Our 0.1<1% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad Guth
in [Physics]
|
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: Hagar on 2 Mar 2010 10:53 "Brad Guth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6b482204-edcf-4e34-809a-1b04371aa51a(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... 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? Of course he doesn't ... even if he did, it would have to enter the world through his sphincter, because all of his greatest theories are stored in his colon.
From: Brad Guth on 2 Mar 2010 12:04 On Mar 2, 7:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/2/10 9:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No that's not the case. > > What evidence supports the collision theory for the formation > of the Moon and what alternate theories exist? > http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198 > > Giant impact hypothesis > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis#References > > Satellite-sized planetesimals and lunar origin > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1975Icar...24.... > > An impact origin of the Earth-Moon system > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.U51A..02C Your purely subjective evidence and mainstream status quo or bust mindset is noted. It's also noted that such a theory doesn't explain hardly anything, whereas mine does. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 2 Mar 2010 12:06 On Mar 2, 7:53 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > "Brad Guth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6b482204-edcf-4e34-809a-1b04371aa51a(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > 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/69ebb8... > > > > > > 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? > > Of course he doesn't ... even if he did, it would have to enter the > world through his sphincter, because all of his greatest theories > are stored in his colon. You wouldn't believe which orifice that you were born out of. So, why is Earth still thawing out from the last ice-age? ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 3 Mar 2010 05:39 On Mar 2, 9:25 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/2/10 11:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 7:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/2/10 9:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> No that's not the case. > > >> What evidence supports the collision theory for the formation > >> of the Moon and what alternate theories exist? > >> http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198 > > >> Giant impact hypothesis > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis#References > > >> Satellite-sized planetesimals and lunar origin > > >>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1975Icar...24.... > > >> An impact origin of the Earth-Moon system > >> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.U51A..02C > > > Your purely subjective evidence and mainstream status quo or bust > > mindset is noted. It's also noted that such a theory doesn't explain > > hardly anything, whereas mine does. > > > ~ BG > > I have yet to see any evidence in support of your arguments, Brad. Right back at you. At least my theory fixes most everything, whereas yous doesn't. btw, where's the 2e20 N/sec of tidal binding force going, if not entirely into Earth and Selene? ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 3 Mar 2010 10:20
On Mar 3, 6:43 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > "Saul Levy" <saulle...(a)cox.net> wrote in message > > news:gfdro5tkendt00q5b03qggkko4e5rs3c7j(a)4ax.com... > > > > > All orifices have been used for the WACKO NUTJOBS born here, > > GOOFYSHITHEAD! > > > What difference does that make? > > > Saul Levy > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:06:38 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth > > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Mar 2, 7:53 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > >>> "Brad Guth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:6b482204-edcf-4e34-809a-1b04371aa51a(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com.... > >>> 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/69ebb8... > > >>> > > 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? > > >>> Of course he doesn't ... even if he did, it would have to enter the > >>> world through his sphincter, because all of his greatest theories > >>> are stored in his colon. > > >>You wouldn't believe which orifice that you were born out of. > > >>So, why is Earth still thawing out from the last ice-age? > > >> ~ BG > > Yea, those pesky ice-ages, they come and go, with regularity. > It's just unfortunate that you Climate Change nutters want to > completely bury any reference to the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. > Pretty much like Ostriches stick their heads in the sand, you > Liberal Loons stick your heads up your asses, whenever something > happens that you poor fucks can't come to grips with. > Oh yea ... and you start babbling nonsense .... like brain-farts. Actually there was a couple of abrupt changes in ice-age cycles, such as the 41,000 year and the 25,000 year cycles that came about as we go back in time. It's exactly as though our orbit or elliptical association Sirius or the mutual barycenter/centroid was nearby at first. Like the icy planetoid Sedna that has a sharp elliptical trek that never manages to directly orbit the sun (only gets within 76 AU), but otherwise never goes away because of those pesky Newtonian forces at play. With Sirius we may never get any closer than one light year, although 0.1 ly might have been the case. ~ BG |