Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On Mar 25, 2:15*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:05 pm, OM wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:16:19 -0700, Timberwoof

wrote:
Don't you know anything about Lagrange polints?

...Sure he does. They were used essentially as "Green Stamps" for the
Chicken Ranch. Earn enough of them, and you could turn them in for
special rewards at the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.

Not that Guthball would know what to do with a woman if he had one...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OM

I take it that your brain transplant didn't take. *Are you planning to
sue their socks off? (I would)

ROFLMAO...

Good one, Brad. I was considering a labotomy joke about OM and you
beat me to it.

On Mar 26, 10:45 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:13 pm, "Sunny" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
depictions of that big old moon.
. - Brad Guth

Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?

31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud)
"Indeed, the Land Of *******s was born from the sea
only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few days after the
Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of it,"

He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?

You know, this topic is not about Earth always having that moon.
Perhaps the entro of this topic wasn't making that clear enough.

If you folks can specify as to where the gravity/tidal energy that's
derived from our orbiting mascon is going, as into other than making
heat for our global environment, please do just that.

Why other than adding heat to the oceans? That's the right answer.
Friction heats things up.

So, Earth as a whole being at least 98.5% fluid, where exactly is all
of that gravity/tidal energy going?


For example; How much of our magnetosphere is affected by and/or
caused by having such a nearby and horrifically massive moon?

I have news for you. Magnetic fields aren't affected by mass; they're
affected by electrical charge and magnetism.

I have news that Earth is 98.5% fluid. Go figure otherwise.


And hah. The moon is only .012 the mass of the earth, yet to you that's
"horrifically massive". You're still stunk on adjectives instead of
numbers.

That moon is well over a thousand fold more massive per planet ratio
than any other. You're such a deeply profound naysayer, aren't you.
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 26, 10:45 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:13 pm, "Sunny" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
depictions of that big old moon.
. - Brad Guth

Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?

31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud)
"Indeed, the Land Of *******s was born from the sea
only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few days after the
Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of it,"

He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?

You know, this topic is not about Earth always having that moon.
Perhaps the entro of this topic wasn't making that clear enough.

If you folks can specify as to where the gravity/tidal energy that's
derived from our orbiting mascon is going, as into other than making
heat for our global environment, please do just that.

Why other than adding heat to the oceans? That's the right answer.
Friction heats things up.

So, Earth as a whole being at least 98.5% fluid, where exactly is all
of that gravity/tidal energy going?

Into adding heat to the water. It's not very much. It's not measurable,
but you could calculate it.

For example; How much of our magnetosphere is affected by and/or
caused by having such a nearby and horrifically massive moon?

I have news for you. Magnetic fields aren't affected by mass; they're
affected by electrical charge and magnetism.

I have news that Earth is 98.5% fluid. Go figure otherwise.

This doesn't change the answer to your question: the moon's mass does
not directly affect the earth's magnetic field.

And hah. The moon is only .012 the mass of the earth, yet to you that's
"horrifically massive". You're still stunk on adjectives instead of
numbers.

That moon is well over a thousand fold more massive per planet ratio
than any other. Y

So? It still has no effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

ou're such a deeply profound naysayer, aren't you.

No, I'm not.

--
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 Mar 26, 2:38 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:45 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:13 pm, "Sunny" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than 12,500 BP is
not going prove that Earth always had a moon and a seasonal tilt, that
is unless such older caves are much older and proven as such having
depictions of that big old moon.
. - Brad Guth

Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads claim ?

31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud)
"Indeed, the Land Of *******s was born from the sea
only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few days after the
Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of it,"

He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?

You know, this topic is not about Earth always having that moon.
Perhaps the entro of this topic wasn't making that clear enough.

If you folks can specify as to where the gravity/tidal energy that's
derived from our orbiting mascon is going, as into other than making
heat for our global environment, please do just that.

Why other than adding heat to the oceans? That's the right answer.
Friction heats things up.

So, Earth as a whole being at least 98.5% fluid, where exactly is all
of that gravity/tidal energy going?

Into adding heat to the water. It's not very much. It's not measurable,
but you could calculate it.

Earth's oceans are not 0.1% of what's fluid about our planet.

What part or portion of the binding gravity/tidal 2e20 N worth of
centripetal force per each and every second are you electing to forget
about?


For example; How much of our magnetosphere is affected by and/or
caused by having such a nearby and horrifically massive moon?

I have news for you. Magnetic fields aren't affected by mass; they're
affected by electrical charge and magnetism.

I have news that Earth is 98.5% fluid. Go figure otherwise.

This doesn't change the answer to your question: the moon's mass does
not directly affect the earth's magnetic field.

But indirectly it does? (so what's the difference?)


And hah. The moon is only .012 the mass of the earth, yet to you that's
"horrifically massive". You're still stunk on adjectives instead of
numbers.

That moon is well over a thousand fold more massive per planet ratio
than any other.

So? It still has no effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

And our peer replicated science for this is ?????


You're such a deeply profound naysayer, aren't you.

No, I'm not.

Guess what; your "No, I'm not" is even worse yet, as being a naysayer
in denial.
.. - Brad Guth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 26, 2:38 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:45 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article

om,

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:13 pm, "Sunny" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message


roups.co m...

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than
12,500 BP is not going prove that Earth always had a moon
and a seasonal tilt, that is unless such older caves are
much older and proven as such having depictions of that big
old moon. . - Brad Guth

Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads
claim ?

31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud) "Indeed, the Land Of *******s
was born from the sea only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few
days after the Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of
it,"

He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?

You know, this topic is not about Earth always having that
moon. Perhaps the entro of this topic wasn't making that
clear enough.

If you folks can specify as to where the gravity/tidal energy
that's derived from our orbiting mascon is going, as into
other than making heat for our global environment, please do
just that.

Why other than adding heat to the oceans? That's the right
answer. Friction heats things up.

So, Earth as a whole being at least 98.5% fluid, where exactly is
all of that gravity/tidal energy going?

Into adding heat to the water. It's not very much. It's not
measurable, but you could calculate it.

Earth's oceans are not 0.1% of what's fluid about our planet.

What part or portion of the binding gravity/tidal 2e20 N worth of
centripetal force per each and every second are you electing to
forget about?

You tell me. If you're going to pretend to know so much, then you
calculate the answers yourself.

For example; How much of our magnetosphere is affected by
and/or caused by having such a nearby and horrifically
massive moon?

I have news for you. Magnetic fields aren't affected by mass;
they're affected by electrical charge and magnetism.

I have news that Earth is 98.5% fluid. Go figure otherwise.

This doesn't change the answer to your question: the moon's mass
does not directly affect the earth's magnetic field.

But indirectly it does? (so what's the difference?)

If the moon's orbit slows the Earth's rotation, that affects ever so
slightly how the core creates the magnetic field. But the moon itself
has little direct effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

And hah. The moon is only .012 the mass of the earth, yet to
you that's "horrifically massive". You're still stunk on
adjectives instead of numbers.

That moon is well over a thousand fold more massive per planet
ratio than any other.

So? It still has no effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

And our peer replicated science for this is ?????

Satellites and lunar probes measuring magnetic fields.

You're such a deeply profound naysayer, aren't you.

No, I'm not.

Guess what; your "No, I'm not" is even worse yet, as being a naysayer
in denial. . - Brad Guth

No, it isn't. You're wrong. You can't prove I'm a naysayer.

--
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.

Timberwoof wrote:
In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 26, 2:38 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:45 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article

om,

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:13 pm, "Sunny" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message


roups.co m...

At any rate, even if gong back a whole lot further than
12,500 BP is not going prove that Earth always had a moon
and a seasonal tilt, that is unless such older caves are
much older and proven as such having depictions of that big
old moon. . - Brad Guth

Can anyone give a rational explanation to this boofheads
claim ?

31 Jan 06 : (JP Turcaud) "Indeed, the Land Of *******s
was born from the sea only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few
days after the Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of
it,"

He also claims the equator ran North/South at one time?

You know, this topic is not about Earth always having that
moon. Perhaps the entro of this topic wasn't making that
clear enough.

If you folks can specify as to where the gravity/tidal energy
that's derived from our orbiting mascon is going, as into
other than making heat for our global environment, please do
just that.

Why other than adding heat to the oceans? That's the right
answer. Friction heats things up.

So, Earth as a whole being at least 98.5% fluid, where exactly is
all of that gravity/tidal energy going?

Into adding heat to the water. It's not very much. It's not
measurable, but you could calculate it.

Earth's oceans are not 0.1% of what's fluid about our planet.

What part or portion of the binding gravity/tidal 2e20 N worth of
centripetal force per each and every second are you electing to
forget about?

You tell me. If you're going to pretend to know so much, then you
calculate the answers yourself.

Been there and done that, as well as having posted such a swag, of
which is more than you have done.


For example; How much of our magnetosphere is affected by
and/or caused by having such a nearby and horrifically
massive moon?

I have news for you. Magnetic fields aren't affected by mass;
they're affected by electrical charge and magnetism.

I have news that Earth is 98.5% fluid. Go figure otherwise.

This doesn't change the answer to your question: the moon's mass
does not directly affect the earth's magnetic field.

But indirectly it does? (so what's the difference?)

If the moon's orbit slows the Earth's rotation, that affects ever so
slightly how the core creates the magnetic field. But the moon itself
has little direct effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

So, by your conditional laws of physics, Earth getting impacted and
seasonal tilted by an icy proto-moon that didn't create, modify or
otherwise since cause any part of or having since dragged upon Earth's
magnetosphere because it always existed as is from the very get-go.
(now that's what I'd call interesting science w/o numbers)


And hah. The moon is only .012 the mass of the earth, yet to
you that's "horrifically massive". You're still stunk on
adjectives instead of numbers.

That moon is well over a thousand fold more massive per planet
ratio than any other.

So? It still has no effect on the Earth's magnetic field.

And our peer replicated science for this is ?????

Satellites and lunar probes measuring magnetic fields.

Oddly again w/o actual numbers outside of whatever's interpreted and
published by what our faith-based NASA has to say.

And your public accessible science from the moon's L1 is ???????

What was the worth of our magnetosphere prior to getting impacted by
our icy proto-moon, say as of 25,000 BP?

BTW, as related to Earth, what's the ongoing energy and polarity of
our moon?


You're such a deeply profound naysayer, aren't you.

No, I'm not.

Guess what; your "No, I'm not" is even worse yet, as being a naysayer
in denial. . - Brad Guth

No, it isn't. You're wrong. You can't prove I'm a naysayer.

I also can't prove that Muslims had WMD, but I can prove there's a
million and counting worth of dead Muslims anyway, not to mention the
$5+ trillion per year of your global inflation to deal with. (are you
naysay guys good, or what)
.. - Brad Guth

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?
. - Brad Guth

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:

On Mar 16, 12:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:

snip whinging about The Scientific Establishment not having a mind
sufficiently open to accept Brag Guth's Velikovskian flights of fancy
which even he cannot date consistently to 10,500 YA or 25,000 YA.)

I'm to guess, there's some kind of silly insider bylaws imposed
against whatever computer simulations of Earth w/o moon,

You're only ****ed off because you don't understand the math and you
can't get anyone to do it for you.

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.

Maybe it has to do with there being zero evidence for that event.

Go
figure, as to where the 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force is
otherwise going?

Into slowing down the Earth's rotation and sending the moon farther
away.

--
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 Mar 29, 10:33 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:31 pm, BradGuth wrote:

snip whinging about The Scientific Establishment not having a mind
sufficiently open to accept BragGuth'sVelikovskian flights of fancy
which even he cannot date consistently to 10,500 YA or 25,000 YA.)

I'm to guess, there's some kind of silly insider bylaws imposed
against whatever computer simulations of Earth w/o moon,

You're only ****ed off because you don't understand the math and you
can't get anyone to do it for you.

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.

Maybe it has to do with there being zero evidence for that event.

Go
figure, as to where the 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force is
otherwise going?

Into slowing down the Earth's rotation and sending the moon farther
away.

--
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.

Unlike yourself, I'll stick with those pesky regular laws of physics
and of the best available peer replicated science that can also be
simulated to your black heart's content, of which thus far your
insider skewed track on this argument can't manage go to all that far
back in time, on behalf of showing Earth as always having that
horrific orbiting mascon of ours, that is unless the human species
surviving the last ice-age were nearly blind, still walking on all
fours and otherwise too dumbfounded to ever take a step outside of
their rather nicely hand painted and hand carved caves.

There's 2e20 N worth of mutual gravity/tidal force that's ongoing per
each and every orbiting second, and to think you folks don't much care
to admit that any portion of such force converted into internal,
surface and atmospheric friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth as becoming
thermal energy is simply not nearly as stealth or invisible as were
all of those Muslim WMD, or as forever lost as those NASA/Apollo cows
that are never coming home.

For some odd reason(s), each of our spendy and impressive public
owned supercomputer simulators are taboo/nondisclosure or sequestered
as purely need-to-know worthy, in that even the most fundamental
basics of interactive 3D orbital simulations viewing the passage of
Venus along with Earth or even of elsewhere above the horizon of our
moon, as so easily viewed from our physically dark moon, is
continually kept off-limits, much less available for running those
complex simulations on behalf of this topic.

Of course our official and unofficial spooks and moles of the
mainstream status quo like yourself don't have viable truth options,
other than going along with whatever those often Semitic MIB in charge
of your private parts are telling their brown-nosed minions to do, or
else.
. - Brad Guth

On Mar 24, 10:54*pm, BradGuth wrote:

"are claimed to have invented" is science?

It may be, if there's a valid reason for the claims. Like I said, I'm
not an archaeoastronomical expert myself, but there are folks who
are. I would suggest, if their findings are that disturbing to
you...and if you are seriously proposing this hypothesis and not just
dicking around on the Internet...that you go to the archaeological
journals, and perhaps a few textbooks, and find out what those reasons
are, and deal with the matter on that basis. "It doesn't look like
the Moon to me" is a classic Argument from Personal Ignorance, and at
any rate, I doubt very much if the actual claims made in the
literature are so simplistic as "It looks sort of like the Moon to
me".

For something as big or bigger than any other influence upon life on
Earth (second only to the sun), seems that moon wasn't getting
depicted as very large. *Perhaps it was orbiting much further away and
not nearly as bright (unlikely), or perhaps those early humans had
extremely poor eye sight.

Or perhaps, like almost everyone else on the planet Earth before the
Renaissance, Paleolithic artists had no sense of perspective or scale.

BTW, the age of those drawings within caves at Lascaux France are only
estimated at 15,000 BP (not proven). *They could be as recent as
12,000 BP or possibly even somewhat more recent.

Yes, sir. There are, of course, plenty of older cave paintings and
bone artifacts which are taken as evidence for the claim.