Other life on Venus, in spite of NASA, in spite of their Borg collective
Brad Guth
opposition to the discovery of structures and thereby the most likely
existence of other life existing on Venus, as instead these
pro-everything-NASA jokers play around with their word games, Arthur
Andersen their numbers to death, along with their otherwise
sanctioning of whatever our administration(s) decides to do or not to
do, irregardless of whatever is skewing of history, skewing of science
and of somehow pretending those laws of physics do not apply to Venus,
but oddly apply entirely fine and dandy to Mars or any other planet
except Venus, not to mention their justifying factors of blatant
carnage, irregardless of the immoral implications and subsequent
affect upon the entire world, which recently came back around to 9/11
bite us in our own butts. Somehow to my opponents, all of that's OK
and worth the ultimate price so many have had to pay, yet of my
efforts towards honestly researching upon the rather obvious
possibilities that we've had planetary neighbors, and not only all
that but, that Venus has been entirely communications (laser packet)
accessible and/or even humanly obtainable by the standards of today,
at lest via VL2.
Yet it's still damn hot and nasty on Venus, Duh! so what?
The last time I looked, those complex structures, a rather substantial
tarmac, a likely suspension bridge, quarry sites, reservoirs and so on
hadn't melted away.
Just getting a raw understanding of what the space environment
actually is, say at Earth L4 or L5, is certainly going in the right
direction of obtaining valid knowledge towards understanding Venus L2
(VL2). Although, try as you may and, you'll not see those figures, at
least not clearly, as you'll most likely see only the likelihood of
incoming flak because guess what folks, the Earth L4/L5 environment is
essentially receiving the same solar influx as our fully illuminated
and irradiated to death moon, thoughof not having the secondary
radiation being contributed by the influx radiation interacting with
those lunar rocks and soil, which should be creating quite a bit
greater surface dosage (at least that's how it works on shuttle
missions, on ISS and for every other satellite ever launched),
certainly of no less radiation, unless you're deeply sheltered under
tonnes of said rock...
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-learned.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Give this one some thought and feedback, at the very least try to
learn of what Earth L4/L5 is all about, radiation wise, and let me
know.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth
tim gueguen
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...
> In spite of the flak that's been generated and/or orchestrated as
> opposition to the discovery of structures and thereby the most likely
> existence of other life existing on Venus,
Typical of your ilk you have an ego the size of...well Venus. Get a clue,
NASA doesn't even know you exist.
tim gueguen 101867
Peter Harding
@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca says...
> Typical of your ilk you have an ego the size of...well Venus. Get a clue,
> NASA doesn't even know you exist.
I might guess a couple of them do; they have an unbelievably patient
crew of telephone operators who field calls from loons all day and every
day.
--
ICQ 40628243 Tel 07092057581 Fax 07092308800
John C. Randolph
-jcr
Uncle Al
>
> In spite of the flak that's been generated and/or orchestrated as
> opposition to the discovery of structures and thereby the most likely
> existence of other life existing on Venus,
Why don't you tell us about the chemistry of life occuring at 460 C
under 97 atmospheres of CO2 saturated with sulfuric acid mist? All
terrestrial extremophiles punch out by 120 C. They fry - salt
bridges, zinc fingers, and cystine crosslinks be damned.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/GeorgeRyabov.shtml
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~withers/pppp/ pdf/springagu2001mepfigs.pdf
http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/venus.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990124.html
1) Lead melts at 327 C. One presumes a Cytherian circuit board is
most likely a counterfeit, ditto Cytherian stained glass windows,
Cytherian hollow point semi-jacketed bullets, and Cytherian Franklin
Mint custom cast and painted collectible Mickey Mouse pewter
figurines.
2) Mobil 1 fries at 460 C. Silicone elastomers fry at 460 C.
Polyphosphazene elastomers fry at 460 C. Kalrez, Viton, and teflons
fry at 460 C. Krytox, Fomblin, and Fluorolube fry at 460 C. Vespel
fries at 460 C continuous. The strain point of soda lime glass is 480
C, you jackass.
3) http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
[snip]
> Yet it's still damn hot and nasty on Venus, Duh! so what?
See points (2) and (3) above.
> The last time I looked, those complex structures, a rather substantial
> tarmac, a likely suspension bridge, quarry sites, reservoirs and so on
> hadn't melted away.
Tarmac paved with what? A suspension bridge over what deep body of
what liquid? Reservoirs filled with what?
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
[snip]
If mankind is to become spacefaring, then mankind had best find a way
to finesse all the physics that says it can't happen. There is only
one shakey postulate in all of it, the Equivalence Principle, but the
obvious calculated falsifying experiment in existing apparatus has
never been done,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
The proper test of spacetime geometry is test mass geometry.
Somebody should look...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Mac
wrote:
>In spite of the flak that's been generated and/or orchestrated as
>opposition to the discovery of structures and thereby the most likely
>existence of other life existing on Venus, as instead these
>pro-everything-NASA jokers play around with their word games
*************************** ********************
Congratulations!
You are in the running, with Daniel Joseph Min, for
"Loon-of-the-Week"!!!
You almost have beat him with your latest effort.
---Mac
Xaonon
<brad...@yahoo.com> teithant i thiw hin:
> The last time I looked, those complex structures, a rather substantial
> tarmac, a likely suspension bridge, quarry sites, reservoirs and so on
still didn't exist. Go away, idiot.
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (i.e. my site) at http://xaonon.dyndns.org/
"Let's suppose you just finished writing `zardoz', a program to make your
head float from vortex to vortex..." -- GNU automake info page
OM
<j...@nospam.idiom.com> wrote:
>Are you a troll, or a looney?
...Yes, he is.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
>Ned i bach <5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>, Brad Guth
><brad...@yahoo.com> teithant i thiw hin:
>
>> The last time I looked, those complex structures, a rather substantial
>> tarmac, a likely suspension bridge, quarry sites, reservoirs and so on
>
>still didn't exist. Go away, idiot.
...Just a reminder, kids. Brad's hallucinations are from the result of
living in a flop located above the gas station he works at. He's been
breathing enough ethanol fumes over the years since he flunked his GED
for the ninth time, that when he looks at a photo of a cheese pizza,
he first sees Mars, then imagines its a vast network of Metropolii on
Venus.
Just killfile him and leave him to the Maxsons to feed on...
OM
<ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> wrote:
>Typical of your ilk you have an ego the size of...well Venus.
...And the sanity the size of his penis, too.
Ned Pike
news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...
You haven't slit your own throat yet?
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
Paul Cardinale
[lunacy snipped]
"Irregardless" isn't a word.
Gregory L. Hansen
People use it, it has a generally agreed-upon spelling and definition--
it's a word.
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
Rand Simberg
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <64050551.03072...@posting.google.com>,
>Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>>brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message
>>news:<5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>[lunacy snipped]
>>
>>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
>
>People use it,
Properly educated people don't.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
John Jones
Oh, please. Pedantry "ain't" rebuttal.
Gregory L. Hansen
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:37:56 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) made the phosphor
>on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>In article <64050551.03072...@posting.google.com>,
>>Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>>>brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message
>>>news:<5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>[lunacy snipped]
>>>
>>>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
>>
>>People use it,
>
>Properly educated people don't.
Properly educated people don't get to decide whether something is a word
or not. Useage dictates that.
Rand Simberg
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>[lunacy snipped]
>>>>
>>>>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
>>>
>>>People use it,
>>
>>Properly educated people don't.
>
>Properly educated people don't get to decide whether something is a word
>or not. Useage dictates that.
They get to decide whether it's a word that causes them to have a
high, or low estimation of its user. Of course, in this particular
case, poor vocabulary is the least of the poster's problems...
Gordon D. Pusch
even about basic things like English grammar. Like most crackpots,
he doesn't listen to anyone or anything except his unshakable delusions.
Put him in your KILLfile, and let his ranting and raving go to /dev/null.
Sander Vesik
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:37:56 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) made the phosphor
> on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>In article <64050551.03072...@posting.google.com>,
>>Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>>>brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message
>>>news:<5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>[lunacy snipped]
>>>
>>>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
>>
>>People use it,
>
> Properly educated people don't.
>
And I thought some were claiming people of the US were less
purists about their culture than the French...
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Rand Simberg
Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>[lunacy snipped]
>>>>
>>>>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
>>>
>>>People use it,
>>
>> Properly educated people don't.
>>
>
>And I thought some were claiming people of the US were less
>purists about their culture than the French...
This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
Scott Lowther
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:42:55 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
> Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>>>[lunacy snipped]
> >>>>
> >>>>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
> >>>
> >>>People use it,
> >>
> >> Properly educated people don't.
> >>
> >
> >And I thought some were claiming people of the US were less
> >purists about their culture than the French...
>
> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
Freedomgardless.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
"Any statement by Edward Wright that starts with 'You seem to think
that...' is wrong. Always. It's a law of Usenet, like Godwin's."
- Jorge R. Frank, 11 Nov 2002
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>
> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
>
> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for inflammable
comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the prefix meaning not
like inarticulate.
Irregardless is just a waste of breath when regardless or irrespective works
better.
Paul F. Dietz
> "Irregardless" isn't a word.
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Paul
Matthew F Funke
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>
>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
>>
>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
>
>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for inflammable
>comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the prefix meaning not
>like inarticulate.
Nice try, Strider, but no. "Infamous" *does* come from "in-"
(meaning "not") and "fama", meaning "renown" or "fame". Both are Latin,
and come from Indo-European roots. (Note the entries in both the American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition; and in Webster's
Revised Unabridged Dictionary.) The fact is that the *original* meaning
of fame, which included acclaim and honor, has been lost; the word "fame"
is now vague enough to most to simply indicate someone who has made his or
her name known to many.
"Inflammable", on the other hand, comes to us from the same root as
"inflame" ("inflammare", also Latin; note the same dictionaries as above).
This "in" is not derived from the Latin *prefix* "in-", meaning "not", but
from the Latin *preposition* "in", meaning (oddly enough) "in". If it is
"inflammable", it is capable of being engulfed in flames.
The opposites of these words, then, are nonflammable and (perhaps
confusingly) noninflammable. It's generally understood in circles where
safety is a concern that using "inflammable" and "noninflammable" might be
confusing, however, so it's rare to see them on signs or warning labels.
>Irregardless is just a waste of breath when regardless or irrespective works
>better.
Agreed. Especially since there is no preposition "ir" in Latin which
one could use to argue that it and its apparent opposite should have the
same meaning. :)
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke (m...@hopper.unh.edu)
Gregory L. Hansen
>news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>>
>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
>>
>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
>
>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for inflammable
>comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the prefix meaning not
>like inarticulate.
Depress a key, unravel, debone... it's not alone.
>
>Irregardless is just a waste of breath when regardless or irrespective works
>better.
Arranging sentences so as not to end with a preposition is also wasted
breath, the sort of thing up with which Winston Churchill would not put.
Jorge R. Frank
news:bg5svf$cjj$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
> In article <NQlVa.134816$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>>news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
>>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
>>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
>>>
>>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
>>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
>>
>>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for
>>inflammable comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the
>>prefix meaning not like inarticulate.
>
> Depress a key, unravel, debone... it's not alone.
Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Andy
news:Xns93C75922...@216.39.221.8...
> Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
Naaaah! Disgruntled is a pig with laryngitis.
Andy
DrPostman
wrote:
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
>news:bg5svf$cjj$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
>
>> In article <NQlVa.134816$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>> Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>>>news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>>>>
>>>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
>>>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
>>>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
>>>>
>>>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
>>>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
>>>
>>>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for
>>>inflammable comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the
>>>prefix meaning not like inarticulate.
>>
>> Depress a key, unravel, debone... it's not alone.
>
>Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
Ever met a gruntled one currently working?
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
Paul Cardinale
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
> news:bg5svf$cjj$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
>
> > In article <NQlVa.134816$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> > Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> >>news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> >>>
> >>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
> >>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
> >>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
> >>>
> >>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
> >>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
> >>
> >>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for
> >>inflammable comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the
> >>prefix meaning not like inarticulate.
> >
> > Depress a key, unravel, debone... it's not alone.
>
> Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
Federal law requires all postal facilities to have an ISO-9001
Employee Regruntling Procedure.
DrPostman
Sander Vesik
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
> news:bg5svf$cjj$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
>
>> In article <NQlVa.134816$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>> Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>>>news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>>>>
>>>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
>>>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
>>>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
>>>>
>>>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
>>>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
>>>
>>>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for
>>>inflammable comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the
>>>prefix meaning not like inarticulate.
>>
>> Depress a key, unravel, debone... it's not alone.
>
> Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
>
The whole words being nonwords because of rule x or dictionary z not
listingthem should be taken as the claimant being socially inept loser
who cannot let go rubbing it in he/she got teh highest score in 'Spelling
Bee' contests or similar.
Gregory L. Hansen
Gruntled is a word in the dictionary, and it actually does mean the
opposite of disgruntled.
Brad Guth
Thanks much.
BTW; got anything on Venus that of use, or how about the radiation
environment at Earth L4 or L5, then naturally anything for Venus L2.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
Obviously this is another document chuck full of errors, bad grammar
and piss poor syntax to boot.
Brad Guth
I'll post this message in several places, just so that you braille
folks don't miss out on any of my poor grammar and even worse syntax.
In case you still can't figure out why I'm persisting; just maybe it's
because I keep getting such unexpected loads of flak and/or skewed
space exploration history justifying disinformation, instead of
alternative ideas and/or leads to what is hopefully more correct
information. When I seemingly get nothing but this sort of "status
quo" or flak in response to my suggesting a few positive
considerations and/or towards gathering further awareness into related
topics such as space radiation, or searching for the greater expertise
that I obviously do not have (nor should I be required to have), I
then go looking about to see what it is that I can learn on my own,
that's including the discovery of why there's been such opposition and
unexpected motivation and, lo and behold, it seems I keep finding
both, by learning overloads worth of new information as well as
gaining further insights into why all the orchestrated and/or Borg
like opposition.
Rigid airships for example; Even though you may not see nor realize
their potential on Venus, or even realize the rational basis for
having such applied technology, though perhaps you should just pretend
that I'm referring to another of those infamous WMD, where at least in
that way you'll simply have to accept the possibility that I'm right
and that you're not.
Given that airship science and of the applied engineering, as well as
the laws of physics are backing all this up, it's become rather
difficult for myself to understand why anyone would intentionally
impose their equally extreme "status quo" and/or "can't possibly do
any such thing because I and my fellow Borgs say so" views upon what's
otherwise entirely within-the-box possible, especially as far as that
which could have easily been developed pre-greenhouse.
When I'm referring to anything pre-greenhouse, I'm doing that not as
suggesting millions of years worth, more likely in terms of a few
thousand years. As I've stipulated before, a climate shift averaging
0.1°K per year is something well within the realm of possibilities of
surviving, that's including whatever expedited evolution could manage
to improve upon, as on Earth there's been recorded changes of much
greater shifts per year, thus clearly indicating the Venus transition
from being tropical at perhaps 300°K to becoming 720°K may well have
taken but 4200 years (not millions), where obviously a more rapid 1°K
shift per year would have become somewhat testy for accommodating that
same degree of survival within a timeline of merely 420 years but,
still something doable as long as you weren't wasting your time and
resources upon provoking others and then subsequently having to look
for invisible WMDs or of big ass airplanes flying into tall buildings.
Then, if you seriously expedited upon whatever improvements in
technology and applied such into the appropriate habitat construction
and of whatever good transportation methods (rigid airship in the case
of Venus), designed to tolerate the ever increasing heat and
subsequent depletion of surface water, as then you'd have a valid
means by which to migrate yourself to the next sunset community, so as
for utilizing the rather obvious advantage of remaining within the
season of night, plus having good access to whatever elevation, such
as Istar Terra representing a rather large territory of 10+km.
So far, I don't believe this rigid airship thing has intentionally
insulted anyone, other than those already having fears against any
sort of flying (such as Hindenburg phobia). I'm not suggesting one
damn thing that isn't possible and/or that isn't fully supported by
the known laws of physics. This is also not my stipulating that I've
become any airship expert, nor Venus atmospherics expert, nor any
chemical/conversion expert that will eventually become necessary in
order to best understand all there is to know about CO2-->CO/O2, or
even that of vacuum distilling water from those nighttime cloud
contents, as to obtaining H2O and then of the conversions into H2O2
and of producing massive volumes of H2 on demand.
What I've learned from others is that all of this is not only quit
possible but, in many instances being in one manner or another
accomplished on Earth as we speak. So, what's all the flak over the
likes of my rigid airship research?
If airship size is of any problem, then accomplish your own damn
estimating. If my thoughts on buoyancy are incorrect, again, do your
own thing. If the lifting gas utilized is not to be H2 or N2, then
again, do your own thing and then guess what, I'll post a link into
your research and, I'll certainly give you all the credits you've
earned. If in fact you're so freaking smart and above it all, then
otherwise what's keeping you from contributing to the cause?
Equally, if you can support that such highly unusual pixel patterns
are most likely natural, then that's fine and dandy as well. I simply
don't want to keep hearing those braille statements as quotes from
NASA's bible of what's already been published, unless that includes a
sufficient definition of exactly how such artificial looking patters
could have formulated by natural events and, offered along with some
other image example so as to reinforce what it is you're stating.
Since I already know what a big rock looks like and generally how that
rock came about, perhaps you ott to focus upon those pixel patterns
and try to match those patterns up with anything you've got, as that
I'll accept.
Just because Venus is humanly too damn hot and nasty, that by itself
doesn't rule out other life NOT as we know it, nor rigid airships,
especially of those operating from good altitude to start off with
and, of their operating within a nighttime season is something well
within the known limits of Earthly materials and technology. Good
grief folks, if a village idiot can figure this one out, then why are
all the collective Borgs of Club NASA so unable to function?
The rigid airship issue isn't even outside the box, nor are most any
of the other issues I've brought onto the Venus table, with the
exclusion of moving ISS off to see the wizard of Oz at Venus L2, as
that's way outside the box. In addition, my reverse engineering and
subsequent math mistakes could certainly be a ways off but, not all of
the ideas are wrong for explaining what's to be seen, nor are the
intentions of where all this is leading us in any way skewed by hidden
agendas.
If it's otherwise acceptable to even consider a manned expedition to
frozen and irradiated to death Mars, where your existence is only by
way of being heavily technology subsidized within a near vacuum as
being acceptable (including the human space travel risk plus the
hundreds of billions necessary to pull that off), as well as for being
where there's so damn little natural energy to be had, then surely the
alternative prospects of considering others evolved into becoming
accustomed to life in a frying pan had ott to be worth something,
especially when there's so much accessible natural energy just about
anywhere you care to look and, there's no significant cosmic radiation
to worry about, especially nighttime, so that you don't have to live
under a rock as would be necessary for Mars, where even the Mars
nighttime galactic radiation is a known health risk.
If this positive outlook upon Venus is considered as acting superior,
then those offended must be really stupid folks, further compounded by
their own arrogance and perhaps even a little lack of morality. As
otherwise, what's there to lose, since I'm not even involving the
possibility of roasting another batch of astronauts and, of
interplanetary communications is not even rocket science, not hardly
even astronomy, and besides, since I thought astronomy was mostly
about observations and since they've more than proven to this village
idiot that the majority of them can't hardly see a damn thing that
isn't their idea (it's actually pretty darn hard to see much of
anything when you're too busy eating your own kind over what's left of
government grants and subsidies and, understandably you can't even
hear what anyone is trying to say over the vortex roar of suction
noise created by all the NASA suck-ups doing absolutely anything to
appease, impress and/or shield their pagan god).
Yes Santa, NASA as well as NSA/DoD have been very, very bad, at the
heart of all this Venus avoidance and more so of avoiding anything
GUTH Venus, for damn good reason(s), their butts are on the line
big-time, including those cloned and even of the new guard are at risk
if I'm only 10% right. It's that damn simple, as otherwise obtaining
further information and/or support wouldn't have become so hot and
nasty. Thus, if you send me your warm and fuzzy flak, I'll reheat it
and send it right back at you (tit for tat and then some).
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth
Brad Guth
check out, and thanks for all the negatives you can think off, even
though somehow that doesn't explain away the patterns nor of what's
possible under such pressure.
At least where there's heat there's energy to be had, in the case of
Venus there's obviously a little too much energy to be had. With a
little said energy, one could do almost anything under worst
conditions. Of course I'm not referring to humans because, as a lot
we're too freaking stupid and, of those that aren't are simply too
arrogant and/or too busy looking for invisible WMDs.
Sander Vesik
Irregardless is also in dictionaries and means the same as regardless.
Greg Neill
news:10595089...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
>
> Irregardless is also in dictionaries and means the same as regardless.
>
According to Merriam-Webster:
usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early
20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the
attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently
repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such
a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can
be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen
over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
Use regardless instead.
Brad Guth
> Water.
Of course there's water, don't be silly, as in suspended in them there
COOL nighttime clouds (not the upper most clouds but of the mid to
somewhat lower cloud base where it's sufficiently wet, as in water
mixed with sulphur).
BTW; none of that acid ever reaches the ground, as that's where the
sulphur becomes merely another harmless powder/crystal.
Of course, for the task of obtaining said water, for that you'll need
a good rigid airship in order to acquire the sulphuric acid cloud
contents, then a vacuum distilling process in order to extract the
pure H2O component. Fortunately the lower atmosphere provides all the
necessary process heat, so no further energy needed there and, since
the atmosphere density is what it is, there's damn little technology
or even all that much energy necessary for pulling a sufficient vacuum
(1/2 atmosphere would offer considerable vacuum).
If need be, I believe CO/O2 makes for a fairly good chemical energy
solution (Venus has mega tonnes of CO/O2), otherwise the vertical
pressure differential of 4+bar/km will do just fine and dandy.
I'd like to think it would have been a good idea to subsequently
process that H2O into H2O2, in that way the fluid could be exposed to
atmosphere without it instantly boiling off, thus easier to store and
certainly offering a great deal of energy storage potential, not to
mention for creating volumes of H2 on demand.
I have other pages of interest but, these three come to mind:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/energy-options.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/energy-resolve.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-energy.htm
Brad Guth
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:37:56 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) made the phosphor
> on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >In article <64050551.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> >Paul Cardinale <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> >>brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message
> >>news:<5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >>[lunacy snipped]
> >>
> >>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
> >
> >People use it,
>
> Properly educated people don't.
Word games; that's about all you fools can contribute. Perhaps the
next time you upgrade your Borg programming, ask that they include a
little AI, at least then there will be some base of logic working deep
within your kernel programming code. Of course, if that another
"Windows" based code, there'll be lots of errors and security flaws at
just about every port.
Mark Fergerson
> Thanks for all your good information and reference leads, which I'll
> check out, and thanks for all the negatives you can think off, even
> though somehow that doesn't explain away the patterns nor of what's
> possible under such pressure.
What patterns?
> At least where there's heat there's energy to be had, in the case of
> Venus there's obviously a little too much energy to be had. With a
> little said energy, one could do almost anything under worst
> conditions. Of course I'm not referring to humans because, as a lot
> we're too freaking stupid and, of those that aren't are simply too
> arrogant and/or too busy looking for invisible WMDs.
Like the invisible heat _sink_ you'd need to use the
"little too much energy" on Venus?
<snip>
> Rigid airships for example; Even though you may not see nor realize
> their potential on Venus,
Look for the Larry Niven short SF story _Becalmed in
Hell_ which runs through a very few of the difficulties
rigid airships could be expected to encounter in Venus'
atmosphere. Mainly due to their rigidity, oddly enough.
> Given that airship science and of the applied engineering, as well as
> the laws of physics are backing all this up, it's become rather
> difficult for myself to understand why anyone would intentionally
> impose their equally extreme "status quo" and/or "can't possibly do
> any such thing because I and my fellow Borgs say so" views upon what's
> otherwise entirely within-the-box possible, especially as far as that
> which could have easily been developed pre-greenhouse.
Greenhouse your ass. We're talking Venus here, which
makes any greenhouse effect on Earth look like, well,
nothing at all.
> Then, if you seriously expedited upon whatever improvements in
> technology and applied such into the appropriate habitat construction
> and of whatever good transportation methods (rigid airship in the case
> of Venus), designed to tolerate the ever increasing heat and
> subsequent depletion of surface water, as then you'd have a valid
> means by which to migrate yourself to the next sunset community, so as
> for utilizing the rather obvious advantage of remaining within the
> season of night, plus having good access to whatever elevation, such
> as Istar Terra representing a rather large territory of 10+km.
No water, no food, no cable, no view, why the hell would
anyone _want_ to live in the damn thing?
> So far, I don't believe this rigid airship thing has intentionally
> insulted anyone,
No, merely our collective intelligence.
> What I've learned from others is that all of this is not only quit
> possible but, in many instances being in one manner or another
> accomplished on Earth as we speak. So, what's all the flak over the
> likes of my rigid airship research?
What the fuck is it FOR?
> Equally, if you can support that such highly unusual pixel patterns
> are most likely natural, then that's fine and dandy as well. I simply
> don't want to keep hearing those braille statements as quotes from
> NASA's bible of what's already been published, unless that includes a
> sufficient definition of exactly how such artificial looking patters
> could have formulated by natural events and, offered along with some
> other image example so as to reinforce what it is you're stating.
> Since I already know what a big rock looks like and generally how that
> rock came about, perhaps you ott to focus upon those pixel patterns
> and try to match those patterns up with anything you've got, as that
> I'll accept.
WHAT "artificial looking patterns"?
> Just because Venus is humanly too damn hot and nasty, that by itself
> doesn't rule out other life NOT as we know it, nor rigid airships,
> especially of those operating from good altitude to start off with
> and, of their operating within a nighttime season is something well
> within the known limits of Earthly materials and technology. Good
> grief folks, if a village idiot can figure this one out, then why are
> all the collective Borgs of Club NASA so unable to function?
What the fuck is it FOR?
> The rigid airship issue isn't even outside the box, nor are most any
> of the other issues I've brought onto the Venus table, with the
> exclusion of moving ISS off to see the wizard of Oz at Venus L2, as
> that's way outside the box. In addition, my reverse engineering and
> subsequent math mistakes could certainly be a ways off but, not all of
> the ideas are wrong for explaining what's to be seen, nor are the
> intentions of where all this is leading us in any way skewed by hidden
> agendas.
Reverse engineering from WHAT?
You are a piss-poor excuse for a troll.
You haven't even stated the terms of your lunacy clearly.
Mark L. Fergerson
Brad Guth
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:37:40 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) made the phosphor
> on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>>>[lunacy snipped]
> >>>>
> >>>>"Irregardless" isn't a word.
> >>>
> >>>People use it,
> >>
> >>Properly educated people don't.
> >
> >Properly educated people don't get to decide whether something is a word
> >or not. Useage dictates that.
>
> They get to decide whether it's a word that causes them to have a
> high, or low estimation of its user. Of course, in this particular
> case, poor vocabulary is the least of the poster's problems...
Good grief, how pathetic, how arrogant, how immoral and just plain
spiteful can you possibly get?
Tell me anything about Venus, anything about space radiation, anything
about evolution and how it didn't manage to exclude the lower life
forms such as yourself.
Give us any sign that other life NOT as we know it will not turn out
as limited nor as pretentiously sanctimonious as yourself.
Don't tell me, you're Mormon.
Jason Rhodes
showing off.
Jason
Brad Guth
what liquid? Reservoirs filled with what?"
Gee whiz folks, could that tarmac have been paved with solid rock
slabs.
I don't ever recall specifying specific fluids but, since you've
asked; What about the "fluid arch" consideration.
Don't tell me, those are merely common hot rocks formed/stacked into
at least a vertical km worth of arch, created and crafted by something
entirely natural that initiated the erosion pattern and subsequently
ended the arch with an additional erosion pattern, exactly like a
mud-flow or some other suitable fluid would have created, possibly
even by some of that terrifically hot lead you previously mentioned.
Now this arch is about the only fluid issue other than what's held
within the 5th reservoir, as that reservoir center is defiantly
holding something fluid like, either that or SAR imaging is another
ruse perpetrated by our crack NSA.
"2) Mobil 1 fries at 460 C. Silicone elastomers fry at 460 C.
Polyphosphazene elastomers fry at 460 C. Kalrez, Viton, and teflons
fry at 460 C. Krytox, Fomblin, and Fluorolube fry at 460 C. Vespel
fries at 460 C continuous. The strain point of soda lime glass is 480
C, you jackass."
This is just super terrific great information, thanks a bunch; 460C is
733k
Now then, nighttime, elevated at 5 km I estimated at 625K (352C), of
course that's still damn hot and nasty but that's at 1 Bar and not
respectfully at 75 Bar. I wonder what the melting/vapor shift is for
75 Bar.
BTW; great other graphics and just plain old terrific crap worth of
nothing on those other links you provided. Is that the best you can
do?
Brad Guth
Perhaps I should have posted everything in Klingon. At least that way
you and I'd know what I'm trying to say.
Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Rand Simberg
Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In sci.space.policy Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
Why don't we just change the subject to one that's a little more ane?
Jay Windley
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com...
|
| Word games; that's about all you fools can contribute.
Not really. Why haven't you responded to this at sci.space.history?
Instead of calling me a "Borg" and then running away, why don't you put your
money where you mouth is?
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Brad Guth
> > opposition to the discovery of structures and thereby the most likely
> > existence of other life existing on Venus,
>
> Typical of your ilk you have an ego the size of...well Venus. Get a clue,
> NASA doesn't even know you exist.
>
> tim gueguen 101867
As of January 2001 they did know and, that's by way of several direct
phone calls and subsequent emails following, so they knew me very
well, almost as well as knowing those other nice folks that reported
upon all those WMDs (-10,000 or so other nice folks that can't manage
to voice their vote anymore).
Of course, I didn't stop at NASA, I tried out NSA, NIMA and a dozen
other very official government agencies. Lo and behold, nobody gave a
puck and furthermore they never bothered to tell another soul,
somewhat/exactly like what roasted the last batch of astronauts,
Phantom Works (ABL) and all to boot, as otherwise sort of like the USS
LIBERTY fiasco and exactly like 9/11 (what a pathetic joke the CIA and
FBI snookered upon humanity, certainly no surprises here).
BTW; G.W.Bush got the message; I know that for a fact because, they
did those Botoxin injections to get rid of his silly smirk and, it
worked just as I stipulated.
Steve Harris
> Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
Yes, and he was kempt and couth, and with an ample supply of
ruth.
> >The whole words being nonwords because of rule x or
dictionary z not
> >listingthem should be taken as the claimant being
socially inept loser
> >who cannot let go rubbing it in he/she got teh highest
score in 'Spelling
> >Bee' contests or similar.
I once met a socially ept loser. Name of Clinton.
> Gruntled is a word in the dictionary, and it actually does
mean the
> opposite of disgruntled.
Ruth is in there also. But very often the privative
combination word ("ruthless") outlives the more positive
stem word. A comment on the fact that human negative
emotions are much longer lasting and imprinting than the
positive ones. And so it is in animals, too. Makes sense to
wire that way, being as how sources of death and injury are
generally of greater importance to organisms than the
various positive contributions to life to be found in the
world.
SBH
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns93C75922...@216.39.221.8...
>
> Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
Actually gruntled is a legit word. But yes, it's one of those no one uses
any more. And it does mean what you'd expect. :-)
Mary Shafer
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote
> in message
>
> > Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
>
> Yes, and he was kempt and couth, and with an ample supply of
> ruth.
The word that is the opposite of "unkempt" is "kept", as in
"well-kept" or "kept up".
The "m" was borrowed to induce people to mispronounce "comptroller"
the way it's spelled, rather than the proper way, as if it were
spelled "controller".
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Gregory L. Hansen
It also helps when other words can be used, like "nice".
The Ghost In The Machine
<Lo...@mysig.foremail>
wrote
on Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:36:32 GMT
<tj8div4pnj3lhqrd2...@4ax.com>:
> On 29 Jul 2003 09:29:14 -0700, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul
> Cardinale) wrote:
>
>>"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
>>news:<Xns93C75922...@216.39.221.8>...
>>> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
>>> news:bg5svf$cjj$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
>>>
>>> > In article <NQlVa.134816$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>>> > Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>>> >>news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
>>> >>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
>>> >>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
>>> >>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
>>> >>
>>> >>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for
>>> >>inflammable comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the
>>> >>prefix meaning not like inarticulate.
>>> >
>>> > Depress a key, unravel, debone... it's not alone.
>>>
>>> Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
>>
>>Federal law requires all postal facilities to have an ISO-9001
>>Employee Regruntling Procedure.
>
>
> That looks painful.
Fortunately, only because one is inclined to laugh oneself
to death. :-)
(Hmm...physics of a belly laugh. There's a thought.)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<brad...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 29 Jul 2003 15:37:27 -0700
<5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>:
Hmm...is there an ISO spec for that? It's bad enough people try
to post in HTML around here, and that's in a Latin font...
:-)
Unfortunately, dictionary.reference.com will not let me look
for the word cromulent without a subscription. I don't
have cognizancy regarding cromulency. :-)
"No entry found for cromulency.
Did you mean cromulent?
Suggestions?
cromulent
crapulent
cromlechs
cromlech's"
Paul Cardinale
> On 29 Jul 2003 09:29:14 -0700, pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul
> Cardinale) wrote:
>
> >"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message news:<Xns93C75922...@216.39.221.8>...
> >> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
> >> news:bg5svf$cjj$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
> >>
> >> > In article <NQlVa.134816$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> >> > Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> >> >>news:3f5de512....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This has nothing to do with "purism of culture." It has to do with
> >> >>> common sense. Why should one word (irregardless) have the same
> >> >>> meaning as its opposite (regardless)?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's as dumb as flammable and inflammable. Not to sound like a
> >> >>> Vulcan, but let's use just a *little* logic here, people.
> >> >>
> >> >>Actually it's dumb for a different reason. The in- prefix for
> >> >>inflammable comes from a mean of very, like infamous, not from the
> >> >>prefix meaning not like inarticulate.
> >> >
> >> > Depress a key, unravel, debone... it's not alone.
> >>
> >> Disgruntled... ever met a gruntled ex-postal worker?
> >
> >Federal law requires all postal facilities to have an ISO-9001
> >Employee Regruntling Procedure.
>
>
> That looks painful.
>
According to the procedure, it will "only hurt a little."
Alan Morgan
The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Brad Guth
><brad...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
>on 29 Jul 2003 15:37:27 -0700
><5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>:
>> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message news:<g_adnVvpUfl...@dls.net>...
>>> Paul Cardinale wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Irregardless" isn't a word.
>>>
>>> It's a perfectly cromulent word.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Perhaps I should have posted everything in Klingon. At least that way
>> you and I'd know what I'm trying to say.
>>
>> Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com
>
>Hmm...is there an ISO spec for that? It's bad enough people try
>to post in HTML around here, and that's in a Latin font...
>
>:-)
>
>Unfortunately, dictionary.reference.com will not let me look
>for the word cromulent without a subscription. I don't
>have cognizancy regarding cromulency. :-)
You could try
http://www.abc.net.au/classic/breakfast/stories/s835155.htm
Unfortunatly, I'm not sure whether to believe it or not (when one
considers the meaning of the word, that may be appropriate).
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Fred Garvin
> Thanks for all your good information and reference leads, which I'll
> check out, and thanks for all the negatives you can think off, even
> though somehow that doesn't explain away the patterns nor of what's
> possible under such pressure.
(tons of horseshit snipped)
Man don't you have a freaking life???? Holy freaking mackeral!
Brad Guth
> Are you a troll, or a looney?
>
> -jcr
If you wanted to read something "looney", please checkout the
following:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/deposit.htm
Besides the mere idea of sending something like ISS off to visit the
wizard of Oz at Venus L2, along with a few nice folks willing to bet
their entire farm on a favorable outcome and, I do believe there's a
few other pages in my book worth contemplating.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Brad Guth
BTW; CO2 is a fairly good conductor of heat, especially if it's under
such good compression. Even a mere 10°K worth of heat-exchanger
differential, if there's sufficient volume involved, is going to offer
a great deal of Venus Thermal Unit extraction.
How hard would it be to accomplish something like compressing the
atmosphere to something like 1.5:1?
Speaking of rigid airships:
"No water, no food, no cable, no view, why the hell would
anyone _want_ to live in the damn thing?"
Them there relatively cool nighttime clouds are simply chuck full of
H2O and, of any half-assed rigid airship ott to capable of obtaining
cloud content, then merely vacuum distilling on there way back to the
hangar. Besides, how much H2O does a good lizard actually need?
CO2-->CO/O2 I believe this is another done deal, or do you know
otherwise?
Brad Guth
> In sci.physics, Brad Guth
> <brad...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on 29 Jul 2003 15:37:27 -0700
> <5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com>:
> > "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message news:<g_adnVvpUfl...@dls.net>...
> >> Paul Cardinale wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Irregardless" isn't a word.
> >>
> >> It's a perfectly cromulent word.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > Perhaps I should have posted everything in Klingon. At least that way
> > you and I'd know what I'm trying to say.
> >
> > Brad Guth / IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com
>
> Hmm...is there an ISO spec for that? It's bad enough people try
> to post in HTML around here, and that's in a Latin font...
>
> :-)
That's actually another great/terrific sort of idea, a Klingon ISO
spec.
BTW; for lots more poor grammar and piss poor syntax, checkout my
latest edit: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/deposit.htm
Brad Guth
Venus is only too hot for the likes of "Bad Astronomy" types and
otherwise rubs our NASA the wrong way because, they're all clearly one
of them, the truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA
spooks and moles as borg like folks without a soul nor so much as a
stitch of remorse. They used to burn us witches and our books at the
stake, though prime-time media has to somewhat frowns on that level of
action (similar to those having exterminated Cathars or pushing nuns off
a bridge doesn't exactly promote good PR), so instead they topic/author
stalk, bash and as much as possible banish whatever rocks their good but
seriously rotting ship USS LOLLIPOP.
I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with the ongoing ruse, or otherwise
with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to terraform
Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?
Venusian Composite Rigid Airship: so what's the big insurmountable
deal?
Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on
behalf of our doing Venus?
It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric probe that'll function rather nicely below their
nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore needn't be
all that large.
Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.
The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment can at least accommodate intelligent other
life in more viable ways than it's being given credit for. There has
even been good enough pictures of what's been doable by others. Yet lo
and behold, Venus remains as the most nearby and absolute most
accessible taboo/nondisclosure other orb in our solar system, that's
none the less easier and much safer than doing our moon.
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty forms
of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that thick soup
of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to dig in in
order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or terrific gas
vent issues that can be put directly to the task of extracting renewable
energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric thick soup of such nifty pressure and thermal
differential factors alone are clearly by themselves more than
sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit intelligent form of
life. That is unless you are one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet
village idiots, in which case absolutely nothing is possible in the
past, present or future, so why bother.
The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
all things government and big-energy, is simply further proof-positive
that such renewable energy while on Venusian deck has been doable.
Venus is in fact a hot place, though actually it's not all that nasty of
an environment. But so what if it's hot, as long as you've got such
access to and having the sufficient smarts on behalf of utilizing the
vast amounts of renewable energy that's already there to behold?
Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies or physiological grasp, doesn't in of
itself mean that it's 100+% taboo. Escaping the lethal forms of cosmic
and solar radiation seems by far more of a life essential important
issue, and secondly avoiding whatever's physically incoming seems like
yet another win-win for the old gipper, especially if it's having to do
with avoiding getting seriously smacked in the butt by way of something
that has your name on it.
Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the various doors of accommodating other life, especially on behalf of
rather easily accommodating intelligent other life that's merely
visiting, possibly even of a few locally evolved species isn't outside
of this toasty Venusian box. Although, I suppose if there's lots of
cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised dry-ice, plus
whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice that's perhaps
near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core of Mars is still
somehow life worthy, then so be it.
These pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks
off, if they can. I'm absolutely certain that as of millions of years
ago Mars could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good
billion some odd years even better odds yet for having sustained sizable
(larger than rad-hard microbe) forms of such other local life
(intelligent being yet to be proven unless merely visiting).
On the other real and honest hands of utilizing those regular laws of
physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so insurmountable
about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the proof-positive as to how
terribly snookered and dumbfounded past the mindset point of no return
you have become.
BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of that Mars of today has any
remainders of life to behold, then upon our own pesky moon that's still
more than a touch salty is absolutely loaded to the gills, with it's
local and cosmic DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.
BTW No.2; ESA's already at Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Art Deco
Brad Guth
Sorry folks, it seems that we haven't quite walked on our extremely big
old and otherwise nearby moon that's so physically massive in ratio to
Earth, as well as being so physically dark and nasty (hardly Apollo
passive guano island like and xenon lamp spectrum illuminated at that),
but so what's the difference if one more silly lie begets another and
another?
Our moon may remain as somewhat DNA/RNA taboo, although Venus isn't and
VL2 is certainly doable as is. Venus shouldn't ever require any
teraforming on our behalf, just damn good CO2-->CO/O2 air conditioning
and structual composite insulation that's worth R-1024/m.
If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck of
remorse.
I obviously care most about Venus, as our moon seriously sucks, whereas
Venus is otherwise more than obviously where all the serious action of
other intelligent life is at, especially since Pluto got the royal
shaft, as seemingly Ceres is getting a similar official NASA fid, and
Mercury is simply too off-world as well as past the point of return
(similar to Mars).
At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being POOF/(space depot)
doable, and every 19 months it gets to within 100 fold the distance of
our moon. Isn't that good news, or what.
While rather quickly roasting our weiners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), how much energy do you folks suppose a good air
conditioning system as part of your CO2-->CO/O2 process is going to
demand?
Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus 99% H2 and
1% O2. Also remember that you'll be continually fighting off the lesser
gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of
buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only had half a village idiot
brain, as such you might as well utilize such factors as to your
benefit.
Say per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x 5 meter abode) if that Venusian
habitat volume were insulated at R-1024/m2; what's the thermal budget
of keeping your cache of beer and vodka icy cold?
That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's exposed to the hotter than
hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending off
the somewhat toasty atmosphere. Therefore without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structual composite insulated
barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of thermal
conduction that's worth having 0.00097656/m2 of that bone dry heat to
deal with, which seems by right rather managable, if not a touch
overkill.
Is there something otherwise specific that you'd like to review or
constructively contribute, such as on behalf of those nifty composite
rigid airships?
How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer?
Would you like to talk about the VL2 POOF platform/depot, or how about
laser interplanetary communications (much the same as NASA's deep space
network), except for making those less spendy local interplanetary
calls.
Brad Guth
And the PC/MAC trashing game of Usenet spooks, moles and wise old fart
wizards of deploying their spermware/fuckware is obviously the norm of
their mainstream status quo. Therefore, we'll just have to keep
updating and reposting until a few of them NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows
come home.
It's a little bit like The Wizard of Oz, sorry folks, whereas it seems
that we haven't quite gotten around to having walked on our extremely
big old and otherwise nearby moon that's so physically massive in ratio
to Earth, as well as being so physically dark and nasty (hardly Apollo
passive guano island like and xenon lamp spectrum illuminated at that),
but so what's the difference if one more silly lie begets another and
another?
Our moon may have to remain as a mostly robotic wonderland, as otherwise
merely a nasty realm of local and secondary/recoil energy that's
accessible via a safe looking glass from the moon's L1, whereas
otherwise it's somewhat physically DNA/RNA taboo. Although, Venus isn't
off limits unless you're a certified moron, and VL2 is certainly more
than space station doable as is. Venus shouldn't ever require any
terraforming on our behalf, just damn good CO2-->CO/O2 air conditioning
and structural composite basalt as insulation that's worth R-1024/m.
If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing energy raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck
of remorse.
I obviously care most about Venus, as our moon seriously sucks, whereas
the planet Venus is otherwise more than obviously where all the serious
action of other intelligent life is at, especially since Pluto got the
royal shaft, as seemingly Ceres is getting a similar official NASA fid,
and Mercury is simply too off-world as well as past the point of return
(similar to Mars).
At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being POOF/(space depot)
doable, and every 19 months it gets to within 100 fold the distance of
our moon. If that isn't the best ever Russian/POOF good news, or what,
then nothing is.
While rather quickly roasting our wieners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), how much energy do you folks suppose a good air
conditioning system as part of your CO2-->CO/O2 process is going to
demand?
Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus having 99%
H2 and 1% O2 at 96 Bar is about all the atmospheric displacement of that
otherwise crystal clear and dry CO2 that's otherwise relatively harmless
that you'll ever need. Also remember that you'll be continually
fighting off the lesser gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of
that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only
had half a village idiot brain, as such you might as well utilize such
factors as to your benefit.
Say if this were an application per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x 5 meter
abode), and if that Venusian habitat volume were insulated at R-1024/m2;
what's the thermal energy budget of keeping your cache of beer and vodka
icy cold?
That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's in part exposed to the hotter
than hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending
off the somewhat toasty atmosphere that's always cooler than the
geothermally forced surface. Therefore, without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structural composite basalt
insulated barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of
thermal conduction that's worthy of having 0.00097656/m2 (0.0977% which
I believe is roughly less than 0.45 K/m2/hr) of that bone dry heat to
deal with, which seems by all manner of known physics as being rather
manageable, if not a touch overkill.
BTW; Venus has all the raw elements and the energy for locally
processing whatever into the required items of surviving Venus (except
for having enough ice cold beer and pizza). All that's required is the
small factor of applied intelligence or simply deductive common sense
should otherwise more than do the trick.
Is there something other that's specific about accomplishing Venus that
you'd like to review or constructively contribute, such as on behalf of
those nifty composite rigid airships?
How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer? (you're
not alone, you know)
Would you folks like to talk about the Russian VL2 POOF platform/depot,
or how about laser interplanetary communications (much the same as
NASA's deep space network), except for making those less spendy local
interplanetary calls that shouldn't take hardly any energy to accomplish
with a quantum binary packet mode of 425 nm FM/(+/-25 nm) photons doing
their extremely efficient thing.
Brad Guth
There's still other intelligent life to behold on Venus.
Sorry if that rains bad news for our crack NASA wizards.
Bill Snyder
<brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>
>There's still other intelligent life to behold on Venus.
>
>Sorry if that rains bad news for our crack NASA wizards.
Your delusions are bad news only for you, nutbar.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
brad...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:01:17 +0000 (UTC), "BradGuth"
>
> >"BradGuth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>
> >There's still other intelligent life to behold on Venus.
>
> >Sorry if that rains bad news for our crack NASA wizards.
>
> Your delusions are bad news only for you, nutbar.
> --
> Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Perhaps much like yourself, the warm and fuzzy likes of "David
Johnson" is simply yet another infomercial spewing naysayer, as from
the very get-go he'd much rather believe in anything and absolutely
everything as promoted or published by or otherwise media/infomercial
approved of by our NASA teams of all-knowing wizards. Obviously his
kind of silly anti-topic contribution is simply another total
fabricated lie, every bit as bogus as were all of those Muslim WMD.
So what's actually new?
At the very least, the newish and thus active planetology of Venus
offers us loads more of just about anything and everything under the
sun, that is unless you're a certified Usenet naysay moron (aka Old
Testament flatulating fart), in which case even Earth sucks
(especially those parts occupied by Muslims).
The regular laws of physics apply, as do the results of replicated
science. Unfortunately, none of that hardly matters when you're still
trying to pull off or otherwise justify the ultimate grand ruse/sting
of our mutually perpetrated cold-war century, and otherwise trying to
pillage and rape mother Earth for all she's worth, and then some.
There's obviously no surface ice to behold on Venus, but there's
certainly all the renewable energy in that nifty and rather newish
world that you can possibly need for extracting as much h2o as you'd
like, and for otherwise making all the artificial ice or perhaps
frozen h2o2 you'd care to have at your disposal. Venus is anything
but a dead Mars like planet.
Too bad the very best of Usenet expertise is anything but.
Guth Venus site #2 and #3 are considerably more subjective
interpretations than of the Guth Venus site No.1. There's only
perfectly good enough reasons to consider these other two sites as
being most likely what I've suggested, even though there simply is not
sufficient resolution for most of us to deal with.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/new-sites.html
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
If I'd applied better PhotoShop, as such the surrounding terrain of
what's most likely of hot rock and whatever's the local soil or
perhaps of all of that supposed melted lead (though why the hell not
melted gold) would become as equally enhanced as for the village or
township like setting that's hosting all of those extremely
interesting structures and infrastructure. Even the small 1:1 crop of
raw pixel information is simply good enough image information to
suggest upon intelligent other life existing/coexisting upon Venus.
If you folks simply can't be bothered as to sharing an honestly open
mindset, then I most certainly can't be bothered as to try any honest
efforts at sharing whatever little I happen to know is worth sharing.
Such image interpretations are not easy (just ask our resident warlord
about all of those WMD that turned out being every bit as stealth as
Usama bin Laden). Your best interpretations are in fact going to be
different than mine, which really doesn't bother myself as long as you
are honestly trying to see the potential of whatever's within the
original 36 look/pixel image (that's similar to 36 stacks of a given
CCD composite image) are having to suggest as to a reasonably positive
or yaysay mindset.
In other words, if you folks start yourself off within the usual
mainstream naysay boxed mindset, you might as well forget about
whatever's within the image interpretation of even appreciating all of
those surrounding hot rocks, because no matters what, in that case
nothing whatsoever counts, just as though you're Amish or perhaps
Muslim about such photographs, yet you'll believe each and every NASA/
Apollo related photograph is God's truth and nothing but the truth,
that pertains to such representing the one and only real thing. (go
figure)
-
Brad Guth
brad...@gmail.com
without benefit of having all that much salt, as well as having gone
without a magnetosphere or a worthy moon to boot. Titan and possibly
Ceres, or even Sedna with it's redish ice offers more life worthy butt
kicking potential than Mars.
An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take a thousand years, and we're either toast and/or we're
soon enough becoming Mars like.
We're deep into achieving our point of no return, of the ongoing GW
thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while most all of that
nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a good enough
moon for keeping that planetology core and of a surface of interactive
tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking, as is very much the
case for mother Earth.
Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
> As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/
Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet
before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.
Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit.
At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be?
After the great thaw, would there be any salty remainders?
Perhaps Mars was a mostly a swamp and/or of some other geothermally
forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise the necessary
quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as though it had
been nearly entirely missed upon getting its fair share of salt to
begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been strip-mined or
somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.
Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)
If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of having at least 1.5e17 kg
of whatever Na to deal with.
Have those salty types of minerals and percentage or PPM worth of
whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those robotic
samples taken and processed thus far?
Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less
quantify?
Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold?
Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations,
as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of
a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive
moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of
salt to behold than Mars. What gives?
As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars
once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it
still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of
thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume
or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once
upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life
(meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere
microbes and/or diatom like spores).
If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as
Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its
global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and
thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what
actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on
Mars.
What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based
notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much
older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived
since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most
seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar
system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been
dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of
likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy
moons and planet sized debris.
At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is
what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core energy
that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding 78 mw/m2, whereas
our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has been so much so
helping that it has become by far our primary GW consideration like
none other. Obviously adding our global dimming soot into the ongoing
GW demise of our frail environment that's also losing its portective
magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year isn't exactly
helping, at least not any more so than our artificial methods of
having been evaporating water that's only adding to our atmospheric
cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently ranges
anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes, depending
entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics driven
science you'd care to take to the bank.
It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.
-
Brad Guth
Bill Snyder
>On Mar 11, 10:03 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:01:17 +0000 (UTC), "BradGuth"
>>
>> <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"BradGuth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:5d28ff28.03072...@posting.google.com
>>
>> >There's still other intelligent life to behold on Venus.
>>
>> >Sorry if that rains bad news for our crack NASA wizards.
>>
>> Your delusions are bad news only for you, nutbar.
[blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
>If you folks simply can't be bothered as to sharing an honestly open
>mindset, then I most certainly can't be bothered as to try any honest
>efforts at sharing whatever little I happen to know is worth sharing.
Then shut the fuck up, loon.
[blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit]
brad...@gmail.com
of the truth and nothing but the truth, especially if there's another
one of their very own MIB shadows attached.
Clearly our moon is causing us a rather nasty bout of GW trauma,
that'll soon enough get forgotten all about once our WWIII gets
further under way. So, there's not much point in relocating our moon
into Earth's L1, because by then there will not be enough souls
remaining alive on whatever's left of this GW smoking hot Earth,
that'll give a tinkers damn.
These seemingly nice folks of this WWW.naysayvill of Usenet's anti-
think-tank hell on Earth, that insist in keeping with their Old
Testament ways, imposing that Earth is their one and only viable
planet as intended for accommodating these mostly Jewish humans within
this entire universe that otherwise sucks, are at best really
something special when it comes down to being so narrow mindset and
otherwise so downright faith-based nasty about enforcing all of it.
I'm not at all certain if I can get myself far enough down, as to
meeting their extremely low standards for such inefficient if not
totally pathetic intelligent design, or otherwise qualify on behalf of
their 100+ billion year happenstance of mother/father nature doing its
random evolution thing, that supposedly created us upon this one and
only viable planet of theirs.
Seems to me that there should actually be lots of nifty but entirely
different than Earth planets and/or moons, upon which smart enough
folks could manage to survive, and of those smarter yet capable of
interplanetary commuting, if not a few species capable of
accomplishing something interstellar worthy.
The others of us thinking, that as of somewhat recently other
intelligent life had existed upon Mars is equally pushing the outer
limits of my mindset. Although I'm not excluding Martian microbes and/
or spore like forms of life that may even still coexist underground or
within sufficient ice, whereas much larger forms of even the most
weird life would be highly unlikely unless they've evolved into having
rad-hard DNA, as well as for having damn little need of heat or o2.
However, as for going back a billion years seems to suggest that
almost anything was possible as derived from the active geothermal
core.
Applied technology would likely make for human life on Mars doable, at
perhaps a trillion dollars per 100 kg/year should do that trick, or
possibly as little as a mere billion dollars per 100 kg if it's
intended as a one-way ticket to ride. That's certainly spendy but
none the less becoming doable as long as spending 1% of that amount
for accomplishing Venus is simply out of the question. God forbid,
they wouldn't want to waste any of their all-knowing talents or
resources upon improving or otherwise salvaging our frail environment,
as that too is against their Old Testament status quo of making the
rest of us pay for everything, including with our lives if need be.
So, if that big old and nearby moon isn't representing or otherwise
offering the least bit of whatever physics of GW trauma to worry
about, then perhaps nothing is worth so much as a kind thought, nor so
much as another mention until it's too late. Meanwhile, China, India
and Germany are each headed for our moon, and perhaps even Japan will
make a run for taking up the moon's L1 position (the holy grail of
Star-Wars high ground). We energy starved Americans on the other
hand, whereas we'll still be trying our best to defend all of that
Muslim oil that's in Iraq, while also nuking Iran on the side. The
only global energy thing that's left for us to pillage and fight over
is yellowcake.
Why to worry our dumbfounded selves over GW, especially if there's the
ongoing WWIII and of WWIV over global energy reserves to look forward
to?
-
Brad Guth
Art Deco
>salt
>salt.
>salty
>salt
>salt
>salt
>salt
>rock salt
>salty
>salt,
>salty
>rock salt
>salt
>salt like substance
>salt
>salt,
>salt(s)
>salt
>salt
>salt
>salty
>salt
I think you need to go cold turkey on the margaritas, Brad.
>It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
>very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
>while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
>resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
>almost sadistic, if not insane.
Really?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
Art Deco
>This mostly Old Testament faith-based Usenet is simply deathly afraid
>of the truth and nothing but the truth, especially if there's another
>one of their very own MIB shadows attached.
<http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=guth>
brad...@gmail.com
those that see no problems whatsoever with their excessively spending
most all of our hard earned loot on their off-world hobby, that which
seems to include their continued snookering of all the rest of us
village idiots. (it's no wonder these folks see nothing the least bit
wrong with our resident warlord's actions, as well as accepting upon
whatever our government has done in the past or plans upon doing in
the near future is perfectly OK, as long as they get to do their
thing)
How about instead of our wasting such supposed talents, draining our
best resources and having mostly lost precious time, why not instead
they should be talking to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's
not of Earth, telling us when that big old icy sucker arrived and of
how we subsequently obtained our seasonal tilt. If they're so gosh
darn smart, as such they can start off by telling us of whatever it's
going to take for relocating our moon, such as out to Earth's L1, so
that a significant and/or perhaps do-everything lid can once and for
all be placed upon our GW fiasco, that's going to need all the help it
can get.
Unfortunately, our "Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon" actually doesn't hold
much of a candle to the fire that's continually burning up all of
those hard earned billions upon billions of dollars, as for getting
badly spent on behalf of Mars, or of worse yet upon whatever it's
taking for going far beyond.
In spite of all that blown loot and lost time on behalf of whatever
life might have once upon a time existed on Mars, that at best sucks
real bad, and/or is of life that's going to remain as damn spendy to
boot, if not a touch lethal to our environment. If Mars life was ever
into kicking any serious butt, it's having done such without benefit
of having all that much salt, as well as having gone without a
magnetosphere or a worthy moon to boot. Titan and possibly Ceres, or
even Sedna with it's reddish ice offers more life worthy butt kicking
potential than Mars, and we obviously can't humanly go to/from either
of those places, much less return with anything worthy of humanity or
that of salvaging our badly failing environment.
An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take another iffy thousand years, and we're either toast and/
or we're soon enough on the road to becoming Mars like.
We're rather deep into achieving our point of no return, of the
ongoing GW thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while most
all of that nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a
good enough moon for keeping that planetology core and whatever
surface of interactive tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking,
as is very much the case for mother Earth.
Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
> As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/
Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet,
that is before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.
Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit.
At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be?
After the great thaw, would there be any salty remainders?
Perhaps Mars was a mostly a cool swamp and/or of some other
geothermally forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise
the necessary quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as
though it had been nearly if not entirely missed upon getting its fair
share of salt to begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been
strip-mined or somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.
Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)
If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of their having at least
1.5e17 kg of whatever Na to deal with.
Have those salty types of minerals and of their percentage or PPM
thermal energy, that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding
78 mw/m2, whereas our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has
been so much so helping that it has become by far our primary GW
consideration like none other. Obviously adding our global dimming
soot into the ongoing GW demise of our frail environment that's also
losing its protective magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year
isn't exactly helping, at least not any more so than our artificial
methods of having been evaporating water that's only adding to our
atmospheric cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently
ranges anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes,
depending entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics
driven science you'd care to take to the bank.
It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.
We can't even honestly accomplish our moon's L1, much less the moon
itself, yet a fuzzy if not hocus-pocus future of spending more than a
trillion per decade seems likely without hardly a dollar going towards
resolving our need of accomplishing a substantial cache of solar and
wind derived renewable energy, much less for extracting from the
energy that's existing between Earth and our moon.
-
Brad Guth
Jeff Findley
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:190320070913343736%er...@caballista.org...
> <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>salt
>>salt.
>>salty
>>salt
>>salt
>>salt
>>salt
>>rock salt
>>salty
>>salt,
>>salty
>>rock salt
>>salt
>>salt like substance
>>salt
>>salt,
>>salt(s)
>>salt
>>salt
>>salt
>>salty
>>salt
>
> I think you need to go cold turkey on the margaritas, Brad.
Let him drink his margaritas. You just need to killfile him every time he
changes his account to avoid reading the crap he posts.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Art Deco
But I enjoy poking him with sharp sticks from time-to-time, although I
don't reply to every post he makes. I also cross-post his kooky ideas
to newsgroups where he is very much on-topic. His new obsession with
"salt" I personally find very amusing. If this is a problem for you,
then you should probably killfile me.
brad...@gmail.com
telling us their same old mainstream infomercial crapolla, such as
informing us as to how supposedly wet Mars had once been, tell us what
we don't know about our highly unusual moon, about Venus, or about the
Sirius star/solar system that might relate to those pesky ice ages and
otherwise of our ongoing GW fiasco, that sees no apparent end in sight
as long as we keep holding onto that nasty moon of ours.
Here's another slightly corrected/polished contribution, as intended
for those that see no problems whatsoever with their excessively
spending most all of our hard earned loot on their off-world hobby,
that which seems to include their continued snookering of all the rest
of us village idiots.
(it's no wonder these silly Usenet clowns see nothing the least bit
wrong with our resident warlord's actions, as well as accepting upon
whatever our government has done in the past or plans upon doing in
the near future is all perfectly OK, as long as they get to do their
thing at the same ongoing expense and/or demise of others)
We're rather deep into achieving our point of no return, of assisting
the ongoing GW thawing process of what's losing our surface ice caps,
Doing Venus isn't 1% the cost of accomplishing the same task for
Mars. At least you can efficiently go about your business (if need be
all 19 months worth of it) as safely within that composite rigid
airship, transporting yourself safely above the geothermally toasty
surface of Venus, without hardly expending energy or having to ever
set a hot foot on that deck.
-
Brad Guth
brad...@gmail.com
clowns and Art's farts to deal with.
Too bad I'm 100% right about our NASA, about our government and
apparently more right than I'd thought about all of those smart Jewish
Third Reich minions that have been calling all the important shots
ever since they got rid of Jesus Christ, and then having lost their
replacement boss, Hitler.
I see that the truth and nothing but the truth is simply imposing too
much trauma for this anti-think-tank of a mostly infomercial spewing
Old Testament Usenet from hell can ever hope to deal with.
Apparently hocus-pocus conditional physics and otherwise need to know
science is about as good as it ever gets.
-
Brad Guth