Prev: best way to trashcan Nebular-dust-cloud is **neighborhood star ages** Re: (use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old; Atom Totality theory (use in 4th)
Next:  Eric Gisse promotes my web·site ( www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM ).
From: Brad Guth on 28 Feb 2010 11:54
On Feb 27, 9:14 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/10 11:04 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Its relatively low density interior and seismic ringing suggest that
> > it's anything but solid.
>
>    No--the chemistry and age suggest that moon was created from earth
>    crustal material with little iron, hence the over all density is
>    less that the terrestrial rock planets of the solar system.

There's far more evidence that our moon(Selene) was captured.

Most everything within our galaxy is the same age as Earth, although
perhaps a 4th is kinda newish, such as Sirius isn't a tenth as old.

Almost nothing of our NASA/Apollo era that's related to our moon is
objective.

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 28 Feb 2010 13:47
On Feb 28, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/10 10:54 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:14 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>     No--the chemistry and age suggest that moon was created from earth
> >>     crustal material with little iron, hence the over all density is
> >>     less that the terrestrial rock planets of the solar system.
>
> > There's far more evidence that our moon(Selene) was captured.
>
>    Cite ANY evidence, please!

The Arctic ocean basin that's a darn good match to the lunar south
polar crater, plus we have some of that nifty antipode push-up of
Antarctica that's not very old, and otherwise all sorts of broken
lithosphere and subsequent plate-tonics issues.

We have Earth's seasonal tilt as of roughly 13,000 BP (at least no
objective evidence otherwise).

No mention nor depictions of any such moon, moonlit nighttime, seasons
or seasonal migrations as of anything prior to 13,000 BP, but
otherwise terrific artistic and survival expertise and darn good self
awareness as of long before.

How about considering our global warming from the very last ice-age
this planet w/moon is ever going to see.

The unusually thick and mineral saturated lunar crust that's
physically dark, paramagnetic and otherwise unlike anything of Earth,
as well as representing 10+% of its lunar mass.

We have vasr terrestrial oceans of salty water that came from
somewhere (such as an icy Selene).

There’s also that near zero delta-V of Cruithne that’s never too far
away, at 1.3e14 kg (about right for a spent carbonado comet core) as a
somewhat second captured moon of ours (discovered long after our
Apollo missions), as also held by a fairly complex set of Newtonian
gravity constraints that’s a little odd but none the less stable.
Most likely this once icy Cruithne also bounced off something like
Earth (perhaps 65 million years ago), and thereby having lost/
transferred all of its icy payload in order to stick with us. Its
original comet payload of ice could have been worth <2.7e14 kg,
although its initial icy mass and date of encountering us is currently
unknown unless you’d care to reconsider that Yucatan impact site.

The physical elements or unusual attributes of Cruithne should prove
extremely interesting, but even though well enough within existing
resolution of present day astronomy, especially whenever it’s nearby
and otherwise easily viewed in detail by an inexpensive probe fly-by,
though unfortunately it’s still being kept pretty much taboo/
nondisclosure rated by those in charge of mainstream damage-control of
moons not being captured.

I've got more deductive logic to share, but if you remain as perpetual
naysay and willing to obfuscate whatever rocks your NASA/Apollo
mainstream boat, so what's the difference and why should I bother?

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 28 Feb 2010 15:59
On Feb 28, 11:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/10 12:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 2/28/10 10:54 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 27, 9:14 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>      No--the chemistry and age suggest that moon was created from earth
> >>>>      crustal material with little iron, hence the over all density is
> >>>>      less that the terrestrial rock planets of the solar system.
>
> >>> There's far more evidence that our moon(Selene) was captured.
>
> >>     Cite ANY evidence, please!
>
> > The Arctic ocean basin that's a darn good match to the lunar south
> > polar crater, plus we have some of that nifty antipode push-up of
> > Antarctica that's not very old, and otherwise all sorts of broken
> > lithosphere and subsequent plate-tonics issues.
>
> And this has to do with lunar capture, how?

Use what little is left of your mainstream status quo parrot
imagination.

>
> > We have Earth's seasonal tilt as of roughly 13,000 BP (at least no
> > objective evidence otherwise).
>
> Brad, we have evidence of seasonal tilt going back at least 800000
> years and beyond.
>
> You didn't cite anything! Do you know what a citation is?

Your purely subjective interpretation of such evidence and naysay/
denial of anything outside of your cozy box or parrot cage is noted.

Notice that I've never stated that the one and only seasonal tilt was
caused entirely by our capturing Selene. Before having a moon, our
Eden/Earth likely had some tilt, as well as also having ocean tides to
contend with.

Why is everything always all-or-nothing with those of your kind?

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 2 Mar 2010 09:25
On Feb 28, 11:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/10 12:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 2/28/10 10:54 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 27, 9:14 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>      No--the chemistry and age suggest that moon was created from earth
> >>>>      crustal material with little iron, hence the over all density is
> >>>>      less that the terrestrial rock planets of the solar system.
>
> >>> There's far more evidence that our moon(Selene) was captured.
>
> >>     Cite ANY evidence, please!
>
> > The Arctic ocean basin that's a darn good match to the lunar south
> > polar crater, plus we have some of that nifty antipode push-up of
> > Antarctica that's not very old, and otherwise all sorts of broken
> > lithosphere and subsequent plate-tonics issues.
>
> And this has to do with lunar capture, how?

Our captured moons(Selene & Cruithne)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/69ebb8cbe74e7e97?hl=en#

>
> > We have Earth's seasonal tilt as of roughly 13,000 BP (at least no
> > objective evidence otherwise).
>
> Brad, we have evidence of seasonal tilt going back at least 800000
> years and beyond.
>
> You didn't cite anything! Do you know what a citation is?

Do you know what a computer simulation is?

The best available science and those laws of physics are on my side of
this topic. There's simply no objective evidence that our
moon(Selene) is a solid rock, or that Earth has always had a seasonal
tilt and its moon as we know of today.

Notice how our crack NASA and DARPA combined can't manage to even get
a working probe onto our moon, and yet you expect others to believe
100% of anything and everything of whatever our Apollo fiasco of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war era has to say.

Your purely subjective interpretation of such mainstream evidence and
naysay/denial of anything outside of your cozy box or parrot cage is
noted.

Notice that I've never stated the one and only seasonal tilt was
caused entirely by our capturing Selene. Before having a moon, our
Eden/Earth likely had some tilt, as well as also having ocean tides to
contend with, because you don't need any moon for that to happen.

Why is everything always so all-or-nothing with those of your kind?

According to our William Mook, getting ourselves safely to/from our
moon with a 200+ tonne orbital package that includes a 100+ tonne
lander is no big deal, and according to our NASA/Apollo wizards that
supposedly know everything first hand, such fly-by-rocket landers do
not require momentum reaction wheels, our moon isn't even the least
bit physically dark, nor is it all that dusty or electrostatic
charged, as well as there are few if any surface exposed minerals to
go along with all of its crystal dry monochrome soil that always
nicely clumps. Also, the releasing of water and/or its vapor is not
the least bit of any problem, and it's not even nearly as hot by day
as you'd think. As well as meteors/debris of any size are hardly ever
passing by or impacting for as far and as long as anyone can see, it's
not even locally radioactive nor is anything (including their own
stuff) the least bit reactive to solar UV, and otherwise other planets
such as Venus are always invisible (including from orbit), whereas
apparently there's none of that pesky hot sodium that we can easily
detect from Earth.

So what exactly needs to be invented? (other than most everything from
scratch)

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 2 Mar 2010 10:17
On Mar 2, 7:03 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/10 8:25 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Do you know what a computer simulation is?
>
> > The best available science and those laws of physics are on my side of
> > this topic.  There's simply no objective evidence that our
> > moon(Selene) is a solid rock, or that Earth has always had a seasonal
> > tilt and its moon as we know of today.
>
>    You never cite any evidence in favor of your argument that the
>    moon was captured. Why is that?

Perhaps for the exact same reasons why you and others cite nothing
objective otherwise.

Are you saying that now you don't believe in computer simulations?

Have you some other notions as to why Earth is getting hotter from the
inside out?

Are you suggesting that the regular laws of physics simply do not
apply?

Are you saying that earlier humans of the last ice-age were simply too
well off and otherwise too dumbfounded to notice the moon, or to
utilize its nifty moonlight?

What is it about your religion (including Atheism) that excludes
anything outside of scriptures that only go back a few thousand years?

~ BG
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Prev: best way to trashcan Nebular-dust-cloud is **neighborhood star ages** Re: (use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old; Atom Totality theory (use in 4th)
Next:  Eric Gisse promotes my web·site ( www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM ).