🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1175881576.836161.150590@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
 bradguth@gmail.com wrote:

> Sorry folks, as I'd forgotten that 

no one cares what blather you post?

-- 
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB.  And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best  to ignore them, as you wish."

Can't you sum that up in a poem though?
(but you did make it accessible none the less)
p.s. might we hear from you in the future, despite our sorry lot?

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1175881576.836161.150590@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry folks, as I'd forgotten that "sci.bio.evolution" was another NG
> moderated cult.
>
> "The planet that hit the earth to create the moon - Question"
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.science/browse_frm/thread/a287e0688a0ad7be/82c3bc8c5c24b8d8?hl=en#82c3bc8c5c24b8d8
> Jack Crenshaw
> Cra...@gmail.com wrote:
>> dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>What happened to that planet after it hit the Earth?  Was it destroyed?
>>>Does it still exist somewhere?
>
>> It still exists as part of the Earth and as part of the moon.
>
>> Popular theories on the moon-forming collision say the dense core of
>> the impacting planet merged with Earth's core, while its crust splashed
>> off to form the moon.
>> Mike Miller
>
> : Not true. The accounts I've seen, gleaned from simulations, suggest
> : that the planet hit a glancing blow. True, it added to the earth's
> : iron core, but most of its mass continued on.  Only a glancing blow
> : -- and a particular angle at that -- yields a moon like ours.
> : Jack
> -
>
> Too bad the icy proto-moon itself couldn't have merely glanced off of
> Earth, and of not so long ago.
>
> It's a matter of regular old physics, whereas such lithobraking
> encounters simply were not all that uncomon. (could even happen once
> again)
>
> At some time near or shortly after the bulk or worse portion of that
> last ice age cycle, of which this planet will ever see, is when Earth
> got a good seasonal tilt worth of an impact, receiving a few spare
> thousand teratonnes worth of salty ice, having created another nifty
> ocean basin and the antipode, plus ever since we've been summarily
> thawing out, along with as much global dimming via humanly contributed
> soot and chemical polution as we can muster.
>
> A shift from a thermal energy sink worth of a highly reflective ice
> age, into going GW postal takes a truly great deal of applied energy
> over an extended period of time, some of which unavoidably becomes our
> demise via our self imposed global dimming and a few other facters
> that should never have transpirored to the extent we've allowed.
> However, the vast bulk of energy is off-world via gravity and tidal
> forces (applied inside and out) that arrived along with our more than
> somewhat salty and originally icy proto-moon.
>
> At least there's nothing within the regular laws of physics, or that
> of any known planetology which excludes such a recent event, and
> there's yet no clear objective evidence proving we even had that moon
> establish within it's relatively final orbit as of prior to 10,000 BC,
> if not somewhat more recently.
>
> For example, if that moon had ever been orbiting for any amount of
> time while being situated at half or that of much less distance, as
> such the applied tidal forces of at least four times the intensity
> (inside and out) would have been downright lethal trauma imposed upon
> most any significant form of existing life upon this newish planet
> that had gained more than it's fair share of salty oceans and of many
> other bodies of salty waters.
>
> All of the arguments opposed to this recent merger and orbital trek of
> our unusually massive and nearby moon are yet every bit as subjective,
> and otherwise extensively faith-based upon all such horrific things
> happing to our world in the very beginning of planetology formations,
> that which supposedly had nothing whatsoever to do with any other star
> or exo-solar system but that of our own.  I guess that means the
> Sirius star/solar system is Muslim, while our's is becoming a whole
> lot more Jewish mindset by the day.
>
> Damn few of us, including the honest likes of "Jean-Paul Turcaud", are
> simply not sufficient to alter the ongoing self-destruct mode of
> what's insuring a good part of our very own demise, that's also
> getting more spendy and otherwise lethal by the day.  Too bad we still
> haven't established zilch worth of any Earth/moon science as could
> have been easily and efficiently obtained from the superior
> perspective of having our instruments situated within the moon's (M--
>>L1---->E) sweet-spot, as of decades ago.
> -
> Brad Guth
> 

On Apr 6, 5:42 pm, "G_Cowboy_Is_That_A_Gnu_Hurd?"
<gcow...@gmail.no.hotmail.no_gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't you sum that up in a poem though?
> (but you did make it accessible none the less)
> p.s. might we hear from you in the future, despite our sorry lot?
>

Of course you'll hear from me, as I actually exist as a real person,
thus I'm entirely unlike the other 99.9% of Usenet that typically
sucks and blows at just about everything under the sun that orbits and
passively illuminates their flat Earth of mostly faith-based village
idiots.
-
Brad Guth

There's far more to this line of argument than I've suggested by this
initial topic.

The planet that hit the earth to create the moon
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.science/browse_frm/thread/a287e0688a0ad7be/9ff83fbbac5507e3?lnk=st&q=%22Planet+that+hit+the+earth%22&rnum=2&hl=en#9ff83fbbac5507e3

Planet that hit Earth to create the moon? = moon
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/bf67b3f144024f4e/de6033deff731685?lnk=st&q=%22Planet+that+hit+the+earth%22&rnum=3&hl=en#de6033deff731685
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_frm/thread/ea1ca08315ce3d3b/802570798f57f9a7?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=4&hl=en#802570798f57f9a7

If you have any human associated evidence, as to our species having
managed to record the realm of their icy environment, as for our
having that nearby moon along with all of its tidal forced issues, or
that of having our seasonal tilt as of prior to 10,000 BC, please do
share.

Try to remember, that us supposedly intelligent humans of 10,000 BC
and especially of before that time were actually an extremely survival
intelligent species, far more so capable than the vast bulk of our
modern day species that can't hardly survive another day without a
chemically processed HAPPY MEAL in each hand.

I'm merely looking for the source(s) of human evolution, that's likely
in part as having been contributed by way of something off-world.
This is not my having excluded local evolution, nor is it in any way
excluding whatever's creation or that of ET or even terrestrial
intelligent design.  Instead, I'm keeping all the biological doors of
DNA/RNA complex code wide open for a better look-see and therefore an
improved understanding of where such highly complex life may have
originated, and/or as having subsequently merged along with our local
environment.  After all, Earth's surface environment simply didn't
become as physically morphed with ocean basins and antipodes, nor as
wet and salty as it is from within.

The merging Oort clouds of Sol and Sirius are the most likely
contributors to our complex forms of life as we know it, as well as
being the most likely contributors of salty ice, that may quite easily
have been of a considerable depth and volume, such as on the deck of
our icy proto-moon.
-
Brad Guth

There's more to share, and there's certainly more of mainstream flak
on the way as I honestly try to share in the past, present and future
of humanity, of our somewhat cosmological intelligent designed
planetology and of its icy proto-moon that so unusually watered and
also managed to have extensively salted us (not Mars, not Venus) down
but good.

There is simply more to the complex evolution of life as we know it,
as in far more than any terrestrial environment alone and especially
within the last few hundred million years could have mastered without
a little outside help or God like intervention.

Humanity is not the dumb-luck end-product of merely random
happenstance evolution, because Earth simply is not old enough, nor
was this planet all that livable except for the last half billion
years at best, and 500 million or less years simply isn't worth a
random evolved DNA drop of code in the bucket of such complex life.

So, where else that's much older and/or more ideal did the vast bulk
of our DNA/RNA code and of all the surrounding codes of other than
human life that's far more complex actually come from?
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177131794.157736.283930@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> Humanity is not the dumb-luck end-product of merely random
> happenstance evolution, because Earth simply is not old enough, nor
> was this planet all that livable except for the last half billion
> years at best, and 500 million or less years simply isn't worth a
> random evolved DNA drop of code in the bucket of such complex life.
>
> So, where else that's much older and/or more ideal did the vast bulk
> of our DNA/RNA code and of all the surrounding codes of other than
> human life that's far more complex actually come from?

Cheltenham Ladies College?

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." 

On Apr 20, 11:39 pm, "Brian Watson" <WACCI_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177131794.157736.283930@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Humanity is not the dumb-luck end-product of merely random
> > happenstance evolution, because Earth simply is not old enough, nor
> > was this planet all that livable except for the last half billion
> > years at best, and 500 million or less years simply isn't worth a
> > random evolved DNA drop of code in the bucket of such complex life.
>
> > So, where else that's much older and/or more ideal did the vast bulk
> > of our DNA/RNA code and of all the surrounding codes of other than
> > human life that's far more complex actually come from?
>
> Cheltenham Ladies College?
>
> --
> Brian
> "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

Quite possibly from the likes of Sirius, or of whatever other viable
and thus older solar system, that which our Sol visits roughly every
100,000 years.

Sirius B is after all much older than our Sol.

Sirius A might even have come to exist because of Sirius B having gone
terribly big and red before its demise into a white dwarf.

Can you folks suggest upon anything else that's even remotely
possible?

Isn't our God or whatever ET intelligent designer the least bit worthy
of having accomplished anything constructive off-world, such as on our
behalf from within the realm of Sirius?
-
Brad Guth

Sorry for my having to repost this revised contribution, as it's
merely the best that I can manage, though I most certainly could post
a few more of these revisions if that would help in getting my message
across.

Apparently our "jessica.lover" of "sci.bio.evolution" is having
another one of those all-knowing and/or 'I'm God' bad sort of
moderator days, especially when the likes of myself comes along and
simply refuses to get into their all or nothing status quo box, or
else.  It seems they can topic/author stock and summarily bash upon
and otherwise trash and insult the intelligence and sincerity of
anyone, however it's perfectly clear that their victim(s) are not
allowed to return the same warm and fuzzy favor with all the love and
affections that we can muster.

On Apr 13, 10:18 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm very confused by both of your posts, what are you claiming/
> arguing?  Are you not a native english speaker?  I will try to offer
> some information that I think answers your questions, but your
> language is very convoluted.

This following is me going Usenet postal.

"Are you not a native english speaker":  Are you folks not quite past
the level of a 5th grader?

Of being "convoluted" is just myself being downright honest and
otherwise a touch dyslexic along with having a good sense of remorse
pertaining to our past, present and future that's not exactly looking
good.  Sorry about all that, of my not keeping a straight enough butt-
crack, as I'd have to lie through it in order to suit your silly
terrestrial all-or-nothing and otherwise Old Testament approved
evolution that apparently happened as only here on Earth and in a very
short span of time none the less, and otherwise of my not supporting
that silly notion that supposedly we're such a one-of-a-kind
intelligent species that's existing within their mostly white and
Jewish universe mindset.

In case it has somehow slipped over each of your faith-based heads of
naysayism;  I do not believe in your holy grail of what and of how we
humans came about, especially since complex evolution takes longer
than Earth is old, and therefore planetology and of its complex
humanity along with even more so complex other life that's surrounding
us, as entirely limited to Earth and of whatever satellite/moonology
as we know it, is 100% at risk of getting nuked by way of Guth going
postal.

>
> The moon most likely formed when a mars sized object hit the earth at
> a grazing angle, the impactor was destroyed and a big chunk of the
> earth's mantle was knocked off, all the bits of the impactor and the
> chunk of earth cooled down and gravitational collapsed to form our
> current moon.   This happend about 4.533 billion years ago, based on
> dating of the moon.

Sorry, but your supposed physics and science of "most likely" doesn't
quite cut it for many others or myself.

You folks are clearly not playing along with the honest intent or jest
of my topic, are you.  What other sorts of truths are you folks so
deathly afraid of?

Are you folks afraid that we're not exactly alone?

Are you afraid that we're not the one and only alpha species?

Are you afraid that human DNA/RNA cant not advance to the next level?

>
> Recorded history began around 8,000 BC

That simply is not the least bit true, is it.  What's worthy of
recorded history has nothing to do with words, math or science in any
form that'll ever suit those intent upon excluding whatever evidence
rocks their boat, and I'd be glad as to offer any number of analogies
as for supporting that perception or notion of mine.

>
> so I'm not sure what you mean by "human associated evidence".
> There is plenty of oral mythology from before 10,000 BC that
> mentions the seasons and tides.

Please do show and tell, as thus far you're obviously the only one as
having such objective science.

I never once said Earth had 'NO SEASONS' or much less having 'NO
TIDES' before having obtained our icy and obviously salty old moon,
did I.  Ever heard of a solar tide?  Ever heard of an elliptical
orbit?

> Is that what you are looking for?

Yes, at least in a way it is, and please do share, such as perhaps
including as of 15,000 BC might be a good enough start, whereas a
given picture from that era is worth a thousand if not a million
words.  Usually of whatever mythology that had sufficient meaning had
also been included within their drawings and carvings.  Therefore,
when exactly was the first moon depicted or otherwise noticed by those
intelligent humans, that were actually very skilled at surviving, and
of so much more than surviving as mere heathen/animal status.

>
> There is physical evidence of seasons and tides in the geological
> record that go all the way back to the formation of the moon.

To what degree of tides and seasons?  As otherwise that's all entirely
subjective science, isn't it.  Without purely objective proof, you've
got less than squat in support of that mainstream analogy that Earth
always had such an unusually massive and nearby moon to deal with,
though perhaps we should exclude the possibility that a lesser moon or
two couldn't have once upon a time existed because, such stuff of
gravity does from time to time manage to bump into one another,
doesn't it.

>
>  What do you mean by "the realm of their icy environment"?

I'd have to suppose an ice age seems to qualify as an "icy realm" (as
much or at times more than a 50% icy and otherwise of a frosty cold
Earth with a much higher degree of reflective albedo sounds about
right).  Actually, there were many such horrific ice ages, each having
been a touch worse off than the other as going back in time.  Ever
heard of such crazy things?

Since I clearly do not believe in your infomercial koran of whatever's
mainstream, so why are you into asking such many silly questions, when
instead you could have been constructively answering upon a great many
of my questions on behalf of supporting my topic (not against it).

In case you sci.bio.evolution/(M) folks didn't take notice, this is
not another topic about polishing your mainstream status quo door
knob.  It's more about kicking sci.bio.evolution/(M) butt that's
simply way more all-knowing and sanctimonious than deserved.

>
> Antipodes aren't a real geological occurence, it is just a term to
> define the point ont he earth opposite of you.  There is no relation
> in geology that goes through the center of the earth.  And your
> assumption that "Earth's surface environment simply didn't become as
> physically morphed with ocean basins and antipodes, nor as  wet and
> salty as it is from within," is just flat out wrong.  The morphology
> of the earth comes from plate tectonics.  The wetness and saltiness
> comes from the planetoids that formed the earth, the are very rich in
> water and more complex molecules as evidenced by current asteroids.

Without our truly impressive, far too unusually massive and extremely
nearby moon that doing us far more harm than good, Earth simply would
not have all that much in plate tectonics to work with, would it.

Take away that moon and good old proto-Earth becmes extensively
smoother (somewhat planet Mercury like).  If there's still enough
salty water to go around, there's hardly if any dry land to spare.

Secondly, our once upon a time icy proto-moon is still rather salty,
don't you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/363105.stm
"There are less than 50 atoms of sodium per cubic centimetre in the
atmosphere just above the surface of the Moon," says Jeffrey
Baumgardner, of Boston University's Centre for Space Physics.
-

I believe that BBC reported science is off by at least a factor of 10
fold, in that it's more than likely worth 500 sodium atoms/cm3 near
the surface, if not as great as 5000 atoms/cm3 on the badly roasted to
death sunny side of that salty old moon.  By way of other established
methods, that nifty comet like trail of sodium extends past the
900,000 km mark, whereas our detection methods fades out at supposedly
5 sodium atoms/cm3 (though even that much could be a skewed lowball
accounting because, at 900,000 km of even those 5 atoms/cm3 would tend
to reverse interpret as to that roasted and continually micrometeorite
impacted surface of having been continually placing such sodium into
such a thin atmosphere, as worthy of considerably more than 5000
sodium atoms/cm3 to start off with).

In other words, most Usenet folks (especially of those in moderated
cult groups) are simply chuck full of themselves, along with all of
that faith-based analogy that's so capable of excluding any other
evidence on the fly sort of speak, such as rejecting whatever's based
upon the regular laws of physics and of all the best available
science, as opposed to their continually promoting of whatever's based
upon of those conditional physics and of their highly selective
science of mostly infomercials that's in support of their mainstream
mindset, thus having systematically excluded all that has mainstream
boat rocking potential.

If only their side gets published and/or hyped along by way of their
very own mainstream media and textbooks, then where's the other side
of this argument getting its fair share of public exposure?
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177177560.655560.269170@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 11:39 pm, "Brian Watson" <WACCI_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177131794.157736.283930@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Humanity is not the dumb-luck end-product of merely random
>> > happenstance evolution, because Earth simply is not old enough, nor
>> > was this planet all that livable except for the last half billion
>> > years at best, and 500 million or less years simply isn't worth a
>> > random evolved DNA drop of code in the bucket of such complex life.
>>
>> > So, where else that's much older and/or more ideal did the vast bulk
>> > of our DNA/RNA code and of all the surrounding codes of other than
>> > human life that's far more complex actually come from?
>>
>> Cheltenham Ladies College?

> Quite possibly from the likes of Sirius, or of whatever other viable
> and thus older solar system, that which our Sol visits roughly every
> 100,000 years.

Jaweh cannot be Sirius.

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." 

The perfectly good what-if of a given 4X or 5X solar mass, such as
from that original Sirius B, kicking out a few assorted Oort cloud
items while going red-giant, as such isn't all that unlikely.  In
fact, it seems entirely more common place and therefore more likely
than not, especially as our Sol gets within better range of using our
somewhat wussy gravity to further attract upon whatever's headed our
way.

(Milky Way's 225MY cycle indicates more frequent local stellar cycles)
The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood, by Nordström
et al., as having been further improved by Hipparcos data:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=42&lang=en

Of whatever ice survives in interstellar space, especially as for
eventually cruising anywhere near 1AU of a Sol like star, as such
requires a fairly substantial volume and/or gravity worthy core of
rock (perhaps not unlike 7.35e22 kg), and otherwise hosting some
degree of a protective atmosphere, even if such an atmosphere is
primarily sustained via those icy vapors.

I've asked of others;  What is the "R" value of ice as insulation?
>> Eric Swanson:
>> Thermal Conductivity, Ice at 0 C = 2.22 (W/m K)
>>
>> Data for other temperatures found here:
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html

Thermal Conductivity of -0°C ice = 2.22 (W/m K)  ~  (R/m/K = 0.45)
Thermal Conductivity of -5°C ice = 2.25 (W/m K)  ~  (R/m/K = 0.444)
Thermal Conductivity of -10°C ice = 2.3 (W/m K)  ~  (R/m/K = 0.435)
Thermal Conductivity of -30°C ice = 2.5 (W/m K)  ~  (R/m/K = 0.4)

In a few other honestly deductive words of my best dyslexic encrypted
wisdom, whereas an ejected icy covered proto-moon is entirely livable
if you are adequately sequestered within/under such a protective layer
of ice, especially on behalf of sufficiently intelligent folks, plus
all sorts of other DNA that'll survive such an extended interstellar
trek, such as getting safely away from that white dwarf of a star that
used to be of a 4X or greater solar mass to begin with.

Just 100 meters of -30°C ice is good for insulating: 250 W/K
1 km of that same -30°C ice is good for insulating: 2.5 KW/K
100 km of -30°C ice becomes worthy of insulating at 250 KW/K

Obviously the thermal conduction of such ice is less for what's
existing directly upon or near the rocky surface, as is the more
thermally conductive ice and snow that's likely capable of being
something near 45 K (-228°C) of what the very worse of such a local
interstellar trek would likely amount to, with an average interstellar
medium of perhaps something less than 98 K (-175°C).

Unfortunately, I'm still that village idiot or pesky messenger from
hell that's suggesting our icy proto-moon as having arrived in a
lithobraking fashion, though only as of the last ice age this planet
will ever see, while packing along as much as 262 km worth of surface
ice and/or as having collected such volumes of compacted salty Oort
snow on deck.

Perhaps you folks can manage to further add or subtract your best
swag, as to the what-if of this analogy that's pretty much all Guth
going yaysay postal, as to my limited mindset favoring a good deal of
panspermia influx, up to that of a full blown intelligent design
effort that obviously hasn't turned out quite as well as originally
planned.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 21, 11:44 pm, "Brian Watson" <WACCI_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177177560.655560.269170@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:39 pm, "Brian Watson" <WACCI_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1177131794.157736.283930@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Humanity is not the dumb-luck end-product of merely random
> >> > happenstance evolution, because Earth simply is not old enough, nor
> >> > was this planet all that livable except for the last half billion
> >> > years at best, and 500 million or less years simply isn't worth a
> >> > random evolved DNA drop of code in the bucket of such complex life.
>
> >> > So, where else that's much older and/or more ideal did the vast bulk
> >> > of our DNA/RNA code and of all the surrounding codes of other than
> >> > human life that's far more complex actually come from?
>
> >> Cheltenham Ladies College?
> > Quite possibly from the likes of Sirius, or of whatever other viable
> > and thus older solar system, that which our Sol visits roughly every
> > 100,000 years.
>
> Jaweh cannot be Sirius.

Of course I can be perfectly Sirius, and then some.  Why the hell not?

Take a look-see at my icy proto-moon notion.  It's another good one.
-
Brad Guth

Although it would have been darn nice having a few direct interactive
science instruments on deck (which should have been easily
accomplished if we'd actually walked on that sucker), though otherwise
the best available remote science of our physically DARK and NASTY
moon is more than good enough to suggest upon multiple other reasons
for Earth (being 98.5% fluid) having obtained that absolutely horrific
mascon of a moon, and only as of the very last ice age this gravity/
tidal forced global warming of a mostly fluid planet will ever see.

Most folks here in Usenet naysay land, that are summarily stuck
forever with their one and only NASA/Apollo koran version of the
truth, are as such entirely unable to even consider upon any other
viable alternatives.  That's rather unfortunate that so much of
otherwise good talent and resources must be continually wasted, along
with such spendy decades upon decades blown for good.

Much of our salty old moon's surface has in fact become soft, though
obviously much of that moon's dusty surface is protruded by basalt, it
has obviously since been terribly impacted and/or having collected
everything including the cosmic kitchen sink.  In addition to it's
significant worth of gravity, it's also highly electrostatic charged
and thus far better off at having attracted and otherwise retained
most of the solar and cosmic flak that comes along, as certainly a
whole lot better off at keeping its nasty stuff than anything our
wussy magnetosphere manages to retain.

Unfortunately, icy proto-moons are still being officially topic/author
banished, as being as taboo/nondisclosure as is the truth about Iraq
and a good dozen other matters.  Even a simple topic of "What if
(Craters)" by G=EMC^2 Glazier gets the usual mainstream status quo
flak treatment, as a insurmountable gauntlet that's contributed by
those Old Testament fools trying their faith-based level best at
keeping the rest of us village idiots as snookered and/or as
dumbfounded as possible, and for the most part it has been working.

Folks here in this well orchestrated anti-think-tank Usenet of naysay
land, as such really haven't allowed us to seriously look at those
moon craters with any open mindset, whereas most of which are truly
massive yet unusually shallow craters within those larger and even
shallower craters, with much less their ever having associated any
potential of ice as having once upon a time covered that big old salty
sucker (I'm thinking to the tune of 262 km).

Of the most recent craters being 10 fold deeper by ratio to their
diameter means there was at that more recent time little if any ice on
deck.  Though I'd have to  agree that a great amount of common moon
dust by way of primary and secondary impact shards, plus local and
cosmic dust has contributed to filling in the vast majority of those
older craters, to the tune of such nasty composition being tens of
meters deep in the most fluffy of dry and uncompacted dark/sooty (aka
coal pit) looking stuff you can imagine.  I often think of our moon as
being a cosmic morgue, especially since nothing gets burned up prior
to impact.

You folks must realize that Sedna is a worthy icy proto-moon of
roughly 1500~1800 km, that's likely covered by as much as 500 km of
that dirty reddish and most likely salty ice.  In fact, most anything
Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt worthy is going to be and/or shortly
become icy.  For example, I can imagine the big rock and/or whatever's
the core of such a hard under-surface of Sedna being that of almost no
craters, as due to itself having been so nicely ice protected.

For benefit of further argument;  If such an icy proto-moon were
moving along from Sirius to Sol, say if that interstellar trek had
been taking at most a few tens of thousands of years (say incoming at
40 km/s and thereby lots of spare time for a little interactive cosmic
DNA sequencing to take place), I wonder how much extra ice and snow
build-up (in addition to whatever it originally had) one might expect
to obtain while exiting away from the read-giant pushing realm of
Sirius and obviously entering through our icy Oort cloud?

You'd think this kind of planetology and cosmology research, as based
entirely upon the regular laws of physics, would become another one of
those nifty 3D simulation applications for a good supercomputer, don't
you think.  Especially since most other moons and perhaps even a few
planets of this solar system seem as though having arrived after the
initial creation of our Sol and whatever local planets.  In fact,
there's no good reasoning to perceive that Earth was born of the very
same exact stuff as Sol.
-
Brad Guth