Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On May 25, 3:27 pm, josephus wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
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

venus, mercury, Jupiter Saturn and lots of moons have small integer
relations. it occurs everywhere. AE Roy talked about this. the real
question is "Does this fact have anything to do with orbital stability?"

I remember a simulation at JPL had a problem. I heard about it from
one of the developers. the simulation was a stepwise emulation of the
Solar System. well, some programmer made a mistake and when they ran
the simulation the EARTH was missing. Venus and Mercury became
unstable and Venus escaped the solar system. rather clear evidence that
the hierarchy is particular and specific to stability.



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.

lithobreaking is like antigravity and shares properties with it. it
requires a mechanism the stop the inertia of an entire PLANET.

F= GM*V^2
that is the energy to decellerate the earth. that decelleration would
violently alter our orbit ( 1.4121* V is the definition of EXCESS
HYPERBOLIC VELOCITY.

Then you have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that
clearly proves otherwise. How sad.

This is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you ever run the
basic online crater simulator?
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
. - Brad Guth

On May 25, 2:43 pm, josephus wrote:

lets talk about accelerations. and the definition of excess escape velocity.

first off an orbit is constrained and the energy function is
negative. -- a fact of life any bound orbit will have negative
energy. so a circular orbit is V^2 = GM/R to escape completely
from the orbit. the V = (2)^1/2 * Vcircular.

that little bit of extra energy will escape the system. in real
terms that little bit of energy would be 1.4121 times any circurlar
speed to escape from that orbit. whether elliptical or circular.
a. a moon would escape from the earth
b a planet would escape from the sun.

any passing object ( sirius or any other sun) would
exchange energy with the planets and moons and as it swoops by. they
would bobble and leave the solar system. the problem is delineated in
"Astrodynamics" by Bates, Mueller and White. Dover 1971 easy reading
If you know a little bit of calculus and and lot of algebra.

thats ok Brad does not read that kind of stuff.

josephus

Why is josephus having to talk as though less than child?

Are you Muslim, and thus deathly afraid of using computers, or
cameras?

In addition to your having ignored the Sirius star/solar system recent
loss of 4+ solar mass, and having further ignored the stellar binary
considerations that would become trinary once our solar system was
close enough. So, where’s that supercomputer simulation?

Apparently you have not even bothered to run the basic of moon
impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves otherwise. How sad
and pathetic at the same time.

This limited method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you
ever run the basic online crater simulator? (apparently not)
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
. - Brad Guth

On Sun, 25 May 2008 12:25:42 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

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.

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.

The introduction to this topic was not about Earth always having that
moon, or was that part simply not clear enough?

Do you think that sentence makes sense?




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,

Because they know it's there. If they didn't have reason to think it
was there, they'd be idiots to try to climb mount Everest.

or try to fly like a
bird

Anyone who tries to fly like a bird is an eccentric hobbyist at best.
Anyone who seriously thinks it's possible is a nutjob. Airplanes and
hang gliders do not fly like birds.

On May 26, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 12:25:42 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
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.

Why does it matter?

Obviously uncovering the best available truth didn't matter to Hitler,
his Zionist/Nazi minions and puppet-masters, or that of our resident
LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), so by all means you coud be 100% correct.


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?

Do you think that sentence makes sense?

Yes I do. What the hell was your interpretation of this topic intro?


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,

Because they know it's there. If they didn't have reason to think it
was there, they'd be idiots to try to climb mount Everest.

or try to fly like a

bird

Anyone who tries to fly like a bird is an eccentric hobbyist at best.
Anyone who seriously thinks it's possible is a nutjob. Airplanes and
hang gliders do not fly like birds.

BTW; You've avoided and/or excluded the swim like a whale part.

Silly boy, are we being just a wee bit overly Zionist or perhaps of
something far worse these days? You know damn good and well what I'd
intended by my question. But then you're clearly one of the DARPA bad
guys that's in favor of furthering your faith-based and warlord
formulated New World Order on behalf of global domination at all cost
and w/o remorse for even those of your own kind. Just like in the
good old day of treating that pesky ringworm disorder with your 36,000
fold dosage of gamma and X-rays is what curred them dark-skinned
Jews. Why don't you tell us how a ringworm even knew the difference
between a dark or white Jew.
.. - Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On May 25, 2:43 pm, josephus wrote:
lets talk about accelerations. and the definition of excess escape velocity.

first off an orbit is constrained and the energy function is
negative. -- a fact of life any bound orbit will have negative
energy. so a circular orbit is V^2 = GM/R to escape completely
from the orbit. the V = (2)^1/2 * Vcircular.

that little bit of extra energy will escape the system. in real
terms that little bit of energy would be 1.4121 times any circurlar
speed to escape from that orbit. whether elliptical or circular.
a. a moon would escape from the earth
b a planet would escape from the sun.

any passing object ( sirius or any other sun) would
exchange energy with the planets and moons and as it swoops by. they
would bobble and leave the solar system. the problem is delineated in
"Astrodynamics" by Bates, Mueller and White. Dover 1971 easy reading
If you know a little bit of calculus and and lot of algebra.

thats ok Brad does not read that kind of stuff.

josephus

Why is josephus having to talk as though less than child?

Are you Muslim, and thus deathly afraid of using computers, or
cameras?

In addition to your having ignored the Sirius star/solar system recent
loss of 4+ solar mass, and having further ignored the stellar binary
considerations that would become trinary once our solar system was
close enough. So, where’s that supercomputer simulation?


4+ solar mass loss? did you just make that up. please show us a
reference to a news release or even, god forbid, a juried magazine.
otherwise this is just an unsupported assertion by imagination.

Apparently you have not even bothered to run the basic of moon
impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves otherwise. How sad
and pathetic at the same time.

why dont you look up celestial mechanics and orbital motions

This limited method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you
ever run the basic online crater simulator? (apparently not)
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
. - Brad Guth


josephus
-- It is true that the person making the claim should show the
proof that is approved by the opposition. brad the clueless tries to
pass the research of to the opposition. and that is not how science is
done.

--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on
different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know
that gets you in trouble
its what you know that ain so.
--josh billings.

On May 26, 5:44 pm, josephus wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 25, 2:43 pm, josephus wrote:
lets talk about accelerations. and the definition of excess escape velocity.

first off an orbit is constrained and the energy function is
negative. -- a fact of life any bound orbit will have negative
energy. so a circular orbit is V^2 = GM/R to escape completely
from the orbit. the V = (2)^1/2 * Vcircular.

that little bit of extra energy will escape the system. in real
terms that little bit of energy would be 1.4121 times any circurlar
speed to escape from that orbit. whether elliptical or circular.
a. a moon would escape from the earth
b a planet would escape from the sun.

any passing object ( sirius or any other sun) would
exchange energy with the planets and moons and as it swoops by. they
would bobble and leave the solar system. the problem is delineated in
"Astrodynamics" by Bates, Mueller and White. Dover 1971 easy reading
If you know a little bit of calculus and and lot of algebra.

thats ok Brad does not read that kind of stuff.

josephus

Why is josephus having to talk as though less than child?

Are you Muslim, and thus deathly afraid of using computers, or
cameras?

In addition to your having ignored the Sirius star/solar system recent
loss of 4+ solar mass, and having further ignored the stellar binary
considerations that would become trinary once our solar system was
close enough. So, where’s that supercomputer simulation?

4+ solar mass loss? did you just make that up. please show us a
reference to a news release or even, god forbid, a juried magazine.
otherwise this is just an unsupported assertion by imagination.

An impressive Sirius-B went from 6 solar mass, into its red giant
phase and rather quickly spent itself all the way down to one solar
mass of a white dwarf, whereas Sirius-A most likely picked up one of
those solar mass units, of which leaves the Sirius star system short 4
solar mass.


Apparently you have not even bothered to run the basic of moon
impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves otherwise. How sad
and pathetic at the same time.

why dont you look up celestial mechanics and orbital motions

For pretty much the same reason you're not doing as I'd nicely asked.


This limited method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you
ever run the basic online crater simulator? (apparently not)
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
. - Brad Guth

josephus
-- It is true that the person making the claim should show the
proof that is approved by the opposition. brad the clueless tries to
pass the research of to the opposition. and that is not how science is
done.

Since nothing outside the mainstream box is ever approved by your
intellectual cartel opposition, perhaps you should tell, why are you
here?
. - Brad Guth

Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth
have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly
proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby
moon of ours. How sad.

Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an
icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars
like encounter.

A truly supercomputer driven simulation in full blown 3D interactive
eye-candy animation would do a damn fine job of proving this out, that
not each an every encounter is an all inclusive merging of the two
bodies, especially when the encounter velocity isn’t there to begin
with.

This following method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you
ever bothered to run a few what-if encounters through this basic
online crater simulator?
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

BTW, like being back in elementary grade school, I've had to correct a
few of those pesky robo-moderations or robo-revisions that keep
connecting key words to whatever's handy, as intended so that a common
newsgroup or internet 'search for' my name along with that of our
moon, Venus or even Sirius should not work properly. Funny how
DARPA's Google of Usenet/newsgroups is so deathly afraid of whatever I
have to say.
. - Brad Guth


On Mar 29, 7:46 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:31 pm, 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, as such
were extremely survival intelligent, much better off at their
surviving than the vast majority of supposedly highly educated humans
as of today could muster. As such they had often recorded whatever
was of keen interest or of whatever else was shock and awe worthy of
their era.

However, apparently as of prior to 12,500 BP, or even of somewhat more
recent times, there simply was not until some time after 12,500 BP
that human notice was taken of any significant ocean tidal issues, of
any seasonal tilt variation worth their having to migrate, and of
absolutely nothing ever got recorded or otherwise noted as to their
environment having that terrifically vibrant moon, as so often from
time to time allowing them to see, hunt and gather by winter night
nearly as clear as by day.

Seems if they were in fact survival smart enough and so good at having
depicted their environment and of anything that truly mattered,
whereas such you'd have to rethink as to why such intelligent and
highly survival skilled folks were so otherwise entirely dumbfounded
and/or oblivious, as to their having excluded seasonal changes, ocean
tides and of that terrifically big old and bright looking moon of
ours.

What if a nearly monoseason Earth and of its somewhat elliptical orbit
of our passive sun simply didn't have that moon as of prior to 12,500
BP?

Why as of today are such public owned supercomputer simulations on
behalf of running this alternative interpretation of the best
available science being sequestered or kept as taboo/nondisclosure
rated?
. -BradGuth

I'm to guess, there's some kind of silly insider bylaws imposed
against whatever computer simulations of Earth w/o moon, and only much
worse yet of our getting impacted by an icy proto-moon, at that as of
merely the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. Go
figure, as to where the 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force is
otherwise going?
. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth

You start your argument by poisoning it against anyone who might
disagree. That's a surefire sign that you are about to post balderdash.

have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly
proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby
moon of ours.

The simulations would not prove anything. Yet you write as though you
already know what the simulations will show.

But it's easy enough to show that your scenario won't work: There is no
way for the moon to have escaped the orbit of Sirius or one of its
planets, traveled here, and inserted itself into a nearly circular orbit
around the Earth.

How sad.

How sad indeed that you won't go out and learn the basics of how orbits
work.

Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an
icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars
like encounter.

Earth as a mass of rocks, yes, with splattering all over the place. But
Earth with a fragile ecosystem on its outer skin, no. This is like
looking at a bunch of bricks and boards scattered through a neighborhood
and saying that the house survived the encounter with the tornado.

A truly supercomputer driven simulation in full blown 3D interactive
eye-candy animation would do a damn fine job of proving this out, that
not each an every encounter is an all inclusive merging of the two
bodies, especially when the encounter velocity isn¹t there to begin
with.

No, it wouldn't. If the moon isn't moving very fast then it would not
get here to begin with. And it would stay around the Earth longer and
thus be accelerated by it longer and thus end up going faster. And when
the moon gets too close, even slowly, it breaks up because of tidal
forces.

This following method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you
ever bothered to run a few what-if encounters through this basic
online crater simulator?
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

The crater simulator is not written to handle moon-sized objects hitting
earth-sized objects.

BTW, like being back in elementary grade school, I've had to correct a
few of those pesky robo-moderations or robo-revisions that keep
connecting key words to whatever's handy, as intended so that a common
newsgroup or internet 'search for' my name along with that of our
moon, Venus or even Sirius should not work properly. Funny how
DARPA's Google of Usenet/newsgroups is so deathly afraid of whatever I
have to say.

Paranoia of this sort is typical of kooks. Why are you trying so
desperately to be mistaken for one? I'm not afraid of what you have to
say; it's mildly entertaining.

--
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 28, 8:44 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth

You start your argument by poisoning it against anyone who might
disagree. That's a surefire sign that you are about to post balderdash.

For the most part I've been correct about those topic/author stalking
types, except they is actually far worse off than anything I could
manage to say about them. There is also the unwritten law of my
having to return the warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and
affection that I can muster.


have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly
proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby
moon of ours.

The simulations would not prove anything. Yet you write as though you
already know what the simulations will show.

But it's easy enough to show that your scenario won't work: There is no
way for the moon to have escaped the orbit of Sirius or one of its
planets, traveled here, and inserted itself into a nearly circular orbit
around the Earth.

Your profound nayism is noted. So, besides your being deathly afraid
to fully simulate any of this theory, exactly why are you here?


How sad.

How sad indeed that you won't go out and learn the basics of how orbits
work.

Been there, done that, need supercomputer.


Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an
icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars
like encounter.

Earth as a mass of rocks, yes, with splattering all over the place. But
Earth with a fragile ecosystem on its outer skin, no. This is like
looking at a bunch of bricks and boards scattered through a neighborhood
and saying that the house survived the encounter with the tornado.

You have such little faith in nature, as well as in the intellectual
fortitude of those of us that simply would not just lay down and die
off peacefully, just to suit your silly mindset.


A truly supercomputer driven simulation in full blown 3D interactive
eye-candy animation would do a damn fine job of proving this out, that
not each an every encounter is an all inclusive merging of the two
bodies, especially when the encounter velocity isn¹t there to begin
with.

No, it wouldn't. If the moon isn't moving very fast then it would not
get here to begin with. And it would stay around the Earth longer and
thus be accelerated by it longer and thus end up going faster. And when
the moon gets too close, even slowly, it breaks up because of tidal
forces.

Can your supercomputer simulator show us that kind of nasty reaction,
and in the NASA usual of their 3D animated eye-candy mode?


This following method is not the least bit all-inclusive, but have you
ever bothered to run a few what-if encounters through this basic
online crater simulator?
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

The crater simulator is not written to handle moon-sized objects hitting
earth-sized objects.

True enough, as it can only manage to cope with much larger and faster
encounters. The author of that basic simulator can do as much theory
polishing as you'd like.


BTW, like being back in elementary grade school, I've had to correct a
few of those pesky robo-moderations or robo-revisions that keep
connecting key words to whatever's handy, as intended so that a common
newsgroup or internet 'search for' my name along with that of our
moon, Venus or even Sirius should not work properly. Funny how
DARPA's Google of Usenet/newsgroups is so deathly afraid of whatever I
have to say.

Paranoia of this sort is typical of kooks. Why are you trying so
desperately to be mistaken for one? I'm not afraid of what you have to
say; it's mildly entertaining.

Now you're calling the regular laws of physics and best available
science as "paranoia"?

Perhaps this effort is for a similar but more sanitary reason as to
why your nose is always so mainstream brown.
. - Brad Guth

Earth w/o moon would be much colder and most likely deep into the next
ice-age. There would still be ocean tides of roughly one third and of
a 24 hour basis, and Earth would likely have some degree of seasonal
tilt, as well as over the long term odds of having pole flipping or
wobble to deal with, as well as Earth's orbit being more elliptical.

BTW, human soot laced with CO2, NOx and lots of other nifty and nasty
byproducts does cause global dimming, of which in turn releases mother
natures flatulence of methanes and CO2 as well as Radon(Rn222) as
millions of acres each year keep burning to the ground, not to mention
uncontrolled coal fires that are mostly underground, and even a few
too many of those coal fires of the recently exposed and/or eroded
surface.

At the ongoing rate of natural and artificial burning of our fossil
and bio fuels, we'll be lucky to stretch this ongoing game of
pillaging and raping mother nature for all she's worth much past the
next century, without dire consequences and bloodshed like never seen
before.

The very gradual increase (meaning hardly measurable outside of the
usual 11 year cycle) in sunspot energy is not causing us much grief,
although it is certainly not helping to cool us off.

Our trusty moon with its mutually interactive tidal energy worth of
2e20 N/sec is however in charge of what has been thawing us out from
the very last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. Sorry
about that.

2e20 N * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 N/hr

Do the math any which way you'd care to convert whatever small portion
(say not more than 0.1% and not less than 0.0001%) of that force into
the unavoidable internal friction of thermal energy, then remember
that it's ongoing 24/7/365. There's also the moon secondary worth of
IR, plus always its gamma and X-rays to contend with, of which
wouldn't be such a problem if our protective magnetosphere wasn't
fading away at .05%/year.

DARPA/NASA knows all of this and so much more.
.. - Brad Guth