Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On May 15, 8:39 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
I'd like you to explain how that salty icy proto moon escaped that
far-off sun's gravity, traveled across the cold interstellar distance in
reasonable time, and arrived here with a speed slow enough to get
captured by Earth and enter a near-circular orbit.

Sirius-B burned through or essentially lost 4x to 5x solar mass.
. - BG

Demonstrate some calculations for us, Brad. Show how fast the moon would
have had to travel to get from Sirius to here if it left before Sirius B
became a white dwarf.

Hell, I'd like to know what spectroscopic evidence you have for calling
the moon salty and icy.

Deductive speculation, as to where our environment most likely
obtained so much water and salt as having been deposited into our
environment.
. - BG

That's not spectroscopic evidence, that's a flight of fancy.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.


Your supposed expertise in astrophysics is clearly superior to most,
although not even Einstein could work out such complex multibody
details on paper without a darn good supercomputer at his disposal.

Earth w/o moon would clearly 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.

A compromise would be to relocate our moon to Earth’s L1, and
interactively keeping it there. A good supercomputer simulation will
prove out every micro detail of this alternative, as well as for the
+/- environmental considerations, and the same goes for simulating the
Sirius thing of going into its red giant phase that likely gave us
that moon and possibly even Venus to begin with. Interstellar
interactions are common place, as are intergalactic encounters that
generate any number of rogue stars and spare planes as well as
potential proto-moons.

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

On May 15, 8:32 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On May 14, 9:30 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
You are very correct, as it's the fluid within Earth that's by far the
most important interacting tidal worthy substance of mass that's
unavoidably interacting with our unusually massive, nearby and fast
moving moon.

"No amount of physics or science" and certainly not a mathematical
equation in sight. All this speculation is easier to do with adjectives
and adverbs.

One has to start somewhere.

And then one has to continue. But you've been suck in your "start
somewhere" of using just adjectives and semantic logic to do your
thinking for you.

"What else floats?"

"Very small rocks."

What the hell did you expect; absolute objective proof-positive
evidence first?

No. Just some sensible thinking backed up by observations and equations.
Except in the case of your extraordinary claims about the moon: Here all
anyone really wants is some extraordinary evidence. Nothing major.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

As I'd said before, it'll take some serious computational expertise,
as well as trial and error simulations for polishing this theory.
Clearly you are not the least bit interested in helping.

There is no theory about the 2e20 N/sec of mutual tidal interaction
between Earth and our moon, because that's objectively as proof
positive as it gets, and I'd suppose the interstellar worth of tidal
interactions would go pretty much the same way.
. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On May 15, 8:32 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On May 14, 9:30 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
You are very correct, as it's the fluid within Earth that's by far the
most important interacting tidal worthy substance of mass that's
unavoidably interacting with our unusually massive, nearby and fast
moving moon.

"No amount of physics or science" and certainly not a mathematical
equation in sight. All this speculation is easier to do with adjectives
and adverbs.

One has to start somewhere.

And then one has to continue. But you've been suck in your "start
somewhere" of using just adjectives and semantic logic to do your
thinking for you.

"What else floats?"

"Very small rocks."

What the hell did you expect; absolute objective proof-positive
evidence first?

No. Just some sensible thinking backed up by observations and equations.
Except in the case of your extraordinary claims about the moon: Here all
anyone really wants is some extraordinary evidence. Nothing major.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

As I'd said before, it'll take some serious computational expertise,
as well as trial and error simulations for polishing this theory.
Clearly you are not the least bit interested in helping.

There is no theory about the 2e20 N/sec of mutual tidal interaction
between Earth and our moon, because that's objectively as proof
positive as it gets, and I'd suppose the interstellar worth of tidal
interactions would go pretty much the same way.

You don't accept any mathematical theory of tidal effects because you'd
be able to calculate that at interstellar distances it's negligible.

--
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 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

Darwin123 wrote:

Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.

What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

On May 29, 9:06 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On May 15, 8:32 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 14, 9:30 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
You are very correct, as it's the fluid within Earth that's by far the
most important interacting tidal worthy substance of mass that's
unavoidably interacting with our unusually massive, nearby and fast
moving moon.

"No amount of physics or science" and certainly not a mathematical
equation in sight. All this speculation is easier to do with adjectives
and adverbs.

One has to start somewhere.

And then one has to continue. But you've been suck in your "start
somewhere" of using just adjectives and semantic logic to do your
thinking for you.

"What else floats?"

"Very small rocks."

What the hell did you expect; absolute objective proof-positive
evidence first?

No. Just some sensible thinking backed up by observations and equations.
Except in the case of your extraordinary claims about the moon: Here all
anyone really wants is some extraordinary evidence. Nothing major.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ÐChris L.

As I'd said before, it'll take some serious computational expertise,
as well as trial and error simulations for polishing this theory.
Clearly you are not the least bit interested in helping.

There is no theory about the 2e20 N/sec of mutual tidal interaction
between Earth and our moon, because that's objectively as proof
positive as it gets, and I'd suppose the interstellar worth of tidal
interactions would go pretty much the same way.

You don't accept any mathematical theory of tidal effects because you'd
be able to calculate that at interstellar distances it's negligible.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

You can tell that funny one to all of those galactic encounters, and
of stars that apparently explode for implode or no apparent reason,
not to mention whatever a black hole encounter represents.
. - Brad Guth

On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:

Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.

What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic. I was thinking more like a 90% kill-
off, or perhaps less horrific if our ET intelligent designers came to
our rescue.
.. - Brad Guth

On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:

Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.

What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth







wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:

Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.

What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Do the fully 3D interactive simulations, and report back.
.. - Brad Guth

On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth







wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:

Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.

What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of
what you are used to. See how well you survive.

On May 30, 10:13 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 29, 10:49 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:15:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
On May 29, 10:14 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:

Two body collisions, involving Newtonian gravity and rigid
bodies, can never result in one body capturing the other in orbit.

What's rigid about our 98.5% fluid Earth, along with having perhaps as
great as 10 fold greater atmospheric density as of that era,

If the atmosphere density was that much greater there would be no
macroscopic life left afterward.

That seems a wee bit drastic.

Actually it's an understatement. There would be no surface life left.
The only things that would survive such a environmental disaster would
be those organisms that live deep within the Earth's crust.

You have such little faith...

When you play with balls, other than your private parts, do they
always self destruct?

Put yourself in a vacuum chamber and reduce the pressure to 1/10th of
what you are used to. See how well you survive.

I'd rather go the other way, towards 96 bar, at less than 1% O2 and
99% H2.

BTW, the encounter of an icy proto-moon most likely kook a good
portion of our atmosphere away.
.. - Brad Guth