--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_re...@...> 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? > 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 normlly 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 > > > > > > > "On the Earth, however, which has been even more heavily impacted than > the Moon, craters are continually erased by erosion and redeposition as > well as by volcanic resurfacing and tectonic activity. Thus only about > 120 terrestrial impact craters have been recognized, the majority in > geologically stable cratons of North America, Europe and Australia where > most exploration has taken place. Spacecraft orbital imagery has helped > to identify structures in more remote locations for further > investigation." > > > > See: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm > <http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm> > > >
