LEO HighRise Agricultural, Industrial, Office and Condos (starting at $1000/sf + 1% annual member fees)
BradGuth
be as rich and powerful in order to qualify.
LEO HighRise Agricultural, Industrial, Office and Condos (starting at
$1000/sf + 1% annual member fees)
The minimum crushing strength of basalt at 400 kg/cm2 and of sandstone
rocks at 300 kg/cm2 would suggest that a 100 mile high structure of
10:1 ratio, as having an 11 mile square base and one mile square top/
roof of an open LEO access surface could be supported by the average
crust of Earth. Basalt having a mechanical compressive strength of
1600 kg/cm2 is simply what the upper most surface loading limitations
would be. BTW, processed basalt ceramics can even exceed 6400 kg/cm2.
According to government and thus geological engineering certified
numbers in everyday structural usage, the hard rock crust of Earth can
(in most locations) sustain 200 tonnes/m2 worth of surface or
foundation loading (some terrestrial engineering expertise suggesting
as great as 400 tonnes/m2 as safely doable). Obviously there are more
than a few thin crust and/or geothermal affected areas that simply
should not be constructed upon, and even a few somewhat iffy sites
regardless of the intended surface loading should obviously be avoided
at all cost, especially if there's nearby lava emerging from time to
time, meaning that Iceland might not represent such a good foundation
for situating this 100 mile HighRise UN Condo.
Are there any brave takers? If so, I'll need your 10% in advance.
- Brad Guth -
Cliff
>HighRise
How did they build the Pyramids without cement?
One would think that the weight of things would
cause point-by-point overloading & failure without cement
to spread the loads ..? Rock is not known for it's deformation
under load on such timescales as their construction process ..
--
Cliff
BradGuth
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:00:37 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >HighRise
>
> How did they build the Pyramids without cement?
They obviously did, but I think ETs helped quite a bit.
>
> One would think that the weight of things would
> cause point-by-point overloading & failure without cement
> to spread the loads ..? Rock is not known for it's deformation
> under load on such timescales as their construction process ..
> --
> Cliff
The first floor plan of this 100 mile tall structure offers a gross
surface plan-view area of 2.85e7 m2 to work with, and there's at least
twelve of those 16'+ overhead clearance floors of sublevels for
accommodating the necessary foundation and various infrastructure
considerations (if need be including a pair of those 100 GW nuclear
power plants, although I'd much rather have one of those nifty He3
fusion reactors).
At roughly 24,000 floors (figure 22'/floor), plus that one hell of an
expanding 12 floor basement within its robust foundation that's
setting on nearly solid basalt bedrock is not quite the same as having
to build a pyramid out of solid stones and w/o glue. I'd expect this
H-Bomb proof foundation alone taking at least a decade to construct of
a basalt composite cement and alloy steel.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
LEO HighRise accommodates 1.8e9 < 3.6e9 (excluding sublevels)
When this 100 mile high structure is drawn at a 1:1 scale with Earth,
it doesn't look so terribly big or tall. When drawn along side mount
Everest is when it looks extremely tall.
There is nothing of which this high rise structure and subsequent
community within would not include, and most likely the surrounding
100 mile worth of ground surface radius might as well belong entirely
to this vertically gated community. A mag-rail lift elevator or
possibly air-tube pod at 100 mph would take an hour getting yourself
from ground level to the top LEO floor (going outside for any kind of
LEO look-see is not an option unless you're really good at holding
your breath). The 100 mile surface radius of this high rise property
site would most likely also become UN rated and it'll obviously
include an international airport of global status.
The first floor plan of this 100 mile tall structure offers a gross
surface plan-view area of an 11 mile square (28.5e6 m2) to work with,
and there's at least 21 of those 16'+ overhead clearance floors of
sublevels for accommodating the necessary foundation and various
infrastructure considerations (if need be including a pair of 100 GW
nuclear power plants, although I'd much rather have one of those nifty
He3 fusion reactors, and by rights we should be able to export roughly
half of our nuclear or fusion energy for supporting those surrounding
surface communities, along with geothermal, solar and wind derived
energy making up half again as much energy so that various synfuels of
LH2, H2O2 and biofuels can be continually produced).
At roughly 24,000 floors (figure 22'/floor), plus one hell of a 45
degree expanding and 21 floors worth of a basement at 24'/floor within
its robust basalt and steel alloy reinforced cpmposite cement
foundation, that's 528' deep and obviously setting within and upon
nearly solid basalt bedrock, is not quite the same task as for those
having to build their hand polished pyramids out of solid stones and w/
o glue. BTW, I'd expect this H-Bomb and A380 crash proof foundation
alone taking at least a decade to construct of such terrific basalt
Everett M. Greene
> LEO HighRise accommodates 1.8e9 < 3.6e9 (excluding sublevels)
>
> When this 100 mile high structure is drawn at a 1:1 scale with Earth,
> it doesn't look so terribly big or tall. When drawn along side mount
> Everest is when it looks extremely tall.
Won't there be a problem with utilities -- water, sewage, air,...?
The view from upper floors would be spectacular (you can watch the
satellites go by if nothing else), but breathing might be a bit
difficult unless everything's pressurized. From where is the food
and fuel going to come and to where is the trash going to go?
BradGuth
Greene) wrote:
Good freaking grief and but of course, absolutely there's going to be
a few pesky problems, but why does every little stinking detail from
get to go or from birth to grave have to become yet another all-or-
nothing kind of topic/author gauntlet? Just because I have such
yaysay notions doesn't mean that I'm such an all knowing wizard like
those that typically naysay upon everything under their passive sun
which orbits their flat Earth.
As time goes by, and/or by way of motivation is when I'll contribute
whatever else that I can muster. Are you by any chance saying that
yourself and others of your kind wouldn't have a clue as to how we'd
ever go about resolving anything?
Just because the vertical magnitude seems impressive or weird, doesn't
in of itself disqualify the notion of what applied physics and a good
deal of technology couldn't accomplish on behalf of this LEO HighRise
once given the green light. Or, I suppose that we could just keep
holding onto that course of a thousand lights as fueled along by our
spendy and somewhat bloody fossil and yellowcake energy that we're
running ourselves out of, while we continually pollute our environment
and provoke the likes of those mostly nice Muslims until WWII breaks
loose, whereas then we'll not have such lofty sorts of notions to
ponder, if anything of value left to deal with.
This 100 mile high structure is just another alternative to focus our
best talents and resources upon, instead of wasted upon faith-based
and global energy domination related fiascos that'll likely never
result in having two sides of happy campers, no matters what.
For some silly robo or stealth usenet moderation, in addition to my
poor old PC getting continually nailed by usenet spermware/fuckware,
it seems that my replies are being diverted and/or banished. It must
not be my lucky usenet day, because I'm having to repost more of the
same over and over before seeing my contributions stick to the usenet
topic index of replies, whereas meanwhile other topics are functioning
normal. (what gives?)
If you've got some good or weird high-rise related ideas that'll get
us safely into the LEO realm without falling over, or otherwise
causing environmental harm or the demise of innocent folks, as such
I'd like to hear about those for whatever they're worth.
- Brad Guth -
Don
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193957986.3...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
1 question.
As the cost of going vertical increases exponentially as the building
ascends what is the reason for doing so as compared to the mostly linear
cost of going sideways, parallel with the earths surface?
At 100 miles above the earth the view will be mostly boring.
Stunning for the first 30 minutes, and then boring.
So I don't see *view* as having much saleability here, at least on the
topmost levels.
Below say, 10,000 feet, probably, but over that and there's not much to
see....just clouds.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That's worth a whole lot more than one question, and I'd say loaded to
boot. However, it's not just about those LEO condo views. Most folks
with terrific condo views as is don't hardly spend any amount of their
life looking out those spendy condo windows anyway. So, you are
correct that a given "*view* as having much saleability" isn't all
there is to behold. Some of us just like or rather insist upon being
on top of everyone else, regardless of the consequences or the added
cost. Remember that I'd said "starting at $1000/sf", and that's not
necessarily or all that likely for an outside view accessible unit.
Interior units (the vast majority) would only have those large HDTV
plasma screens instead of actual view windows.
Besides, the first lot of 454 floors is below 10,000', and those are
of the much larger area floors to start with. Remember that our top
floor is only a mile square, and that the bottom floor is 11 miles
square. Do the math, and you tell me which condo floor you'd pick,
and be willing to pay those big bucks for. Obviously we'll still have
those many extra thousands of floors past the 454 mark, as for those
the amount of available outside O2 gets noticeably less, and at some
perfectly rational point there would no longer be those outside patio/
veranda decks associated with your private condo, and none of those
windows would open unless there some kind of insurmountable emergency
to deal with.
I'm not suggesting that potential condo owners should apply for those
floors above 454, as there are many perfectly valid reasons besides O2
for staying below the treeline (sort of speak). However, the Andes,
Bolivia tree line is at 17,000' <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tree_line> "Western Cordillera; highest treeline in the world on the
slopes of Sajama Volcano (Polylepis tarapacana)", and perhaps that
makes floor 772 potentially viable for having windows that still open,
and for offering that outside promenade deck for those of us that
simply can't get enough of those Winter Olympics. Above the mount
Everest dead zone level of 25,000'(floor 1136) is not even an option
of offering anything exterior unless you're wearing a spacesuit,
although we could always sponsor naked death climbing events for a
little extra extreme survivor entertainment.
- Brad Guth -
davies lovely III
Don
Very well, but why go *up* as opposed to going lateral?
The costs difference are enormous.
BradGuth
>
> Dude, remember what happened to the tower of Babel. Don't provoke God.
But I think God sort of likes me, at least a whole lot more so than
these silly clown like Zion Yids of rusemasters, spooks and moles of
this mostly anti-think-tank usenet of theirs. What sort of perverted
God would take any credit for the Google/NOVA likes of this holy grail
naysay usenet cesspool from hell?
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
>
> Very well, but why go *up* as opposed to going lateral?
> The costs difference are enormous.
First off, unless you are only 5 years old, it's not your loot that'll
get spent, and secondly why the hell not go for the stars, whereas I
can think of all sorts of nifty advantages once this extremely tall
tower of power and as such being so well populated with mostly the
rich and powerful gets with their usual program of global and local
LEO space domination, as for being almost as well off as what China
and India are going to accomplish with their LSE-CM/ISS and tethered
dipole element that'll safely reach whatever to within 2r of mother
Earth.
Terrestrial to LEO condos, and so much more:
100 miles tall / 24,000 floors (possibly 27,000 usable floors)
Foundation of 11.1 mile2 and 528' deep (21 floors within)
11 mile2 = 28.49e6 m2 / 2 = 14.245e6 m2
1 mile2 (top/roof floor) = 2.59e6 m2
14.245 + 2.59 = 16.835 * .9 = 15.15e6 m2 average usable area per floor
24,000 * 15.15e6 = 363.6e9 m2 of net usable interior
Those 21 extra floors of robust foundation accommodated floor space of
550e6 m2 -(reactors and other misc infrastructure) = 400e6 m2
363.6e9 + .4e9 = 364e9m2 of net usable interior.
So, HighRise interior having excluding infrastructure and lots of
other stuff, we'll likely still have better than 360e9 m2
BTW, if using 27,000 floors would push that net usable floor space to
better than 400e9 m2
With lots of architectural and engineering alternatives inside and
out, there's any number of possible outcomes for safely accommodating
folks within this LEO high-rise structure. It's location can be
almost anywhere on Earth, including Antarctica.
I would do the slightly tapered basic square structure with large
radius corners, at least for the first thousand floors, as that should
get us near enough to the mount Everest dead zone. From that point on
up it's still the basic laws of physics plus anyone's imagination
that'll have to take over.
-
As many as 1e9 paying clients, putting their 10% down of perhaps
$100,000 each = 1e9 * 1e5 = $1e14 ($100 trillion)
As few as 1e8 paying clients, putting their 10% down of perhaps
$1,000,000 each = 1e8 * 1e6 = $1e14 ($100 trillion)
Think of this structure as a mostly vertical biosphere that's roughly
50% self sufficient within its extremely vertical realm, with many of
its residents never having to leave their new and improved environment
for much of anything. On the surrounding 100 mile radius of
terrestrial Earth would be all that would otherwise sustain and
otherwise directly benefit from this vertically imposed lifestyle,
that for more than a century of its construction would continue until
the finishing touches are applied to the LEO top floor that's 100
miles above the badly polluted and too often war like surface of
Earth. Though perhaps it'll even poke God in his private parts (sorry
about that).
Keeping an open mindset and as much positive/constructive yaysayism in
your thoughts, along with utilizing our very best supercomputers doing
99.9% of all the virtual R&D engineering, is actually a basic or
fundamental mission requirement, as otherwise the numbers of those
pesky naysay insurmountable situations will take control and likely
cause the demise of this project long before reaching LEO status.
Obviously working from the robust foundation on up is going to give us
those necessary decades and generations upon generations of greatly
improved engineering expertise, as well as complex android robotics
that'll be necessary for accomplishing this LEO HighRise task as it
gets past the 1000th floor dead zone. However, since the laws of
physics are not likely to change, and the known values of most all the
possible elements incorporated are well enough understood, as such
should make this one an ideal supercomputer accommodated engineering
task of virtual R&D as is, doable for all but those devout naysayers
insisting upon their passive sun that's orbiting their flat Earth be
all there is or ever will be.
- Brad Guth -
Everett M. Greene
> (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > LEO HighRise accommodates 1.8e9 < 3.6e9 (excluding sublevels)
> >
> > > When this 100 mile high structure is drawn at a 1:1 scale with Earth,
> > > it doesn't look so terribly big or tall. When drawn along side mount
> > > Everest is when it looks extremely tall.
> >
> > Won't there be a problem with utilities -- water, sewage, air,...?
> > The view from upper floors would be spectacular (you can watch the
> > satellites go by if nothing else), but breathing might be a bit
> > difficult unless everything's pressurized. From where is the food
> > and fuel going to come and to where is the trash going to go?
>
> Good freaking grief and but of course, absolutely there's going to be
> a few pesky problems, but why does every little stinking detail from
> get to go or from birth to grave have to become yet another all-or-
> nothing kind of topic/author gauntlet? Just because I have such
> yaysay notions doesn't mean that I'm such an all knowing wizard like
> those that typically naysay upon everything under their passive sun
> which orbits their flat Earth.
There's practical engineering experience that says those pesky
details are what kill otherwise potentially good ideas. If there
aren't answers to the more obvious problem areas, what about the
little gotchas that will arise later?
BTW: Learn to clip the non-essential portions of earlier postings.
Jerry Steiger
> If you've got some good or weird high-rise related ideas that'll get
> us safely into the LEO realm without falling over, or otherwise
> causing environmental harm or the demise of innocent folks, as such
> I'd like to hear about those for whatever they're worth.
The high rise doesn't help all that much, as far as getting us into low
earth orbit. You need to be traveling at 18,000 mph to stay in orbit. For
each pound, that is roughly 730 million pound-ft/sec^2 of energy. Lifting it
100 miles up only takes 17 million pound-ft/sec^2, about 2% of the energy
required. You've mainly just gotten your load above the atmosphere, cutting
down the drag and the weight needed to reduce that drag.
Jerry Steiger
BradGuth
Greene) wrote:
> There's practical engineering experience that says those pesky
> details are what kill otherwise potentially good ideas. If there
> aren't answers to the more obvious problem areas, what about the
> little gotchas that will arise later?
With potentially 400 tonnes/m2 worth of base/foundation loading
available, and with a good amount of carbon and/or basalt composites
utilized (expecially well above ground), what's to lose by way of
running this one through a fully 3D interactive worth of virtural
structural R&D simulation, of whatever most any physics programmed
supercomputer worth its CPU salt can accomplish without blowing a
fuse?
The last time I'd checked, an 11.1 mile square foundation that's going
down 528' isn't exactly wussy to start off with.
What is it that we don't know about large foundations and Earth's
bedrock?
- Brad Guth -
Cliff
>The last time I'd checked, an 11.1 mile square foundation that's going
>down 528' isn't exactly wussy to start off with.
>
>What is it that we don't know about large foundations and Earth's
>bedrock?
Large masses cause tectonic shifts, earthquakes, etc.
Some parts of the planet are still rebounding from the
last ice age. Greenland is having microquakes (thus far)
as the glaciers melt IIRC.
Then there may also be angular momentum issues ....
Recall that even the largish earthquake off Indonesia
changed the planet's rotation a bit, as do large man-made lakes
& dams (also microquake sources).
--
Cliff
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The planet of naysayism that you're from doesn't seem to do so well at
other than sticking with the usual mainstream swarm mindset thinking,
do they.
This LEO HighRise condo is actually somewhat of a GSO condo, mostly
because of its substantial foundation that has sort of fully tethered
its entire self as being extremely well connected to one specific
location on Earth (that location could be our mile high Denver, or the
soon to be dry rock of Greenland or even central Antarctica).
Therefore, it's really a GSO condo that's merely having reached its
top floor to the 100 mile high mark that's parked within the LEO
realm. Just because of folks like yourself, I'll have to change the
name from LEO condo to GSO condo (sorry about that).
BTW, I've already explained about a couple of those viable ways of
safely launching stuff away from the top deck, though not that such
was ever the primary function of this tall structure.
BTW No.2, 100 miles up is a wee bit more than just above the
atmosphere. (more like nearly twice as far up, especially if talking
polar atmosphere)
- Brad Guth -
ChamberPot
the tower of Pizza.
Daisy.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Cliff
>No, that was the tower of Pizza.
WARNING:
Mentions of Pizza may attract jbs.
god's gift to 1.5 D AutoCAD (or Etch-A-Sketch & MagnaDoodle).
http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/
--
Cliff
Cliff
>This LEO HighRise condo is actually somewhat of a GSO condo, mostly
>because of its substantial foundation that has sort of fully tethered
>its entire self as being extremely well connected to one specific
>location on Earth (that location could be our mile high Denver, or the
>soon to be dry rock of Greenland or even central Antarctica).
You'd want it atop mountain on the equator. Probably in
Ecuador.
--
Cliff
BradGuth
That would certainly give us the most of our upper Condo exposures to
viewing the most of of those LEO satellites zooming past. As long as
they each miss by something greater than a meter or so is all that
counts.
I was thinking a bit further south or north of the equator might be a
good compromise, as otherwise going as far as the south pole could be
interesting.
Isn't this one a really nifty R&D contest for having the best
supercomputer(s) running through all of those what-if situations?
- Brad Guth -
Cliff
No.
You get the most orbital speed (earth is rotating) AND a better
launch into equatorial or geostationary orbits from the equator.
This is one of the reasons (if not the primary one) for
Europe's Arianne launch facility (ESA) being in French Guiana.
Also, http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/chapter6.html
>- Brad Guth -
--
Cliff
BradGuth
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:20:44 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 12:51 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov 2007 05:00:25 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >This LEO HighRise condo is actually somewhat of a GSO condo, mostly
> >> >because of its substantial foundation that has sort of fully tethered
> >> >its entire self as being extremely well connected to one specific
> >> >location on Earth (that location could be our mile high Denver, or the
> >> >soon to be dry rock of Greenland or even central Antarctica).
>
> >> You'd want it atop mountain on the equator. Probably in
> >> Ecuador.
> >> --
> >> Cliff
>
> >That would certainly give us the most of our upper Condo exposures to
> >viewing the most of of those LEO satellites zooming past. As long as
> >they each miss by something greater than a meter or so is all that
> >counts.
>
> >I was thinking a bit further south or north of the equator might be a
> >good compromise, as otherwise going as far as the south pole could be
> >interesting.
>
> >supercomputer(s) running through all of those what-if situations?
>
> No.
> You get the most orbital speed (earth is rotating) AND a better
> launch into equatorial or geostationary orbits from the equator.
You can trust that I fully understad, but remember that this extreme
high rise structure isn't just about tossing loads of extra stuff into
an already crowded LEO environment. Besides, how about those nifty
polar orbits, or perhaps just the whole lot more nifty worth of
establishing those GSOs if starting their launch from the 100 mile
high platform to begin with.
>
> This is one of the reasons (if not the primary one) for
> Europe's Arianne launch facility (ESA) being in French Guiana.
>
> Also,http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/chapter6.html
Thanks for the constructive feedback, even though regardless of its
terrestrial base location there are methods of launching items via
this 100 mile high platform that'll make its final placement not
entirely so critical, but I'll have to agree that an equator placement
is in fact best for accommodating those most typical of satellites
that'll get somewhat opposed-magrail or cannon launched as often as
we'd like without over polluting Earth with so much as a kg worth of
solid rocket thrust exhaust, and we could even utilize my LRn222--
>Rn222 ion thrusters without Greenpiece or ELF getting in our face.
BTW, this extreme high rise of 100 miles could and should by itself
provide countless platforms on behalf of Earth science and even
astronomy instruments, in addition to other countless global
communication benefits. This could also accommodate the highest
collage on Earth, as well as the highest faith-based whatevers, and so
forth. It should also put a whole new meaning to base jumping.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
This CAD project could become a whole lot of educational and serious
think-tank kind of fun, especially in fancy 3D simulation mode and
having those vitual fly-through capabilities of our having a good
quality of interactive graphics simulated look-see at just about
anything.
Unfortunately, my topic entro mistake of using "LEO Condo", as for my
having to deal with what we seem to have within our usual warm and
fuzzy usenet land of traditional denial and naysayism, is more like
our topics and subsequent contributions having to survive a bloody
swarm like mindset of village idiot clowns that can only coexist
within their terrestrial limited box, of such all-knowing folks that
are seemingly deathly afraid to revise anything, much less for
breaking wind within their all-knowing box of mainstream status quo
assumptions without first obtaining some kind of polished faith-based/
NASA authority. In spite of their borg like collective mindset and
subsequent naysay gauntlet of flak, I'd have to argue or if need be
rant on behalf of our creating this viable biosphere analogy for the
task of accomplishing most anything off-world (such as on behalf of us
humans and our frail DNA doing Mars or even that of our extremely
massive and nearby moon) needs to be fully R&D proof-tested to work
right here in good old River City (sort of speak), before we even
think of accomplishing any such off-world adventures, and as of lately
getting especially important if we have to accept that so many of us
can't manage to affordably survive our AGW Earth as is, is exactly
what I believe excludes our frail DNA from most all that's off-world.
A compromise but valuable effort towards resolving many such unknowns
should be this vertical biosphere like structured environment, that's
starting off essentially below ground and ultimately reaching for the
stars.
Instead of our sticking with the usual gauntlet of usenet naysayism
and required denial that so many of you kind folks are likely to form
into another one of your mainstream swarm like mindsets, of often
insuring a closed anti-think-tank analogy, whereas perhaps instead of
accepting our LEO realm as being limited to our ISS and otherwise
mostly robotic stuff that's continually zooming in orbit, whereas
instead this extremely high rise structure is simply reaching its GSS
top floor into the 100 mile high realm or path of all those fast
moving LEO satellites, is at least of what's technically doable, and
besides we seem to need a whole lot more AGW protected and energy
efficient housing anyway.
This extreme HighRise Condo is perhaps actually somewhat of a well
grounded GSO condo, mostly because of its substantial foundation that
has sort of fully tethered its entire high rise self as being
extremely well connected to one specific location on Earth (that
location could be our mile high Denver, or the soon to be ice free and
dry rock of Greenland or even central Antarctica). Therefore,
technically it's really a fully terrestrial GSO condo that's merely
having reached its top floor that's only into the 100 mile hight of
our LEO realm, that's somewhat CSS/GSO parked itself within a less
than nano portion of the LEO realm of space. Just because of those
good intended but out-of-context folks like Jerry Steiger, I'll have
to change the name from LEO condo to GSO or GSS condo (sorry about
that, now I'm confused).
BTW, I've already explained about a few of those viable methods of
safely launching stuff away from the top deck, though not that such
was ever the primary function of this tall structure. However, I
suppose the the 16+ meter diameter core elevator of this high rise
could technically deposit a Saturn V or larger rocket to the top
floor.
First off, unless you are only 5 years old, it's not any of your hard
earned loot that'll get spent, and secondly why the hell not go for
the stars (flat/horizontal structures are rather dull and boring, tall
is rather fascinating, as well as rich and powerful looking), whereas
I can think of all sorts of nifty advantages once this extremely tall
tower of power and as such being so well populated with mostly the
rich and powerful gets with their usual program of global and local
LEO space domination, as for being almost as well off as what China
and India are going to accomplish with their LSE-CM/ISS (our moon's L1
only space depot/gateway and to/from moon surface elevators) plus
having that tethered dipole element that'll safely reach and sustain
whatever they'd like to within 2r of mother Earth.
Terrestrial to LEO condos (actually GSS / Geo Syncro Structure):
100 miles tall / 24,000 floors (possibly 27,000 usable floors)
Foundation of 11.1 mile2 and 528' deep (21 floors within)
11 mile2 = 28.49e6 m2 / 2 = 14.245e6 m2
1 mile2 (top/roof floor) = 2.59e6 m2
14.245 + 2.59 = 16.835 * .9 = 15.15e6 m2 avg usable area per floor
24,000 * 15.15e6 = 363.6e9 m2 of net usable interior
Those 21 extra floors of robust foundation accommodated floor space
offers 550e6 m2 -(reactors and other misc infrastructure) = 400e6 m2
363.6e9 + .4e9 = 364e9m2 of net usable interior.
So, HighRise interior having excluding infrastructure and lots of
other stuff, indicates that we'll likely still have better than 360e9
m2
BTW, if using 27,000 floors would push that net usable interior floor
space to better than 400e9 m2
With lots of architectural and engineering alternatives inside and
out, there's any number of possible outcomes for safely accommodating
folks within this GSS/LEO high-rise structure. It's location can be
situated almost anywhere on Earth, including Antarctica.
Personally, I would do this as the slightly tapered basic square
structure with large radius corners, at least for the first thousand
floors, as that should get us near enough to the mount Everest death
zone. From that elevated point on up it's still the basic laws of
physics plus robotic androids and anyone's weird imagination that'll
have to take over for much of the construction, at least until the
interior of each new floor can become reasonably pressurised.
-
As many as 1e9 potential clients, putting their 10% down of perhaps
$100,000 each = 1e9 * 1e5 = $1e14 ($100 trillion)
As few as 1e8 potential clients, putting their 10% down of perhaps
$1,000,000 each = 1e8 * 1e6 = $1e14 ($100 trillion)
Think of this spendy structure as a mostly vertical biosphere that's
roughly 50% self sufficient within its extremely vertical realm, with
many of its residents never having to leave their new and improved
environment for much of anything. On the surrounding 100 mile radius
of terrestrial Earth would be all that would sustain and otherwise
directly benefit most everyone from this vertically imposed lifestyle,
that for more than a century of its construction would continue until
the finishing touches are applied to the GSS/LEO top floor that's 100
miles above the badly polluted and too often war like surface of
Earth. Though perhaps it'll poke God in his private parts (sorry
about that).
Keeping an open mindset and as much positive/constructive worth of
yaysayism in your thoughts, along with utilizing our very best
supercomputers doing 99.9% of all the virtual R&D engineering, is
actually a basic or fundamental mission requirement, as otherwise the
numbers of those pesky naysay forced insurmountable situations will
take over control and likely cause the demise of this project long
before reaching LEO status. Obviously working from the robust
foundation on up is going to give us those necessary decades and
generations upon generations of greatly improved engineering
expertise, as well as complex android robotics that'll become
necessary for accomplishing this GSS/LEO HighRise task as it gets on
past the 1000th floor death zone. However, since the laws of physics
are not all that likely to change, and the known values of most all
the possible elements incorporated are well enough understood, as such
should make this one an ideal supercomputer accommodated engineering
task of virtual R&D as is, as being entirely doable in spite of all
but those devout naysayers insisting upon their passive sun that's
orbiting their flat Earth be all there is or ever will be.
This extreme high rise of 100 miles could and should by itself provide
countless platforms on behalf of Earth science and even hosting
astronomy instruments, in addition to other countless global
communication benefits. This robust structure could also accommodate
Cliff
>BTW, this extreme high rise of 100 miles could and should by itself
>provide countless platforms on behalf of Earth science and even
>astronomy instruments,
So do balloons & they are much more portable.
>in addition to other countless global
>communication benefits.
How much longer is "line of sight"?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>This could also accommodate the highest
>collage on Earth, as well as the highest faith-based whatevers,
Think the fundies would launch & fund a research project
(at long, long last after thousands of years) looking for their
claimed "gods"?
http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/9billion_clarke.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8424/STAR.doc
<G>
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In spite of their borg like collective mindset
http://www.awpi.com/Combs/Humor/borg-micro.html
[
"Star Trek Lost Episodes" transcript
[Picard] "Mr. LaForge, have you had any success with your attempts at
finding a weakness in the Borg? And Mr. Data, have you been able to
access their command pathways?"
[Geordi]"Yes, Captain. In fact, we found the answer by searching
through our archives on late Twentieth-century computing technology."
[Geordi presses a key, and a logo appears on the computer screen.]
[Riker looks puzzled.] "What the hell is 'Microsoft'?"
[Data turns to answer.] "Allow me to explain. We will send this
program, for some reason called 'Windows', through the Borg command
pathways. Once inside their root command unit, it will begin consuming
system resources at an unstoppable rate."
[Picard] "But the Borg have the ability to adapt. Won't they alter
their processing systems to increase their storage capacity?"
[Data] "Yes, Captain. But when 'Windows' detects this, it creates a new
version of itself known as an 'upgrade'. The use of resources increases
exponentially with each iteration. The Borg will not be able to adapt
quickly enough. Eventually all of their processing ability will be
taken over and none will be available for their normal operational
functions."
[Picard] "Excellent work. This is even better than that 'unsolvable
geometric shape' idea."
. . 15 Minutes Later . . .
[Data] "Captain, We have successfully installed the 'Windows' in the
command unit and as expected it immediately consumed 85% of all
resources. We however have not received any confirmation of the
expected 'upgrade'."
[Geordi] "Our scanners have picked up an increase in Borg storage and
CPU capacity to compensate, but we still have no indication of an
'upgrade' to compensate for their increase."
[Picard] "Data, scan the history banks again and determine if their is
something we have missed."
[Data] "Sir, I believe there is a reason for the failure in the
upgrade'. Appearently the Borg have circumvented that part of the plan
by not sending in their registration cards.
[Riker] "Captain we have no choice. Requesting permission to begin
emergency escape sequence 3F . . ."
[Geordi, excited] "Wait, Captain I just detected their CPU capacity has
suddenly dropped to 0% !"
[Picard] "Data, what does your scanners show?"
[Data] "Appearently the Borg have found the internal 'Windows' module
named 'Solitaire' and it has used up all the CPU capacity."
[Picard] "Lets wait and see how long this 'solitaire' can reduce their
functionality."
. . Two Hours Pass . . .
[Riker] "Geordi whats the status on the Borg?"
[Geordi] "As expected the Borg are attempting to re-engineer to
compensate for increased CPU and storage demands, but each time they
successfully increase resources I have setup our closest deep space
monitor beacon to transmit more 'windows' modules from something called
the 'Microsoft fun-pack'.
[Picard] "How much time will that buy us ?"
[Data] "Current Borg solution rates allow me to predicate an interest
time span of 6 more hours."
[Geordi] "Captain, another vessel has entered our sector."
[Picard] "Identify."
[Data] "It appears to have markings very similar to the 'Microsoft'
logo"
[Over the speakers] "THIS IS ADMIRAL BILL GATES OF THE MICROSOFT
FLAGSHIP MONOPOLY. WE HAVE POSITIVE CONFIRMATION OF UNREGISTERED
SOFTWARE IN THIS SECTOR. SURREDER ALL ASSETS AND WE CAN AVOID ANY
TROUBLE. YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS"
[Data] "The alien ship has just opened its forward hatches and released
thousands of humanoid shaped objects."
[Picard] "Magnify forward viewer on the alien craft"
[Riker] "Good God captain! Those are humans floating straight toward
the Borg ship with no life support suits! How can they survive the
tortures of deep space ?!"
[Data] "I don't believe that those are humans sir, if you will look
closer I believe you will see that they are carrying something
recognized by twenty-first century man as doe skin leather briefcases,
and wearing Armani suits"
[Riker and Picard together horrified] "Lawyers !!"
[Geordi] "It can't be. All the Lawyers were rounded up and sent
hurtling into the sun in 2017 during the Great Awakening."
[Data] "True, but appearently some must have survived."
[Riker] "They have surrounded the Borg ship and are covering it with
all types of papers."
[Data] "I believe that is known in ancient venacular as 'red tape' it
often proves fatal."
[Riker] "They're tearing the Borg to pieces !"
[Picard] "Turn off the monitors. I can't stand to watch, not even the
Borg deserve that."
]
Cliff
>frail DNA
Tain't all that frail.
See extremophyle environments.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>HighRise Condo
Probably LOTS cheaper (& safer?) to go underground.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>First off, unless you are only 5 years old, it's not any of your hard
>earned loot that'll get spent
The neocons have the US so deeply in debt with their lies & beloved
wars that the 5 year olds will never finish paying off even the interest.
Hence no funds.
--
Cliff
Brian Whatcott
Pilots and sailors sometimes use an empirical estimator for
line of sight range at various eyepoint heights, like the following:
Distance to horizon (NMiles) = 1.25 sqrt (height above surface in ft)
That would put the distance as 900 plus NM. But this height is too
extreme for the estimator, I fancy.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
Cliff
wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:05:07 -0500, Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:50:15 -0000, BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, this extreme high rise of 100 miles could and should by itself
>>>provide countless platforms on behalf of Earth science and even
>>>astronomy instruments,
>>
>> So do balloons & they are much more portable.
>>
>>>in addition to other countless global
>>>communication benefits.
>>
>> How much longer is "line of sight"?
I was being a tad sarcastic,sorry (but not very much).
>Pilots and sailors sometimes use an empirical estimator for
>line of sight range at various eyepoint heights, like the following:
>Distance to horizon (NMiles) = 1.25 sqrt (height above surface in ft)
>
>That would put the distance as 900 plus NM. But this height is too
>extreme for the estimator, I fancy.
You could use fairly simple trig, analytic geometry, .... <g>.
>Brian Whatcott Altus OK
--
Cliff
Brian Whatcott
>>Distance to horizon (NMiles) = 1.25 sqrt (height above surface in ft)
>>
>>That would put the distance as 900 plus NM. But this height is too
>>extreme for the estimator, I fancy.
>>Brian Whatcott Altus OK
> You could use fairly simple trig, analytic geometry, .... <g>.
...so the right answer is?......
:-)
Brian W
BradGuth
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:50:15 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This could also accommodate the highest
> >collage on Earth, as well as the highest faith-based whatevers,
>
> Think the fundies would launch & fund a research project
> (at long, long last after thousands of years) looking for their
> claimed "gods"?
>
> http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/9billion_clarke.html
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8424/STAR.doc
Looking for those Gods could become a big income maker for this
extreme highrise, especially if the highrise comminity as a free
standing nation itself got a 25% take of the faith-based action.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:50:15 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >BTW, this extreme high rise of 100 miles could and should by itself
> >provide countless platforms on behalf of Earth science and even
> >astronomy instruments,
>
> So do balloons & they are much more portable.
>
> >in addition to other countless global
> >communication benefits.
>
> How much longer is "line of sight"?
Cliff, for some odd reason, Google/NOVA has been into diverting or
moderating my usenet access, as most everything is running dead slow,
if at all. Sorry about that.
According to my old AutoCad, we're working with a tower "line of
sight" radius of something better than 4,500,000'(852 miles). In
other words, one of these tall suckers on a terrestrial grid of every
1500 miles and we'd have the whole of Earth's surface pretty much
covered, as well as having eliminated any possible notions of future
housing shortages.
Even a least spendy or free CAD via internet download will buy you
into more than most of us will ever need for these most basic of 2D
drawings, that'll give us a good enough look-see at what this 100 mile
high condo and of its one square mile rooftop platform has to offer.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:10:55 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >frail DNA
>
> Tain't all that frail.
> See extremophyle environments.
> --
> Cliff
Human DNA can only replicate itself so many times, and it isn't as
though having banked bone marrow is your one and only DNA reboot
option, although it's certainly a good one.
Cosmic gamma and of those unavoidable secondary/recoil gauntlet of
hard-X-rays that'll become available as gamma interacts with
surrounding stuff, as such isn't exactly all that long-term DNA
friendly. We'll need to intelligently reengineer our human DNA as
becoming somewhat more rad-hard, especially since our magnetosphere
has been failing us by roughly -.05%/year (instead of our having
10+tonnes/m2 of our badly polluted atmosphere shielding us, we may
soon enough end up with less than 5 tonnes/m2, so that inside,
underground or under water living will likely become the future norm).
BTW, those robust and often toasty "extremophyle environments"
typically do not have all that much gamma or X-ray dosage to deal
with, and whenever they do it's not exactly a good outcome. The 100
mile high dosage is not going to favor our DNA, not by any know
measure other than via premature death from the inside out.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:10:55 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >HighRiseCondo
>
> Probably LOTS cheaper (& safer?) to go underground.
No arguments there. How about our surviving within under water
habitats?
A few meters worth of ocean between our frail DNA and that nasty gamma
and X-rays of LEO space, especially from that of our reactive/
anticathode worthy moon, is a no brainer, no contest as to our
polluted terrestrial Earth being a whole lot better off.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:10:55 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >First off, unless you are only 5 years old, it's not any of your hard
> >earned loot that'll get spent
>
> The neocons have the US so deeply in debt with their lies & beloved
> wars that the 5 year olds will never finish paying off even the interest.
> Hence no funds.
> --
> Cliff
But, if we changed the retirement age to 100, and added that extra $1/
gallon gas tax (or MegaJoule tax), as such we could sustain WWIII for
decades, or just long enough to run all of us out of most every form
of liquid fuel on Earth, including synfuels.
What better way for those tricky ETs to take over our world,
especially since they'll run most everything on He3/fusion energy.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
I agree, we have lots of pesky issues and loads of compromises are
just about everywhere. Makes this extreme high rise condo all the
more worth doing, as a learning curve that can obviously stop and any
given level, or go all the way to them stars(sort of speak).
With a $100 trillion budget as our starting point of what brave
investors and likely governments of most every sort, as willing to
join our vertical nation and constructively assist in most any way
they can, is why I really do not foresee all that many insurmountable
problems, other than my living long enough to see the progress.
All I'm asking for is a 100 mile radius of worthy land that's situated
upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
that's asking too much, do you?)
What do you folks of CAD and 3D virtual simulated engineering think
about helping this one into the official WCE record book(s), as
perhaps a borg like collective effort of at least defining what not to
do?
Call for Papers: World Congress on Engineering WCE 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.engr/browse_frm/thread/44b701f5af5e24f3
I happen to think this 100 mile high-rise is just the best ever WCE
ticket to ride.
- Brad Guth -
Cliff
>All I'm asking for is a 100 mile radius of worthy land that's situated
>upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
>relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
>that's asking too much, do you?)
Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>With a $100 trillion budget as our starting point
Plus nobody could afford it nor it's supporting
infrastructures.
BTW, What are they .. all lawyers making a killing suing
each other? Where would be the ecomomic good & profit?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:40:29 -0500, Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
Line tangent to circle of the earth's diameter at one (any)
point & a point on it the earth's radius PLUS building height
.. line from earth's center to first point: one right triangle to solve
(tangent line is at right angle to line from planet center to
point on surface).
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Even a least spendy or free CAD via internet download will buy you
>into more than most of us will ever need for these most basic of 2D
>drawings, that'll give us a good enough look-see at what this 100 mile
>high condo and of its one square mile rooftop platform has to offer.
Ummmm .... You are xposted to comp.cad.solidworks & autocad groups ...
sort of entry to mid-level CAD .... <fishing>.
2D went out with AD-2000 circa 1976 (or earlier):
http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/lesson10.html
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Nov 3, 11:26 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:10:55 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >frail DNA
>>
>> Tain't all that frail.
>> See extremophyle environments.
>> --
>> Cliff
>
>Human DNA can only replicate itself so many times,
This is a bit unclear.
At least three methods have been found to triple the lifespan of
mice IIRC. When combined, who knows?
>and it isn't as
>though having banked bone marrow is your one and only DNA reboot
>option, although it's certainly a good one.
Pointed out extremophyles & their environments.
Mostly it seems to be proteins getting denatured ... and
if the cells don't use or have those proteins ..
>Cosmic gamma and of those unavoidable secondary/recoil gauntlet of
>hard-X-rays that'll become available as gamma interacts with
>surrounding stuff, as such isn't exactly all that long-term DNA
>friendly. We'll need to intelligently reengineer our human DNA as
>becoming somewhat more rad-hard, especially since our magnetosphere
>has been failing us by roughly -.05%/year (instead of our having
>10+tonnes/m2 of our badly polluted atmosphere shielding us, we may
>soon enough end up with less than 5 tonnes/m2, so that inside,
>underground or under water living will likely become the future norm).
There are entire systems in cells dedicated to repairing DNA.
>BTW, those robust and often toasty "extremophyle environments"
>typically do not have all that much gamma or X-ray dosage to deal
>with, and whenever they do it's not exactly a good outcome. The 100
>mile high dosage is not going to favor our DNA, not by any know
>measure other than via premature death from the inside out.
>- Brad Guth -
--
Cliff
Ken S. Tucker
Brian Whatcott
>>>>That would put the distance as 900 plus NM. But this height is too
>>>>extreme for the estimator, I fancy.
>>>>Brian Whatcott Altus OK
-
>>> You could use fairly simple trig, analytic geometry, .... <g>.
-
>>...so the right answer is?......
-
> Line tangent to circle of the earth's diameter at one (any)
>point & a point on it the earth's radius PLUS building height
>.. line from earth's center to first point: one right triangle to solve
>(tangent line is at right angle to line from planet center to
>point on surface).
-
...so the right answer is?....
Brian W
Cliff
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:10:41 -0500, Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
<Sheesh>
Let R = the earth's radius, H the height of your structure & L the line of
sight distance to the horizon from the top of the structure.
L^2 + R^2 = (R+ H)^2 ==> L = +/- Squareroot (2*R*H + H^2)
--
Cliff
Then
Cliff
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:10:41 -0500, Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
<Sheesh>
Let R = the earth's radius, H the height of your structure & L the line of
sight distance to the horizon from the top of the structure.
Then L^2 + R^2 = (R+ H)^2 ==> L = +/- Squareroot (2*R*H + H^2)
--
Cliff
Brian Whatcott
I know this may be a difficult concept: but I don't want the recipe,
I already know the recipe for getting a reasonably accurate line of
sight distance.
I was interested to find if you can work out a compatible number.
Compare it with that estimator I gave earlier. It might be
surprizing.
Let's make it easy. Use the Equatorial Radius (IUGG) of 3963.19 SM
say 3963 miles. The line could intercept a far point at 6 ft above
datum.
Regards
Brian W
Brian Whatcott
>>...so the right answer is?....
>>
>>Brian W
-
> <Sheesh>
I guess that makes it <Sheesh> squared then?
:-)
Brian W
BradGuth
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:40:17 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 11:26 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:10:55 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >frail DNA
>
> >> Tain't all that frail.
> >> See extremophyle environments.
> >> --
> >> Cliff
>
> >Human DNA can only replicate itself so many times,
>
> This is a bit unclear.
> At least three methods have been found to triple the lifespan
> of mice IIRC. When combined, who knows?
Improving cell replications is not quite the same thing as DNA repairs
or replacements, but it's certainly taking our terrestrial intelligent
design in the right direction.
>
> >and it isn't as
> >though having banked bone marrow is your one and only DNA
> >reboot option, although it's certainly a good one.
>
> Pointed out extremophyles & their environments.
> Mostly it seems to be proteins getting denatured ... and
> if the cells don't use or have those proteins ..
>
> >Cosmic gamma and of those unavoidable secondary/recoil gauntlet of
> >hard-X-rays that'll become available as gamma interacts with
> >surrounding stuff, as such isn't exactly all that long-term DNA
> >friendly. We'll need to intelligently reengineer our human DNA as
> >becoming somewhat more rad-hard, especially since our magnetosphere
> >has been failing us by roughly -.05%/year (instead of our having
> >10+tonnes/m2 of our badly polluted atmosphere shielding us, we may
> >soon enough end up with less than 5 tonnes/m2, so that inside,
> >underground or under water living will likely become the future norm).
>
> There are entire systems in cells dedicated to repairing DNA.
But how many times before the body goes somewhat postal (aka auto-
destruct) with its usual automatic rejection of whatever isn't
supposed to be there, like broken DNAs?
There's only so much gamma/X-ray trauma that one's body can survive
(especially from the inside out), at least without a fresh batch of
banked bone marrow coming to the rescue.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >All I'm asking for is a100mileradius of worthy land that's situated
> >upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
> >relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
> >that's asking too much, do you?)
>
> Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
> faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
That's why the 11.1 mile square foundation that's basalt inset by a
good 528'
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >With a $100 trillion budget as our starting point
>
> Plus nobody could afford it nor it's supporting
> infrastructures.
> BTW, What are they .. all lawyers making a killing suing
> each other? Where would be the ecomomic good & profit?
Without question, that sounds very naysay of yourself. Are you sure
you'd care to help with this, or are you just here to topic/author
bash with all the mainstream naysayism you can muster?
BTW, I actually have many answers for your loaded questions. However,
are you saying that Earth can not afford itself?
We're talking of future housing, not the here and now, as more like
when our badly polluted and depleted Earth has to accommodate 1e10 or
possibly 1.2e10 souls and counting, and there's not hardly a drop or
m3 worth of affordable fossil fuel, and even yellowcake is going for
$1000/kg.
Think inflation, such as what WWIII should create.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:18:54 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Even a least spendy or free CAD via internet download will buy you
> >into more than most of us will ever need for these most basic of 2D
> >drawings, that'll give us a good enough look-see at what this100mile
>
> Ummmm .... You are xposted to comp.cad.solidworks & autocad groups ...
> sort of entry to mid-level CAD .... <fishing>.
> 2D went out with AD-2000 circa 1976 (or earlier):http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/lesson10.html
You only need 3D CAD plus whatever fly-through virtual graphics
animation in order to impress your typical village idiot that's so
well educated and/or dumbfounded that he or she simply can't think in
3D, or much less think outside of their little mainstream status quo
cozy box. Go right ahead and knock our socks off by doing this one in
as much 3D as you'd like, whereas those hard numbers are going to be
exactly the same a 2D, and in no time at all you'll have that nifty
500 mb instead of 1 mb CAD file to work with.
- Brad Guth -
Cliff
Added alt.machines.cnc .... he's gettng to be a hoot ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Nov 6, 12:21 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:40:17 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 3, 11:26 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:10:55 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >frail DNA
>>
>> >> Tain't all that frail.
>> >> See extremophyle environments.
>> >> --
>> >> Cliff
>>
>> >Human DNA can only replicate itself so many times,
>>
>> This is a bit unclear.
>> At least three methods have been found to triple the lifespan
>> of mice IIRC. When combined, who knows?
>
>Improving cell replications is not quite the same thing as DNA repairs
>or replacements,
Errors in cell division are rare & usually fatal to the cell IIRC.
Then there is the entire DNA repair system in the cells. Plus,
probably, some redundancy in some/many cases.
>but it's certainly taking our terrestrial intelligent
>design in the right direction.
??
>> >and it isn't as
>> >though having banked bone marrow is your one and only DNA
>> >reboot option, although it's certainly a good one.
>>
>> Pointed out extremophyles & their environments.
>> Mostly it seems to be proteins getting denatured ... and
>> if the cells don't use or have those proteins ..
>>
>> >Cosmic gamma and of those unavoidable secondary/recoil gauntlet of
>> >hard-X-rays that'll become available as gamma interacts with
>> >surrounding stuff, as such isn't exactly all that long-term DNA
>> >friendly. We'll need to intelligently reengineer our human DNA as
>> >becoming somewhat more rad-hard, especially since our magnetosphere
>> >has been failing us by roughly -.05%/year (instead of our having
>> >10+tonnes/m2 of our badly polluted atmosphere shielding us, we may
>> >soon enough end up with less than 5 tonnes/m2, so that inside,
>> >underground or under water living will likely become the future norm).
>>
>> There are entire systems in cells dedicated to repairing DNA.
>
>But how many times before the body goes somewhat postal (aka auto-
>destruct) with its usual automatic rejection of whatever isn't
>supposed to be there, like broken DNAs?
>
>There's only so much gamma/X-ray trauma that one's body can survive
>(especially from the inside out), at least without a fresh batch of
>banked bone marrow coming to the rescue.
Perhaps it depends on repair speeds ... IIRC Some organisims
have been found to be pests inside Nuclear reactors.
BTW, Much high-energy photonic radiation passes right thru
without damaging much of anything.
Cliff
Don't see how 528' is going to help any.
>- Brad Guth -
At what angle did they manage to build pyramids?
Remind me why they failed ...
BTW, Even rock can flow. And does.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Nov 6, 12:04 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >With a $100 trillion budget as our starting point
>>
>> Plus nobody could afford it nor it's supporting
>> infrastructures.
>> BTW, What are they .. all lawyers making a killing suing
>> each other? Where would be the ecomomic good & profit?
>
>Without question, that sounds very naysay of yourself. Are you sure
>you'd care to help with this, or are you just here to topic/author
>bash with all the mainstream naysayism you can muster?
It does no good to waste scarce resources on what only a very few
could afford.
>BTW, I actually have many answers for your loaded questions.
Who loaded them? With what, exactly?
>However,
>are you saying that Earth can not afford itself?
Probably not anything such as this.
>We're talking of future housing, not the here and now, as more like
>when our badly polluted and depleted Earth has to accommodate 1e10 or
>possibly 1.2e10 souls and counting, and there's not hardly a drop or
>m3 worth of affordable fossil fuel, and even yellowcake is going for
>$1000/kg.
You are using current dollars too.
>Think inflation, such as what WWIII should create.
Read "Stand on Zanzibar" by John Brunner.
It's actually a rather good book anyway <g>.
>- Brad Guth -
And use a proper cutlined sig.
The New TV GAME Show: Worldwide Preemptive War
http://www.democrats.com/node/14556
--
Cliff
Cliff
Don't know that I'd want faith-based engineering or designs ...
no matter how trendy such are under the new world order ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
Not a "recipe". Just very simple reasoning.
If you want recipes ask John S. in alt.machines.cnc or
try at http://www.nr.com/ or http://www.nr.com/forum/
(online versions seem to be available).
> I already know the recipe for getting a reasonably accurate line of
>sight distance.
Umm ... this is exact to as many decimal places as you wish,
assuming a Cartesian Newtonian space ... just ask Pythagorus.
> I was interested to find if you can work out a compatible number.
>Compare it with that estimator I gave earlier. It might be
>surprizing.
>
>Let's make it easy. Use the Equatorial Radius (IUGG) of 3963.19 SM
>say 3963 miles. The line could intercept a far point at 6 ft above
>datum.
Sorry, sliderule in another room .... You crank it for your
what-ifs <g>.
>Regards
>
>Brian W
--
Cliff
Cliff
Since when did a 3D line take up so much more database space than a 2D one?
One 2D error can easily pay for many 3D CAD or CAD/CAM systems. Even with
FEM & other goodies.
Perhaps some classes are offered locally on some higher-end systems?
Are you near Cal-Tech or MIT?
Such as Boeing, GD, GM, GE & so many others use for their little projects?
Or perhaps you just need to teach them how to use drafting boards ....
http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:00:37 -0000, BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>HighRise
>
> How did they build the Pyramids without cement?
> One would think that the weight of things would
>cause point-by-point overloading & failure without cement
>to spread the loads ..? Rock is not known for it's deformation
>under load on such timescales as their construction process ..
Thinking a bit about it .... they perhaps made some of the
blocks such as they might use & started stacking them
in a single column, perhaps along a cliff face (to make
doing so easy).
When the blocks started failing they could extrapolate
what might be practical to construct ....
--
Cliff
Brian Whatcott
>>I know this may be a difficult concept: but I don't want the recipe,
-
> Not a "recipe". Just very simple reasoning.
Quite!
Better not to stray onto an engineering group probably?
:-)
Brian W
BradGuth
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:46:59 -0400, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:00:37 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>HighRise
>
> > How did they build the Pyramids without cement?
> > One would think that the weight of things would
> >cause point-by-point overloading & failure without cement
> >to spread the loads ..? Rock is not known for it's deformation
> >under load on such timescales as their construction process ..
>
> Thinking a bit about it .... they perhaps made some of the
> blocks such as they might use & started stacking them
> in a single column, perhaps along a cliff face (to make
> doing so easy).
> When the blocks started failing they could extrapolate
> what might be practical to construct ....
> --
> Cliff
Certainly, but why not just allow those nice visiting ETs to help do
most all of the serious stuff? (as I would)
BTW, what do your think about most all of those extremely complex crop
circles and other nifty patterns within or associated with such weird
happenings, that take place at an added sound level of zero DB and
within at most a few hours?
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:45:40 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 12:01 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >All I'm asking for is a100mileradius of worthy land that's situated
> >> >upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
> >> >relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
> >> >that's asking too much, do you?)
>
> >> Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
> >> faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
>
> >That's why the 11.1 mile square foundation that's basalt inset by a
> >good 528'
>
> Don't see how 528' is going to help any.
In your naysay mindset case, nothing is going to help, is it.
>
> At what angle did they manage to build pyramids?
> Remind me why they failed ...
>
> BTW, Even rock can flow. And does.
Thanks for those loaded questions, but your naysayism is showing its
ugly mindset head once again.
Do the fully 3D interactive worth of virtual structural engineering
(if at all possible excluding your profound mindset of naysayism), and
report back.
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:27:19 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 12:04 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >With a $100 trillion budget as our starting point
>
> >> Plus nobody could afford it nor it's supporting
> >> infrastructures.
> >> BTW, What are they .. all lawyers making a killing suing
> >> each other? Where would be the ecomomic good & profit?
>
> >Without question, that sounds very naysay of yourself. Are you sure
> >you'd care to help with this, or are you just here to topic/author
> >bash with all the mainstream naysayism you can muster?
>
> It does no good to waste scarce resources on what only a very few
> could afford.
Speaking for yourself?
Besides, since when does government or big bisiness not waste boat
loads of our hard earned loot?
>
> >BTW, I actually have many answers for your loaded questions.
>
> Who loaded them? With what, exactly?
Loaded with your nonconstructive and/or negatives worth of naysayism.
>
> >However,
> >are you saying that Earth can not afford itself?
>
> Probably not anything such as this.
But they've spent far more on those mutually perpetrated cold-wars,
and then some. How much do you think their WWIII is going to cost us?
>
> >We're talking of future housing, not the here and now, as more like
> >when our badly polluted and depleted Earth has to accommodate 1e10 or
> >possibly 1.2e10 souls and counting, and there's not hardly a drop or
> >m3 worth of affordable fossil fuel, and even yellowcake is going for
> >$1000/kg.
>
> You are using current dollars too.
Not really, especially at the minimum entro base of $1000/sf plus a 1%/
yr memnership fee (that's not even including an outside window looking
view) isn't exactly dirt cheap. By the time those upper LEO floors
are getting sold off, at perhaps a minimum of $10,000/sf plus 1%
annual membership fess, I don't see hardly any problems whatsoever.
>
> >Think inflation, such as what WWIII should create.
>
> Read "Stand on Zanzibar" by John Brunner.
> It's actually a rather good book anyway <g>.
>
> >- Brad Guth -
>
> And use a proper cutlined sig.
>
> The New TV GAME Show: Worldwide Preemptive War
> http://www.democrats.com/node/14556
> --
> Cliff
All good enough advisements. Thanks much.
--
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:42:15 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 12:21 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:40:17 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 3, 11:26 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:10:55 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >frail DNA
>
> >> >> Tain't all that frail.
> >> >> See extremophyle environments.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cliff
>
> >> >Human DNA can only replicate itself so many times,
>
> >> This is a bit unclear.
> >> At least three methods have been found to triple the lifespan
> >> of mice IIRC. When combined, who knows?
>
> >Improving cell replications is not quite the same thing as DNA repairs
> >or replacements,
>
> Errors in cell division are rare & usually fatal to the cell IIRC.
> Then there is the entire DNA repair system in the cells. Plus,
> probably, some redundancy in some/many cases.
Gamma and those unavoidable secondary/recoil X-rays tend to cause
insurmountable sorts of biological problems, similar to ingesting too
much lead or mercury, except worse (more like VX kind of bad news).
>
> >but it's certainly taking our terrestrial intelligent
> >design in the right direction.
>
> ??
You don't believe in our modern day form of intelligent design?
Are you not from Earth?
That's true. You go butt-naked first.
--
Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most folks using or insisting that others only use 3D CAD are the same
that insist upon fancy eye-candy, plus those fully interactive
animation popping graphics that'll knock socks off.
Go right ahead and knock our socks off in full 3D plus fly-through
virtual animation that looks every bit as real as any Kodak moment.
You should only need that CRAY supercomputer as having those 1024
nifty CPUs, and a few spare terabytes worth of file storage.
A small team of such 3D interactive graphics pushers should also do
the trick, at perhaps $1000/day per super 3D CAD/animation wizard.
After all, it all has to look exactly as though everything is
absolutely real, down to the flavor, smell and touch, or else
whatever's the core design and engineering isn't worth squat.
I assume that's what you wanted to hear.
--
Brad Guth
Cliff
>On Nov 7, 5:17 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:45:40 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 6, 12:01 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >All I'm asking for is a100mileradius of worthy land that's situated
>> >> >upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
>> >> >relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
>> >> >that's asking too much, do you?)
>>
>> >> Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
>> >> faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
>>
>> >That's why the 11.1 mile square foundation that's basalt inset by a
>> >good 528'
>>
>> Don't see how 528' is going to help any.
>
>In your naysay mindset case, nothing is going to help, is it.
528' seemed pretty deep to me but I'm happy to watch you dig a deeper hole.
(Cliff's ladder rentals.)
>> At what angle did they manage to build pyramids?
>> Remind me why they failed ...
>>
>> BTW, Even rock can flow. And does.
>
>Thanks for those loaded questions, but your naysayism is showing its
>ugly mindset head once again.
http://earthsciences.syr.edu/GradInfo/ESGradStudents/Haveles/lFoldingDorset.jpg
>Do the fully 3D interactive worth of virtual structural engineering
>(if at all possible excluding your profound mindset of naysayism), and
>report back.
http://www.gibbscox.com/structuralengineeringanddesign.htm
http://www.tu-darmstadt.de/fb/bi/fbbi/eng/iib_eng.htm
Lots more ....
>- Brad Guth -
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
Folks are too simple?
I still recall my Mechanics texts <g>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>VX kind of bad news
Don't get poor clueless jb started again <G>.
--
Cliff
John Scheldroup
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1194466883....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 6:05 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:46:59 -0400, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:00:37 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>HighRise
>>
>> > How did they build the Pyramids without cement?
>> > One would think that the weight of things would
>> >cause point-by-point overloading & failure without cement
>> >to spread the loads ..? Rock is not known for it's deformation
>> >under load on such timescales as their construction process ..
>>
>> Thinking a bit about it .... they perhaps made some of the
>> blocks such as they might use & started stacking them
>> in a single column, perhaps along a cliff face (to make
>> doing so easy).
>> When the blocks started failing they could extrapolate
>> what might be practical to construct ....
>> --
>> Cliff
>
> Certainly, but why not just allow those nice visiting ETs to help do
> most all of the serious stuff? (as I would)
>
Brad,
Those hi priests were white Nordics and they came from the area
that is Persia which is now Iran. I learned some of this from my bro'law
a Berkeley trained particle physicist, now math professor at U of Minnesota.
He told me that all the white people in the world originally came from
Iran. Those that stayed behind had the misfortune to mingle with the Arabs,
Turks and Mongols, by rape and slavery and that's why some of those today
inherited darker skin. My nephew is dark, even though his mother is
Dane Norwegian but he stands 6' 4" . Even today though you will likely
find Iranians some with white skin and European flat faces while others
not so. The Sumerians wore white, had shaved heads, prayed to the
sun just like the Nordics. Hi priests in Egypt were probably their
descendents.
John
John Scheldroup
"John Scheldroup" <johnsch...@comxxxx.net> wrote in message news:Q5ednWMG2IF69a_a...@comcast.com...
follow-up:
Here's the architect of the great pyramid at Giza.
http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html
Median ?
---
The Medes are credited with the foundation of the first Iranian empire
The origin and history of the Medes is quite obscure, as we possess almost
no contemporary information, and not a single monument or inscription
from Media itself.
The Persians were dominated by the Medes until the accession to the
Persian throne in 550 BC of the Persian Cyrus the Great. He overthrew
the Median rulers, conquered two neighboring kingdoms (including
Babylonia in 539 BC) and established the Persian Empire as the
pre-eminent power of the Middle East.
---
Here's what a Persian used to look like thousands of years ago
http://www.white-history.com/hwr7_files/deadpersian.jpg
Above: The White racial features are clear in this 'Head of a Dead Persian',
Roman copy of a figure from a victory monument of Attalos I at Pergamon,
c. 230 - 220 BC., Terme Museum, Rome.
INDIAN DEPICTIONS OF PERSIANS AS NORDICS AND MIXED RACIAL TYPES
At the time when the Greek writer Xenophon praised what he called
"tall beautiful Persian women" (during the 6th century BC), the Persian
envoys to India were depicted in still existent paintings in the Ajanta caves
outside Bombay as light skinned, blue eyed and blond, or dark skinned and
blue eyed with a fair beard. (Ujflvy, L'Anthropologie, vol. ii., 1900). This
is the first tangible sign that the Indo-European Persians had started mixing
with the darker natives of their land.
By the Fourth Century, this process had spread dramatically to where only a
very few of the ruling class could still claim pure Indo-European ancestry.
Finally the already largely mixed race Persians were to be overrun by the new
White force in the region: the Indo-European Macedonians under Alexander
the Great in a series of battles between 334 and 331 BC.
---
A blond woman was painted at the tomb of Djeser-ka-ra-seneb in Thebes.
A model of a ship from about 2500 B.C. is manned by five blond sailors.
The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.
A painting at the tomb of Meresankh III at Giza, from about 2485 B.C.,
shows white skin and red hair.
Two statues from about 2570 B.C., found in the tombs at Medum, show
Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret. He has light green stones for eyes. She has
violet-blue stones.
A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking man with blond hair.
Grafton Smith mentions the distinctly red hair of the 18th Dynasty mummy Henutmehet.
Harvard Professor Carleton Coon, in his book THE RACES OF EUROPE,
tells us that "many of the officials, courtiers, and priests, representing the upper
class of Egyptian society but not the royalty, looked strikingly like modern
Europeans, especially long-headed ones." (Note: Nordics are long-headed.)
Long-headed Europeans are most common in Britain, Scandinavia, the Netherlands,
and northern Germany.
Time-Life books put out a volume called RAMESES II THE GREAT. It has a
good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another picture can be
found in the book X-RAYING THE PHARAOHS, especially the picture on the
jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called CHRONICLE OF THE PHARAOHS was recently published showing
paintings, sculptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading personalities of
Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look Black, and the rest are hard
to classify. All nine mummies look like our Europeans.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very Caucasion
The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed the Great Pyramid
of Giza, with help from Imhotep. A computer-generated reconstruction of the face
of the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.
It was once painted sunburned red. The Egyptians often painted
upper class men as red and upper class women as white; this is because
the men became sun-burned or tanned while outside under the burning Egyptian sun.
The women, however, usually stayed inside.
In 1902, E. A. Wallis Budge, the renowned Egyptologist, described the pre-dynastic
Egyptians thus:
"The predynastic Egyptians, that is to say, that stratum of them which was
indigenous to North Africa, belonged to a white or light-skinned race with fair hair,
who in many particulars resembled the Libyans, who in later historical times lived
very near the western bank of the Nile." [E. A. W. Budge, Egypt in the Neolithic and
Archaic Periods (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1902), p. 49.]
Later, in the same book, Budge referred to a pre-dynastic statuette that: "has eyes
inlaid with lapis-lazuli, by which we are probably intended to understand that the
woman here represented had blue eyes." [Ibid., p. 51.]
In 1925, the Oxford don L. H. Dudley Buxton, wrote the following concerning
ancient Egyptian crania:
"Among the ancient crania from the Thebaid in the collection in the Department
of Human Anatomy in Oxford, there are specimens which must unhesitatingly
be considered to be those of Nordic type.[L. H. D. Buxton, The Peoples of Asia
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1925), p. 50.]
The Scottish physical anthropologist Robert Gayre has written, that in his
considered opinion:
John Scheldroup
"John Scheldroup" <johnsch...@comxxxx.net> wrote in message news:a5SdnUSvYeXT0K7a...@comcast.com...
http://www.ancient-egypt.org/glossary/people/hemiunu.html
> Median ?
>
John
John Scheldroup
"John Scheldroup" <johnsch...@comxxxx.net> wrote in message news:WuGdnSQ3eevz067a...@comcast.com...
http://www.rpmuseum.de/uk/start/rpm_uk.html
The remarkable life-size statue of the vizier Hemi-unu, a man of advanced
years reflected in his rich corpulence and short hair, stands among these
sculptures. His eyes were once inlaid with metal rims and coloured stones
for a more life-like quality, but were gouged out by early tomb robbers.
This does not detract from the fact that Hemi-unu is a symbol for the artistry
possible in the Old Kingdom, and for the City of Hildesheim.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/E/egyptian/egyptian_4_hemiunu.jpg.html
Use the Image Viewer to study the much larger full-sized image.
BradGuth
wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1194466883....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 7, 6:05 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:46:59 -0400, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
And they came with their impressive technology and expertise, as from
which other planet?
--
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:27:42 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >VX kind of bad news
>
> Don't get poor clueless jb started again <G>.
Am I supposed to know about "clueless jb"?
--
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:27:09 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 7, 5:17 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:45:40 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 6, 12:01 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >All I'm asking for is a100mileradius of worthy land that's situated
> >> >> >upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
> >> >> >relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
> >> >> >that's asking too much, do you?)
>
> >> >> Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
> >> >> faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
>
> >> >That's why the 11.1 mile square foundation that's basalt inset by a
> >> >good 528'
>
> >> Don't see how 528' is going to help any.
>
> >In your naysay mindset case, nothing is going to help, is it.
>
> 528' seemed pretty deep to me but I'm happy to watch you dig a deeper hole.
> (Cliff's ladder rentals.)
>
> >> At what angle did they manage to build pyramids?
> >> Remind me why they failed ...
>
> >> BTW, Even rock can flow. And does.
>
> >Thanks for those loaded questions, but your naysayism is showing its
> >ugly mindset head once again.
>
>
> >Do the fully 3D interactive worth of virtual structural engineering
> >(if at all possible excluding your profound mindset of naysayism), and
> >report back.
>
> http://www.gibbscox.com/structuralengineeringanddesign.htm
> http://www.tu-darmstadt.de/fb/bi/fbbi/eng/iib_eng.htm
>
> Lots more ....
In other words, you haven't squat to work with, much less to
contribute, but otherwise you are all-knowing about most everything
under that passive sun which orbits your flat Earth, which also has
unlimited fossil and yellowcake fuel, that is as long as you're
another Yid in good standing that'll afford to pay $100/gallon and $10/
kwhr as mother Earth is raped and pillaged for all she's worth.
--
Brad Guth
BradGuth
wrote:
> "John Scheldroup" <johnscheldr...@comxxxx.net> wrote in messagenews:WuGdnSQ3eevz067a...@comcast.com...
>
> > "John Scheldroup" <johnscheldr...@comxxxx.net> wrote in messagenews:a5SdnUSvYeXT0K7a...@comcast.com...
>
> >> "John Scheldroup" <johnscheldr...@comxxxx.net> wrote in messagenews:Q5ednWMG2IF69a_a...@comcast.com...
>
> >>> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1194466883....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Interesting, but I'm not interested. Thanks anyway.
--
Brad Guth
Cliff
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:45:40 -0000, BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 6, 12:01 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >All I'm asking for is a100mileradius of worthy land that's situated
>>> >upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
>>> >relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
>>> >that's asking too much, do you?)
>>>
>>> Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
>>> faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
>>
>>That's why the 11.1 mile square foundation that's basalt inset by a
>>good 528'
>
> Don't see how 528' is going to help any.
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/geodynamics/microdynamics/spiral.html
Spiral garnet inclusion trails ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
>flat Earth
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
I used to know a commercial airline pilot in Mobile, AL (sometimes)
that claimed to be a member.
Then there's Discworld .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld
[
Now consider the tortoise and the eagle.
The tortoise is a ground-living creature. It is impossible to live nearer the
ground without being under it. Its horizons are a few inches away. It has about
as good a turn of speed as you need to hunt down a lettuce. It has survived
while the rest of evolution flowed past it by being, on the whole, no threat to
anyone and too much trouble to eat.
And then there is the eagle. A creature of the air and high places, whose
horizons go all the way to the edge of the world. Eyesight keen enough to spot
the rustle of some small and squeaky creature half a mile away. All power, all
control. Lightning death on wings. Talons and claws enough to make a meal of
anything smaller than it is and at least take a hurried snack out of anything
bigger.
And yet the eagle will sit for hours on the crag and survey the kingdoms of the
world until it spots a distant movement and then it will focus, focus, focus on
the small shell wobbling among the bushes down there on the desert. And it will
leap . . .
And a minute later the tortoise finds the world dropping away from it. And it
sees the world for the first time, no longer one inch from the ground but five
hundred feet above it, and it thinks: what a great friend I have in the eagle.
And then the eagle lets go.
And almost always the tortoise plunges to its death. Everyone knows why the
tortoise does this. Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off. No one knows
why the eagle does this. There's good eating on a tortoise but, considering the
effort involved, there's much better eating on practically anything else. It's
simply the delight of eagles to torment tortoises.
But of course, what the eagle does not realize is that it is participating in a
very crude form of natural selection.
One day a tortoise will learn how to fly.
] - From "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett
--
Cliff
BradGuth
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:17:50 -0500, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:45:40 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Nov 6, 12:01 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >All I'm asking for is a100mileradius of worthy land that's situated
> >>> >upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
> >>> >relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
> >>> >that's asking too much, do you?)
>
> >>> Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
> >>> faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
>
> >>That's why the 11.1 mile square foundation that's basalt inset by a
> >>good 528'
>
> > Don't see how 528' is going to help any.
It sure as hell can't hurt. We certainly wouldn't want this sucker
falling over, would we?
>
> http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/geodynamics/microdynamics/spiral.html
> Spiral garnet inclusion trails ...
> --
> Cliff
"Spiral garnet inclusion trails" for the structural design of our
extreme high rise?
--
Brad Guth
Cliff
>On Nov 9, 5:30 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:17:50 -0500, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:45:40 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Nov 6, 12:01 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >All I'm asking for is a100mileradius of worthy land that's situated
>> >>> >upon a relatively thick basalt crust portion of Earth that's
>> >>> >relatively inactive, and we're good to go. (I really don't think
>> >>> >that's asking too much, do you?)
>>
>> >>> Probably pretty hard to find any lacking thermal cracking,
>> >>> faults, old shock zones, etc. Anyplace.
>>
>> >>That's why the 11.1 mile square foundation that's basalt inset by a
>> >>good 528'
>>
>> > Don't see how 528' is going to help any.
>
>It sure as hell can't hurt. We certainly wouldn't want this sucker
>falling over, would we?
What goes up must come down.
>>
>> http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/geodynamics/microdynamics/spiral.html
>> Spiral garnet inclusion trails ...
>> --
>> Cliff
>
>"Spiral garnet inclusion trails" for the structural design of our
>extreme high rise?
The crust moves ... in shear too <g>.
--
Cliff
BradGuth
Here's a somewhat better reply/rant.
So what, as I've already known that we have roughly 2e20 joules worth
of ongoing applied energy that's shared between us and our unusually
massive and nearby moon, and that has been the ongoing case for each
and every second of each and every hour, day, month, year, century and
so forth since its arrival. Besides, this extreme LEO high rise isn't
exactly an unglued structure, so as such a very well interconnected
unit it can move with our planetology flow of surface/crust geology
without coming apart, although it could manage to do a little sinking
if the 30~50 km worth of basalt crust is not holding up its end of the
bargain(sort of speak).
BTW, that's only 7.2e20 kwhr worth of our moon's orbital/gravity or
tidal energy that's going somewhere and having been causing some kind
of friction induced thermal energy with our 98.5% fluid Earth.
Other than our solar tide that's worth something less than half of the
lunar tide, what else do you think is keeping Earth's fluid interior
so gosh darn extra active and on the move, as well as pumping up our
surface environment with geothermal IR energy ever since the last ice
age this planet will ever see, if not directly via the interactive
orbital physics as caused by the moon?
Why don't you do all the math in order to tell the rest of us village
idiots why the mutual gravity pull that clearly exist between Earth
and our orbiting binary mascon doesn't count towards global warming.
BTW, take away our nifty moon and Earth loses nearly 2/3 of it's tidal
action, as well as it'll seriously start freezing itself to death.
Prior to having obtained that nifty moon, I tend to believe Earth was
without its seasonal tilt and hosting a nearly monoseason kind of
planet environment for extended periods of time (perhaps 100,000 some
odd years at a time).
--
Brad Guth
Cliff
>Speaking for yourself?
Why be a piker?
Go for Paolo Soleri or
http://www.scifantasy.com/wallpapers/ringworld-1280.jpg
http://www.larryniven.org/images/ringworldart/ringworld1.jpg
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/images/screenshots/various/fic_orionsarm_Orion_s_Arm_Ringworld_1__sbowers.jpg
--
Cliff
BradGuth
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:51:58 -0000,BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Speaking for yourself?
>
> Why be a piker?
> --
> Cliff
Just stick with the original topic entro idea, of creating the 100
mile high rise structure supporting a one mile square roof/platform
that's obviously well into LEO space, because it's technically doable,
and would easily as well as efficiently accommodate 2e9 folks with
room to spare.
--
Brad Guth
Cliff
>On Nov 11, 7:11 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:51:58 -0000,BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Speaking for yourself?
>>
>> Why be a piker?
>> Go for Paolo Soleri or
>>http://www.scifantasy.com/wallpapers/ringworld-1280.jpg
>>http://www.larryniven.org/images/ringworldart/ringworld1.jpg
>>http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/images/screenshots/various/...
>> --
>> Cliff
>
>Just stick with the original topic entro idea, of creating the 100
>mile high rise structure supporting a one mile square roof/platform
>that's obviously well into LEO space, because it's technically doable,
>and would easily as well as efficiently accommodate 2e9 folks with
>room to spare.
Any such would be hugely *inefficient *.
--
Cliff
BradGuth
And your physics or science that supports going vertical as being
"hugely *inefficient* is?
Just how hugely inefficient per m2 of usable interior are such tall
buildings?
--
Brad Guth
Cliff
>On Nov 11, 4:55 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:40:56 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 11, 7:11 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:51:58 -0000,BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Speaking for yourself?
>>
>> >> Why be a piker?
>> >> Go for Paolo Soleri or
>> >>http://www.scifantasy.com/wallpapers/ringworld-1280.jpg
>> >>http://www.larryniven.org/images/ringworldart/ringworld1.jpg
>> >>http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/images/screenshots/various/...
>>
>> >Just stick with the original topic entro idea, of creating the 100
>> >mile high rise structure supporting a one mile square roof/platform
>> >that's obviously well into LEO space, because it's technically doable,
>> >and would easily as well as efficiently accommodate 2e9 folks with
>> >room to spare.
>>
>> Any such would be hugely *inefficient*.
>And your physics or science that supports going vertical as being
>"hugely *inefficient* is?
Think suporting infrastructure & production of real goods & services.
>Just how hugely inefficient per m2 of usable interior are such tall
>buildings?
You already claimed a cost.
Much cheaper other places.
--
Cliff
BradGuth
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:24:35 -0800 (PST),BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 11, 4:55 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 11, 7:11 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:51:58 -0000,BradGuth<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Speaking for yourself?
>
> >> >> Why be a piker?
> >> >> Go for Paolo Soleri or
> >> >>http://www.scifantasy.com/wallpapers/ringworld-1280.jpg
> >> >>http://www.larryniven.org/images/ringworldart/ringworld1.jpg
> >> >>http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/images/screenshots/various/...
>
> >> >Just stick with the original topic entro idea, of creating the 100
> >> >mile high rise structure supporting a one mile square roof/platform
> >> >that's obviously well into LEO space, because it's technically doable,
> >> >and would easily as well as efficiently accommodate 2e9 folks with
> >> >room to spare.
>
> >> Any such would be hugely *inefficient*.
> >And your physics or science that supports going vertical as being
> >"hugely *inefficient* is?
>
> Think suporting infrastructure & production of real goods & services.
>
> >Just how hugely inefficient per m2 of usable interior are such tall
> >buildings?
>
> You already claimed a cost.
> Much cheaper other places.
> --
> Cliff
This 100 mile tall GUTH high-rise of intelligent infrastructure isn't
going to be the least expensive structure per m2 on Earth, although
per volume and per energy usage per m3 and per living humans within
it's going to become the best deal in town, not to mention it's
scientific capacity.
What we need is the warm and fuzzy expertise of those in advanced 3D
CAD in order to help others unable to visualize or much less
appreciate this highly structured potential. With the use of such
impressive eye-candy infomercials, the likes of what Google/NOVA and
our NASA wizards pull off all the time, is what gives the common
village idiot a whole lot better clue as to what the rest of us
wizards are talking about, instead of our merely tossing out physics
and science numbers and expecting the average dumbfounded fool of
naysayism to ever appreciate what could be accomplished in place of
wasting their hard earned loot and future generations on perpetrating
wars and inflating the worth of most everything on Earth so that only
the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful.
You and others of your kind seem to know most all of whatever the rest
of us know, and then some, yet you're not into constructively
sharing. Why is that?
Perhaps I should restart this topic, though in a greatly simplified
LeapFrog Popup format.
--
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> This one isn't intended for the Emirate of Dubai, but you may have to
> be as rich and powerful in order to qualify.
>
> LEO HighRise Agricultural, Industrial, Office and Condos (starting at
> $1000/sf + 1% annual member fees)
>
> The minimum crushing strength of basalt at 400 kg/cm2 and of sandstone
> rocks at 300 kg/cm2 would suggest that a 100 mile high structure of
> 10:1 ratio, as having an 11 mile square base and one mile square top/
> roof of an open LEO access surface could be supported by the average
> crust of Earth. Basalt having a mechanical compressive strength of
> 1600 kg/cm2 is simply what the upper most surface loading limitations
> would be. BTW, processed basalt ceramics can even exceed 6400 kg/cm2.
>
> According to government and thus geological engineering certified
> numbers in everyday structural usage, the hard rock crust of Earth can
> (in most locations) sustain 200 tonnes/m2 worth of surface or
> foundation loading (some terrestrial engineering expertise suggesting
> as great as 400 tonnes/m2 as safely doable). Obviously there are more
> than a few thin crust and/or geothermal affected areas that simply
> should not be constructed upon, and even a few somewhat iffy sites
> regardless of the intended surface loading should obviously be avoided
> at all cost, especially if there's nearby lava emerging from time to
> time, meaning that Iceland might not represent such a good foundation
> for situating this 100 mile HighRise UN Condo.
>
> Are there any brave takers? If so, I'll need your 10% in advance.
> - Brad Guth -
The LEO/GSO High Rise Condo of 100 vertical miles worth isn't for
those on a budget, the faint of heart of those with any case of
vertigo.
This is however an ideal virtual 3D CAD sort of conceptual research,
design and engineering opportunity for the knocking of socks off most
everyone on Earth. Obviously starting from a deep underground bedrock
situated foundation on up, and doing this as a future global
investment is what makes it affordably doable, as well as offering a
terrific alternative to the ongoing environmental demise of those
mainstream terrestrial alternatives that are fast running out of
viable options.
The WCE/ICCIIS "2008 International Conference of Computational
Intelligence and Intelligent Systems" is a good place to present this
kind of project that'll go a long vertical ways towards improving our
future options without further traumatising mother Earth in the
process of our having to support 1e10 human souls on a 2D surface
limited format, that are not exactly happy campers as is.
Those with limited imaginations and mindset or ulterior motives need
not apply.
--
Brad Guth
Cliff
>You and others of your kind seem to know most all of whatever the rest
>of us know, and then some, yet you're not into constructively
>sharing. Why is that?
Do you have any idea how OLD & stale such "concepts" are?
Or impractical other than as a boondoggle?
BTW, What are they going to make & grow there? Lawyers?
Things do have to have economic benefits in the longer term
& the world has not enough multimillionaire retirees to afford
such even if they were interested.
Same sort of problems with
http://www.globalsurfnews.com/news.asp?Id_news=18271 ....
--
Cliff
davies lovely III
news:fldrj3l9qvqsicacr...@4ax.com...
Cliff, for once you're right. Why don't these idiots who propose mile-high
skyscrapers and floating cities put their energies to something useful--like
irrigating some of the arid lands in the god-forsaken regions of the world
(e.g., Afghanistan, Tchad, Libya, Nevada, Alberta, etc.). That should be
much cheaper and more sustainable than these other stupid projects. Of
course, whoever tackles such an undertaking will be up against all the wacko
"environmentalists" who would rather see 100 people perish than a single
titmouse or sagebrush bush.
Your friend, Davies
p.s. man-made global warming is a hoax. Can a trace gas really have that
much effect (CO2 = .0038% of the atmosphere)?
Cliff
>p.s. man-made global warming is a hoax. Can a trace gas really have that
>much effect (CO2 = .0038% of the atmosphere)?
Yes.
And it's added CO2 plus a bit of added Methane.
Twice (at least) that we know of the CO2 levels got quite low
and the oceans froze solid pole to pole. Last time they thawed
multi-celluar life evolved & spread from the oceans & lakes.
Lacking the greenhouse gasses the planet's average temp would be
about -18 degrees C IIRC.
What happens when you increase them in a few mere decades to
levels not seen for (at least) millions of years, if not for hunderds
of millions of years?
AND the effect is just fairly simple quantum mechanics.
We even measure CO2 by it's IR absorption.
Right now much of the added heat is going into melting
polar area ice ... that takes a lot of heat .. but when it's
melted temps will rise faster.
But we don't know how hot it will get how fast for certain.
Too many feedbacks I guess. Seven degrees F by 2100? What by
2150 or 2200?
Right now we should be banning any but urgent new construction
within ~200 feet of sealevel & planning on moving ~ 1/3 of the
world's population to higher ground though.
Takes awhile to relocate such as New York City & other ports .. start now.
--
Cliff
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:48:19 -0700, "davies lovely III" <n...@none.edu> wrote:
>
> >p.s. man-made global warming is a hoax. Can a trace gas really have that
> >much effect (CO2 = .0038% of the atmosphere)?
> Twice (at least) that we know of the CO2 levels got quite low
> and the oceans froze solid pole to pole.
Could you provide a reference to that.
I'm a student and trying to learn that stuff.
Ken
Cliff
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22snowball+earth%22+co2&btnG=Search
One might note that the oil & gas deposits we have today were produced
by algae & bacteria in the seas prior to the evolution of land-based
multi-cellular organisms.
They were sequestering the CO2. Perhaps they overdid it.
Coal was formed later AFAIK.
After the Snowball Earth periods the Atlantic was a bit narrow
& the planet perhaps did not have the ocean "conveyor belt" it has now
(at least in the then nearly-closed Atlantic) to transport heat from the tropics
to the poles.
Seemingly oddly, this may have led to more & stronger hurricanes than
we have today in the Atlantic which did transport the heat.
But this probably also led to warmer northern latitude *air* temps
than we have today: There were alligators in what is now the UK
and crocodiles in Greenland.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Let me rephrase a bit: the *surface* of the oceans froze.
Nodoubt there was much liquid under the ice.
--
Cliff
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 03:15:45 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >On Nov 18, 2:24 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:48:19 -0700, "davies lovely III" <n...@none.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >p.s. man-made global warming is a hoax. Can a trace gas really have that
> >> >much effect (CO2 = .0038% of the atmosphere)?
>
> >> Twice (at least) that we know of the CO2 levels got quite low
> >> and the oceans froze solid pole to pole.
>
> >Could you provide a reference to that.
> >I'm a student and trying to learn that stuff.
>
Ok, I see this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
It's Conjecture X Conjecture ...etc.
However an anomlous event may have triggered
a temporary cooling, as we experienced from
Mt. Pinotubo erupting in the early 90's.
> One might note that the oil & gas deposits we have today were produced
> by algae & bacteria in the seas prior to the evolution of land-based
> multi-cellular organisms.
No we don't "note" that. The atmosphere of
Jupiter ..Saturn etc is loaded with methane.
At the time of the primordial solar system the
Earth locked in a hell of a lot of methane and
by geological processes converted that to
the heptanes etc that are sucked & cracked.
"Fossil Fuels" is a mis-nower, sold by oil
company's.
> They were sequestering the CO2. Perhaps they overdid it.
> Coal was formed later AFAIK.
AFAIK,
The first plants sucked directly carbon from
the tar leaking from the ground, later, as that
resource was deleted they evolved to use CO2
from the atmosphere to get their Carbon.
This explains why coal deposits also have bits
of ancient vegatation.
> After the Snowball Earth periods the Atlantic was a bit narrow
> & the planet perhaps did not have the ocean "conveyor belt" it has now
> (at least in the then nearly-closed Atlantic) to transport heat from the tropics
> to the poles.
> Seemingly oddly, this may have led to more & stronger hurricanes than
> we have today in the Atlantic which did transport the heat.
>
> But this probably also led to warmer northern latitude *air* temps
> than we have today: There were alligators in what is now the UK
> and crocodiles in Greenland.
Croc's have been alive on Earth for some 250,000,000
years, and things move, but I certain respect where
you are coming from. Going back 250,000,000 years
and studying climate is crystal ball stuff. If we can
do the last 100,000 years I'd be happy.
> Cliff
Thank you Cliff, my input was respecting our interest.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Pat
I was watching something yesterday on the History/Discovery/PBS
channel re ice ages and pollution et al and there seems to be
archeologic and ice records that shows about 12000 year ago there was
a huge, quick warming that killed off lots and lots of species. Prior
to that there had been another one that killed of 95% of all species.
The one 12000 years ago allowed man to move from hunter/gatherer to
farmer. Okay, cool.
Here's the problem I see. Somehow in the very early part of the new,
warmer period there must have been a hell of a lot of evolution going
on. Withing a few hundred years there must have been repopulation and
evolving like mad. Okay, I'm cool with that, too.
But now, as people are worrying about a quarter of a degree here and a
half a degree there, it's killing off species like mad. It is assumed
(or at least alluded to) that if we don't cut it out we'll run out of
species in the not-to-distant future.
So here is my question: Why has evolution stopped? Why aren't there
new species springing up to fill in the voids?