On Jul 31, 1:07 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s... at (no spam) inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
2cfff3ea-cea3-4d09-8409-e2b88a617... at (no spam) j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,



BradGuth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:01 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s... at (no spam) inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/stars/stellar.html
is an article about some computer simulations of multiple-star
interactions. The author created some interesting initial conditions of
binary stars and then sent various interlopers at them. In all the
simulations, the incoming star carried too much energy with it to allow
permanent capture, and the eventual outcome was the ejection of a star
from the system, leaving the other two as a binary pair.

It's interesting to see how energy is conserved even as orbits go
through a chaotic phase. One things have settled down, the situation is
as before: a binary pair and a lone star wandering away from one
another.

This has direct relevance to Brad Guth's Velikovskian idea about the
Earth having relatively recently acquired the moon.

His hypothesis, based on no evidence other than an apparent lack of cave
paintings of the moon in early prehistory, is that the moon came from
Sirius, covered in ice. It "sucker-punched" the Earth and the
"lithobraking encounter" caused the moon to create the Earth's north
polar basin and the moon's south polar Atkinson Basin. Then the moon
settled into a nice nearly perfectly circular orbit whose dynamics
neatly match the moon having been here since pretty much the beginning
of the solar system.

The problem of the moon breaking up once within the Earth's Roche limit
is never satisfactorily addressed. The explanation having something to
do with the moon being covered with ice and having brought about the end
of the ice ages on the Earth is ... fantastic. The further problem of
the subsequent real estate market crash as the Earth's crust is
variously buried under layers of magma or sent into high orbit, leaving
no one alive to buy any real estate even if any of it were in a
desirable location, is not addressed. One can only conclude that
whatever encounter there was (other than the mainstream early impactor
hypothesis) did not occur.

It's clear from watching the interactions on the referenced page that
any approaching heavy body like the moon would disrupt the Earth in its
orbit of the sun; further, the moon would would not be captured into
Earth orbit, and certainly not into a nice circular orbit with one side
of the moon neatly facing the Earth.

Nice try, but no cigar (meaning no actual simulation as I'd like to
see)

Awwww.

What is it about the lithobraking of two icy orbs that you do not
understand?

Both planets remaining whole after being with each others' Roche limits.

But Earth, Mars and our Selene/moon seemed to have survived their icy
encounters.

Obviously you never got to play with balls when you were
a kid, much less of ice covered balls that were fluid/putty filled.

What is it about the mutual tidal radius or perhaps maximum diameter
of the tidal elliptic that's too dark and scary?

Nothing ... mostly because I don't know what they are and you're
incapable of defining them.

You mean that your profound and/or devout pretend-Atheism worth of
nayism is simply forever stuck on the mainstream status quo, even
though it too is merely a subjective analogy as based upon evidence
that's continually excluded or banished, and oddly of missing data
never counts against anything your mainstream status quo cares to
interpret, other than on their behalf. Anyone can create a definition
to suit their mindset, as our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) and his
company of brown-nosed minions does it all the time.

btw, there's nothing Velikovskian about my way of thinking, or vise
versa.

Well, other than planets being ejected from places that aren't typically
known for ejecting planets, wandering around and bumping into things,
and finally settling into nicely almost-circular orbits as though
nothing had happened, no, it's not very Velikovskian.

There you go again with that closed mindset, making it seem as though
artificially established orbits are simply not possible. Have you
informed NASA, Russa, Japan, China, India and all of ESA as of lately.

What is it about an extremely nearby star system losing 4+ solar
masses worth of itself that isn't worthy of having lost its tidal
radius grip on a few of its planets and worthy proto-moons?

Perhaps we could better understand this silly mindset of yours, if you
were Muslim or of some weird faith-based or hocus-pocus cult.

Your mindset of limited scope and lack of deductive logic is not in
question.

Eh. Just a meaningless attempt at petty insult.

Nothing petty about it, as I'm being extremely kind in your case.