🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 11, 4:28 am, Ed Conrad <edcon...@verizon.net> wrote:
> <
> <
> Yep!
>
> ===============
>
> More than 50 years ago, the late, great Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
> combined supreme intelligence and incredible courage
> to write "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval."
>
> His two books set the Scientific Establishment back on its
> unscrupulous heels, offering the undeniable physical evidence
> that the Good Earth had NOT been sleeping peacefully
> for countless eons as it had so long insisted.
>
> Instead, the late, great Immanuel Velikovsky presented a different
> picture of the earth's past: mindboggling, horrific catastrophes,
> some of which had torn both man and animal from limb to limb.
>
> It is a matter of historical record that the late, great Immanuel
> Velikovsky had been subjected to the very worse that the Scientific
> Establishment could offer -- the victim of deceit, deception,
> collusion and conspiracy, as well as relentless assassination
> upon his character.
>
> Well, this vicious assault upon truth continues to this very day, but
> with one BIG difference .
>
> The Internet has given John Q. Public a ringside seat to the sewer
> tactics employed by members of the Pseudoscientifc Establishment
> in their adamant denial of the physical evidence that confirms --
> beyond all doubt -- Man as Old as Coa (and maybe a great deal older).
>
> That's because they are glaringly aware that it is providing
> sibstantial ADDITIONAL credence that the late, great Immanuel
> Velikovsky was 100 percent right and the Pseudoscientic Establishment
> was -- and still is -- 110 percent wrong.
>
> How could petrified bones, teeth and even soft organs -- some human --
> be preserved between anthracite veins if some unfathomable catastrophe
> had not put them there?
>
> Fortunately, much good will come out of the ongoing battle between
> Ed Conrad and the vested-interest academia know-it-all's who have
> long made a mockery of the sacred name Science.
>
> That's because, back in the days of the late, great Immanuel
> Velikovsky, the deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy -- as well
> as character assassination -- weren't plainly visible and 99.9
> percent of the time were beyond the scope of the general public.
>
> So, the average person wasn't aware that  the "prestigious" scientific
> institutions, their so-called "experts," their scientific publications
> AND the news media were ALL totally controlled by the Pseudoscientific
> Establishment in the adamant denial of physical evidence to
> destroy to its erroneous doctrine..
>
> Well, we all know they still are in cahoots today. (Hell, Larry
> King wouldn't touch this with a 12 1/2-foot pole). But the major
> difference between then and now is the Internet, with its newsgroups
> and Google (deja.com), magnificent repositories of the written word.
>
> It means that the pseudoscientists'  disgraceful mistreatment
> of physical evidence is plainly visible as they carry out their
> day-to-day mission of crucifying facts but promoting facetious,
> factless theories, same as they didwhen they ganged up on the late,
> great Immanuel Velikovsky some 50 years ago.
>
> Thank heaven for the Internet. It means that the most of the sewer
> tactics employed by members of the Pseudoscientific Esablishment
> are in plain view for all to see, and they'lll be visible for
> generations to come, long after the pseudos have thrown in the towel..
>
> There -- in plain view -- your grandchildren and their's will be able
> to see how ridiculous the pseudos were, defending their assine
> paradigm of the evolution of man.
>
> The discovery of petrified human bones, teeth and soft organs
> between anthracite veins is destroying their erroneous paradigm
> because they predate, by multi-millions of years, the pseudos''
> ridiculous  theory that man had a non-human ancestor (which, of
> course, we never did).
>
> Some day -- when truth finally comes shining through -- we'll all be
> able to look back and see how low the disgraceful, deplorable,
> disgusting pseudos had stooped to defend their fairy tales in order
> to protect their vested interests.
> <
> =================================================
> <>            WHERE FAIRY TALES END AND TRUTH BEGINS
>
> <          (All Specimens Found Between Anthracite Coal Veins)  
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-012F.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SCORPIONS/MVC-039S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
> >http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
>
> <
> ==============================================
> <
> Ed Conrad>http://www.edconrad.com
>
> Man as Old as Coal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In addition to Ed Conrad's "Man Old as Coal" fiasco that's driving our
trusty Yids crazy, here's further proof positive of their faith-based
game of naysayism being played upon us, by those intent upon excluding
the regular laws of physics and having otherwise excluded the best
available science that shows us the truth by the numbers, that we're
not alone and not forever expanding within the Milky Way, but rather
continually evolving along with the all the other items, including
Sirius.

This honest team of stellar wizards spent over "1,000 nights making
63,000 accurate velocity observations of 14,000 of the Sun's nearest
neighbours".  Take notice of all the local stellar traffic that's
frequently orbiting around our location as depicted by that blue dot.
Thus within the grand 225 million year galactic cycle, it seems we
have multiple local stellar cycles of what's on the order of 100,000
years to deal with.  Sorry about that.

The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood
by B. Nordström, M. Mayor, J. Andersen, J. Holmberg, F. Pont, B.R.
Jørgensen, E.H. Olsen, S. Udry, and N. Mowlavi
Published in Astronomy & Astrophysics (DOI number:
10.1051/0004-6361:20035959)

Hipparcos data links
"Tales of a thousand and one nights:  Past and future of the Milky
Way"
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=42&lang=en
"The last orbit of the observed stars in their motion around the
Galactic Centre (GC). Each orbit takes about 225 million years. The
movie shows that the stars have travelled extensively in the disk of
the Milky Way before converging into the small volume where we observe
them today. The Sun is marked by a blue dot; its orbit by the white
curve."

Therefore, by the hard numbers it is not all that unlikely that Sirius
B pushed out the likes of Venus and of what became our moon.  As
Sirius B having recently gone through it's red giant phase, having
lost or vacated 4+ solar mass within that process, whereas Venus along
with its moon and a few other spare items became ours, simply because
we were nearby, in the right direction and having the most gravity
influence.

Sadly, I'm not a big supporter of the one and only BB THEORY as
related to our home galaxy.  Of course, such nearby off-world events
that could very well have contributed to our solar system and even to
the soup of complex life right here on Earth, as such are simply not
allowed by the Old Testament swarm mindset, or by those intent upon
keeping the rest of us village idiots as dumbfounded as possible, for
the very same reason Ed Conrad's man old as coal is not allowed to
exist.

BTW, folks, why shortly after posting do I so often get the following
message:

Google Error / Server Error

Are my messages so often causing that big of a Usenet server problem?

If I don't bother to post anything, and no matters how much I'm
reading through other topics or otherwise utilizing GOOGLE services, I
don't seem to ever get those pesky Usenet messages of "Google Error /
Server Error".  So what gives?
- Brad Guth

On Aug 11, 8:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 4:28 am, Ed Conrad <edcon...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Therefore, by the hard numbers it is not all that unlikely that Sirius
> B pushed out the likes of Venus and of what became our moon.  As
> Sirius B having recently gone through it's red giant phase, having
> lost or vacated 4+ solar mass within that process, whereas Venus along
> with its moon and a few other spare items became ours, simply because
> we were nearby, in the right direction and having the most gravity
> influence.

      Sirius did not recently go through a red giant phase.
    Brad is referring to a German article made a few years ago
claiming that Sirius had within historic times been a red giant. The
article used as its data ancient poems, some from Babylon about 3 KY
ago, where Sirius was named a "red star." Sirius as it occurs in the
sky is currently white. I haven't read the article abstract for a
decade or so, and don't remember the reference. The main text of the
original article was also in German. However, the abstract itself drew
on evidence that strictly came only from ancient poetry. If Brad can
point to any other evidence of the red gianthood of Sirius, other than
ancient legend, I would be happy to retract my prejudiced remarks.

     However, other researchers have claimed that Sirius had
ritualistic importance only because it appears just above the horizon
at dawn on the solar solstice. Things dry out in the middle of the
summer, they bleach and die. So Sirius was "red" in the sense of
drawing life out of living things. That is why little red dogs were
burnt as sacrifice to Sirius. No such sacrifice was made to
Betelgeuse, even though it was referred to and is a "red star." I
would have liked to see more of the quotes where Sirius is referred to
as red. My conjecture is that if Brad would be so Guth as to quote
these things in more detail, we would see that what the "red" referred
to was more in the way of historical and ritual detail. There is no
direct evidence that Sirius was a red star.

    Furthermore, the linkage to Venus as playing an important role in
climatology of earth is again has no basis outside of myth and legend.
It seems loosely related to Old Testament mindsetter, Velikovsky. But
again Venus is a bright heavenly body with a lot of ritualistic
significance. The significance mostly deals with it being bright, and
appearing at dawn. Its appearance in mythology has no bearing on its
role as a bearer of climatic change.

>Sadly, I'm not a big supporter of the one and only BB THEORY as
>related to our home galaxy.  Of course, such nearby off-world events
>that could very well have contributed to our solar system and even >to the soup of complex life right here on Earth, as such are simply >not allowed by the Old Testament swarm mindset,
     Note: I do believe that extrasolar phenomena have impacted the
climate of earth. I too have suspicions that the galactic cycle could
have had a significant effect on the climatic history. However, the
swarm mindset belongs to Velikovsky and other believers in literal
mythology. There is no data or calculations to support the idea of the
major heavenly bodies were any closer in historic times than they are
today.
     Geology is not mythology. Sorry.

On Aug 11, 4:04 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 8:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 4:28 am, Ed Conrad <edcon...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Therefore, by the hard numbers it is not all that unlikely that Sirius
> > B pushed out the likes of Venus and of what became our moon.  As
> > Sirius B having recently gone through it's red giant phase, having
> > lost or vacated 4+ solar mass within that process, whereas Venus along
> > with its moon and a few other spare items became ours, simply because
> > we were nearby, in the right direction and having the most gravity
> > influence.
>
>       Sirius did not recently go through a red giant phase.
>    Bradis referring to a German article made a few years ago
> claiming that Sirius had within historic times been a red giant.

No, I did no such thing, which clearly makes you a liar.

It is clearly understood by astrophysics that Sirius B had survived
its red giant phase, as having emerged as a white dwarf.

>
>     Furthermore, the linkage to Venus as playing an important role in
> climatology of earth is again has no basis outside of myth and legend.

Dead wrong again, whereas it's the moon of Venus and not Venus itself
that affects our environment, ever since that physically icy and
otherwise dark sucker having arrived as of roughly 12,000 BP.

>
> >Sadly, I'm not a big supporter of the one and only BB THEORY as
> >related to our home galaxy.  Of course, such nearby off-world events
> >that could very well have contributed to our solar system and even
> >to the soup of complex life right here on Earth, as such are simply
> >not allowed by the Old Testament swarm mindset,
>
>      Note: I do believe that extrasolar phenomena have impacted the
> climate of earth. I too have suspicions that the galactic cycle could
> have had a significant effect on the climatic history. However, the
> swarm mindset belongs to Velikovsky and other believers in literal
> mythology. There is no data or calculations to support the idea of the
> major heavenly bodies were any closer in historic times than they are
> today.
>      Geology is not mythology. Sorry.

But there is science data, and replicated none the less.  Whereas
you're the one that's continually having to exclude the regular laws
of physics, and otherwise having to banish the best available science
that applies to all that's off-world.

BTW, can you account for the terrestrial diatom populations?
- Brad Guth

On Aug 12, 9:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 4:04 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 4:28 am, Ed Conrad <edcon...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Therefore, by the hard numbers it is not all that unlikely that Sirius
> > > B pushed out the likes of Venus and of what became our moon.  As
> > > Sirius B having recently gone through it's red giant phase, having
> > > lost or vacated 4+ solar mass within that process, whereas Venus along
> > > with its moon and a few other spare items became ours, simply because
> > > we were nearby, in the right direction and having the most gravity
> > > influence.
>
> >       Sirius did not recently go through a red giant phase.
> >    Bradis referring to a German article made a few years ago
> > claiming that Sirius had within historic times been a red giant.
>
> No, I did not do this thing, which clearly makes you a liar.
     I was wrong about you referring to that article. I didn't know
exactly why you made that claim, and I jumped to an unwarranted
conclusion. I apologize with respect to saying you used only one
article. Apparently, you looked up a different series of articles.
      I have since googled a little more on the issue of Sirius. There
are other articles that made the claim that Sirius was a red giant in
historic times. I still think this is wrong.
    While searching, I got some more interesting information on
Sirius. There are more recent references to Sirius being red. However,
Sirius like our sun appears red when it is near the horizon. The light
has to pass through more layers of atmosphere. The short wavelength
light (the violets, blues and greens) get scattered more strongly so
only the long wavelength (the reds) are left.
     Dawn's are red because our sun looks red at dawn. I have not
found any speculation on the Internet about Sol being a red giant, yet
people occassionally refer to a "red sun." In the summer solstice
celebration, when Sirius is close to the horizon, would have to look
the same by the laws of physics. I wonder now if that was the origin
of the "burning red dog" ritual. In any case, out of multiple aspects
of Sirius it would be natural for ancient astronomers to chose the one
closest related to ritual. Based on this, I restate.
   There is no physical evidence that Sirius was a red giant anywhere
in historic times, where by historic I mean the last 10 KY.  Although
some ancient writers probably were accurate, their writings are being
taken out of context. They were at best referring to the appearance of
Sirius under certain conditions. "Sirius was red when we observed it,
when it was near the horizon" is probably more what the ancient
writers meant.
    Furthermore, most of these guys were describing Sirius second-
hand. So I think the descriptions may be distorted on top of being
taken out of context. But I am willing to stick to the out-of-
context.
    There is no physics in your conjectures. I see numerology with
physics jargon attached.

On Aug 12, 12:01 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 9:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 4:04 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 8:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 11, 4:28 am, Ed Conrad <edcon...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > Therefore, by the hard numbers it is not all that unlikely that Sirius
> > > > B pushed out the likes of Venus and of what became our moon.  As
> > > > Sirius B having recently gone through it's red giant phase, having
> > > > lost or vacated 4+ solar mass within that process, whereas Venus along
> > > > with its moon and a few other spare items became ours, simply because
> > > > we were nearby, in the right direction and having the most gravity
> > > > influence.
>
> > >       Sirius did not recently go through a red giant phase.
> > >    Brad is referring to a German article made a few years ago
> > > claiming that Sirius had within historic times been a red giant.
>
> > No, I did not do this thing, which clearly makes you a liar.
>
>      I was wrong about you referring to that article. I didn't know
> exactly why you made that claim, and I jumped to an unwarranted
> conclusion. I apologize with respect to saying you used only one
> article. Apparently, you looked up a different series of articles.
>       I have since googled a little more on the issue of Sirius. There
> are other articles that made the claim that Sirius was a red giant in
> historic times. I still think this is wrong.

Could be wrong, but then red haired men and woman were either
worshiped or feared because of that reddish Sirius thing, and
countless other examples of that rather impressive star system being
noticeably red instead of bluish do exist.  How otherwise and/or when
did Sirius B become such a nifty white dwarf?

>     While searching, I got some more interesting information on
> Sirius. There are more recent references to Sirius being red. However,
> Sirius like our sun appears red when it is near the horizon. The light
> has to pass through more layers of atmosphere. The short wavelength
> light (the violets, blues and greens) get scattered more strongly so
> only the long wavelength (the reds) are left.

That's technically true, but if we're talking about folks near or
south of the equator is where such near horizon obstructed viewing of
Sirius was not an issue, nor did those folks have the sorts of
artificial pollution (aka human soot and flatulence) factors to look
through.

>      Dawn's are red because our sun looks red at dawn. I have not
> found any speculation on the Internet about Sol being a red giant, yet
> people occassionally refer to a "red sun." In the summer solstice
> celebration, when Sirius is close to the horizon, would have to look
> the same by the laws of physics. I wonder now if that was the origin
> of the "burning red dog" ritual. In any case, out of multiple aspects
> of Sirius it would be natural for ancient astronomers to chose the one
> closest related to ritual. Based on this, I restate.
>    There is no physical evidence that Sirius was a red giant anywhere
> in historic times, where by historic I mean the last 10 KY.  Although
> some ancient writers probably were accurate, their writings are being
> taken out of context. They were at best referring to the appearance of
> Sirius under certain conditions. "Sirius was red when we observed it,
> when it was near the horizon" is probably more what the ancient
> writers meant.
>     Furthermore, most of these guys were describing Sirius second-
> hand. So I think the descriptions may be distorted on top of being
> taken out of context. But I am willing to stick to the out-of-
> context.
>     There is no physics in your conjectures. I see numerology with
> physics jargon attached.

Supposedly our little wussy sun is eventually going to exceed 100 fold
its diameter.  How large might a 5+ solar mass of a red giant volume
become? (perhaps viewed as nearly the diameter of 1 AU, is certainly
going to look extra big and red to the naked eye, especially
impressive whenever along side Sirius A)

How long does it take the given life of such a red giant phase having
a worth of a 5+ solar mass star, to faid from near the end of its red
giant into becoming a white dwarf? (I'm thinking as little as a few
thousand years, if not faster as it snuffs down to becoming that white
dwarf)

Obviously you're firmly sequestered in the naysayology camp, of those
insisting that we're absolutely alone and without any possible cosmic
influx of any kind, with everything off-world having to be inert,
otherwise dead and/or too far away to count, except that you silly
folks can't ever manage to explain those pesky 100,000 year deep
freeze cycles or much less their subsequent thaw, of which these pesky
freeze/thaw cycles not only transpired without humanity but happened
more frequently as you go back in time, exactly as though our galaxy
and of whatever nearby interstellar relationships are forever
expanding.

In other words, you do not believe in the BB expansion theory, at
least not as long as it pertains to our local and far less than yocto
yocto(1e-48) realm of this crazy universe.  That's OK because, I'm
still not a 100% BB expansion theory supporter either, whereas instead
silly me, I tend to believe whatever goes up must eventually come back
down, or at least functions somewhat like the Milky Way runs through
its 225 million year cycle. (I think it has something to do with the
other 97% of gravity that we can't see or hardly detect)

So, what other than Sirius do you have within your naysay mindset,
that's in any way responsible for accommodating those absolutely
horrific illumination and subsequent energy influx cycles, having
contributed such spare photons on behalf of accomodating such terrific
sperts of diatom growth, and then fading far away upon going back
towards having ice-age frost merging into our tropics?

Are you suggesting that good old sol is somehow responsible?

Are you suggesting the interal core of Earth is responsible?

Are you into suggesting that your Jewish God is responsible?

Are you suggesting all three of the above items being in sync?
- Brad Guth

Don't feel bad, Ed.  Truth is, if Einstein were not Jewish, this anti-
think-tank of a Yiddish usenet from infomercial spewing hell would
have trashed each and everything Einstein ever had to say.  So, you're
in good company.

I believe the random happenstance of raw evolution takes at least ten
fold if not a good thousand fold longer than Darwin had in mind, that
is unless intelligent design had a little something constructive to do
with it.  Lots of stuff is older than our solar system (such as Mars
and perhaps our salty old moon), and perhaps oitherwise some items
like Venus as being potentially less old since their last planetology
make-over trauma of their getting red giant blown out of their
original binary solar system.

This following is a typical honest usenet chat or perhaps mainstream
status quo roast, that's ongoing between Darrell and myself within
another similar topic.  Too bad that it's all so taboo/nondisclosure
rated as to the all-knowing naysay mindset of the typical Yiddish
swarm, that which can't hardly think independently inside of their own
box, much less outside without those pesky MIB Yids showing up.

> Darrell:
> My experience here on the usenet is that not many are familiar with
> early solar system orbit swapping, near miss, and ejection theory.

They are actually all too very familiar with everything under that sun
which shines down upon their flat Earth, as well as their having
access to the very best of our 3D interactive orbital simulators along
with our spendy supercomputers, though I might agree that some folks
as mainstream status quo minions (easily spotted by their brown nose)
are rather snookered and thus easily dumbfounded, and that's just the
tip of our badly polluted and melting iceberg of infomercial physics
and skewed in order to suit whatever faith-based science, of
representing what most usenet folks as being other than whomever they
pretend to be, as most often having been opposing all that's off-world
unless it's totally inert, meaning dead as a door nail and especially
forbid as for such research not capable of revising one damn thing is
absolutely essential to sustaining their swarm like naysay mindset.

>
> I also buy off on the post Apollo moon formation
> theory of a Mars sized impactor on an early but completely formed
> "earth". That way the moon could have been completely molten all at
> once as the rocks suggest.

Buy yourself into all that you like, as there's no actual evidence of
Earth having that moon as of prior to 12,000 BP, only conjecture and
theory upon theory that's obviously well published into most every
other faith-base accepted textbook and science journal you can find,
as though it's the one and only word of their typically Jewish God.
Sorry about all that.

>
> A body the size of the moon could not
> retain this heat for many years and of course it is probably
> completely cold today. I am unfamiliar with all this talk of heat
> loss measurement, the lunar L1 designation etc. You realize that
> classical thermodynamics will come into play here and that heat
> losses will always vary with time and will not stay linear. Also
> consider the largely molten state of the earth 4-1/2 billion years
> after its formation when none of the other planets have been able to
> perform this feat. That also suggests a large collision of a
> magnitude that probably formed a large moon whose rocks suggest it
> was also completely molten at one time.

There is still no direct measurements of the moon's geothermal cache
of whatever core energy, such as per whatever's leaving its physically
dark surface.  Obviously you don't get it, that our salty old moon of
either having an unusually low density (perhaps salty) core, or
otherwise being somewhat hollow, of which this extremely nearby and
massive orb that's keeping Earth a little extra warm from the inside
out is simply not made of Earth, and it's not that the moon itself
couldn't have impacted Earth via a glancing blow and of its
lithobraking/icebraking arrival upon its marry way of having migrated
itself into our realm, of having deposited itself into becoming the
naked moon of Earth.

>
> My interest is in an exposed planetary core of a past gas giant or
> ice giant. I do not believe there are two molecules of hydrogen at
> their core. There is rock and iron enough all the way out to the Ort
> Cloud. So there is rock enough and iron enough to be at the core of
> Jupiter under all that metallic hydrogen. Now imagine the sun going
> nova and stripping all that away. There would be left a core of
> largely iron with a layer of rock overlaying it (maybe 3/4 to 1/4 ?)
> and the possibility of exotic materials laying on its surface formed
> from the rock/iron mix from its metallic hyrogen influenced and
> stellar nova influenced days.

> Possibilities?

> Darrell Lakin

Possibilities; you can bet your bottom dollar there's possibilities.

For example, ice is actually a good interstellar thermal insulator and
offering an even better radiation shield on behalf of accommodating
small, large and complex DNA life as we know it, especially if such
ice is extra thick and better yet if such Oort cloud accumulated ice
became a little salty.  My theory is that of a rogue planet along with
its icy moon of perhaps 4000 km in diameter, having a rocky and
somewhat salty core of 7.35e22 kg, as for this icy moon or possibly
the rogue planet itself having once upon a time impacted Earth at a
glancing blow, thereby established and of that moon having ever since
sustained our seasonal tilt, and this nifty encounter from such a
rogue item happened well after the peak of the very last ice age this
humanly over populated Earth is ever going to see, causing antipode
generated mountains and established a spare ocean basin here and
there, as well as having unavoidably contributed some extent of its
salty ice.

You do realize that the very same face of Venus is still somewhat
tidal locked to Earth, don't you.

I totally agree with your analogy of there having been and still being
such nifty interstellar rogue planets along with a few of those
potentially icy moons to boot.  If a brown dwarf or especially of any
significant black dwarf star is headed our way, as such we could be in
for serious trouble in River City (sort of speak), if not on the
receiving end of obtaining another planet or moon for our solar system
if all goes according to plan.

There's supposedly a missing 97% worth of the universe that's out
there, and even if 0.1% of that 97% is comprised of those pesky rogue
brown and black dwarf stars along with a few spare binary/trinary iron
orbs worth of their planets and icy moons, as such that's a lot of
potential mass and worthy items to pick from.

You'd also think that a given brown or black dwarf star represents a
fairly old sucker, such as 10s of billions of years older than our
solar system's star that's apparently so gosh darn passive that it
illuminates upon our guano island looking moon that's somehow
anticathode immune to cosmic gamma, as well as otherwise looking
exactly as though it were being passively xenon arc lamp spectrum
illuminated, thus somehow offering hardly any UV and next to zilch
worth of gamma or Xrays, and of somehow making the likes of Venus as
invisible as Muslim WMD.  I'm not kidding, that is if you absolutely
must believe in anything NASA/Apollo.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 12, 5:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Sirius like our sun appears red when it is near the horizon. The light
> > has to pass through more layers of atmosphere. The short wavelength
> > light (the violets, blues and greens) get scattered more strongly so
> > only the long wavelength (the reds) are left.
>
> That's technically true, but if we're talking about folks near or
> south of the equator is where such near horizon obstructed viewing of
> Sirius was not an issue, nor did those folks have the sorts of
> artificial pollution (aka human soot and flatulence) factors to look
> through.
    The scattering that I am talking about is not caused exclusively
by large particles. It is mostly caused by the molecules of gas in the
atmosphere, which has pretty much the same density from one side of
the world to the other. Another large factor is water droplets, which
in the more humid areas are quite dense independent of human activity.
Sol is reddened even in the most rural areas, so why not Sirius? "Red
dawn" is not an urban legend.
    Most the historical references that we are talking about come from
cultures north of the equator. Rome, Babylon, and Greece are north of
the equator. I think that Egypt for our purposes is on the equator, so
the same near horizon effects would be seen. Not that I have heard of
any references from ancient Egypt. The red Sirius is mostly a Northern
legend.

>
>
>
> Supposedly our little wussy sun is eventually going to exceed 100 fold
> its diameter.
     Have you looked at the projections? Its supposed to happen in
about 4 billion years. Main sequence stars like ours are supposed to
be stable a long time. It supposed to take many millions of years to
get to the red giant phase, even once it starts.

>  How large might a 5+ solar mass of a red giant volume
> become? (perhaps viewed as nearly the diameter of 1 AU, is certainly
> going to look extra big and red to the naked eye, especially
> impressive whenever along side Sirius A)
>
> How long does it take the given life of such a red giant phase having
> a worth of a 5+ solar mass star, to faid from near the end of its red
> giant into becoming a white dwarf?
     If it goes ejects planetary nebula, maybe a few million. Those
planetary nebula, by the way, don't disperse for millions of years.
They would still be seen from earth, big time, if they were ejected
only a few thousand years ago.
     Of course, the red giant could go nova and convert in a few
hours. Again, the debris would be evident for thousands if not
millions of years. So again, if the red giant did that 12 KY ago it
would be easy to spot.
>(I'm thinking as little as a few
> thousand years, if not faster as it snuffs down to becoming that white
> dwarf)
    You think?
>
> Obviously you're firmly sequestered in the naysayology camp, of those
> insisting that we're absolutely alone and without any possible cosmic
> influx of any kind, with everything off-world having to be inert,
> otherwise dead and/or too far away to count,
     No, I am not firmly sequestered etc.

>except that you silly...
<snip incoherent rant>

> So, what other than Sirius do you have within your naysay mindset,
> that's in any way responsible for accommodating those absolutely
> horrific illumination and subsequent energy influx cycles, having
> contributed such spare photons on behalf of accomodating such terrific
> sperts of diatom growth, and then fading far away upon going back
> towards having ice-age frost merging into our tropics?
      I don't know, there are a pile of models out there that attempt
to model the ice ages and other climatic changes. I don't know if any
or all of them are true. Most of them are consistent with orbital
mechanics. Yours doesn't seem to be consistent with orbital mechanics.
Gravity doesn't work that way.
       If I fully understood your rants, maybe I would like your
model. You are not really explaining how any of these bizarre
celestial transformations could change the orbits of anything in our
solar system. For example: so a star is closer. Or suppose a star
changed into a white dwarf. Why should any satellite in our solar
system change partners? Gravity doesn't work that way.
     Care to explain how an approaching star can change the orbit of a
moon?
>
    <snip more incoherent rants>

On Aug 13, 3:29 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and perhaps our salty old moon), and perhaps oitherwise some items
> like Venus as being potentially less old since their last planetology
> make-over trauma of their getting red giant blown out of their
> original binary solar system.
     Venus couldn't have been "red giant" blown out of another solar
system. Even a supernova couldn't blow a planet out of a solar system.
Gravity doesn't work that way.

> > On Aug 12, 9:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>How otherwise and/or when
> didSiriusB become such a nifty white dwarf?
>
       Supposedly, all red giants become white dwarfs by ejecting
matter. They eject matter either slowly, which generate planetary
nebula that appear through the telescope like huge rings. The process
of ejecting planetary nebula would take thousands of years, one at a
time. Or the red giant goes supernova, which generates a more diffuse
nebula.
      Either way, the nebula are far larger than the red giant ever
was. If ancient people noticed a tiny red spot as being the star
Sirius, they sure as hell would have recognized big rings from the
planetary nebula ejected from Sirius. The planetary nebula would grow
very slowly, people all over the world would have seen these things
grow over generations. The nebula from a supernova would appear
suddenly, after a flash that lasted for years, and appear as a big
blob in the sky that lasts for years.
      I particularly like to imagine what a supernova would have
looked like. Or the supernova when that red giant went off. From 8.7
light years away, the supernova would have been like a second sun. If
Sirius was even closer in those days, like you claim, it would have
been blinding. For a couple of years. Your ancient astronomers could
have been blinded  if Sirius was close.
     Yet, all you have is vague references by scholars to a Sirius
being red. And more recent observations that it is white. Absolutely
no stories about the miraculous transition of Sirius from red to
white.
     Even today, there would be a very  noticeable nebula. It doesn't
matter whether they were planetary nebula or supernova nebula. The
resulting nebula last thousands of years, and a small residue may last
millions. There is no place for the debris to go but out. The
distances are huge, so the material doesn't disperse on a short time
scale. Gravity prevents some of the debris from dispersing.
      You claim that we of ZOG reject "real physics." I believe you
are not so far gone as to reject conservation of matter and the law of
gravity. Neither theory was developed by Jewish physicists. So, answer
these two questions.

1) Why didn't the ancient astronomers notice the violent events
changing Sirius from a red giant to a white dwarf?
2)  If Sirius turned to a red giant recently, where did that debris
go?

On Aug 13, 3:29 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dark surface.  Obviously you don't get it, that our salty old moon of
> either having an unusually low density (perhaps salty) core, or
> otherwise being somewhat hollow, of which this extremely nearby and
> massive orb that's keeping Earth a little extra warm from the inside
> out is simply not made of Earth, and it's not that the moon itself
> couldn't have impacted Earth via a glancing blow and of its
> lithobraking/icebraking arrival upon its marry way of having migrated
> itself into our realm, of having deposited itself into becoming the
> naked moon of Earth.
    We have a very good idea of the density of the moon, and it
doesn't have anything to do with NASA. You grant that we have the
orbits of the earth-moon system pretty well established, starting from
that great gentile scientist Issaac Newton?
1) We know where the barycenter of the earth-moon system is, and the
distance between them, and the period of the orbit. From this, the
mass of the moon is calculated.
2) We measure the angular diameter of the moons image from the earth,
and we still know the distance between earth and moon. From this, the
volume of the earth - moon system can be calculated.
3) We know the mass, and we know the volume. By dividing mass by
volume, we know the density of the moon.

     The calculated density is inconsistent with a moon made of salt,
a moon made of ice,  a hollow moon, or any other mystical construct.
Neither NASA nor Einstein had anything to do with it. It was totally
unnecessary to go there to figure this out. Faking the Apollo mission
wouldn't change that. Gamma ray bombardment wouldn't change that. The
collapse of the red giant Sirius into a white dwarf couldn't change
that.

    The collapse of a red giant into a white dwarf, even if it
occurred, could not by itself knock anything out of orbit. This is
because the center of mass of the red giant wouldn't change in the
transition. As determined by Issaac Newton, the originator of
nonJewish physics, orbits around a spherical body are not affected by
changes in the diameter of the spherical body. You can't change that.
Einstein couldn't change that. NASA couldn't change that. A moon made
of salt and ice couldn't change that.

        You need some lemonade.

In spite of all the naysayism flak, I tend to agree with Ed, that
terrestrial limited Darwin as we know it is dead.  The core or initial
root of life as we know it is simply much older than Earth.  Sorry
about all that.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 13, 6:14 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 3:29 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:> and perhaps our salty old moon), and perhaps oitherwise some items
> > like Venus as being potentially less old since their last planetology
> > make-over trauma of their getting red giant blown out of their
> > original binary solar system.
>
>      Venus couldn't have been "red giant" blown out of another solar
> system. Even a supernova couldn't blow a planet out of a solar system.
> Gravity doesn't work that way.

Your profound naysayism is noted.  Hitler sends his love and
affection.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 16, 11:55 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 3:29 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > dark surface.  Obviously you don't get it, that our salty old moon of
> > either having an unusually low density (perhaps salty) core, or
> > otherwise being somewhat hollow, of which this extremely nearby and
> > massive orb that's keeping Earth a little extra warm from the inside
> > out is simply not made of Earth, and it's not that the moon itself
> > couldn't have impacted Earth via a glancing blow and of its
> > lithobraking/icebraking arrival upon its marry way of having migrated
> > itself into our realm, of having deposited itself into becoming the
> > naked moon of Earth.
>
>     We have a very good idea of the density of the moon, and it
> doesn't have anything to do with NASA. You grant that we have the
> orbits of the earth-moon system pretty well established, starting from
> that great gentile scientist Issaac Newton?
> 1) We know where the barycenter of the earth-moon system is, and the
> distance between them, and the period of the orbit. From this, the
> mass of the moon is calculated.
> 2) We measure the angular diameter of the moons image from the earth,
> and we still know the distance between earth and moon. From this, the
> volume of the earth - moon system can be calculated.
> 3) We know the mass, and we know the volume. By dividing mass by
> volume, we know the density of the moon.

You talk the mainstream talk as though your incest populated swarm
knows all there is to know about our moon.  Are you nuts?

>
>      The calculated density is inconsistent with a moon made of salt,
> a moon made of ice,  a hollow moon, or any other mystical construct.
> Neither NASA nor Einstein had anything to do with it. It was totally
> unnecessary to go there to figure this out. Faking the Apollo mission
> wouldn't change that. Gamma ray bombardment wouldn't change that. The
> collapse of the red giant Sirius into a white dwarf couldn't change
> that.

Odd, that I've never once stipulated the moon was in fact "made of
salt", "made of ice" or that it was in fact a hollow sucker.  Are you
nuts?

Of once upon a time having 262 km worth of salty ice on deck is simply
not a moon made of ice.

A low density core that's likely close to being worth 2 g/cm2 could be
extensively of salt or possibly even that of a fluid brine towards the
side facing Earth, if not otherwise somewhat geode crystal like hollow
in places.

A physically massive crust of such unusually extensive mascons (unlike
anything on Earth), as likely comprised of spent U238, radium, lead,
iron, titanium and a few other heavy elements, all of which hammered
by absolutely horrific impacts of nifty cosmic deposits of good
density, simply is not a moon made of Earth.

Of course, by all means possible, please do share and share alike,
especially since that xenon arc lamp illuminated astronaut and our
flag along with mother Earth was so entirely accommodated within such
unfiltered Kodak film (with DR to spare); therefore, where's Venus?

By way of hard science and the regular laws of physics, do tell us
village idiots the why and how that somewhat salty old moon isn't
worse off than our Van Allen belts (after all, it had been gamma band-
pass imaged while looking through the 70,000 km magnetosphere expanse
that includes the absolute worse of those pesky Van Allen belts, as
being otherwise indicating by far as representing the most gamma and
even Xray worthy item in town).  Say again, why exactly is that
physically dark and supposedly naked moon not the least bit
electrostatic, reactive or otherwise anticathode worthy?

>
>     The collapse of a red giant into a white dwarf, even if it
> occurred, could not by itself knock anything out of orbit. This is
> because the center of mass of the red giant wouldn't change in the
> transition. As determined by Issaac Newton, the originator of
> nonJewish physics, orbits around a spherical body are not affected by
> changes in the diameter of the spherical body. You can't change that.
> Einstein couldn't change that. NASA couldn't change that. A moon made
> of salt and ice couldn't change that.
>
>         You need some lemonade.

You need some brains, and much less Yid buttology worth of naysayism.
Your faith-based conditional laws of physics suck and very much blow,
because otherwise you'd have that fully interactive 3D orbital
simulator (any number of which fully public/tax funded) up and running
on our behalf.

What exactly are you folks so deathly afraid of?
- Brad Guth

On Aug 14, 7:31 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 1) Why didn't the ancient astronomers notice the violent events
> changing Sirius from a red giant to a white dwarf?
> 2)  If Sirius turned to a red giant recently, where did that debris
> go?

If not into establishing a Sirius Oort cloud, then perhaps some of its
nifty stuff ended up becoming more of Sirius A, and/or possibly
joining up with us.

All of which are darn good questions that a fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator and of perhaps 1024 CPUs that's running with the
best available science might help answer.

Any good ideas as to why all of such capable simulators and
supercomputer capability that has likely been paid for several times
over, yet having been kept taboo/nondisclosure rated?
- Brad Guth

On Aug 13, 6:07 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 5:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So, what other than Sirius do you have within your naysay mindset,
> > that's in any way responsible for accommodating those absolutely
> > horrific illumination and subsequent energy influx cycles, having
> > contributed such spare photons on behalf of accomodating such terrific
> > sperts of diatom growth, and then fading far away upon going back
> > towards having ice-age frost merging into our tropics?
>
>       I don't know, there are a pile of models out there that attempt
> to model the ice ages and other climatic changes. I don't know if any
> or all of them are true. Most of them are consistent with orbital
> mechanics. Yours doesn't seem to be consistent with orbital mechanics.
> Gravity doesn't work that way.

In other Darwin123 silly words of wisdom, as within your conditional
laws of physics is what somehow prevents any gravity/tidal energy from
warming Earth, even if there's a shared 2e20 joules worth of orb to
orb interactions involved with our 98.5% fluid Earth.  How
interesting, and where do you suppose all of that continual graviton
energy is going?

>
>        If I fully understood your rants, maybe I would like your
> model. You are not really explaining how any of these bizarre
> celestial transformations could change the orbits of anything in our
> solar system. For example: so a star is closer. Or suppose a star
> changed into a white dwarf. Why should any satellite in our solar
> system change partners? Gravity doesn't work that way.
>      Care to explain how an approaching star can change the orbit of a
> moon?

Even though there's no actual physics or hard scientific proof on your
*nothing ever interacts with anything unless it's 100% terrestrial*
behalf, it seems that you are the one that's absolutely positive and
way past the point of no return, insisting that we exist as perely an
isolated terrestrial evolved species, and that we somehow emerged from
the muck of life as humanly intelligent as though somewhat Darwinish
overnight none the less, and that all we see upon this Earth or of
whatever's off-world was always right here and otherwise forever
evolving and/or expanding away from the very one and only singular get
go, and thus supposedly all that's off-world has been impossible to
interact with one another.

You're even the one telling us to exclude interstellar gravity, and to
merely take your word that our wussy little solar system and
especially of Earth plus that of or salty old moon have never once
interacted with anything the least bit local, cosmic or otherwise
rogue, and perhaps much less of anything ET intelligent worthy, and
yet you offer us no viable alternative that makes any sense.

Gee whiz, I didn't realize your faith-based naysay formulated
interpretation of this vast galaxy and otherwise nearly endless
universe was so dreadfully pathetic, especially shot to hell if we're
it.

Fortunately for the likes of myself, I don't buy into your terrestrial
limited faith-based kind of *us only* analogy, because as far as we
know Earth simply isn't old enough for such random happenstance of
having accomplished such complex yet cosmic isolated evolution within
such a cosmic spark of time.  Instead, I'm simply betting my bottom
dollar on big time panspermia (via the likes of an icy proto-moon
having given Earth its seasonal tilt and extra salty oceans (that
which you folks can't otherwise explain), if not favoring intelligent
assisted migrations or even via terraforming placements (exactly as we
intend to do once having nailed our own space travel capability).

BTW, just because we're not the first of intelligent souls on Venus,
doesn't mean that we can't manage to take our fair share of whatever
Venus has to offer, especially if we treat whatever ETs the way we've
treated folks in Iraq.
- Brad Guth