Energy that's between us and our moon
Brad Guth
existing between us and our moon?
If we established the one and only MEL1(moon L1) of dipole elements:
What's the voltage differential?
What's the amperage potential?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea...@mygate.mailgate.org
Besides gravity and of the subsequent ongoing tidal forced transfer of
energy that has been operating to the substantial tune of multi
terajoules, is there anything else worth our while that's existing
between Earth and that of our extremely substantial mascon of a moon?
The following is simply a little sub-topic of the rather substantial
applied energy that's ongoing, that's in the process of thawing out
every last km3 of ice in sight.
topic: How cold Earth w/o moon
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sci/sci.environment/4e509ca8a838db910c7578f0fd33a726.49644%40mygate.mailgate.org
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1167089220.6...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
> We conclude the moon is responsible for tectonic
> and seismic action in and on Earth.
Interesting info that's getting way better than most, as to sharing the
estimated 70 megatons of TNT/day worth of energy applied into the crust
and lithosphere. What about the super-rotating muck below all of that?
How much tidal forced energy is getting applied into our oceans and
atmosphere?
What about w/o whatever 3.8 cm/yr of recession taking place, of merely
sustaining the 2e20 joules worth of centripetal/orbital force as is.
Or, is there a little something else (aka electrostatic or magnetic)
keeping that moon stuck to our realm?
In other words, how many spare/extra terajoules does it take for keeping
our oceans and atmosphere on the move, as being accomplished via the
moon's tidal/gravity forces.
According to some wise enough environmental wizards, it takes the likes
of roughy +/- 10 j/m2 in order for mother Earth's seasonal tilt to pull
off her summer/winter thing. In other words, a relatively short term
thermal shift of 20 w/m2 takes an extremely hot summer environment into
the absolute dregs of an icy winter in essentially no planetology time
at all.
Therefore, over considerable time and without benefit of orbital mascon
imposed seismic, atmospheric and ocean tidal forces at play (other than
solar gravity generated), it seems as little as a sustained impact of
+/- 1 joule/m2 could eventually turn what's left of our frail
environment upside down. Thereby taking away a mere 2 j/m2 could
nullify GW if not put us into another gradual ice age cycle.
Now, I'm not into suggesting that we actually get rid of our moon. I'm
merely pointing out that with less attention on the sorts of hocus-pocus
physics that's orchestrating so much infomercial science, as having us
hyped into being afraid of our own shadows while running us every which
way but lose, whereas instead we can focus our best talents and
resources upon efforts that could make or break our future plans.
It seems knowing where the bulk of GW energy is derived from is simply a
win-win for the old save thy butt gipper, that's unavoidably a healthy
part our ongoing environmental fiasco that has long since managed to
have taken a notch out of our insufficient albedo that's only getting
worse off as we rant on and on, that which has only created more at risk
than merely the ongoing task of our assisting in the process of melting
every last km3 of ice in order to make our badly polluted oceans of
becoming mostly jellyfish habitats deeper.
There are some species of life upon Earth (including a few too many
humans) that simply haven't evolved sufficiently or having lost too many
of those nifty DNA codes along the way, in order to cope with the
failing magnetosphere and that of our assisted GW fiasco at the same
time, at least not without having to pay the ultimate price, and then
some. For this reason I'm thinking we need to start trying out a few
weird ideas, just in case we've missed a little something important
along the way.
-
>PS: This seems to account for the stagnant nature of Venus's
>surface, in the past 500 million years.
Other than most likely having lost it's moon to a larger planet, what's
all that "stagnant" about the relatively newish planetology and thereby
geothermally active environment of Venus?
Brad Guth
If our MEL1(moon's L1) sweet spot or mutual gravity pocket is to remain
as author/topic taboo (reserved for China), then perhaps we'll need to
keep looking closer to home, as to the best available solutions that
have recently been at hand, but sequestered out of sight and thus out of
mindset by most all the big-energy cartels that supposedly have our best
interest at their little black hearts.
If Earth was upon average to become roughly 50% covered in snow and ice,
as such we'd have a rather nifty amount of a highly reflective albedo at
our disposal, perhaps at times half again as reflective as our current
polluted and becoming ice naked status quo, whereas instead becoming
something in the albedo realm of 0.54, which most of us could learn to
live with.
After all, there's no technical reasons for the current physics of
creating green/renewable energy that shouldn't cost us much greater than
$0.01/kwhr, especially if getting locally produced via
solar-PV/solar-Stirling and mega class wind tower, all efficiently
incorporated on the very same foundation/footprint, with surplus energy
converted into the likes of LH2 and H2O2 that can then be sold on eBay
for top dollar.
From that frosty point on, we could damn well and otherwise freely
pillage, rape and simply exploit, burn and soot the living hell out of
mother Earth, and be no worse off for ware.
Brad Guth
There is a great deal of energy that's between Earth and that pesky
mascon of a moon of ours.
Too bad that it's yet another one of those taboo/nondisclosure sort of
nasty topics.
The voltage potential simply has to be in teravolts, and the available
amperage is just about anyone's honest swag at this point.
Because we still have nothing taking honest to god real time
measurements at the moon's L1, this is the one and only reason why it's
still a guessing game, just the way our faith based NASA and those Old
Testament thumping fools likes it.
Old Man
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea...@mygate.mailgate.org
>
> There is a great deal of energy that's between Earth and that pesky
> mascon of a moon of ours.
Clueless Crackpot:
"a great deal" isn't physics. publish a really big NUMBER
for the total energy; divide that by the Volume; publish a
NUMBER for the energy density. Compare that to the
energy density of solar radiation or to that of the solar wind
or to that of cosmic radiation or to that of gravitation or to
that of the Earth's magnetic field.
Now you're cooking in shatter proof pottery, but do you
have a REALLY BIG DEAL or a SNUFF OUT ?
[Old Man]
> Brad Guth
Brad Guth
news:de6dnXowKsC6Pl_Y...@prairiewave.com
> Clueless Crackpot:
>
> "a great deal" isn't physics. publish a really big NUMBER
> for the total energy; divide that by the Volume; publish a
> NUMBER for the energy density. Compare that to the
> energy density of solar radiation or to that of the solar wind
> or to that of cosmic radiation or to that of gravitation or to
> that of the Earth's magnetic field.
>
> Now you're cooking in shatter proof pottery, but do you
> have a REALLY BIG DEAL or a SNUFF OUT ?
>
> [Old Man]
I'm the village idiot that's asking the questions here, and you're the
ones with all the supposed smarts for answing my silly questions.
In other dyslexic words, you folks obviously haven't a freaking clue.
Gee whiz, what another silly surprise.
What sort of silly faith based crapolla of naysayism do you and those of
your kind associate yourselves with?
Unless you're afraid of your own shadow, give us your best swag, or is
even that much somehow against your all-knowing faith based ideology?
For starters, I've got a really big base number of 2e20 joules, and I do
believe there's lots more to behold.
Brad Guth
Old Man, where the heck did you go?
Usenet WW-III is about to start and lo and behold, you're nowhere in
sight.
Tell us the amount of energy that's existing between Earth and our moon,
and this time be quick about it before Earth explodes from all the
anti-think-tank crapolla that spewing out of this mostly Old Testament
faith based Usenet from hell.
You can start off with the basic 2e20 joules and add whatever else on
top of that.
Brad Guth
In addition to all that's clean and essentially renewable as to the
evengy existing between Earth and our moon (2e20 joules or better),
whereas those 40% efficient PVs are just another ongoing example of
where we should be focused as of decades ago, as to achieving a cleaner
and less bloody future, at the same time accomplishing as best we can
manage to salvage whatever's left of our badly failing environment.
This following energy alternative topic offers us yet another good
example as to why 99.9% of Usenet summarily sucks and blows, as well as
to why yourself and others of your kind are being continually sucked
under and summarily snookered into being dumbfounded past the point of
no return, by such a naysay Usenet mindset of infomercial spewing
buttologests, as orchestrated by those in charge that want absolutely
nothing to do with sharing the truth.
Solar, not nuclear
This green/renewable energy topic and of others similar are well worth
our sharing and accomplishing something constructive on behalf of
humanity and that of salvaging our badly failing environment at the same
time, whereas instead these butt-ugly loads of mainstream infomercial
spewing damage control borgs, acting on behalf of their Old Testament
big-energy and of their bigger puppet government(s) that are clearly
owned by big-energy, are into pulling out all of their infomercial
spewing stops of feeding us disinformation.
Solar and wind derived energy is perfectly doable at an honest to God
density of 37.5 kw/m2, as per given surface footprint. That's roughly
100 fold better birth to grave footprint energy density than nuclear,
and at the same time hardly representing squat worth of anything that's
toxic nor much less radioactive, and that's not via some weird village
idiot saying that we can do entirely without nuclear picking up at least
5% of our global energy needs (at least not until He3/fusion gets the
big-energy green light so that the Exxon's and those tricky ENRONs can
proceed to pillage, plunder and rape humanity plus that of mother Earth
for all she's worth).
At nearly 85e9 oily barrels/day doesn't even include the horrific
volumes of natural gas or the km3 of coal reserves being consumed per
day, nor is it including the amounts of energy taken for extracting and
getting all of that raw energy into pipe lines or various storage
facilities that are nearly countless, and not all is without leakage or
having contributed much worse happenings per year.
Surplus clean energy as easily derived from solar and wind can be put
directly into products, such as into producing those new and improved
PVs, or into clean chemicals or raw elements of energy storage products
such as LH2 or H2O2. With such spare energy and secondary products to
burn (sort of speak, w/o NOx to boot), all sorts of nifty things become
affordable and basically doable, therefore insuring jobs and a bright
less-polluting future that'll eventually have little if anything to do
with those nasty fossil fuel alternatives, thus avoiding the associated
takings of good and bad blood that's involved.
The Ghost In The Machine
<brad...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
<be762fc8b3f6ffae9dc...@mygate.mailgate.org>:
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e626d95e66230404967...@mygate.mailgate.org
>
> In addition to all that's clean and essentially renewable as to the
> evengy existing between Earth and our moon (2e20 joules or better),
Insolation (space): 1350 W/m^2
Total lunar surface area: 3.792 * 10^13 m^2
Facing lunar surface area: 1.896 * 10^13 m^2
Albedo: 0.12
Phase corrective factor: 0.50
Total available power: 1.536 * 10^15 W
Total Earth surface area: 5.101 * 10^15 m^2
Earth disc projection: 1.278 * 10^15 m^2
Orbit semimajor axis: 3.844 * 10^8 m
Total Dyson Sphere surface area: 1.857 * 10^18 m^2 (4pi steradians)
Facing Dyson Sphere surface area: 9.284 * 10^17 m^2 (2pi steradians)
Earth span in Moon's view: 8.649 * 10^-3 steradians
Earth power intercept: 1.867 * 10^12 W
Moon mass (M_m): 7.348 * 10^22 kg
Mean moon velocity: 1.022 * 10^3 m/s
Orbital escape velocity: 1.445 * 10^3 m/s
Delta velocity (v_d): 4.233 * 10^2 m/s
Moon orbital energy: 3.837 * 10^28 J
Chemical v_e: 3 * 10^3 m/s
Final mass after burn: M_f = M_m/exp(v_d/v_e) = 6.381 * 10^22
Required fuel: 9.670 * 10^21 kg
Saturn V F1 fuel flow: 1.06 m^3/s (estimated)
Saturn V F1 mass flow: 1.06 * 10^3 kg/s (estimated)
Time to eject moon from Earth using 1 F1: 289 billion years
Time to eject moon from Earth using 1,000 F1s: 289 million years
Time to eject moon from Earth using 1,000,000 F1s: 289 millennia
Total number of Saturn V stages built: 45
Total number of F1 engines built: 75 (estimated)
Practicality of moving Moon out of orbit: 0
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Brad Guth
message news:16gf94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
Terrific feedback. Now, try a whole lot harder, and think bigger as
though the very salvation of your sorry butt was on the line.
Relocating lunar mass via tether out past the moon's L2 point of no
return, say going way out there for 2X L2, and say we/robotics somehow
manage to place 1e9 tonnes way out there on the tippy end of that nifty
2X L2 tether for starters.
How much applied exit force is that?
Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
U238/U235 we're talking about?
Brad Guth
message news:16gf94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
> Moon mass (M_m): 7.348 * 10^22 kg
> Mean moon velocity: 1.022 * 10^3 m/s
> Orbital escape velocity: 1.445 * 10^3 m/s
> Delta velocity (v_d): 4.233 * 10^2 m/s
> Moon orbital energy: 3.837 * 10^28 J
> Chemical v_e: 3 * 10^3 m/s
> Final mass after burn: M_f = M_m/exp(v_d/v_e) = 6.381 * 10^22
> Required fuel: 9.670 * 10^21 kg
KE of 100% efficieny by way of 2000 kg U238 = 89.5e33 joules
Do we need more?
Brad Guth
message news:16gf94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
What if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238, we
used Sedna's arriving worth of KE, as having a direct impact at just the
right timing and angle?
Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were arriving at the final impact
velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules
Even at 10% impact efficiency, that's 1e27 joules, although a
rear-ender/(sucker punch) at 1 km/sec would become a much softer 2.5e26
joules, that by rights should still accomplish a little something
impressive.
Brad Guth
message news:16gf94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
2X moon L2 = 129,400 km
129,400 / 384,400 = .33663
1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s
2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)
2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)
Centrifugal force: F=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
If given the 2X L2 orbital mass = 1e12 kg (including whatever's tether)
Moon 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes
Earth/moon 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes
Roughly how long will it take for getting rid of our moon (relocated to
Earth L1)?
Brad Guth
What can we move into Earth's L1 that'll give us the most interactive
control of shade, and still provide us with nifty considerations that
are much better than we currently have to work with?
The previous pun of a notion that's on behalf of relocating Sedna to
Earth's L1 might eventually become one of our best solutions for
accomplishing a solar shade that's a little big but otherwise just about
the right size of solar shade. However, as for my going along with John
Schilling, I'd have to agree that a relocation of Sedna to Earth's L1 is
a stretch, not to mention a serious long term alternative that sucks at
being at least a good century at best away from benefiting our GW
situation, that's only going to get worse per year after year no matters
what. Or, don't you folks fully appreciate where the vast majority of
our ice age thawing and ongoing GW energy is actually coming from?
Did by chance any of you folks even once bother to ask our resident
lord/wizard William Mook, as to exactly how much tonnage of U238/U235
we're talking about, as per relocating our very own moon, to Earth's L1?
Or, what if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238
that we're likely going to need for WW-III, we simply utilized Sedna's
arriving worth of KE, as for having a direct impact at just the right
timing and angle?
Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were orchestrated on behalf of
arriving at the final moon impact velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules
Even if that were at 10% KE impact efficiency, that's offering 1e27
joules, although a rear-ender/(sucker punch) at 1 km/sec would become a
much softer 2.5e26 joules, that by rights should still accomplish a
little something impressive.
-
Alternative if not a better local Plan-B: Relocate our moon
Relocating lunar mass via L2 tether, far out past the moon's L2 point of
no return. Say going way out there for using this 2X L2, and say
we/robotics somehow manage to place 1e9 tonnes out there on the tippy
end of that nifty 2X L2 tethered distance away from the moon's CG, a
placement distance of roughly 129,400 km for starters seems perfectly
doable.
How much applied exit or delta-v force is that going to provide?
Here's the best preliminary math that seems about right.
2X moon L2 = 129,400 km
129,400 / 384,400 = .33663
Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s
2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)
2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)
Centrifugal force: F=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
If we're given the 2X L2 orbital mass of 1e12 kg (including whatever's
tether)
Moon's 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes
Earth/moon 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes
That's a combined total of 464,353 tonnes of centrifugal applied force
that's worthy of accomplishing something, especially when applied over
the time span of perhaps a few years, of which I don't believe it'll
actually take all that long, or even nearly the 1e12 kg placement of
mass at the moon's 2X L2.
Roughly/swag speaking; using this moon L2 package of 1e12 kg in
tethered mass acting as a physical tug upon getting that nasty moon
further away from Earth, how long will it take for that task of getting
rid of our moon (relocated to Earth L1 that is)?
Seems having our moon relocated to Earth's L1 is actually a
multi-tasking win-win for all sorts of future science, and otherwise of
direct benefit to our environment, and of most everything else I can
think of seems better off. As for the naysay or whatever negatives, at
least thus far I have a list of zilch to offer because, it even benefits
my LSE-CM/ISS that can still deploy its tether dipole element to within
4r of Earth, and there's lots more to consider if you still have that
yaysay open mindset to work with.
The Ghost In The Machine
<86d2abefb93e865ff68...@mygate.mailgate.org>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:16gf94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
>
> What if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238, we
> used Sedna's arriving worth of KE, as having a direct impact at just the
> right timing and angle?
>
> Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were arriving at the final impact
> velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules
Wimp. :-)
The mass of Sedna is estimated to be from 1.7 * 10^21 kg to
6.1 * 10^21 kg -- less than 1/10th the size of Luna at the
very most. Hitting the moon with such a mass would be
akin to moving a basketball with a tennis ball. It won't
move all that much.
If you're going to knock the Moon out of orbit you'll
need a minimum of 5 km/s, and you may need 30 km/s.
Fortunately, both are easily achievable by moving Sedna
retrograde; the result would knock Luna into an orbit
crossing Earth's, although probably at a rather oblique
angle.
>
> Even at 10% impact efficiency, that's 1e27 joules, although a
> rear-ender/(sucker punch) at 1 km/sec would become a much softer 2.5e26
> joules, that by rights should still accomplish a little something
> impressive.
It'll leave an impression all right. :-)
> -
> Brad Guth
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.
The Ghost In The Machine
<f5ea4dac84ca9889495...@mygate.mailgate.org>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:16gf94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
>
> Terrific feedback. Now, try a whole lot harder, and think bigger as
> though the very salvation of your sorry butt was on the line.
>
> Relocating lunar mass via tether out past the moon's L2 point of no
> return, say going way out there for 2X L2, and say we/robotics somehow
> manage to place 1e9 tonnes way out there on the tippy end of that nifty
> 2X L2 tether for starters.
>
> How much applied exit force is that?
Tether? Erm...where are the attachment points of
this tether? If one attaches Earth and moon, and if
the tether's strong enough it will simply wrap around
the Earth, yanking at the Moon. This might work if it's
stretchy enough, accelerating the moon to about 40,000
km/day or 463 m/s -- which isn't quite its orbital speed
so I'd have to do some crunching here; the 1000 m/s is
going tangential to the orbit (roughly speaking) but the
463 m/s will pull inward. The best one can hope for is
an increase to 1101 m/s, which will just make the orbit
more elliptical.
If we go with your suggestion, the L2 point is about 60000
km above the far side of the Moon (the Wikipedia gives
61500 but I suspect they're using mass centers). If I
understand you correctly you want to move a gigatonne mass
(10^12 kg) 183000 km (1.83 * 10^7 m) from the far side,
and attach it to the Moon's surface with a sufficiently
strong tether.
You are attempting to move a boulder with a flea. The Moon's
mass is 7.3477 * 10^22 kg -- about 7.3477 * 10^10 times bigger.
You might try moving the tether further out, though I really don't see
how this is going to work anyway. Were the tether a very rigid lever
and L2 the fulcrum point, you'd want to have your mass 4.41 * 10^20 m
out -- which is 46,600 light years.
And nothing's that rigid.
>
> Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
> U238/U235 we're talking about?
No, sorry; was I supposed to?
> -
> Brad Guth
>
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.
Brad Guth
Relocating our moon represents another win-win for the old gipper, and
it's not even hocus-pocus or having to use smoke and mirrors. The
process of relocating our moon can start off extremely slow and build up
to whatever the task requires. This is about eventually shading mother
Earth and fixing all sorts of pesky mascon related problems at the same
time. I'm thinking the amount of this shade via L1 moon can be somewhat
adjusted by the fact that this massive item should be a touch lagging
behind, rather than dead on target, whereas L4/L5 tethers could make it
into an entirely interactive shade on demand (sort of speak).
Our Next Space Station = Earth L1
Master CM(counter mass) of 7.35e22 kg worth, efficiently situated at
Earth L1.
Perhaps my previous topics or sub-topics of having imposed certain weird
notions and those pesky question(s), such as about our environment
having gone entirely naked w/o moon was asking a bit too much,
especially since Earth would eventually thereafter get extra cold, as
without sufficient tidal forces to motivate our molten core's thermal
interior of transferring 40 or 70 some odd TJ that might even further
degrade our failing magnetosphere, plus vast oceans of roughly 40,000 ~
60,000 TJ of solar thermal energy wouldn't migrate about as to nearly
the present extent, whereas such we'd likely be unavoidably icing up
really good, while keeping sufficienly toasty and thus frost and ice
free within the tropics of Cancer/Capricorn, plus a few aquatic areas
getting somewhat extra algae bloom and/or dead-zone stinky at the same
time, all because of those reduced tidal forced actions taking place.
Not to feer, as there would still be a sol+moon forced tide, just not
nearly as strong, and accommodating only one such composite tide per
day.
However, as a perfectly viable compromise to Earth entirely w/o moon;
Have I got a nifty L1 shade for accommodating your next ISS and
otherwise for the best ever salvation of Earth's environment:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/7d2296fc879dbfee/4925b2f50bea63b9?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#4925b2f50bea63b9
In addition to this method of establishing a great deal of shade
(perhaps a touch more than necessary), we'd also have established the
absolute ideal TRACE, ACE and SOHO outpost or mother platform, as well
as keeping the Chinese or possibly Russian LSE-CM/ISS as 100% viable to
boot (actually far better yet because of the moon's L1 (MEL1/facing
Earth) becoming so nicely shaded and obviously the moon becomes near
zelch worth of being reactive to the solar energy that passing by, so
much so improved that even Bigalow's POOFs could be safely utilized most
anywhere along the tethers).
I'm asking; What's so terribly wrong, or even all that technically
insurmountable with my notions of relocating our very own cosmic morgue
of a mascon, as our nasty old salty and global warming moon is relocated
all the way out to Earth L1?
Utilizing the tethered mass at 2X L2 seems like a perfectly good
alternative to having applied those millions of spendy rockets (that we
obviously don't have nor could we actually apply to such a daunting
task) or via whatever nuclear produced delta-v, especially since most
every required tonne and of the L2 tether itself would be extracted from
the moon.
This being where the truly smart folks get to shine like never before.
Where's all of your warm and fuzzy Usenet yaysay and of whatever
wizardly applied expertise of eye popping candy, and otherwise on behalf
of knocking our socks off, especially when our badly failing environment
and extremely frail DNA needs such efforts the most?
What's actually all that negative or otherwise naysay about relocating
our moon, for obtaining such absolute spare loads of ice age rebuilding
shade, and of so much more to come?
Since we're still into losing our DNA/RNA protective magnetosphere at
the ongoing demise of 0.05%/year, as such, what other long-term options
for protecting Earth's atmosphere and of our sequestered butts on this
badly polluted surface do we have?
Brad Guth
Relocating lunar mass via L2 deployed tether, far out past the moon's L2
point of no return seems like the perfectly good way to go. Say for the
effort of going way out there using this 2X L2, and to say we/robotics
somehow manage to place 1e9 tonnes on the tippy end of that nifty 2X L2
tethered distance away from the moon's CG, a remote placement distance
of roughly 129,400 km, at least for starters seems a touch daunting but
otherwise perfectly doable.
How much applied exit or delta-v force is that going to provide?
Here's the best preliminary math that seems about right.
2X moon L2 = 129,400 km
129,400 / 384,400 = .33663
Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s
2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)
2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)
Centripetal/Centrifugal force: Fc=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
If we're given the 2X L2 orbital mass of 1e12 kg (including whatever's
tether)
Moon's 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes
Earth/moon 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes
That's either 93,481 applied tonnes of force or the combined total of
464,353 tonnes of centrifugal applied force that's worthy of
accomplishing something, especially when applied over the time span of
perhaps a few years, of which I don't believe it'll actually take all
that long, or even nearly the 1e12 kg placement of mass at the moon's 2X
L2.
Roughly/swag speaking; using this moon L2 package of 1e12 kg in
tethered mass acting as a physical CM/tug upon getting that nasty moon
further away from Earth, how long will it take for that process of
getting rid of our moon (ideally relocated to Earth L1 that is)?
Seems having our moon relocated to Earth's L1 is actually a
multi-tasking and do-everything sort of win-win for accomplishing all
sorts of future science and space exploration, and otherwise of direct
primary benefit to our environment, and of most everything else I can
think of seems better off. As for the naysay or whatever negatives, at
least thus far I have a list of zilch to offer because, it even benefits
my LSE-CM/ISS that can still deploy its tether dipole element to within
4r of Earth, and there's lots more to consider if you still have that
yaysay open mindset to work with.
Brad Guth
We know there's a great deal of clean and essentially renewable raw
energy that's between Earth and our trusty moon. However, how much
energy is simply too much for our badly failing environment to
withstand.
Instead of our being continually global warmed to death, and otherwise
gettiing a little extra TBI via moon gamma and hard-X-rays. I was just
pondering outside the box, as to how much thick ice and compacted snow
can Earth stand to gain by way of moving our moon to Earth L1?
Are we talking of having sufficient Cuban ice and snow for hosting our
future world winter Olympic games, except well into August?
How about instead of seemingly wasting our best talents and expertise
upon whatever make-do or half assed terrestrial notions in order to save
thy global warming butt, thereby losing precious time and scant energy
resources upon terraforming our moon as is, which is actually
technically doable (especially from the LSE-CM/ISS perspective of what
China could easily accomplish on our behalf), whereas we could simply
relocate that big old sucker to Earth L1, and thereby call our global
warming fiasco to a freaking halt once and for all, along with having
created shade to burn (sort of speak).
We'd obviously give up having such a downright reactive sort of a pesky
mascon of a moon that's a little too massive and orbiting too darn close
for our own damn good, whereas instead we'd have created for ourselves a
rather nifty planetoid that's efficiently cruising within Earth's L1,
that is unless we decide otherwise.
This 7.35e22 kg planetoid of 3476 km diameter would also help block or
fend off a few of those nasty halo CMEs that are getting more frequent
and more lethal as our ongoing demise of our magnetosphere continues to
fail us and that of our frail DNA at -0.05%/year.
Best of all, our good old once upon a time icy proto-moon, of ever since
the last ice age having shared such warm and fuzzy amounts of global
warming via tidal forced energy, would still be within easy range of our
fly-by-rocket access that'll soon enough become a proven technology, as
well as everything mission related made a whole lot safer for walking on
that full earthshine illuminated deck of what's physically chuck full of
dark and nasty cosmic and a few otherwise invaluable solar substances
(such as He3), though still a touch salty and otherwise extremely
electrostatic dusty (tens of meters deep in places), and yet the
LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element could still be allowed to reach if need
be to within 4r of Earth. The 256e6 tonne and 1e9 m3 CM/ISS as our
do-everything gateway abode/depot itself is certainly much better off,
and of the anchor tethers would have become POOF suitable as for
accommodating whomever is seriously rich and hasn't all that much
quality time to live anyway.
Brad Guth
> Tether? Erm...where are the attachment points of
> this tether?
Tethers, as in many such basalt composite tough fiber tethers made from
the moon itself, rather easily attached deep into whatever and wherever
you'd like.
> The best one can hope for is
> an increase to 1101 m/s, which will just make the orbit
> more elliptical.
Sounds great, although it's already "elliptical" because of the sun,
perhaps a little more so at times because of Jupiter, and once every 19
months as measurably influenced by Venus.
> If we go with your suggestion, the L2 point is about 60000
> km above the far side of the Moon (the Wikipedia gives
> 61500 but I suspect they're using mass centers). If I
> understand you correctly you want to move a gigatonne mass
> (10^12 kg) 183000 km (1.83 * 10^7 m) from the far side,
> and attach it to the Moon's surface with a sufficiently
> strong tether.
I'd found a somewhat longer moon L2 of 64,700 km, thus a 2XL2 = 129,400
km, but instead by utilizing your further reach of 183,000 km should
obviously more than accomplish the pull like hell trick.
> You are attempting to move a boulder with a flea. The Moon's
> mass is 7.3477 * 10^22 kg -- about 7.3477 * 10^10 times bigger.
Flea by flea, or rather perhaps as much as tonne by tonne of tether
robotic pod by pod payloads and we'd eventually get there, with 1e12 kg
efficiently sitting but otherwise still attached at 2XL2, or possibly as
you've suggested a little further out.
Obviously you can't fully read, nor hardly think outside the box. Is
that because of old age, or is it something faith-based that's screwing
up the works?
> You might try moving the tether further out, though I really don't see
> how this is going to work anyway. Were the tether a very rigid lever
> and L2 the fulcrum point, you'd want to have your mass 4.41 * 10^20 m
> out -- which is 46,600 light years.
Silly boy, arnt you. What's your big ass hurry? I was thinking of this
taking a century if need be. I's called job security.
> > Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
> > U238/U235 we're talking about?
>
> No, sorry; was I supposed to?
Most certainly, why the hell not? After all, he's yet another Usenet
wizard that knows all there is to know, and then some.
Brad Guth
> Tether? Erm...where are the attachment points of
> this tether?
Tethers, as in many such basalt composite tough fiber tethers made from
the moon itself, rather easily attached deep into whatever and wherever
you'd like.
> The best one can hope for is
> an increase to 1101 m/s, which will just make the orbit
> more elliptical.
Sounds great, although it's already "elliptical" because of the sun,
perhaps a little more so at times because of Jupiter, and once every 19
months as measurably influenced by Venus.
> If we go with your suggestion, the L2 point is about 60000
> km above the far side of the Moon (the Wikipedia gives
> 61500 but I suspect they're using mass centers). If I
> understand you correctly you want to move a gigatonne mass
> (10^12 kg) 183000 km (1.83 * 10^7 m) from the far side,
> and attach it to the Moon's surface with a sufficiently
> strong tether.
I'd found a somewhat longer moon L2 of 64,700 km, thus a 2XL2 = 129,400
km, but instead by utilizing your further reach of 183,000 km should
obviously more than accomplish the pull like hell trick.
> You are attempting to move a boulder with a flea. The Moon's
> mass is 7.3477 * 10^22 kg -- about 7.3477 * 10^10 times bigger.
Flea by flea, or rather perhaps as much as tonne by tonne of tether
robotic pod by pod payloads and we'd eventually get there, with 1e12 kg
efficiently sitting but otherwise still attached at 2XL2, or possibly as
you've suggested a little further out.
Obviously you can't fully read, nor hardly think outside the box. Is
that because of old age, or is it something faith-based that's screwing
up the works?
> You might try moving the tether further out, though I really don't see
> how this is going to work anyway. Were the tether a very rigid lever
> and L2 the fulcrum point, you'd want to have your mass 4.41 * 10^20 m
> out -- which is 46,600 light years.
Silly boy, arnt you. What's your big ass hurry? I was thinking of this
taking a century if need be. I's called job security.
> > Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
> > U238/U235 we're talking about?
>
> No, sorry; was I supposed to?
Most certainly, why the hell not? After all, he's yet another Usenet
wizard that knows all there is to know, and then some.
Brad Guth
> Tether? Erm...where are the attachment points of
> this tether?
Tethers, as in many such basalt composite tough fiber tethers made from
the moon itself, rather easily attached deep into whatever and wherever
you'd like.
> The best one can hope for is
> an increase to 1101 m/s, which will just make the orbit
> more elliptical.
Sounds great, although it's already skewed "elliptical" because of the
sun, perhaps a little more so at times because of Jupiter, and once
every 19 months as measurably influenced by Venus.
> If we go with your suggestion, the L2 point is about 60000
> km above the far side of the Moon (the Wikipedia gives
> 61500 but I suspect they're using mass centers). If I
> understand you correctly you want to move a gigatonne mass
> (10^12 kg) 183000 km (1.83 * 10^7 m) from the far side,
> and attach it to the Moon's surface with a sufficiently
> strong tether.
I'd found a somewhat longer moon L2 of 64,700 km, thus a 2XL2 = 129,400
km, but instead by utilizing your further reach of 183,000 km should
obviously more than accomplish this pull like hell trick.
> You are attempting to move a boulder with a flea. The Moon's
> mass is 7.3477 * 10^22 kg -- about 7.3477 * 10^10 times bigger.
Flea by flea, or rather perhaps as much as tonne by tonne of tether
robotic pod by pod payloads and we'd eventually get there, with 1e12 kg
efficiently sitting but otherwise still attached at 2XL2, or possibly as
you've suggested a little further out.
Obviously you can't fully read, nor hardly think outside the box. Is
that because of old age, or is it something faith-based that's screwing
up the works?
> You might try moving the tether further out, though I really don't see
> how this is going to work anyway. Were the tether a very rigid lever
> and L2 the fulcrum point, you'd want to have your mass 4.41 * 10^20 m
> out -- which is 46,600 light years.
Silly boy, arnt you. What's your big ass hurry? I was thinking of this
taking a century if need be. I's called job security.
> > Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
> > U238/U235 we're talking about?
>
> No, sorry; was I supposed to?
Most certainly, why the hell not? What could it possibly hurt to ask?
After all, he's yet another Usenet wizard that knows all there is to
know, and then some.
Brad Guth
Here's yet another work in progress:
Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged from within mother Earth, whereas more likely having
materialized from an incoming glancing sucker punch, such as by that of
a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth having received a nasty blow
(say having created an arctic ocean basin like impression), by a very
icy proto-moon (possibly of 4,000 km).
For example; If the orbital distance were made half and thus the
velocity would have to double because the mutual gravity of attraction
would have become 4X, therefore we'd have introduced 16 fold more inside
and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy to deal with, and I'm not all
that sure mother Earth would have stayed glued together at that level of
horrific gravitional and internal tidal forced trauma, much less for
cutting that orbital distance by yet another half (making its previous
orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of 4.092 km/s) would have to impose yet
another 16 fold factor, or rather suggesting 256 fold worse global
warming trauma than what we currently are suffering from the existing
tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects as is.
The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up soon becomes; How much time did it take for
that moon which supposedly emerged from within Earth, to have reached
the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having migrated from 96,100 km
out to where it's currently operating at 384,400 km? (thus far, none of
the computer simulations seem clean enough)
If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy that's
coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's actually
imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet<-->moon energy
that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or going as
to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:
object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters
grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg
Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such into no longer orbiting us, there's
actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is simply
rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this mutual
and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol-->Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of implied energy:
As for the sol<-->moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules
object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules
Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.
In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.
Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.
1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules
Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules
There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.
The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules
Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw
At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2
Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.
The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2
However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.
Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.
Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger analogies can be run as fully
3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you certainly
wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the truth, now would
we.
Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.
VistaJustWorks
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> There is a great deal of energy that's between Earth and that pesky
> mascon of a moon of ours.
And even more between two protons.
Isn't that odd.
Brad Guth
news:rWMAh.33688$4Q2....@read1.cgocable.net
Not at all odd, as for the given mass of any two protons might offer a
good basis, as to sharing an analogy for coming up with the potential
joules worth of energy that's between Earth and our nearby moon, that's
so gosh darn massive by such moon standards in relationship to the given
planet's mass.
What is the energy between two protons?
VistaJustWorks
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> What is the energy between two protons?
QM predicts that it is infinite.
Brad Guth
>
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > What is the energy between two protons?
>
> QM predicts that it is infinite.
107 TJ/kg; But is there any such Earth/Moon Binding Energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
-begin quote-
Binding energy is the energy required to disassemble a whole into
separate parts. A bound system has a lower potential energy than its
constituent parts; this is what keeps the system together. The usual
convention is that this corresponds to a positive binding energy.
In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work which must be
done in acting against the forces which hold an object together, while
disassembling the object into component parts separated by such
sufficient distance that further separation requires negligible
additional work.
Electron binding energy is a measure of the energy required to free
electrons from their atomic orbits.
Nuclear binding energy is derived from the strong nuclear force and is
the energy required to disassemble a nucleus into free unbound neutrons
and protons. At the atomic level, the binding energy of the atom is
derived from electromagnetic interaction and is the energy required to
disassemble an atom into free electrons and a nucleus. In astrophysics,
gravitational binding energy of a celestial body is the energy required
to disassemble it into space debris (dust and gas). This quantity is not
to be confused with the gravitational potential energy, which is the
energy required to separate two bodies, such as a celestial body and a
satellite, to infinite distance, keeping each intact (the latter energy
is lower).
-end quote-
Exactly how much lower than binding energy is the energy of gravity?
Would it not be absolutely nifty having a science platform situated
within the moon's L1?
-begin quote-
Specific quantitative example: a deuteron
A deuteron is the nucleus of a deuterium atom, and consists of one
proton and one neutron. The experimentally-measured masses of the
constituents as free particles are:
mproton = 1.007825 u (u is atomic mass unit)
mneutron= 1.008665 u
mproton + mneutron = 1.007825 + 1.008665 = 2.01649 u
The mass of the deuteron (also an experimentally measured quantity) is:
Atomic mass 2H = 2.014102 u
The mass difference = 2.01649 - 2.014102 = 0.002388 u. Since the
conversion between rest mass and energy is 931.494MeV/u, a deuteron's
binding energy is calculated to be:
0.002388 в 931.494 MeV/u = 2.224 MeV
Thus, expressed in another way, the binding energy is [0.002388/2.01649]
x 100% = about 0.1184 % of the total energy corresponding to the mass.
This corresponds to 1.07 x 1014 J/kg = 107 TJ/kg.
-end quote-
107 TJ/kg certainly seems rather impressive, and to think that our
little old moon has 7.35e22 kg to work with, whereas you'd think at
least some of that mass has to have at laeast a few of such protrons and
neutrons to spare.
So, perhaps the Earth/moon "binding energy" of gravity that's existing
between Earth and our nasty moon is actually greater than I'd thought.
I wonder how much greater than the 2e20 j or 7.2e20 kw worth we're
talking about, such as to whatever's the actual energy associated with
the week Earth/moon atomic binding relationship, and what exactly is
that amount of energy worth on the open physics spot market.
VistaJustWorks
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> 107 TJ/kg; But is there any such Earth/Moon Binding Energy?
Isn't that less than the infinite energy existing between two protons?
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > 107 TJ/kg; But is there any such Earth/Moon Binding Energy?
>
> Isn't that less than the infinite energy existing between two protons?
Silly boy or gal,
Are you folks smart enough to wipe your own butts?
VistaJustWorks
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Silly boy or gal,
> Are you folks smart enough to wipe your own butts?
Isn't the finite amount of energy you provided smaller than an infinite
amount?
Get off the drugs Brad.
Brad Guth
> Isn't the finite amount of energy you provided smaller than an infinite
> amount?
>
> Get off the drugs Brad.
Silly boy, gal or whatever the hell you faith-based blood sucking borgs
represent.
I see that you folks still can't manage to so much as keep a straight
butt-crack while spewing your infomercial crapolla.
Too bad you're all such a nasty pack of incest cloned liars, just the
sort that impressed Hitler with all of their Jewish science and physics
expertise.
No wonder so many of their own kind had to die for no apparent good
reason(s), other than basic human greed, which also impressed Hitler.
(these days they're big-time into impressing our dumbfounded GW Bush)
Your "BushIsATraitor" is really a stealth pro-Bush policy, isn't it.
Are you also another one of those Democrat Jews that voted Republican?
VistaJustWorks
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Too bad you're all such a nasty pack of incest cloned liars, just the
> sort that impressed Hitler with all of their Jewish science and physics
> expertise.
Get off the drusg Brad. We have told you over and over again...
Brad Guth
> Get off the drusg Brad. We have told you over and over again...
I see that you're dyslexic as well. Welcome to the club.
What's the big-ass taboo/nondisclosure issue about the raw energy that's
existing between Earth and our moon?
Do you folks have a given number of joules to share and share alike, or
don't you?
Mark McIntyre
--
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Brad Guth
news:tiaet2lue5i7s3pa2...@4ax.com
Silly Old Testament boy.
Brad Guth
2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the mutual
attraction of gravity is worth 6.307e27 joules/yr (1.752e24 kwhrs).
As long as our physically dark and nasty moon, that's unavoidably global
warming us to death, is in the process of losing mass, and there's
secondary tidal forces at play, it'll never again impact Earth. If that
sucker ever manages to gain mass (such as from accommodating NEOs
getting litho terminated or the likes of being penetration impacted by
Sedna) is when we'll have to put those hard thinking yarmulkes back on.
It seems the usual disinformation gauntlet that's continually hauled
about at taxpayer and consumer expense, and mainstream flaunted at the
drop of a yarmulke, such as carried onboard our spendy good ship USS
LOLLIPOP, which apparently has butt-loads more of their infomercial
crapolla as damage-control flak to share. Otherwise, lord knows there's
damn little if any topic constructive feedback unless accommodating an
ulterior motive or hidden agenda.
>Starlord:
>They have maped the moon and only find the light weigth
>metal ores.
Is that the reason why the moon is still so salty and otherwise loaded
with such complex mascon issues?
Excuse please; Whom the heck is "they", and why should we believe such
remote science as provided by such faith-based and/or politically agenda
formulated individuals, that clearly owe their brown nosed loyalty to
whomever is in charge of their private parts?
Terrestrial identified moon rocks do not seem of low denisity, or didn't
you silly folks know that?
>Starlord:
>There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far
>across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the
>forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some
>believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to
>survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
I simply believe that other life similar or entirely different from
whatever we know of, should by all the known laws of physics and of
other biological rights of pure random happenstance or via intelligent
design exist/coexist elsewhere within this vast universe (possibly even
within our solar system), and of whatever's intelligent enough to have
made space travel safely doable should also be wise enough for giving
our badly polluted Earth a wide buffer DMZ because of our inbread
arrogance, greed and bigotry that has time and again demonstrated as
having practically if not absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
Even though there could have been a far better science transponder
alternative than those terribly small passive areas of retroreflectors,
or that of whatever impact deployed reflective material, whereas until
better interactive range finding science is made available to the
surface of our moon, I'd have to accept the best available science of
others, as having established that our moon is currently leaving town at
the rate of 38 mm/yr.
For our icy proto-moon to have gotten safely away from having delivered
such a glancing sucker punch of a nasty bounce off Earth to begin with,
whereas it seems this seasonal tilt making and arctic ocean basin
forming encounter required that our original icy proto-moon had to lose
or rather transfer a good deal of its original mass in the initial
impact process, and then continually having to lose other mass (such as
whatever remaining ice), and then ever since having lost a sufficient
tonnage/yr of sodium in order to be leaving us at the supposed recession
rate of 38 mm/year.
If the mass of our moon had remained essentially unchanged, it's orbit
would have long since stabilized or possibly even in spite of secondary
tidal forces surcome to the unavoidable friction of terminal velocity
and mutual gravity of attraction, whereas instead of losing our moon by
38 mm/yr, we'd be joining back up at some future date.
As it is, that moon of our's is continually in the process of losing
mostly the raw element of sodium, but w/o a protective magnetosphere is
why there's also a few other elements that are getting boiled, vacuum
sucked out and continually excavated away by the solar wind.
Here's some more of my (corrected) weird math:
I'm certain it's a whole lot more complex than this, such as if one
meter per year as having moved our 7.35e22 kg moon were taken to
represent 1.165e15 joules, whereas I do believe the combined effect of
tidal forces and of the ongoing loss of mass that's resulting in the 38
mm/yr recession, as reverse extrapolated from the value of KE=.5MV2 can
thereby be taken as per applied kgf/yr = 171.62e9 (171.6 megatonnes), or
of that same force were otherwise applied into kinetic energy as worth
1.683e12 joules/yr, by which if that amount were taken in addition to
the ongoing 2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the
mutual attraction of gravity, as that's worth 6.307e27 joules/yr. Seems
as though the 38 mm recession is worth far less than a mere pico-drop in
the old bucket.
So, perhaps it's not going to be nearly as hard as we'd thought for
relocating our moon to Earth's L1, especially once having doubled the
distance should have greatly reduced the mutual gravity of attraction by
a good 1/4. Too bad we're either not smart enough or there's not so
much as one qualified supercomputer that's offering a simulator of such
orbital mechanics, that can draft and thereby animate this one out for
us. I guess all of those publicly paid for supercomputers are simply
too busy at downloading live smut or animating yet another eye-popping
movie for our entertainment.
Perhaps once again, I'll have to say that it's rather unfortunate that
we're not quite smart enough, such as for our not having established an
efficient station-keeping science platform as of the mid 60s, as
situated within the moon's L1 zone, whereas we'd certainly have obtained
a great deal more knowledge about our unusually massive and nearby moon,
and I do believe loads more learned about Earth science, that is if we
only had half a village idiot's brain instead of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war mindset (a terribly spendy and time consuming real
life cloak and dagger reality game called "Up Yours")
Brad Guth
Besides all of my previous notions of terraforming our moon (instead of
Mars), there's also a terrific argument as to the absolutely great deal
of clean energy that's existing/coexisting between Earth and that of our
pesky GW moon, that which rather badly needs to get relocated to Earth's
L1 before there's not hardly a km3 worth of ice left on Earth to spare.
Secondly, moving our moon out into Earth's L1 also makes that otherwise
nasty moon of our's into a rather nifty little 3.5% dot of shade for
Earth, as well as offering a seriously cool earthshine illuminated
environment of representing a perfectly worthy outpost/depot/(gateway
via the LSE-CM/ISS) that's obviously representing a whole lot less of
IR/FIR trauma, as well as being less DNA lethal, though otherwise naked
and thus exposed to whatever's cosmic and/or physical that's coming
along at whatever hellacious velocity.
Once our moon is relocated into Earth's L1 sweet spot, the moon itself
could become our do everything gateway, as offering a safe outpost/depot
that'll have to remain as mostly sequested underground, although the
LSE-CM/ISS along with its tether diople element reaching to within 4r of
Earth is still offering the best of any applied technology game in town,
that is as long as you speak good Mandarin.
Since that moon of our's may not have a viable magnetosphere (likely
because it's w/o iron core, as a semi-hallow geode like orb or at best
offering a salty brine of a core), thus holding onto any significant
atmosphere of CO2 or heavier elements isn't exactly going to be as easy
as you'd think.
There's 2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the mutual
attraction of gravity is worth 6.307e27 joules/yr (1.752e21 kwhrs).
As long as our physically dark and nasty moon (that's unavoidably global
warming us to death) is in the process of losing mass, and there's
sufficient secondary tidal forces at play, it'll never again impact
Earth. If that sucker ever manages to gain mass (such as from
accommodating NEOs getting litho terminated or the likes of being
penetration impacted by Sedna) is when we'll have to put those hard
thinking yarmulkes back on.
It seems the usual disinformation gauntlet that's continually hauled
about at taxpayer and consumer expense, and mainstream flaunted at the
drop of a yarmulke, such as carried onboard our spendy good ship USS
LOLLIPOP, which apparently has butt-loads more of their infomercial
crapolla as damage-control flak to share. Otherwise, lord knows there's
damn little if any topic constructive feedback unless accommodating an
ulterior motive or hidden agenda.
>Starlord:
>They have maped the moon and only find the light weigth
>metal ores.
Is that the reason why the moon is still so salty and otherwise loaded
down with such complex mascon issues?
extremely electrostatic dusty surface of our moon, I'd have to accept
the best available science of others, as having established that our
moon is currently leaving town at the rate of 38 mm/yr.
For our icy proto-moon to have gotten safely away from having delivered
such a glancing sucker punch of a nasty bounce off Earth to begin with,
whereas it seems this seasonal tilt making and arctic ocean basin
forming encounter required that our original icy proto-moon had to lose
or rather transfer a good deal of its original mass in the initial
impact process, and then continually having to lose other mass (such as
whatever remaining ice), and then ever since having lost a sufficient
tonnage/yr of sodium in order to be leaving us at the supposed recession
rate of 38 mm/year.
If the mass of our moon had remained essentially unchanged, it's orbit
would have long since stabilized or possibly even in spite of secondary
tidal forces surcome to the unavoidable friction of terminal velocity
and mutual gravity of attraction, whereas instead of losing our moon by
38 mm/yr, we'd be joining back up at some future date.
As it is, that moon of our's is continually in the process of losing
mostly the raw element of sodium, but w/o a protective magnetosphere is
why there's also a few other elements that are getting boiled, vacuum
sucked out and continually excavated away by the solar wind.
Here's some more of my (corrected) weird/dyslexic math:
I'm certain it's a whole lot more complex than this, such as if one
meter per year as having moved our 7.35e22 kg moon were taken to
represent 1.165e15 joules, whereas I do believe the combined effect of
tidal forces and of the ongoing loss of mass that's resulting in the 38
mm/yr recession, as reverse extrapolated from the value of KE=.5MV2 can
thereby be taken as per applied kgf/yr = 171.62e9 (171.6 megatonnes), or
of that same force were otherwise applied into kinetic energy as worth
1.683e12 joules/yr, by which if that amount were taken in addition to
the ongoing 2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the
mutual attraction of gravity, as that's worth 6.307e27 joules/yr
(1.752e21 kwhrs). Seems as though the 38 mm recession is worth far less
than a mere pico-drop in the old bucket.
So, perhaps it's not going to be nearly as energy intensive as we'd
thought for relocating our moon to Earth's L1, especially once having
doubled the distance should have greatly reduced the mutual gravity of
attraction by a good 1/4. Too bad we're either not smart enough or
there's not so much as one qualified supercomputer that's offering a
simulator of such orbital mechanics, that can draft and thereby animate
this one out for us. I guess all of those publicly paid for
supercomputers are simply too busy at downloading live smut or animating
yet another eye-popping movie for our entertainment.
Perhaps once again, I'll have to say that it's rather unfortunate that
we're not quite smart enough, such as for our not having established an
efficient station-keeping science platform as of the mid 60s, as
situated within the moon's L1 zone, whereas we'd certainly have obtained
a great deal more replicated knowledge about our unusually massive and
nearby moon, and I do believe loads more learned about Earth science,
that is if we only had half a village idiot's brain instead of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war mindset (a terribly spendy and time
consuming real life cloak and dagger reality game called "Up Yours" that
has only cost us trillions per decade and damn near brought us into
WW-III, w/o sufficient energy reserves to boot).
Brad Guth
If not willing to honestly chat about the clean energy that's existing
between us and our moon, or about the gravity/tidal energy that's
unavoidably getting into our badly polluted environment, then perhaps
you folks can merely share as to the amount of IR/FIR energy which Earth
derives from our moon, that's actually offering itself as a fairly good
IR/fir albedo of roughly 33%, if not a whole lot better because, all of
that solar energy has to go somewhere.
Technically, that pesky big old and physically dark and still somewhat
salty moon of ours simply has to get rid of all solar energy influx, or
else.
Brad Guth
Wow!
Isn't this warm and fuzzy sci.environment Usenet group ahead of its
time, or are they merely so far ahead of their butts because of their
having been stuck so far up those butts to start with?
Our moon is in fact warming mother Earth, and there is a great deal of
energy that's between Earth and that absolutely horrific moon of our's,
yet there's not a kind word of wisdom to behold.
Do those regular laws of physics not apply to our extremely large and
nearby moon?
Do those regular laws of physics simply not apply to Earth's
planetology?
VistaJustWorks
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Our moon is in fact warming mother Earth, and there is a great deal of
> energy that's between Earth and that absolutely horrific moon of our's,
> yet there's not a kind word of wisdom to behold.
Yup, and the earth is warming the moon. Tidal forces and the like.
Wooo Hoooo.......
Brad Guth
Silly boy,
The last time I'd checked, the moon was not rotating about itself in
relationship to Earth, or did I get that part wrong?
I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
moon is doing to us.
In other words, if that moon were to trek off somewhat will-nilly on its
own, say cruising along as an independent planetoid, or such as cruising
within Earth's L1, whereas the affects of whatever Earth once had upon
that moon would have been extremely insignificant.
Brad Guth
There's no law stipulating that we have to go for our moon, or even for
establishing the LSE-CM/ISS within the moon's L1, but there will come a
time of great need for such clean energy, not to mention accomplishing
the space exploration gateway and the one and only affordable access
to/from our moon. (I'm intentionally leaving out NEO-->lethal asteroid
management, because that's simply too much faith in humanity and the
salvation of our badly failing environment for such naysay mindsets to
deal with)
Keeping my topics off the Usenet index isn't going to buy you folks
another spare watt of clean and much less renewable energy, now is it.
We have a new and improved definition of "plentiful" = 100 years, and I
do believe that's at best unless you folks can afford yellowcake at
$1000/kg, if not more spendy. At the end of that road we're left with
all of those vast gaping holes and horrific open pit sores, plus tens of
thousands of years for the daunting task of safe keeping spent fuel and
contaminated materials to deal with, along with our having to accept
another 10 fold worth of surface environment exposure for getting our
frail DNA used to likes of radium (or perhaps die while trying).
"Global Nuclear Expansion Based on Plentiful Uranium Supply"
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1092.htm
Total conventional uranium resources are estimated at 14.8 million
metric tons, the Red Book shows.
Of that amount, Sokolov said the nuclear experts are confident of 4.7
million metric tons of "identified resources," which can be mined for
less than $130 per kilo. "We know they exist because we can see them in
mines that are already dug, or in rock samples that have been analyzed
for the next mine, or they can be inferred from the surrounding
geology," he said. World uranium resources in total are considered to be
much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in
phosphates, the study considers that more than 35 million metric tons
are available for exploitation.
"One important reference point to note is that in the whole 60 year
history of the nuclear era through today, the total amount of uranium
that has been produced adds up to about 2.2 million metric tons,"
Sokolov said.
If world nuclear capacity increasts 22 percent by 2025, the industry
would require about 80,000 metric tons each year. If the increase is up
to 43 percent, the industry would require 100,000 metric tons per year,
the new Red Book shows.
-
And there's certainly lots more to behold within this year old
"press1092.htm" document that's worth our noting. However, if thus far
we've extracted 2.2 million metric tonnes of yellowcake (currently at
the rate of taking roughly 66,000 tonnes/year) and if the near future
expansion of such is increasing that global demand to 100,000
tonnes/year, and if there/s only 4.7 million tonnes of that
yellowcake/uranium product for certain as affordably obtainable, is
what's suggesting that a clean energy future as based upon such nuclear
derived energy isn't forever, nor is it going to remain as an affordable
option considering the more spendy worth of future extractions and the
ongoing total birth to grave investment that's required of utilizing
nuclear energy (including the multi thousand year safe keeping of spent
fuel and contaminated materials).
Without an off-world/extraterrestrial resource of yellowcake, such as
from our moon, we're not exactly looking all that good unless you folks
can foresee $1000/kg as being affordable within a 100 year frame of what
our near future holds for us. As the price of oil and coal extractions
goes through the roof, and the likes of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bush) is insuring that WW-III could happen at any moment, whereas
certainly that'll only add to further inflating the $1000/kg futures of
yellowcake by a similar cost factor. Therefore, there really isn't an
upper cost limit to the nuclear energy future unless some new and
improved robotic process of uranium extractions becomes the status quo,
and even then we're looking at best two centuries worth. Then what?
(WW-IV, as based upon using VX or perhaps down to tossing rocks at one
another?)
"Depleted uranium is Washington's secret nuclear war" isn't all that far
off the mark if you happen to live downwind, or for that matter damn
near anywhere on Earth, and there will be future Chernobyl’s if not
worse things to come, such as contaminated ground water to add to the
matter of our environment losing roughly -.05%/year of our magnetosphere
is what's going to combine into a double suckerpunch hit upon our frail
DNA.
http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
"The most recent estimates suggest up to 90,000 people may die as a
consequence of this terrible event, while food-producing farmland 2,400
kilometres away in Britain remains contaminated to this day,"
This is not to say that modern and efficient utilization of nuclear
energy should be avoided, just that it's not ever going to be all that
affordable, can't possibly become as footprint space efficient nor ever
fail safe as is the 100% renewable alternatives of the 40 kw/m2
footprint that's represented by the combined solar/wind/stirling
alternative that we can safely live directly under and beside and
forever survive along with such clean energy towers of power that look a
whole lot better than massive cooling towers and vase off-limits
reservations as taken forever away from public lands in order to suit
the spendy and somewhat lethal nuclear alternative.
Here's an estimate of the American drain upon global energy reserves:
The average barrel equivalent of the all inclusive energy taken per each
and every person in America (including coal, natural gas, hydro
electric, nuclear and solar/wind derived energy), as well as taking into
account for our energy sucking military and other offshore operations,
is worth somewhere between 25 and 30 barrels of such energy per day
(300e6 * 30 = 9e9 barrels/day), with each barrel unit of energy worth
5.8e6 btu. That's 5.8e6 * 30 = 174e6 btu/day, or nearly equivalent to
that of our taking 64e9 barrels/year if all of that energy were derived
from oil (which of course it isn't).
That sort of means that we're only contributing 64e9 * 5.8e6 = 371e12
btu/year after year.
Another future example of such prime energy usage: SAI's QSST is a
fully loaded 153,000-pound business SST.
The Lockheed Martin/SAI-QSST fuel burn for hauling 12 passengers 3000
miles is suggesting anything but good EMPG, and boasting as to a mere 2%
of GTOW for passengers and crew isn't exactly impressive unless your
name is Exxon. At perhaps 75% loading (8 + 3 crew), figure something
near 50,000 lbs of fuel per each cross country trip (there's supposedly
a total of 73,100 lbs worth of fuel and passenger+crew payload to work
with). Don't even ask where they're going to fit all of that 4,600 nm
long-haul spendy fuel.
The clean alternative for creating consumer products and raw energy:
The world's largest turbines are manufactured by the Northern German
companies Enercon and REpower. The Enercon E112 delivers up to 6 MW, has
an overall height of 186 m (610 ft) and a diameter of 114 m (374 ft).
Those 52 meter blades, of 20 tonnes each, applied to the 10 meter hub on
top of a 120 meter tower is what accomplishes a blade swept area of
10,207 m2. This is but one good example of what's doable via the wind
energy tower footprint alone, that's obviously 100% proven as off the
shelf and thereby ready to go.
With such clean energy in surplus is where the likes of LH2 and H2O2 can
become mass produced on location, or via the national grid in order to
suit each local demand, thus transporting of either LH2 or H2O2 is
minimised. This is not saying that either LH2 or H2O2 are ever going to
be as safe as water, although tens of thousands of us humans prematurely
die specifically from water related issues each and every year, so I'm
not exactly certain if using the "safe as water" analogy is a good one.
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
Silly boy,
The last time I'd checked, the moon was not rotating about itself, other
than in relationship to Earth, or did I get that part wrong?
I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
moon is doing to us.
In other words, if that moon were to trek off somewhat willy-nilly on
its own, say cruising along as an independent planetoid, or such as
cruising within Earth's L1, whereas the affects of whatever Earth once
had upon that moon would have been extremely insignificant.
VistaJustWorks
> "VistaJustWorks" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Yup, and the earth is warming the moon. Tidal forces and the like.
> >
> > Wooo Hoooo.......
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Silly boy,
> The last time I'd checked, the moon was not rotating about itself in
> relationship to Earth, or did I get that part wrong?
Well, yes and no. The moon's orbital and rotation period are the same on
average but since the moon's orbit isn't circular, and it is compelled to
rotate at a fixed rate at times it's angular rotation rate will be larger
than the rate at which it's orbital angular position changes, and at times
slower. This difference is a rotation, or an angular oscillation, resulting
in variations in the deformation of the moon and therefore heating.
Tidal forces also represent the difference in gravitational attraction
over the volume of the body in question. As the moon for example, moves
closer to and farther from the earth, these tidal forces change since the
earth's gravitational field changes strength faster the closer you are. The
moon therfore elongates more when it is closer, and relaxes under it's own
gravity when it is farther away. This variation in the moon's shape also
causes heating.
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
> oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
> the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
> moon is doing to us.
Ya, well since you were being a lunatic, I thought I might as well throw
you a bone.
Brad Guth
> Well, yes and no. The moon's orbital and rotation period are the same on
> average but since the moon's orbit isn't circular, and it is compelled to
> rotate at a fixed rate at times it's angular rotation rate will be larger
> than the rate at which it's orbital angular position changes, and at times
> slower. This difference is a rotation, or an angular oscillation, resulting
> in variations in the deformation of the moon and therefore heating.
I'd have to agree, and as I'd said before, that's worth perhaps 0.1% of
what that moon is doing to us per square meter or per cubic meter.
What's your hard science number or best swag that's associated with
Earth heating up our moon?
Besides those pesky factors of gravity; what's the amount of secondary
IR/FIR energy that's coming from our moon?
> Tidal forces also represent the difference in gravitational attraction
> over the volume of the body in question. As the moon for example, moves
> closer to and farther from the earth, these tidal forces change since the
> earth's gravitational field changes strength faster the closer you are. The
> moon therfore elongates more when it is closer, and relaxes under it's own
> gravity when it is farther away. This variation in the moon's shape also
> causes heating.
However, without something that's sufficiently fluid to move about (like
whatever's within our dead old moon) represents that damn little of
whatever gravity or tidal force is going to cause any significant
heating of that salty old moon of ours.
How fluid is that lunar core?
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
> > oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
> > the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
> > moon is doing to us.
>
> Ya, well since you were being a lunatic, I thought I might as well throw
> you a bone.
You do realize that we "lunatic" folks didn't exist until well enough
after the last ice age this planet will ever see.
What do we know for certain about the formation of the arctic ocean
basin, and of when Earth got its seasonal tilt?
Mark McIntyre
"VistaJustWorks" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
the usual nonsense from brad.
Everyone else:
Brad Guth
What exactly is your all-knowing naysay problem?
Is it a born-again faith based or brown-nosed thing, or what?
Brad Guth
There is in fact clean energy that's coexisting between Earth and of our
moon, although the Usenet dis-info gauntlet of so many liars telling us
lies is rather daunting, to say the least. So, don't expect any
positive results prior to WWIII or paying $100/gallon (whichever comes
first).
Our government of born-again lying puppets and of their religious
puppeteering liars are simply the well established status quo, just like
in them good old Third Reich days when the taking from others was just
good all around sportsmanship, even if it meant exterminating a few
million of their own kind.
So what's the difference, if we're still being continually lied to about
why the fuel efficient Lupo 3L w/turbodiesel and the Audi A2 are not
getting imported?
It seems that now these pesky Usenet MIB are into diverting if not
shutting down as much of my access to Mailgate/Usenet as possible, as
though somehow that's a viable tactic that's going to alter the truth
and nothing but the truth, and thus somehow save thy infomercial spewing
butts. Keeping such hot topics as this one off their publicly accessed
index page is also another rather pathetic ruse, wouldn't you say.
Perhaps Usenet needs a new robo-moderation policy of not allowing any
truths to being shared.
In addition to all that's clearly ongoing as having been officially
MI/NSA orchestrated, as taboo/nondisclosure (damage-control) about most
anything Venus, it seems there's still more bad news on the event
horizon that we can all use about our silly moon, which for damm good
reasons hasn't quite been walked upon.
NASA insiders expose Apollo Hoax / banished from Mailgate
If these pro-NASA folks accept their own fundamental notions that our
warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo expertise have photographed our moon's
physically dark terrain along with mother Earth as coexisting within the
same FOV, and especially interesting is of their Kodak film's DR(dynamic
range) as having rather easily recorded portions of our dark oceans that
are worth an albedo of perhaps 0.1 (entirely similar enough as to the
moon itself), whereas the absolute impressive and somewhat blue/violet
peak spectrum as representing the nearby vibrance of Venus should have
been unavoidably recorded as well. Especially well recorded via those
unfiltered optics that should otherwise have been nearly if not
overloaded with such a gauntlet of all those extra near-UV and UV-a
spectrums worth of photons as having reacted rather nicely with those
highly reflective clouds, which offers us the visual albedo of 0.7~0.8
to work with, whereas the actual peak solar spectrum energy and roughly
reflecting 75% of that 4 kw/m2 is what their naked and unfiltered Kodak
eye had to deal with.
Yet lo and behold, not even from orbit or otherwise from those supposed
EVAs upon the deck had there once been any sign of Venus, much less of
any other significant planets, as well as never once accommodating the
bluish-white vibrant speck of the Sirius star system, all of which were
well within the DR(dynamic range) of those unfiltered Kodak moments, yet
as though such entirely significant items that should have been easily
recorded were never once to be seen (especially odd as of those
NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16).
As I've often stipulated before, that most any interactive 3D solar
system simulator puts Venus smack within good EVA obtained views of at
least those three missions (always within each of their command module's
orbital view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with apparently far better DR and of a wider spectrum
capability than what our newest MESSENGER mirror optics and spendy 14+db
CCD could apparently muster, as proof-positive via their flyby of Earth
which only provided us with a rather naked looking and otherwise
somewhat pastel view of Earth, w/o even so much as once accommodating
our physically dark moon, much less having shared upon any other
significant planets or stars that simply had to be there, yet all such
other items were getting artificially made as invisible/stealth as were
all of those Muslim WMD.
Remember that starshine as well as earthshine upon the moon is
absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye that's far more sensitive
to having recorded such near-UV and UV-a spectrums than our human eye,
which can't hardly if even detect, not to mention those pesky gamma and
hard-X-ray spectrums of which that moon of our's is absolutely chuck
full of such TBI(total body irradiation) dosage that's simply much worse
off than any lethal hot zone within our Van Allen belts, and that's
still not even including upon all of the continual thermal trauma of
their having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also
coexisted, as coming at their naked moonsuit from nearly all surrounding
directions in addition to whatever sol was directly contributing.
That physically dark and somewhat salty moon of ours is what's actually
a darn good IR/FIR reflector, and otherwise represents a rather piss
poor UV reflector because, such UV energy often gets absorbed and/or
interacts as creating secondary/recoil photons of the [UV black light
generated] near-blue spectrum. Of course the solar and cosmic influx is
what also represents lethal buttloads of having generated those
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and hard-X-rays, with zilch worth of
any attenuation from all possible directions, meaning that your wussy
moonsuit is surrounded by an absolute minimum lethal gauntlet of 3.14e6
m2 that's contributing the full secondary spectrum worth of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every physically more than boiling role of all that
sensitive Kodak film.
>Wayne Throop:
>If you substitute venus for earth, it'd show up in the shot.
>Even if you move earth far away, it'd still show up, until it's so far
>away its light is falling on less than a single grain of the photograph;
>but as long as its idealized image is at least a single grain big, that
>grain would still be exposed.
Instead, we see a somewhat naked guano island like reflective
environment, for as far as the human and unfiltered Kodak eyes could
see, in places having a thin and naturally terrestrial clumping 50/50
dusting of portland cement and cornmeal that was entirely xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated (meaning w/o UV), whereas instead of their having
to deal with whatever the raw and nearly point source of the extremely
contrasty solar spectrum should have had to offer, along with such raw
influx having unavoidably shared absolute extra loads worth of the
near-UV and UV-a energy. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing of such
hocus-pocus artificial content within such bogus images, or otherwise of
mission associated content, that's worth a freaking hoot, much less a
scientific hoot.
Of course there's many other iffy if not downright naysay worthy
fly-by-rocket and still unproven lunar lander factors that simply do not
add up to what those pesky regular laws of physics and of replicated
science and of otherwise proven lander technology has to say.
Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop", "rick_so" and myself as your
pesky historical revisionist team, and otherwise truth telling
messengers from hell, must continually piss on your silly hocus-pocus
parade.
-
Brad Guth
Of a similar topic that's worthy of open disclosure:
Velikovsky/Neocatastrophism Sources / banished from Mailgate
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/Pbb1h.956$CT5.551%40trnddc02?order=smart&p=1/469
Brad Guth
(again)
Brad Guth
This somewhat polished contribution is indirectly related, as to the
ongoing energy that's between Earth and our moon, and otherwise helping
us to appreciate as to how cold this Earth would get once our moon was
out of the way, or at least as for having been relocated out to Earth's
L1 for safe keeping, and for otherwise accomplishing a double benefit.
In other words, I for one do not believe this daunting relocation phase
is going to demand all that much applied energy (most of which would be
derived from the moon itself), especially if it's currently moving out
at 38 mm/year as is.
mailgate/sci.astro / Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?
stealth listed topic: "Mailgate: Message not available"
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:45ea9bbb$0$16556$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/da9e5d6a20df9e5b/99d6f253d352fdaf?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=2&hl=en#99d6f253d352fdaf
Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?
> Actually, as it moves into higher orbits, its velocity decreases.
What exactly are those hard scientific numbers (not via theory), as
having been independently measured down to the picosecond, about its
receding orbital loss of velocity per year?
It seems as though it would have been so much easier and otherwise
having been far more accurate as to our having measured any such annual
reduction in orbital velocity per year, than of having measured it's
supposed 38 mm/year of tidal forced recession.
I mean to further suggest, that it's apparently having to travel a bit
further each year, and according those of your mindset it's also taking
some loss in orbital velocity to boot, or perhaps it actually isn't
doing either, if not otherwise falling back towards Earth because of
having 'once upon a time' bounced itself off Earth to begin with.
In addition to all of that rant; What's the ongoing slug factor
(Vt/terminal velocity drag coefficient) in kgf that's working against
that extremely rough (40e12 m2) moon of ours?
You'd think that such a nifty 900,000 km comet like trail of what's
mostly solar wind forced sodium is capable of giving us a clue as to the
Vt/slug factor.
> The paragraph above - and all the rest I have snipped below - both somewhat
> cranky and wrong, at least as an explanation of the recession of the moon.
Sorry about all of that. For good reason(s), I am in fact somewhat
cranky, as having been so ever since interpreting that somehow Venus has
been accommodating other intelligent life, as having been
existing/coexisting where it's supposedly so freaking hot and nasty.
In other words, instead of your being the least bit cranky, whereas
you're cozy with being snookered and thus easily dumbfounded that you
actually believe we've walked upon that nasty moon of our's, even though
there's no such replicated evidence that actually proves NASA/Apollo
moon-walking squat, at least not as based upon those pesky regular laws
of physics.
You also don't believe that our moon is still in the process of losing
mass, or much less that it's seemingly losing substantial amounts of
sodium (I've estimated roughly 23.5 micrograms/m2/day), as otherwise you
would have given or having shared specific information that proves
otherwise.
I haven't entirely excluded tidal forces, but yourself and others of
your kind have always excluded whatever rocks your Old Testament
thumping (Earth/moon only) boat, as though we're it and there's none
others to behold within this entire universe that's existing/coexisting
as intelligent life, much less having managed nearly as good at it as
us.
What makes you folks think we even originated or subsequently belong
upon this planet that has become almost insufficient for sustaining our
species, that is unless you've got the biggest and nastiest gun in town,
as well as having no remorse about using it.
-
BTW; the thrust of a given rocket is in fact based upon the sudden
removal of mass that's going away from the original mass, the same as to
what's happening at an extremely slow pace with our moon that's losing
mass while moving itself away from Earth. Yet as far as we know of, its
orbital velocity simply isn't slowing down enough, if at all. So, what
gives?
I have no actual idea, outside of my best swag, as to the ongoing exit
velocity of my suggested 940 tonnes/day worth of sodium. So, for now
I'm sticking with the wussy exit velocity of one meter/second.
Ovbiously if it were exiting at 10 m/s would require 1% the sodium mass
as per what my best swag had previously suggested, and less yet due to
whatever amount of secondary tidal force is at play.
-
According to my dyslexic encrypted math (that's not always correct);
If that moon of ours was in fact moving off by 38 mm/year, and as such
not even slowing down one iota, whereas per year as based upon 1.023
km/s, it should be taking 2.334e-4 second longer for getting that
horrifically big old and massive sucker around us.
Obviously if your tidal forced analogy were all inclusive, as to
representing what's causing our moon's recession at the velocity losing
budget of whatever that amounts to, along with taking into account
whatever's the Vt/slug factor, whereas it should if anything be causing
the orbital velocity as having been somewhat diminished measurably from
the velocity of each previous year. Therefore, if anything the extra
amount of orbital time required by rights should have become much
greater than imposing the fixed velocity factor of taking 2.334e-4
second longer to get around Earth.
Besides all my usual spelling and syntax corrections, how am I doing?
Brad Guth
Besides there being a great deal of clean and renewable energy that's
between Earth and our so unusually massive and nearby moon, this is only
a small portion of what the Usenet shadow contains, that which these
MI/NSA spooks and moles are so deathly afraid of.
According to Isaac Asimov, and a few others, there's roughly 50e12
tonnes or m3 of water within Earth's wussy atmosphere. (imagine how much
of that buoyant yet merely acidic upper cloud filled atmosphere of Venus
might offer)
Just for the fun of knowing what's what; It has been calculated that a
smooth Earth would become entirely covered by 8,800' or 2.682 km of
water (that's excluding atmospheric water and a few other volumes, much
of which exist underground).
There has been over 170 terrestrial magnetic flips (much like the one
we're about to go through, and hopefully recover from without our SAA,
moon, solar and of those cosmic rads exceeding our extremely frail DNA
limits). As it stands, 10,000 folks die for receiving too much
radiation as is, and our SAA contour is simply lethal to the likes of
ISS/ESS as is.
Of new life and if need be evolved as new and improved life is NOT
always the least bit dependent upon o2, as there are a good many
micro-organisms and of a few larger than micro that can only survive in
the absence of o2, or that of nearly zilch worth of o2.
Human and most certainly ET intelligent design can apply a good number
of modifications to a given code of DNA, so as to best adapt that DNA's
host to whatever environment that's other than what we on Earth so
admirer and/or insist that all other worthy life must adapt to.
This real form of ongoing intelligent design and subsequent application
of technology can certainly give new meaning as to sustaining other life
not as we know of, or even as for sustaining that life exactly as
snookered and dumbfounded as we know of, as for such existence made
possible for the task of having to survive upon worlds other than Earth,
or certainly of affording way better odds than that of moonsuit
buut-naked walking upon our physically dark and nasty moon.
Since there is still no physics of local planetology telling us
otherwise, much like appreciating the vast bulk of our deposited oceans,
whereas most of Earth's salt is also a deposit, rather than having
emerged from within the planetology workings of Earth. For example;
thus far Mars hasn't nearly the ratio of salt, yet our moon is still
losing its salt.
Since there is still nothing as having provided objective proof of our
truly massive and nearby moon being around prior to the very last ice
age this planet will ever see, it stands to good reason that our moon
simply represents a relatively newish arrival. Of its gravity and tidal
forced thermal/energy affects upon Earth (inside and out) is the primary
reason or culprit as to why this energy starved orb of ours is
continually thawing out from that very last ice age, and of course
modern humanity has been doing all that it can, as to continually erode,
bulk thermal energy pollute, having further contributed via sooty
surface and atmospheric deposits, and otherwise having chemically
polluted, plus radium and other radioactive element polluted our surface
environments, and thereby having traumatised critical life forces (such
as diatoms) and subsequently expediting our demise via the ongoing
melting of whatever dirty snow and ice is left. Are we good at
pillaging, raping and summarily trashing mother Earth, or what! Could
we have accomplished it any faster? (I don't think so)
As our artificially induced erosion continues and ice melts, eventually
we'll obtain 50 meters of extra ocean depth to deal with. Antarctica
will become viable real estate to behold.
Intelligent life on Venus isn't likely as easy as I may have suggested,
as for starters you'd have to be real smart, and/or otherwise advanced
enough in your local or forced evolution in order to deal with all of
that spare and essentially renewable energy. In either case, that
criteria pretty much eliminates the vast bulk of our human species, if
not entirely.
With faith-based whatever that's in charge of promoting greed, arrogance
and bigotry is most likely why the human species will not likely advance
beyond the point of our mutual demise, and no ET worth their salt would
dare to intervene unless to prevent our perverted and/or snookered and
thus easily dumbfounded mindset from escaping this Earth.
If there was ever objective proof of intelligent design's what not to
do, as such it would have to be with this faith based species of
humanity that has infested Earth. Perhaps ETs have learned from their
mistakes, whereas newer worlds or of terraformed/salvaged worlds are
simply less focused upon taking advantage of one another, and otherwise
less inclined to traumatising and otherwise trashing their environment.
Those few of us (0.0001% or at best one out of a million) that actually
gives a tinkers damn, apparently we or any of our silly notions don't
count, which is more than good reason enough for the keeping of humanity
sequestered or otherwise incarcerated for life upon this world that's
failing us in more ways than most would care to appreciate.