--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > , "shempmcgurk"
> > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > , "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is an Apollo 11 photo I don't recall ever having seen
> > > > before.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > was taken from the command module looking directly down as
> > the
> > > > > > landing
> > > > > > > > module was descending toward the surface of the moon. The LM
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > seen
> > > > > > > > just to the upper right of the big crater.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From Boston.com's photo blog, The Big Picture
> > > > > > > >
> > > > <http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/remembering_apollo_11.html
> > > >
> > <http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/remembering_apollo_11.html>
> > > > > >
> > <http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/remembering_apollo_11.html
> > > >
> > <http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/remembering_apollo_11.html> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > July 15, 2009.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BTW, this was an exercise in reducing the size of a large
> > photo.
> > > > > > First I
> > > > > > > > copied and pasted the full-size photo into the message; then
> > I
> > > > put a
> > > > > > > > checkmark in "View HTML Source" so I could see the HTML the
> > Rich
> > > > > > Text
> > > > > > > > Editor creates automatically, found the image tag, and
> > changed
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > dimensions, reducing both height and width by half.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is also astounding about the photograph is the number of
> > > > craters
> > > > > > that virtually cover the landscape. Large or small.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And this is not unusual. If the Earth was barren like the
> > moon,
> > > > we'd
> > > > > > have as much of a pock-marked landscape as the moon. But we have
> > > > soil
> > > > > > and water and ice that covers our planet so therefore, in time,
> > most
> > > > > > craters get covered up or their rims erode and they blend in
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > surroundings>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Er, is this the reason you don't accept climate change
> > > > theory?....ie.
> > > > > > that you simply don't understand it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Earth has very few craters due to the atmosphere burning up
> > the
> > > > > > majority of meteorites in the high atmosphere. The Moon has no
> > > > > > atmosphere at all. That is why there are very few craters on
> > Earth,
> > > > > > because of the atmosphere, not because of "soil and water and
> > ice
> > > > > > covering them up".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This misundertanding of yours also pertains to your
> > understanding of
> > > > > > climate-change theory, and how you have failed to understand the
> > > > > > 'greenhouse effect '- such as on Venus - which is what our
> > planet
> > > > will
> > > > > > look like if we do not stop 'greenhouse gases' entering our
> > > > atmosphere
> > > > > > at a huge rate. It is like a "phase transition" (like when water
> > > > changes
> > > > > > from water to steam), after a certain point, there is no return
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > transition occurs - in the case of a planet - HEAT, unable to
> > escape
> > > > the
> > > > > > atmosphere as it noramlly does. Theoretically, according to
> > physics,
> > > > the
> > > > > > air temperature could become so hot quite quickly that you will
> > die.
> > > > All
> > > > > > water could evaporate quickly, and all living organisms (except
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > some amoebas) will die. On Venus the surface temperature, due to
> > > > these
> > > > > > 'greenhouse gases', is about 860 degrees farhenheight which is
> > much
> > > > > > hotter than any part of Mercury which is much closer to the sun
> > than
> > > > > > Venus. Venus is an example of a planet (about the same size as
> > ours)
> > > > in
> > > > > > which greenhouse gases became dominant - heat could not escape
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > the atmosphere, and the temperature just kept getting hotter,
> > quite
> > > > > > quickly. The rest is history.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OffWorld
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Wrongo, Beaver Breath.>>
> > > >
> > > > Good argumentative method you got there Shemp. You only degrade
> > yourself
> > > > with this. It comes back to you and lodges in the cells of your
> > heart,
> > > > poisoning it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That was actually a take off on Karnac, the Johnny Carson character,
> > and how he used to respond to Ed McMahon but you wouldn't be familiar
> > with the cultural reference, so I forgive you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This misunderstanding of yours also pertains to your understanding
> > of
> > > > climate-change theory,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We weren't talking about climate change; we were talking about craters
> > on the moon and the Earth.
> > >
> > > And I quoted an expert demonstrating that you are wrong. Is that why
> > you're trying to change the topic to global warming?>
> >
> > There are not more impacts on Earth, than on the moon.
>
>
>
> But that wasn't the issue; of COURSE there are more impacts on the moon for
> all the reasons you said, which I agree with (i.e. the absense of atmosphere
> allows more to impact. But that's not what I said; what I said was that the
> Earth would be just as pock-marked as the moon but due to erosion and other
> factors the craters on Earth disappear. So please reread what I originally
> wrote.
>
> Also read my response to Rick Archer where I talk about layers and layers of
> craters.
>
snip,,
If the moon has new layers, where would they come from and, wouldn't the moon
be getting bigger as time goes on-- I hadn't heard of that angle before--
interesting.
