The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” / Brad Guth
BradGuth
advanced/weird ideas)
As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National
Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the
lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moon out to Earth L1 is all
about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”)
it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of
creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moon parked
interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not
be sufficient.
Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters
that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic
and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to
those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of
course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately
affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful
because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and
profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and
thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s
already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to
thin the herd by 90%.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a
few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially
become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode?
(I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of
public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven
Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before
that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
BradGuth
I’m not insisting that artificial global shading by way of deploying
thousands of enormous disks isn’t viable, as well as perhaps by having
recycled and utilized those hundreds of millions of AOL and other
internet provider CDs alone could have easily accomplished the
reflective trick of shading us, as of more than a decade ago.
However, there’s simply more all around benefit to having our Selene/
moon relocated, out to Earth L1.
Our moon/Selene would provide <3.5% of global shade, and that moon
would still be providing a sufficient tidal boost over that of having
just our solar generated tide to work with, and it’s not as though
human life plus the vast biodiversity as we know it would suddenly
fail to adapt and survive. In fact, with a somewhat cooler Earth and
far less geophysical trauma to contend with, as well as less solar and
moon radiation of the bad kind for our frail DNA to deal with, by
rights this should greatly improve the long-term biodiversity as well
as stabilizing the physical aspects of our environment.
Where’s it not a win-win?
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
btw; Relocating our moon out to Earth L1 and interactively keeping it
there is certainly daunting, but not as insurmountable as you might
think.
Saul Levy
Activity is NOT increasing, VILLAGE IDIOT FOOL!
Saul Levy
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:35:01 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Who is kidding who? (apparently I�m not alone with my wizardly
>advanced/weird ideas)
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d3bb591-1a93-4bee...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
***********************************
The increase in the Earth's geothermal activity is directly proportional
to the increased amount of hot air expelled into the atmosphere by the
politicians in Washington. This phenomena began with the "Bubba" Clinton
administration, slowed down somewhat during the GWB years but then rapidly
increased its pace beginning with the pre-election cycle of mid 07.
The warming cycle during the Clinton years was generally dismissed as human
activity, since "Bubba" always breathed more audibly whenever Monica was
nearby. This breathing was raised to a feverish pitch, whenever the doors
to the oval office were closed and locked. Poor Hillary thought Bubba was
vacuuming his office. Al Gore, who is married to some chubby piggy named
"Tipper", was afraid to go home at night, so he sneaked into the basement
below the oval office, where he polished his monkey, thus contributing to
the temperature coefficient of the White House.
The new Obama administration provided us with a plethora of hot air infusion
generators, such as the "Anointed One" himself, "Botox queen" Pelosi, with
facial skin stretched tighter than a bongo drum, "what, me worry" Harry
Reid, that bespectacled wonder of irrational dialog and that buck-tooth
"Alfred P.Newman" Henry Waxman, whose mere presence conjures up visions of
multiple SNL skits.
Add that to he heat generated by the Federal mints, printing trillions of
increasingly worthless currency, and the picture becomes very clear:
Global warming is man made.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You are being so extra funny this morning. Is it because for lack of
public funds that our DARPA and NASA plugs (including those cushy
retirement and benefits) are about to get pulled?
Where can BHO or even your best republican alternative find the
necessary loot (outside of another perpetrated and highly corrupted
wartime economy) for sustaining your status quo?
Seems we're running out of bogus excuses to make war. Are we secretly
planning to nuke Iran or North Korea?
Brad Guth
Hagar
Brad Guth
***********************************
First sensible thing you've uttered in a baker's dozen of fortnights.
Why not, we have thousands of nukes just sitting around, not
exactly earning their keep ... a few for the chinks, a few for the
ragheads and then kick the UN out of NY and close the books.
BradGuth
That would certainly cut the global population by 90%. What if
friendly fire either takes out wherever your home is located, or
something of those supposed bad guys manages to get through?
With 90% of the human population gone or otherwise badly dying off,
and most land and oceans poisoned or worse, all remaining resources
going to help mend the injured and sick, then what?
I don't believe moving to Antarctica is a viable option, but then you
could always give it a go. You might last a month or two of Antarctic
summer.
~ BG
Hagar
On Jul 31, 12:39 pm, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:92de2843-22f5-4271...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 7:23 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:
< snip crapola >>
> ***********************************
> First sensible thing you've uttered in a baker's dozen of fortnights.
> Why not, we have thousands of nukes just sitting around, not
> exactly earning their keep ... a few for the chinks, a few for the
> ragheads and then kick the UN out of NY and close the books.
That would certainly cut the global population by 90%. What if
friendly fire either takes out wherever your home is located, or
something of those supposed bad guys manages to get through?
*** No it wouldn't, GoofBall, Iran, perhaps 100,000 if a direct hit
on Governmant seat is executed, which I assume is in Tehran
and one dropped on Pyongyung would probably kill 25,000 and
do $ 1,000 of damage.
With 90% of the human population gone or otherwise badly dying off,
and most land and oceans poisoned or worse, all remaining resources
going to help mend the injured and sick, then what?
*** Fuck the wounded and the sick, until they convert, they are
the enemy ... ooops, you're a Liberal and you guys don't have any.
I don't believe moving to Antarctica is a viable option, but then you
could always give it a go. You might last a month or two of Antarctic
summer.
*** As I said, central California is just fine. We have more than
they have. Tit for tat, but 10 fold.
BradGuth
In other words, shading Earth by any means other then via nonJewish
blood just isn't going to fly, and if we shoot first you say that no
one else with nukes and VX is going to pitch a fit. Is that because
of chosen ones like yourself are for the first time in history going
to protect the rest of us?
BradGuth
I’m not insisting that artificial global shading by way of deploying
thousands of enormous shades isn’t viable, as well as perhaps by
having recycled and utilized those hundreds of millions of AOL and
other internet provider CDs alone could have easily accomplished the
reflective trick of shading us as of more than a decade ago. However,
there’s simply more all around benefit to having our Selene/moon
relocated, out to Earth L1 if given a century for accomplishing that
task.
Our moon/Selene would provide <3.5% of global shade, and that moon
would still be providing a sufficient tidal boost over that of having
just our solar generated tide to work with, and it’s certainly not as
though human life plus the vast biodiversity as we know it would
suddenly fail to adapt and survive. In fact, with a somewhat cooler
Earth and far less geophysical trauma to contend with, as well as less
solar and moon radiation of the bad kind for our frail DNA to deal
with, by rights this should greatly improve the long-term biodiversity
as well as stabilizing the physical aspects of our environment.
Where’s it not a win-win?
btw; Relocating our moon out to Earth L1 and interactively keeping it
there is certainly daunting, but not nearly as insurmountable as you
might think.
Between Krakatoa and Yellowstone going postal, if those two geothermal
mega vents manage to blow their gasket at the same time is when we’re
in deep trouble with that Warhol “lake of fire”, or perhaps there will
become two lakes of fire. But at least we can forget about whatever
cosmic fireballs and asteroid encounters for a while, because even
that of a 10 km asteroid of mostly iron and thorium isn’t going to be
all that significant unless it’s a highly suicidal retrograde impact,
or something as big as another icy Selene (<8.5e22 kg) would certainly
get our attention.
Earth Impact Effects Program
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Guess my tired old idea of relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1
is going to be yet another one of those ‘too little too late’ sort of
things. Sorry about that.
BradGuth
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> Guess my tired old idea of relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1
> is going to be yet another one of those ‘too little too late’ sort of
> things. Sorry about that.
Just like we have become indirectly associated with Sirius via those
pesky Newtonian laws of gravity and subsequent orbital mechanics, it
seems that our Selene/moon is here to stay unless we interactively do
something positive/constructive about it (such as relocating it all
the way out to being interactively kept within Earth L1).
Here’s an ideal public school science and physics project for our
public funded supercomputers and their fully interactive 3D
simulations that are also public owned:
Roughly 12,900 years ago is perhaps when an extremely icy Selene
encountered a very icy Earth in a lithobraking kind of sucker-punch
way (not that previous near-miss or physical encounters hadn’t taken
place), creating the Arctic ocean basin and much of our seasonal
tilt. Then it took until 11,711 years ago after having accomplished
nearly the full seasonal tilt of Eden and for the sky to clear in
order that direct sunlight could once again get through, and proceed
to thaw us out of our last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to
see.
The item which recently impacted Jupiter could have been as large as
our Selene/moon, but I'm still thinking it was more like the size of
Sedna or a little smaller, which only goes towards objectively proving
that such physical encounters do happen, especially while our vast
investment in NASA is apparently still asleep at the switch (so to
speak).
Imagine if that one had become yet another surprise NEO with a miss
factor of only 0.0001 AU(2r) or less.
BradGuth
If given a century worth of effort, as such we could shade Earth by as
much as 3.5%, by way of relocating and interactively sustaining our
moon/Selene as having been pulled out to Earth L1, or we could just
continually ignore whatever’s perfectly real and what’s otherwise
technically possible. After all, the status-quo has gotten us this
far gone, so what’s the difference if our planet unavoidably keeps
thawing out from the last ice-age this planet w/moon will ever see.
Too bad we still do not have any platform of instruments (including
astronomy and laser cannons) as interactively parked within our
efficient and otherwise ideal Earth-moon L1 (aka Selene L1).
According to our NASA and Apollo wizards, whereas within that gravity
nullified and subsequent maximum vacuum (<3e-21 bar) area of Selene
L1, and for some given distance to/from, isn’t the least bit radiation
testy of anything from IR to gamma, in fact it’s supposedly extremely
cold according to their Apollo 13 documentation of having nearly
frozen to death in spite of the external Double IR.
This Selene L1 location is also offering the absolute least possible
to/from delta-V, and that’ll certainly still remain the case as even
better once having relocated our moon/Selene out to orbiting within
the halo realm of Earth L1.
Instead it has been nearly 50 years of mostly LEO stuff and only
relatively few missions outside of that, and finally we have LCROSS
that “detects life on Earth!” (and to think that we actually pay our
NASA and their public funded teams of associated wizards for this kind
of instrument calibration analogy, that’s already as good or better
accomplished by at least a dozen previously accomplished and spendy
missions that were of all things also public funded). Of course our
spendy OCO mission that was recently foiled by Big Energy, disabled
just so that we can not so easily quantify and otherwise zero in on
each of the natural and artificial sources of such terrestrial vapors,
gasses and thermal considerations. Worse yet is that we still have no
Selene L1 accommodating that nifty depot/gateway/OASIS, as providing
that minimum to/from delta-V.
I find it more than a little odd that our spendy and extremely belated
LRO/LCROSS combined mission finds that Earth via their onboard
spectrometry (aka duh-101 spectrometer) as having identified
terrestrial water and other elements of life (as yet another NASA
infomercial published hype along with their usual nifty eyecandy, all
at public expense) , and yet nearby Venus with thousands of acidic h2o
teratonnes (<500 teratonnes worth of pure h2o none the less) still
doesn't matter. Are they actually still thinking those Venus clouds
are made entirely of toxic sulphur dust, and otherwise not a speck of
h2o?
The latest good science of Venus being by way of ESA’s Venus EXPRESS,
and of before that was our Magellan mapping expedition that is still
being mainstream ignored and/or banished (as mainstream interpreted
and fully published as only that of a hellish world with no redeeming
qualities or value, not even for technologically advanced ETs)
This coming lunar impact and remote extracted seismology and
spectrometry via LCROSS and whatever else has also been accomplished
many previous times, each of which discovering essentially the same
zero ppb worth of freed h2o atoms (other than vaporized out of the
solid crust/bedrock), perhaps mostly because we can’t hardly penetrate
deep enough into that tough mineral saturated basalt crust that’s
covering such an unusually low density and/or semi-hollow interior.
However, previous impactors of 14 tonnes each via those Apollo upper
stage rockets should have more than accomplished the task as of nearly
40 years ago, not to mention many other lunar impactors (artificial as
well as natural) that have been monitored ever since.
According to the laws of physics, there can’t possibly be any
remaining surface pockets of shaded ice left to behold at 3e-15 bar,
so why are we wasting such valuable talent, resources and blowing
hundreds of millions looking anyway? For Christ’s sake on a stick, we
still don’t even have our objective science pertaining to raw ice as
existing/coexisting within 1 AU (such as deployed within Selene L1),
that’s easily accomplished by way of independent peer review and
replication none the less.
BradGuth
>
> btw; Relocating our moon out to Earth L1 and interactively keeping it
> there is certainly daunting, but not nearly as insurmountable as you
> might think.
>
> Between Krakatoa and Yellowstone going postal, if those two geothermal
> mega vents manage to blow their gasket at the same time is when we’re
> in deep trouble with that Warhol “lake of fire”, or perhaps there will
> become two lakes of fire. But at least we can forget about whatever
> cosmic fireballs and asteroid encounters for a while, because even
> that of a 10 km asteroid of mostly iron and thorium isn’t going to be
> all that significant unless it’s a highly suicidal retrograde impact,
> or something as big as another icy Selene (<8.5e22 kg) would certainly
> get our attention.
>
> Earth Impact Effects Program
> http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
>
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> Guess my tired old idea of relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1
> is going to be yet another one of those ‘too little too late’ sort of
> things. Sorry about that.
If given a century worth of effort, as such we could shade Earth by as
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
So, why not relocate our moon all the way out to residing within Earth
L1, whereas we'd obtain <3.5% shade benefit and end up with roughly
half the ocean tides and perhaps less than a forth as much tidal
induced geothermal and geophysical morphing trauma to boot.
By simply pulling our Selene/moon outward with its own tethered mass
should more than do the trick.
BradGuth
Those of you that should know what I'm talking about shouldn't be so
shy, and those unfamiliar should start asking serious questions. The
last time I'd checked, it seems this global warming trend isn't going
away. So perhaps this would be as good of time as any to start
considering all possible alternatives for cooling off our one and only
planet.
Double-A
It's only 65 degrees here and it's August 15, for Chrissakes! Global
warming has already gone away!
> So perhaps this would be as good of time as any to start
> considering all possible alternatives for cooling off our one and only
> planet.
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
We need a furnace in here!
Double-A
Saul Levy
Note only recently have we got the FIRST ATLANTIC NAMED STORM (not a
hurricane yet). August's HALF OVER ALREADY!
That should tell you something about GLOBAL COOLING YOU STUPID FOOL!
Saul Levy
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Those of you that should know what I'm talking about shouldn't be so
>shy, and those unfamiliar should start asking serious questions. The
>last time I'd checked, it seems this global warming trend isn't going
>away. So perhaps this would be as good of time as any to start
>considering all possible alternatives for cooling off our one and only
>planet.
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
BradGuth
Have you and your good buddy rabbi Saul Levy already told that funny
story to the nearly countless thousands that are going to prematurely
die each year because of expanding droughts, dried up streams, as well
as excessive storms, thermally exacerbated insect and rodent
infestations, worsening flu like outbreaks, excessive waves of
seasonal heating, glacial and sea-ice losses, coastal flooding and the
ongoing loss of biodiversity?
Just because you're OK with living off the backs and public funded
services of others, and the Zionist Nazi likes of those faith-based
and/or publicly funded w/COL benefits can adjust and/or relocate
themselves to suit, doesn't mean the other parts of humanity don't
count.
Just because you and others of your status-quo cabal care less about
salvaging or much less improving our frail environment, as such
doesn't mean the rest of us should parrot right along with your
mindset of telling the world that any efforts to moderate and save our
environment is a "Silly Idea". On the other hand, I think picking up
your tab for living is extremely silly, and otherwise kind of
pointless considering what we get back in return is just more
liability and grief of your mostly self perpetuating crap.
BradGuth
Have you and your good buddy rabbi Saul Levy already told that funny
story of global cooling to the nearly countless thousands that are
going to prematurely die each year because of expanding droughts,
dried up streams, crop failures directly linked to arid conditions and/
or lack of sufficient irrigation, as well as from excessive storms,
thermally exacerbated insect and rodent infestations, worsening flu
like outbreaks, excessive waves of seasonal heating, glacial and sea-
ice losses, coastal flooding and the ongoing loss of biodiversity?
Just because you're OK with living off the backs and public funded
services of others, and the Zionist Nazi likes of those faith-based
and/or publicly funded w/COL benefits can adjust and/or relocate
themselves to suit, doesn't mean the other parts of humanity don't
count.
Just because you and others of your status-quo cabal care less about
salvaging or much less improving our frail environment, as such
doesn't mean the rest of us should parrot right along with your
republican skewed mindset of telling the world that any efforts to
moderate and save our environment is a "Silly Idea". On the other
hand, I think picking up your tab for living is extremely silly, and
otherwise kind of pointless considering what we get back in return is
just more liability and grief of sustaining your mostly self
perpetuating crap.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Double-A
Do I hear an echo?
Double-A
BradGuth
Only the echo of truths. Sorry about that.
~ BG
BradGuth
BradGuth
Speaking about echoes, such as those of the kosher faith-based and
bogus bipolar kind that go unpoliced for as long as they can manage to
get away with it.
Interesting how those claiming to already know all there is to know,
also manage to never discover or offer anything new or even better
interpreted. Instead these Usenet/newsgroup lords and rusemasters
just parrot and brown-nose their way along as though being some
special kind of messenger on behalf of their mainstream God(s), that
just so happens to be of a white faith-based version (including
pretend-Atheism) that thinks and acts exactly like an Old Testament
thumping Zionist, that apparently doesn’t have to obey whatever social
laws or accepted policies unless they favor the one and only kosher
way, much less their having to worry about ever being policed by their
own kind (because that just doesn’t happen).
Now that our Democratic controlled IRS is finally focusing their
attention upon those extra bonuses, insider tradings, excess profits,
various spendy benefits and gifts that include loot hording and their
offshore safekeeping of whatever the upper most 1% are associated
with, and seldom pay their fair share of fees and taxes (other than to
themselves and a few others of their own kind), whereas I’d also say
this belated/delayed action by our IRS is especially important since
our kosher SEC hasn’t been doing their job for decades, whereas
perhaps these improved methods of enforcing existing law as for
accomplishing the retroactive pay-back (with penalties and compounded
interest) upon what has often been unjustly taken in the first place,
as such will make for a positive/constructive bump the recession and
foreclosure pain, as just a little bit easier for the lower 99% of us
that do not practice such excess taking and hording.
I may have to further edit/revise this, but at least it's another
honest effort in the right direction. Not that the human species is
ever going to become ideal (because that would require a much bigger
and resource saturated world), though once the known evil doers of
this Eden/Earth are terminated or expelled is when some reasonable
degree of normalcy can prevail.
BradGuth
Perhaps the second part of my “Big Idea” is for Eden/Earth to have a
nearby lifeboat/planetoid, such as our semi-hollow Selene/moon, just
in case the following happens.
The ultimate social/political and faith-based attitude readjustment:
Double-A suggested a private/commercial simulation by
“rocklobster182” of what a substantial meteor/asteroid/planetoid
collision might look like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYgEwXWilUc
youtube is a relatively piss poor eyecandy format of conveying
technically specific information, although it certainly capable of
getting the general idea across. Those public funded supercomputers
on loan to JPL and a few spendy others we've more than bought and paid
for is what should have been giving us something of a whole lot better
3D interactive eyecandy in return, as based upon real possibilities of
what's out there, perhaps including Sedna and a few nearby supernovae
(what-if Sirius a+b+c goes nova).
What are those hard numbers for various what-if meteor/asteroid
encounters?
Results at various diameters, mass, angle of impact and at different
velocities?
Given mutually icy encounters? (such as an icy Selene of <8.5e22 kg
and the northern Arctic part of Earth still within it's last ice age
as of perhaps 12,600 BP).
Obviously the youtube depicted a much smaller than Selene/moon
encounter (closer to that of Sedna at 1600 km and 20 km/sec) that
easily penetrated well enough through the relatively thin crust of
Earth, making our planet into a global lake of fire (Warhol would be
so pleased). Unfortunately, the good, bad and the ugly all get
summarily terminated, whereas the only possible safety might be found
within our moon, but chances are that too is going to be at least
indirectly affected, as thermal energy and debris from Earth and the
meteorite/asteroid manage to traumatize it as well.
A much slower backside or sucker-punch encounter (glancing blow) might
not be so ELE dramatic, especially if both orbs are covered in thick
ice, and especially more so if the impactor was extremely icy to the
tune of <262 km worth and not closing in so fast.
BradGuth
Now we have a topic/author taboo and/or banishment enforced policy,
even if it means fixing our badly GW traumatized environment we call
Eden/Earth. (isn't that special)
All we get nowadays is the usual Republican Zionist Nazi replies of
change nothing and otherwise do nothing, because apparently nothing is
bad with the way everything is, and besides nothing seriously bad is
ever going to happen, and even if it should we mere humans couldn't
have done anything for the better.
In other Usenet/newsgroup words, change nothing, revise nothing and
above all do nothing, because we supposedly like everything exactly as
it is.
~ BG
BradGuth
What now; is the saving of Eden/Earth taboo/nondisclosure rated?
~ BG
BradGuth
What now; is the long-term salvation of our global warming Eden/Earth
officially mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated, especially when such
can be accomplished by way of fully utilizing what is already in orbit
and more than large enough to do the trick?
Imagine what else can be accomplished with our Selene/moon relocated
and being interactively station-kept within Earth L1. Oops, you have
to deductively think and ponder for yourself, and we all know that's
not mainstream allowed. Sorry about that.
BradGuth
In spite of what the perpetual gauntlet of naysayers and denial
wizards of Usenet/newsgroups has to say, to a great extent we can
salvage our planet, with or w/o their help.
What now?
Is the long-term salvation of our global warming Eden/Earth officially
mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated, especially when such can be
accomplished by way of fully utilizing what is already in orbit and
more than large enough to do the trick?
Imagine what else can be accomplished with our Selene/moon relocated
and being interactively station-kept within Earth L1. Oops, for this
you have to deductively think and ponder for yourself, and we all know
that's not mainstream allowed. Sorry about that.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy
FUCKING COMMIE BASTARDS!
While Iran will EVENTUALLY be taken care of by their YOUTH!
FUCKING RAGHEAD MORONS!
Saul Levy
BradGuth
You always seem to exclude the secondary collateral damage of wars,
and the secondary secondary after that. Imagine if your city and
surrounding communities looked as bad off as the bombed out sections
of Iraq.
Actually Antarctica with modern technology isn't all that
insurmountable. At least Antarctica would be a thousand fold better
off than trying to cope with Mars. Though otherwise city
infrastructure that's continually underwater or underground isn't out
of the question. At least the rich and powerful will always survive
in grand style.
~ BG
BradGuth
Simple question; Why is this topic listed in Google Groups as:
The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Ear th” / Brad Guth
I most certainly didn't type "Ear th", and it still doesn't indicate
as though anyone revised the subject line or title. So, why is it
"Ear th" instead of Earth?
In other words, who on "Ear th" is screwing with us (this time)?
~ BG
BradGuth
This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as
having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version
of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's
really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” / Brad Guth
"Shading The Earth" Guth
"Shading The Earth" Brad Guth
"Shading The Earth" National Geographic
BradGuth
There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour
period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt
of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of
what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
~ BG
David Staup
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2577fde0-ae9a-4b31...@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
~ BG
there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively
negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position
relative to the two massive bodies.
do you know what negligible means?
twobc (total waste of brain cells) guth
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation,
denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing
for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
As it is, our Selene/moon isn't doing us any good whatsoever. If
anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical
trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse.
Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's
left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend-
Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
~ BG
Saul Levy
Really, we don't care about any of this.
Saul Levy
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation,
BradGuth
DO you know what interactive station-keeping means? and how little
energy or reactive force is required for utilizing Earth L1?
Obviously you know damn little if anything that matters, and you care
not what happens to Earth.
~ BG
David Staup
On Sep 1, 5:39 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Snip total bs
> there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively
> negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position
> relative to the two massive bodies.
>
> do you know what negligible means?
>
> twobc (total waste of brain cells) guth
DO you know what interactive station-keeping means? and how little
energy or reactive force is required for utilizing Earth L1?
Obviously you know damn little if anything that matters, and you care
not what happens to Earth.
~ BG
I do know that F=MA do you ?
even assuming your silly ass station keeping idea didnt require that
knowledge for sure getting the moon to the L1 point is beyond even your
wizardly powers.
you really need to start using all six of those neurons you have. maybe then
you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19862862-957e-4823...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 1, 5:39 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > ~ BG
> > Snip total bs
> > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively
> > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position
> > relative to the two massive bodies.
>
> > do you know what negligible means?
>
> > twobc (total waste of brain cells) guth
>
> DO you know what interactive station-keeping means? and how little
> energy or reactive force is required for utilizing Earth L1?
>
> Obviously you know damn little if anything that matters, and you care
> not what happens to Earth.
>
> ~ BG
>
> I do know that F=MA do you ?
>
> even assuming your silly ass station keeping idea didnt require that
> knowledge for sure getting the moon to the L1 point is beyond even your
> wizardly powers.
You underestimate my abilities. I plan on future generations pulling
it there, using mostly its own easily accessible mass. My wizardly
tethers of <490 GPa carbonado fibers, along with a few thousand or
million tonnes of lunar basalt, should more than do the trick. Best
you don't nitpick those small details.
>
> you really need to start using all six of those neurons you have. maybe then
> you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
That's apparently 6 more deductive capable neurons than you've got to
spare.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19862862-957e-4823...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 1, 5:39 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > ~ BG
> > Snip total bs
> > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively
> > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position
> > relative to the two massive bodies.
>
> > do you know what negligible means?
>
> > twobc (total waste of brain cells) guth
>
> DO you know what interactive station-keeping means? and how little
> energy or reactive force is required for utilizing Earth L1?
>
> Obviously you know damn little if anything that matters, and you care
> not what happens to Earth.
>
> ~ BG
>
> I do know that F=MA do you ?
>
> even assuming your silly ass station keeping idea didnt require that
> knowledge for sure getting the moon to the L1 point is beyond even your
> wizardly powers.
Why did you intentionally cut those other newsgroups?
You underestimate my abilities. I plan on future generations pulling
it there, using mostly its own easily accessible mass. My wizardly
tethers of <490 GPa carbonado fibers, along with a few thousand or
million tonnes of lunar basalt, should more than do the trick. Best
you don't nitpick those small details.
>
> you really need to start using all six of those neurons you have. maybe then
> you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
That's apparently 6 more deductive capable neurons than you've got of
parrot neurons to spare.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly
> advanced/weird ideas)
>
> As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National
> Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the
> lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moon out to Earth L1 is all
> about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
>
> However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”)
> it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of
> creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moon parked
> interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not
> be sufficient.
>
> Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters
> that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic
> and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to
> those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of
> course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately
> affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful
> because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and
> profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and
> thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s
> already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to
> thin the herd by 90%.
>
>
> few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially
> become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode?
> (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of
> public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven
> Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before
> that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
Apparently our inert (meaning passive) and otherwise highly reflective
moon as recorded by those Apollo missions has different laws of
physics to deal with.
Thus far the 0.1% of our LRO science that we get to see, is as good as
it's ever going to get, and too bad that any 3.5% solar shade by way
of utilizing our moon isn't in the cards.
BTW, where exactly did all those dark and heavy minerals plus loads of
cosmic deposits go? (most of which should have been UV reactive,
exactly as here on Earth)
~ BG
Saul Levy
I thought it was all DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER! here?
Saul Levy
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:26:30 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In spite of what the perpetual gauntlet of naysayers and denial
>wizards of Usenet/newsgroups has to say, to a great extent we can
>salvage our planet, with or w/o their help.
>
>What now?
>Is the long-term salvation of our global warming Eden/Earth officially
>mainstream taboo/nondisclosure rated, especially when such can be
>accomplished by way of fully utilizing what is already in orbit and
>more than large enough to do the trick?
>
>Imagine what else can be accomplished with our Selene/moon relocated
>and being interactively station-kept within Earth L1. Oops, for this
>you have to deductively think and ponder for yourself, and we all know
>that's not mainstream allowed. Sorry about that.
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
BradGuth
Relocating our moon is daunting but by no means insurmountable,
especially if given a century in order to literally pull this one off.
~ BG
Saul Levy
lmfjao!
Get used to it.
Saul Levy
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 04:31:17 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Simple question; Why is this topic listed in Google Groups as:
BradGuth
Notice how it's only the "alt.astronomy" Jews like rabbi Saul Levy and
other pretenders (aka spooks, moles and brown-nosed clowns) that are
opposed to this.
~ BG
BradGuth
I’m not insisting that artificial global shading by way of deploying
thousands of enormous disks isn’t viable, as well as perhaps by having
recycled and utilized those hundreds of millions of AOL and other
internet provider CDs alone could have easily accomplished the
reflective trick of shading us, as of more than a decade ago.
However, there’s simply more all around benefit to having our Selene/
moon relocated, out to Earth L1.
Our moon/Selene would provide <3.5% global shade, and that moon
would still be providing a sufficient tidal boost over that of having
just our solar generated tide to work with, and it’s not as though
human life plus the vast biodiversity as we know it would suddenly
fail to adapt and survive. In fact, with a somewhat cooler Earth and
far less geophysical trauma to contend with, as well as less solar and
moon radiation of the bad kind for our frail DNA to deal with, by
rights this should greatly improve the long-term biodiversity as well
as stabilizing the physical aspects of our environment.
Where’s this not a perfect win-win?
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
btw; Relocating our moon out to Earth L1 and interactively keeping it
there is certainly a daunting task, but it's not nearly as
insurmountable as you might think.
BradGuth
Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially mainstream
status quo of continued obfuscation, denial and that do nothing
mindset, at least my ideas are worth accomplishing for loads of valid
reasons besides shading Earth <3.5%.
As it is, our Selene/moon hasn't been doing us any good whatsoever.
If anything it's only adding some portion of its 2e20 N/sec in the
form of thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical trauma to an
already bad environment situation that's only getting worse.
BradGuth
The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” / Brad Guth (Shading
The Earth with our moon)
BradGuth
all sorts of geology movement and geothermal issues. This wouldn't
nullify all of our Earth/land tidal and geothermal issues, but it
would greatly improve such considerations by way of having reduced the
amount of tidal forces and the subsequent energy transfer or
conversion that's otherwise taking place.
~ BG
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
... and of course the real nature of the Universe not even suspected
by the Universities brainswashed Bougredanes !!!
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper &
Gold Mine)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
"True Geology" Foundation Document
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
"Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanity
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947
Don Stockbauer
<australia.mining-pion...@neuf.fr> wrote:
> .. AND THE REALLY DRIVING FORCE OF OUR MOTHER STAR AKA THE SUN !
> ... and of course the real nature of the Universe not even suspected
> by the Universities brainswashed Bougredanes !!!
>
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Australia Mining Pioneer
> Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper &
> Gold Mine)
> Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
> Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
> Founder of the True Geology
>
> ~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
>
> for background info.http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.htmlhttp://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.htmlhttp://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.htmlhttp://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htmhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
> "Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanityhttp://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947
Funny.
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
> On Oct 4, 9:04 pm, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
>
>
>
>
>
> <australia.mining-pion...@neuf.fr> wrote:
> > .. AND THE REALLY DRIVING FORCE OF OUR MOTHER STAR AKA THE SUN !
> > ... and of course the real nature of the Universe not even suspected
> > by the Universities brainswashed Bougredanes !!!
>
> > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
> > Australia Mining Pioneer
> > Discoverer & Legal Owner of Telfer Mine (Australia largest Copper &
> > Gold Mine)
> > Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
> > Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
> > Founder of the True Geology
>
> > ~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
>
> > "True Geology" Foundation Documenthttp://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
> > "Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanityhttp://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107947
>
> Funny.
Indeed funny those Universities Bougredanes with the Big Boum aka Gros
Bang, Accretion on a 10km/s moving target with ONE only direction of
random strike of that type of Hollywood chewing gum aerolithes TO WIT
the Radial Direction of alleged EXPLOSION following ZE BIG BOUM !
Congratulations Herr Stockbauer, at least someone realizing the comic
of the situation, with those conceited lecherous Pundits at Oxford,
MYT, ANU etc flappinng their big flies traps & announcing urbi & orbi
their latest Théauriz + Publication in Manure, Sci000ntific
American !
In fact, at time it breaks my heart to realize that those fatly paid
Universilities Cunts, Sterile to boost, are willfully destroying the
creative potential of young trusting minds put in their care for
alleged education !
Do you have that concern as well, as any down to earth bauer should
indeed.
With kind but sorry regards
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
>their latest Th�auriz + Publication in Manure, Sci000ntific
BradGuth
> Relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1 would extensively moderate
> nullify all of our Earth/land tidal and geothermal issues, but I believe it
> would greatly improve such considerations by way of having reduced the
> transfer or conversion into heat that's otherwise taking place.
> > > > > and thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning
> > > > > manages to thin the herd by 90%.
>
> > > > > BradGuth, Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
>
> > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a
> > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially
> > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode?
> > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven
> > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before
>
> > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as
> > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's
> > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
>
> > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
>
> > > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
>
> > > > "Shading The Earth" Guth
> > > > "Shading The Earth" BradGuth
> > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
>
> > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour
> > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt
> > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of
> > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively
> > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position
> > > relative to the two massive bodies.
>
> > > do you know what negligible means?
>
> > > twobc (total waste of brain cells) guth
>
> > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation,
> > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing
>
> > As it is, our Selene/moon isn't doing us any good whatsoever. If
> > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical
> > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's
> > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend-
> > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
Obtaining <3.5% shade isn't all that this moon relocation has to
offer, but then I'm not the one that's forever stuck thinking in a
narrow box that's overfilled with mainstream obfuscation, denial and
perpetual naysayism.
~ BG
Double-A
Give it a rest. It'll never work!
Double-A
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ca2abd44-d33c-44c0...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> Obtaining <3.5% shade isn't all that this moon relocation has to
> offer, but then I'm not the one that's forever stuck thinking in a
> narrow box that's overfilled with mainstream obfuscation, denial and
> perpetual naysayism.
>
Uh, so moving the moon *cough* out to 1.5million km, from the current
384 thousand km, and have it in an orbit around the sun is supposed
to do what, now?
Shade?
What for?
Do you actually have a problem with the Earth returning to its natural
temperature and climate?
Not that moving the moon is possible, nor would the projected result
be attainable, but...really? I mean, really?
BradGuth
Your lack of faith is noted, as well as your lack of positive/
constructive ideas.
Why not use the same amount of negativity energy to get a real job, or
to volunteer your services an expertise that you never manage to share
with us.
~ BG
~ BG
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ca2abd44-d33c-44c0...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> > Obtaining <3.5% shade isn't all that this moon relocation has to
> > offer, but then I'm not the one that's forever stuck thinking in a
> > narrow box that's overfilled with mainstream obfuscation, denial and
> > perpetual naysayism.
>
> Uh, so moving the moon *cough* out to 1.5million km, from the current
> 384 thousand km, and have it in an orbit around the sun is supposed
> to do what, now?
Gives us < 3.5% shade, among other beneficial things.
>
> Shade?
That's correct, we get that badly needed spot of shade.
>
> What for?
For cooling off this Eden/Earth that's otherwise thawing out too fast,
and the vast biodiversity that isn't adapting fast enough might be
saved.
>
> Do you actually have a problem with the Earth returning to its natural
> temperature and climate?
Your insurmountable denial and mainstream obfuscation is noted.
>
> Not that moving the moon is possible, nor would the projected result
> be attainable, but...really? I mean, really?
Yes, I say really, we can in fact pull that physically dark sucker out
to Earth L1 and interactively keep it there. Think of it as just a
much larger version of our ISS. There's lots more positive than
negative considerations, and loads more benefits than just obtaining <
3.5% shade for Earth.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c670b3d4-f81c-4fce...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> For cooling off this Eden/Earth that's otherwise thawing out too fast,
> and the vast biodiversity that isn't adapting fast enough might be
> saved.
3.5%. Wow, that's a lot for the effort, eh? What percent of shade does
the earth get during a total solar eclipse? Anyway, why not let the Earth
decide on what biodiversity survives?
> Your insurmountable denial and mainstream obfuscation is noted.
My knowledge of the truth is indefatigable, is certainly not mainstream,
and in no way does anything but enlighten those who would care to pay
attention.
> Yes, I say really, we can in fact pull that physically dark sucker out
> to Earth L1 and interactively keep it there. Think of it as just a
> much larger version of our ISS. There's lots more positive than
> negative considerations, and loads more benefits than just obtaining <
> 3.5% shade for Earth.
Much larger? Care to give a mass comparison? I'm sure that the Ames
center in Mt View might be interested. I have a friend that works there.
Should I pass your thoughts on?
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c670b3d4-f81c-4fce...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > For cooling off this Eden/Earth that's otherwise thawing out too fast,
> > actually be saved.
>
> 3.5%. Wow, that's a lot for the effort, eh?
This is at least a good century worth of relocation effort, and yes
3.5% shade would become a terrific solution to a global matter of fact
problem that's otherwise not going away by itself.
>
> What percent of shade does the earth get during a total solar eclipse?
Not hardly relevant, but obviously interesting for those just fooling
around.
>
> Anyway, why not let the Earth decide on what biodiversity survives?
It seems that you and others of your kosher republican kind have
managed to do pretty much noting except negative environmental, social
and economic impact, have thus far managed to eliminate more than a
thousand species as well as having consumed global resources as is.
Exactly how far do you intend to continue this process of artificially
caused extinction (mass consumptions, purging of natures biodiversity
and even ethnic cleansing)?
>
> > Your insurmountable denial and mainstream obfuscation is noted.
>
> My knowledge of the truth is indefatigable, is certainly not mainstream,
> and in no way does anything but enlighten those who would care to pay
> attention.
The teaching and/or leadership by Jesus Christ was also indefatigable,
except they managed to put hon a stick anyway. I assume you're
avoiding the outcome of ever being put on a stick.
Your need for others to pay attention is noted. Now, what exactly do
you have for us that we need to pay attention to (to be enlightened
about)?
>
> > Yes, I say really, we can in fact pull that physically dark sucker out
> > to Earth L1 and interactively keep it there. Think of it as just a
> > much larger version of our ISS. There's lots more positive than
> > negative considerations, and loads more benefits than just obtaining <
> > 3.5% shade for Earth.
>
> Much larger? Care to give a mass comparison?
I suppose it could become as little as 2.5% shade, though not larger
than 3.5%.
Mass has little to do with any of this terrestrial shading, other than
utilizing a relatively insignificant amount of tethered lunar mass for
the tug/pulling aspects of getting our Selene/moon to move away from
Earth (nearly 4 times further away). I'm thinking we'll also have to
remove a good deal of its orbital energy, that need not go to waste.
> I'm sure that the Ames center in Mt View might be interested.
> I have a friend that works there. Should I pass your thoughts on?
Why of course this notion of mine should be passed along, except
without all the usual naysayism, obfuscation and denial that turns
yourself and others of your do-nothing, change-nothing and absolutely
above all revise-nothing kind on.
This is a good one for our public funded Ames supercomputer to
simulate, in order to establish the basic physics involved, and
otherwise to suggest the level of applied technology required for
accomplishing the task.
~ BG
Double-A
You think moving the Moon would have no effect on the Earth's orbit?
What about the continued stability of the Earth's axis? It is thought
the Moon plays a role in stabilizing the Earth's axis. What if the
Earth ended up rotating on its side like Uranus? Large parts of the
Earth could then become inhospitable to life! Would you be willing to
assume the responsibility and liability for such consequences?
Double-A
BradGuth
There would be consequences, just like the ongoing global warming
(natural as well as artificial) has consequences, or just like pissing
off Muslims has turned up its fair share of those "consequences".
I would accept "the responsibility and liability for such
consequences", mostly because I'd be dead by a good century before any
of this ever gets accomplished. However, I'll also gladly accept the
credits for all the beneficial sorts of things that would also come to
past.
However, unlike yourself and other mainstream parrots of denial,
naysayism and systematic obfuscation, whereas I'd run thousands and
perhaps millions of complex simulations in our public funded
supercomputers in order to smooth out as many wrinkles as possible,
beforehand.
~ BG
Double-A
The consequences of global warming would be more productive Canadian
and Siberian farmland!
> I would accept "the responsibility and liability for such
> consequences", mostly because I'd be dead by a good century before any
> of this ever gets accomplished. However, I'll also gladly accept the
> credits for all the beneficial sorts of things that would also come to
> past.
On a side rotating Earth with 6 month long 200+F degree charring
summers with boiling lakes and ready cooked fish, and -200-F frost
bitten winters with CO2 snowflakes in the air, you wouldn't be happy
with the credits you would be given! They might just write on your
tombstone, "HE DID IT!"
> However, unlike yourself and other mainstream parrots of denial,
> naysayism and systematic obfuscation, whereas I'd run thousands and
> perhaps millions of complex simulations in our public funded
> supercomputers in order to smooth out as many wrinkles as possible,
> beforehand.
>
> ~ BG
Riiiiiight!
Double-A
BradGuth
Not to mention a nearly ice free Greenland might offset the new
deserts where streams and rivers once flowed. (no more wildebeest or
other herds of large animal species to feed or otherwise contend with)
>
> > I would accept "the responsibility and liability for such
> > consequences", mostly because I'd be dead by a good century before any
> > of this ever gets accomplished. However, I'll also gladly accept the
> > credits for all the beneficial sorts of things that would also come to
> > past.
>
> On a side rotating Earth with 6 month long 200+F degree charring
> summers with boiling lakes and ready cooked fish, and -200-F frost
> bitten winters with CO2 snowflakes in the air, you wouldn't be happy
> with the credits you would be given! They might just write on your
> tombstone, "HE DID IT!"
And they'd write on your republican tombstone "Lived Kosher Off
Others, and Otherwise Didn't Give A Shit About Anyone Else"
>
> > However, unlike yourself and other mainstream parrots of denial,
> > naysayism and systematic obfuscation, whereas I'd run thousands and
> > perhaps millions of complex simulations in our public funded
> > supercomputers in order to smooth out as many wrinkles as possible,
> > beforehand.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Riiiiiight!
>
> Double-A
Thus far, your best idea of doing absolutely nothing, changing nothing
and God forbid revising nothing hasn't quite worked, has it.
Greatly reducing the 2e20 N/sec of gravitational force that's helping
to flex/morph Earth by <55 cm, down to nearly a 1/16th as much added
to the solar tidal influence, as such is only going to improve
terrestrial matters, by having reduced that kind of tidal influence
and subsequent crustal trauma down to something less than 30 cm
(possibly >24 cm). For all we know, by relocating our moon to Earth
L1 could greatly stabilize Earth's seasonal tilt and put those
magnetic pole migrations on the back burner, so to speak, and perhaps
we'd also stop losing our geomagnetic/magnetosphere that's fading by
<0.1% per year as is. It would also be nice if the Swiss Alps had a
few glaciers growing instead of having been entirely evaporated, among
saving other mountain glaciers and their subsequent streams and rivers
around the world (many of which have already dried up).
~ BG
Double-A
Those animals evolved during the last glacial period. When the ice is
gone, so will they be. When the ice comes again, new animals will
evolve to take their place.
Switzerland will be famous for rock climbing. For snow skiing, catch
an intercontinental rocket for Antarctica.
Double-A
BradGuth
Your lack of environmental and biodiversity knowledge, lack of
compassion, lack of remorse and your devout kosher republican mindset
is noted.
~ BG
Double-A
Some scientists actually believe that mankind's activities over the
last 1000 years has actually saved the planet from a return to a
period of greater glaciation!
Double-A
BradGuth
"saved the planet" is hardly worth mentioning, unless you meant ethnic
cleansing via global disparity. Obviously you think the kosher rich
and powerful should only get a whole lot richer and more powerful. (so
what if the cheapest coffee ends up costing you $10/cup and warm beer
runs $20/can)
The good news is, with < 90% of the global biodiversity devastated or
gone entirely, what's left to fight over?
~ BG
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:29:02 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Double-A
You think having left well enough alone and allowing another ice age
to ensue would have saved us from the rich and powerful?
> The good news is, with < 90% of the global biodiversity devastated or
> gone entirely, what's left to fight over?
>
> ~ BG
You think allowing another ice age would have helped biodiversity?
Double-A
BradGuth
As of years ago, I've already stipulated as to how much humanity have
likely contributed to our global warming environment, and as to how
much our Selene/moon and then also on the long-haul as to what Sirius
contributes. Are you saying you have no long-term memory?
Humans contribute 10<25%
Selene/moon: 70<80%
Sirius (abc): +/- 5<10%
Earth orbital and tilt combined: +/- 5%
Sun: +/- 1% (absolute maximum)
~ BG
Double-A
So the human contribution could be the critical factor that has saved
the world from another ice age!
Doublle-A
BradGuth
Yes, because even a 10% influence or contribution to global warming is
certainly measurable, although without any human species whatsoever, I
believe there'd still be a global warming situation or trend (taking a
bit longer) as long as our terrific Selene/moon sticks with us, as
well as just like there has been those pesky ice-age cycles of
considerable global freezing and thaw for quite some time (at least
for as long as the Sirius star/solar system has us within its
Newtonian tidal radii grip (perhaps <250 million years worth) that
we're gradually migrating away from (the elliptical path we’re on is
getting larger).
In the beginning with Sirius, Eden/Earth was being seriously UV
saturated and extra IR cooked (at times we had at least three suns
contributing to our very tropical environment)
It's not being called the "Cosmological Ice Ages" for nothing.
However, now that we're kind of stuck with our physically dark Selene/
moon is by far the best reason as to why this planet is never going to
see another ice age.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Sep 1, 5:39 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2577fde0-ae9a-4b31...@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 1, 4:48 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 29, 12:35 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly
> > > > advanced/weird ideas)
>
> > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National
> > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the
> > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
>
> > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”)
> > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of
> > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked
> > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not
> > > > be sufficient.
>
> > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters
> > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic
> > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to
> > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of
> > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately
> > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful
> > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and
> > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s
> > > > thin the herd by 90%.
>
> > > > BradGuth, Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
>
> > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a
> > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially
> > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode?
> > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of
> > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before
>
> > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as
> > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's
> > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
>
> > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
>
> > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
>
> > > "Shading The Earth"Guth
> > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth
> > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
>
> > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour
> > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt
> > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of
> > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
>
> > ~ BG
>
> > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively
> > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position
> > relative to the two massive bodies.
>
> > do you know what negligible means?
>
> > twobc (total waste of brain cells)guth
>
> Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation,
> denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing
>
> As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If
> anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical
> Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's
> left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend-
> Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
>
> > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
>
> > "There are many benefits:
>
> > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because
> > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable
> > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
>
> In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is
> "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000
> years.
>
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> About eight o'clock
How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would
only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and
dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and
subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps
because of once belonging to Sirius B.
There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus,
and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or
saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably
hosting those subsequent isotopes.
Non-Lunar 3He Resources / L.J. Whittenberg
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm967.pdf
~ BG
BradGuth
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 4:33 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ca2abd44-d33c-44c0...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> > > > offer, but then I'm not the one that's forever stuck thinking in a
> > > > narrow box that's overfilled with mainstream obfuscation, denial and
> > > > perpetual naysayism.
>
> > > 384 thousand km, and have it in an orbit around the sun is supposed
> > > to do what, now?
>
> > Gives us < 3.5% shade, among other beneficial things.
>
> > > Shade?
>
> > That's correct, we get that badly needed spot of shade.
>
> > > What for?
>
> > For cooling off this Eden/Earth that's otherwise thawing out too fast,
> > and the vast biodiversity that isn't adapting fast enough might be
> > saved.
>
> > > Do you actually have a problem with the Earth returning to its natural
> > > temperature and climate?
>
> > Your insurmountable denial and mainstream obfuscation is noted.
>
> > > be attainable, but...really? I mean, really?
>
> > Yes, I say really, we can in fact pull that physically dark sucker out
> > to Earth L1 and interactively keep it there. Think of it as just a
> > much larger version of our ISS. There's lots more positive than
> > negative considerations, and loads more benefits than just obtaining
> > <3.5% shade for Earth.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> What about the continued stability of the Earth's axis? It is thought
> Earth ended up rotating on its side like Uranus? Large parts of the
> Earth could then become inhospitable to life! Would you be willing to
> assume the responsibility and liability for such consequences?
>
> Double-A
On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
>
> > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
>
> > "There are many benefits:
>
> > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because
> > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable
> > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
>
> In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is
> "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000
> years.
>
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> About eight o'clock
How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would
only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and
dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and
subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps
because of once belonging to Sirius B.
There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus,
and that alone means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded
BradGuth
Relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1 would become a multitasking
win-win for our environment as well as for utilizing of the moon
itself, as well as still allowing for my nifty LSE-CM/ISS would be
even so much better off because of the extra shade provided while
tethered at the new and greatly improved Zero Delta-V of Selene L1.
~ BG
Double-A
And just think of all the jobs the project would create and Obama
could take credit for!
Double-A
BradGuth
Your "The Crappy Idea" is noted, as is your inability to see the full
potential of what needs to get done, at least sooner or later. (too
much later is not a good option)
Sitting around and doing the usual Republican nothing, as such is not
an option unless you intend to hold those future Summer Olympics in
Antarctica.
You do realize we're talking about a good century of applied effort
for the task of relocating our moon to Earth L1. This is using a mass
of perhaps 1e6 tonnes that's tethered as centripetal tugging outward
from <2x L2. The 1e6 tonne mass would require some reaction thrust
from time to time (perhaps most of the time), though mostly for proper
alignment as it ever so gradually gives the necessary force on behalf
of moving our Selene/moon further away and slowing that sucker down to
109 km/sec (roughly 10% of it's current velocity).
Once accomplished, the million tonne mass can be either disposed of,
returned to the lunar surface, or made into a tethered Selene L2.1
outpost so as to go along with the Selene L1.1 tethered outpost.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4c08d675-5fec-4d8e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
So, this mass in L2 will not act like all other L2 objects and will magically
tug on the moon? How is this possible?
What tether is strong enough to withstand the force necessary to move
the moon?
How will the new mass be reconstituted into a single mass?
Being that the moon currently stabilizes the earth's precession, keeping
the earth's tilt from radical, unpredictable axial shifts, what effect would an
earth/sun L1 orbit have on the earth's precession?
What effect would less tidal activity have on earth's ecosystem and thermal
conductance through less oceanic tidal mixing?
If the moon indeed has a heating effect on the planet, what would the net
result be by removing this effect be, plus the possible 3.5% of shade?
Will this 3.5% shade cut off the gulf-stream?
If the moon does indeed have an impact on volcanic activity on this planet,
what would be the loss of such activity cause? Think in terms of climate
and tectonic activity.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4c08d675-5fec-4d8e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 20, 12:26 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 20, 11:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You do realize we're talking about a good century of applied effort
> > for the task of relocating our moon to Earth L1. This is using a mass
> > of perhaps 1e6 tonnes that's tethered as centripetal tugging outward
> > from <2x L2. The 1e6 tonne mass would require some reaction thrust
> > from time to time (perhaps most of the time), though mostly for proper
> > alignment as it ever so gradually gives the necessary force on behalf
> > of moving our Selene/moon further away and slowing that sucker down to
> > 109 km/sec (roughly 10% of it's current velocity).
>
> > Once accomplished, the million tonne mass can be either disposed of,
> > returned to the lunar surface, or made into a tethered Selene L2.1
> > outpost so as to go along with the Selene L1.1 tethered outpost.
>
> So, this mass in L2 will not act like all other L2 objects and will magically
> tug on the moon? How is this possible?
A tethered mass placement of 2x L2 = 200% L2, or physics-101
centripetal duh!
A subsequent final placement of L2.1 (10% beyond L2) is just for
tethered station keeping.
>
> What tether is strong enough to withstand the force necessary to move
> the moon?
Basalt fiber is sufficient, although carbonado/diamond fiber is way
overkill. Either fiber would be made from the surface of the moon
itself.
>
> How will the new mass be reconstituted into a single mass?
Mostly via robotics, mining the lunar basalt and hauling it out to the
2x L2 placement, using a very large ball-net of basalt fiber for
collection purposes.
>
> Being that the moon currently stabilizes the earth's precession, keeping
> the earth's tilt from radical, unpredictable axial shifts, what effect would an
> earth/sun L1 orbit have on the earth's precession?
You have that one backwards. (sorry about that)
>
> What effect would less tidal activity have on earth's ecosystem and thermal
> conductance through less oceanic tidal mixing?
Nearly everything improves, way more so than enough to artificially
cope with the few items that don't.
>
> If the moon indeed has a heating effect on the planet, what would the net
> result be by removing this effect be, plus the possible 3.5% of shade?
Reducing the existing 2e20 N/sec will have a cooling affect. By
exactly how much I can't say without running off thousands of lines of
complex math and/or computer simulations.
>
> Will this 3.5% shade cut off the gulf-stream?
Don't be silly or otherwise so naysay. If anything the gulf-stream
would only improve, as would most every other aspect of our
environment.
>
> If the moon does indeed have an impact on volcanic activity on this planet,
> what would be the loss of such activity cause? Think in terms of climate
> and tectonic activity.
As I said, most everything improves for the better of the environment
and that of its biodiversity. There would still be ocean tides,
though perhaps somewhat less than 50% as great.
However, if you insist upon only focusing and elaborating on the few
negatives, as such chances are that nothing of others or myself having
to say on this topic is worth the effort. I suggest you accomplish
for yourself an extensive and objective side by side listing of all
the pro/con issues.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:db7cb069-1fd2-4f93...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 20, 9:31 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4c08d675-5fec-4d8e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> A tethered mass placement of 2x L2 = 200% L2, or physics-101
> centripetal duh!
My bad for missing the 2xL2. Regardless, to get a centripetal force
large enough, wouldn't it be necessary to have an orbit greater in
speed than the moon's own rotation considering that the moon has
such a slow rotation?
> Basalt fiber is sufficient, although carbonado/diamond fiber is way
> overkill. Either fiber would be made from the surface of the moon
> itself.
What's the tensile strength of that material over that great of a distance?
To move the moon it would have to be able to not only pull the moon's
mass, it would also have to be able to handle much more than that
to get the moon's vector to shift.
> You have that one backwards. (sorry about that)
No need to be sorry. I am correct. Without the moon the earth's
precession would be greater, possibly increasing up 90 degrees
at times. I'm certain this would not be good for the environment.
> Nearly everything improves, way more so than enough to artificially
> cope with the few items that don't.
So, less tidal mixing is beneficial?
>> If the moon indeed has a heating effect on the planet, what would the net
>> result be by removing this effect be, plus the possible 3.5% of shade?
>
> Reducing the existing 2e20 N/sec will have a cooling affect. By
> exactly how much I can't say without running off thousands of lines of
> complex math and/or computer simulations.
So, the net reduction would most likely be inconsequential and not
worthy of the math?
>> Will this 3.5% shade cut off the gulf-stream?
>
> Don't be silly or otherwise so naysay. If anything the gulf-stream
> would only improve, as would most every other aspect of our
> environment.
Cooler temperatures are more beneficial than warmer temperatures?
We are talking about the environment, right?
>>
>> If the moon does indeed have an impact on volcanic activity on this planet,
>> what would be the loss of such activity cause? Think in terms of climate
>> and tectonic activity.
>
> As I said, most everything improves for the better of the environment
> and that of its biodiversity. There would still be ocean tides,
> though perhaps somewhat less than 50% as great.
A good part of global cooling stems from volcanic activity. Cutting
this off would be counteracted by the moving of the moon to e/s L1?
>
> However, if you insist upon only focusing and elaborating on the few
> negatives, as such chances are that nothing of others or myself having
> to say on this topic is worth the effort. I suggest you accomplish
> for yourself an extensive and objective side by side listing of all
> the pro/con issues.
My questions come as they may.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:db7cb069-1fd2-4f93...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 20, 9:31 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4c08d675-5fec-4d8e...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > A tethered mass placement of 2x L2 = 200% L2, or physics-101
> > centripetal duh!
>
> My bad for missing the 2xL2. Regardless, to get a centripetal force
> large enough, wouldn't it be necessary to have an orbit greater in
> speed than the moon's own rotation considering that the moon has
> such a slow rotation?
Selene 2x L2 is a whole lot faster, because it's much further away
from us. Obviously you can't even run a free/public internet
centripetal force calculator.
>
> > Basalt fiber is sufficient, although carbonado/diamond fiber is way
> > overkill. Either fiber would be made from the surface of the moon
> > itself.
>
> What's the tensile strength of that material over that great of a distance?
Basalt is worth 4.84 GPa, and carbonado fiber is nearly a hundred fold
tougher. Whatever distance is immaterial, because the tether and its
taper is mostly robotic built to suit.
>
> To move the moon it would have to be able to not only pull the moon's
> mass, it would also have to be able to handle much more than that
> to get the moon's vector to shift.
Correct, it's extremely complex and none too easy. Not a job for
wussyass naysay folks like yourself that are so deathly afraid of your
own kosher shadow.
>
> > You have that one backwards. (sorry about that)
>
> No need to be sorry. I am correct. Without the moon the earth's
> precession would be greater, possibly increasing up 90 degrees
> at times. I'm certain this would not be good for the environment.
Your purely subjective uncertainty and utter lack of research is
noted. The planet Venus that's entirely w/o moon is not unstable, so
why should Earth be if having merely with less moon, and otherwise a
consistent solar+moon tidal force to contend with?
>
> > Nearly everything improves, way more so than enough to artificially
> > cope with the few items that don't.
>
> So, less tidal mixing is beneficial?
In the global view of such matters, of course it's better. How would
you like it if every lake on Earth had a 10 meter tide to contend
with?
>
> >> If the moon indeed has a heating effect on the planet, what would the net
> >> result be by removing this effect be, plus the possible 3.5% of shade?
>
> > Reducing the existing 2e20 N/sec will have a cooling affect. By
> > exactly how much I can't say without running off thousands of lines of
> > complex math and/or computer simulations.
>
> So, the net reduction would most likely be inconsequential and not
> worthy of the math?
If you say so, because I sure as hell didn't.
>
> >> Will this 3.5% shade cut off the gulf-stream?
>
> > Don't be silly or otherwise so naysay. If anything the gulf-stream
> > would only improve, as would most every other aspect of our
> > environment.
>
> Cooler temperatures are more beneficial than warmer temperatures?
> We are talking about the environment, right?
Correct, at least cooler wherever it needs to be within the
environment that most of us humans pay any attention to, because
whatever's below our mostly dumbfounded feet is always too dark and
scary to think about.
>
> >> If the moon does indeed have an impact on volcanic activity on this planet,
> >> what would be the loss of such activity cause? Think in terms of climate
> >> and tectonic activity.
>
> > As I said, most everything improves for the better of the environment
> > and that of its biodiversity. There would still be ocean tides,
> > though perhaps somewhat less than 50% as great.
>
> A good part of global cooling stems from volcanic activity. Cutting
> this off would be counteracted by the moving of the moon to e/s L1?
Your silly loaded question is noted, as is your kosher approved
Republican hidden agenda and ulterior motives. Doing nothing for
salvaging our frail environment and that of not stabilizing the whole
Earth is simply not an option, unless of course you are Jewish and
Republican to boot.
>
> > However, if you insist upon only focusing and elaborating on the few
> > negatives, as such chances are that nothing of others or myself having
> > to say on this topic is worth the effort. I suggest you accomplish
> > for yourself an extensive and objective side by side listing of all
> > the pro/con issues.
>
> My questions come as they may.
They're all the usual loaded questions that you have no intentions of
ever being personally honest about. As I said, your kosher approved
Republican mindset is noted.
~ BG
Double-A
And why not? Antarctica has a lot of good farmland just going to
waste! And we are going to need another habitable continent for our
burgeoning population to migrate to!
> You do realize we're talking about a good century of applied effort
> for the task of relocating our moon to Earth L1. This is using a mass
> of perhaps 1e6 tonnes that's tethered as centripetal tugging outward
> from <2x L2. The 1e6 tonne mass would require some reaction thrust
> from time to time (perhaps most of the time), though mostly for proper
> alignment as it ever so gradually gives the necessary force on behalf
> of moving our Selene/moon further away and slowing that sucker down to
> 109 km/sec (roughly 10% of it's current velocity).
>
> Once accomplished, the million tonne mass can be either disposed of,
> returned to the lunar surface, or made into a tethered Selene L2.1
> outpost so as to go along with the Selene L1.1 tethered outpost.
>
> ~ BG
Perhaps you could move enough mass to the Moon so it could hold a 1
bar atmosphere. Then you'd have something!
Double-A
BradGuth
The same can be said of Greenland. Poor and muddle class folks had
better learn how to swim, mostly because they'll not be able to afford
to own or rent high ground.
>
> > You do realize we're talking about a good century of applied effort
> > for the task of relocating our moon to Earth L1. This is using a mass
> > of perhaps 1e6 tonnes that's tethered as centripetal tugging outward
> > from <2x L2. The 1e6 tonne mass would require some reaction thrust
> > from time to time (perhaps most of the time), though mostly for proper
> > alignment as it ever so gradually gives the necessary force on behalf
> > of moving our Selene/moon further away and slowing that sucker down to
> > 109 km/sec (roughly 10% of it's current velocity).
>
> > Once accomplished, the million tonne mass can be either disposed of,
> > returned to the lunar surface, or made into a tethered Selene L2.1
> > outpost so as to go along with the Selene L1.1 tethered outpost.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Perhaps you could move enough mass to the Moon so it could hold a 1
> bar atmosphere. Then you'd have something!
>
> Double-A
It has more than sufficient mass as is. Using heavy elements instead
of wussy atmospheric elements would be a good start, whereas 0.1 bar
should be doable, and perhaps as good as 1 bar on the continuously dim/
earthshine side once that moon has been relocated to Earth L1.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:08beb63c-e939-412d...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> It has more than sufficient mass as is. Using heavy elements instead
> of wussy atmospheric elements would be a good start, whereas 0.1 bar
> should be doable, and perhaps as good as 1 bar on the continuously dim/
> earthshine side once that moon has been relocated to Earth L1.
Continuously dim/earthshine side? That about sums up the inside
of your head, and thus all of your theories.
Idiot.
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:91f28e8d-f36e-4ef4...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
< crap snipped >
As suspected, you have nothing. Even the simple things
evade you.
You are more "Jewish" than the Yids. Ironic, don't you think?
Idiot.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:08beb63c-e939-412d...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Think man, think. You really need to get yourself out of that cozy
mainstream box of yours.
None of this is published in LeapFrog pop-up format.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:91f28e8d-f36e-4ef4...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> < crap snipped >
>
> As suspected, you have nothing. Even the simple things
> evade you.
>
> You are more "Jewish" than the Yids. Ironic, don't you think?
>
> Idiot.
I have lots to offer, but I don't have a caste system, much less
slaves, nor do I perform human sacrifices. I must have flunked my
required semester of Yid-101.
btw, there's nothing simple about any of this moon relocation thing.
~ BG
Double-A
0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human
survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only
0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley
could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices.
There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on
the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you
imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The
air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like
the atmosphere does on Pluto!
Double-A
BradGuth
>
> 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human
> survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only
> 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods.
At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go
inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
> Perhaps a great valley
> could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices.
> There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on
> the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you
> imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun?
Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and
solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine
illuminated dark side would remain extremely cool until enough
saltwater ice is deposited and the artificial lunar atmospheric cycle
of the extremely hot side starts to circulate its solar obtained
thermal energy towards the cold side, and obviously the cold dark side
atmosphere gets drawn over the continuous terminator into the blazing
sunlight, whereas the double IR that our physically dark moon by day
is so well known for roasting our previous missions nearly to death.
All we'll need is to make a terminator band of perhaps +/- 1 km (2 km
wide) or at most +/- 2 km for giving us <4 km width over the entire
circumference that'll never change, into becoming our survivable
habitat zone, and otherwise to hell with the face or back sides that
are either too freaking cold or otherwise too hot. However, imagine
how extra efficient those terminator situated Stirling Engine kinds of
solar derived energy units are going to function at something close to
95% efficiency (roughly twice as good as our best PV alternatives).
>
> The air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground,
> just like the atmosphere does on Pluto!
>
> Double-A
With applied technology, similar to making artificial snow here on
Earth, perhaps future Winter Olympics using the much colder salty snow
could be accommodated. Terrific Earth and star gazing would be by
itself worth the ticket to those Winter Olympics.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message news:02499744-5efc-4935...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
Double-A
Can you imagine the new records that will be set in the ski jump?
Double-A
BradGuth
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in messagenews:02499744-5efc-4935...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Those powerful electrostatic and the magnet (paramagnetic +
diamagnetic) binding forces that are so much grater than gravity
should help do the trick.
Otherwise the 0.1 bar atmosphere (if it had sufficient oxygen
content), should more than do the trick at 1.5 psi. However, at 75%
O2, God save us if there's ever a spark, especially if ever getting
that lunar surface atmosphere up to 2.5 psi, whereas even at 50% O2
would still be risky as hell.
It would be much safer if this human habitat were accomplished inside
the moon, whereas higher pressure and a much lower percentage of O2
would be acceptable.
~ BG
BradGuth
Instead of measured in meters, they'd use kilometers.
~ BG
Double-A
> On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
>
> > "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in messagenews:02499744-5efc-4935...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human
> > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only
> > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley
> > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices.
> > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on
> > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you
> > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The
> > > air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like
> > > the atmosphere does on Pluto!
>
> > How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
>
> Those powerful electrostatic and the magnet (paramagnetic +
> diamagnetic) binding forces that are so much grater than gravity
> should help do the trick.
>
> Otherwise the 0.1 bar atmosphere (if it had sufficient oxygen
> content), should more than do the trick at 1.5 psi.
Also 75 torr, or 3 inches of mercury. Isn't Google units conversion
fun?
> However, at 75%
> O2, God save us if there's ever a spark, especially if ever getting
> that lunar surface atmosphere up to 2.5 psi, whereas even at 50% O2
> would still be risky as hell.
So, have a strict fireproof building code. Moon rock shouldn't be
combustible, although Moon dust in the air could be. When you light
up your smoke, don't be surprised if it burns like a Roman candle!
> It would be much safer if this human habitat were accomplished inside
> the moon, whereas higher pressure and a much lower percentage of O2
> would be acceptable.
>
> ~ BG
Double-A
BradGuth
We could change our physiology over to breathing like a fish, and
instead of 75% O2, how about sucking just a few percent of liquid h2o2
(sort of O2 fortified beer, aka "Bud Heavy") should do the trick.
~ BG
Double-A
Heavy duty!
Double-A
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:efdc37f1-e13a-4e4d...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 2:12 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go
> inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
That O2 level might be high. Generally any concentration above 40%
is not good, especially over long periods of time. Usually it's best to keep
the O2 levels below 40% and displace with N2. Most studies are for the
other extremes of pressure/O2 conditions. However, I don't know of any
studies, offhand, that have actually tested for this scenario.
> Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and
> solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine
<snip>
There you go with earthshine, again. How the fuck does the dark
side of the moon get earthshine? It only gets sun/star/other planet
shine.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:efdc37f1-e13a-4e4d...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 22, 2:12 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go
> > inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
>
> That O2 level might be high. Generally any concentration above 40%
> is not good, especially over long periods of time. Usually it's best to keep
> the O2 levels below 40% and displace with N2. Most studies are for the
> other extremes of pressure/O2 conditions. However, I don't know of any
> studies, offhand, that have actually tested for this scenario.
I agree, that something less than 50% O2 is best. (makes one wonder
why Apollo-10 ever had such a lethal suit and cabin environment of
100% O2)
There are many high pressure test applications of >1% O2 and <99% H2
with not biodiversity compromises, but you'll need internet access in
order to discover such research.
>
> > Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and
> > solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine
>
> <snip>
>
> There you go with earthshine, again. How the fuck does the dark
> side of the moon get earthshine? It only gets sun/star/other planet
> shine.
When it's relocated to Earth L1, because from then on the sun always
shines on the far-side, and the otherwise permanent dark-side/near-
side only gets a continuous illumination via planet shine(full-earth
shine) to work with.
Earth-shine is actually rather bright, and it's of a good kind of
bluish hue at that.
~ BG