| |
Main
Date: 21 Nov 2006 12:31:13
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
Terrestrial research wizards such as the deductive expertise of
Velikovsky may actually have been on the right set of tracks all along,
whereas just having been a little skewed here and there (forced into
swag mode), and obviously without all of the available history along
with the nifty amounts of new and improved science that's existing and
well documented as of today. For one example, ice-core samples that's
going back nearly a million years were not a part of his research.
The mere dreaded revision thoughts of an icy ProtoMoon and of it's
lithobraking arrival is not another topic joke. I believe this
perfectly GW related topic simply represents the regular laws of physics
and the slim but otherwise reasonable odds of this event happening,
especially if such an icy ProtoMoon had been thrown our way from a
sufficiently nearby star/solar system, and as though gravity dragged
and/or accommodated into our solar system along with the arrival of
Venus (possibly as a moon as having belonged to Venus).
I also tend to believe that "Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon" is also
somewhat interrelated to one another, as well as having been unavoidably
interrelated to the somewhat recent arrival of our moon as having
established the global tilt that shifted us away from being a nearly
monoseason planet with only solar driven tides, and for otherwise as
having deposited quite a fair amount of salty ice plus a little
sequestered DNA code if not substantial other life within for the
environment of Earth to deal with.
In the distant past, our Earth was clearly a bit more surface
roundish/smooth as having hosted somewhat less vertically imposing
terrain from ocean depths to the peaks of mountainous creations that
transpired rather quickly (as though having been antipode induced into
existence), and certainly as having shown much less erosion as having
since been deposited into our oceans or as otherwise having to deal with
on land, and of what little surface water there was already here to
behold was much less salty and either extensively sub-frozen and/or at
least getting monoseason frosted enough as to reaching that icy line of
frost to within the tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. This nearly monoseason
of Earth's early environment was also allowing those early forms of
humanity to essentially staying put, demanding few if any migrations
except within the relatively temperate life zone as associated within
the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn, that is unless something truly horrific
of geophysics emerged from within the planetology of Earth and/or of
mother nature's surface environment was taking place, whereas I believe
most everything north or south of their Cancer/Capricorn frost line
would have been at risk of having been compromised if not unlivable for
much of the time, especially throughout a typical ice-age deep freezing
cycle that lasted for a good ten to twenty some odd thousands of years
at a whack.
Here's the latest of topic related news that I'd thought you folks can
use, or perhaps not (depending on your mindset), as to my somewhat
dyslexic way of having contemplated on behalf of the most accepted
what-if our moon had in fact been made entirely of Earth, whereas of 1
Ga those resulting tidal affects would have been at least half if not
nearly twice again as impressive (if not nearly tsunami worthy), and of
2 Ga would have been generating those somewhat continuous tsunami class
of bulging tidal waves as worth a few good magnitudes of their having
been 5 to 10 times worse off than nowadays, not to mention what our
molten mantle being seriously motivated along via such horrific mascon
forces, as a somewhat super-rotation mass of thermal and magnetic force
taking place just below the crust of Earth.
If we gave our moon a supposed lifespan of being 4 Ga (4 billion years
old)
moon @0.0 Ga = 384,400 km from Earth / orbital energy 2e20 joules
moon @ -1 Ga = 332,000 km from Earth / orbital energy 3e20 joules
moon @ -2 Ga = 256,000 km from Earth / orbital energy 5e20 joules
moon @ -3 Ga = 192,000 km from Earth / orbital energy 8e20 joules
(possibly 1e21 joules)
moon @ -4 Ga = 0.0 km as supposedly emerging itself from Earth
(antipode launch force/energy at 6 km/s = 5.3e30 J ????
Secondary impact/antipode ejected mass 7.35e22 x 2 = 14.7e22 kg
(I'm using 2x the mass of our moon because not everything that goes up
would have become moon)
Geophysical whatever antipode launch exit velocity of roughly 6 km/s
Ke = .5MV2 7.35e22 x 36e6 = 265e28 joules
Kf = MV2 14.7e22 x 36e6 = 529e28 joules
Of course, silly Kroll and myself are perhaps still the two most
resident village idiots (AKA messengers from hell) as having been
leaning ourselves towards the more likely icy protomoon sort of impact,
as having delivered a very salty and rather substantially tera-iceberg
worth of a glancing sucker-punch (perhaps having involved more than one
such lithobraking and lunar iceberg deploying encounter) that which
established the major extent of Earth's tilt (thereby having created
seasons) and otherwise having subsequently produced the likes of our
Arctic ocean basin and/or Hudson Bay, along with the geophysical
antipode result having produced the sorts of horrific vertical land mass
and otherwise extremely mountainous terrain, as having been rather
abruptly pushed up at roughly those 180 degree longitude/latitude
antipode locations, with lots of other interesting geophysics taking
place in between.
Since there's no apparent scientific nor physics related argument
against really big and nasty stuff having in fact impacted Earth from
time to time, and since the regular laws of physics and/or of
planetology should not have changed, whereas this icy ProtoMoon arrival
as of the last ice age seems to offer a viable degree of it's own
what-if on behalf of representing a perfectly rational set of arguments,
that's at least worth keeping on the public table so that others having
an honest thought from their open mindset might constructively
contribute as to sharing their expertise or best swag, instead of merely
enforcing upon and/or hiding behind the usual mainstream naysayism, and
of otherwise having to apply evidence denial and/or total author/topic
banishment upon this argument.
How Asteroids Trigger Volcanos / By Robert Roy Britt
A few other words of wisdom about Earth getting a serious hicky via
asteroid;
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/asteroids_volcanoes_030204-1.html
Unfortunately, this author doesn't contribute anything as to whatever a
glancing blow via an icy protomoon might have represented. Therefore,
whatever horrific impact created ocean basins and/or antipode results
are not a part of this equation. However the following sub-topic is at
least an honest consideration as to what such a impactor of having
produced local and/or antipode induced event(s) might have helped to
have created the likes of Hawaii.
Asteroid May Have Created Hawaii
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/volcano_asteroid_010731.html
"Rocking the other side of the planet"
"Mark Boslough and his colleagues at Sandia National Laboratories have
modeled asteroid impacts. In a 1996 paper, they predicted that the
seismic energy from an impact travels through the Earth and is strongly
focussed at the antipode to the impact, near the boundary of the crust
and the hot, molten mantle."
Of course mountains that were not created via volcanic process and are
less old than you'd think, and seemingly as having been created within
an extremely short amount of time, whereas these horrific vertical
formations seem as though more antipode generated than not.
This somewhat testy "Icy ProtoMoon" and of it's "Lithobraking Arrival"
as an ongoing research topic represents that within my open mindset
there's a great deal of our past, present and future that's at stake of
getting revised, of which nearly everything under the sun that's
apparently orbiting our infomercial bulging and otherwise badly polluted
flat Earth is at risk of falling off the edge, such as most everything
from their Old Testament certified 'Big Bang' theory to that of our
supposedly having walked on the moon is at risk. Sorry about that.
Secondly, clearly my extremely poor old PC and that of my limited
Mailgate/Usenet access are still each getting summarily stalked, trashed
and/or terminated via spermware/fuckware at every possible turn in this
extremely bumpy Usenet road, as though I'm somehow the ultimate bad guy
that's responsible for rocking a bit more than my fair share of their
good ship LOLLIPOP.
I totally agree with the few and far between likes of 'tomcat', such as
focusing our clearly limited though honestly deductive research talents
and zilch worth of resources upon reviewing the notion of placing such a
super-sized whopper of a worthy mascon that's representing such a nearby
moon into orbiting a given icy monoseason planet, that which otherwise
still has a good amount of a fluid core and at least some degree of
surface fluids (including the surrounding atmosphere) to work with, that
can obviously be influenced and/or tidal forced, simply has to involve
an ongoing taking of and/or giving process of transferring energy as
related to the unavoidable gravity/tidal physics, for the very same
reason why a satellite as set into safely orbiting our nearly naked moon
is eventually dragged to it's demise unless having applied ION or some
other means of reaction thrust. Therefore, the orbital mechanics of
mascon physics as related to global warming is very real.
A three body worth of such interactive mascon physics seems all the more
complex, and that of a forth body situation is nearly as complicated and
supercomputer worthy task as astrophysics tends to get (especially if
such were involving various Lithobraking events). I happen think we're
dealing with at the very least a 5+ multi-body situation, along with all
sorts of complex variables. (sorry about that)
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 13:08:48
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
A little further proof that I'm more than sufficiently right, especially
about the sorts of incest cloned Old Testament thumping farts of this
naysay Usenet (anti-think-tank from hell) that would much rather allow
putting one of their own kind on a stick than not, which means they
obviously wouldn't so much as help out with any given math or improved
words as along as the rest of us village idiots are not on a media
domination par with their mainstream status quo that intends to dominate
and big-time profit from this badly failing environment, no matters
what. (I believe it's exactly what certain religious types have always
done best).
It seems the Lithobreaking/Lithobraking Arrival of our icy protomoon is
technically doable without having extensively vaporised either orb.
Such a lithobraking encounter of having created the Arctic Ocean basin
for example would have likely given added tilt to Earth's axis, and
subsequently given us seasons to go along with those new and greatly
improved tides that at first must have been rather massively tsunami
class of such tidal forced events.
At the time of this encounter, Earth had a somewhat more robust
atmosphere and a good deal of it's own protective surface ice, and
certainly the salty and icy protomoon had it's own frosty atmosphere to
spare, whereas combined these atmospheres and of either surface as
having been protected by a thick layer of ice would have helped to
buffer the lithobraking sort of glancing blow involving these two icy
orbs.
As a result, I'd say 25% of life upon Earth was somewhat terminated upon
impact, whereas a fair percentage of the rest may have managed to
survive, with those situated at roughly 120 degrees in either direction
being the least affected, except for the eventual tilt that established
the seasons and of those affected by the increase in ocean levels, or
taken off guard by some of the new panspermia of deposited life as
having arrived safely within that salty moon ice. As a whole, I'd say
that the original status of life on Earth may have been cut down to to
something far less than 25% of whatever coexisted prior to the impact,
as these few survivors most likely invented all sorts of gods in order
to deal with the sort of outcome that only a worthy god that was
seriously pissed could have been responsible for.
Even the likes of Carl Sagan and many others before his time, and most
certainly of those ever since, have had access to the sorts of science
that proves such intergalactic and thus unavoidably interactive solar
system mergers of various bodies were in fact taking place, and
obviously proving not everything that goes bump in the night gets
vaporised, especially if it were protected by a thick layer of salty ice
as such glancing blows were taking place.
Supercomputers of today can 3D interactively simulate just about
anything that's allowed to be given the opportunity. What odds are you
folks giving that this honest conjecture of Earth being impacted by an
icy protomoon will never see such a supercomputer simulation or much
less 'made for TV' NOVA world class of animated production, whereas
they've been using such publicly funded supercomputers every hour of
every day for our entertainment and for having produced those fantastic
eye-popping loads of such eye-candy and brain-sucking infomercials that
are intended to keep us spending our very last multi-taxable dollar
until we drop.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 07:17:31
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
One time on SAA of this garbage was bad enough, but two times at the same
time is two times the garbage.
and to let all know on all the cross posted groups, this one is falling into
the Cyber Black Hole never to be seen again.
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com > Barfed on Screen
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 15:57:13
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:b_CdnTaBUtKdgP7YnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@inreach.com
> One time on SAA of this garbage was bad enough, but two times at the same
> time is two times the garbage.
>
> and to let all know on all the cross posted groups, this one is falling into
> the Cyber Black Hole never to be seen again.
It's actually an intellectual event horizon that's doing the most
intellectual sucking before it ever gets into your Usenet "Cyber Black
Hole".
What's the matter with all of your conditional laws of physics and
infomercial-science, this time around?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 13:41:09
From: Allan Mayer
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
Brad Guth wrote: {nothing worth reading}
Only bad thing about going over to a Mac for
email/net use.
I have to start all over with my killfile....
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
OS X 10.4.8
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 17:44:45
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
> Brad Guth wrote: {nothing worth reading}
>
>
> Only bad thing about going over to a Mac for
> email/net use.
>
> I have to start all over with my killfile....
Well, he did change his i.d. a bit, as he suddenly reappeared on my
views of the group once again. It's the same strange ideas, the same
lack of basic scientific understanding, and the same lack of civility
once again (sigh). One minor change to the killfile and all is now well.
Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 19:35:29
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
"Allan Mayer" <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:gI2dnWwswLTY1f7YnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com
> Brad Guth wrote: {nothing worth reading}
>
> Only bad thing about going over to a Mac for
> email/net use.
>
> I have to start all over with my killfile....
Silly boy. So what I'm saying about your kind is apparently 100% true.
OK, I'll buy that. However, for the record, what actually happens to
your buttology brain whenever your butt-cheeks dare to think ouside of
that infomercial bulging space-toilet box that you folks call home sweet
home?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 03:02:46
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
From: Starlord / Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 1:02 pm
>Our moon was born when the Earth was hit by a proto planetary
>body and THAT might have been the cuase of our tilt, but it's
>unknown if it was or not. Plus even without the moon, we would
>have had mountains and all that we have today.
That's certainly good news that we all need to know, especially since I
certainly never once stipuleated otherwise.
>Nothing from outside of our system likly didn't do a thing to
>us or the other planets.
Those elective words of "Nothing from outside of our system" seems as
though you're being a wee bit extra special and/or somewhat all-knowing,
especially odd as coming from someone as just having stipulated that
"Earth was hit by a proto planetary body and THAT might have been the
cuase of our tilt, but it's unknown if it was or not".
>There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far
>across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the
>forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some
>believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight
>to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
I'll have to agree with your analogy of other complex life (including
intelligent forms of life) as having existed somewhere "out there"
before having emerged itself upon Earth. After all, our Earth isn't
very old.
I might have to add, there are those who still believe we've waked on
the moon, that our cold-war was for real, and that Iraq actually had
WMD. I ask 'so what's the difference', especially since all of those
precious decades have been wasted, trillions upon trillions have been
blown upon creating unemaginable WMD, plus that of our having caused
such horrific collateral damage, and of just recently tens of thousands
of innocent folks (mostly unfortunate Muslims) are now quite dead.
What's next? (WW-III)
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 22:08:57
From: Robert Weldon
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:e0560c134dde06371a7ed211963efdf5.49644@mygate.mailgate.org...
> From: Starlord / Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 1:02 pm
>>Our moon was born when the Earth was hit by a proto planetary
>>body and THAT might have been the cuase of our tilt, but it's
>>unknown if it was or not. Plus even without the moon, we would
>>have had mountains and all that we have today.
>
> That's certainly good news that we all need to know, especially since I
> certainly never once stipuleated otherwise.
>
>>Nothing from outside of our system likly didn't do a thing to
>>us or the other planets.
>
> Those elective words of "Nothing from outside of our system" seems as
> though you're being a wee bit extra special and/or somewhat all-knowing,
> especially odd as coming from someone as just having stipulated that
> "Earth was hit by a proto planetary body and THAT might have been the
> cuase of our tilt, but it's unknown if it was or not".
>
>>There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far
>>across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the
>>forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some
>>believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight
>>to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
>
> I'll have to agree with your analogy of other complex life (including
> intelligent forms of life) as having existed somewhere "out there"
> before having emerged itself upon Earth. After all, our Earth isn't
> very old.
several billion years isn't very old?
>
> I might have to add, there are those who still believe we've waked on
> the moon, that our cold-war was for real, and that Iraq actually had
> WMD. I ask 'so what's the difference', especially since all of those
> precious decades have been wasted, trillions upon trillions have been
> blown upon creating unemaginable WMD, plus that of our having caused
> such horrific collateral damage, and of just recently tens of thousands
> of innocent folks (mostly unfortunate Muslims) are now quite dead.
> What's next? (WW-III)
> -
> Brad Guth
>
We did walk on the moon, and the cold war was for real, and you are a loon,
so stuck in your conspiracy theory fantasy that you have no concept of
reality.
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 03:52:15
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
"Robert Weldon" <rweldon.spamblock@jrpspamblock.ca > wrote in message
news:ZZo9h.361579$R63.343192@pd7urf1no
> We did walk on the moon, and the cold war was for real, and you are a loon,
> so stuck in your conspiracy theory fantasy that you have no concept of
> reality.
Silly boy. What's the matter this time around, that you folks simply
can't for a moment think outside the box?
BTW; Other than what's scripted within your MI-NSA~NASA/Apollo koran,
got proof?
BTW No.2; Why do you folks continually think the regular laws of
physics and of replicated science is having "no concept of reality"?
-
Brad guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 09:05:48
From: Phineas T Puddleduck
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
In article
<23303db1e763465d8b6be176fb5bce63.49644@mygate.mailgate.org >,
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Silly boy. What's the matter this time around, that you folks simply
> can't for a moment think outside the box?
>
> BTW; Other than what's scripted within your MI-NSA~NASA/Apollo koran,
> got proof?
>
> BTW No.2; Why do you folks continually think the regular laws of
> physics and of replicated science is having "no concept of reality"?
Read the book.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:37:10
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com > wrote in
message news:phineaspuddleduck-91EAB2.09054824112006@free.teranews.com
> Read the book.
Apparently not yet. If it's any good, as such it'll be within our local
library.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 14:14:29
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
Yes, he has once again morphed his identity a little so as to get
through our filters. I guess its time for some poetry.
WEARY OF "THEORIES"
There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.
Now speculation's helpful
in spawning new concepts,
but these poor souls go WAY past that
when they cook up their precepts.
It wouldn't be so bad, you know
if they kept things real low-key,
but they insist on churning out
lengthy works for all to see.
Their knowledge of the sciences
is often minimal at best.
From that weak base, they spin long yarns,
and make themselves a pest.
They often don't have the patience
for learning physics, and the math.
Instead, they concoct "inner" truths
in place of logic, which they lack.
They often use what math they know
to cobble up crank linkings,
or rambling numerology
to back up their false thinking.
They spout out much confusion,
running counter to known laws
of Physics and Astronomy.
They spew forth much with flaws.
They fling their stuff throughout Usenet
to newsgroups well off-topic,
to get attention for themselves
from posts unwanted and myopic.
They get the goat of many
who respond to all their stuff,
and gain desired attention
from those who shout "ENOUGH!"
Some jump on readers who dare to hint
that their ideas lack some truth,
and fire back long derisive flames,
pouring more garbage down the chute.
They mislead the rank beginner
and drive professor-types insane,
and all the while they relish
in their wonderous new-found fame.
They clutter up the newsgroups
with their theories, oh so flawed,
but if you argue with them
you just help them in their cause.
So stick to just the cold hard facts
and do not engage these fools.
As time goes on, they should then fade
and prove that knowledge rules!
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:55:33
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
"David Knisely" <KA0CZC@navix.net > wrote in message
news:8ee11$45635e1f$8b37d0a7$21294@ALLTEL.NET
> Yes, he has once again morphed his identity a little so as to get
> through our filters. I guess its time for some poetry.
>
> WEARY OF "THEORIES"
> They clutter up the newsgroups
> with their theories, oh so flawed,
> but if you argue with them
> you just help them in their cause.
>
> So stick to just the cold hard facts
> and do not engage these fools.
> As time goes on, they should then fade
> and prove that knowledge rules!
What morphing? Unlike most others as infomercial spewing spooks and
moles, I am exactly whom and what I am, as a for real honest to God
person, though w/o brown nose like yourselves.
Since Einstein had more than his fair share of "theories" (many of which
never got published), as such you're telling folks here and there to
ignore the likes of anyone suggesting as to whatever's new and improved
as residing just outside of your Old Testament box. Gee whiz, why am I
not the least bit surprised, especially coming from the naysay wizardly
likes of lord David Knisely.
I once had a silly "theory" that perhaps government and religion should
not lie each of their respective butts off. Brother, was I ever way off
the mark on that one, or what.
BTW; your poetry sucks, like most everything else that you and your
evidence-excluding yet all-knowing naysay kind of infomercial spewing
borgs represent.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 02:59:13
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
From: Starlord / Date: Sun, Nov 19 2006 1:02 pm
>Our moon was born when the Earth was hit by a proto planetary
>body and THAT might have been the cuase of our tilt, but it's
>unknown if it was or not. Plus even without the moon, we would
>have had mountains and all that we have today.
That's good news to know, especially since I certainly never stipuleated
otherwise.
>Nothing from outside of our system likly didn't do a thing to
>us or the other planets.
Those elective words of "Nothing from outside of our system" seems as
though you're being a wee bit extra special and/or somewhat all-knowing,
especially odd as coming from someone as just having stipulated that
"Earth was hit by a proto planetary body and THAT might have been the
cuase of our tilt, but it's unknown if it was or not".
>There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far
>across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the
>forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some
>believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight
>to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
I'll have to agree with your analogy of other complex life (including
intelligent forms of life) as having existed somewhere "out there"
before having emerged itself upon Earth. After all, our Earth isn't
very old.
I might have to add, there are those who still believe we've waked on
the moon, that our cold-war was for real, and that Iraq actually had
WMD. I ask 'so what's the difference', especially since all of those
precious decades have been wasted, trillions upon trillions have been
blown upon creating unemaginable WMD, plus that of our having caused
such horrific collateral damage, and of just recently tens of thousands
of innocent folks (mostly unfortunate Muslims) are now quite dead.
What's next? (WW-III)
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 18:21:30
From: Al
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
Allan Mayer wrote:
> Only bad thing about going over to a Mac for email/net use.
Bet you love giving Apple their 30% profit margin, don't you? ;-)
So why the change of heart?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_thread/thread/c999c2f0c6c1dcd0/
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 00:36:32
From: Allan Mayer
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
Al wrote:
> Allan Mayer wrote:
>
>> Only bad thing about going over to a Mac for email/net use.
>
> Bet you love giving Apple their 30% profit margin, don't you? ;-)
>
> So why the change of heart?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_thread/thread/c999c2f0c6c1dcd0/
>
Paid $100 for it off craigslist........
(G4/400 1gig ram, 10.4 DVD, 10.2 CD's)
At this price I couldn't pass it up, and now
I run three different OS's at the same time.
It is a good learning expirence, tho I still
prefer debian with either fluxbox, or xfce.
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
OS X 10.4.8
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 03:55:29
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
The following reply from one of Usenet's smarter borg collectives that's
obviously deathly afraid of their own shadow, and thereby goes by their
hocus-pocus Usenet code name of "The Ghost In The Machine", was finally
able to contribute a little something constructive that's specifically
related to the primary topic or of the sub-topics at hand.
Unfortunately, the original topic of "Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000
BC ???" itself has been compromised, as for having become somewhat
selectively terminated by those in charge of keeping such need-to-know
lids on tight. Therefore, I'm being forced to indirectly share this one
as it relates to Earth obtaining it's moon somewhat recently (since the
last ice age) rather than from some early planetoid impactor in the very
beginning of Earth turning itself into offering a crusty/cool surface of
a planet that life as we know it calls home.
My arguments or complex premise had previously suggested upon an icy
planetoid as being our protomoon, as having arrived somewhat recently
(since the peak of the last ice age) into our solar system (possibly
arriving along with it's binary partner planet being Venus). With that
sort of an incoming planetoid hosting roughly 262 km layer of ice, plus
having sustained bit of it's own atmosphere seems entirely plausible.
This argument might even go so far as to suggest that such an icy
planetoid was livable and certainly as being DNA survivable from the
gauntlet of cosmic radiation, due in part to having that atmosphere and
especially if the habitats for having accommodated such life utilized
the salty ice itself as their physical shield.
topic: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ???
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_frm/thread/e4101b34b06b32c8/cfa935d04ae5c97f?lnk=st&q=%22I+don%27t+know+about+the+atmosphere%22&rnum=2&hl=en#cfa935d04ae5c97f
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net > wrote in
message news:a8bd34-ak7.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
>I don't know about the atmosphere, but that only increases the
>moon's volume by about 52.4%. The shell would also be about 1.15
>* 10^19 m^3 or 1.15 * 10^22 kg. The moon's current mass is 7.3477
>* 10^22 kg.
Excluding whatever Titan like protomoon atmosphere (which should have
existed with such an ice covered protomoon, especially if some of that
was either salty or dry ice and unavoidably getting warmed up by it's
new sol), whereas the added ice loading would have brought the total
mass to roughly 8.5e22 kg (possibly into the dirty composite of a salty
and dry ice realm of 9e22 kg).
> > I'd also give Earth a bit more robust atmosphere (perhaps 1.5
> > bar) or of whatever might have existed as of 10,500 BC, or of
> > whatever date of glancing impact you'd care to start off with.
>I take it your hypothesis is, therefore, that this ice-coated body
>came from somewhere in the vicinity of Sirius (declination 16
>degrees 42'58.017", right ascension 6h45m08.9173s, according to
>Wiki), decided to basically bounce off the Earth (shedding some of
>its ice or water in the process), and then settled into its current
>orbit.
Except for your AI/decided consideration, that's basically the glancing
blow sort of ice ball from hell of my lithobraking idea, as a somewhat
rear-ender or sucker-punch that could well have been having to catch up
with our 30 km/s. Thus you might have to try subtracting 30 km/s from
whatever's the merging velocity.
Just for keeping yourself and your CRAY CPUs on their toes, I'll include
the somewhat extra complicated little notion that such a moon or icy
planetoid may actually have belonged to Venus, and as such having first
merged as a binary team effort without either orb having directly
impacted anything, and to say those two arrivals having parallel parked
at roughly Earth L1, whereas from that time on it was only a short
matter of time before Earth's gravity distorted that lunar orbit away
from Venus or away from whatever original planet that our protomoon had
belonged to, whereas shortly thereafter we should have gotten ourselves
impacted by that extra complicated trinary fiasco, though at a greatly
moderated velocity unless the somewhat testy trinary situation was
causing more orbital distortions than we're thinking.
>Are you asserting that the impact tilted the Earth's axis as well?
>This could be problematic.
Yes I am, but then life as we know it is rather "problematic", although
as to how much of our global tilt can be contributed isn't by any means
nailed down. However, as of whatever intelligent human life during
and/or prior to the last ice age seems to have been surviving within a
somewhat monoseason, as there's no record or any other geological
indications of human migrations as forced upon their primitive means of
survival by way of their having whatever summer/winter seasons to deal
with. I'm still asking about and thereby researching as to learning
when the first indications of Earth's environment having seasons was the
case.
>The angular momentum of a planet (or any rotating body,
>such as a gyroscope) is the moment of inertia multiplied
>by the speed of rotation. The moment of inertia of a
>uniform sphere is 2/5 * M * r^2, where r is the sphere's
>radius. This gives I = 2/5*5.976*10^24*(6.378*10^6)^2 =
>9.724*10^37 kg-m^2.
>The Earth's rotation is once a day (we'll ignore sidereal issues)
>and therefore that's 2*Pi/86400 = 72.722 microradians a second.
>Total angular momentum is therefore 7.071 * 10^33 kg-m^2-rad/sec.
>Traditionally, this is representable as a vector, pointing along
>the axis of rotation.
>If one takes the Y axis as perpendicular to the ecliptic and on the
>Earth's generally northern side, and X and Z as somewhat arbitrary
>(but perpendicular) vectors on the ecliptic proper, then the Earth's
>current tilt of about 24 degrees means that the angular momentum
>vector is resolvable into at least two parts. The first part, of
>course, is the Y part, which is 7.071 * 10^33 * cos(24) = 6.460 *
>10^33. This part is not a big issue.
>The second part, however, one might call the not-Y part. This part
>is of course 7.071 * 10^33 * sin(24) = 2.876 * 10^33.
>In order for an item -- top, gyroscope, planet -- to change
>its angular momentum, one has to apply a torque. I'm not
>sure of the details admittedly but it's fairly obvious
>that the torque the moon can apply is on the order of
>(1.15 + 7.3477) * 10^22 * (6.378 * 10^6) * 12000 = 6.504 * 10^33
>kg-m^2/sec. Therefore, it is theoretically possible,
>if my scanty knowlege of rotational mechanics is correct,
>for the colliding moon to tilt the Earth's axis; it would
>need to contact the Earth for at most a few seconds.
Perhaps by way of keeping that original icy impactor as representing
8.5e22 kg or possibly cranking it towards the 9e22 kg mark is in fact
going to be more than sufficient, not to mention whatever a few
secondary impacts of those multi-teratonne salty icebergs could have
imposed, and of the mega tsunami class of ocean displacements and
whatever antipode (surface reforming) events transpiring at roughly 180
degrees had to contribute.
>(I say 12000 because 30*sqrt(2) = 42.46 km/s is the speed
>required for a parabolic orbit, assuming 30 km/s at the
>Earth's radius from Sol; the Moon would be overtaking the
>Earth in this scenario, since otherwise it's far from clear
>how the Earth could capture the Moon and make its orbit
>less elliptical. If one does assume a retrograde Moon,
>one has more potential torque but also far more energy to
>deal with -- about 34 times more. Unless a good chunk
>of that kinetic energy is somehow "bled off", the Moon,
>after hitting Earth, will continue on its merry way, more
>or less in the direction prior to impact.)
I can't argue against the instellar orbital fling of 42.5 km/s or as to
the minimum 12 km/s merging arrival, though I'm not all that sure that
we had been situated all that far away from the Sirius star/solar system
when the likes of Venus and our moon were ejected and set on their marry
interstellar migration path towards us. Well, we know for a sufficient
fact, besides the moon's substantial polar impact crater itself that has
to represent a great deal of impact displaced and/or vaporised mass, is
that we also know for a matter of fact that absolutely none of all that
salty ice remains on deck. (if the core of that ice ball itself was
originally a bit more robust, say worth 7.5e22 kg, and therefore how's
about considering 1.5e22 kg if not 2e22 kg for representing a healthy
ice and lithobraking "bled off" displacement and/or transferred amount
of mass?)
>Whether the moon would then slow down enough to be captured into a
>nearly circular orbit 12,000 years later, while furthermore
>shedding its icy outer layer, is far from clear. There is also
>the shift of the Earth's orbit to consider, and the Earth would
>also impart a torque on the Moon as well, changing its spin.
All very good points that I might take to offering my limited swag upon.
I would tend to perceive that a good thousand or so years (as possibly
having involved a second impact) might have provided the sufficient
timeline for accomplishing the initial rough orbital set, of
establishing what our moon has ever since had to work with, although
depending upon the glancing blow exit velocity of as little as 6 km/s,
whereas it may have taken less than a century to have settled down.
> > and certainly the salty and icy protomoon most likely had it's
> > very own frosty atmosphere to spare,
> It may or may not have been all that frosty. The Moon's day side
> is very hot -- over the temperature of 1 atmosphere boiling water,
> in fact. Basically, the Moon would be a rather large comet as it
> came in approaching impact.
You're getting yourself back into your cozy failsafe 'box mode' of
status quo thinking, as though that moon has always been here, and not
as though having just arrived out of the vast cold darkness of the space
between us and Sirius. As if arriving with the likes of hosting the 262
km worth of salty ice on deck (possibly a composite mix or that of
including a thinner surface or subsurface layer of dry ice), by way of
having a sufficient amount of it's own gravity as hosted by as much as
9e22 kg should have represented that our icy protomoon came along with
having an atmosphere, that only got substantially greater or more robust
as that icy orb got itself closer to our sun.
>It would take some doing to resolve the issues properly.
>Basically, there are several.
>[1] The axis tilt of the Earth. This appears resolvable, although
>I frankly am not sure of the details.
>[2] The orbital shift of the Earth. The game of marbles is
>illustrative; one hits an orb with a shooter and things shift.
>[3] Various deformation effects. A rubber ball or tire can be
>squeezed (and in fact, *is* squeezed if it bounces off a hard
>surface such as cement, storing some energy for a short time and
>then giving it back to push the ball or tire off the surface).
>This doesn't look all that simple.
No kidding. GOT CRAY ?
Thanks for all of your topic constructive math and best efforts at all
the weird science, that's essentially asking us all of those pesky
questions. Unfortunately, I'm not the least bit smart enough nor have I
the necessary minions of nerd certified staffing or the CRAY like
supercomputer capability at my disposal, though I'll be quite a happy
camper as to share all the credits for having provided such constructive
expertise in helping to nail this one down.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 20:43:43
From: The Ghost In The Machine
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
In sci.physics, Brad Guth
<bradguth@yahoo.com >
wrote
on Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:55:29 +0000 (UTC)
<2c98643b71b76a9863a729dc7177e75b.49644@mygate.mailgate.org >:
> The following reply from one of Usenet's smarter borg collectives that's
> obviously deathly afraid of their own shadow, and thereby goes by their
> hocus-pocus Usenet code name of "The Ghost In The Machine", was finally
> able to contribute a little something constructive that's specifically
> related to the primary topic or of the sub-topics at hand.
> Unfortunately, the original topic of "Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000
> BC ???" itself has been compromised, as for having become somewhat
> selectively terminated by those in charge of keeping such need-to-know
> lids on tight. Therefore, I'm being forced to indirectly share this one
> as it relates to Earth obtaining it's moon somewhat recently (since the
> last ice age) rather than from some early planetoid impactor in the very
> beginning of Earth turning itself into offering a crusty/cool surface of
> a planet that life as we know it calls home.
>
> My arguments or complex premise had previously suggested upon an icy
> planetoid as being our protomoon, as having arrived somewhat recently
> (since the peak of the last ice age) into our solar system (possibly
> arriving along with it's binary partner planet being Venus). With that
> sort of an incoming planetoid hosting roughly 262 km layer of ice, plus
> having sustained bit of it's own atmosphere seems entirely plausible.
> This argument might even go so far as to suggest that such an icy
> planetoid was livable and certainly as being DNA survivable from the
> gauntlet of cosmic radiation, due in part to having that atmosphere and
> especially if the habitats for having accommodated such life utilized
> the salty ice itself as their physical shield.
>
> topic: Earth's moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ???
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_frm/thread/e4101b34b06b32c8/cfa935d04ae5c97f?lnk=st&q=%22I+don%27t+know+about+the+atmosphere%22&rnum=2&hl=en#cfa935d04ae5c97f
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:a8bd34-ak7.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
>
>>I don't know about the atmosphere, but that only increases the
>>moon's volume by about 52.4%. The shell would also be about 1.15
>>* 10^19 m^3 or 1.15 * 10^22 kg. The moon's current mass is 7.3477
>>* 10^22 kg.
>
> Excluding whatever Titan like protomoon atmosphere (which should have
> existed with such an ice covered protomoon, especially if some of that
> was either salty or dry ice and unavoidably getting warmed up by it's
> new sol), whereas the added ice loading would have brought the total
> mass to roughly 8.5e22 kg (possibly into the dirty composite of a salty
> and dry ice realm of 9e22 kg).
>
>> > I'd also give Earth a bit more robust atmosphere (perhaps 1.5
>> > bar) or of whatever might have existed as of 10,500 BC, or of
>> > whatever date of glancing impact you'd care to start off with.
>
>>I take it your hypothesis is, therefore, that this ice-coated body
>>came from somewhere in the vicinity of Sirius (declination 16
>>degrees 42'58.017", right ascension 6h45m08.9173s, according to
>>Wiki), decided to basically bounce off the Earth (shedding some of
>>its ice or water in the process), and then settled into its current
>>orbit.
>
> Except for your AI/decided consideration, that's basically the glancing
> blow sort of ice ball from hell of my lithobraking idea, as a somewhat
> rear-ender or sucker-punch that could well have been having to catch up
> with our 30 km/s. Thus you might have to try subtracting 30 km/s from
> whatever's the merging velocity.
I did. If the Earth's orbit is roughly circular at 30
km/s, then escape velocity relative to the Sun is sqrt(2)
* 30 = about 42.4 km/s. An ice ball (or anything else)
from "infinitely" far away would approach at that velocity,
assuming that the impact of said body occurs at the perihelion
(there is no aphelion if the orbit is parabolic). It isn't
entirely clear to me whether the Earth can capture a body going 12.4
km/s relative to it in an "overtake" mode or not, since Earth's escape
velocity is about 11.2 km/s. However, the impact scrambles things.
>
> Just for keeping yourself and your CRAY CPUs on their toes, I'll include
> the somewhat extra complicated little notion that such a moon or icy
> planetoid may actually have belonged to Venus, and as such having first
> merged as a binary team effort without either orb having directly
> impacted anything, and to say those two arrivals having parallel parked
> at roughly Earth L1, whereas from that time on it was only a short
> matter of time before Earth's gravity distorted that lunar orbit away
> from Venus or away from whatever original planet that our protomoon had
> belonged to, whereas shortly thereafter we should have gotten ourselves
> impacted by that extra complicated trinary fiasco, though at a greatly
> moderated velocity unless the somewhat testy trinary situation was
> causing more orbital distortions than we're thinking.
>
>>Are you asserting that the impact tilted the Earth's axis as well?
>>This could be problematic.
> Yes I am, but then life as we know it is rather "problematic", although
> as to how much of our global tilt can be contributed isn't by any means
> nailed down.
Actually it is. Absent other considerations, *all* of our current
orbital tilt can be explained by a quasi-iceball lunar impact. My
calculations prove that.
(Whether it actually happened that way, I for one don't know. Nor
is it clear regarding climactic effects, which would be considerable
during such an impact 12,000 or so years back. The ocean in particular
would be *very* upset.)
> However, as of whatever intelligent human life during
> and/or prior to the last ice age seems to have been surviving within a
> somewhat monoseason, as there's no record or any other geological
> indications of human migrations as forced upon their primitive means of
> survival by way of their having whatever summer/winter seasons to deal
> with. I'm still asking about and thereby researching as to learning
> when the first indications of Earth's environment having seasons was the
> case.
Prior to about 4,000 years there are no elegant methods by which one can
prove seaons. (4,000 is about the oldest trees known, and they show
seaons by growth variations -- tree rings.)
>
>>The angular momentum of a planet (or any rotating body,
>>such as a gyroscope) is the moment of inertia multiplied
>>by the speed of rotation. The moment of inertia of a
>>uniform sphere is 2/5 * M * r^2, where r is the sphere's
>>radius. This gives I = 2/5*5.976*10^24*(6.378*10^6)^2 =
>>9.724*10^37 kg-m^2.
>
>>The Earth's rotation is once a day (we'll ignore sidereal issues)
>>and therefore that's 2*Pi/86400 = 72.722 microradians a second.
>>Total angular momentum is therefore 7.071 * 10^33 kg-m^2-rad/sec.
>>Traditionally, this is representable as a vector, pointing along
>>the axis of rotation.
>
>>If one takes the Y axis as perpendicular to the ecliptic and on the
>>Earth's generally northern side, and X and Z as somewhat arbitrary
>>(but perpendicular) vectors on the ecliptic proper, then the Earth's
>>current tilt of about 24 degrees means that the angular momentum
>>vector is resolvable into at least two parts. The first part, of
>>course, is the Y part, which is 7.071 * 10^33 * cos(24) = 6.460 *
>>10^33. This part is not a big issue.
>
>>The second part, however, one might call the not-Y part. This part
>>is of course 7.071 * 10^33 * sin(24) = 2.876 * 10^33.
>
>>In order for an item -- top, gyroscope, planet -- to change
>>its angular momentum, one has to apply a torque. I'm not
>>sure of the details admittedly but it's fairly obvious
>>that the torque the moon can apply is on the order of
>>(1.15 + 7.3477) * 10^22 * (6.378 * 10^6) * 12000 = 6.504 * 10^33
>>kg-m^2/sec. Therefore, it is theoretically possible,
>>if my scanty knowlege of rotational mechanics is correct,
>>for the colliding moon to tilt the Earth's axis; it would
>>need to contact the Earth for at most a few seconds.
>
> Perhaps by way of keeping that original icy impactor as representing
> 8.5e22 kg or possibly cranking it towards the 9e22 kg mark is in fact
> going to be more than sufficient, not to mention whatever a few
> secondary impacts of those multi-teratonne salty icebergs could have
> imposed, and of the mega tsunami class of ocean displacements and
> whatever antipode (surface reforming) events transpiring at roughly 180
> degrees had to contribute.
>
>>(I say 12000 because 30*sqrt(2) = 42.46 km/s is the speed
>>required for a parabolic orbit, assuming 30 km/s at the
>>Earth's radius from Sol; the Moon would be overtaking the
>>Earth in this scenario, since otherwise it's far from clear
>>how the Earth could capture the Moon and make its orbit
>>less elliptical. If one does assume a retrograde Moon,
>>one has more potential torque but also far more energy to
>>deal with -- about 34 times more. Unless a good chunk
>>of that kinetic energy is somehow "bled off", the Moon,
>>after hitting Earth, will continue on its merry way, more
>>or less in the direction prior to impact.)
>
> I can't argue against the instellar orbital fling of 42.5 km/s or as to
> the minimum 12 km/s merging arrival, though I'm not all that sure that
> we had been situated all that far away from the Sirius star/solar system
> when the likes of Venus and our moon were ejected and set on their marry
> interstellar migration path towards us. Well, we know for a sufficient
> fact, besides the moon's substantial polar impact crater itself that has
> to represent a great deal of impact displaced and/or vaporised mass, is
> that we also know for a matter of fact that absolutely none of all that
> salty ice remains on deck. (if the core of that ice ball itself was
> originally a bit more robust, say worth 7.5e22 kg, and therefore how's
> about considering 1.5e22 kg if not 2e22 kg for representing a healthy
> ice and lithobraking "bled off" displacement and/or transferred amount
> of mass?)
>
>>Whether the moon would then slow down enough to be captured into a
>>nearly circular orbit 12,000 years later, while furthermore
>>shedding its icy outer layer, is far from clear. There is also
>>the shift of the Earth's orbit to consider, and the Earth would
>>also impart a torque on the Moon as well, changing its spin.
>
> All very good points that I might take to offering my limited swag upon.
> I would tend to perceive that a good thousand or so years (as possibly
> having involved a second impact) might have provided the sufficient
> timeline for accomplishing the initial rough orbital set, of
> establishing what our moon has ever since had to work with, although
> depending upon the glancing blow exit velocity of as little as 6 km/s,
> whereas it may have taken less than a century to have settled down.
>
>> > and certainly the salty and icy protomoon most likely had it's
>> > very own frosty atmosphere to spare,
>
>> It may or may not have been all that frosty. The Moon's day side
>> is very hot -- over the temperature of 1 atmosphere boiling water,
>> in fact. Basically, the Moon would be a rather large comet as it
>> came in approaching impact.
>
> You're getting yourself back into your cozy failsafe 'box mode' of
> status quo thinking, as though that moon has always been here, and not
> as though having just arrived out of the vast cold darkness of the space
> between us and Sirius.
As the Moon approaches the Sun, it should behave much like any comet
(Halley's in particular, or Temple-Tuttle, or any of the other thousands
of iceballs flitting about; the main issue is size). This has been
observed throughout history (although the ancient didn't quite
understand the cosmic significance of "beared stars") and is routinely
observable today.
I'd have to work out the thermal characteristics, though. Basically,
the ice would be at about 3 K or so in deep space, warming to 273 K as
it approaches Earth. Only the surface would have to be warmed and
outgass, so I for one see a high probability of a comet-like protomoon.
> As if arriving with the likes of hosting the 262
> km worth of salty ice on deck (possibly a composite mix or that of
> including a thinner surface or subsurface layer of dry ice), by way of
> having a sufficient amount of it's own gravity as hosted by as much as
> 9e22 kg should have represented that our icy protomoon came along with
> having an atmosphere, that only got substantially greater or more robust
> as that icy orb got itself closer to our sun.
>
>>It would take some doing to resolve the issues properly.
>>Basically, there are several.
>
>>[1] The axis tilt of the Earth. This appears resolvable, although
>>I frankly am not sure of the details.
>
>>[2] The orbital shift of the Earth. The game of marbles is
>>illustrative; one hits an orb with a shooter and things shift.
>
>>[3] Various deformation effects. A rubber ball or tire can be
>>squeezed (and in fact, *is* squeezed if it bounces off a hard
>>surface such as cement, storing some energy for a short time and
>>then giving it back to push the ball or tire off the surface).
>
>>This doesn't look all that simple.
>
> No kidding. GOT CRAY ?
Got a specific problem set you want simulated? Computers
don't handwave; they prefer to have everything specified
just so -- even randon numbers, which are usually generated
through an algorithm that is designed to approximate
true randomness.
This is one reason I'm putting in factors such as the
position of Sirius; it gives me an idea of where to start
the journey of this protomoon and might give me an idea
of the orbit/impact. (Had you specified, say, Vega or
Polaris, things get even more interesting, as they're
almost perpendicular to the Ecliptic.)
There is also additional data. Milankovitch Cycles are
a hypothesis that is currently being used in the more
traditional science communities to explain various changes
evidenced by such things as deep-ice cores. An impact
12,000 years back would be fairly easily visible in such
cores, presumably because of the dust stirred up by the
impact cooling the globe by reflecting the sunlight,
much like Krakatoa.
If one's lucky enough to locate the impact crator (there is
supposedly one in the Yucatan peninsula area, though that's
far older than 12,000 years according to geologists), one
can also look for various minerals as well. I'd have to
look up the details but someone mentioned shocked quartz,
for example.
And now that you've mentioned Venus, I can add that to
the conceptual problem analysis as well; the inclination
of its orbit is 3.39471 degrees. The inclination of the
Moon's orbit to the Sun is 5.145 degrees.
The declination of Sirius is 16 degrees 42' 58.017", or
16.716116 degrees. It is far from clear, absent further
calculations (or computer simulations) how precisely
an object coming from Sirius can "shift" from 16.716116
degrees to 3.39471 degrees as it is captured then thrown
by Venus, and then further modified to 5.145 degrees as
it is captured by Earth.
I don't see it as being impossible, though -- merely
difficult. However, to shift an orbit from one declination
to another involves a change in momentum, and since the
entire orbital system (Sun, Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn,
Mercury, etc. etc. ad nauseum) must conserve momentum,
someone else has to move too. Granted, it might be a
small movement as the Moon isn't nearly as massive as,
say, Mars ... but it is a movement.
There is also one interesting thing missing: what is the length of the
Earth's day prior to lunar impact?
>
> Thanks for all of your topic constructive math and best efforts at all
> the weird science, that's essentially asking us all of those pesky
> questions. Unfortunately, I'm not the least bit smart enough nor have I
> the necessary minions of nerd certified staffing or the CRAY like
> supercomputer capability at my disposal, though I'll be quite a happy
> camper as to share all the credits for having provided such constructive
> expertise in helping to nail this one down.
> -
> Brad Guth
>
>
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:29:34
From: Brad Guth
Subject: Re: Icy ProtoMoon, a Lithobraking Arrival
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net > wrote in
message news:vs9i34-fp9.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
> I did. If the Earth's orbit is roughly circular at 30
> km/s, then escape velocity relative to the Sun is sqrt(2)
> * 30 = about 42.4 km/s. An ice ball (or anything else)
> from "infinitely" far away would approach at that velocity,
> assuming that the impact of said body occurs at the perihelion
> (there is no aphelion if the orbit is parabolic). It isn't
> entirely clear to me whether the Earth can capture a body going
> 12.4 km/s relative to it in an "overtake" mode or not, since
> Earth's escape velocity is about 11.2 km/s. However, the impact
> scrambles things.
I believe with that sort of mass bouncing off Earth (having been
extensively cushioned and thus moderated by all of that ice and a touch
of moderation by way of passing such energy through each of the merging
atmospheres), whereas the required exit velocity for obtaining orbit
needn't be all that much greater than 6 km/s, possibly at most 7 km/s.
It certainly doesn't demand as much exit velocity if both orbs were of
the same mass, as opposed to launching a wussy little satellite of a few
tonnes away from an Earth like mass, and there's also the polar to polar
trajectory that should cause yet another great deal of CPU overloading,
and worse yet if there are a few other considerations, such as Venus
having been parked or at least passing nearby our L1. The given mass of
that departing moon at say roughly 7.5e22 kg that's into such existing
motion should manage to sustain a greater portion of that motion until
the excess energy has been expended.
> Actually it is. Absent other considerations, *all* of our current
> orbital tilt can be explained by a quasi-iceball lunar impact. My
> calculations prove that.
>
> (Whether it actually happened that way, I for one don't know. Nor
> is it clear regarding climactic effects, which would be considerable
> during such an impact 12,000 or so years back. The ocean in
> particular would be *very* upset.)
I tend to fully agree, that our icy protomoon of having glanced off
Earth could have established many of our geological and environmental
factors (including tilt and thus having established seasons and
substantial inside and out tidal issues) which we might as well start to
contribute as to our ongoing GW fiasco, especially since that moon has
been sticking around us with it's 2e20 joules worth of orbital
centrifugal energy (some of which obviously becomes tidal forced energy
transfer), plus having been contributing it's secondary/recoil worth of
IR/FIR energy that obviously wouldn't exist if it weren't for the
physically dark and nearby moon of our's that's orbiting our otherwise
icy and/or mostly wet world.
> Prior to about 4,000 years there are no elegant methods by which one
> can prove seaons. (4,000 is about the oldest trees known, and they
> show seaons by growth variations -- tree rings.)
Which only makes for yet another valid argument on behalf of the notion
of our Earth having established that sort of tilt as of some time after
the peak phase of last ice age.
> As the Moon approaches the Sun, it should behave much like any comet
> (Halley's in particular, or Temple-Tuttle, or any of the other
> thousands of iceballs flitting about; the main issue is size). This
> has been observed throughout history (although the ancient didn't
> quite understand the cosmic significance of "beared stars") and is
> routinely observable today.
>
> I'd have to work out the thermal characteristics, though. Basically,
> the ice would be at about 3 K or so in deep space, warming to 273 K as
> it approaches Earth. Only the surface would have to be warmed and
> outgass, so I for one see a high probability of a comet-like protomoon.
Don't forget to allow something for the thermal core of our moon as
representing a source of energy that wasn't exactly working on behalf of
keeping that salty ice entirely frozen solid (such thick ice itself was
actually a good insulator). In other words, there could have been fluid
brines existing on the rocky surface or within hollow rilles. Even as
of today, it seems our moon is not as geothermally dead as is Mars.
I'm also thinking of that icy protomoon making a trek or two around sol
(possibly as dragged along with the new arrival of Venus) before
engaging Earth, and thereby lots of opportunity and time for warming
such things up.
> Got a specific problem set you want simulated? Computers
> don't handwave; they prefer to have everything specified
> just so -- even randon numbers, which are usually generated
> through an algorithm that is designed to approximate
> true randomness.
I agree that we'll need to establish a few ground rules before turning a
few of those CPUs lose. However, I'm fairly certain that no matters
what, those rules of interstellar and/or interplanetary engagement are
going to get revised a few hundred times before we're done.
> This is one reason I'm putting in factors such as the
> position of Sirius; it gives me an idea of where to start
> the journey of this protomoon and might give me an idea
> of the orbit/impact. (Had you specified, say, Vega or
> Polaris, things get even more interesting, as they're
> almost perpendicular to the Ecliptic.)
Since I'm not the least bit all-knowing, I'll accept that it certainly
could have been an icy planetoid derived from some other than our Sirius
star/solar system, although the extra vibrant illumination and nearly
ideal spectrum factors plus the sheer mass and volume that's represented
by the Sirius star/solar system is what otherwise seems to fit into the
many interrelated issues of our environment having accommodated such
vast growth cycles of diatoms between each of those previous ice ages,
that would have demanded of our emerging environment receiving a lot
more of the right spectrum worth of photons than having been contributed
by our wussy little sun, that supposedly wasn't at the time nearly as
active as it is today.
> There is also additional data. Milankovitch Cycles are
> a hypothesis that is currently being used in the more
> traditional science communities to explain various changes
> evidenced by such things as deep-ice cores. An impact
> 12,000 years back would be fairly easily visible in such
> cores, presumably because of the dust stirred up by the
> impact cooling the globe by reflecting the sunlight,
> much like Krakatoa.
I can't say with any absolute certainty that 12,000 BP is the one and
only window. However, once again, I would have to agree, if the ice
cores as extracted from Greenland or those of Antarctica can be taken to
represent the environmental gauntlet aftermath (which should have lasted
for months if not years) of our Earth having been impacted, whereas this
would in fact add further support to the more recent protomoon impactor
theory. Although, one big icy ball with a nearly solid basalt rock core
that's rather nicely shielded below 262 km of salty ice, as glancing off
the other much bigger icy polar surface of Earth, might not have
actually produced any significant amount of global dust. Do we know
enough of how much dust large meteors or asteroids that impact into our
oceans generate, as opposed to those having impacted dry land?
> If one's lucky enough to locate the impact crator (there is
> supposedly one in the Yucatan peninsula area, though that's
> far older than 12,000 years according to geologists), one
> can also look for various minerals as well. I'd have to
> look up the details but someone mentioned shocked quartz,
> for example.
Perhaps we should try looking at the crater morphology like Arctic ocean
basin, of appreciating the impact morphological characteristics. For
instance, it's about the right size to match up with the moon's South
Pole Aitken Basin Crater of 2400 km by roughly 12 km deep. There may
also have been a secondary or via some other entirely independent icy
impactor responsible for the likes of having created Hudson Bay. The
antipode of geophysical impact forced formations as having caused such
vertical differentials, such as Antarctica, should also be taken into
account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole-Aitken_basin
> I don't see it as being impossible, though -- merely
> difficult. However, to shift an orbit from one declination
> to another involves a change in momentum, and since the
> entire orbital system (Sun, Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn,
> Mercury, etc. etc. ad nauseum) must conserve momentum,
> someone else has to move too. Granted, it might be a
> small movement as the Moon isn't nearly as massive as,
> say, Mars ... but it is a movement.
I've actually mentioned Venus all along, at least throughout many
previous topics/rants related to our moon, our global warming fiasco and
the somewhat newish planetology and thus geothermally active environment
of Venus. (oops! apparently that's supposedly the sorts of
taboo/nondisclosure information that we're not supposed to know about)
Your "I don't see it as being impossible" is every bit as good as this
phase needs to get, whereas with some further research and that of our
deductively connecting a few of those existing dots of previous
research, as having been accomplished by so many others at our mutual
expense, is what should help to nail this down.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
