Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

He's going to claim the Moon only recently went into Earth orbit - a few
thousand years ago, no doubt brought here by aliens. :-)

So, then, the Moon was an alien nuclear waste dumping ground?


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On May 13, 11:34 am, wrote:
On May 13, 9:58 am, BradGuth wrote:

Most humans are faith-based sequestered within a very cozy box, and
no amount of physics or science is ever going to alter their swarm like
mindset.

I'd agree, especially religious nuts that haven't one fact-supported
leg to stand on.

Any ancient sun etchings?

I think so, although the sun being the every day by day norm, as well
as associated with the 24 hour solar gravity driven tide (roughly half
that of our lunar forced tides) might make the sun somewhat common
place and otherwise not the least bit unusual.

So you don't know. I'd assume there must be thousands just based on
logic alone. And again a full moon appears very bright on a clear
night. So it would be impossible to say that no etching of the moon
exists if there's thousands of etchings of the sun since moon etchings
could easily be misread as being the sun.
So saying there's no moon etchings is really impossible.

I agree, that of such a cold sun that would have made those crystal
clear and snowy frosty-white nights into day, as such should have been
hard not to take notice of, as well as harder yet not to take
advantage of.


Here's a point that actually favors your view. A crescent shaped moon
could actually be the sun since while the sun never crescents (it's
always a full sun) it actually does crescent abruptly during solar
eclipses. So even if there were a crescent shaped object drawn, it
could mean the sun or a coconut lying in the sun for that matter. But
bottom line is that arguing whether there is or isn't moon etchings is
rather futile and pointless since you don't know for sure the source
of an etching.

You can always put-up or shut-up at any time. Don’t let little old me
stand in your way.


You might argue however that very few etches of moon shaped objects
exist, which doesn't make any sence since the sun and moon would be
two of the most fascinating subjects back then. Can the percentage of
round object etchings even be half accurately calculated is a hurdle
in itself. Unfortunately only after such an estimation was properly
done could the moon-arrived-after-humans postulation be made. With me?

Not really, because the rational and perfectly deductive evidence
provided by such an advanced and highly survival intelligent species
of humans should have noticed and taken advantage of that moon, as of
prior to 12,500 BP.


I'm talking of annual migration that apparently didn't take place
prior to 12,500 BP.

Now this is your best argument so far, that the moon arrived after
humans, not cave etchings. You're saying had there been a moon during
the last ice age, the earth would have the tilt and seasonal sway it
has today and this seasonal sway would mean death for all humans
during the coldest decades of the last ice age because humans couldn't
live on ice alone, nor live near the ice too since the sway would melt
the ice near the edges flooding already killed off folliage and animal
life, nor live productively constantly moving inside the dynamic warm
zones. Since humans did survive, the static earth theory makes much
more sense.

I call it a monoseason environment, whereas you really didn’t have to
migrate due to seasonal changes, because such seasonal changes were
somewhat minor.


Unfortunately this brings up another issue: couldn't the earth still
sway and tilt without the moon? Of course. So this one goes out with
the etching argument.
I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that it's tough to prove.

There was an elliptical orbit factor (worse off than once having our
moon), and likely some tilt consideration.


I agree with taller folks and of their ice-age
environment having considerably greater O2, as well as greater
atmospheric density/pressure.

At least that's what's reported, which btw I always take with a grain
fo salt .. especially these days! No especially those days too. This
is the big hurdle, what is recorded that is indeed actual facts and
what isn't. You simply cannot rely on publicized words alone to make
conclusions for issues like this.

Furthermore without earth tilt, the poles would be cooler and equator
much warmer than today. So there would be more chance for massive warm
areas during the oldest parts of ice ages.

I agree, with much less seasonal tilt and only a third the global
ocean tidal action w/o moon,

Tides are 100% meaningless wrt this topic.

Not so meaningless if you lived anywhere near an ocean, of which most
did.


BTW if the earth is 98% molten lava and the tides in your mind are so
significant why then don't we have still have massive quakes and
eruptions constantly with 15 feet X 1 billion square miles of lava
constantly swishing about? Answer tides are meaningless and so is
interior lava tides since no such massive action occurs.

Earth is at least 98.5% fluid, and I’d said it first. (terribly sorry
about that)


Here's where you might call me a kook, I think (no where near sure
yet) that the moon is magnitudes smaller than the authorities lead on.
If the moon were as big than such internal tiding would be disasterous
even today. Furthermore, the area between the eyes is a mear 1.5" Take
a good look at the moon during an full night time solar eclipse. The
moon appears very near, you'd swear it seems to hang there in the sky
like about 100 miles away or so. It definitely appears to be 3-D. Any
good grade 8 algebra student can tell you that in order for the moon
to be over 200,000 miles away it would be impossible to appear in 3-D
looking through two dots just 1.5" appart. It would have to be a lot
closer to appear in 3D. Again this is just a current belief, and I
change my mind about everything a dozen times. The true distance could
be calculated by taking two pictures simultatneously, one from on the
ground and one from someone exactly in the direction of the moon from
the guy on the ground from a very high airplane. The cameras and
settings would have to be identical. Then you could measure the
circumference difference. If they are the same, than out goes the 100
mile away moon. Telescopes with cameras might
be able to be used too. I went of the deep end here, I know.

Thank your lucky stars, at least you didn’t fall off the edge of
Earth. Have faith that the physically dark and nasty moon is in fact
quite big and robust at 7.35e22 kg, and that it’s also the primary
reason or cause for global warming.

2e20 N/sec of mutual gravity/tidal interaction is not insignificant
once converted into hourly energy potential. At half the orbital
distance we’re talking of more tidal interaction than is likely
survivable by most of dry-land species. At a 1/4 the orbital distance
and perhaps nothing much goes unflooded twice a day, not to mention
all terrestrial ice melted and that of our geothermal and geophysical
trauma from the inside-out goes absolutely postal to boot.


as such would have made our poles much
colder and of considerably greater icy, snowy and surface frozen area,
possibly even icy/frosty into the tropics by night. That doesn't give
much dry land that's warm enough for the likes of fuzzy naked humans.

Good point. Very true.

I'm not sure about that double lifespan, as it had to have been a
tough environment with lots of other better adapted, tougher and
meaner life continually trying to eat you alive.

I've heard/read some people lived to be 800 years old back then, but
againt, reports have proven to be 100% bogus besides how could such a
determination be made with 100% certainty anyway.

Where’s that faith in subjective science you keep using whenever it’s
handy or necessary? (are you faith-based bipolar? or perhaps
something worse?)


Now here's where we seriously part company or should I say you part
company with logic. You are saying you believe in multiple serious
asteroid/moonlet/planet-to-earth smackdowns occured. Such events would
be totally catastrophic for multiple lifeforms on earth, humans
included no?

Yes (what's your point?)

My point is that you and me are here right? Therefore, that theory is
wrong.
We wouldn't be able to survive the impact. John Lear (Google) claims
the moon was "magnetically towed" here by "grey men." That's something
I laughed at at first but if the moon were indeed very small and these
men very advanced ... . But I also take John Lear's word with a grain
of salt. This guy though seemingly very intelligent has made several
blatent and very provable lies already.

Who ever said that hardly any of the surface dwelling life survived.
I’m thinking as much as a 90% die-off, and perhaps 75% of ocean life
didn’t make it (those of us in deep enough caves and well above sea
level did best). You got some good idea as to where the of millions
of us survival smart humans suddenly went? (I didn’t think so)


Are you saying you know of where all the hundreds of millions of our
human species that existed as of during and prior to the very last ice-
age this planet w/moon is ever going to see, went?

Yeah, manure .. or crematory ash.

I’d have to agree with that, as the surface of Earth got a rather
serious hicky kiss or icy sucker punch of death from God. Call it an
evolutionary RESET.


And if some humans survived, where's the etchings of one of these
events, the biggest event of all time, certainly there would be
permanent records somewhere.
You're not thinking clear, or perhaps not thinking at all, other than
being naysay as to anything that's outside of your cozy Darwin box.

Don't understand your problem with that statement, but skip it anyway
and stick to your views. I'm the one doing the most questioning, how
can I be cozy in a box?
My box has windows on all four walls and a sunroof. I'm planning a
sunfloor too.

Did it suddenly evolve from the same swampy cesspool?
Is it sufficiently fire proof, and does it float nicely?
Does it run on hydrogen or h2o2plus synfuel?
How does it hold up to a direct tornado hit?


One last thing, can you answer my original questions. I know you
cannot because what you've said is 100% impossible. I think what you
meant to say was "I" have never seen ancient moon etchings after
hunting around for some on the internet. Is this closer to the truth
than no such etchings exist?
If you've got such old (prior to 12,500 BP) etchings of anything
remotely moon like, then simply fork them over. Isn't share and share
alike any part of your mostly subjective based mindset?

So I was right, you just personally haven't seen any ancient moon
etchings. Ok your late-arrival indirect answer suffices. My advice to
you is be more factual, you are very limited being an army of one.

I guess I’ll need the same kind of blind faith that you have, such as
your faith in all things subjective, as though such is the one and
only word of God or better that of our puppet government that you
think never makes mistakes, never tells a lie, or ever bothers to do a
damn fine damage-control job of covering their butt. You say you’re
from the planet Denial?


Unlike yourself, at least my mindset is wide open until peer
replicated science that's objective, informs us otherwise.

Mine too, but lies and ducking questions are things I hate. You must
hate them too as I see all the trolls here constantly avoid your
questions.

Asking Hitler to accept the truth meant that you the good messenger of
whatever truth were soon going to be dead. The same thing happened
via that Pope having nailed those nice Cathars, and elsewhere of
countless millions upon millions in Russia, and then again with a few
of the GW Bush minions that didn’t go along with his lies either left
quietly, went missing in action or committed suicide.

"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
The Rothschilds as German Zionist/Nazi definitely had their firm
domination control of our past, in much the same way as DARPA and
Bacardi maintain their more recent grip on their past, present and
future, as well as their firm grasp of our private parts.
. - Brad Guth

On May 13, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

WHOA!

Brad, you know there's no ancient cave etchings of a moon? How you
know this? This is impossible unless you've been to every cave in the
world personally or hired a team to seek out every nook, cranny and
rock crevice.

Two: Was there no sun etchings either? If there was, how do you know
that a portion of the sun etchings weren't actually the moon? The moon
can appear really bright in the dead of night right? How about stars?
Nothing too?

Interested in your follow up here despite the thread being a month
old.

You don't see what he's driving at, do you?
He's going to claim the Moon only recently went into Earth orbit - a few
thousand years ago, no doubt brought here by aliens. :-)

Pat

If I wanted to get myself, family and friends (plus whatever pets,
livestock and plants) safely away from one solar system over to
another that wasn't going red giant anytime soon, and if there so
happened to be an icy proto-moon as headed off in that same
interstellar direction, as such I’d take my chances.

An icy proto-moon that has become somewhat rogue due to local
circumstances is actually a rather safe bet, don’t you think?
. – Brad Guth

wrote:
Unfortunately this brings up another issue: couldn't the earth still
sway and tilt without the moon?

It would tilt a lot more _without_ the Moon; the Moon keeps it upright
at its present degree of inclination to its axis of rotation, with the
axis point slowly moving in a circle over thousands of years against the
background stars:
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm
Without our large moon, we end up like Mars- where the axis of rotation
wandered all over the planet over millions of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2280991.stm

Of course. So this one goes out with
the etching argument.
I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that it's tough to prove.


Actually it's pretty easy to disprove; just look at the monthly growth
lines on fossil Nautilus shells:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-T...ys-54106.shtml
No Moon means no monthly tidal effects (or months for that matter) and
the fossils would have only yearly growth markings on them. So the Moon
has been around for at least 400 million years, although it's been
pulling slowly away from the Earth via the transfer of momentum to it
via the tides, causing it to climb into a higher orbit as Earth's daily
rotation slows down from the same effect.
Way, way down the line they both end up tidally locked - with the Earth
always having one face pointed towards the Moon, as the Moon presently
has facing toward Earth. At that point the Moon is 1/4 again as far from
Earth as it is now, and Earth has period of rotation of around forty of
our present days, a single Earth day then being around 960 hours long:
http://starryskies.com/articles/2007...ture-moon.html

Pat

On May 13, 2:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
Unfortunately this brings up another issue: couldn't the earth still
sway and tilt without the moon?

It would tilt a lot more _without_ the Moon; the Moon keeps it upright
at its present degree of inclination to its axis of rotation, with the
axis point slowly moving in a circle over thousands of years against the
background stars:http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm
Without our large moon, we end up like Mars- where the axis of rotation
wandered all over the planet over millions of years:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2280991.stm

Of course. So this one goes out with
the etching argument.
I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that it's tough to prove.

Actually it's pretty easy to disprove; just look at the monthly growth
lines on fossil Nautilus shells:http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-T...0-Hours-the-Te...
No Moon means no monthly tidal effects (or months for that matter) and
the fossils would have only yearly growth markings on them. So the Moon
has been around for at least 400 million years, although it's been
pulling slowly away from the Earth via the transfer of momentum to it
via the tides, causing it to climb into a higher orbit as Earth's daily
rotation slows down from the same effect.
Way, way down the line they both end up tidally locked - with the Earth
always having one face pointed towards the Moon, as the Moon presently
has facing toward Earth. At that point the Moon is 1/4 again as far from
Earth as it is now, and Earth has period of rotation of around forty of
our present days, a single Earth day then being around 960 hours long:http://starryskies.com/articles/2007...ture-moon.html

Pat

My goodness, your silly naysim is certainly getting the better of
yourself.

The solar tide all by itself is roughly worth one third of the
existing global ocean tidal action as we know it. Once again, you are
such a pagan born-again and otherwise totally proven intellectual
bigot.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 13, 2:53*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Actually it's pretty easy to disprove; just look at the monthly growth
lines on fossil Nautilus shells:http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-T...0-Hours-the-Te...
No Moon means no monthly tidal effects (or months for that matter) and
the fossils would have only yearly growth markings on them. So the Moon
has been around for at least 400 million years, although it's been
pulling slowly away from the Earth via the transfer of momentum to it
via the tides, causing it to climb into a higher orbit as Earth's daily
rotation slows down from the same effect.
Way, way down the line they both end up tidally locked - with the Earth
always having one face pointed towards the Moon, as the Moon presently
has facing toward Earth. At that point the Moon is 1/4 again as far from
Earth as it is now, and Earth has period of rotation of around forty of
our present days, a single Earth day then being around 960 hours long:http://starryskies.com/articles/2007...ture-moon.html

Pat

Damn, my bad spelling post still got posted.

Again tides don't play a role in anything. Proof: shrink the earth
down to the size of a house, The oceans would become mere paint.
That's how insignificant the entire oceans would be. Now tides are
what some 3-11 feet. If 1-25,000 feet equate to a coat of paint on a
house-sized earth, how much less significant is 3-11 feet? You guys
are really out to lunch with the tide b.s.

Steve

On May 13, 3:24 pm, wrote:
On May 13, 2:53 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Actually it's pretty easy to disprove; just look at the monthly growth
lines on fossil Nautilus shells:http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-T...0-Hours-the-Te...
No Moon means no monthly tidal effects (or months for that matter) and
the fossils would have only yearly growth markings on them. So the Moon
has been around for at least 400 million years, although it's been
pulling slowly away from the Earth via the transfer of momentum to it
via the tides, causing it to climb into a higher orbit as Earth's daily
rotation slows down from the same effect.
Way, way down the line they both end up tidally locked - with the Earth
always having one face pointed towards the Moon, as the Moon presently
has facing toward Earth. At that point the Moon is 1/4 again as far from
Earth as it is now, and Earth has period of rotation of around forty of
our present days, a single Earth day then being around 960 hours long:http://starryskies.com/articles/2007...ture-moon.html

Pat

Damn, my bad spelling post still got posted.

Again tides don't play a role in anything. Proof: shrink the earth
down to the size of a house, The oceans would become mere paint.
That's how insignificant the entire oceans would be. Now tides are
what some 3-11 feet. If 1-25,000 feet equate to a coat of paint on a
house-sized earth, how much less significant is 3-11 feet? You guys
are really out to lunch with the tide b.s.

Steve

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.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 13, 3:31*pm, 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.
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just connected with Brad!! Took four posts, but I did it.

Where's Pat?

On Tue, 13 May 2008 16:21:56 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

On May 13, 3:31*pm, 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.
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just connected with Brad!! Took four posts, but I did it.

You write that as though it's an accomplishment, rather than a crime
against humanity, and Brad.

Everyone who feeds his madness by responding to him is responsible for
him continuing to avoid obviously necessary mental treatment.

On May 13, 4:54*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

You write that as though it's an accomplishment, rather than a crime
against humanity, andBrad. *

Can't be both?! I believe I was the first to actually connect with him
in this entire thread so that's a feat like winning a small lotto!


Everyone who feeds his madness by responding to him is responsible for
him continuing to avoid obviously necessary mental treatment.

Come on, you read Brad's posts too. I tend to cheer on the underdog.
Call it a weakness. Oh you already did. Sorry.