Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:42:21 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

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.

There s no reason why such an event would pick and choose which
molecules to take.


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

An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

On May 31, 12:18 am, David Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:42:21 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
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.

There s no reason why such an event would pick and choose which
molecules to take.



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

An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going
on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot)

And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever
proves ????

Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so
deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned
supercomputers?

Why are you folks always so afraid to uncover truths, and much worse
at sharing truths?
.. - Brad Guth

Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif

Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently
only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the
relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely
moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that
existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth.

Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as
impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow.

In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would
also have required an impact with something of considerably larger
diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that
moon arrived at Earth.

Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type
of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid
that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase
ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had
recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into
that white dwarf.

Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been
deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy.
. – 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.

If that's what your simulation has to say, then so be it. We look
forwards to having a look-see at those complex though impressive
computer simulated results.

BTW; Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif

Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently
only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the
relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely
moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that
existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth.

Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as
impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow.

In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would
also have required an impact with something of considerably larger
diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that
moon arrived at Earth.

Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type
of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid
that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase
ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had
recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into
that white dwarf.

Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been
deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy.
. – Brad Guth

On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going
on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot)

And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever
proves ????

I have no such thing.


Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so
deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned
supercomputers?

Is there some reason why you accuse everyone who thinks that you are
an idiot of working for DARPA? DARPA only employs about 140 people.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:41:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, David
Johnston made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going
on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot)

And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever
proves ????

I have no such thing.


Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so
deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned
supercomputers?

Is there some reason why you accuse everyone who thinks that you are
an idiot of working for DARPA?

Yes, there is. In case you haven't noticed, he's out of his mind.
Please stop encouraging him.

On May 31, 12:41 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth

wrote:
An excellent indication that the Earth has never encountered an "icy
proto-Moon.

There's nothing excellent or otherwise about it. What are you? (going
on 50 but still less than a 5th grader, and a Zionist to boot)

And your fully 3D interactive simulator is offering whatever
proves ????

I have no such thing.

Be sure to let us know when you do.


Is there some good reason(s) why DARPA folks like yourself are so
deathly afraid to run this kind of simulation within our public owned
supercomputers?

Is there some reason why you accuse everyone who thinks that you are
an idiot of working for DARPA? DARPA only employs about 140 people.

OK, if you can actually believe in whatever our government records
have to offer (obviously you'll believe in anything government
published), but lo and behold they're mostly Zionist/Nazi types within
DARPA, and as such they get to spend as much of our hard earned loot
with no accounting or other strings attached. They also have an
unlimited supply of brown-nosed clowns and throughly dumbfounded
minions like yourself.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 31, 3:24*pm, 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.

If that's what your simulation has to say, then so be it. *We look
forwards to having a look-see at those complex though impressive
computer simulated results.

BTW; *Earth w/o moon is also moon w/o South Pole-Aitken basin.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aitken_clem_big.gif

Our moon’s South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km in diameter is currently
only 13 km deep, offers a perfectly darn good example of the
relatively shallow nature of such a horrific impact, as most likely
moderated in depth due to the moon’s thick coating of surface ice that
existed prior to the lithobraking encounter with Earth.

Of several other largest of craters are approximately 10% as
impressive, or roughly 200 km in diameter and equally shallow.

In order to have produced the South Pole-Aitken basin of 2500 km would
also have required an impact with something of considerably larger
diameter, such as Earth or possibly Mars got in the way before that
moon arrived at Earth.

Once again, a good supercomputer could have nicely simulated this type
of multiple encounters with such an icy proto-moon or icy planetoid
that was merging with our solar system after being red giant phase
ejected from the complex Sirius-A/B star/solar system that had
recently burned through 4x solar mass upon converting Sirius-B into
that white dwarf.

Of course, for all we know, Earth or at least Venus may also have been
deployed into orbiting Sol by way of that same analogy.
. – Brad Guth

Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been
considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru")
interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for
mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect
eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over
the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for
some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big
Bang" proponent.

So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time
traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set
by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression
of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light
was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point
will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal
symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO
itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where
the "Big Bang" process starts all over again.

Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there
are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum
level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this
were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel"
universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are
currently "sequestered" to.


American

In article
,
American wrote:


Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been
considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru")
interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for
mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect
eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over
the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for
some to take notice). If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big
Bang" proponent.

So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time
traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set
by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression
of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light
was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point
will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal
symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO
itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where
the "Big Bang" process starts all over again.

Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there
are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum
level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this
were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel"
universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are
currently "sequestered" to.

The most "notable" thing about your "essay" is the "superfluous" use of
"quotation marks" throughout. It's "difficult" to tell whether you're
using them as "scare quotes" or as "emphasis". The first "possibility"
simply means that you place "quotation marks" around things you want to
imply "doubt" about in the reader's "mind". The second "possibility" is
that you are using the "quotation" marks not to delineate "what someone
said" but simply to make people pay more "attention" to the specific
words you thing are "important".

What does an ancient Sumerian legend mistaken as a prophecy have to do
with solar eclipses and the big bang? Do you not believe that the "Big
Bang" happened? Are you "familiar" with the "evidence" for the "Big
Bang"? Do you think that your little pet "hypothesis" about multiple
"Big Bangs" is new?

--
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 31, 5:56*pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



*American wrote:
Just wondering if the "old" Schumann wavelength would have been
considerably altered enough to cause a "2012 event" (aka "Nibiru")
interceding, but in subversion to "constructing a foundation" for
mysterious events such as "tachyon grid shifting", during a "perfect
eclipse". I mean, ever notice how perfectly the moon "fits" right over
the sun during a total lunar eclipse? (Maybe that's too obvious for
some to take notice). *If I am correct in assuming, you are a "Big
Bang" proponent.

So if you are a "Big Bang" proponent, then this means that a "time
traveler" into the past will reach an endpoint, that "point" being set
by the limits of his machinery to withstand the ultimate compression
of spacetime, and incidentally, a "spacetime" where the speed of light
was a great deal "faster" than it is today. So IMO ultimately, a point
will be reached that this "spacetime" will, because of "universal
symmetry" or "supersymmetry" (also a GUT phenomenon) IMPLODE INTO
itself, and then outward again, into some counter-rotated form, where
the "Big Bang" process starts all over again.

Why not imagine that, rather than having a single "Big Bang", there
are similar micro-spacetime "micro-bangs" occurring at some quantum
level, every instant, everywhere, in our "present" universe? If this
were the case, then I surmise that there are real, "parallel"
universes that are also "supersymmetric" to the ones that we are
currently "sequestered" to.

The most "notable" thing about your "essay" is the "superfluous" use of
"quotation marks" throughout. It's "difficult" to tell whether you're
using them as "scare quotes" or as "emphasis". The first "possibility"
simply means that you place "quotation marks" around things you want to
imply "doubt" about in the reader's "mind". The second "possibility" is
that you are using the "quotation" marks not to delineate "what someone
said" but simply to make people pay more "attention" to the specific
words you thing are "important".

What does an ancient Sumerian legend mistaken as a prophecy have to do
with solar eclipses and the big bang? Do you not believe that the "Big
Bang" happened? Are you "familiar" with the "evidence" for the "Big
Bang"? Do you think that your little pet "hypothesis" about multiple
"Big Bangs" is new?

--
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.

Too bad that the absence of italics formed text puts google software
back in the luddite category. (I could do without the exaggerated
dramatization of the non-italicized lingo) Quotations DO seem to be
somewhat "superflous" - sort of like "eyebrows" that are supposed to
be "raised" everytime they're being used.

As to your alluding to the fact that some "ancient Sumerian legend" (I
put quotes around these words to emphasize that they are "yours"), I'm
under the impression that this idea (legend mistaken as a prophecy)
makes one believe that certain FACTS are being misconstrued in order
to interfere with the actual purpose and design of this habitable part
of the galaxy as being more by "accident" than it was by "grand
design". My question to you is, if life on this planet was by
"accident", then is the human species just some kind of "excretion" of
a larger consciousness, being full of some nature of co-dependency, or
if life was by some "grand design", then is our ultimate purpose in
life to seek out with all of our might who our Creator actually is?

If you can answer either of these questions, then I can also assume
that either (1) the perfectly fitted solar eclipse is also an
"accident", or (2) the solar eclipse is NOT an accident and was "put"
there by some grand design(er). If your answer is (1), then I can
prove to you that the Magyary phenomenon (1961) revealed that the Sun
actually deprived the Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth
during a solar eclipse. Why is this important? This is important
because it makes the present universe just another superfluous one
among an infinite number of parallel universes, with an infinite
number of earth/moon vs. earth w/o moon systems. So which one are you
going to pick? Let me give you a hint: Even if you pick either system,
you still haven't narrowed the choice down to the "right choice".

If however, your choice is (2), then you are on at least the right
track in believing that by some grand design, the Sun deprived the
Moon of part of its mass effect on the earth for a "reason". Now, if
you are one who does not believe in an absolute "reason" for all that
exists in this universe, then you must either decide that (1) a bridge
to the unknown must be made by faith, or (2) a bridge to the unknown
must be made by "reason". Which one do you believe?


American