Other than terrestrial water and tidal flex heating
BradGuth
volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
and silica combined spheres (“green glass spherules”) that researchers
claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
(that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)
Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-reveals-its-water.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926644.200
““They concluded the moon's mantle has between 260 and 700 ppm of
water. "This is very surprising, because for 40 years people have
studied lunar rocks and no one found any water," says Saal. "We got
lucky."”
I can accept this mainstream deductive interpretation, because
sufficient geode sequestered remains of moon water shouldn't be all
that unlikely, especially if our Selene/moon had come to us as an icy
proto-moon from the Sirius star/solar system that had lost 4+ solar
mass from its recent red giant phase, or perhaps even from our own icy
Oort cloud (similar to Sedna and our binary Plutos).
-
In addition to however potentially wet or brine worthy the interior of
our Selene/moon could very well be, it’s also the most likely and the
primary factor of global warming Earth, but only as of the last ice-
age this planet w/moon is ever going to see.
What is the Selene/moon tidal flex heating of Earth? (117.68e3 tw.h)
If the likes of Io and most other moons of Jupiter and Saturn are
mainstream science accepted as getting tidal flex heated in addition
to whatever’s the atomic/thorium core reactions taking place, whereas
then it stands to good enough peer replicated reasoning that our
elliptical orbiting Selene/moon with its ongoing average * 2e20 N/sec
(2.04e19 kgf/sec) * of orbital tidal force is unavoidably receiving
from as well as contributing to the internal and surface heating of
our extremely fluid Earth.
Upon this terrestrial Earth, at the surface we seem have these fully
mainstream accepted sorts of basic force to energy conversions to work
with.
1 kgf.m.s = 9.80665 Joules
1 kgf.m.s = 9.295e-8 therm
1 kgf.m.s = .00980665 kj
1 kgf.m.s = 2.72407e-6 kw.h
1 kgf.m.h = 9.80655e-3 kw.h
Of the 2e20 N divided equally between the Earth and our Selene/moon,
if we took 50% of this hourly tidal force as converted into geothermal
energy of kw.h, we’d get 2.04e19 / 2 * 9.80655e-3 = 11.768e16 kw.h
(117.68e15 kw.h or 117.68e6 tw.h).
How about our taking just a highly conservative 0.1% of that, which
gets us all the way down to the dull tidal flexing roar of just
117.68e3 terawatt hours worth of continuous geothermal heating via
tidal flex. Surely our absolutely impressive Selene/moon with its
fairly robust ratio to Earth is worth at least 0.05% of the 2e20 N/
sec, of which offers * 117.68e3 tw.h * in tidal flex heating (aka
global warming and perhaps loads of geophysical flex morphing) seems
likely, as after all, that’s 230 w/m2 (excluding vertical terrain
factors) but otherwise it’s not very much applied energy per cubic
meter of Earth’s volume (1.084e21 m3 [excluding our wet atmosphere])
is worth merely 108.56e-6 w/m3.
To be including the volume of our wet and otherwise polluted
atmosphere that’s also getting tidal flex heated, we get down to
roughly 100 micro watt/m3. This isn’t to say that humanity hasn’t
gone out of its way in order to having measurably contributed to our
global warming.
I know this seems like a lot of ongoing energy, but then I can't say
with any certainty if it's equally divided between our Selene/moon and
Earth or somehow getting nullified. Perhaps nearly 100% of that tidal
flex is actually going directly into Earth, minus whatever is taken up
by our sun. The older than Earth Selene/moon itself seems rather
thick crusted and by thus kind of tidal morph/flex inert, so that
perhaps not much of this mutual tidal radius force is likely morphing
or flexing all that much of Selene's innards, and especially so
because there's no Selene spin in relationship to Earth for whatever
tidal flex to interact with, though just having a little elliptical
orbit consideration might be enough to keep Selene’s low density
interior from ever turning solid.
If you perceive or explicitly insist that I’ve incorrectly calculated
any this, as having over/under shot the mark, then simply give this
your best swag and offer your improved or more correct rendition of
this unavoidable geothermal heating via tidal flexing.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c8b5981-0747-4674...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
and silica combined spheres (�green glass spherules�) that researchers
claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
(that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)
Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
> snip Guthball drivel <
The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
flexing there, Guthball
Landy
"Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:PvmdnY4fe52nSB3V...@giganews.com...
>
> "BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c8b5981-0747-4674...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
> volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
> and silica combined spheres ("green glass spherules") that researchers
> claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
> supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
> only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
> (that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
> the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
> formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
> contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)
>
> Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
> http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-reveals-its-water.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926644.200
>
>> snip Guthball drivel <
>
> The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
> far too puny to affect the landmass.
Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it
exists. This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you
correctly stated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
oldcoot
>
> Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it
> exists.
>
and run on the lunar cycle. But these are swamped out by larger-
amplitude atmosphereic tides that are on the 24 hour heating/cooling
cycle.
Alain Fournier
>>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
>>far too puny to affect the landmass.
>
>
> Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it
> exists. This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you
> correctly stated.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
It does happen on the moon also. It isn't exactly the same side of the
moon which is facing Earth because of lunar libration. Of course if you
don't have full rotation but only small librations your tides will be small.
Also the radius of the moon is about 3.7 times smaller than Earths radius
and this leads to yet smaller tides. But Earth's mass being about 81 times
the mass of the moon, this increases the tidal effect on the moon. When
you take all this into account what you get is very small tides on the
moon, but they do exist.
Alain Fournier
Landy
"Alain Fournier" <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:iJidnT0mFuVQuhzV...@ulaval.ca...
Good point. Is there a perigee/apogee effect as well I wonder? (similar to
the effect on the Jovian moons)
cheers
Bill
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3c8b5981-0747-4674...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
> volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
> and silica combined spheres (�green glass spherules�) that researchers
> claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
> supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
> only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
> (that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
> the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
> formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
> contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)
>
> Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
>
> > snip Guthball drivel <
>
> The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
> far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
> Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
> flexing there, Guthball
Hagar, Hagar, Hagar. There's more to tidal flexology and crust
morphology than oceans. Earth is at least 98.5% fluid to the likes of
tidal flexing everything from our atmosphere to the very core of
Earth. Of what's essentially solid about Earth is kept in motion due
to solar and moon tidal flex.
I agree that Earth's tidal flex on behalf of morphing our Selene/moon
is limited as to the elliptical lunar orbit factor and of the very
gradual interactions with our sun and Earth, and otherwise not of
anything all that significant from Earth's spin.
Obviously the moon itself isn't causing tidal flex upon its interior
due to spin, because it has no spin with relation to Earth, and only a
very slow rate of spin in relation to our sun.
So, perhaps that leaves the vast bulk of the 2e20 N/sec of tidal force
as primarily affecting Earth. The question remains; how much of that
2e20 N/sec becomes tidal flex worthy of terrestrial geothermal or that
of global warming energy?
Timberwoof
"Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
"It exists" is merely an inconsequential little truth. Perhaps you could
calculate just how much heating it causes. You gave us a figure a while
back about the rate at which the Earth-moon dynamic system loses energy
to heat. It should be pretty straightforward to apply that to a ballpark
estimate of the Earth's specific heat (I'll even grant you the leeway to
apply the heat to the rocky parts of the Earth rather than the oceans)
and derive a rate of heating. How many K per million years does this
work out to?
Once you've done that calculation, you can try it with just the Earth's
oceans as the repository of "all that" energy. That should be pretty
easy too. 3/4 of the Earth's surface is water, the water is a depth, on
average of a few kilometers, and the specific heat of water is 1.
How many K per million years does this work out to?
You'll see why it's important to apply numbers to the claims you make.
just adjectives aren't enough.
> This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you
> correctly stated.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
>
>
>
>
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
BradGuth
> On Jul 18, 10:39 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
>
> > far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
> > Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
>
> The large scale flexing of which you speak did indeed stop when the
> pair became tidally locked. But there's still gotta be some low-level
> seismic noise from libration, interaction with the sun's gravity etc.
> A Google under 'moonquakes' would probably turn up some info.
>
> BTW, there are what's called 'land tides' on Earth, but they're of
> much lower amplitude than ocean tides.
That's another good analogy way of putting it, as having "land tides".
Land tides of +/- ?? cm.
Timberwoof
Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
They're "very" small. How do they compare to the rock tides on Earth?
Are they "a lot smaller than that"?
Can the heating of the moon as a result of these teeny tiny tides be
measured?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Odysseus
<timberwoof.spam-EE...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Once you've done that calculation, you can try it with just the Earth's
> oceans as the repository of "all that" energy. That should be pretty
> easy too. 3/4 of the Earth's surface is water, the water is a depth, on
> average of a few kilometers, and the specific heat of water is 1.
The specific heat of seawater, although varying with salinity,
temperature, and pressure, is somewhat lower than that of pure H2O, more
like 0.95 cal/gC° (3.9 J/gK).
--
Odysseus
BradGuth
> >news:3c8b5981-0747-4674...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
> > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
> > and silica combined spheres ("green glass spherules") that researchers
> > claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
> > supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
> > only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
> > (that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
> > the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
> > formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
> > contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)
>
> > Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
>
> >> snip Guthball drivel <
>
> > The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
> > far too puny to affect the landmass.
>
> Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it
> exists. This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you
> correctly stated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
Thanks for that perfectly constructive feedback. Unfortunately, our
Hagar isn't willing to accept the regular laws of physics or peer
replicated science that rocks his boat.
BradGuth
Our wet atmosphere of roughly 100 teratonnes worth of h2o is in fact
getting tidal forced along by the gravity influence of our Selene/
moon.
BradGuth
If the interior of our Selene/moon is of low density and perhaps even
partly that of a mineral brine or mud, as such it should be getting a
little tidal flex heated by way of the gravity interactions with our
Sun and the elliptical orbit of Earth.
Landy
"Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-EE...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
I wasn't making any claims about the effects of earth tides, I was merely
pointing out that they exist, after "Hagar" implied they did not.
I think you're confusing me with the Guthball - who I also disagree with.
BradGuth
> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:timberwoof.spam-EE...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <g5r4d1$f2...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au>,
> > "Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
> >>news:PvmdnY4fe52nSB3V...@giganews.com...
>
> >> >news:3c8b5981-0747-4674...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
> >> > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
> >> > and silica combined spheres ("green glass spherules") that researchers
> >> > claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
> >> > supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
> >> > only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
> >> > (that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
> >> > the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
> >> > formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
> >> > contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)
>
> >> > Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
Gotcha in yet another lie. You believe in anything that's mainstream
status quo, that is unless it's what I happen to agree with or utilize
on behalf of my argument, in which case you suddenly claim that I'm
dead wrong on each and every count.
"I think you're confusing me with the Guthball - who I also disagree
with"
Isn't that kinda DARPA bipolar or Zionist/Nazi of yourself.
Alain Fournier
Yes there is a perigee/apogee effect but that is one of the components of
libration, so it isn't "as well". The moon is a little egg shaped because
of the tidal effect. When it gets closer to Earth it gets more egg shaped
and when it goes further from Earth it gets more spherical.
Alain Fournier
BradGuth
What's the average tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon ??? tw/hr
Alain Fournier
> In article <iJidnT0mFuVQuhzV...@ulaval.ca>,
> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Landy wrote:
>>
>>>"Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
>>>news:PvmdnY4fe52nSB3V...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
>>>>far too puny to affect the landmass.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it
>>>exists. This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you
>>>correctly stated.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
>>
>>It does happen on the moon also. It isn't exactly the same side of the
>>moon which is facing Earth because of lunar libration. Of course if you
>>don't have full rotation but only small librations your tides will be small.
>>Also the radius of the moon is about 3.7 times smaller than Earths radius
>>and this leads to yet smaller tides. But Earth's mass being about 81 times
>>the mass of the moon, this increases the tidal effect on the moon. When
>>you take all this into account what you get is very small tides on the
>>moon, but they do exist.
>
> They're "very" small. How do they compare to the rock tides on Earth?
> Are they "a lot smaller than that"?
I just did a BoE calculation and I get that they are just a little
smaller than Earth's rock tides. When I wrote my previous post I
thought they would be more than one magnitude smaller than Earth's
rock tides but this doesn't seem to be the case. I will let others
write out the calculations, I must go out of town and away from an
internet link for the next 40 hours, after that, well Paul McCartney
gives an open air concert here sunday. So I won't be available until
after work on monday and even then I might have to recuperate from
sundays concert.
> Can the heating of the moon as a result of these teeny tiny tides be
> measured?
I don't know how one would measure that. But it can it can be calculated.
Alain Fournier
Stuart
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3c8b5981-0747-4674...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
> volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
> and silica combined spheres (�green glass spherules�) that researchers
> claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
> supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
> only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
> (that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
> the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
> formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
> contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)
>
> Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
>
> > snip Guthball drivel <
>
> The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
> far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
> Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
> flexing there, Guthball
Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some
might say
that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal potential that
affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not.
But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence
no heating
Stuart
BradGuth
? "no heating" via tidal flex ?
In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of
physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our
Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't
possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about that?
Do you have a supercomputer simulation that somehow excludes the laws
of physics for Earth and our Selene/moon, but otherwise allows the
laws of tidal flex physics to apply on behalf of other plants and of
their tidal flex heated moons?
Isn't Earth a relatively small and extensively fluid planet for having
such a substantial moon that can measurably tidal flex the crust of
Earth by as much as 55 cm?
Thanks to “oldcoot” and Wikipedia: Earth tide effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
“Volcanologists use the regular, predictable Earth tide movements to
calibrate and test sensitive volcano deformation monitoring
instruments. The tides may also trigger volcanic events. Seismologist
have determined that micro seismic events are correlated to tidal
variations in Central Asia (north of the Himalayas). The semidiurnal
amplitude of terrestrial tides can reach about 55 cm at the equator
which is important in GPS calibration and VLBI measurements. Also to
make precise astronomical angular measurements requires knowledge of
the earth's rate of rotation and nutation, both of which are
influenced by earth tides.”
Any way you’d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually moving
and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is
going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via friction.
Stuart
The lunar body tide amplitude due to the earth is around 10cm or so.
And while the earth induced
lunar body tide doesn't have much of a time-dependent effect due to
orbital locking, the moon like the earth
will have a solar tide with a period near the moon's orbital period or
around 28 days. I suspect the solar tide
is around 2-3cm. The moon's tides are smaller because it is much more
rigid; the k Love number is only
around .022 or so, where the Earth's is 10x greater if not more.
Stuart
Stuart
I've snipped stuff that doesn't make sense leaving one reasonable
question.
>
> Isn't Earth a relatively small and extensively fluid planet for having
> such a substantial moon that can measurably tidal flex the crust of
> Earth by as much as 55 cm?
Indeed. I didn't say the moon isn't distorted by tides. It is.
By while the earth is rotating, the moon always shows the same face to
the
Earth; hence dissipation due to the lunar tide raised by the Earth
should be very small.
The lunar tide due to the Sun would probably cause more dissipation,
but
it will still be small.
Stuart
Stuart
> On Jul 18, 1:31 pm, Alain Fournier <alain...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Landy wrote:
> > > "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
> > >news:PvmdnY4fe52nSB3V...@giganews.com...
> > >>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
> > >>far too puny to affect the landmass.
>
> > > Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it
> > > exists. This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you
> > > correctly stated.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
>
> > It does happen on the moon also. It isn't exactly the same side of the
> > moon which is facing Earth because of lunar libration. Of course if you
> > don't have full rotation but only small librations your tides will be small.
> > Also the radius of the moon is about 3.7 times smaller than Earths radius
> > and this leads to yet smaller tides. But Earth's mass being about 81 times
> > the mass of the moon, this increases the tidal effect on the moon. When
> > you take all this into account what you get is very small tides on the
> > moon, but they do exist.
>
> > Alain Fournier
>
> The lunar body tide
I suppose "lunar body tide"...
is redundant.
Stuart
BradGuth
The tidal forced heating that I'm talking about is primarily that of
Earth being heated by that of our unusually large, nearby and fast
moving Selene/moon, and it's by no means as insignificant as you'd
care to suggest.
btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating
Io to such an extent?
Stuart
Sorry.. the discussion above was about the moon. And thats what I
was talking about.
>
> btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating
> Io to such an extent?
beats me. I was talking about the moon.
Stuart
Timberwoof
<c466a76c-a661-4fee...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 4:57 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 7:39 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> > > The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
> > > far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
> > > Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
> > > flexing there, Guthball
> >
> > Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some
> > might say that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal
> > potential that affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not.
> >
> > But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence no
> > heating
> >
> > Stuart
>
> ? "no heating" via tidal flex ?
Yes. What part of " there is no flexing, hence no heating" did you not
understand?
> In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of
> physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our
> Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't
> possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about that?
They're talking about the moon not being heated.
> Any way youąd care to slice and dice it, it seems continually moving
> and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is
> going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via friction.
Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule. No
supercomputer needed.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c466a76c-a661-4fee-9cbc-22e2c7dc9...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 4:57 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 18, 7:39 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> > > > The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
> > > > far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
> > > > Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
> > > > flexing there, Guthball
>
> > > Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some
> > > might say that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal
> > > potential that affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not.
>
> > > But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence no
> > > heating
>
> > > Stuart
>
> > ? "no heating" via tidal flex ?
>
> Yes. What part of " there is no flexing, hence no heating" did you not
> understand?
The perpetual naysay part that hasn't offered a stitch of physics or
even good science backing it up.
Does this mean you know why Io (without spin and hardly even
elliptical) is so geophysically and geothermally active?
>
> > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of
> > physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our
> > Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't
> > possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about that?
>
> They're talking about the moon not being heated.
So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's not
the least bit tidal flex heated?
>
> > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually moving
> > and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is
> > going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via friction.
>
> Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule. No
> supercomputer needed.
Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a healthy
dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are you going to
show us how simple that is?
BradGuth
Fine and dandy. By how many terawatts per each and every hour is our
Selene/moon tidal flex heated by way of the solar gravity plus mainly
that of Earth's elliptical distance from the moon (similar to Io that
also has no spin and far less elliptical orbit)?
If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the
Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/-
megawatt, if not better.
Timberwoof
<82dcde69-2423-42b3...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Our uneducated Brad wouldn't recognize good science if it bit you on the
toe.
> Does this mean you know why Io (without spin and hardly even
> elliptical) is so geophysically and geothermally active?
Because our gaseous multimooned and large Jupiter is large.
> > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of
> > > physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our
> > > Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't
> > > possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about
> > > that?
> >
> > They're talking about the moon not being heated.
>
> So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's not
> the least bit tidal flex heated?
Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal heating
of the earth is insignificant. The small size of our small earth and its
small effect on the moon make any tidal heating of our small moon small,
probably insignificant.
> > > Any way youąd care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
> > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal
> > > flexing is going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat
> > > via friction.
> >
> > Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule. No
> > supercomputer needed.
>
> Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a healthy
> dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are you going
> to show us how simple that is?
Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our genius
physicists ever got any work done before the invention of complex
software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.
Timberwoof
<b14d385f-6696-4808...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 9:27 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 6:12 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 19, 8:47 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 19, 4:41 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 19, 4:57 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 18, 7:39 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > > >news:3c8b5981-0747-4674...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.
> > > > > > >com...
> > > > > > > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
> > > > > > > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little
> > > > > > > basalt
> > > > > > > and silica combined spheres (?green glass spherules?) that
Our forgetful Brad has forgotten that he presented exactly those figures
a few days ago.
> If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the
> Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/-
> megawatt, if not better.
Our whiny Brad thinks that space probes can magically measure the tidal
heating of our moon simply by being on our moon, even though the vast
temperature differences between night and day on our month-long-day moon
are vast.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <b14d385f-6696-4808-8013-b4afe3609...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
I was speaking of Earth being tidal flex heated by our Selene/moon, by
at least .05% of the 2e20 N worth of tidal radius force that's
continually taking place. How much more or less were you thinking
it's worth?
>
> > If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the
> > Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/-
> > megawatt, if not better.
>
> Our whiny Brad thinks that space probes can magically measure the tidal
> heating of our moon simply by being on our moon, even though the vast
> temperature differences between night and day on our month-long-day moon
> are vast.
Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is a total waste of space,
that which our science should continually ignore for their own good?
Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon and Earth somehow manage to
interactively exchange/cause nothing worth of tidal flex heating?
If so, do tell what's keeping the likes of Io and any number of other
moons so freaking active instead of being of solid dry-ice or that of
just about any kind of ice except water ice?
How about Titan, with its robust atmosphere: What's keeping Titan
from freezing itself solid by night, if not via tidal flex heating?
Are Saturn and Jupiter all that IR worthy?
Are you suggesting that such active moons have a core of thorium?
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <82dcde69-2423-42b3-b968-948e3f6fc...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
uniform?
Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
solid surface of Jupiter, and how nonuniform is its gravity or that of
its surface of mascons??
Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant planet
has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing its near
circular orbiting moons to death?
Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
tidal flex heated?
>
> > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of
> > > > physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our
> > > > Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't
> > > > possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about
> > > > that?
>
> > > They're talking about the moon not being heated.
>
> > So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's not
> > the least bit tidal flex heated?
>
> Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal heating
> of the earth is insignificant.
The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?
>
> The small size of our small earth and its
> small effect on the moon make any tidal heating of our small moon small,
> probably insignificant.
And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our 98.5%
fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with, as well
as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors of tidal
flex that by rights should go either way.
>
> > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
> > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal
> > > > flexing is going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat
> > > > via friction.
>
> > > Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule. No
> > > supercomputer needed.
>
> > Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a healthy
> > dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are you going
> > to show us how simple that is?
>
> Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
> calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our genius
> physicists ever got any work done before the invention of complex
> software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.
And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
would kick your butt)
Timberwoof
<41a31723-1210-47b7...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Our clueless Brad thinks force directly creates heat and that the
insignificant work done by that force, when converted to heat, is
significant.
> > > If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the
> > > Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/-
> > > megawatt, if not better.
> >
> > Our whiny Brad thinks that space probes can magically measure the tidal
> > heating of our moon simply by being on our moon, even though the vast
> > temperature differences between night and day on our month-long-day moon
> > are vast.
>
> Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is a total waste of space,
> that which our science should continually ignore for their own good?
Our preposterous Brad loves to leap to ludicrous delusions.
> Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon and Earth somehow manage to
> interactively exchange/cause nothing worth of tidal flex heating?
Our idiotic Brad expresses interest in egregious extremes.
> If so, do tell what's keeping the likes of Io and any number of other
> moons so freaking active instead of being of solid dry-ice or that of
> just about any kind of ice except water ice?
Something having to to with our large Jupiter being large.
> How about Titan, with its robust atmosphere: What's keeping Titan
> from freezing itself solid by night, if not via tidal flex heating?
Something having to to with our large Jupiter being large.
> Are Saturn and Jupiter all that IR worthy?
Infrared?
> Are you suggesting that such active moons have a core of thorium?
Our silly Brad is jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Timberwoof
<81a60bf3-ed7f-47e2...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
No.
> Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
> solid surface of Jupiter,
What the hell does that mean?
> and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
> of its surface of mascons??
I don't know.
> Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
> planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
> its near circular orbiting moons to death?
No.
> Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
> physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
> tidal flex heated?
No.
> > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
> > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
> > > > > of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
> > > > > that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
> > > > > certain about that?
> >
> > > > They're talking about the moon not being heated.
> >
> > > So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
> > > not the least bit tidal flex heated?
> >
> > Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
> > heating of the earth is insignificant.
>
> The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?
Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
heat loss to space.
> > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
> > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
> > insignificant.
>
> And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
> tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
> 98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
> as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
> of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.
You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
by that process.
> > > > > Any way youąd care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
> > > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via
> > > > > tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable
> > > > > geothermal heat via friction.
> >
> > > > Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule.
> > > > No supercomputer needed.
> >
> > > Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a
> > > healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are
> > > you going to show us how simple that is?
> >
> > Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
> > calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our
> > genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of
> > complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.
>
> And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
> your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
> because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
> would kick your butt)
Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any attention
when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky
Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric,
adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes.
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
--
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
How do you combat bullshit in the world, when there are guys like
Stuart around, ready to jump with just one leg in his tights, ..who
can't read the question in the first place and remain silent about
rubbish like this in the second:-
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/gg/classroom@sea/general_science/images/acc_prism.jpg
..and worse, this in the third:-
----------------------------------------------------
"... When two continental plates move towards each other, both plates
are forced upwards in a series of folds. This caused big problems for
early geologists who struggled to explain why they were finding
fossils of sea creatures high up in mountains such as the Himalayas!
We now know that the fossils got there due to uplift of sedimentary
rocks found along the edges of the plates. (Previous suggestions often
centered on religious myths / beliefs such as Noah's Great Flood.)
You can simulate this process using two flat strips of modeling clay
or old carpet. Put them side by side and push them together. One or
both will crumple up and form a mini mountain range on your table
top."
http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/earth/fold_mountains.html
--------------------------------------------------------
And just in case you're actually imaginatively impaired when it comes
to crumpling your carpet on the tabletop (this one's for the
ladies), :-) :-) you can do it with Origami.
http://www.scheib.net/play/paper/01-02.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that you're back from your cruise Stuart,
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html
...how about getting both legs in, ..forget about the Moon, and deal
with the rubbish they're teaching in schools and universities about
"fold mountains",
http://tinyurl.com/598hml
that noodles like you have helped to perpetrate from your vantage of
receiving the gifts that these poor suckers bring to you.
If you can read the question that is, .. ("How are fold mountains
created?"
BradGuth
> ..and worse, this in the third:-
> ----------------------------------------------------
> "... When two continental plates move towards each other, both plates
> are forced upwards in a series of folds. This caused big problems for
> early geologists who struggled to explain why they were finding
> fossils of sea creatures high up in mountains such as the Himalayas!
> We now know that the fossils got there due to uplift of sedimentary
> rocks found along the edges of the plates. (Previous suggestions often
> centered on religious myths / beliefs such as Noah's Great Flood.)
> You can simulate this process using two flat strips of modeling clay
> or old carpet. Put them side by side and push them together. One or
> both will crumple up and form a mini mountain range on your table
> top."http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/earth/fold_mountains.html
> --------------------------------------------------------
> And just in case you're actually imaginatively impaired when it comes
> to crumpling your carpet on the tabletop (this one's for the
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Now that you're back from your cruise Stuart,http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html
> ...how about getting both legs in, ..forget about the Moon, and deal
> with the rubbish they're teaching in schools and universities about
> that noodles like you have helped to perpetrate from your vantage of
> receiving the gifts that these poor suckers bring to you.
>
> If you can read the question that is, .. ("How are fold mountains
> created?"
Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created
those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and
otherwise responsible for the total lack of Arctic mountains. Perhaps
the Arctic ocean basin is the antifold or navel innie fold of mother
Earth (aka passage to the center of Earth).
Seems without a rather sizable impact for having created much of what
the Arctic ocean basin represents, having set much of our seasonal
tilt and having slightly modified Earth’s spin, that much of this
planet would be a whole lot smoother and loads cooler.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <81a60bf3-ed7f-47e2-9930-47e793db0...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
> > specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
> > uniform?
>
> No.
>
> > Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
> > solid surface of Jupiter,
>
> What the hell does that mean?
Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
compressed gas? Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
extremely slight elliptical orbit.
>
> > and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
> > of its surface of mascons??
>
> I don't know.
Me neither, that's why I was asking.
>
> > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
> > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
> > its near circular orbiting moons to death?
>
> No.
Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
active?
>
> > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
> > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
> > tidal flex heated?
>
> No.
That's good to hear.
>
> > > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
> > > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
> > > > > > of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
> > > > > > that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
> > > > > > certain about that?
>
> > > > > They're talking about the moon not being heated.
>
> > > > So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
> > > > not the least bit tidal flex heated?
>
> > > Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
> > > heating of the earth is insignificant.
>
> > The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?
>
> Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
> production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
> radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
> heat loss to space.
A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
space.
At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.
Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
radioactive core.
>
> > > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
> > > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
> > > insignificant.
>
> > And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
> > tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
> > 98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
> > as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
> > of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.
>
> You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
> calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
> by that process.
I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other
soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream
puppeteering and swag going on in order to continually avoid or simply
exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?
>
> > > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
> > > > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via
> > > > > > tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable
> > > > > > geothermal heat via friction.
>
> > > > > Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule.
> > > > > No supercomputer needed.
>
> > > > Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a
> > > > healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are
> > > > you going to show us how simple that is?
>
> > > Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
> > > calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our
> > > genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of
> > > complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.
>
> > And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
> > your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
> > because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
> > would kick your butt)
>
> Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any attention
> when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky
> Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric,
> adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes.
Then you'd knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi and of
their New World Order that's essentially in charge of most everything
that matters, even if it were based upon yet another lie or total
fabrication or distortion of the actual facts that would be telling us
otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics
follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise?
Timberwoof
<87c7c0f3-d2cb-4cc4...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <81a60bf3-ed7f-47e2-9930-47e793db0...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
> > > specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
> > > uniform?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
> > > solid surface of Jupiter,
> >
> > What the hell does that mean?
>
> Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
> compressed gas?
Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is
only that of a highly compressed gas?
No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions.
> Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
> mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
> extremely slight elliptical orbit.
Why don't you just look it up on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating
> >
> > > and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
> > > of its surface of mascons??
> >
> > I don't know.
>
> Me neither, that's why I was asking.
Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
> > > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
> > > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
> > > its near circular orbiting moons to death?
> >
> > No.
>
> Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
> active?
Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.
I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the
Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily.
Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable.
> > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
> > > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
> > > tidal flex heated?
> >
> > No.
>
> That's good to hear.
It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
lot of crazy places.
> > > > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
> > > > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
> > > > > > > of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
> > > > > > > that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
> > > > > > > certain about that?
> >
> > > > > > They're talking about the moon not being heated.
> >
> > > > > So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
> > > > > not the least bit tidal flex heated?
> >
> > > > Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
> > > > heating of the earth is insignificant.
> >
> > > The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?
> >
> > Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
> > production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
> > radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
> > heat loss to space.
>
> A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
> impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
> energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
> terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
> this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
> space.
You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty
space".
The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole
lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.
> At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
> crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
> representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
> however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
> bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
> thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.
>
> Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
> and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
> radioactive core.
Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because y ou didn't answer my question.
> > > > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
> > > > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
> > > > insignificant.
> >
> > > And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
> > > tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
> > > 98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
> > > as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
> > > of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.
> >
> > You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
> > calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
> > by that process.
>
> I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other
> soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream
> puppeteering and swag going on
Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again.
> in order to continually avoid or simply
> exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
> global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
> having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
> tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
> Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?
Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
to calculate what you want.
Where did you get .05%? Where does the rest go?
And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
anything.
> > > > > > > Any way youąd care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever you go off into that
patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic you are.
don findlay
BradGuth wrote:
> Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created
> those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and
> otherwise responsible for the total lack of Arctic mountains. Perhaps
> the Arctic ocean basin is the antifold or navel innie fold of mother
> Earth (aka passage to the center of Earth).
>
> Seems without a rather sizable impact for having created much of what
> the Arctic ocean basin represents, having set much of our seasonal
> tilt and having slightly modified Earth’s spin, that much of this
> planet would be a whole lot smoother and loads cooler.
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
No foldie mounties in the Pesky Antie, Brad. It's a bad case of Flats
Attack. Take cover:-
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2393048458_ed71ac13fc.jpg?v=0
http://tinyurl.com/6rz8da
http://melhuish.info/simon/SouthPole/images/tam3.jpg
...We even get the yew beaut plateau preserved:-
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/1530277508_d207e8eff0.jpg
See? Mounties. Nuthin' to do with foldies. Just erosion. Come
on, ..you learned this at school... No counting necessary.
You have to wonder what that noodle has in his noddle, don't
you, ..working it all out in his thermals the way he does. I don't
think he could recognise a cat even if it tickled his beqachbalos with
its whiskas. (Could you, ..Stuart..)
(Stuart's a dope. It's that simple. ...trying to support Plate
Tectonics by thermal modelling, when the geology is saying exactly the
opposite wherever you look. )
The real question though is, ..how has geology come to such a pass -
when there's no such thing as foldie mounties, as wot
geomorphologists have been telling us for decades - ever since books,
in fact. Books? Does anybody read them any more? Or are there just
these silly compilations of papers that are out of date (even by the
same authors) before they're even printed...
What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the
place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing?
Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan?
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
>
> > > The lunar tide due to the Sun would probably cause more dissipation,
> > > but
> > > it will still be small.
> >
> > > Stuart
> >
> > The tidal forced heating that I'm talking about is primarily that of
> > Earth being heated by that of our unusually large, nearby and fast
> > moving Selene/moon, and it's by no means as insignificant as you'd
> > care to suggest.
>
>
> Sorry.. the discussion above was about the moon. And thats what I
> was talking about.
>
> >
> > btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating
> > Io to such an extent?
>
> beats me. I was talking about the moon.
>
> Stuart
This is not the first time Stuart has proved incapable of reading a
question (... much less answering it).
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <87c7c0f3-d2cb-4cc4-9e7c-690f6ba1f...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <81a60bf3-ed7f-47e2-9930-47e793db0...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
> > > > specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
> > > > uniform?
>
> > > No.
>
> > > > Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
> > > > solid surface of Jupiter,
>
> > > What the hell does that mean?
>
> > Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
> > compressed gas?
>
> Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is
> only that of a highly compressed gas?
>
> No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions.
But that's what I do best, deductively connecting dots and thus
jumping to a conclusion.
>
> > Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
> > mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
> > extremely slight elliptical orbit.
>
> Why don't you just look it up on Wikipedia?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating
>
>
>
> > > > and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
> > > > of its surface of mascons??
>
> > > I don't know.
>
> > Me neither, that's why I was asking.
>
> Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
> core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
> mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven, thus
more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon.
>
> > > > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
> > > > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
> > > > its near circular orbiting moons to death?
>
> > > No.
>
> > Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
> > active?
>
> Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.
>
> I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the
> Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
> expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily.
> Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable.
I never stated that from Earth they were affecting us. Obviously I'm
not the only one jumping to those pesky conclusions. However, Earth's
mascons are likely adding tidal flex heating to our Selene/moon as
well as its elliptical path migrates around Earth and our sun should
cause a measurable degree of geothermal heating within our Selene/
moon.
>
> > > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
> > > > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
> > > > tidal flex heated?
>
> > > No.
>
> > That's good to hear.
>
> It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
> question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
> you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
> ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
> lot of crazy places.
You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, or
that of our intelligent species originating from the Sirius B solar
system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our Selene/moon L1, or how
about the crazy but cool POOF city at Venus L2, and don't forget the
crazy relocation of our Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.
>
>
> > > > > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
> > > > > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
> > > > > > > > of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
> > > > > > > > that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
> > > > > > > > certain about that?
>
> > > > > > > They're talking about the moon not being heated.
>
> > > > > > So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
> > > > > > not the least bit tidal flex heated?
>
> > > > > Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
> > > > > heating of the earth is insignificant.
>
> > > > The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?
>
> > > Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
> > > production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
> > > radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
> > > heat loss to space.
>
> > A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
> > impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
> > energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
> > terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
> > this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
> > space.
>
> You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty
> space".
Space isn't empty, because it's absolutely chuck full of photons, dark
matter and dark energy. Even our Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21 bar vacuum
isn't the least bit empty.
>
> The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole
> lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.
I agree, that Earth's core of thorium and subsequent radioactive
byproducts is good to go for billions of years.
>
> > At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
> > crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
> > representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
> > however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
> > bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
> > thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.
>
> > Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
> > and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
> > radioactive core.
>
> Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because you didn't answer my question.
How good is the average thermal insulation worth of Earth's crust?
Supposedly the thinnest crust is found under our oceans, at an average
of perhaps 5 km thickness. Earth is after all at least 98.5% fluid.
>
>
> > > > > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
> > > > > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
> > > > > insignificant.
>
> > > > And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
> > > > tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
> > > > 98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
> > > > as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
> > > > of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.
>
> > > You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
> > > calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
> > > by that process.
>
> > I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other
> > soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream
> > puppeteering and swag going on
>
> Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again.
No "good grief" about it. I noticed that you haven't posted links of
different research groups that concur as to having the same outcome.
The tidal flex heating of Earth via our Selene/moon is measurably
significant.
>
> > in order to continually avoid or simply
> > exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
> > global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
> > having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
> > tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
> > Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?
>
> Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
> Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
> measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
> to calculate what you want.
The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual gravity of
attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If converting any
of that continual tidal force into energy, it has to be taken as N/
sec.
>
> Where did you get .05%?
That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better
swag?
>
> Where does the rest go?
You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that 2e20 N/
sec of force is going, unless it's transferring back and forth as
tidal flex heating, possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid
and otherwise gaseous sun.
>
> And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
> Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
> anything.
That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive) agreed
upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials within Earth's
core, much less the low density core of our highly unusual moon.
>
>
> > > > > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
So, you think there's no one swarm of any faith-based/political cult
or group in charge of anything that goes badly or for the better here
on Earth? (it's all purely random happenstance that's always perfectly
fair and square with the rest of us village idiots?)
You're saying that job security, public funded benefits, vast
corporate and political profits and bragging rights that'll suit their
given faith-based mindset never account for squat. Now that's
interesting as hell.
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created
> > those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and
> > otherwise responsible for the total lack of Arctic mountains. Perhaps
> > the Arctic ocean basin is the antifold or navel innie fold of mother
> > Earth (aka passage to the center of Earth).
>
> > Seems without a rather sizable impact for having created much of what
> > the Arctic ocean basin represents, having set much of our seasonal
> > tilt and having slightly modified Earth’s spin, that much of this
> > planet would be a whole lot smoother and loads cooler.
>
> > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> No foldie mounties in the Pesky Antie, Brad. It's a bad case of Flats
> ...We even get the yew beaut plateau preserved:-http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/1530277508_d207e8eff0.jpg
>
> See? Mounties. Nuthin' to do with foldies. Just erosion. Come
> on, ..you learned this at school... No counting necessary.
>
> You have to wonder what that noodle has in his noddle, don't
> you, ..working it all out in his thermals the way he does. I don't
> think he could recognise a cat even if it tickled his beqachbalos with
> its whiskas. (Could you, ..Stuart..)
>
> (Stuart's a dope. It's that simple. ...trying to support Plate
> Tectonics by thermal modelling, when the geology is saying exactly the
> opposite wherever you look. )
>
> The real question though is, ..how has geology come to such a pass -
> when there's no such thing as foldie mounties, as wot
> geomorphologists have been telling us for decades - ever since books,
> in fact. Books? Does anybody read them any more? Or are there just
> these silly compilations of papers that are out of date (even by the
> same authors) before they're even printed...
>
> What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the
> place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing?
> Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan?
Where's that mountain top erosion that's supposedly millions upon
millions if not a good billion+ years old?
Doesn't ice, snow and jet stream wind erode rock?
What broke up Earth's crust to begin with?
Dose our moon have any indications of a broken crust, or that of
Mercury, Venus or Mars?
When exactly was our seasonal tilt established?
Why no mountains at the north pole? (instead a moon encounter sized
basin)
Timberwoof
<54c5b426-8d62-444d...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, it's what you do the most. If the quality of your work is to be
judged by how well the conclusions match reality, you suck at it.
> > > Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
> > > mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
> > > extremely slight elliptical orbit.
> >
> > Why don't you just look it up on
> > Wikipedia?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
> > > > > of its surface of mascons??
> >
> > > > I don't know.
> >
> > > Me neither, that's why I was asking.
> >
> > Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
> > core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
> > mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure
>
> Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven, thus
> more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon.
Maybe rather than just saying that, you could show a map of
gravitational anomalies for the Earth and one for the moon, and compare
them.
> > > > > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
> > > > > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
> > > > > its near circular orbiting moons to death?
> >
> > > > No.
> >
> > > Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
> > > active?
> >
> > Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.
> >
> > I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the
> > Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
> > expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily.
> > Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable.
>
> I never stated that from Earth they were affecting us. Obviously I'm
> not the only one jumping to those pesky conclusions. However, Earth's
> mascons are likely adding tidal flex heating to our Selene/moon as
> well as its elliptical path migrates around Earth and our sun should
> cause a measurable degree of geothermal heating within our Selene/
> moon.
Well, then. Show the measurable heating.
> > > > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
> > > > > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
> > > > > tidal flex heated?
> >
> > > > No.
> >
> > > That's good to hear.
> >
> > It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
> > question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
> > you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
> > ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
> > lot of crazy places.
>
> You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, or
> that of our intelligent species originating from the Sirius B solar
> system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our Selene/moon L1, or how
> about the crazy but cool POOF city at Venus L2, and don't forget the
> crazy relocation of our Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.
Yes.
I always thought the core was of iron.
So show the measurements.
> > > in order to continually avoid or simply
> > > exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
> > > global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
> > > having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
> > > tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
> > > Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?
> >
> > Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
> > Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
> > measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
> > to calculate what you want.
>
> The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual gravity of
> attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If converting any
> of that continual tidal force into energy, it has to be taken as N/
> sec.
>
> >
> > Where did you get .05%?
>
> That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better
> swag?
Oh. So you have no measurements. So much for that.
> > Where does the rest go?
>
> You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that 2e20 N/
> sec of force is going,
N/sec is not a measure of force. N is a measure of force. And it's not
the same thing as energy.
> unless it's transferring back and forth as
> tidal flex heating, possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid
> and otherwise gaseous sun.
Hah!
> > And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
> > Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
> > anything.
>
> That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive) agreed
> upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials within Earth's
> core, much less the low density core of our highly unusual moon.
You certainly don't agree with the composition of the Earth's core.
Thorium indeed.
> > > > > > > > > Any way youąd care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
It's boring as a ... very boring thing.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <54c5b426-8d62-444d-b789-675ccf850...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
That's rather easily accomplished from the Selene/moon L1, and only
easier yet from deep within our Selene/moon.
>
> > > > > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
> > > > > > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
> > > > > > tidal flex heated?
>
> > > > > No.
>
> > > > That's good to hear.
>
> > > It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
> > > question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
> > > you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
> > > ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
> > > lot of crazy places.
>
> > You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, or
> > that of our intelligent species originating from the Sirius B solar
> > system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our Selene/moon L1, or how
> > about the crazy but cool POOF city at Venus L2, and don't forget the
> > crazy relocation of our Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.
>
> Yes.
So, you're another stay-at-home kind of guy, deathly afraid of
whatever's dark and scary, but then you'll gladly accept and/or do
whatever your faith-based government is telling you to do or to accept
as their one and only word of God.
Perhaps you and countless millions of others thought wrong, unless
iron is long-term radioactive. Is highly compressed iron heavier than
highly compressed thorium? (I don't think so)
I already did just that, and having accomplished such entirely within
my budget of zilch.
>
> > > > in order to continually avoid or simply
> > > > exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
> > > > global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
> > > > having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
> > > > tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
> > > > Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?
>
> > > Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
> > > Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
> > > measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
> > > to calculate what you want.
>
> > The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual gravity of
> > attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If converting any
> > of that continual tidal force into energy, it has to be taken as N/
> > sec.
>
> > > Where did you get .05%?
>
> > That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better
> > swag?
>
> Oh. So you have no measurements. So much for that.
I obviously have at least 100% more than anything you've got to offer.
>
> > > Where does the rest go?
>
> > You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that 2e20 N/
> > sec of force is going,
>
> N/sec is not a measure of force. N is a measure of force. And it's not
> the same thing as energy.
It is whenever converting any portion of N into energy. N as applied
for what amount of time = energy
Are we talking about our Selene/moon representing 2e20 N/year, N/
month, N/day or N/second that's responsible for holding onto our moon?
(I think it's taken as a force of N/sec, especially if it were being
converted into raw energy)
>
> > unless it's transferring back and forth as
> > tidal flex heating, possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid
> > and otherwise gaseous sun.
>
> Hah!
Don't tell me that our sun is also immune from tidal flex heating.
>
> > > And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
> > > Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
> > > anything.
>
> > That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive) agreed
> > upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials within Earth's
> > core, much less the low density core of our highly unusual moon.
>
> You certainly don't agree with the composition of the Earth's core.
> Thorium indeed.
Why not thorium? Do you have something other that's heavier and long-
term radioactive to suggest?
Notice that I never excluded iron, or having excluded any number of
raw elements. Of how much of Earth's core is thorium is anyones best
swag. Perhaps within a million years we'll have enough technology for
extracting a direct sample of Earth's core, as our objective proof
positive about what it's made of, and by then we should also be
walking safely within our moon, but according to your mindset we'll
still be entirely ET racist against those of any other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
Your perpetual nayism on most every conceivable topic that doesn't
100% coincide with your mainstream status quo mindset, seems that's
about as DARPA or bust as it can get, is noted.
Your excluding evidence and denying them pesky laws of physics that so
happens to rock your boat is also noted. I bet you never once
considered as to why your eye-candy and media packaged science on
behalf of entertaining such an infomercial impressed nose was so
brown. Perhaps now you know.
Timberwoof
<290c77c6-8018-470f...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, so it's not measurable after all. And you don't even have any idea
about what that heat input should be.
> > > > > > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital
> > > > > > > mechanics and physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or
> > > > > > > to that of Earth getting tidal flex heated?
> >
> > > > > > No.
> >
> > > > > That's good to hear.
> >
> > > > It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form
> > > > of a question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were
> > > > only asking. But you should really not jump to such
> > > > conclusions. I know it's a deeply ingrained habit with you, but
> > > > you should get over it. It leads you to a lot of crazy places.
> >
> > > You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
> > > Venus, or that of our intelligent species originating from the
> > > Sirius B solar system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our
> > > Selene/moon L1, or how about the crazy but cool POOF city at
> > > Venus L2, and don't forget the crazy relocation of our
> > > Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> So, you're another stay-at-home kind of guy, deathly afraid of
> whatever's dark and scary, but then you'll gladly accept and/or do
> whatever your faith-based government is telling you to do or to
> accept as their one and only word of God.
More foolish conclusions.
All you have to do is show your sources for this information. But
instead, you just yell at me and say I'm wrong.
No, you didn't. And now you're whining that you have no scientific
budget ... which means you have no source for real measurements, which
means you have nothing.
> > > > > in order to continually avoid or simply exclude whatever our
> > > > > Selene/moon might have to contribute towards global warming.
> > > > > However, I've conservatively done just that, by having
> > > > > interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
> > > > > tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100
> > > > > microwatt/m3). Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually
> > > > > of a greater percentage?
> >
> > > > Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of
> > > > power. Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a
> > > > mysterious unit of measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that
> > > > number is useless as a way to calculate what you want.
> >
> > > The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual
> > > gravity of attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If
> > > converting any of that continual tidal force into energy, it has
> > > to be taken as N/ sec.
> >
> > > > Where did you get .05%?
> >
> > > That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better
> > > swag?
> >
> > Oh. So you have no measurements. So much for that.
>
> I obviously have at least 100% more than anything you've got to
> offer.
No, you don't.
> > > > Where does the rest go?
> >
> > > You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that
> > > 2e20 N/ sec of force is going,
> >
> > N/sec is not a measure of force. N is a measure of force. And it's
> > not the same thing as energy.
>
>
> It is whenever converting any portion of N into energy. N as applied
> for what amount of time = energy
No, it isn't.
> Are we talking about our Selene/moon representing 2e20 N/year, N/
> month, N/day or N/second that's responsible for holding onto our
> moon? (I think it's taken as a force of N/sec, especially if it were
> being converted into raw energy)
>
> >
> > > unless it's transferring back and forth as tidal flex heating,
> > > possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid and otherwise
> > > gaseous sun.
> >
> > Hah!
>
> Don't tell me that our sun is also immune from tidal flex heating.
Once again you jump to idiotic conclusions. I'm not telling you that.
But you're being silly. The amount of heat generated from that source is
insignificant to the point of silliness compared to the heat generated
from fusion. But then, the concept of using mathematics to quantify
things has always been beyond you.
> > > > And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in
> > > > the Earth? Until you come up with that, you have no basis for
> > > > comparison with anything.
> >
> > > That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive)
> > > agreed upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials
> > > within Earth's core, much less the low density core of our highly
> > > unusual moon.
> >
> > You certainly don't agree with the composition of the Earth's core.
> > Thorium indeed.
>
> Why not thorium? Do you have something other that's heavier and
> long- term radioactive to suggest?
Because the earth's density is not that of thorium.
> Notice that I never excluded iron, or having excluded any number of
> raw elements. Of how much of Earth's core is thorium is anyones best
> swag. Perhaps within a million years we'll have enough technology
> for extracting a direct sample of Earth's core, as our objective
> proof positive about what it's made of,
Now you're quibbling. Again.
> and by then we should also be
> walking safely within our moon, but according to your mindset we'll
> still be entirely ET racist against those of any other intelligent
> life existing/coexisting on Venus.
Hunh? Now you're being silly.
> > > > > > > > > > > Any way youąd care to slice and dice it, it seems
Please fuck off.
BradGuth
Timberwoof wrote:
> Please fuck off.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.
You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
force of our moon orbiting Earth?
Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?
It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.
How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
everything underneath) without creating heat?
Timberwoof
<41da377a-74cb-4c8c...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Need we bother to say anything more?
No, considering the wild conclusions you keep leaping to.
> Timberwoof wrote:
>
> > Please fuck off.
> >
> > --
> > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
> > "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
>
> You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
> force of our moon orbiting Earth?
Please fuck off.
> Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?
Yes.
> It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
> that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
> 7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.
I didn't make that claim.
> How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
> by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
> everything underneath) without creating heat?
I don't grant your premise. Please fuck off.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <41da377a-74cb-4c8c-b37b-1e34cde0e...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Need we bother to say anything more?
>
> No, considering the wild conclusions you keep leaping to.
>
> > Timberwoof wrote:
>
> > > Please fuck off.
>
> > > --
> > > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> > > "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> > > emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
>
> > You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
> > force of our moon orbiting Earth?
>
> Please fuck off.
>
> > Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?
>
> Yes.
That figures, that of one DARPA bulb calling most any other bulb dim.
>
> > It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
> > that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
> > 7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.
>
> I didn't make that claim.
You also didn't even try to support or much less polish my claim, of
which at least my analogy agrees with the regular laws of physics and
best available science that can be run in a public owned supercomputer
simulator of planetology and basic geology physics.
>
> > How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
> > by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
> > everything underneath) without creating heat?
>
> I don't grant your premise. Please fuck off.
DARPA doesn't grant any premise that doesn't suit their Zionist/Nazi
mindset. So, what if anything makes your naysay mindset any
different?
BradGuth
long orbital period binary or any other such complex groups of
interstellar tidal radius factors to behold, and saying a nearby
Sirius star/solar system of 7+ solar mass isn't worthy of once having
our Sol within it's tidal radius, you’re going on public record as per
stipulating that our Selene/moon contributes nothing measurable as to
the tidal flex and subsequent global warming of mother Earth.
Your Zionist/Nazi DARPA of nayism doesn’t get any better than that,
does it.
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Jul 20, 7:23 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <41da377a-74cb-4c8c-b37b-1e34cde0e...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Timberwoof
<ca00f65c-6315-42e2...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In addition to your having essentially specified there are no such
> long orbital period binary or any other such complex groups of
> interstellar tidal radius factors to behold,
I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
"tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?
> and saying a nearby
> Sirius star/solar system of 7+ solar mass isn't worthy of once having
> our Sol within it's tidal radius,
I never said that either. I'm not sure what that means, either. I wonder
why you think I pass moral judgments on stars. "Worthy"?
> youąre going on public record as per
> stipulating that our Selene/moon contributes nothing measurable as to
> the tidal flex and subsequent global warming of mother Earth.
Now that I'll agree with. There's no reason, even with your goofy idea
that the moon just got here 12,500 years ago, to think that the moon
caused the global warming effects we've been seeing for the past, oh,
twenty years.
> Your Zionist/Nazi DARPA of nayism doesnąt get any better than that,
> does it.
What is the point of harping on "Zionist/Nazi DARPA Š nayism"? It makes
you look like someone pleadingly desperate to be mistaken for a
round-the-bend kook.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of whatąs accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <ca00f65c-6315-42e2-a20a-207695f54...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
As one star's gravity influence might sufficiently interact along with
or impose upon another stellar source of gravity, whereas this might
be called the mutual or combined gravitational field radius (aka tidal
radius), outside of which such items would not become attracted to or
having their trajectory the least bit modified by one another, and as
such forever go their independent ways without any chance of seeing
any future return encounter.
>
> > and saying a nearby
> > Sirius star/solar system of 7+ solar mass isn't worthy of once having
> > our Sol within it's tidal radius,
>
> I never said that either. I'm not sure what that means, either. I wonder
> why you think I pass moral judgments on stars. "Worthy"?
worthy = capable or viable (sorry about that)
>
> > you¹re going on public record as per
> > stipulating that our Selene/moon contributes nothing measurable as to
> > the tidal flex and subsequent global warming of mother Earth.
>
> Now that I'll agree with. There's no reason, even with your goofy idea
> that the moon just got here 12,500 years ago, to think that the moon
> caused the global warming effects we've been seeing for the past, oh,
> twenty years.
Wow! how off-topic or out of context can you get in one pass?
btw, try at least 13,000 years worth of consistent global warming ever
since the very last ice-age Earth w/moon is ever going to see, that is
unless you think Earth is still sufficiently locked within its last
ice-age. Actually, the worse part of the very last ice-age was
supposedly 23,000~25,000 years ago. Do you honestly think our sun was
made that much dimmer as of 25,000+ years ago?
>
> > Your Zionist/Nazi DARPA of nayism doesn't get any better than that,
> > does it.
>
> What is the point of harping on "Zionist/Nazi DARPA Š nayism"? It makes
> you look like someone pleadingly desperate to be mistaken for a
> round-the-bend kook.
So, you think our mutually perpetrated cold-war DARPA has been stealth
managed by way of heathen Atheists, Muslims, or even by Catholics?
Obviously, you think there's not a faith-based soul in charge of
anything, or having been responsible for any good, bad or simply wrong
doings. What are the odds?
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Sunny
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ec037c9-09d7-4592...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 22, 6:44 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
> I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
> "tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?
>As one star's gravity influence might sufficiently interact along with
>or impose upon another stellar source of gravity, whereas this might
>be called the mutual or combined gravitational field radius (aka tidal
>radius), outside of which such items would not become attracted to or
>having their trajectory the least bit modified by one another, and as
>such forever go their independent ways without any chance of seeing
>any future return encounter.
So, this definition is wrong?
Tidal Radius is :
"The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which its
gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'll buy that one as will, but you're leaving out the orbital velocity
factor of that planet.
Cut that orbital velocity down to 1%, and how much greater is the
tidal radius?
Now give that slower moving planet a substantial elliptical orbit to
start off with (aka Pluto or perhaps Sedna), and now reconsider the
new and improved tidal radius.
btw, unlike yourself, I didn't cut and paste my definition of tidal
radius.
Timberwoof
"Sunny" <womba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7ec037c9-09d7-4592...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 22, 6:44 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
> > "tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?
>
> >As one star's gravity influence might sufficiently interact along with
> >or impose upon another stellar source of gravity, whereas this might
> >be called the mutual or combined gravitational field radius (aka tidal
> >radius), outside of which such items would not become attracted to or
> >having their trajectory the least bit modified by one another, and as
> >such forever go their independent ways without any chance of seeing
> >any future return encounter.
That definition makes no sense. All massive things attract all massive
things gravitationally with a strength described by Newton's Law.
There's no distance limitation. Whether two things will forever move
away from one another depends on their masses, distance, and relative
velocity.
How about you give us a mathematical definition?
>
> So, this definition is wrong?
> Tidal Radius is :
> "The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which its
> gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"
That definition doesn't actually mean anything. That point is easy to
calculate for the Earth-Moon system, but it's not anywhere near one of
the Lagrange points: the Moon's orbit around the earth combined with its
gravity changes everything.
And by that definition the Earth and the Moon are outside each other's
"tidal radius", yet the Earth experiences tides from the Moon's orbit.
It gets even worse when you calculate the "tidal radius" that way for
the Earth and sun. That point is very close to the sun, yet the Earth
experiences tides due to its rotation near the sun.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Timberwoof
<f6d32abc-5c25-4054...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
"substantial"? Hah! Pluto's orbital eccentricity is only .25. The
eccentricity of Halley's Comet is .967. Please calculate its "tidal
radius" and tell us how that means anything.
> and now reconsider the
> new and improved tidal radius.
>
> btw, unlike yourself, I didn't cut and paste my definition of tidal
> radius.
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Sunny
Coating a definition in verbose bullshit, only indicates a tendency to use
verbose bullshit.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
At least I'm being honest. How about yourself?
Isn't gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?
Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
system wasn't attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?
The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
years, and that's supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that's somewhat rogue due to its
escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB universe,
is clearly outside of the core tidal radius that's keeping most of our
universe glued together.
Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
tidal elliptic is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
planets and proto-moons do exist.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <f6d32abc-5c25-4054-a0ae-1fd1e4c5c...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Why are you trying so hard at hiding and/or avoiding the best
available truth(s)?
We'll need that public owned supercomputer with loads of the best
available stellar data, in order to work within the existing physics
formulated simulation software.
don findlay
BradGuth wrote:
>
> > What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the
> > place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing?
> > Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan?
>
> Where's that mountain top erosion that's supposedly millions upon
> millions if not a good billion+ years old?
That's the circumglobal mountain belt (of which the Himalayas are a
part) that goes all around the world (including the Antarctic). It's
an eroded (ero-*ding*) (a-ling) *plateau*. No foldie mountie.
>
> Doesn't ice, snow and jet stream wind erode rock?
Yes indeed. Gravitational collapse is the name of the game, weather
reduces it to rubble faster than Jack Robinson. It's a wonder that
any mountains are left at all - Which is the big question where
geology always begins - "How come there are mountains? " Because the
crust keeps getting crumpled and thrown upwards? Where? Certainly
not in the himalayas.
>
> What broke up Earth's crust to begin with?
The mantle breaking through. A lot of volcanoes do this, but they
don';t really class as mountains when it comes to mountain building
('orogensis') Oro-genesis is really just another word for erosion, if
the truth be told. It's erosion that makes mountains. Right back in
the Archaean a lot of the lavas were probably fissure eruptions.
Tectonically that's a puzzling time. Indications are that things were
quite a lot different from the way things are today.
> Dose our moon have any indications of a broken crust, or that of
> Mercury, Venus or Mars?
Don't know about MVM, but the Moon has the big Mares extruded,
probably due to (Kaboom) big meteorite hits. The Earth back then was
probably copping the same. So yes, ...the Archaean geology has a lot
that's suggestive of big meteorite impacts (The Banded Iron
Formations, . right through the mantle to the core - iron plasma dust
clouds) . extrusive high magnesium basalts and ultramafic lavas, shock
textured spinifex rocks.
>
> When exactly was our seasonal tilt established?
The present one syn-to-post Mesozoic. Might still be happening
(adjusting). But there are indications of earlier tilt
>
> Why no mountains at the north pole? (instead a moon encounter sized
> basin)
The best way to answer that one is why are all the mountains around
the (old) equator? ..coupled with the other question, what is a
mountain belt.... The way I see it, Mountains are not mountains at
all, but just the fossilised (Pangaean) more oblate equatorial zone,
so your question (rephrased) actually is "Why is the north Pole not
the equator? or better, why is *a* pole not *an* equator. This is a
conundrum that would tax even a dosser in trolleys. I don't think any
of them would have read a book that comes anywhere near close to
answering that one.
So what about the mountains at the south pole? Well, apart from Mt
Erebus which is a volcano they're just names to describe what are
hardly more than raised beaches, ..( Like the Himalayas is a raised
beach? No. The old Pangaean equatorial zone has been prised open
wider than a pornstar - almost to the point of getting wrapped around
its own neck (Plate Tectonics eat your heart out!) Besides much of
the Antarctic is below sea level. Only the ice is high.
BradGuth
> > Mercury, Venus or Mars?
>
> Don't know about MVM, but the Moon has the big Mares extruded,
> probably due to (Kaboom) big meteorite hits. The Earth back then was
> probably copping the same. So yes, ...the Archaean geology has a lot
> that's suggestive of big meteorite impacts (The Banded Iron
> Formations, . right through the mantle to the core - iron plasma dust
> clouds) . extrusive high magnesium basalts and ultramafic lavas, shock
> textured spinifex rocks.
That initial big south pole crater of our Luna fits rather nicely if
our icy Selene/moon had ever encountered an icy Earth sized rock, or
possibly of something as little as an icy Mars sized rock, and/or
conceivably doing both.
Actually, as of prior to 13,000 BP, Earth was likely 99% fluid (I also
have to include our thick ice-age of frozen water as sufficiently
tidal flex worthy and thus fluid), and possibly even that arrival of
our extremely thick ice covered Selene/moon had been a touch more
fluid at its core than it is today. An ice covered Selene/moon is
actually a better thermally insulated core, rather than being naked as
it is once having encountered Earth.
>
> > When exactly was our seasonal tilt established?
>
> The present one syn-to-post Mesozoic. Might still be happening
> (adjusting). But there are indications of earlier tilt
But apparently there's no specific date to any given year. Figures,
doesn't it.
You do realize that of us mostly naked and obviously uneducated
heathens, plus most other life upon this planet, essentially didn't
have to seasonally migrate prior to 13,000 BP. At least there are no
apparent biological remains or any form of intelligent formulated
records telling us otherwise.
>
> > Why no mountains at the north pole? (instead a moon encounter sized
> > basin)
>
> The best way to answer that one is why are all the mountains around
> the (old) equator? ..coupled with the other question, what is a
> mountain belt.... The way I see it, Mountains are not mountains at
> all, but just the fossilised (Pangaean) more oblate equatorial zone,
> so your question (rephrased) actually is "Why is the north Pole not
> the equator? or better, why is *a* pole not *an* equator. This is a
> conundrum that would tax even a dosser in trolleys. I don't think any
> of them would have read a book that comes anywhere near close to
> answering that one.
>
> So what about the mountains at the south pole? Well, apart from Mt
> Erebus which is a volcano they're just names to describe what are
> hardly more than raised beaches, ..( Like the Himalayas is a raised
> beach? No. The old Pangaean equatorial zone has been prised open
> wider than a pornstar - almost to the point of getting wrapped around
> its own neck (Plate Tectonics eat your heart out!) Besides much of
> the Antarctic is below sea level. Only the ice is high.
I agree that plate tectonics can't account for all of Earth's
mountains, much less of being limited as to those foldie mountains.
So, you don't believe in the physics or geophysical morph of any
impact and subsequent antipode process of ever having created their
fair share of mountains or much less having broken up the crust of
Earth, or having given us a whole lot more of a seasonal tilt to work
with, but instead just favoring the gradual erosion process that can't
explain as to why in places there's so little mountain eroding taking
place as of relatively lately (say for the past few hundred million
years), and also can't explain away the absolutely horrific scope of
our Selene/moon south pole crater, and then obviously you also can
seem to explain away our global warming trend that has been ongoing
ever since the very last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to
see.
You do realize that I'm not another one of those all-or-nothing kind
of guys, don't you?
I never once said or having implied that each and every mountain on
Earth was via the impact/antipode process, but that's clearly the way
your all-or-nothing mindset has been thinking.
Timberwoof
<76808506-fd74-49f2...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why haven't you stopped beating your wife?
So tell me: What's "tidal radius"?
> We'll need that public owned supercomputer with loads of the best
> available stellar data, in order to work within the existing physics
> formulated simulation software.
You have no clue about how to do orbital-dynamics calculations, and you
have no clue how use a supercomputer for this problem.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what零 accepted by
Timberwoof
<7c4646e4-7cad-4265...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:22 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:f6d32abc-5c25-4054...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > | On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > | > So, this definition is wrong?
> > | > Tidal Radius is :
> > | > "The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which its
> > | > gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"
> > |
> > | I'll buy that one as will, but you're leaving out the orbital velocity
> > | factor of that planet.
> > |
> > | Cut that orbital velocity down to 1%, and how much greater is the
> > | tidal radius?
> > |
> > | Now give that slower moving planet a substantial elliptical orbit to
> > | start off with (aka Pluto or perhaps Sedna), and now reconsider the
> > | new and improved tidal radius.
> > |
> > | btw, unlike yourself, I didn't cut and paste my definition of tidal
> > | radius.
> >
> > Coating a definition in verbose bullshit, only indicates a tendency to use
> > verbose bullshit.
>
> At least I'm being honest. How about yourself?
Just give your definition of "tidal radius" without bullshit.
> Isn't gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?
You could present the equations from Newton which describe how this
works.
> Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
> system wasn't attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?
Maybe you could define what "tidal radius" means. Maybe you could get
the equations for calculating tidal forces, and apply them to the sun
for the ten nearest stars. (Their distances and masses are fairly well
known, for they've been calculated by the astronomical establishment.)
Then instead of bleating about this, you'd have the numbers for how much
tidal force these stars really exert on the sun.
> The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
> years,
How did you calculate that?
> and that's supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
> Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that's somewhat rogue due to its
> escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB universe,
> is clearly outside of the core tidal radius
What's a core tidal radius?
> that's keeping most of our
> universe glued together.
>
> Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
> tidal elliptic
What's a tidal elliptic?
> is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
> entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
> planets and proto-moons do exist.
Examples, please.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what零 accepted by
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <76808506-fd74-49f2-99fc-6a6316209...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
> which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.
Supposedly you're so much smarter than all of us village idiots
combined. Go fish, and show us your all-inclusive catch of the
supercomputer simulated day that somehow excludes tidal radius and
thus eliminates any measurable degree of tidal flexing.
This should be good.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7c4646e4-7cad-4265-99e4-e0bdecfad...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 4:22 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f6d32abc-5c25-4054...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > | On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > | > So, this definition is wrong?
> > > | > Tidal Radius is :
> > > | > "The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which its
> > > | > gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"
> > > |
> > > | I'll buy that one as will, but you're leaving out the orbital velocity
> > > | factor of that planet.
> > > |
> > > | Cut that orbital velocity down to 1%, and how much greater is the
> > > | tidal radius?
> > > |
> > > | Now give that slower moving planet a substantial elliptical orbit to
> > > | start off with (aka Pluto or perhaps Sedna), and now reconsider the
> > > | new and improved tidal radius.
> > > |
> > > | btw, unlike yourself, I didn't cut and paste my definition of tidal
> > > | radius.
>
> > > Coating a definition in verbose bullshit, only indicates a tendency to use
> > > verbose bullshit.
>
> > At least I'm being honest. How about yourself?
>
> Just give your definition of "tidal radius" without bullshit.
It has something to do with gravity, mass and velocity as interacting
with other gravity, mass and velocity, each coexisting within a fully
interactive 3D environment. How's that?
>
> > Isn't gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?
>
> You could present the equations from Newton which describe how this
> works.
There are lots of things I should do, but perhaps then we wouldn't
need smarter folks like yourself, would we, especially of those that
only keep telling us that we're continually dead wrong about
everything.
>
> > Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
> > system wasn't attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?
>
> Maybe you could define what "tidal radius" means. Maybe you could get
> the equations for calculating tidal forces, and apply them to the sun
> for the ten nearest stars. (Their distances and masses are fairly well
> known, for they've been calculated by the astronomical establishment.)
> Then instead of bleating about this, you'd have the numbers for how much
> tidal force these stars really exert on the sun.
All of that data and of those fully interactive 3D simulations of
orbital mechanics are bought and paid for as is, and often as having
been paid for multiple times by way of our hard earned public loot.
Why do you suppose that kind of public funded science isn't being
mainstream touted and otherwise shared?
>
> > The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
> > years,
>
> How did you calculate that?
Half of 100 billion years (the supposed outermost light year diameter
of our universe) is roughly 50 billion years. I seldom make mistakes
when dividing by 2.
>
> > and that's supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
> > Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that's somewhat rogue due to its
> > escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB universe,
> > is clearly outside of the core tidal radius
>
> What's a core tidal radius?
Just another way of suggesting whatever is sticking within our
universe is likely interrelated to the central group density that one
might as well consider as core worthy. Say of whatever fits within
the first 0.1%r could easily be considered as representing the most
combined stellar mass and black hole populated core, as our most
worthy central realm of our otherwise vast universe that's supposedly
still expanding itself away from the most recent BB.
>
> > that's keeping most of our
> > universe glued together.
>
> > Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
> > tidal elliptic
>
> What's a tidal elliptic?
A BG modified version of the traditional circular version of a fixed
velocity tidal radius, because the velocity of the elliptic tends to
vary so greatly.
>
> > is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
> > entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
> > planets and proto-moons do exist.
>
> Examples, please.
The proto-planetoid or potential proto-moon Sedna is within a tidal
elliptic trek.
Sol is within a tidal elliptic radius, as a 110,000 year elliptical
trek that's currently headed us back towards the Sirius star/solar
system.
How close will our solar system eventually get to the Sirius star/
solar system ????
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <76808506-fd74-49f2-99fc-6a6316209...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
My wife is recovering just fine and dandy, just like all the times
before. But thanks for asking.
I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
otherwise pick another fight. What kind of bully are you; GW Bush?
Timberwoof
<2bbcb265-0cf9-4fd3...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
It completely sucks, that's how that is. And you probably knew as you
wrote it that it's about as useless a definition as you've ever brought
up.
> > > Isn't gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?
> >
> > You could present the equations from Newton which describe how this
> > works.
>
> There are lots of things I should do, but perhaps then we wouldn't
> need smarter folks like yourself, would we, especially of those that
> only keep telling us that we're continually dead wrong about
> everything.
If you don't know Newton's equations and how to apply them, then you're
in a pretty damn sorry state to be stating "facts" about stellar orbits.
> > > Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
> > > system wasn't attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?
> >
> > Maybe you could define what "tidal radius" means. Maybe you could get
> > the equations for calculating tidal forces, and apply them to the sun
> > for the ten nearest stars. (Their distances and masses are fairly well
> > known, for they've been calculated by the astronomical establishment.)
> > Then instead of bleating about this, you'd have the numbers for how much
> > tidal force these stars really exert on the sun.
>
> All of that data and of those fully interactive 3D simulations of
> orbital mechanics are bought and paid for as is, and often as having
> been paid for multiple times by way of our hard earned public loot.
> Why do you suppose that kind of public funded science isn't being
> mainstream touted and otherwise shared?
Beats me, Brad, and it has nothing to do with this. It only serves as
yet another handy excuse for you to go yapping about yet another wackop
conspiracy theory.
> > > The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
> > > years,
> >
> > How did you calculate that?
>
> Half of 100 billion years (the supposed outermost light year diameter
> of our universe) is roughly 50 billion years. I seldom make mistakes
> when dividing by 2.
Which begs the question, what does "tidal radius" mean?
> > > and that's supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
> > > Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that's somewhat rogue due to its
> > > escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB universe,
> > > is clearly outside of the core tidal radius
> >
> > What's a core tidal radius?
>
> Just another way of suggesting whatever is sticking within our
> universe is likely interrelated to the central group density that one
> might as well consider as core worthy. Say of whatever fits within
> the first 0.1%r could easily be considered as representing the most
> combined stellar mass and black hole populated core, as our most
> worthy central realm of our otherwise vast universe that's supposedly
> still expanding itself away from the most recent BB.
You've still not come up with a meaningful definition of tidal radius. I
think you don't know. I think it's some cool-sounding term you came up
with or read somewhere, which has no specific meaning for you that can
be pinned down, which since it doesn't actually mean anything, you can
just stick it into a sentence about stars and planets and whatnot and
hope someone will think you know what you're talking about.
> > > that's keeping most of our
> > > universe glued together.
> >
> > > Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
> > > tidal elliptic
> >
> > What's a tidal elliptic?
>
> A BG modified version of the traditional circular version of a fixed
> velocity tidal radius, because the velocity of the elliptic tends to
> vary so greatly.
More meaningless crap that can't be used for anything.
> > > is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
> > > entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
> > > planets and proto-moons do exist.
> >
> > Examples, please.
>
> The proto-planetoid or potential proto-moon Sedna is within a tidal
> elliptic trek.
In other words, no recent examples.
> Sol is within a tidal elliptic radius,
More bullshit. You started with "tidal radius or tidal elliptic" and now
you have elliptic radius. Well, you have all three combinations of the
words.
> as a 110,000 year elliptical
> trek that's currently headed us back towards the Sirius star/solar
> system.
Toward or around?
> How close will our solar system eventually get to the Sirius star/
> solar system ????
You tell me. you're the one claiming that Sirius and the Sun are in
orbit about one another. Surely you have the data to back up that claim
and the calculations to give more insight. But since you don't, and it's
all made-up bullshit, I'll tell you: not very close.
See, you said "eventually" which could be next week or next year. You
have no clue about the relative speeds of the stars involved or the time
scales that those speeds imply.
Timberwoof
<8cbb61e0-5edb-4742...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
> out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
> otherwise pick another fight.
Then how come you keep inventing bullshit like the latest about Sirius
and the Sun being in orbit about one another?
Timberwoof
<1e042a5b-e956-41a2...@u36g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Supposedly you're so much smarter than all of us village idiots
> combined. Go fish, and show us your all-inclusive catch of the
> supercomputer simulated day that somehow excludes tidal radius and
> thus eliminates any measurable degree of tidal flexing.
You haven't even defined what tidal radius means, and the one definition
I've seen gives a meaningless result.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what零 accepted by
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <2bbcb265-0cf9-4fd3-b0de-7f6b10b3b...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Then put in your own words, or rather cut and paste from the works of
others without giving credit so that it looks as though you're real
smart.
>
> > > > Isn't gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?
>
> > > You could present the equations from Newton which describe how this
> > > works.
>
> > There are lots of things I should do, but perhaps then we wouldn't
> > need smarter folks like yourself, would we, especially of those that
> > only keep telling us that we're continually dead wrong about
> > everything.
>
> If you don't know Newton's equations and how to apply them, then you're
> in a pretty damn sorry state to be stating "facts" about stellar orbits.
Most of whatever I'd claim to know (as you'd insist), would be from
looking it up in some book or via the internet. I do not know such
equations from heart, although I could pretend that I do, and then I'd
be just like most everyone else (including yourself), a born-again
liar.
>
> > > > Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
> > > > system wasn't attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?
>
> > > Maybe you could define what "tidal radius" means. Maybe you could get
> > > the equations for calculating tidal forces, and apply them to the sun
> > > for the ten nearest stars. (Their distances and masses are fairly well
> > > known, for they've been calculated by the astronomical establishment.)
> > > Then instead of bleating about this, you'd have the numbers for how much
> > > tidal force these stars really exert on the sun.
>
> > All of that data and of those fully interactive 3D simulations of
> > orbital mechanics are bought and paid for as is, and often as having
> > been paid for multiple times by way of our hard earned public loot.
> > Why do you suppose that kind of public funded science isn't being
> > mainstream touted and otherwise shared?
>
> Beats me, Brad, and it has nothing to do with this. It only serves as
> yet another handy excuse for you to go yapping about yet another wackop
> conspiracy theory.
You folks do like to banish or exclude whatever rocks your mainstream
boat.
>
> > > > The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
> > > > years,
>
> > > How did you calculate that?
>
> > Half of 100 billion years (the supposed outermost light year diameter
> > of our universe) is roughly 50 billion years. I seldom make mistakes
> > when dividing by 2.
>
> Which begs the question, what does "tidal radius" mean?
It means whatever you'd care to cut and paste, so that it'll make you
look extra smart and myself look exactly like the village idiot. I
guess the same question goes for "tidal flex", because you obviously
do not agree one iota with anything I've tried to convey about our
global warming that's getting some of its energy via the lunar tidal
flexing of our 98.5% fluid Earth.
It seems as though you want to exclude the use of anything involving
the word tidal.
Is the traditional meaning of "tidal" having something to do with the
oceans coming and going or of the rise and fall of our oceans?
>
> > > > and that's supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
> > > > Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that's somewhat rogue due to its
> > > > escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB universe,
> > > > is clearly outside of the core tidal radius
>
> > > What's a core tidal radius?
>
> > Just another way of suggesting whatever is sticking within our
> > universe is likely interrelated to the central group density that one
> > might as well consider as core worthy. Say of whatever fits within
> > the first 0.1%r could easily be considered as representing the most
> > combined stellar mass and black hole populated core, as our most
> > worthy central realm of our otherwise vast universe that's supposedly
> > still expanding itself away from the most recent BB.
>
> You've still not come up with a meaningful definition of tidal radius. I
> think you don't know. I think it's some cool-sounding term you came up
> with or read somewhere, which has no specific meaning for you that can
> be pinned down, which since it doesn't actually mean anything, you can
> just stick it into a sentence about stars and planets and whatnot and
> hope someone will think you know what you're talking about.
There's a nifty internet feature that even works within newsgroups,
called "Search" or "Search For". Perhaps you should try it out. Pick
whatever suits your kind of mainstream notions.
>
> > > > that's keeping most of our
> > > > universe glued together.
>
> > > > Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
> > > > tidal elliptic
>
> > > What's a tidal elliptic?
>
> > A BG modified version of the traditional circular version of a fixed
> > velocity tidal radius, because the velocity of the elliptic tends to
> > vary so greatly.
>
> More meaningless crap that can't be used for anything.
Speak for yourself. Am I supposed to be doing this for a Nobel?
>
> > > > is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
> > > > entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
> > > > planets and proto-moons do exist.
>
> > > Examples, please.
>
> > The proto-planetoid or potential proto-moon Sedna is within a tidal
> > elliptic trek.
>
> In other words, no recent examples.
>
> > Sol is within a tidal elliptic radius,
>
> More bullshit. You started with "tidal radius or tidal elliptic" and now
> you have elliptic radius. Well, you have all three combinations of the
> words.
I like to mix it up. Sorry if I've exceeded your capacity of
deductively interpreting the intent of whatever I'm trying to say.
Thank your lucky stars it's not dyslexic encrypted.
>
> > as a 110,000 year elliptical
> > trek that's currently headed us back towards the Sirius star/solar
> > system.
>
> Toward or around?
Towards, possibly around, I don't know enough to say either way.
Don't suppose you'd care to help?
>
> > How close will our solar system eventually get to the Sirius star/
> > solar system ????
>
> You tell me. you're the one claiming that Sirius and the Sun are in
> orbit about one another. Surely you have the data to back up that claim
> and the calculations to give more insight. But since you don't, and it's
> all made-up bullshit, I'll tell you: not very close.
You used the words "not very close". To me that "not very" could
suggest at least 0.86 light year, or perhaps closer than 0.086 ly.
>
> See, you said "eventually" which could be next week or next year. You
> have no clue about the relative speeds of the stars involved or the time
> scales that those speeds imply.
Well, aren't we having another bad newsgroup day, or what. You want
exact placements, as well as an exact day, hour and second, as well as
exact matter of fact upon everything else (especially of using just
the right words), or you want nothing at all.
Here I'd thought you were the extra smart one. Sorry, my mistake.
Next time I offer this topic I'll have to do it in LeapFrog pop-up
format.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <8cbb61e0-5edb-4742-8dc6-9ca9986e8...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
> > out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
> > otherwise pick another fight.
>
> Then how come you keep inventing bullshit like the latest about Sirius
> and the Sun being in orbit about one another?
Perhaps we're more comet/asteroid elliptical like, and never quite
manage to orbit Sirius.
And you have some other nearby star to suggest? (didn't think so)
Are you also going to banish or exclude the fact that the nearby
Sirius star/solar system used to be worth 7+ solar masses before
Sirius B went red giant and turned itself into that little white
dwarf?
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <1e042a5b-e956-41a2-8125-7a599204a...@u36g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Supposedly you're so much smarter than all of us village idiots
> > combined. Go fish, and show us your all-inclusive catch of the
> > supercomputer simulated day that somehow excludes tidal radius and
> > thus eliminates any measurable degree of tidal flexing.
>
> You haven't even defined what tidal radius means, and the one definition
> I've seen gives a meaningless result.
I'll work on it, and report back. Don't hold your breath.
Timberwoof
<e793fa06-f446-46a2...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
You've been going on about the tidal radiuses of stars and planets for
quite some time now without ever having a solid definition of the term.
Boy, that's encouraging. And now you tell me not to expect a definition
any time soon. It begs the question of whether you know what you're
talking about.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
<6f8a9701-e4d4-40f7...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 4:03 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8cbb61e0-5edb-4742-8dc6-9ca9986e8...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
> > > out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
> > > otherwise pick another fight.
> >
> > Then how come you keep inventing bullshit like the latest about Sirius
> > and the Sun being in orbit about one another?
>
> Perhaps we're more comet/asteroid elliptical like, and never quite
> manage to orbit Sirius.
Perhaps you could look up the relative motions of all the nearby stars
and then try to see who's orbiting whom. Without that, your idea is
horsefeathers.
> And you have some other nearby star to suggest? (didn't think so)
Suggest for what?
> Are you also going to banish or exclude the fact that the nearby
> Sirius star/solar system used to be worth 7+ solar masses before
> Sirius B went red giant and turned itself into that little white
> dwarf?
That has pretty much nothing to do with whether the sun is in orbit
around Sirius.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
<577aa1b4-eb6b-405a...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, because I have no idea what you're talking about when you write
"tidal radius". It's your term; I want you to define it. If you can't
explain it, then you probably don't understand it. I sure as hell don't
know what you're talking about; why do you want me to define it for you?
> > > > > Isn't gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?
> >
> > > > You could present the equations from Newton which describe how this
> > > > works.
> >
> > > There are lots of things I should do, but perhaps then we wouldn't
> > > need smarter folks like yourself, would we, especially of those that
> > > only keep telling us that we're continually dead wrong about
> > > everything.
> >
> > If you don't know Newton's equations and how to apply them, then you're
> > in a pretty damn sorry state to be stating "facts" about stellar orbits.
>
> Most of whatever I'd claim to know (as you'd insist), would be from
> looking it up in some book or via the internet. I do not know such
> equations from heart, although I could pretend that I do, and then I'd
> be just like most everyone else (including yourself), a born-again
> liar.
I don't care if you have to look them up. Life is an open-book test. But
you have to know that they exist and how to use them and how they work.
FWIW, the general equation for gravitational attraction is
f = G M1 M2 / r^2
where f is the force of attraction between the two masses M1 and M2 and
r is the distance between them. G is a constant that makes the answer
come out right; its value depends on what units you're using for f, M1,
M2, and r. What this means is that when something gets twice as far
away, the attraction is a quarter of what it was before. Ten times as
far, it's a hundred times weaker. So it is sort of a forever and forever
thing, but it diminishes quite rapidly with distance.
> > > > > Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
> > > > > system wasn't attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?
> >
> > > > Maybe you could define what "tidal radius" means. Maybe you could get
> > > > the equations for calculating tidal forces, and apply them to the sun
> > > > for the ten nearest stars. (Their distances and masses are fairly well
> > > > known, for they've been calculated by the astronomical establishment.)
> > > > Then instead of bleating about this, you'd have the numbers for how
> > > > much
> > > > tidal force these stars really exert on the sun.
> >
> > > All of that data and of those fully interactive 3D simulations of
> > > orbital mechanics are bought and paid for as is, and often as having
> > > been paid for multiple times by way of our hard earned public loot.
> > > Why do you suppose that kind of public funded science isn't being
> > > mainstream touted and otherwise shared?
> >
> > Beats me, Brad, and it has nothing to do with this. It only serves as
> > yet another handy excuse for you to go yapping about yet another wackop
> > conspiracy theory.
>
> You folks do like to banish or exclude whatever rocks your mainstream
> boat.
I couldn't care less if you came up with some eye-candy animation that
shows whatever you want it to show. Since you clearly don't understand
the math behind what's gong on, any animation you come up with is
meaningless. So your access to supercomputers really doesn't matter.
> > > > > The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
> > > > > years,
> >
> > > > How did you calculate that?
> >
> > > Half of 100 billion years (the supposed outermost light year diameter
> > > of our universe) is roughly 50 billion years. I seldom make mistakes
> > > when dividing by 2.
> >
> > Which begs the question, what does "tidal radius" mean?
>
> It means whatever you'd care to cut and paste, so that it'll make you
> look extra smart and myself look exactly like the village idiot.
You're making yourself look like the village idiot by not defining a
term you've been using for a long time as though it meant something.
> I
> guess the same question goes for "tidal flex", because you obviously
> do not agree one iota with anything I've tried to convey about our
> global warming that's getting some of its energy via the lunar tidal
> flexing of our 98.5% fluid Earth.
That's a different matter entirely. Those effects are well-defined and
can be calculated. I even told you how.
> It seems as though you want to exclude the use of anything involving
> the word tidal.
No, I just want you to define your terms and come up with real numbers
to back up your claims, not this adjectave-laden foofoo laadedaa
feel-good verbal description thing you've got going. That's not science,
that's third-rate home movie scriptwriting.
> Is the traditional meaning of "tidal" having something to do with the
> oceans coming and going or of the rise and fall of our oceans?
That would be a sensible definition.
> > > > > and that's supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
> > > > > Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that's somewhat rogue due to
> > > > > its
> > > > > escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB
> > > > > universe,
> > > > > is clearly outside of the core tidal radius
> >
> > > > What's a core tidal radius?
> >
> > > Just another way of suggesting whatever is sticking within our
> > > universe is likely interrelated to the central group density that one
> > > might as well consider as core worthy. Say of whatever fits within
> > > the first 0.1%r could easily be considered as representing the most
> > > combined stellar mass and black hole populated core, as our most
> > > worthy central realm of our otherwise vast universe that's supposedly
> > > still expanding itself away from the most recent BB.
> >
> > You've still not come up with a meaningful definition of tidal radius. I
> > think you don't know. I think it's some cool-sounding term you came up
> > with or read somewhere, which has no specific meaning for you that can
> > be pinned down, which since it doesn't actually mean anything, you can
> > just stick it into a sentence about stars and planets and whatnot and
> > hope someone will think you know what you're talking about.
>
> There's a nifty internet feature that even works within newsgroups,
> called "Search" or "Search For". Perhaps you should try it out. Pick
> whatever suits your kind of mainstream notions.
I'd rather you define your own terms. I will not define them for you and
then have you whine about me having come up with the wrong definition.
> > > > > that's keeping most of our
> > > > > universe glued together.
> >
> > > > > Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
> > > > > tidal elliptic
> >
> > > > What's a tidal elliptic?
> >
> > > A BG modified version of the traditional circular version of a fixed
> > > velocity tidal radius, because the velocity of the elliptic tends to
> > > vary so greatly.
> >
> > More meaningless crap that can't be used for anything.
>
> Speak for yourself. Am I supposed to be doing this for a Nobel?
No, but if you want to pretend to be thinking about science, then you
should at least attempt some scientific rigor.
> > > > > is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
> > > > > entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
> > > > > planets and proto-moons do exist.
> >
> > > > Examples, please.
> >
> > > The proto-planetoid or potential proto-moon Sedna is within a tidal
> > > elliptic trek.
> >
> > In other words, no recent examples.
> >
> > > Sol is within a tidal elliptic radius,
> >
> > More bullshit. You started with "tidal radius or tidal elliptic" and now
> > you have elliptic radius. Well, you have all three combinations of the
> > words.
>
> I like to mix it up.
Oh, come on! That's only acceptable if your words don't actually mean
anything.
> Sorry if I've exceeded your capacity of
> deductively interpreting the intent of whatever I'm trying to say.
> Thank your lucky stars it's not dyslexic encrypted.
Egads, now I'm supposed to figure out on my own what you think you mean
because you're incapable of describing it with any sort of clarity.
> > > as a 110,000 year elliptical
> > > trek that's currently headed us back towards the Sirius star/solar
> > > system.
> >
> > Toward or around?
>
> Towards, possibly around, I don't know enough to say either way.
> Don't suppose you'd care to help?
No. You should do your own homework. It's a waste of time. A lot of
people much more clever than either of us have been looking at the
relative movements of all the nearby stars to see where they are going.
If there had been any hint that the sun was orbiting Sirius, we'd know
about it. (The same goes for all your other wacky ideas.)
> > > How close will our solar system eventually get to the Sirius star/
> > > solar system ????
> >
> > You tell me. you're the one claiming that Sirius and the Sun are in
> > orbit about one another. Surely you have the data to back up that claim
> > and the calculations to give more insight. But since you don't, and it's
> > all made-up bullshit, I'll tell you: not very close.
>
> You used the words "not very close". To me that "not very" could
> suggest at least 0.86 light year, or perhaps closer than 0.086 ly.
Whine, whine, whine. Now you see why so many scientists and other people
smarter than you insist on using numbers rather than just adjectives and
adverbs as you have been so fond of doing.
> > See, you said "eventually" which could be next week or next year. You
> > have no clue about the relative speeds of the stars involved or the time
> > scales that those speeds imply.
>
> Well, aren't we having another bad newsgroup day, or what. You want
> exact placements, as well as an exact day, hour and second, as well as
> exact matter of fact upon everything else (especially of using just
> the right words), or you want nothing at all.
Basically, yes.
> Here I'd thought you were the extra smart one. Sorry, my mistake.
>
> Next time I offer this topic I'll have to do it in LeapFrog pop-up
> format.
That's about your speed.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
don findlay
> >
> > The present one syn-to-post Mesozoic. Might still be happening
> > (adjusting). But there are indications of earlier tilt
>
> But apparently there's no specific date to any given year. Figures,
> doesn't it.
Sure, no specific date. Only if you're a born again
catastrophist, ...would you be interested in one either.
>
> You do realize that of us mostly naked and obviously uneducated
> heathens, plus most other life upon this planet, essentially didn't
> have to seasonally migrate prior to 13,000 BP.
Woad. ... If you saw Kiera Knightley in King Arthur running about in
the snow dressed only in a few woad armbands for thermal protection
you'd realise there was no need for anybody to migrate anywhere 13,000
years ago, but if she chose to take a holiday, down the French
Riviera, say, ..then I think the whole population would have migrated
in the same direction.
> At least there are no
> apparent biological remains or any form of intelligent formulated
> records telling us otherwise.
I would wait till we hear from Ed on this one, ..except I think he's
working in the Carboniferous.
> I agree that plate tectonics can't account for all of Earth's
> mountains, much less of being limited as to those foldie mountains.
>
> So, you don't believe in the physics or geophysical morph of any
> impact and subsequent antipode process of ever having created their
> fair share of mountains or much less having broken up the crust of
> Earth, or having given us a whole lot more of a seasonal tilt to work
> with,
Not at all. I think the Earth was clobbered bigTime . But it's not
the process known as orogenesis, which is said to be the crumpling of
the crust to throw up mountains - the making of foldies. Certainly big
impacts could break the crust. I don't have the numbers, but I feel
it in my water. If a meteorite less than a kilometer big can knock a
hole in the Earth from here to about 70km to the east, the
Astronomical Observatory said here of a near miss recently, then by my
reckoning that's good for a crack in the crust anywhere in the world.
Where it might go to after that is anybody's guess. Or if the
impactor was tens of kilometres, ..then what? (And from what
direction?)
All I'm saying is that the process of making mountains (orogenesis) is
nothing to do with crumpling of the crust, ..but to do with erosion.of
'uplited' areas - 'uplift' being essentially a shorthand way of
talking about differences in curvature of the planet surface. A round
surface is flat if it's all even, but a locally more curved bit in a
changed gravity field is not.
> but instead just favoring the gradual erosion process that can't
> explain as to why in places there's so little mountain eroding taking
> place as of relatively lately (say for the past few hundred million
> years),
Flat is flat. No erosion. Maybe a bit of wind drilling a hole here
and there, but to get serious erosion you need the water level
falling. Without that, erosion can stop indefinitely. "Surface of
zero erosion potential. It can be the top of Mount Everest - till the
water level falls.
> and also can't explain away the absolutely horrific scope of
> our Selene/moon south pole crater,
A real Burster, ..eh? And the ones on the backside. Not pimples.
> and then obviously you also can
> seem to explain away our global warming trend that has been ongoing
> ever since the very last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to
> see.
>
> You do realize that I'm not another one of those all-or-nothing kind
> of guys, don't you?
>
> I never once said or having implied that each and every mountain on
> Earth was via the impact/antipode process, but that's clearly the way
> your all-or-nothing mindset has been thinking.
Well, there are different kinds of mountains . Volcanoes for a
start. And finish. Other than that I can only think of the foldie
ones, which are erosional. Sure you get folds due to gravitational
adjustment - just like erosion and avalanches are 'gravitational
adjustment' - but that's an entirely different thing from what Plate
Tectonicists (in their ignorance) are trying to get you to believe.
Those kinds of avalanches and the sort that crumple the crust when it
falls 'gravitationally', are much the same, in a sense.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <e793fa06-f446-46a2-b4cb-111295ed7...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Go right ahead and use the internet or published versions of "tidal
radius" and "tidal flex", as for the moment I'll accept those versions
because I have no intentions of modifying their interpretations as
based upon the regular laws of physics.
As to the "tidal elliptic" or tidal elliptic radius", that's going to
have to be an entirely new one that apparently only a dyslexic
village idiot like myself can manage to create, because there are
variables of at least a trinary consideration taking place. In the
case of Sedna, there’s likely a minimum of 5 interactive gravity
factors and the 3D interactive motions of each of those to deal with.
With deductive reasoning, I’d think of using at least 4 gravity and
orbital factors that initiated our tidal elliptic radius with the
Sirius star/solar system, that which had us in a relatively short
elliptic period towards the beginning, of perhaps as little as 25,000
years.
A supercomputer simulator of such complex orbital dynamics capability
is no longer a problem, as well as the nearby stellar motions are not
unknown to us. Putting all of this into a few simulations, allowing
for certain give and take variables, and lo and behold we should have
that 3D interactive look-see at the simulation results as going back
or forward in time.
If my deductive SWAG is half right, our solar system trek will get us
at least to within .86 light year of the Sirius star/solar system.
However, I see no good reason why we wouldn’t have gotten to within
0.086 ly, or 100 fold closer than we are right now. Of going way
further back in time, this elliptic tidal radius might have placed our
wussy little solar system to within as tight as getting us a thousand
fold closer (0.0086 ly), and possibly even as to having orbited the 7+
combined solar mass of Sirius in a way that might have had our Sol as
representing Sirius C or D.
If you can help get this one into any of our public supercomputers
would be a good thing for both of us, plus credits for anyone else
that can mage to contribute.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <6f8a9701-e4d4-40f7-b17d-aa622c6c9...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 4:03 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <8cbb61e0-5edb-4742-8dc6-9ca9986e8...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
> > > > out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
> > > > otherwise pick another fight.
>
> > > Then how come you keep inventing bullshit like the latest about Sirius
> > > and the Sun being in orbit about one another?
>
> > Perhaps we're more comet/asteroid elliptical like, and never quite
> > manage to orbit Sirius.
>
> Perhaps you could look up the relative motions of all the nearby stars
> and then try to see who's orbiting whom. Without that, your idea is
> horsefeathers.
Many others have already established those "horsefeathers" on our
behalf. The problem is that whenever such horsefeathers involve
Sirius it seems their lights go out, and we're left in the dark.
Wonder why that is?
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > And you have some other nearby star to suggest? (didn't think so)
>
> Suggest for what?
>
> > Are you also going to banish or exclude the fact that the nearby
> > Sirius star/solar system used to be worth 7+ solar masses before
> > Sirius B went red giant and turned itself into that little white
> > dwarf?
>
> That has pretty much nothing to do with whether the sun is in orbit
> around Sirius.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
BradGuth
often measured facts of orbital dynamics as related to stellar
motions?
Are you suggesting that comets and asteroids don't really exist as
having such long elliptical treks?
Are you suggesting it only takes the random happenstance motions of
two bodies of gravity in order to establish and sustain an elliptical
path?
Are you suggesting that such elliptical path bodies actually maintain
a constant velocity?
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <577aa1b4-eb6b-405a-9188-0bd3fd533...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> ...
>
> read more »
Timberwoof
<cef33054-7b07-467a...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do you continually exclude or banish the observed science and
> often measured facts of orbital dynamics as related to stellar
> motions?
What observed "science"? You haven't presented any.
> Are you suggesting that comets and asteroids don't really exist as
> having such long elliptical treks?
No. That's a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.
> Are you suggesting it only takes the random happenstance motions of
> two bodies of gravity in order to establish and sustain an elliptical
> path?
No. That's a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.
> Are you suggesting that such elliptical path bodies actually maintain
> a constant velocity?
No. That's a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
<23e4f271-bdad-4a46...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mostly because you invent all kinds of fanciful fairy-takes about that
star's relation to ours which have no basis in fact.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <cef33054-7b07-467a-8b90-73a5351ba...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why do you continually exclude or banish the observed science and
> > often measured facts of orbital dynamics as related to stellar
> > motions?
>
> What observed "science"? You haven't presented any.
>
> > Are you suggesting that comets and asteroids don't really exist as
> > having such long elliptical treks?
>
> No. That's a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.
>
> > Are you suggesting it only takes the random happenstance motions of
> > two bodies of gravity in order to establish and sustain an elliptical
> > path?
>
> No. That's a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.
>
> > Are you suggesting that such elliptical path bodies actually maintain
> > a constant velocity?
>
> No. That's a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
> which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.
Just wondering, have you ever contributed anything original?
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <23e4f271-bdad-4a46-8418-14a5a7e84...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
And your computer simulations have long since proven this total lack
of interstellar reactions?
Apparently all stars are entirely rogue and otherwise of pure random
happenstance if associated with any given galaxy. In other words,
elliptical treks of cosmic stuff apparently doesn't add up in your
mindset. Go figure.
don findlay
BradGuth wrote:
>
> > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> > Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what�s accepted by
> > the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
> > which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.
>
> Just wondering, have you ever contributed anything original?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
The only original thing the woof's ever contributed here is a bit of
static, ..as well as some fluff from rubbing his hairy woollen ..Ummm
legs. :-)
BradGuth
That's rather unfortunate. Perhaps we should toss a bone or two his
way, just to make his topic/author stalking and naysay trolling seems
as though it's doing some good.
At least from our resident technology God (aka William Mook), I've
learned another thing or two. Has anyone ever learned something that
wasn't already public/internet published, from Timberwoof?
don findlay
BradGuth wrote:
That goes very deep, and bears on how we know anything, against what
they say about reinventing the wheel. There's a quote (that's been
published before) I like, by Bertrand Russel who says:- "Children
have this habit of thinking for themselves, and the point of education
is to cure them of this habit"
Says it all, I reckon. Why that "reinventing the wheel" gets such a
pejorative run can only be by people who are not capable of an
original thought themselves, cos there nothing so bright, shining and
new when it comes to understanding, as a reinvented wheel. You can
feel the vibration of the thing as it speeds along, if not exactly
where it's going, by by Jesus, you know it's going somewhere, ...and
it's not falling off the back of the trolley all those tosser-dossers
are on.
Timberwoof
<6627d937-add3-434e...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
That conclusion is not justified by anything I've written.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <6627d937-add3-434e-833e-d684586de...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
It is my interpretation of what you're not saying, that's telling me
more then I needed to know about your naysay and otherwise ulterior
motivated mindset.
A 7+ solar mass of something as nearby as the original Sirius star/
solar system should have been more than sufficient to having our
passive sun as well enough established within its tidal radius. This
is not a simple bit of math, but that of a good supercomputer working
its CPUs fairly hard in order to fully simulate this elliptic tidal
radius.
Timberwoof
<e7e55010-dc63-488c...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, that's a laugh.
> that's telling me
> more then I needed to know about your naysay and otherwise ulterior
> motivated mindset.
>
> A 7+ solar mass of something as nearby as the original Sirius star/
> solar system should have been more than sufficient to having our
> passive sun as well enough established within its tidal radius.
Without knowing what "tidal radius" means, that's a meaningless claim.
Even with the definition someone proposed, it makes no sense.
> This
> is not a simple bit of math, but that of a good supercomputer working
> its CPUs fairly hard in order to fully simulate this elliptic tidal
> radius.
Since the key phrase is not defined, you have, as usual, posted
content-free words.
BradGuth
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e7e55010-dc63-488c-b09c-2536b8270...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
So, you clearly do not accept the popular and otherwise peer
replicated and thus widely accepted definitions of “tidal radius” as
it relates to orbital physics (circular or elliptical), and therefore
my “elliptic tidal radius” which involves three or more considerations
of gravity, all of which existing in some kind of 3D motion, is
entirely out of the question.
Your profound naysay and lack of basic/fundamental deductive logic is
accepted for what it is, dumbfounded.
I wonder if you can suggest why Sedna keeps coming back around within
its elliptic tidal radius, not to mention countless binary plus other
more complex interactions of the stellar kind that make up the
majority of the 500 billion stars within our Milky Way galaxy.
Other than dark matter and dark energy that’s still in flux and thus
undefined, is there some other weird unexplained conditional physics
law of random happenstance that only you and others of your silly kind
know of?
Perhaps the antimatter core of black holes is what's responsible for
whatever can not be otherwise explained. How do you say (yea/nay)?
BTW, when items of any given mass are not moving about in
relationship to one another, in which case their individual or mutual
tidal radius is essentially infinite.
Timberwoof
<b3659f4f-0a2a-40b1...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> replicated and thus widely accepted definitions of łtidal radius˛ as
> it relates to orbital physics (circular or elliptical), and therefore
> my łelliptic tidal radius˛ which involves three or more considerations
> of gravity, all of which existing in some kind of 3D motion, is
> entirely out of the question.
That's an irrational an unjustified interpretation of what I wrote. I've
asked you a lot of times to define "tidal radius" and all you've come up
with is self-contradictory arblegarble that doesn't agree with your own
varied uses of the phrase.
> Your profound naysay and lack of basic/fundamental deductive logic is
> accepted for what it is, dumbfounded.
I don't think "dumbfounded" means what you think it means.
> I wonder if you can suggest why Sedna keeps coming back around within
> its elliptic tidal radius,
Now there's an elliptic tidal radius, which you have also not defined,
and apparently the possibility that something might leave its tidal
radius. (In the context of your sentence, "tidal radius" is
indistinguishable from "orbit". Until you provide a more complete
definition, I will assume that "tidal radius" means "orbit".)
> not to mention countless binary plus other
> more complex interactions of the stellar kind that make up the
> majority of the 500 billion stars within our Milky Way galaxy.
Sedna's orbit around the sun is about half a million AUs.
An AU is 15.813*10^6 LY. Distances to planets are measured in AUs;
distances to stars are measured in about the same magnitudes of LYs.
IOW, stars tens of millions of times farther away than our planets. It's
not in the least surprising that as stars orbit the center of the
galaxy, planets orbit their stars pretty much unaffected by what's going
on around them.
You don't need a supercomputer to do the following calculations, just a
spreadsheet: List the hundred or so nearest stars, their masses, and
their distances. Also list all the planets of our solar system, their
masses, and their average distance from the sun. Now pick any planet,
even Sedna, and, for all the other things in that list, calculate, using
Newton's Law, the force that each object exerts on Sedna. See for
yourself what the biggest influences on the planets of this solar system
are.
> Other than dark matter and dark energy thatąs still in flux and thus
> undefined, is there some other weird unexplained conditional physics
> law of random happenstance that only you and others of your silly kind
> know of?
>
> Perhaps the antimatter core of black holes is what's responsible for
> whatever can not be otherwise explained. How do you say (yea/nay)?
I say you're being goofy. You're making up a straw-man argument that I
didn't even make, and then pretending that I'm making up goofy shit to
defend it. At least be honest and realize that you're making up goofy
shit to defend your own goofy hypotheses.
> BTW, when items of any given mass are not moving about in
> relationship to one another, in which case their individual or mutual
> tidal radius is essentially infinite.
Well, there goes my assumption that "tidal radius" means "orbit", but I
still don't know what it means. I've seen the phrase used in a few
articles about globular clusters:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eez38xjCYGkC&pg=PA479&lpg=PA479&dq=tidal
+radius&source=web&ots=OGznbAF0Ef&sig=Vqukn8kUVmdtx3V9JcYl4KiCqZg&hl=en&s
a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
tidal radius: the radius within which all the luminous matter of a
cluster of a galaxy is contained. The tidal radius can be measured for
globular clusters and for galaxies belonging to clusters, which are
found to have well-defined outer limits (in contrast with brightness
profiles of isolated elliptical galaxies Š). The name arises from the
understanding that in the case of a cluster galaxy, repeated encounters
with nearby galaxies can lead to tidal stripping of the outer stars,
which are loosely gravitationally bond, and to the evaporation of the
outer envelope, leaving only stars which are inside the tidal radius.
Well, that cannot be what you mean by tidal radius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/20
08_July_4
has an article in which the definition of the word is debated. And none
of the definitions presented here match anything you've ever written
about it.
I bet you're incapable of coming up with a definition of "tidal radius"
that
* matches any definition anyone else has come up with
* matches everything you've ever claimed for the concept
* means anything
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <b3659f4f-0a2a-40b1-826e-9dc253acc...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, you clearly do not accept the popular and otherwise peer
> > it relates to orbital physics (circular or elliptical), and therefore
> > of gravity, all of which existing in some kind of 3D motion, is
> > entirely out of the question.
>
> That's an irrational an unjustified interpretation of what I wrote. I've
> asked you a lot of times to define "tidal radius" and all you've come up
> with is self-contradictory arblegarble that doesn't agree with your own
> varied uses of the phrase.
>
> > Your profound naysay and lack of basic/fundamental deductive logic is
> > accepted for what it is, dumbfounded.
>
> I don't think "dumbfounded" means what you think it means.
That's true, because you're clearly more of a DARPA rusemaster, rather
than merely dumbfounded.
>
> > I wonder if you can suggest why Sedna keeps coming back around within
> > its elliptic tidal radius,
>
> Now there's an elliptic tidal radius, which you have also not defined,
> and apparently the possibility that something might leave its tidal
> radius. (In the context of your sentence, "tidal radius" is
> indistinguishable from "orbit". Until you provide a more complete
> definition, I will assume that "tidal radius" means "orbit".)
Then call it a tidal orbit for all I care, or call it something
entirely different, because it's still happening. How about using
"yoyo orbit" or "yoyo tidal radius". How about the TEC "Temberwoof
Elliptic Coefficient"?
>
> > not to mention countless binary plus other
> > more complex interactions of the stellar kind that make up the
> > majority of the 500 billion stars within our Milky Way galaxy.
>
> Sedna's orbit around the sun is about half a million AUs.
> An AU is 15.813*10^6 LY. Distances to planets are measured in AUs;
> distances to stars are measured in about the same magnitudes of LYs.
> IOW, stars tens of millions of times farther away than our planets. It's
> not in the least surprising that as stars orbit the center of the
> galaxy, planets orbit their stars pretty much unaffected by what's going
> on around them.
>
> You don't need a supercomputer to do the following calculations, just a
> spreadsheet: List the hundred or so nearest stars, their masses, and
> their distances. Also list all the planets of our solar system, their
> masses, and their average distance from the sun. Now pick any planet,
> even Sedna, and, for all the other things in that list, calculate, using
> Newton's Law, the force that each object exerts on Sedna. See for
> yourself what the biggest influences on the planets of this solar system
> are.
You have to also include their angular velocity of each item, and
perhaps update such at least year by year. A few thousand spreadsheet
lines, hundreds of columns and years later should start to do the
trick.
>
> > Other than dark matter and dark energy that's still in flux and thus
> > undefined, is there some other weird unexplained conditional physics
> > law of random happenstance that only you and others of your silly kind
> > know of?
>
> > Perhaps the antimatter core of black holes is what's responsible for
> > whatever can not be otherwise explained. How do you say (yea/nay)?
>
> I say you're being goofy. You're making up a straw-man argument that I
> didn't even make, and then pretending that I'm making up goofy shit to
> defend it. At least be honest and realize that you're making up goofy
> shit to defend your own goofy hypotheses.
I'm just keeping this topic interesting, the best I know how. You on
the other hand are suggesting that a few dozen spreadsheet lines with
only a few columns worth will more than do the trick within a few
hours work. Sorry, but I don't think so.
>
> > BTW, when items of any given mass are not moving about in
> > relationship to one another, in which case their individual or mutual
> > tidal radius is essentially infinite.
>
> Well, there goes my assumption that "tidal radius" means "orbit", but I
> still don't know what it means. I've seen the phrase used in a few
> articles about globular clusters:
Of two items standing still is an orbit of infinite radius, you
moron.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=eez38xjCYGkC&pg=PA479&lpg=PA479&dq=t...
> +radius&source=web&ots=OGznbAF0Ef&sig=Vqukn8kUVmdtx3V9JcYl4KiCqZg&hl=en&s
> a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
>
> tidal radius: the radius within which all the luminous matter of a
> cluster of a galaxy is contained. The tidal radius can be measured for
> globular clusters and for galaxies belonging to clusters, which are
> found to have well-defined outer limits (in contrast with brightness
> profiles of isolated elliptical galaxies Š). The name arises from the
> understanding that in the case of a cluster galaxy, repeated encounters
> with nearby galaxies can lead to tidal stripping of the outer stars,
> which are loosely gravitationally bond, and to the evaporation of the
> outer envelope, leaving only stars which are inside the tidal radius.
>
> Well, that cannot be what you mean by tidal radius.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Scienc...
> 08_July_4
>
> has an article in which the definition of the word is debated. And none
> of the definitions presented here match anything you've ever written
> about it.
>
> I bet you're incapable of coming up with a definition of "tidal radius"
> that
> * matches any definition anyone else has come up with
> * matches everything you've ever claimed for the concept
> * means anything
You are continually making too much of everything, trying hardest to
find fault with wordage or phrase usage, rather than to contribute on
any meaningful level of a positive/constructive manner. Let us go
along with whatever you'd like to call the frame or realm or that of
whatever weird of conditional physics keeps an elliptic of whatever
coming back towards the same star.
Timberwoof
<a04b3105-cc04-4b82...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:21 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b3659f4f-0a2a-40b1-826e-9dc253acc...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, you clearly do not accept the popular and otherwise peer
> > > replicated and thus widely accepted definitions of 3tidal radius2 as
> > > it relates to orbital physics (circular or elliptical), and therefore
> > > my 3elliptic tidal radius2 which involves three or more considerations
> > > of gravity, all of which existing in some kind of 3D motion, is
> > > entirely out of the question.
> >
> > That's an irrational an unjustified interpretation of what I wrote. I've
> > asked you a lot of times to define "tidal radius" and all you've come up
> > with is self-contradictory arblegarble that doesn't agree with your own
> > varied uses of the phrase.
> >
> > > Your profound naysay and lack of basic/fundamental deductive logic is
> > > accepted for what it is, dumbfounded.
> >
> > I don't think "dumbfounded" means what you think it means.
>
> That's true, because you're clearly more of a DARPA rusemaster, rather
> than merely dumbfounded.
Now I know that "dumbfounded" doesn't mean what you think it means.
> > > I wonder if you can suggest why Sedna keeps coming back around within
> > > its elliptic tidal radius,
> >
> > Now there's an elliptic tidal radius, which you have also not defined,
> > and apparently the possibility that something might leave its tidal
> > radius. (In the context of your sentence, "tidal radius" is
> > indistinguishable from "orbit". Until you provide a more complete
> > definition, I will assume that "tidal radius" means "orbit".)
>
> Then call it a tidal orbit for all I care, or call it something
> entirely different, because it's still happening. How about using
> "yoyo orbit" or "yoyo tidal radius". How about the TEC "Temberwoof
> Elliptic Coefficient"?
How about you describe whatever the hell it is you're talking about?
It's just a made-up phrase with no meaning, as far as I'm concerned.
> > > not to mention countless binary plus other
> > > more complex interactions of the stellar kind that make up the
> > > majority of the 500 billion stars within our Milky Way galaxy.
> >
> > Sedna's orbit around the sun is about half a million AUs.
> > An AU is 15.813*10^6 LY. Distances to planets are measured in AUs;
> > distances to stars are measured in about the same magnitudes of LYs.
> > IOW, stars tens of millions of times farther away than our planets. It's
> > not in the least surprising that as stars orbit the center of the
> > galaxy, planets orbit their stars pretty much unaffected by what's going
> > on around them.
> >
> > You don't need a supercomputer to do the following calculations, just a
> > spreadsheet: List the hundred or so nearest stars, their masses, and
> > their distances. Also list all the planets of our solar system, their
> > masses, and their average distance from the sun. Now pick any planet,
> > even Sedna, and, for all the other things in that list, calculate, using
> > Newton's Law, the force that each object exerts on Sedna. See for
> > yourself what the biggest influences on the planets of this solar system
> > are.
>
> You have to also include their angular velocity of each item, and
> perhaps update such at least year by year. A few thousand spreadsheet
> lines, hundreds of columns and years later should start to do the
> trick.
Eh, You only need a hundred lines and maybe a dozen or two columns. The
problem is not as complex as you make it out to be. This means you could
actually do it, instead of whining about how hard it is and then making
up your on fantasy-world stuff.
> > > Other than dark matter and dark energy that's still in flux and thus
> > > undefined, is there some other weird unexplained conditional physics
> > > law of random happenstance that only you and others of your silly kind
> > > know of?
> >
> > > Perhaps the antimatter core of black holes is what's responsible for
> > > whatever can not be otherwise explained. How do you say (yea/nay)?
> >
> > I say you're being goofy. You're making up a straw-man argument that I
> > didn't even make, and then pretending that I'm making up goofy shit to
> > defend it. At least be honest and realize that you're making up goofy
> > shit to defend your own goofy hypotheses.
>
> I'm just keeping this topic interesting, the best I know how.
So in other words you're trolling.
> You on
> the other hand are suggesting that a few dozen spreadsheet lines with
> only a few columns worth will more than do the trick within a few
> hours work. Sorry, but I don't think so.
Well, the trick it will do is show that the stars don't affect the
planets' orbits to any significant amount; that they can be safely
ignored when doing any calculations of orbits. And that, of course,
would blow right out of the water any goofy ideas you're trying to
hatch.
> > > BTW, when items of any given mass are not moving about in
> > > relationship to one another, in which case their individual or mutual
> > > tidal radius is essentially infinite.
> >
> > Well, there goes my assumption that "tidal radius" means "orbit", but I
> > still don't know what it means. I've seen the phrase used in a few
> > articles about globular clusters:
>
> Of two items standing still is an orbit of infinite radius, you
> moron.
That may make sense if you provided your definition of "tidal radius",
but since you have none, you're basically to say anything you want to
about it, so you can pretend to answer any question anyone asks.
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=eez38xjCYGkC&pg=PA479&lpg=PA479&dq=t...
> > +radius&source=web&ots=OGznbAF0Ef&sig=Vqukn8kUVmdtx3V9JcYl4KiCqZg&hl=en&s
> > a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
> >
> > tidal radius: the radius within which all the luminous matter of a
> > cluster of a galaxy is contained. The tidal radius can be measured for
> > globular clusters and for galaxies belonging to clusters, which are
> > found to have well-defined outer limits (in contrast with brightness
> > profiles of isolated elliptical galaxies Sť). The name arises from the
> > understanding that in the case of a cluster galaxy, repeated encounters
> > with nearby galaxies can lead to tidal stripping of the outer stars,
> > which are loosely gravitationally bond, and to the evaporation of the
> > outer envelope, leaving only stars which are inside the tidal radius.
> >
> > Well, that cannot be what you mean by tidal radius.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Scienc...
> > 08_July_4
> >
> > has an article in which the definition of the word is debated. And none
> > of the definitions presented here match anything you've ever written
> > about it.
> >
> > I bet you're incapable of coming up with a definition of "tidal radius"
> > that
> > * matches any definition anyone else has come up with
> > * matches everything you've ever claimed for the concept
> > * means anything
>
> You are continually making too much of everything, trying hardest to
> find fault with wordage or phrase usage, rather than to contribute on
> any meaningful level of a positive/constructive manner.
No, I'm just trying to get you to explicitly define your terms. If you
can't do that, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
> Let us go
> along with whatever you'd like to call the frame or realm or that of
> whatever weird of conditional physics keeps an elliptic of whatever
> coming back towards the same star.
You mean a Keplerian orbit in a Newtonian gravitational field? There's
no concept of "tidal radius" in that.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <a04b3105-cc04-4b82-9ab8-21b3652bd...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
I've been there and having done just that, several times as far as I
can tell.
Replying to morons and perpetual naysayers like yourself = trolling,
sounds about right.
>
> > You on
> > the other hand are suggesting that a few dozen spreadsheet lines with
> > only a few columns worth will more than do the trick within a few
> > hours work. Sorry, but I don't think so.
>
> Well, the trick it will do is show that the stars don't affect the
> planets' orbits to any significant amount; that they can be safely
> ignored when doing any calculations of orbits. And that, of course,
> would blow right out of the water any goofy ideas you're trying to
> hatch.
But those pesky 100,000+ year elliptical orbits do exist, along with
galactic tidal encounters based upon millions of years. Imagine that.
>
> > > > BTW, when items of any given mass are not moving about in
> > > > relationship to one another, in which case their individual or mutual
> > > > tidal radius is essentially infinite.
>
> > > Well, there goes my assumption that "tidal radius" means "orbit", but I
> > > still don't know what it means. I've seen the phrase used in a few
> > > articles about globular clusters:
>
> > Of two items standing still is an orbit of infinite radius, you
> > moron.
>
> That may make sense if you provided your definition of "tidal radius",
> but since you have none, you're basically to say anything you want to
> about it, so you can pretend to answer any question anyone asks.
It's my topic that I can pretty much do as a please with. If need be,
think of me as GW Bush.
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=eez38xjCYGkC&pg=PA479&lpg=PA479&dq=t...
> > > +radius&source=web&ots=OGznbAF0Ef&sig=Vqukn8kUVmdtx3V9JcYl4KiCqZg&hl=en&s
> > > a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
>
> > > tidal radius: the radius within which all the luminous matter of a
> > > cluster of a galaxy is contained. The tidal radius can be measured for
> > > globular clusters and for galaxies belonging to clusters, which are
> > > found to have well-defined outer limits (in contrast with brightness
> > > profiles of isolated elliptical galaxies S ). The name arises from the
> > > understanding that in the case of a cluster galaxy, repeated encounters
> > > with nearby galaxies can lead to tidal stripping of the outer stars,
> > > which are loosely gravitationally bond, and to the evaporation of the
> > > outer envelope, leaving only stars which are inside the tidal radius.
>
> > > Well, that cannot be what you mean by tidal radius.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Scienc...
> > > 08_July_4
>
> > > has an article in which the definition of the word is debated. And none
> > > of the definitions presented here match anything you've ever written
> > > about it.
>
> > > I bet you're incapable of coming up with a definition of "tidal radius"
> > > that
> > > * matches any definition anyone else has come up with
> > > * matches everything you've ever claimed for the concept
> > > * means anything
>
> > You are continually making too much of everything, trying hardest to
> > find fault with wordage or phrase usage, rather than to contribute on
> > any meaningful level of a positive/constructive manner.
>
> No, I'm just trying to get you to explicitly define your terms. If you
> can't do that, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
Half the time Einstein didn't know what the hell he was talking
about. So what's the difference?
>
> > Let us go
> > along with whatever you'd like to call the frame or realm or that of
> > whatever weird of conditional physics keeps an elliptic of whatever
> > coming back towards the same star.
>
> You mean a Keplerian orbit in a Newtonian gravitational field? There's
> no concept of "tidal radius" in that.
Perhaps there should be a little something of the tidal elliptic
radius. After all, elliptical orbits do have a radius that's
continually changing, somewhat like an ocean tide.
Otherwise, your total lack of any positive/constructive efforts
towards the intent of this topic is noted.
Odysseus
<timberwoof.spam-C3...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
<snip>
> An AU is 15.813*10^6 LY.
Say, what? At first I thought you might have just switched the units --
but even when inverted the figure is wrong by orders of magnitude.
--
Odysseus
Timberwoof
Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
Whoops. Brain fart. I guess I should redo my math and show it.
AU = 149.60 x 10^9 m
ly = 9.461 x 1^15 m
ly = 63.24 x 10^3 AU
There we go. An LY is ~ 10^5 AU. And since gravitational force decreases
with the square of the distance, Brad's favorite star Sirius, which is
about half a million light years away, has about 1 x 10^-11[1] the
gravitational influence on the Earth that the sun has. In other words,
unmeasurable.
Sorry about the error; thanks for spotting it and giving me the chance
to correct it. Brad, shut up. I never claimed to be infallible, and I've
given you dozens and dozens of chances to correct your errors.
[1] The mass of Sirius is 3 solar masses; it's 8.6 LY away, which equals
5.44 x 10^5 au. One over the square of the distance, times the mass of
Sirius, is 1.0 x 10^-11.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Warren G. Harding
I'm still waiting to see the formal definition of "tidal radius."
Timberwoof
I found one, but it has nothing to do with what Blad's been brathering
about. It has to do with galaxies and globular clusters: the region
within which there are stars, and outside of which there aren't any. But
that definition is meaningless for what Brad is talking about.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
BradGuth
> Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> > Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>
> >> In article
> >> <timberwoof.spam-C3A9EF.13211427072...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
> >> Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > An AU is 15.813*10^6 LY.
>
> >> Say, what? At first I thought you might have just switched the units --
> >> but even when inverted the figure is wrong by orders of magnitude.
>
> >Whoops. Brain fart. I guess I should redo my math and show it.
>
> >AU = 149.60 x 10^9 m
> >ly = 9.461 x 1^15 m
> >ly = 63.24 x 10^3 AU
>
> >There we go. An LY is ~ 10^5 AU. And since gravitational force decreases
> >with the square of the distance, Brad's favorite star Sirius, which is
> >about half a million light years away, has about 1 x 10^-11[1] the
> >gravitational influence on the Earth that the sun has. In other words,
> >unmeasurable.
>
> >Sorry about the error; thanks for spotting it and giving me the chance
> >to correct it. Brad, shut up. I never claimed to be infallible, and I've
> >given you dozens and dozens of chances to correct your errors.
>
> >[1] The mass of Sirius is 3 solar masses; it's 8.6 LY away, which equals
> >5.44 x 10^5 au. One over the square of the distance, times the mass of
> >Sirius, is 1.0 x 10^-11.
>
> I'm still waiting to see the formal definition of "tidal radius."
Better yet is the tidal elliptic radius, as an extended orbital radius
variable in 3D interactive space, whereas everything is continually in
3D motion. To say the least, this is highly complex.
In 2D space, a basic tidal radius of a purely circular orbit is the
same as specified by the usual internet posted definitions.
If both items are of the exact same mass and always of equal velocity
throughout each of their nearly circular treks, and with having no
other gravitational influences would obviously make this relatively
easy to spreadsheet this one out.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article <odysseus1479-at-512797.19150127072...@news.telus.net>,
>
> Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
> > In article
> > <timberwoof.spam-C3A9EF.13211427072...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > An AU is 15.813*10^6 LY.
>
> > Say, what? At first I thought you might have just switched the units --
> > but even when inverted the figure is wrong by orders of magnitude.
>
> Whoops. Brain fart. I guess I should redo my math and show it.
>
> AU = 149.60 x 10^9 m
> ly = 9.461 x 1^15 m
> ly = 63.24 x 10^3 AU
>
> There we go. An LY is ~ 10^5 AU. And since gravitational force decreases
> with the square of the distance, Brad's favorite star Sirius, which is
> about half a million light years away, has about 1 x 10^-11[1] the
> gravitational influence on the Earth that the sun has. In other words,
> unmeasurable.
You obviously mean .544e6 AU (not "a half million light years away")
>
> Sorry about the error; thanks for spotting it and giving me the chance
> to correct it. Brad, shut up. I never claimed to be infallible, and I've
> given you dozens and dozens of chances to correct your errors.
>
> [1] The mass of Sirius is 3 solar masses; it's 8.6 LY away, which equals
> 5.44 x 10^5 au. One over the square of the distance, times the mass of
> Sirius, is 1.0 x 10^-11.
Sirius may have been as close as within 0.01 ly (632.56 AU), and
worthy of 7+ solar mass as of prior to Sirius B having gone red
giant.