Our 0.1<1% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad Guth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: best way to trashcan Nebular-dust-cloud is **neighborhood star ages** Re: (use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old; Atom Totality theory (use in 4th)
Next: Eric Gisse promotes my web·site ( www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM ).
From: Brad Guth on 3 Mar 2010 10:44 On Mar 3, 7:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/3/10 4:39 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > > > btw, where's the 2e20 N/sec of tidal binding force going, if not > > entirely into Earth and Selene? > > > ~ BG > > I think you might need to digest this Brad. > http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html Your government rusemaster skills are noted. 2e20 N/s = 55,555 TW Even as little as 0.1% of that energy is 56 TW ocean tides supposedly represent roughly 3.5 TW, a little more than a third of which comes from our sun. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 3 Mar 2010 10:47 On Mar 3, 6:43 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > "Saul Levy" <saulle...(a)cox.net> wrote in message > > news:gfdro5tkendt00q5b03qggkko4e5rs3c7j(a)4ax.com... > > > > > All orifices have been used for the WACKO NUTJOBS born here, > > GOOFYSHITHEAD! > > > What difference does that make? > > > Saul Levy > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:06:38 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth > > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Mar 2, 7:53 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > >>> "Brad Guth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:6b482204-edcf-4e34-809a-1b04371aa51a(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com.... > >>> On Feb 28, 11:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > On 2/28/10 12:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > > >>> > > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >> On 2/28/10 10:54 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > >>> > >>> On Feb 27, 9:14 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > >>>> No--the chemistry and age suggest that moon was created from > >>> > >>>> earth > >>> > >>>> crustal material with little iron, hence the over all density is > >>> > >>>> less that the terrestrial rock planets of the solar system. > > >>> > >>> There's far more evidence that our moon(Selene) was captured. > > >>> > >> Cite ANY evidence, please! > > >>> > > The Arctic ocean basin that's a darn good match to the lunar south > >>> > > polar crater, plus we have some of that nifty antipode push-up of > >>> > > Antarctica that's not very old, and otherwise all sorts of broken > >>> > > lithosphere and subsequent plate-tonics issues. > > >>> > And this has to do with lunar capture, how? > > >>> Our captured moons(Selene & > >>> Cruithne)http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/69ebb8... > > >>> > > We have Earth's seasonal tilt as of roughly 13,000 BP (at least no > >>> > > objective evidence otherwise). > > >>> > Brad, we have evidence of seasonal tilt going back at least 800000 > >>> > years and beyond. > > >>> > You didn't cite anything! Do you know what a citation is? > > >>> Of course he doesn't ... even if he did, it would have to enter the > >>> world through his sphincter, because all of his greatest theories > >>> are stored in his colon. > > >>You wouldn't believe which orifice that you were born out of. > > >>So, why is Earth still thawing out from the last ice-age? > > >> ~ BG > > Yea, those pesky ice-ages, they come and go, with regularity. > It's just unfortunate that you Climate Change nutters want to > completely bury any reference to the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. > Pretty much like Ostriches stick their heads in the sand, you > Liberal Loons stick your heads up your asses, whenever something > happens that you poor fucks can't come to grips with. > Oh yea ... and you start babbling nonsense .... like brain-farts. Actually there were a couple of abrupt changes in ice-age cycles, such as the 41,000 year and the 25,000 year cycles that came about as we go back in time. It's exactly as though our orbit or elliptical association Sirius or the mutual barycenter/centroid was nearby at first. Like the icy planetoid Sedna that has a sharp elliptical trek that never manages to directly orbit the sun (only gets within 76 AU before it heads way the hell out past 975 AU), but otherwise never goes away because of those pesky Newtonian forces at play. With Sirius we may never get any closer than one light year, although 0.1 ly might have been the case when there was so much extra influence (<25e30 kg) , and its otherwise exactly as though the Sirius star system had lost considerable mass a couple of times, and perhaps once more as Sirius(B) rebuilds itself to 1.4+ solar mass and once again goes crazy on us, and obviously this gets a whole lot worse yet for us if Sirius(B) merges with Sirius(A). Our current elliptical trek velocity with Sirius is only 7.6 km/s, and its speeding up as we get closer. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 3 Mar 2010 14:09 On Mar 3, 6:43 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > "Saul Levy" <saulle...(a)cox.net> wrote in message > > news:gfdro5tkendt00q5b03qggkko4e5rs3c7j(a)4ax.com... > > > > > All orifices have been used for the WACKO NUTJOBS born here, > > GOOFYSHITHEAD! > > > What difference does that make? > > > Saul Levy > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:06:38 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth > > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Mar 2, 7:53 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: > >>> "Brad Guth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:6b482204-edcf-4e34-809a-1b04371aa51a(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com.... > >>> On Feb 28, 11:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > On 2/28/10 12:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > > >>> > > On Feb 28, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >> On 2/28/10 10:54 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > >>> > >>> On Feb 27, 9:14 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > >>>> No--the chemistry and age suggest that moon was created from > >>> > >>>> earth > >>> > >>>> crustal material with little iron, hence the over all density is > >>> > >>>> less that the terrestrial rock planets of the solar system. > > >>> > >>> There's far more evidence that our moon(Selene) was captured. > > >>> > >> Cite ANY evidence, please! > > >>> > > The Arctic ocean basin that's a darn good match to the lunar south > >>> > > polar crater, plus we have some of that nifty antipode push-up of > >>> > > Antarctica that's not very old, and otherwise all sorts of broken > >>> > > lithosphere and subsequent plate-tonics issues. > > >>> > And this has to do with lunar capture, how? > > >>> Our captured moons(Selene & > >>> Cruithne)http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/69ebb8... > > >>> > > We have Earth's seasonal tilt as of roughly 13,000 BP (at least no > >>> > > objective evidence otherwise). > > >>> > Brad, we have evidence of seasonal tilt going back at least 800000 > >>> > years and beyond. > > >>> > You didn't cite anything! Do you know what a citation is? > > >>> Of course he doesn't ... even if he did, it would have to enter the > >>> world through his sphincter, because all of his greatest theories > >>> are stored in his colon. > > >>You wouldn't believe which orifice that you were born out of. > > >>So, why is Earth still thawing out from the last ice-age? > > >> ~ BG > > Yea, those pesky ice-ages, they come and go, with regularity. > It's just unfortunate that you Climate Change nutters want to > completely bury any reference to the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. > Pretty much like Ostriches stick their heads in the sand, you > Liberal Loons stick your heads up your asses, whenever something > happens that you poor fucks can't come to grips with. > Oh yea ... and you start babbling nonsense .... like brain-farts. Actually there were a couple of rather abrupt changes in ice-age cycles, such as those of 41,000 years and those of merely 25,000 year cycles that came about as we go back in time. It's exactly as though our orbit or elliptical association with Sirius or the mutual barycenter/centroid was nearby at first, as well as the all-inclusive mass of the Sirius star/solar system was much greater. Like the icy and reddish planetoid Sedna, a trans-Neptunian object that has a fairly sharp elliptical trek that never manages to directly orbit the sun (only gets within 76 AU before it heads way the hell out past 975 AU), but otherwise never goes away from us because of those pesky Newtonian forces at play. With Sirius we may never get any closer than one light year, although encounters of 0.1 ly might have been the case when there was so much extra gravity influence (<25e30 kg) , and its otherwise exactly as though the Sirius star system had lost considerable mass a couple of times, and perhaps once more as Sirius(B) rebuilds itself to 1.4+ solar mass and once again goes crazy on us, and obviously this gets a whole lot worse yet for us if Sirius(B) merges with Sirius(A). Our current elliptical trek velocity with Sirius is only 7.6 km/s, and its predictably speeding up as we get closer. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 3 Mar 2010 14:12 On Feb 27, 7:47 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Besides our moon being porous or semi-hollow under that thick crust, > we also need to understand what it's doing to us. > > How warm does our moon(Selene) keep us? > One degree F/decade? > One degree F/century? > One degree F/millennium? > One degree F/ten millennium? > > How much warmer can we allow Eden/Earth to get? > How much increase in nighttime cloud-cover can we live with? > How much human warming and polluting assistance can Earth stand? > How much more of Earths hydrogen and helium can we afford to lose? > > Our lithosphere gets continually morphed along by a substantial > composite of gravity tidal waves <.55 meter at the equator that > migrates and/or reverberates throughout as causing an Earth warping/ > undulating surface bulging/sinking kind of ride thats roughly 2/3 > moon and 1/3 solar, thats also fast moving and cant but help trigger > tectonic quakes via modulating our broken lithospheric plates that > otherwise merely slip and slide into and under one another relatively > harmlessly. In other words, the morphing/distorting or modulation of > our lithosphere and mantel is perhaps more responsible for causing > ocean tides than is gravity itself pulling upon water, and its > certainly the most likely earthquake trigger, especially whenever > theres 3+ body alignments taking place. > > Moon orbits us at 1022 m/s = 16.957 m/s at the surface equator of > Earth, but of course thats only if Earth wasnt itself rotating at > 465 m/s. (465 17 = 448 m/s is actually one heck of a nifty form of > lithosphere modulation or tidal velocity as a continuous geophysical > morphing shock-wave, of subsequent seismic and geothermal dynamics to > always deal with) > > I wonder what the all-inclusive cost in hundreds of billions or > perhaps trillions per year that such damage and losses to us humans, > our infrastructures and the environmental trauma via earthquakes > involve. > > Looks as though March 14~15th, 29~30th, April 13~14th and similar > future alignment dates are worth paying closer attention to. > http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/moonphase.html > > Relocating our captured moon(Selene) out to Earth L1 isnt going to > happen overnight (more like taking a century) nor will this eliminate > ocean tides, although its going reduce those tides by at least 50% > plus cut those pesky lunar induced seismic trigger considerations by > at least 8:1, as well as giving us roughly 3% of badly needed shade to > work with. In my book of constructively doing stuff which directly > benefits the greater good, thats called a win-win-win. > > Perhaps our lunar tidal energy should be reinterpreted as essentially > extreme long-wave IR that doesnt reflect but penetrates and morphs or > modulates throughout the crust and mantel, distorting our relatively > thin lithosphere <55 cm at <448 m/s, and then via secondary convection > up-welling that obviously does eventually manage to get rid of such > geothermal energy, is exactly what contributes the bulk of heat and > pollution to our surface and atmospheric environment. If it was just > up to the much weaker tidal influence of Earths rotation and that of > our sun with its illuminating form of heat, and especially if this > were accepted without a seasonal tilt and having less global nighttime > cloudiness, wed be extensively iced-up nearly to the tropics of > Cancer and Capricorn. > > Ideally, if the global warming nighttime cloud cover doesnt increase > were better off having a moon that continually modulates the entire > body of this thin-crusted planet. However, the nature of this > evolving planet plus we humans as having extensively increased the > amounts of atmospheric water saturation, as well as our having made it > sooty and acidic enough to etch class, whereas this kind of artificial > global dimming and increased nighttime cloud cover is not exactly > helping to keep us cool or much less weather stabilized, whereas slow > glacial ice and compacted snow stores hot and cold energy as well as > the bulk of fresh water in a very controlled method thatll be hard to > replace or do without. > > Earth has been surface radiating its core energy at roughly 64 TW, > while holding onto that moon has been contributing 2e20 N.m/sec 55,555 > TW (some of which [let us say at the very least 0.1%] becomes > geothermal thermal energy). In other words, without our moon (-56 > TW), the core radiated heat of Earth w/o moon might become worth as > little as 8 TW which shouldnt hardly thaw any ice. > > 1 btu = approximate amount of energy needed to heat 0.4527 kg of > water by one degree Fahrenheit, and most often thats also given or > interpreted as to represent that volume of h2o thats heated by one > degree per hour, mostly because thats how we apply and measure our > energy usage, and otherwise the energy as a measure of Joules is > always per second unless specified otherwise. > > 1 btu = 1055.06 joules > 1 kw.h = 3412 BTU.h > 1 kw.h = 3.6e6 joules > 8.34 pounds = one gallon of pure h2o > 8.356 btu/gal/1°F rise/hr (based on 1g/cm3 density) > 8.356 btu/3.783 kg = 2.209 btu/kg (based on 1g/cm3 density) > 2.209 btu = 2.3306e3 J > 2.209 btu/kg/1°F rise/hr (based on 1g/cm3 density) > Earth mass = 5.974e24 kg > 5.974e24 * 2.209 = 13.1966e24 btu to get Earth warned up by 1°F > > However, the average density of Earth is roughly 5.5 times greater > than water. > > 13.1966e24 * 5.5 = 7.26e25 btu in order to sustain the whole body of > Earth as getting warmed up by an extra 1°F > > 7.26e25 btu * 1.055e3 = 7.66e28 J > > If 100% of the 2e20 N of tidal binding force were converted into > thermal energy: > 7.66e28/2e20 = 3.83e8 seconds > 3.83e8/3.1536e7 = 12.145 years per 1°F rise. > > Its perfectly clear that any large and/or massive enough asteroid in > a sufficiently nearby orbit of a given planet can make that planet a > little hotter from the inside out. By any conceivable interpretation, > our moon(Selene) of 7.35e22 kg that may have started out as an icy > 8.35e22 kg in a much closer orbit and even upon physically > encountering us, more than qualifies. Theres even an extensive NASA > infomercial production as public funded and televised on PBS as well > as available on DVD, of nifty animation eyecandy as to how such an > asteroid/moon activated a dormant magnetic field and otherwise heated > up the planet Mars. > > I personally could doubt that more than 10% of this GW trend via tidal > interaction is the case, although it could easily be worth as great as > 90%, making that timeline of global warming via tidal binding forces > more like 121.45 years per 1°F rise, and of course Earth always > radiates at least 90% of energy influx which then makes it worth > 1214.5 years per 1°F rise, although as to where the other energy is > going I havent the slightest idea (similar to our LHC having lost > track of 98% of their proton quark/higgs mass or strange dark-matter), > unless its sustaining some kind of electrostatic charge differential, > but then what planet couldnt use a few trillion naked/rogue Higgs and > magnetic holes to go along with its LHC gamma. > > Of course the moon itself isnt a ball of solid/fused inert rock, and > therefore some kind of geothermal considerations with considerably > less geodynamic activity than Earth has to coexist under that > unusually thick and mineral saturated lunar crust. So, as I research > and manage to learn more, Ill have to continually rethink in order to > update/revise this ongoing interpretation, because I doubt others with > better physics and science expertise that are mostly public funded > will bother to help investigate, perhaps because supposedly Earth has > nearly always had that physically dark and crystal dry moon of ours > that we still cant set up any camp/habitat upon or within, nor can we > even utilize its zero delta-V L1. > > Theres also the near zero delta-V of Cruithne thats never too far > away, at 1.3e14 kg (about right for a spent carbonado comet core) as a > somewhat second captured moon of ours (discovered long after our > Apollo missions), as also held by a fairly complex set of Newtonian > gravity constraints thats a little odd but none the less stable. > Most likely this once icy Cruithne also bounced off something like > Earth (perhaps 65 million years ago), and thereby having lost/ > transferred all of its icy payload in order to stick with us. Its > original comet payload of ice could have been worth <2.7e14 kg, > although its initial icy mass and date of encountering us is currently > unknown unless youd care to reconsider that Yucatan impact site. > > The physical elements or unusual attributes of Cruithne should prove > extremely interesting, but even though well enough within existing > resolution of present day astronomy, especially whenever its nearby > and otherwise easily viewed in detail by a probe fly-by, though > unfortunately its still being kept pretty much taboo/nondisclosure > rated by those in charge of mainstream damage-control of moons not > being captured. > > The co-orbital Cruithne-3753 (our binary moon or planetesimal/ > asteroid) eventually gets within 38 lunar distance, thus it would > become similar to seeing a 130 meter resolution of our lunar surface > is whats needed in order to deal with directly imaging this little > target from Earth, and KECK with its 395 meter FL and f40 secondary > mirror could accomplish this. > Image simulations of a 5 km asteroid: > http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2009/08/20/cruithnexx_1.jpg > http://www.pagef30.com/2009/07/colonizing-asteroid-3753-cruithne.html > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet On Mar 3, 6:43 am, "Hagar" <ha...(a)sahm.name> wrote: : Yea, those pesky ice-ages, they come and go, with regularity. : It's just unfortunate that you Climate Change nutters want to : completely bury any reference to the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. : Pretty much like Ostriches stick their heads in the sand, you : Liberal Loons stick your heads up your asses, whenever something : happens that you poor fucks can't come to grips with. : Oh yea ... and you start babbling nonsense .... like brain-farts. Actually there were a couple of rather abrupt changes in ice-age cycles, such as those of 41,000 years and those of merely 25,000 year cycles that came about as we go back in time. It's exactly as though our orbit or elliptical association with Sirius or the mutual barycenter/centroid was nearby at first, as well as the all-inclusive mass of the Sirius star/solar system was much greater. Like the icy and reddish planetoid Sedna, a trans-Neptunian object that has a fairly sharp elliptical trek that never manages to directly orbit the sun (only gets within 76 AU before it heads way the hell out past 975 AU), but otherwise never goes away from us because of those pesky Newtonian forces at play. With Sirius we may never get any closer than one light year, although encounters of 0.1 ly might have been the case when there was so much extra gravity influence (<25e30 kg) , and its otherwise exactly as though the Sirius star system had lost considerable mass a couple of times, and perhaps once more as Sirius(B) rebuilds itself to 1.4+ solar mass and once again goes crazy on us, and obviously this gets a whole lot worse yet for us if Sirius(B) merges with Sirius(A). Our current elliptical trek velocity with Sirius is only 7.6 km/s, and its predictably speeding up as we get closer. Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet
From: Brad Guth on 4 Mar 2010 20:00
I'm just updating this topic so that it keeps itself on top of the newsgroup stack, and otherwise until someone bothers to ask an honest question or contributes new information that's not of something faith- based, politically correct, naysay/denial or otherwise mainstream loaded to kill. K12 parrots need not bother because, that effort would only violate your brainwashed parrot mindset that you get to live with for the rest of your life. Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet |