On May 28, 8:44 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: In article <b10faf4e-2f3b-4555-8fd0-3838f740b...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth You start your argument by poisoning it against anyone who might disagree. That's a surefire sign that you are
Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby moon of ours. How sad. Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars like encounter. A
Odds are that you folks of naysay and status quo or bust hell on Earth have not run the basic moon impacting Earth simulations that clearly proves how otherwise we obtained that unusually massive and nearby moon of ours. How sad. Earth would simply not have been destroyed by the encounter of such an icy proto-moon, because after all Earth supposedly survived that Mars like encounter. A
On May 26, 5:44 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote: BradGuth wrote: On May 25, 2:43 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote: lets talk about accelerations. and the definition of excess escape velocity. first off an orbit is constrained and the energy function is negative. -- a fact of life any bound orbit will have negative energy. so a circular
BradGuth wrote: On May 25, 2:43 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote: lets talk about accelerations. and the definition of excess escape velocity. first off an orbit is constrained and the energy function is negative. -- a fact of life any bound orbit will have negative energy. so a circular orbit is V^2 = GM/R to escape completely from the orbit.
