🚀 go-pugleaf

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]