🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 May, 17:46, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 5:19 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 4:43 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 2:38 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > BTW in basic physics-101;  how much does our moon contribute to GW?
>
> > > > All inclusive: 1 watt, or is it actually worth a few multi-thousand-
> > > > terawatts?
>
> > > Somewhere in between?
>
> You forgot to answer my question - where did you get your
> undergraduate degree?
>
> > Wow, such wise knowledge, such absolute physics, such crapolla spewing
> > from between your infomercial butt-cheeks of such all-knowing
> > expertise.
>
> Aww, and I was even being nice.
>
>
>
> > > Why don't you explain why the Moon is relevant? I think even you can
> > > acknowledge that the Moon was in orbit around the Earth over a
> > > thousand years ago.
>
> > I agree, though I'd have to put that date more likely as of 10,000 ~
> > 12,000 years ago.
>
> Too bad the Moon has been around far longer than that.
>
> The solar system has been around for 4.5 billion years, give or take.
> The Earth has been there for all of it. Every planetary and lunar body
> long ago settled into established orbits. The Moon is large enough to
> be a planetary body unto itself.
>
> Either it formed in the solar system, or it did not. If it did, you
> would have to explain how the Earth could capture the Moon such that
> the Moon ends up in a very circular orbit - it has an eccentricity of
> about 0.05. You would also have to explain how the Moon managed to
> _not_ intersect the Earth's orbit for several billion years.
>
> If you assert that it _didn't_ form in the solar system, you would
> have to explain why samples returned to the Earth are similar to
> materials - in isotope concentrations - to materials on Earth.
> Actually you would have to explain it either way, but whatever.
>
> That doesn't even begin to touch the biological and fossil evidence
> for the Moon existing.
>
>
>
> > > The Moon forms a static part of the background
> > > that has not changed in a very long time and is not relevant to the
> > > debate.
>
> > There you go again, being that silly butt ugly and otherwise
> > infomercial spewing liar, and so much worse.
>
> > "static part of the background" meas exactly what in hard science?
>
> None of the words should be unfamiliar to someone with a science
> education, nor should their arrangement be as such.
>
> [snip rest of boring abuse]

Too bad you're still such a silly naysay stick in the mud.  Too bad
that our regular laws of physics don't seem to function for any of
your off-world stuff, or even any better off than they do for what's
within your flat Earth that's going GW postal, mostly because of that
terribly big, downright massive and nearby moon of ours that's keeping
so much of our 99% fluid Earth on the move.

You silly brown-nosed clowns can't even admit that we always had a
good enough solar tide to deal with, and otherwise once upon a time w/
o moon as having much less seasonal tilt to boot.

What else besides the whole truth and nothing but the truth does your
faith-based or anti-faith-based mindset auto-exclude?

Are those pesky ETs still on your 'NO FLY' list?

Is intelligent design still taboo/nondisclosure rated?

You folks never did say whatever happened to the other 3X solar mass
of Sirius-B.  Why is that?

How much anti-think-tank and/or as snookered and otherwise dumbfounded
do you intend to keep Usenet?
-
Brad Guth