
cults and of their political partnerships have managed in the past, and
of how they would still most likely deal with such fools that would
suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved and thus certified by way of
God's pagan replacement(NASA). At least that's my honest impression as
based upon this anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from hell, that which
has no apparent intentions of their cutting the rest of us any slack.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), in uk.sci.astronomy , "Brad
Guth" wrote:

the usual twaddle.

I pity your doctors.

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

Euh, firstly gravity isn't measured in pounds or tonnes, and secondly
quoting humongous numbers is a classical kook trick to trick ordinary
folks into believing them. "Gosh the numbers are so huge / tiny /
boggling it must be true / untrue / whatever". Ever bothered to work
out the weight of the earth in grammes? Or the number of atoms in a
pinhead? Or the number of angels that can dance on a kooks brain?

that which currently represents an absolutely horrific
amount of ongoing applied energy,

A few terajoules is NOT a horrific amount of energy. Try
thunderstorms.


--
Mark McIntyre

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message


On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), in uk.sci.astronomy , "Brad
Guth" wrote:

the usual twaddle.

I pity your doctors.

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

Euh, firstly gravity isn't measured in pounds or tonnes, and secondly
quoting humongous numbers is a classical kook trick to trick ordinary
folks into believing them. "Gosh the numbers are so huge / tiny /
boggling it must be true / untrue / whatever". Ever bothered to work
out the weight of the earth in grammes? Or the number of atoms in a
pinhead? Or the number of angels that can dance on a kooks brain?

that which currently represents an absolutely horrific
amount of ongoing applied energy,

A few terajoules is NOT a horrific amount of energy. Try
thunderstorms.

Obviously I'm sufficiently right, as otherwise you would have so easily
impressed the living hell out of us village idiots with all of your vast
wizardly expertise of those supposed much better numbers, and of being
so kind as to sharing in whatever's in support of such numbers.

Otherwise, your calling a continuous application of an extra 254
gigajoules per second or merely 914 tj/hr of recession energy as being
so much less impressive than a few wussy milliseconds worth of a
lighting strike, is certainly a new and improved mainstream weird as all
get out science, and so much more so impressive if those lighting storms
are overtaking the continuous 2e20 joules/sec of what the entire lunar
orbital worth of energy has to offer, as representing the sort of
wag-thy-dogs to death of what your superior conditional laws of physics
as extracted from whatever's scripted within your NASA koran, as
supposedly representing the orbital mechanics of our moon as being
something that's so gosh darn insignificant.

Silly me, I honestly didn't know that 2e20 joules/sec of a continuous
applied force was so gosh darn wussy by our NASA's "so what's the
difference" policy of infomercial-science standards. I'll be sure to
past that one along, so that other Village idiots don't mistake such big
numbers as having any meaning whatsoever.

I can't speak for others, but I must say that your new and improved form
of topic naysayism on a stick is all together a whole lot more
impressive than any houcs-pocus BIG-BANG, or even that of our rad-hard
astronauts merely walking upon our naked anticathode lethal moon.

Perhaps you can explain to us how a nearly 30% inert GLOW rocket can
manage to deploy it's nearly 50 tonne payload into orbiting our moon,
having done so within such a short amount of travel time and thereby
having accomplished each of those round trip NASA/Apollo missions with
merely a 60:1 ratio worth of rocket per payload. I'm certainly
impressed as all get out, as is Russia, India, ESA and China, and so why
the heck should you not continue as to impress us some more?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message


On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), in uk.sci.astronomy , "Brad
Guth" wrote:

the usual twaddle.

I pity your doctors.

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

Euh, firstly gravity isn't measured in pounds or tonnes, and secondly
quoting humongous numbers is a classical kook trick to trick ordinary
folks into believing them. "Gosh the numbers are so huge / tiny /
boggling it must be true / untrue / whatever". Ever bothered to work
out the weight of the earth in grammes? Or the number of atoms in a
pinhead? Or the number of angels that can dance on a kooks brain?

that which currently represents an absolutely horrific
amount of ongoing applied energy,

A few terajoules is NOT a horrific amount of energy. Try
thunderstorms.

Obviously I'm being sufficiently right, as otherwise you could have so
easily impressed the living hell out of us village idiots with all of
your vast wizardly expertise, and thereby having those supposed much
better numbers, and of being so kind as to sharing in whatever's in
support of such numbers.

Otherwise, your calling a continuous application of an extra 254
gigajoules per second or merely 914 tj/hr of recession energy as being
so much less impressive than a few wussy milliseconds worth of lightning
strikes is certainly offering us a new and improved mainstream weirdness
as all get out science, and so much more so impressive if those
lightning storms are overtaking the continuous 2e20 joules/sec of what
the entire lunar orbital worth of energy has to offer, as representing
the sort of wag-thy-dogs to death of what your superior conditional laws
of physics as extracted from whatever's scripted within your NASA koran
of nifty infomercial-science, as supposedly representing the orbital
mechanics of our moon as somehow being something that's so gosh darn
insignificant.

Silly me, I honestly didn't know that 2e20 joules/sec of a continuous
applied force was so gosh darn wussy by our NASA's "so what's the
difference" policy of infomercial-science standards. I'll be sure to
past that one along, so that other Village idiots don't mistake such big
numbers as having any meaning whatsoever.

I obviously can't hardly speak for others, but I must say that your new
and improved form of topic naysayism on a stick is all together a whole
lot more impressive than any houcs-pocus Alan Guth form of BIG-BANG
expansion, or even that of our rad-hard astronauts merely walking
moonsuit butt-naked upon our nearly atmospherically naked anticathode
lethal moon.

Perhaps you can further explain to us how a nearly 30% inert GLOW rocket
can manage to deploy it's nearly 50 tonne payload into orbiting our
moon, as having done so within such a short amount of travel time and
thereby having accomplished each of those round trip NASA/Apollo
missions with merely a 60:1 ratio worth of rocket per payload. While
you're at it, please inform us as to where's Venus as of Apollo 11, 14
and 16. As to such rocket-science and w/o a prototype fly-by-rocket
lander none the less, I'm certainly impressed as all get out, as is
Russia, India, ESA and China, and so I'm thinking; why the heck should
you not continue as to impress us some more?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message


A few terajoules is NOT a horrific amount of energy. Try
thunderstorms.

I've taken your advice and learned a little something of terrestrial
thunder storm energy.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HT...ithcolumn5.htm
"At any time there are over 2,000 thunderstorms occurring worldwide,
each producing over a 100 lightning strikes a second. That's over 8
million lightning bolts every day."

"Each lightning flash is about 3 miles long but only about a centimetre
wide. It discharges about 1-10 billion joules of energy"

His own math seems sufficiently conservative, but we certainly get the
idea that an average lightning strike is perhaps worthy of 2e9 joules.
If using his slight under-estimate of merely 8 million strikes per day
is 8e6 * 2e9 = 16e15 joules/day or upon average 185e9 joules/second
worth of terrestrial lightning energy that's getting discharged at any
moment, and along with our rapidly failing magnetosphere by a factor of
0.05%/year means that lots more of such solar wind driven atmospheric
energy discharges are likely to transpire, and I guess that's a good
sort of thing as scripted within your NASA infomercial-science based
koran.

I guess it's also a darn good thing our moon has that stealth
hocus-pocus shield that's so much better off than our magnetosphere,
whereas otherwise those moonsuit fools would be in serious trouble, as
in TBI(total body irradiated) plus solar and cosmic charged particles
worth of River City sort of trouble, and of their being rather nicely
exposed to such nifty gamma, X-rays and otherwise in direct touch with
being highly electrostatic covered while trekking through tens of meters
worth of absolutely dry and thereby fluffy element depths of local
basalt plus meteorite moon-dust that's rather carbon/graphite sooty,
iron, titanium and perhaps even a little radium and cobalt like dark and
nasty, as well as still a touch salty and not all that likely to clump,
not to mention their getting rather nicely double IR roasted by day and
continually blind sided by whatever items passing by 36+ km/s, plus
somehow dodging those nasty bits of incoming debris or that of their
unavoidable secondary shards.

Now then, 185e9 joules is I believe a touch less impressive than 2e20
joules, and it's even less than the 254e9 joules of extra recession
energy that's involved with the ongoing exit of our moon, that which can
be measured without having to involve any stinking retroreflectors that
supposedly at best offers all of 3 wussy photons per minute out of
trillions per laser ranging effort. Actually, other than an efficient
IR laser bounce, radar/radio ranging is so much easier and more
reliable, especially if known amounts of specific wavelength elements
were ever deployed from orbit and having subsequently survived hitting
that dusty deck.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Mark McIntyre wrote:

The same MM from CLC? Which group of the above are you posting from?

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), in uk.sci.astronomy , "Brad
Guth" wrote:

the usual twaddle.

I pity your doctors.

I envy them the security of their jobs.

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."


Euh, firstly gravity isn't measured in pounds or tonnes

Why would one not use pounds to measure a force?

"BruceS" wrote in message


Why would one not use pounds to measure a force?

So what's the difference? Why would one not better use the universal
joules of energy to represent whatever pounds or kg worth of force(Kgf)?

Is energy all that different on our moon, or is it entirely different
yet while on Venus?

Do you have some better numbers of whatever all-inclusive pounds or Kg
of force exist between Earth and our moon?
-
Brad Guth





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:

"BruceS" wrote in message



Why would one not use pounds to measure a force?


So what's the difference? Why would one not better use the universal
joules of energy to represent whatever pounds or kg worth of force(Kgf)?

If you don't know the difference between energy and force, perhaps you
should lurk. I suspect that Mark will have a better response. At
least, I hope so.

"BruceS" wrote in message


If you don't know the difference between energy and force, perhaps you
should lurk. I suspect that Mark will have a better response. At
least, I hope so.

I convert whatever I want in order to suit my dyslexic mindset. If I'm
ultimately after the potential extraction of energy, in which case I'll
convert whatever's the available N, kgf or pounds of force into joules
because I can.

If that's what's rocking your boat, so be it. Sorry about that.
-
Brad Guth






--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

BruceS wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

Euh, firstly gravity isn't measured in pounds or tonnes

Why would one not use pounds to measure a force?

An old unit of force indeed was Kiloponds (i.e. the force of one
kilogram of mass at normal gravity), which is kind of misleading in
regions that don't have standard gravity, e.g. the earth-moon system.

Anyway, the moon's centripetal force is of course GmM/r^2 and its
binding energy is about -1/2 gmM/r, with r being about 4*10^8 m and GmM
being about 3*10^37 Jm, iaW the moon's binding energy is a few thousend
yottajoules (had to look up that prefix, never used anything bigger then
exa- ).

Lars