From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Uranus Myth
Date: 24 Jan 93 08:08:37 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In the spirit of things I thought I would respond to Warren's excellent
theory in the true "talk.origins regular style".  For the humor impaired
neither the material I am quoting nor my remarks should be taken seriously.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1993Jan22.183235@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>  So, many of you are now wondering: how was the Earth orbiting Uranus? How did
>this reduce the "felt effect of gravity"? and What the hell is he talking
>about?

I gather that since Uranus is not mentioned in mythology, we must conclude
that the collective subconcious has suppressed all memory of this event
because it so traumatic.

>  Well the answer to all these is simple once you recognize one simple _fact_:
>Uranus is a superconductor.

>  That's right, it's unique interior configuration has turned it into a giant
>superconductor.  This means that when the Earth orbited Uranus the Earths
>magnetic field entered the primaries surface, and was carried allong without
>resistance.  This generated a repulsive force on the Earth.  Surely you have
>seen those scientific demonstrations where the magnet floats eerily above a
>supercoductor, this is much what happened with the Earth.

This, of course, flies in the face of all that we know about superconductors.
If you had the slightest knowledge of physics and cosmology, you would
know that the comsic abundances of elements necessary for high temperature
superconductors is too low for Uranus to have been a superconductor.
Besides the rotation of the Earth would have produced a force in the
direction of the axis which would have sent the Earth skittering out of
the Solar system.

Please cite references.

>  The Earth still orbited Uranus, but because of the magnetic repulsive force
>from Uranus, it did not need to orbit as quickly as the distance would have
>required.  This means that the Earth was _not_ in gravitational free fall!

Please give us detailed analysis of the physical forces operating at the
surface of the Earth.  Be sure that you include the effect of eddy currents
in the Earth's core.  After all, how do you expect us to pay any attention
to you if you don't show us your work.

>  Since one side (not the pole) was always facing Uranus, all of the sauropods
>etc. were living on the pangaea supercontinent that sat on that face.

>  Uranus would heat the planet facing side of the Earth, but what about the far
>side?  Wouldn't that side freeze over?

If Earth were rotating Uranus with the same face pointed towards Uranus
it would show both back and front sides to the Sun.  Are you claiming that
Uranus was a star?  Please cite references of stellar ignition temperatures
that verify that Uranus could have been self luminescent.

>  No!  Remember, Uranus was generating a repulsive force on the Earth's magnetic
>core.  This means that the core was _closer_ to the surface on the far side of
>the planet.  The mantel would have been dragged toward Uranus.  The constant
>stresses put on the core would have kept it heated, but the extra-thick mantel
>on the near side would protect the inhabitants from excessive volcanism.

>  So there we have it, a complete, self consistant explanation for all the
>_factual_ discrepancies between history and science.

It's good to have you with us Warren.  Now please state the theory
of creationism.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.