|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth
As per usual, your nayism is clearly in charge of your intellectual
private parts that are not otherwise in perpetual denial of being in denial. . - Brad Guth Timberwoof wrote: In article , BradGuth wrote: On Mar 17, 7:44 pm, Timberwoof wrote: In article , 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. So what's your point? "extremely close"? Look, orbital mechanics has no room for wishy-washy nonmathematical, qualitative analysis. The *only* way that you can make any sense out of orbits is to provide concrete numbers with which people can do calculations. Venus gets to within 100X that distance of our moon, and for its size that's nearly NEO worthy. No, it's not. Unlike you, it's in a fairly stable orbit. As I'd said, we'll need that supercomputer running off those millions of what-if simulations. Seems like a waste of time to me. It's so hard for you to use present circumstances to extrapolate into the past that you want to calculate huge numbers of possible starting conditions and hope that one of them results in what we see today. Never mind that it's a chaotic (that's a technical term with a specific meaning. You better learn it before you argue it or use it yourself) system and the slightest change in starting conditions can yield enormous changes in the final result. Never mind that if nothing is found, you can always say that one didn't look hard enough. That technique is not scientific. Simple examples: The moon at its farthest is closer than Venus at its closest. So how do you say that the moon is closer than extremely close? Mars at its closest is closer than Venus at its farthest. How do you say that? Pretty far and really far? And Jupiter is really really far, but Saturn is extremely far? Without numbers, it's all useless. What exactly do you not understand about a lithobraking encounter of an icy proto-moon (be it complex)? The part about how there's no scar on the Earth and how the Earth's surface is a lot older than 12,000 years. What kind of a scar does an icy proto-moon (with a thick and steaming atmosphere of its own) make, as it impacts an icy terrestrial ocean? Are you not aware of the Chixulub impact and what that did? You're asking us to believe something immensely more massive and in the geologic recent past ... yet there's zero evidence for it. While you're at it; do tell us where that terrific arctic ocean basin came from? It's not all that terrific. It just doesn't have any continental crust in it. Just like the other oceans. Certainly not from the moon hitting it and ending up in a circular equatorial orbit. How about telling us when Earth got the vast majority of its seasonal tilt? Probably when a Mars-size planet hit the Proto-Earth sometime after the Iron Catastrophe, early in the formation of the solar system. (BTW, most of that planet is not in orbit around the Earth.) At least you admit that such multibody encounters do happen. -ed. Good grief, unfortunately you're not hardly trying, I don't have to. except all that you can muster in order to foil this argument. There's likely more to this plot than just a simple two hard-body interaction. Thought I'd said we needed a supercomputer, and otherwise not your nayism mindset that's forever mainstream cesspool stuck in the muck, that which simply isn't nearly supercomputer worthy. Feh. More ad-hominem. You don't have the faintest clue about orbital mechanics and you want someone else to do your handwaving calculations for you. -- 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth | BradGuth | Policy | 523 | June 20th 08 07:17 PM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | LIBERATOR | Space Shuttle | 39 | April 22nd 06 08:40 AM |
Aliens based on moon Brad Guth please review | honestjohn | Misc | 2 | April 19th 06 05:55 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | History | 13 | December 15th 03 08:13 PM |
Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA | Ami Silberman | Astronomy Misc | 13 | December 15th 03 08:13 PM |