How cold Earth w/o moon
Brad Guth
become if we could simply remove that pesky moon of ours?
I'm sure there's a few other factors (mostly negative) besides
temperature.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Roger Coppock
> Give us a swag of some what-if numbers, as to how cold would this Earth
> become if we could simply remove that pesky moon of ours?
According to Wikipedia's article on moonlight:
. . . the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.
Which is roughly .003 W/m^2 or about one-thousandth of the
heat now trapped by greenhouse gases, 2.8 W/m^2. While
Moonshine is a powerful drink, it is not a very powerful climate
factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
In the global warming debate, the moon is a very significant
factor however. It is under the light of each full moon that
fossil fools meet to ritually cut out the still beating heart of
a young girl, smear themselfs with her blood, and then dance
naked chanting the mantra, "oil profits, oil profits!"
Garondo Marondo
Brad Guth wrote:
> Give us a swag of some what-if numbers, as to how cold would this Earth
> become if we could simply remove that pesky moon of ours?
>
> I'm sure there's a few other factors (mostly negative) besides
> temperature.
No tides, women folk won'yt get their monthly visitor, werewolves would
die out, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren would be very upset.
..
Garondo Marondo!
Brad Guth
news:1167068720.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com
> According to Wikipedia's article on moonlight:
>
> . . . the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.
>
> Which is roughly .003 W/m^2 or about one-thousandth of the
> heat now trapped by greenhouse gases, 2.8 W/m^2. While
> Moonshine is a powerful drink, it is not a very powerful climate
> factor.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
Well, that's certainly impressive about the humanly visible spectrum of
moonshine that doesn't even hardly represent squat as to the secondary
IR/FIR spectrum, of which the physically dark moon is actually offering
a darn good albedo of reflecting such IR/FIR photons at nearly 33%.
Much easier said than done; Find the IR/FIR spectrum worth of solar
energy/m2, then reflect roughly a third of that as from the big old dark
and nasty surface of that IR/FIR reflective moon, and don't forget about
all them secondary/recoil IR/FIR photons that are only going to add to
the tally.
> In the global warming debate, the moon is a very significant
> factor however. It is under the light of each full moon that
> fossil fools meet to ritually cut out the still beating heart of
> a young girl smear themselfs with her blood and then dance
> naked chanting the mantra, "oil profits, oil profits!"
Oil profits are good for the greedy soul. Own any Exxon or similar
fossil or yellowcake energy stock?
Don't be such a silly naysay rusemaster that's afraid of your own
shadow. The GW influence upon Earth from that big old and nearby mascon
of such a physically dark and somewhat salty moon is likely worth more
than 0.001% of it's 2e20 joules for having been somewhat recently
orbiting us, and subsequently causing all sorts of things (inside and
out) to move about.
I think it's been worth somewhat closer to 0.01%, of sharing roughly
39.1 joules/m2, although even 0.001% of 2e20 is worth 3.91 joules/m2.
Of course, even 0.0001% of 2e20 joules, if focused upon the +/- 45
degrees worth of this Earth/moon gravity bulging orb, is going to more
than do the trick.
Without the extra tidal movements of oceans alone is worthy of our
losing a friction causing butt load of terajoules, especially impressive
w/o moon as warm water is going to be having a much tougher time at
reaching and otherwise physically moving and thus kept from unavoidably
affecting polar or hardly any other accessible ice.
Have you thought about moderated weather w/o moon? (apparently not)
BTW; Earth's core has been cooling off at the rate of roughly 13
terajoules.
Earth's core thermal transfer or "heat flow" of what eventually becomes
a surface radiated heat before going into our badly polluted atmosphere
and eventually out into space as negative thermal transfer = 25.43
mw/m2. So, if anything, we should have been getting cooler or at least
equalizing against the minor increase in solar influx no matters what.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21354
"Extrapolating to the entire surface of the core gave a total heat flow
of about 13 trillion watts."
-
Brad guth
Brad Guth
> According to Wikipedia's article on moonlight:
> . . . the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.
>
> Which is roughly .003 W/m^2 or about one-thousandth of the
> heat now trapped by greenhouse gases, 2.8 W/m^2. While
> Moonshine is a powerful drink, it is not a very powerful climate
> factor.
Where did I ever once ask or even imply anything about common/visible
moonshine, that's as you'd say a rather wussy amount of energy/m2.
Why are you being so braille as to the regular laws of physics, yet you
keep seeing all of that nifty moonshine as though it means something?
If we're actually going to seriously talk about wussy moonshine; Can
your eyes see all of the terrific IR or FIR spectrum? (I didn't think
so)
Brad Guth
news:1167073793.6...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> No tides, women folk won'yt get their monthly visitor, werewolves would
> die out, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren would be very upset.
Silly boy. But come to think about it, we'd have a whole lot fewer
bitches going postal each month, whereas they'd have to make due like
all the other 99.9% of much older and better established life on Earth
that's entirely unrelated to moon cycles, and the likes of Neil
Armstrong and Buzz Aldren wouldn't have to keep such straight
butt-cracks when telling us stories.
Ken S. Tucker
Brad Guth wrote:
> Give us a swag of some what-if numbers, as to how cold would this Earth
> become if we could simply remove that pesky moon of ours?
The moon adds about 80 megatons of TNT equivalent
per day to the interior of the earth, and that roughly
accounts for tectonics and earthquakes.
Ken
Brad Guth
news:1167079232....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
> The moon adds about 80 megatons of TNT equivalent
> per day to the interior of the earth, and that roughly
> accounts for tectonics and earthquakes.
> Ken
Sounds good for what's continually happening mostly below our feet
because of that orbiting mascon. Now for removing that "80 megatons of
TNT equivalent per day" of energy is going to eventually cool Earth to
what extent?
JXStern
<brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:1167079232....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
>
>> The moon adds about 80 megatons of TNT equivalent
>> per day to the interior of the earth, and that roughly
>> accounts for tectonics and earthquakes.
>> Ken
>
>Sounds good for what's continually happening mostly below our feet
>because of that orbiting mascon. Now for removing that "80 megatons of
>TNT equivalent per day" of energy is going to eventually cool Earth to
>what extent?
"eventually" is a long time.
And why exactly was this crossed to r.a.tv?
J.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> J.
Because Brad Guth is a really bad SCI-FI/comedy show?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Brad Guth
news:83j0p2998msd9evfa...@4ax.com
> "eventually" is a long time.
OK, per second or per whatever frame of time you'd care to impose.
> And why exactly was this crossed to r.a.tv?
Because it's worth a televised post, don't you think? (at least as good
as "string theory")
I'll also have to repost my previous reply, simply because Mailgate just
had another one of their stealth moderation bouts of intellectual
banishment flatulence.
Brad Guth
news:1167079232....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
> Brad Guth wrote:
Once again, Mailgate/Usenet is not responding to the call of the wild.
I post my heart out and the Mailgate index shows absolutely nothing
except "Mailgate: Message not accessible". Such as per having posted
the following effort that other than within GOOGLE/Usenet, I can't seem
to tell if it's sticking or not.
According to "Ken S. Tucker":
: The moon adds about 80 megatons of TNT equivalent
: per day to the interior of the earth, and that roughly
: accounts for tectonics and earthquakes.
: Ken
I'd said; that sounds good enough for what's continually happening
mostly below our feet, all because of that orbiting mascon. Now for
removing that "80 megatons of TNT equivalent per day" of energy that's
transpiroring mostly underground, as such is going to eventually cool
Earth to what extent?
1 ton TNT equivalent = 1e9 cal = 4.184e9 Joules
1 Megaton TNT = 4.184e15 Joules
80 megatons of TNT/day = 33.472e16 Joules/day
33.472e16 joules/day = 3.87407e12 j/sec worth of ongoing tectonics,
earthquakes and unavoidably becoming geothermal energy, which might
actually be a little conservative swag, but for the moment sounds about
right, especially since I'd been suggesting at least 0.001% of the
orbital 2e20 joules has been influencing our environment in a big enough
way (3.91 j/m2), as to being more than responsible for having created
the vast bulk of our global warming fiasco.
Any wild chance that it's worth more than 800 megatons of TNT per day,
possibly 1e9/day?
Ken S. Tucker
Brad, I respect your interrogation of this problem.
Here's what we figure...
Given that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 cm/year,
as best determined by laser ranging,
assuming the moon isn't contracting,
or the Earth isn't expanding,
I balanced the Angular Momentum (A.M.)
and found the Earth's day to be increasing
by .0018 seconds/century, in order to conserve
Earth-moon system A.M.
At this rate, we have calculated
a net energy of 26,000 Megatons equivalent of TNT
is placed into the Earth's lithosphere
and crust per year, or about 70 megatons per day.
Of course, the Angular Energy must be conserved as well.
This amounts to only about 5 milliwatts/meter^2,
but it integrates in effect.
The tidal force from moon's gravity
creates variable torque forces on earth's lithosphere.
This in turn creates a *curl field* that causes tectonic current,
something not in evidence in Venus,
but should have been
if the circulation is caused by convection. (ie. radio-isotopes).
We conclude the moon is responsible
for tectonic and seismic action in and on Earth.
Reference equations,
Moment of inertial for a sphere with constant density,
I = 2/5 M R^2.
Radians /sec = w.
Angular Momentum, AM = I w.
Angular Energy AE = 1/2 I w^2.
A Possible Tidal Effect Feb 28, 2001 (date of suppostion)
The summit furthest from the center of the Earth,
Mt Chimborazo, 98 miles south of the equator in the Andes,
is 7054 feet further than Mt. Everest.
It should be most subject to Lunar Tidal force.
This happens to be near the location
of strongest measured earthquake in Chile in 1960.
It is also of interest that the America's
are being pulled away from the Eurasian/African land mass.
This is a significant coincidence,
and a predictable effect of tidal force.
Since the Moon (and Sun) rise in the east,
and move to the west,
it would gravitatitionally attract the closest land mass,
that being the land furthest from the center of the Earth,
and closest to the Moon, and tend to move that mass from east to west.
This is predicted from the effects of tidal force,
and appears to be in evidence from tectonic plate shifting.
Again a significant coincidence.
This highly coincident empirical evidence,
based on the calculation of Earth-moon angular energy balance,
and not created to "explain" any particular geological effect
is to the credit of the theory.
Ken S. Tucker
PS: This seems to account for the stagnant nature of Venus's
surface, in the past 500 million years.
RichA
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:1167068720.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com
>
> > According to Wikipedia's article on moonlight:
> >
> > . . . the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.
> >
> > Which is roughly .003 W/m^2 or about one-thousandth of the
> > heat now trapped by greenhouse gases, 2.8 W/m^2. While
> > Moonshine is a powerful drink, it is not a very powerful climate
> > factor.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
>
> Well, that's certainly impressive about the humanly visible spectrum of
> moonshine that doesn't even hardly represent squat as to the secondary
> IR/FIR spectrum, of which the physically dark moon is actually offering
> a darn good albedo of reflecting such IR/FIR photons at nearly 33%.
>
>
Nothing like seeing two kooks debate each other. Pathetic, really.
Brad Guth
> We conclude the moon is responsible for tectonic
> and seismic action in and on Earth.
Interesting info that's way better than most, as to 70 megatons worth of
energy applied into the crust and lithosphere. What about the
super-rotating muck below all of that?
How much tidal forced energy is getting applied into our oceans and
atmosphere?
What about w/o whatever 3.8 cm/yr of recession taking place, of merely
sustaining the 2e20 joules worth of centripetal/orbital force as is.
Or, is there a little something else (aka electrostatic or magnetic)
keeping that moon stuck to our realm?
In other words, how many spare/extra terajoules does it take for keeping
our oceans and atmosphere on the move, as being accomplished via the
moon's tidal/gravity forces.
According to some wise enough environmental wizards, it takes the likes
of roughy +/- 10 j/m2 in order for mother Earth's seasonal tilt to pull
off her summer/winter thing. In other words, a relatively short term
thermal shift of 20 w/m2 takes an extremely hot summer environment into
the absolute dregs of an icy winter in essentially no planetology time
at all.
Therefore, over considerable time and without benefit of orbital mascon
imposed seismic, atmospheric and ocean tidal forces at play (other than
solar gravity generated), it seems as little as a sustained impact of
+/- 1 joule/m2 could eventually turn what's left of our frail
environment upside down. Thereby taking away a mere 2 j/m2 could
nullify GW if not put us into another gradual ice age cycle.
Now, I'm not into suggesting that we actually get rid of our moon. I'm
merely pointing out that with less attention on the sorts of hocus-pocus
physics that's orchestrating so much infomercial science, as having us
hyped into being afraid of our own shadows while running us every which
way but lose, whereas instead we can focus our best talents and
resources upon efforts that could make or break our future plans.
It seems knowing where the bulk of GW energy is derived from is simply a
win-win for the old save thy butt gipper, that's unavoidably a healthy
part our ongoing environmental fiasco that has long since managed to
have taken a notch out of our insufficient albedo that's only getting
worse off as we rant on and on, that which has only created more at risk
than merely the ongoing task of our assisting in the process of melting
every last km3 of ice in order to make our badly polluted oceans of
becoming mostly jellyfish habitats deeper.
There are some species of life upon Earth (including a few too many
humans) that simply haven't evolved sufficiently or having lost too many
of those nifty DNA codes along the way, in order to cope with the
failing magnetosphere and that of our assisted GW fiasco at the same
time, at least not without having to pay the ultimate price, and then
some. For this reason I'm thinking we need to start trying out a few
weird ideas, just in case we've missed a little something important
along the way.
-
>PS: This seems to account for the stagnant nature of Venus's
>surface, in the past 500 million years.
Other than most likely having lost it's moon to a larger planet, what's
all that "stagnant" about the relatively newish planetology and thereby
geothermally active environment of Venus?
chatnoir
A Earth that is rotating faster!
Brad Guth
news:1167096963.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> A Earth that is rotating faster!
Quite possibly, although isn't there a little something massive and
fluid that's super-rotating well below our feet?
If Earth were rotating faster w/o moon, whereas then the solar tidal
force of energy transfer would obviously greatly improve.
In other words, an 18 hour day might actually represent more tidal
affects via sol than we currently have at our sol/moon disposal, and a
zippy 12 hour day w/o moon would likely become somewhat pesky if not
downright impossible to survive, with or without ice. It seems the
slower rotation is offering the better alternative for our species of
life as we know it. Some of us old farts actually need 12 hours of rest
per day as is.
chatnoir
Brad Guth
news:66848286b527ed7faee...@mygate.mailgate.org
All the geophysical and morphology indications are here to behold, of
unexplained ocean basins and antipode elevations that seemingly emerged
within the same relatively narrow window of planetology time, as our
moderately cold and frosty proto-Earth was becoming flooded with
teratonnes of salty ice, as though merging along with a secondary icy
orb of such horrific mass, as to becoming a binary pair of planetary
orbs in orbit about the same star. At least that's one of several
possibilities.
Whereas once upon a proto-Earth time, and actually not so very long ago,
there was our snowy, frosty and otherwise extensively icy monoseason
realm w/o moon, w/o a significant seasonal tilt and lacking the likes of
an arctic ocean basin. There's even some indications that Earth had
once upon a time been in a highly elliptical orbit associated with
and/or influenced by a nearby binary star system, whereas the
pre-antipode of the arctic ocean basin's creation was also w/o having
such extensive mountains. The secondary icy shards of such massive
moon-ice spacebergs that returned as lethal teratonne asteroids of
nearly solid ice for the finishing touches of impacts and antipode
morphing our relatively smooth terrain into some of the peaks, basins
and valleys of the Earth we know of, is also most likely where the
panspermia influx of advanced human and other intelligent DNA emerged,
that which unavoidably became another portion of what we and many other
new and improved species of life are today.
If our MEL1(moon's L1) sweet spot or mutual gravity pocket of
interactive micro-g is to remain off-limits, as topic/author and even
science taboo (as though MEL1 were being reserved for China), then
perhaps we'll need to keep looking closer to home, as to the uncovering
best available solutions that have most recently been more than at hand,
but otherwise sequestered out of sight and thus out of mindset by most
all the big-energy cartels that supposedly have our best interest at
their little black cartel hearts. Otherwise, I do believe there's a
clean energy resource that always between us and our moon, of what could
resolve many of our future demands and even help extensively to defend
Earth from future NEOs that clearly have your name included within their
manifesto.
Therefore, given a little future outside the box thinking, if Earth w/o
moon was upon average to become roughly 50% covered in snow and ice, as
such we'd have a rather nifty amount of a highly reflective albedo at
our disposal, perhaps at times half again as reflective as our current
polluted and rather quickly becoming ice naked status quo environment
that's in the process of going to hell. Whereas instead of our being
too hot and too wet, becoming something within the frosty albedo realm
of 0.54 would become just the ticket, which I do believe most of us
could learn to live with.
After all, there's been absolutely no technical reasons for quite some
time, as to the current wealth in applications of proven physics and
well established science on behalf of creating green/renewable energy
that shouldn't cost us much greater than $0.01/kwhr, especially if such
were getting locally mass produced via solar-PV/solar-Stirling and the
sorts of mega class wind tower with an efficient turbine, all components
as most likely made in China, as efficiently incorporated upon the very
same foundation/footprint, with whatever's in surplus energy converted
into the likes of LH2 and H2O2 that can then be sold on eBay for top
dollar.
From that global frosty point on, we could damn well and otherwise
freely pillage, rape and simply exploit and rather badly burn and soot
the living hell out of mother Earth for all she's worth, and we'd be no
GW worse off for ware.
Once most all the global reserves of oil, coal, natural gas and
yellowcake are expended, and as for accomplishing WW-IV (WW-III over
global energy reserves being a given) we could simply toss our nasty
black-water ice balls at one another, instead of utilizing whatever else
we had that no longer functioned w/o fuel and/or w/o explosives that
unfortunately no longer exist, because all such viable energy had been
previously diverted on behalf of keeping our arrogant infomercial
spewing butts warm. Finally, there's piece on Earth and good will to
the few remaining and far between men on Earth (all woman and children
having left Earth behind for good because us men are still acting as
such absolute born-again heathen morons).
Unknown
Brad Guth
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_mechanics_0303018.html
Thanks for the usual infomercial science link of your Old Testament
certified swag that doesn't really explain anything.
BTW; besides all the gauntlet of spermware from your pagan space.com
link, it really doesn't work on behalf of my theory, does it. Where's
my Space.Com infomercial page?
Brad Guth
news:45915f48$0$80040$742e...@news.sonic.net
> Quit posting all this off-topic stuff to irrelevant newsgroups!
What's topic relevant about your reply. I see nothing of physics,
science or even Earth/moon swag within your silly words.
If anything is being topic/news group "irrelevant", it's clearly
yourself.
Why the heck not make it into a televised infomercial, like all the
other science infomercial crapolla you folks continually promote, at
public expense to boot.
chatnoir
Brad Guth wrote:
> "chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:1167121053.4...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
>
> > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_mechanics_0303018.html
>
> Thanks for the usual infomercial science link of your Old Testament
> certified swag that doesn't really explain anything.
>
> BTW; besides all the gauntlet of spermware from your pagan space.com
> link, it really doesn't work on behalf of my theory, does it. Where's
> my Space.Com infomercial page?
> -
> Brad Guth
>
Ve could go back to 1870 then!:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0370-1662(1870%2F1871)19%3C9%3AOTROHF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
Brad Guth
> Ve could go back to 1870 then!:
>
> http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0370-1662(1870%2F1871)19%3C9%3AOTROHF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
We're sorry.
JSTOR could not retrieve the requested article because the link contains
an error. If you need assistance with locating the correct article,
please contact JSTOR User Services and include the Technical Error
Message below in your message.
What so great or not about 1870?
chatnoir
Brad Guth wrote:
> "chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:1167157419.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
>
> > Ve could go back to 1870 then!:
> >
> > http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0370-1662(1870%2F1871)19%3C9%3AOTROHF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
>
> We're sorry.
> JSTOR could not retrieve the requested article because the link contains
> an error. If you need assistance with locating the correct article,
> please contact JSTOR User Services and include the Technical Error
> Message below in your message.
>
> What so great or not about 1870?
> -
> Brad Guth
My computer has no problem opening the link!
Brad Guth
> My computer has no problem opening the link!
Mine doesn't. Sorry about that.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
If our seasonal tilt is essentially removing 20 j/m2 as good for a
blazing summer turning into a frosty cold (meaning below freezing by
day) winter, as though achieving this frosty status while almost on the
fly (meaning damn near overnight), then perhaps a mere -2 j/m2 over a
decade will more than turn the same trick for nearly 50% of Earth's
surface.
At 0.001% of the moon's 2e20 j worth of orbital mascon related energy
that's converted into tidal forces above and below ground, which by the
way amounts to roughly 3.91 j/m2, is obviously overkill on behalf of
forcing GC(global cooling) if that energy were somehow removed from
affecting our extremely frail global environment.
We'd also be left with those somewhat wussy solar tides and otherwise
really stinky oceans of mostly robust jellyfish to boot, so we'd have
next to nothing to lose because, we've been headed in that direction
anyway.
If 50% of Earth is frosty or colder; what's our new and improved
albedo?
Brad Guth
news:1167089745.1...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Nothing like seeing two kooks debate each other. Pathetic, really.
What infomercial spewing space toilet are you speaking from? or are you
speaking of yourself?
In other words, as dumb and dumber that you are, you haven't a clue as
to what our moon represents to Earth.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Apparently Earth gets super cold w/o our trusty moon. Imagine that, the
regular laws of physics and I'm still right as rain.
Too bad that our own nearby moon remains as so taboo/nondisclosure, so
much so that even MEL1/(moon's L1) is still off limits. I guess there's
something dark and scary out there.
I believe it's very true and open minded to accept that God, God's ETs
as his/her little minion helpers, or possibly if given hundreds of
billions of years via the purely random happenstance of cosmic energies
and fluctuations, or at least such as within our local 225 million year
galactic clock, and otherwise as due to that pesky little gravity thing
of essentially everything being in orbit about something other that's of
equal or better mass, is what could bring the likes of our solar system
into close contact of the Sirius Oort cloud (such as every 100,000 some
odd years) for a serious game of foreign DNA/RNA exchange via orbital
mechanics and lithobraking panspermia.
In somewhat better words;
Utilizing salty and otherwise icy (Sedna or Ceres like) orbs as proto
moons providing a viable means on behalf of transferring life as we know
it; Seems rather old hat, so why the hell not?
Lithopanspermia and you
I have no faith based or other purely scientific or physics problems
with the likes of multi teratonne lithobraking transfers of minerals,
salty ice and of the sorts of DNA/RNA life within that cosmic ice as we
know it, abd that's even if such opportunities having been intentionally
taken advantage of by way of sufficiently intelligent ETs having a
master plan.
"Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly
doable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1989431,00.html
"To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores
survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals.
The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals."
To honestly think a little outside the 'Earth only' box of evolution
that somehow favored none other than the human species; If much larger
than microbe/spore life as we know it were surrounded or otherwise
covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick and passengers within
could easily have survived the transfer, especially if such mergers were
of a sucker-punch glancing blow from behind, in which case you wouldn't
even require the Buick.
"Rusty" <reuben...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169000261.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
> lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
> forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
> may have seeded life to Mars by this method.
Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was
almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed
by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird
agenda.
Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a
stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus
each and very 19 month cycle.
Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought
it was usually the other way around).
When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?
Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during
and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention
or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon
of ours?
Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having
that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent?
Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o
summer/winter)?
Why did early/proto Venus have a beard?
Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty?
An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o
Moon" and a few other topics excluded/banished (as "Mailgate: Message
not available" or simply getting dropped out of sight), from within the
rec.org.mensa Mailgate/Usenet index?
Uncle Al
>
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3154bb5b272a6a05e08...@mygate.mailgate.org
>
> Apparently Earth gets super cold w/o our trusty moon. Imagine that, the
> regular laws of physics and I'm still right as rain.
How many moons does Venus have? Jupiter? What are their respective
temps?
> I believe it's very true and open minded to accept that God, God's ETs
> as his/her little minion helpers, or possibly if given hundreds of
> billions of years via the purely random happenstance of cosmic energies
> and fluctuations,
[snip more crap]
(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith (null set)
Science 315 59 (2007)
13.7 billion years (+/-)1% by observation.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
WaveMechanic
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:45AEA5FA...@hate.spam.net...
[snip river of shit]
FOaD, hypocrite, you are not sainted.
Brad Guth
news:c0yrh.87772$QY6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:45AEA5FA...@hate.spam.net...
>
> [snip river of shit]
>
> FOaD, hypocrite, you are not sainted.
But after all, "Uncle Al" is one of the all-knowing mainstream status
quo borgs. Therefore, life as we know it doesn't get any better, or
does it?
Too bad he's not nearly smart enough to answer my question as to how
cold is Earth w/o moon.
Brad Guth
Obviously Earth gets cold w/o moon.
Brad Guth
Earth w/o moon and w/o Sirius would have been the ultimate Winter
Olympic destination world of our solar system. Every 100,000 some odd
years the added warmth and life giving spectrums of illuminations via
Sirius would have made for a much less icy and otherwise a terrific
expedited life thriving environment, but w/o moon it would not stay that
way for long as our solar system treks itself away from the Sirius
star/solar system and of its massive Oort cloud of icy (Sedna/Pluto
like) proto-moons.
This is still an ongoing work in progress, though badly mainstream
status quo flak damaged, I believe it's our best game in town for
appreciating what our physically dark and nasty moon, that's so
absolutely massive in ratio to its binary partner, has to offer such an
environment that would otherwise have been nearly that of a frosty
monoseason with an extremely modus solar tide and at times icy into the
tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. In other words, Earth w/o moon and w/o
Sirius would have been the ultimate Winter Olympics globe of mostly snow
and ice, that which only the winter sporting humans like us could
appreciate.
Unless you folks don't happen to believe in the regular laws of physics,
in that case I'll share my dyslexic encrypted research which essentially
stipulates that our somewhat recently obtained moon has been the primary
GW culprit, and then of course it's also caused by a little damage to
our somewhat sooty albedo, of what we've accomplished on behalf of
dimming our global environment so that we manage to get more solar
energy into our badly failing environment, and thirdly it's the sun
doing it's usual thing of gradually going postal as it expands unless
something feeds the right sort of fuel into that sucker.
With each orbital applied kgf = 9.80665 joules, the influence upon all
that's Earth by way of our extremely large, massive and nearby orbital
mascon we call our moon is worth 2e20 Joules.
At the very least, some of that orbital/tidal energy gets unavoidably
converted into heat via tidal friction that's directly associated with
our atmosphere, oceans and the internal movements of the Earth itself
that's below our dumbfounded two left feet. That's not to mention the
direct influence upon having transferred thermal energy about our globe
due to the atmospheric and ocean tidal currents.
0.001% of 2e20 j/m2 = 3.91 j/m2, or per surface m3 if you'd care to
think in terms of surface volume, that's in some way or another
distributed upon/within the average surface area of Earth. Obviously
the equator receives the vast majority of that lunar/tidal energy, and
the north/south poles receive the least in direct benefit. I'm
excluding upon the secondary/recoil worth of lunar IR/FIR because it's
still so taboo/nonmdisclosure to even talk about, and otherwise even
though our moon's IR/FIR albedo is fairly high (roughly 0.33~0.5), our
moon's IR/FIR most likely isn't worth 1% of what the gravity/tidal
influence has to offer.
Moon's tidal energy, upon average at 0.001% = 3.91 j/m2
Us humans at one kj/soul = 6.7e12 joules = 13.1 mj/m2
Mother Earth that's getting rid of 40 TJ = 78.25 mj/m2
The 2e20 J as per acting upon the total volume of Earth (excluding our
52e17 kg of atmosphere), with Earth's physical volume being 1.083e21 m3
= 185 mj/m3
At .01% of 2e20 J, isn't the moon actually worthy of 39.1 j/m2 ?
I happen to believe in the regular laws of physics, and in those thermal
dynamics that's derived from good old friction and the unavoidable
transferring of such energy about and within our globe, whereas my best
swag as to our moon's tidal affects upon Earth is leaning closer to if
not a tough greater than 0.01%, therefore we're talking about receiving
a continuous surface environment worth of 39.1 j/m2, and at best our
combined (all inclusive) human influence or environmental impact simply
isn't worth much greater than 10% of that amount (as even that's 298
kj/soul), therefore perhaps humanity isn't at best worth but 1% of the
total GW package.
So, you folks can cry all you want about whatever humanity did or didn't
do to mother Earth, and lo and behold global warming will unavoidably
continue w/o our help, though merely at a slightly reduced rate, and
that's even if each and every fossil consuming or even yellowcake energy
sucking and unavoidably soot and toxic chemical polluting soul upon this
planet were removed. Sorry about that.
Brad Guth
In spite of most others with all of their flak tossing faith based
ulterior motives and hidden agendas, I care about sharing the plain old
truth and nothing but the truth. Such as sharing in what our somewhat
recently obtained moon has to offer our rather badly failing
environment, or how otherwise extra cold Earth would get without having
that nearby mascon of such a physically dark and nasty moon of our's.
How about yourself? GOT TRUTH ?
Our "Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus", is no lie, and in
spite of all of their orchestrated mainstream status quo flak and
hypology of their infomercial spewing damage control, it seems there's
renewable energy to burn (sort of speak) while on Venus. To say
"Colonization Of The Stars And Contact With Aliens: The Last False Hope
Of The Secularists" isn't hardly saying squat when there has been
perfectly good evidence and the rational code of physics that's on
behalf of ETs having coexisted upon Venus.
We're past the point of no return when it comes down to smelling them
roses. There may not be Venusian roses, but there's likely damn near
anything else you can imagine. Any such newish planetology as offered
by the likes of Venus has got to be more than a wee bit interesting, and
valuable.
And yet once again and again, I see that we have the usual ongoing
PC/MAC trashing game of Usenet spooks, moles and wise old Jewish fart
MIB wizards deploying their very best browser interactive
spermware/fuckware, as obviously the tactical norm of their Old
Testament formulated mainstream status quo fuckology of topic/author
stalking, bashings and banishments. Therefore, we'll just have to keep
updating and reposting our truth worthy topics until a few of them nifty
NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows of their's come home.
It's getting a little bit like The Wizard of Oz on steroids;
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 that of 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, whereas our moon seriously sucks much
worse than Mars. 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 being so much older than Earth and
about as near planetology death as you're going to get).
At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being Russian 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 space
station outpost good news, or what, then nothing is.
While rather quickly roasting our wieners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), the only question is 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 habitat 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 having to deal with
fending off that bone dry heat, which seems by all manner of known
physics as being rather manageable, if not a touch overkill.
BTW; Venus is of a newish planetology which 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), for making those less spendy local
interplanetary calls that shouldn't take hardly any energy to accomplish
with a quantum binary packet mode of those 425 nm FM/(+/-25 nm) photons
or perhaps something of UV/a doing their extremely efficient thing.
Brad Guth
Apparently the following topic is simply too far outside the
anti-think-tank box of this Usenet from status quo hell.
Earth-Moon L1 Considerations
Posted by Rand Simberg at December 05, 2006 10:18 AM
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008121.html#008121
I on the other hand can't find anything all that terribly wrong with
Rand Simberg's contribution, except for his having intentionally
excluded Clarke Station and that of my 256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS, and
apparently Van Allen is on is no-fly list to boot.
Of course, if we'd actually walked upon our physically dark and nasty
moon, we'd have established multiple interactive science instruments on
behalf of Earth/moon science and subsequently have known a whole lot
more than we do about the moon's L1 and of the somewhat salty old naked
and thereby unavoidably reactive moon itself.
Going back to our moon for a mostly robotic first hand look-see is a
perfectly good idea that shouldn't be excluded or otherwise taboo
banished as being the case that it is. Unfortunately, our fearless
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) hasn't a freaking honest clue as to the
advantages of establishing and holding onto the moon's L1 for much of
anything. It's as though we needn't have that massive mascon of such a
nearby moon going around Earth because, that sucker apparently so defies
the regular laws of physics that it's nearly if not humanly
insurmountable for other than cloak and dagger and/or hocus-pocus ideals
that suit the faith based mainstream and of their status quo or bust
mindset.
Too bad there's no applied physics that's allowed to share in the truth
and nothing but the global warming truth about that pesky moon of ours.
Too bad that our ocean basins and of their antipodes were formed by way
of the same hocus-pocus sorts of magic that had us supposedly walking on
the moon via 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload and nearly 30% GLOW inert as
having hauled their unproven fly-by-rocket landers w/o momentum reaction
wheels, as for otherwise the regular laws of physics and of replicated
scientific proof might summarily mess everything up to such an extent
that we'd all have to get a new religion.
I guess all of those ice ages had something weird to do with those
previous heathens on Earth that simply didn't know any better than not
to pollute this Earth in order to prevent the next ice age. Of course
that method would have demanded nearly 100 billion of such souls for
tens of thousands of years using up nearly every scrap of fossil and bio
derived energy in sight, that is in order to have affected Earth's
environment to such an anti-ice-age extent.
Or, perhaps it has a little something rather obvious to do with our
having obtained that moon as of the last ice age. Take away that moon
and perhaps even revise our seasonal tilt back to the good old days, lo
and behold Earth has fewer ocean basins and gets very monoseason cold,
that is until our solar system manages to orbit itself near enough to
the Sirius star/solar system, or of whatever else fits the 100,000 and
some odd year orbital cycle.
Brad Guth
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3689ba0bdcb4f1c587...@mygate.mailgate.org
Or perhaps far better than relocating Sedna into our L1, as a somewhat
better notion yet, we could just solve all sorts of pesky problems by
way of moving our global roasting moon out to Earth's L1. Thereby
getting rid of all sorts of spare mascon/tidal energy that's inside
and out affecting our environment in a very GW bad sort of way.
How hard could that possibly be?
After all, it's already in a good far off orbit to start with, and
there's hardly a soul on Earth that gives a tinkers damn about it.
We'd just end up having ourselves a somewhat better sol+moon 24 hour
tide, which should be much less disruptive than the ongoing pesky tidal
fiasco we've got to deal with as is.
If Earth gets too cold, we could simply pollute the living crapolla out
of mother Earth, creating nasty soot everywhere, or simply relocate to
our moon that's rather efficiently parked at Earth's L1.
Brad Guth
Revised Guth swag/rant of the day.
Topic: USA urges scientists to block out sun
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sci/sci.space.policy/4cf0d021d2a5422c6eaa33237ffd0554.49644%40mygate.mailgate.org
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3689ba0bdcb4f1c587...@mygate.mailgate.org
Perhaps far better than relocating Sedna into our L1, as a somewhat
better notion yet, we could just solve all sorts of pesky problems by
way of moving our global roasting moon out to Earth's L1. Thereby
getting rid of all sorts of spare mascon/tidal energy that's inside
and out affecting our environment in a very GW and geophysical bad
sort of way.
How hard could that possibly be?
After all, it's already coasting along in a good enough far off orbit
to start with, and there's hardly a soul on Earth that gives a tinkers
damn about it.
We'd just end up having ourselves a somewhat better sol+moon 24 hour
tide, which should be much less disruptive than the ongoing pesky tidal
fiasco we've got to deal with as is.
If subsequently our Earth gets too cold, with hardly any applied energy
we could simply send our moon into the sun, or try the good old reliable
alternative of simply polluting the living crapolla out of mother Earth
(we're already expert wizards at doing that), creating butt loads of
nasty soot and the full gauntlet range of deploying toxic and
environmental trashing chemicals everywhere, or if push comes down to
shove, simply relocate the wealthy and most powerful folks to our moon
that's rather efficiently parked at Earth's L1, or perhaps employ WW-III
as our local global energy domination war to end all such silly wars
because, by then we'd be pretty much out of the required energy for
making all of those nifty chemical and nuclear bombs, by which those
items should otherwise compensate by way of warming things back up for
at least another decade or so.
Brad Guth
Relocating our moon to Earth's L1 seems a touch daunting, but with a
yaysay mindset and a constructive sense of motivation, most anything is
possible, especially if it pertains to saving your own butt or of those
butts you most admirer or worship.
The last time I'd checked, our somewhat salty and possibly semi-hollow
moon only weighed 7.35e22 kg.
Therefore, 7.35e13 kg of applied force (that's only 73.5 gigatonnes) for
a considerable amount of time should do the trick. Or, if we played our
billiard cards just right and diverted a few NEOs into our moon at just
the right timing and angle (china seems to be coming right along with
that sort of kinetic impact expertise), that should get the old ball
rolling at least in the right direction, and once and for all terminate
those pesky NEOs at the same time. I'd have to call that one yet
another win-win for old gipper.
Of course the alternative of simply implementing terajoules worth of
clean renewable energy might stay off the continual global warming trend
that's primarily caused by our absolutely massive moon, and as otherwise
assisted along by our own arrogant and greedy ways of having rather
badly done things for the past couple of centuries. In which case the
moon can stay and the LSE-CM/ISS can still become a good part of that
saving Earth analogy, by way of giving us loads of clean tether dipole
extracted energy plus efficient access as to whatever can be rather
easily pillaged and plundered out of the moon itself (we could even put
Halliburton plus the likes of Exxon and ENRON in charge, because, it
shouldn't hadly matter how badly they manage to trash our moon).
Brad Guth
America has been taking a bath in our own dumbfounded cesspool of wasted
energy, and it's only going to get warmer and nastier and thereby more
energy consuming as time goes on, no matters what because, it currently
takes more applied energy to cool our quality of life off than it does
for warming us up.
There's nearly a terajoule of energy that's being continually wasted for
commercially keeping the likes of beer, wine and soft drinks cold, and
that's in addition to conventional residential and/or office
refrigeration. The total all-inclusive energy budget for America and on
behalf of the American interest that are directly supporting our quality
of life is absolutely staggering to say the least.
The average American window and of their frames isn't hardly worth an
honest R-2 (especially of those left open for life essential ventilation
because we're simply not smart enough to utilize air to air exchangers).
Homes and commercial buildings should have a minimum insulation factor
of R-32 (including whatever windows), thus the fewer windows the better
unless they're IR blocking quads with Xenon gas.
Most all heating and cooling should be via geothermal wells, on average
being nearly twice as energy efficient as atmospheric based heat pumps.
Lighting should have becime at least 50% LED by now.
Towers of power should have been delivering their clean energy footprint
of 37.5 kw/m2 (that's roughly 100 fold better all-inclusive footprint
energy density than nuclear).
Instead of badly burning coal, oil and even natural gas that's loaded
with the likes of Radium and thereby Radon gas, as well as inefficiently
utilizing yellowcake, we should have been extracting clean energy from
our badly polluted and extensively dead-zone populated oceans, as well
as from space platforms, and otherwise from our moon.
As it stands, this pathetic uneducated country (other than hypology and
infomercial crapolla for brains) couldn't possibly waste any more energy
if it had to, although starting up and sustaining additional perpetrated
wars is certainly another horrific energy wasting step in the right
direction, and not to mention pissing off more than half the world at
the same time. Force inflation impact alone has more than doubled the
cost of damn near everything from a couple of decades ago, and having
exported or otherwise down-graded more than 25% of the jobs, and in
other nations that inflation impact has been several hundred percent in
just the last decade.
Brad Guth
Since +/- solar activity has next to nothing to do with our ongoing GW
situation, which actually started in as of after the last ice age.
However, the spendy notions of blocking out a sufficient portion of the
sun would cool Earth is why this following contribution would make for
an interesting production.
Perhaps instead of China going for establishing the one and only
LSE-CM/ISS, and thereby obtaining all sorts of valuable benefits of
global and of moon/space domination from accomplishing such; how about
instead their simply relocating our moon to Earth's L1?
Wherever the heck that physically dark, a bit salty and perhaps a touch
hollow and otherwise downright nasty moon recently came from, it's still
in the process of doing us great harm. Besides our moon having created
the likes of our Arctic ocean basin and having established our seasonal
tilt, and otherwise because it's so freaking massive and nearby, whereas
there's 2e20 joules of mascon/tidal forces taking place, and all of that
applied energy is obviously going somewhere and reacting with whatever's
fluid enough.
Humans are perhaps at most 25% responsible for global warming, which is
obviously 25% too much, especially since we're already receiving more
than our fair share of mascon/tidal and secondary IR/FIR energy from our
somewhat recently obtained moon. Terribly sorry about that.
This following is yet another revised Guth swag/rant, of our global
warming day and nighttime as seen only by our moon, whereas it seems
Earth has been a lunar gravity heat-sink ever since its arrival some
time shortly after the last ice age. However, getting partially rid of
that moon could save the GW day, as well as a few of our sorry butts.
Topic: USA urges scientists to block out sun
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3689ba0bdcb4f1c587...@mygate.mailgate.org
Perhaps a far better notion than relocating Sedna into our L1 (at best
that's a good century away no matters what), as a somewhat better notion
yet, we could just resolve all sorts of pesky problems by way of moving
our global roasting moon out to Earth's L1. Thereby getting rid of all
sorts of spare mascon/tidal energy that's inside and out affecting our
environment in a very GW and geophysical bad sort of planetology way.
How hard could that possibly be?
After all, it's already coasting efficiently along in a good enough far
off orbit to start with, and there's hardly a village idiot soul on
Earth That's half smart enough to give a tinkers damn about it.
Once this moon to Earth L1 is accomplished, we'd just end up having
ourselves a somewhat better sol+moon 24 hour tide, which by rights
should be much less disruptive than the ongoing pesky tidal fiasco we've
got to deal with as is.
If subsequently our Earth gets a little too cold, with hardly any
applied energy we could simply send our moon into the sun, or we could
always try the good old reliable alternative of simply polluting the
living crapolla out of mother Earth (we're already expert wizards at
doing that), creating butt loads of nasty soot and the full gauntlet
range of deploying toxic and environmental trashing chemicals
everywhere, or if push comes down to shove, simply relocate the wealthy
and most powerful folks to our moon that's rather efficiently parked at
Earth's L1, or perhaps employ WW-III as our local global energy
domination war to end all such silly wars because, by then we'd be
pretty much out of the required energy for making all of those nifty
chemical and nuclear bombs, by which utilizing our healthy cache of such
items should otherwise compensate by way of warming things back up for
at least another decade or so.
-
Relocating our moon to Earth's L1 may seem a touch daunting, but with a
positive yaysay mindset and a constructive sense of motivation, it seems
most anything becomes possible, especially if it pertains to saving your
own butt or of those butts you most admirer or worship.
The last time I'd checked, our somewhat salty and possibly semi-hollow
moon only weighed 7.35e22 kg.
Therefore, 7.35e13 kg of applied force (that's only 73.5 gigatonnes) for
a considerable amount of time should do the trick. Or, if we played our
billiard cards just right and diverted a few NEOs into our moon at just
the right timing and angle (china seems to be coming right along with
that sort of kinetic impact expertise), that should get the old ball
rolling at least in the right direction, and once and for all terminate
those pesky NEOs at the same time. I'd have to call that one yet
another win-win for old gipper.
Of course, the more than affordable alternative of simply implementing
terajoules worth of clean renewable terrestrial energy (such as the 37.5
kj/m2 that I've proposed) should go a long ways towards staying off the
continual global warming trend that's primarily caused by our absolutely
massive and unfortunately nearby moon, and as otherwise having been
assisted along by our own history of arrogant and greedy ways of having
rather badly done things for the past couple of centuries. In which
case the moon can stay put and the LSE-CM/ISS can still become a good
part of that saving Earth analogy, by way of giving us loads of clean
tether dipole extracted energy plus efficient access as to whatever can
be rather easily pillaged and plundered out of the moon itself (we could
even put Halliburton plus the likes of Exxon and ENRON in charge,
because, it shouldn't hadly matter how badly they manage to trash our
moon).
Brad Guth
Apparently the regular laws of physics and of whatever's of the best
available replicated science simply do not apply to that of our moon or
therefore to our global warming fiasco. For that matter, Venus is
simply too off-world for those regular laws of physics to function at
all.
It's as though we're somehow stuck within another out-of-world sort of
weird dimension, where right is wrong, and for otherwise being wrong
really doesn't matter (especially if you're Jewish or of some other
faith based mindset that's 100% Old Testament certified), whereas being
wrong gets you a Nobel Prize.
Quiet Desperation
<7dcc920c8d9a0c495e1...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's as though we're somehow stuck within another out-of-world sort of
> weird dimension, where right is wrong, and for otherwise being wrong
> really doesn't matter (especially if you're Jewish or of some other
> faith based mindset that's 100% Old Testament certified), whereas being
> wrong gets you a Nobel Prize.
It's just ideology. It's one of the biggest mind cancers ever to afflict
the species, and will probably be our eventual undoing.
Brad Guth
news:x-F23E54.23...@news.giganews.com
> It's just ideology. It's one of the biggest mind cancers ever to afflict
> the species, and will probably be our eventual undoing.
That's the truth and nothing but the truth, and to think that many
millions upon millions have already paid the ultimate price due to our
silly ideology that's stuck in the 'me first', 'me first', 'me first'
mode of our having been taking all that we can from others before they
get an opportunity to advance.
Earth's moon is simply not of Earth, and I do believe we're getting
roasted (inside and out) by that nasty sucker of such a nearby mascon,
or is even that physics and scientific ideology too much to ask of our
continuing "mind cancer"?
Brad Guth
Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise these days of mainstream status
quo and faith based damage control on steroids, this following topic
seems rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, thus it must be
offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as "Message not available:"
"Temperature on global warming turned up" by William Elliot
The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our moon, which
isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by humanity (at best I'd buy
into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we all departed Earth and let
nature take its planetology course, this Earth would continue to thaw
from the last ice age this planet will ever see. As long as we have
that pesky moon of ours, ice age trapped methanes and CO2 will in fact
keep "Bubbling Through Seafloor Creates Undersea Hills", though at a
reduced rate if the human factor were entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, another truth being told that we're not supposed to know
about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our magnetosphere
has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.
Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons.
This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).
Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.
Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However Sol-->Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol-->L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)
However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, as our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon.
In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.
BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon-->planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.
If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.
On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo gasket, then
perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has a
perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as non-caring job without
ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and others of your kind.
Brad Guth
Besides our 100,000 some odd +/- year encounters with the Sirius
star/solar system, that had been of more frequent encounters in the
past, we've had our moon to deal with as of the last ice age this planet
will ever see. Take away our moon and Earth gets cold.
As geothermally heated from the active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and this taking of energy is even free of any
artificial CO2 potential), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly renewable
to boot. Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and
geothermally active nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as
scientifically off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers terminated, if not worse.
JFK honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult like
authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU>.
I happen to totally agree with the intent of honest renewable energy
topics, of promoting as much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a
composite of solar PV, stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in
fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe footprint of energy density
that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr/m2), that's likely to advance to the
50 kw/m2 level in the near future. Along with a national power grid
infrastructure, the areas best suited for this form of renewable energy
extraction can pick up as much as 75% of our future needs, along with
15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear (meaning near zero coal and oil).
Nations without hydroelectric or nuclear potential would obviously have
to make due with supplementing LNG and perhaps h2o2 in order to obtain
their maximum benefit with the least pollution from whatever fossil or
biofuel alternatives.
However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps their best all-inclusive
birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without a
tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and GW
deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is for going along with our utilizing
nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal
and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our global energy needs. So,
I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear. After all, there are
more than a few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't
be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and
oil spendy or otherwise unavailable, the only viable alternative may
come down to WW-III.
BTW; for this and most any other topic argument sake, the laws of
energy still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kw or 1 kwhr or
1 kjhr because, a jhr is still worth 3600 joules. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting, pillaging and
raping mother Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.
These Usenet big-energy folks that are the best at infomercial spewing
and for usually being directly or indirectly industry paid-for as
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the pro green/renewables of constructive
contributions have to share, treated as though we're their big-energy
approved toilet-paper.
BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and it's real in more ways than
one. At least we can honestly say that it's partially (10%~25%) caused
by humanity, and that there are direct and indirect environmental
consequences of our past, present and future actions. However, because
of the vast amount of required energy, the continued thawing of Earth
since the last ice age this planet will ever see, is not entirely our
fault.
Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of promoting all that's pro big-energy and of having to
protect their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus
seeing those usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on
steroids, whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems
as though rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it
must be offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" / by William Elliot
The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our recently
obtained moon, which isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by
humanity (at best I'd buy into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we
all departed this Earth and let nature take its planetology course, this
Earth would continue to thaw from the last ice age this planet will ever
see. As long as we have that pesky moon of ours, ice age trapped
methanes and CO2 will in fact keep "Bubbling Through Seafloor Creates
Undersea Hills", though at a reduced rate if the human factor were
entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, another truth being told that we're not supposed to know
about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our magnetosphere
has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.
Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons that have little if any trouble
getting through to the surface that getting a little extra sooty and
otherwise polluted by the day, which includes less snow and ice coverage
that means upon average a lower global albedo, that in turn represents
an even better sol and moon energy absorber that in turn keeps our
nighttime atmosphere more cloud covered due to the increased levels of
h2o in our atmosphere.
planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon
that's causing us all sorts of grief.
open mindset way of thinking, that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo or whatever
faith based gasket, then perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF
Brad Guth
As of lately, the Usenet MIB borg collective of MI/NSA spooks and moles
are certainly working hardest at trying to terminate my poor old PC.
Gee whiz, I can't but wonder why I'm worth all that much trouble, unless
it's because I'm the village idiot that's sharing too much of the truth
and nothing but the truth.
Perhaps all the ongoing topic banishments or incoming naysay topic flak
is all because of our 100,000 some odd +/- year or +/- multi-century
encounters with the Sirius star/solar system, that which had been of
more frequent orbital encounters throughout each of our multiple ice age
cycle past, whereas of just somewhat lately we've had that pesky moon of
our's to deal with as of the last ice age this planet will ever see.
Take away our moon and Earth gets cold. Relocate our moon at Earth's L1
and we extensively cool off mother Earth in spite of whatever we've
managed to do to our frail environment (perhaps creating a touch too
much shade, which is still better off than not having enough shade).
Remember that nothing is in willy-nilly mode of just coasting through
space with no apparent association to any other mass. Our wussy little
solar system is unavoidably associated with the more than sufficiently
nearby, truly massive and otherwise super powerful Sirius star/solar
system, including that of its vast Oort cloud of moon sized debris, if
not somewhat larger and most likely icy items.
I'd gladly have other news you can use, except unfortunately it seems
ESAs Venus EXPRESS mission is no longer alive, as sadly MI/NSA~NASA has
pretty much nailed their science coffins shut. Having thus far excluded
their robust PFS instrument from sharing in the geothermal truth about
Venus, is actually mainstream's faith-based status quo doing exactly
what they do best. However, we don't have to believe their every word,
nor do we have to take their damage control ultimatums as though being
the word of God.
As geothermally heated from that active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and of this taking of energy is even free of
producing any artificial CO2), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly
renewable to boot.
Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and geothermally active
nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as scientifically and
especially faith based off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics simply can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers getting terminated, if not worse.
JFK had honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult
like authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU>.
In spite of all the big-energy and government orchestrated flak, I
Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting as to what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However Sol-->Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol-->L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)
However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is also why
there's no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's
having to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become
primarily in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated
L1 planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being such a pesky
Brad Guth
How much ice can Earth stand to gain by way of moving our moon to Earth
L1?
Are we talking of sufficient Cuban ice and snow for hosting the world
winter Olympic games, except well into August?
How about instead of seemingly wasting our best talents and expertise
upon whatever make-do or half assed notions, thereby losing precious
time and scant energy resources upon terraforming our moon as is, which
is actually technically doable (especially from the LSE-CM/ISS
perspective of what China could easily accomplish on our behalf),
whereas we could simply relocate that big old sucker to Earth L1, and
thereby call our global warming fiasco to a freaking halt once and for
all, along with having created shade to burn (sort of speak).
We'd obviously give up having such a downright reactive sort of a pesky
mascon of a moon that's a little too massive and orbiting too darn close
for our own damn good, whereas instead we'd have for ourselves a nifty
planetoid that's efficiently cruising within Earth's L1, that is unless
we decide otherwise.
This 7.35e22 kg planetoid of 3476 km diameter would also help block or
fend off a few of those nasty halo CMEs that are getting more frequent
and more lethal as our ongoing demise of our magnetosphere continues to
fail us and that of our frail DNA at -0.05%/year.
Best of all, our good old once upon a time icy proto-moon of ever since
the last ice age having shared such warm and fuzzy amounts of global
warming via tidal forced energy, would still be within easy range of our
fly-by-rocket access that'll soon enough become a proven technology, as
well as everything mission related made a whole lot safer for walking on
that full earthshine illuminated deck of what's physically chuck full of
dark and nasty cosmic and a few otherwise invaluable solar substances
(such as He3), though still a touch salty and otherwise extremely
electrostatic dusty (tens of meters deep in places), and yet the
LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element could still be allowed to reach if need
be to within 4r of Earth. The 256e6 tonne and 1e9 m3 CM/ISS as our
do-everything gateway abode/depot itself is certainly much better off,
and of the anchor tethers would have become POOF suitable as for
accommodating whomever is seriously rich and hasn't all that much
quality time to live anyway.
Brad Guth
Here's yet another topic related work in progress:
Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged from within mother Earth, whereas more likely as having
materialized from an incoming glancing sucker punch, such as by that of
a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth having received a nasty blow
(say having created an arctic ocean basin like impression, along with
causing that seasonal tilt), by a very icy proto-moon (possibly of 4,000
km).
For example; If the orbital distance were made half and thus the
velocity would have to double because the mutual gravity of attraction
would have become 4X, therefore we'd have introduced 16 fold more inside
and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy to deal with, and I'm not all
that sure mother Earth would have stayed glued together at that level of
horrific gravitional and internal tidal forced trauma, much less for
cutting that orbital distance by yet another half (making its previous
orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of 4.092 km/s) would have to impose yet
another 16 fold factor, or rather suggesting 256 fold worse global
warming trauma than what we currently are suffering from the existing
tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects as is.
The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up soon becomes a real physics piss-off; How
much time did it take for that moon which supposedly emerged from within
Earth, to have reached the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having
migrated from 96,100 km out to where it's currently operating at 384,400
km? (thus far, none of the computer simulations seem clean enough)
If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy that's
coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's actually
imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet<-->moon energy
that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or going as
to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:
object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters
grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg
Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such into no longer orbiting us, there's
actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is simply
rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this mutual
and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol-->Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of implied energy:
As for the sol<-->moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules
object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules
Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.
In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.
Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.
1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules
Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules
There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.
The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules
Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw
At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2
Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.
The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2
However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.
Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.
Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger analogies can be run as fully
3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you certainly
wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the truth, now would
we.
Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.
Brad Guth
Where's the logic: Perhaps this example of a serious topic reply is
every bit as good as Usenet rusemasters tend to get.
"VistaJustWorks" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8W6Dh.912$fr....@read2.cgocable.net
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Our moon is in fact warming mother Earth, and there is a great deal of
> > energy that's between Earth and that absolutely horrific moon of our's,
> > yet there's not a kind word of wisdom to behold.
>
> Yup, and the earth is warming the moon. Tidal forces and the like.
>
> Wooo Hoooo.......
Silly boy,
The last time I'd checked, the moon was not rotating about itself, other
than in relationship to Earth, or did I get that part wrong?
I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
moon is doing to us.
In other words, if that moon were to trek off somewhat willy-nilly on
its own, say cruising along as an independent planetoid, or such as
cruising within Earth's L1, whereas the affects of whatever Earth once
had upon that moon would have been extremely insignificant.
Brad Guth
This contribution is indirectly related, as to how cold Earth would get
once our moon was out of the way, or at least as for having been
relocated out to Earth's L1 for accomplishing a double benefit.
mailgate/sci.astro / Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?
stealth listed topic: "Mailgate: Message not available"
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:45ea9bbb$0$16556$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/da9e5d6a20df9e5b/99d6f253d352fdaf?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=2&hl=en#99d6f253d352fdaf
Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?
> Actually, as it moves into higher orbits, its velocity decreases.
What exactly are those hard scientific numbers (not via theory), as
having been independently measured down to the picosecond, about its
receding orbital loss of velocity per year?
It seems as though it would have been so much easier and otherwise
having been far more accurate as to our having measured any such annual
reduction in orbital velocity per year, than of having measured it's
supposed 38 mm/year of tidal forced recession.
I mean to further suggest, that it's apparently having to travel a bit
further each year, and according those of your mindset it's also taking
some loss in orbital velocity to boot, or perhaps it actually isn't
doing either, if not otherwise falling back towards Earth because of
having 'once upon a time' bounced itself off Earth to begin with.
In addition to all of that rant; What's the ongoing slug factor
(Vt/terminal velocity drag coefficient) in kgf that's working against
that extremely rough (40e12 m2) moon of ours?
You'd think that such a nifty 900,000 km comet like trail of what's
mostly solar wind forced sodium is capable of giving us a clue as to the
Vt/slug factor.
> The paragraph above - and all the rest I have snipped below - both somewhat
> cranky and wrong, at least as an explanation of the recession of the moon.
Sorry about all of that. For good reason(s), I am in fact somewhat
cranky, as having been so ever since interpreting that somehow Venus has
been accommodating other intelligent life, as having been
existing/coexisting where it's supposedly so freaking hot and nasty.
In other words, instead of your being the least bit cranky, whereas
you're cozy with being snookered and thus easily dumbfounded that you
actually believe we've walked upon that nasty moon of our's, even though
there's no such replicated evidence that actually proves NASA/Apollo
moon-walking squat, at least not as based upon those pesky regular laws
of physics.
You also don't believe that our moon is still in the process of losing
mass, or much less that it's seemingly losing substantial amounts of
sodium (I've estimated roughly 23.5 micrograms/m2/day), as otherwise you
would have given or having shared specific information that proves
otherwise.
I haven't entirely excluded tidal forces, but yourself and others of
your kind have always excluded whatever rocks your Old Testament
thumping (Earth/moon only) boat, as though we're it and there's none
others to behold within this entire universe that's existing/coexisting
as intelligent life, much less having managed nearly as good at it as
us.
What makes you folks think we even originated or subsequently belong
upon this planet that has become almost insufficient for sustaining our
species, that is unless you've got the biggest and nastiest gun in town,
as well as having no remorse about using it.
-
BTW; the thrust of a given rocket is in fact based upon the sudden
removal of mass that's going away from the original mass, the same as to
what's happening at an extremely slow pace with our moon that's losing
mass while moving itself away from Earth. Yet as far as we know of, its
orbital velocity simply isn't slowing down enough, if at all. So, what
gives?
I have no actual idea, outside of my best swag, as to the ongoing exit
velocity of my suggested 940 tonnes/day worth of sodium. So, for now
I'm sticking with the wussy exit velocity of one meter/second.
Ovbiously if it were exiting at 10 m/s would require 1% the sodium mass
as per what my best swag had previously suggested, and less yet due to
whatever amount of secondary tidal force is at play.
-
According to my dyslexic encrypted math (that's not always correct);
If that moon of ours was in fact moving off by 38 mm/year, and as such
not even slowing down one iota, whereas per year as based upon 1.023
km/s, it should be taking 2.334e-4 second longer for getting that
horrifically big old and massive sucker around us.
Obviously if your tidal forced analogy were all inclusive, as to
representing what's causing our moon's recession at the velocity losing
budget of whatever that amounts to, along with taking into account
whatever's the Vt/slug factor, whereas it should if anything be causing
the orbital velocity as having been somewhat diminished measurably from
the velocity of each previous year. Therefore, if anything the extra
amount of orbital time required by rights should have become much
greater than imposing the fixed velocity factor of taking 2.334e-4
second longer to get around Earth.
Besides all my usual spelling and syntax corrections, how am I doing?