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: spudnik on 4 Mar 2010 23:44
kind of a nice idea, that it might
be just a bit holllow (or riddled with subsurface caves).

however, the main confomations of mare & highland appears
to be simple plate tectonics, albeit mostly finished
(the last gasp would be very "nonlinear,"
thus giving rise to explosive craters, volcanically;
as opposed to the mainstream impactoids theory --
the former one not being mine, either .-)

thus:
has anyone stated what Thermite (tm) is made of, and
what its primary use is?

thus:
perhaps, the answer lays in front of you;
how well do you see, underwater?

thus:
the funny thing about this thread, is that
There Are No Electrons -- oops;
that was a pedagogical treatise on "basic electronics,"
I suppose, using hydraulics analogies etc.

I meant, there clearly are no photons,
in the same way that there are no phonons,
except in a delimited "quantization" or math
(the photoelctrical instrumentation e.g.)

"Death to the lightcone; long-live the lightcone!"

thus quoth:
The negative AO has brought warmer temperatures to the arctic but has
also lead to wind patterns that tend to keep the ice intact. If the
AO stays negative then this year's September ice coverage minimum
should be fairly normal. It was wind patterns, and not temperature,
that lead to the record arctic ice lost in 2007.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

thus:
read Alfven. in the meantime,
positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
to electrons, as has been known for decades.
what the Hell;
do what ever you were going to do with your typewriter,
anyway. if we can get a Psalm per century out
of you two, we'll win the Lotto!
> How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited?

thus:
wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: Brad Guth on 5 Mar 2010 00:10
On Mar 4, 8:44 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> kind of a nice idea, that it might
> be just a bit holllow (or riddled with subsurface caves).
>
> however, the main confomations of mare & highland appears
> to be simple plate tectonics, albeit mostly finished
> (the last gasp would be very "nonlinear,"
> thus giving rise to explosive craters, volcanically;
> as opposed to the mainstream impactoids theory --
> the former one not being mine, either .-)

and?

>
> thus:
> has anyone stated what Thermite (tm) is made of, and
> what its primary use is?
>
> thus:
> perhaps, the answer lays in front of you;
> how well do you see, underwater?
>
> thus:
> the funny thing about this thread, is that
> There Are No Electrons -- oops;
> that was a pedagogical treatise on "basic electronics,"
> I suppose, using hydraulics analogies etc.
>
> I meant, there clearly are no photons,
> in the same way that there are no phonons,
> except in a delimited "quantization" or math
> (the photoelctrical instrumentation e.g.)
>
> "Death to the lightcone; long-live the lightcone!"
>
> thus quoth:
> The negative AO has brought warmer temperatures to the arctic but has
>  also lead to wind patterns that tend to keep the ice intact.  If the
>  AO stays negative then this year's September ice coverage minimum
>  should be fairly normal. It was wind patterns, and not temperature,
>  that lead to the record arctic ice lost in 2007.
>  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
>
> thus:
> read Alfven.  in the meantime,
> positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks
> to electrons, as has been known for decades.
>     what the Hell;
> do what ever you were going to do with your typewriter,
> anyway.  if we can get a Psalm per century out
> of you two, we'll win the Lotto!
>
> > How would you identify an individual  positron if it was emited?
>
> thus:
> wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons,
> I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong!
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com

And your inability to focus is?

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 8 Mar 2010 13:56
Some folks simply have no speck of remorse or any viable idea as
pertaining to saving Earth and many of us from ourselves, whereas
instead they’re doing all they can to make themselves as public funded
rich and powerful, and otherwise our Eden/Earth as spendy and as
polluted as possible. Not that Earth isn’t going to be here long
after the dysfunctional human species is extinct, but it’s about the
here and now quality of life and otherwise it’s for the greater good
of everything we’ve got to work with.

Our Eden/Earth w/o moon was cold as ice, but 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 and stormier can we allow Eden/Earth to get?
How much of an increase in nighttime cloud-cover can we live with?
How much human warming and polluting assistance can Earth stand?
How much more of Earth’s hydrogen and helium can we afford to lose?
How many trillions has it been costing us by NOT having relocated our
moon to Earth L1?

By relocating our moon(Selene) to Earth L1 (easier said then done),
whereas the Sun-Earth L1 shifts a minor bit and perhaps greatly
stabilizes, but otherwise there's still a perfectly viable if not a
whole lot better Earth-moon L1, as well as there'd still be those
ocean tides of roughly 50% magnitude. By the time of our having
developed and applied the necessary technology on behalf of getting
our moon(Selene) relocated to Earth L1, that perchance we'd also have
the necessary technology, expertise and whatever means of
interactively keeping it within that halo station-keeping location.

Our lithosphere gets continually morphed along by a substantial
composite of complex and fast surface moving 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 that’s roughly 2/3 moon and 1/3 solar contributed, that’s
certainly fast moving and can’t 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 constant modulation of our
lithosphere and mantel is perhaps more responsible for causing ocean
tides than is gravity itself pulling upon water, and it’s certainly
the most likely earthquake trigger, especially whenever there’s 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 that’s only if Earth wasn’t itself rotating at
465 m/s. (465 –17 = 448 m/s is actually one heck of a nifty form of
lithosphere modulation or gravity-wave velocity as a continuous
geophysical morphing shock-wave, of subsequent seismic triggering and
geothermal dynamics to always deal with). I wonder what the all-
inclusive global 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, eruptions and tidal GW
induced storms and floods actually involve. No other planet has this
level of geophysical trauma to contend with.

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 isn’t going to
happen overnight (more like taking a century) nor will this eliminate
ocean tides, although it’s 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, that’s called a win-win-win.

Perhaps our lunar tidal energy should be reinterpreted as essentially
extreme long-wave IR that doesn’t 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 Earth’s 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, we’d be extensively iced-up nearly to the tropics of
Cancer and Capricorn.

Ideally, if the global warming nighttime cloud cover doesn’t increase
we’re 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 that’ll 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), whereas the core radiated heat of Earth w/o moon might become
worth as little as 8 TW which shouldn’t 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 that’s also given or
interpreted as to represent that volume of h2o as heated by one degree
per hour, mostly because that’s 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.

It’s 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. There’s 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 haven’t the slightest idea (similar to our LHC having lost
track of 98% of their proton quark/higgs mass or strange dark-matter),
unless it’s sustaining some kind of electrostatic charge differential,
but then what planet couldn’t use a few trillion naked/rogue Higgs and
magnetic holes to go along with its LHC gamma.

Of course the moon itself isn’t a ball of solid/fused inert rock with
few minerals, and therefore some kind of complex geothermal
considerations with considerably less geodynamic activity than Earth
has to coexist under that unusually thick and mineral saturated lunar
crust. As I research and manage to learn more, I’ll 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 can’t
set up any camp/habitat upon or within, nor can we even utilize its
zero delta-V L1.

There’s also that near zero delta-V of Cruithne that’s 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 that’s 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 you’d care to reconsider that Yucatan Peninsula impact
site. The Chicxulub 10 km asteroid impactor seems most likely
responsible for the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary of 65+ million years
ago, and that’s about right sized for the icy Cruithne asteroid upon
its final encounter, that’s still kicking around as our more distant
iceless second moon of only 5 km, whereas that remaining thick coating
of ice would have provided a significant thrust for getting launched
back away from that lithobraking encounter.

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 it’s nearby
and otherwise easily viewed in terrific detail >25 mm by an
inexpensive probe fly-by or orbital station-keeping, though
unfortunately it’s still being kept pretty much as another taboo/
nondisclosure rated item by those in charge of mainstream damage-
control, of their insisting upon moons not being captured. Actually,
performing an asteroid landing such as on Cruithne should have been
accomplished before any of those much greater delta-V moon landings.

The co-orbital Cruithne-3753 (our binary 2nd moon or pet planetesimal/
asteroid) eventually gets within 38 lunar distance, thus it would
become similar to seeing a 130 meter resolution of our lunar surface
is what’s 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 easily 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

btw; Those somewhat recent cryogenian eras (including those nasty
glacial ones of 716 and 450 MBP) of nearly full global glaciations to
the equator, simply could not have taken place if you have a pesky old
asteroid or planetoid the mass of our moon(Selene) orbiting, much less
if that sucker were orbiting any closer than it is right now, not to
mention the relatively thin crust of Earth wasn’t exactly any thicker
back then. Sorry about all that.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
From: Brad Guth on 11 Mar 2010 16:18
Apparently our LRO mission is still color blind, as well as unable to
detect anything of mineral/element interest with its UV or gamma
spectrometry, and it's SAR equipment is nearly useless. (perhaps
because there's too much sodium to deal with)

~ BG


On Mar 8, 10:56 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Some folks simply have no speck of remorse or any viable idea as
> pertaining to saving Earth and many of us from ourselves, whereas
> instead they’re doing all they can to make themselves as public funded
> rich and powerful, and otherwise our Eden/Earth as spendy and as
> polluted as possible.  Not that Earth isn’t going to be here long
> after the dysfunctional human species is extinct, but it’s about the
> here and now quality of life and otherwise it’s for the greater good
> of everything we’ve got to work with.
>
> Our Eden/Earth w/o moon was cold as ice, but 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 and stormier can we allow Eden/Earth to get?
> How much of an increase in nighttime cloud-cover can we live with?
> How much human warming and polluting assistance can Earth stand?
> How much more of Earth’s hydrogen and helium can we afford to lose?
> How many trillions has it been costing us by NOT having relocated our
> moon to Earth L1?
>
> By relocating our moon(Selene) to Earth L1 (easier said then done),
> whereas the Sun-Earth L1 shifts a minor bit and perhaps greatly
> stabilizes, but otherwise there's still a perfectly viable if not a
> whole lot better Earth-moon L1, as well as there'd still be those
> ocean tides of roughly 50% magnitude.  By the time of our having
> developed and applied the necessary technology on behalf of getting
> our moon(Selene) relocated to Earth L1, that perchance we'd also have
> the necessary technology, expertise and whatever means of
> interactively keeping it within that halo station-keeping location.
>
> Our lithosphere gets continually morphed along by a substantial
> composite of complex and fast surface moving 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 that’s roughly 2/3 moon and 1/3 solar contributed, that’s
> certainly fast moving and can’t 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 constant modulation of our
> lithosphere and mantel is perhaps more responsible for causing ocean
> tides than is gravity itself pulling upon water, and it’s certainly
> the most likely earthquake trigger, especially whenever there’s 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 that’s only if Earth wasn’t itself rotating at
> 465 m/s. (465 –17 =  448 m/s is actually one heck of a nifty form of
> lithosphere modulation or gravity-wave velocity as a continuous
> geophysical morphing shock-wave, of subsequent seismic triggering and
> geothermal dynamics to always deal with).  I wonder what the all-
> inclusive global 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, eruptions and tidal GW
> induced storms and floods actually involve.  No other planet has this
> level of geophysical trauma to contend with.
>
> 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 isn’t going to
> happen overnight (more like taking a century) nor will this eliminate
> ocean tides, although it’s 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, that’s called a win-win-win.
>
> Perhaps our lunar tidal energy should be reinterpreted as essentially
> extreme long-wave IR that doesn’t 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 Earth’s 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, we’d be extensively iced-up nearly to the tropics of
> Cancer and Capricorn.
>
> Ideally, if the global warming nighttime cloud cover doesn’t increase
> we’re 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 that’ll 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),  whereas the core radiated heat of Earth w/o moon might become
> worth as little as 8 TW which shouldn’t 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 that’s also given or
> interpreted as to represent that volume of h2o as heated by one degree
> per hour, mostly because that’s 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.
>
> It’s 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.  There’s 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 haven’t the slightest idea (similar to our LHC having lost
> track of 98% of their proton quark/higgs mass or strange dark-matter),
> unless it’s sustaining some kind of electrostatic charge differential,
> but then what planet couldn’t use a few trillion naked/rogue Higgs and
> magnetic holes to go along with its LHC gamma.
>
> Of course the moon itself isn’t a ball of solid/fused inert rock with
> few minerals, and therefore some kind of complex geothermal
> considerations with considerably less geodynamic activity than Earth
> has to coexist under that unusually thick and mineral saturated lunar
> crust.  As I research and manage to learn more, I’ll 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 can’t
> set up any camp/habitat upon or within, nor can we even utilize its
> zero delta-V L1.
>
> There’s also that near zero delta-V of Cruithne that’s 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 that’s 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 you’d care to reconsider that Yucatan Peninsula impact
> site.  The Chicxulub 10 km asteroid impactor seems most likely
> responsible for the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary of 65+ million years
> ago, and that’s about right sized for the icy Cruithne asteroid upon
> its final encounter, that’s still kicking around as our more distant
> iceless second moon of only 5 km, whereas that remaining thick coating
> of ice would have provided a significant thrust for getting launched
> back away from that lithobraking encounter.
>
> 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 it’s nearby
> and otherwise easily viewed in terrific detail >25 mm by an
> inexpensive probe fly-by or orbital station-keeping, though
> unfortunately it’s still being kept pretty much as another taboo/
> nondisclosure rated item by those in charge of mainstream damage-
> control, of their insisting upon moons not being captured.  Actually,
> performing an asteroid landing such as on Cruithne should have been
> accomplished before any of those much greater delta-V moon landings.
>
> The co-orbital Cruithne-3753 (our binary 2nd moon or pet planetesimal/
> asteroid) eventually gets within 38 lunar distance, thus it would
> become similar to seeing a 130 meter resolution of our lunar surface
> is what’s 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 easily 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
>
> btw;  Those somewhat recent cryogenian eras (including those nasty
> glacial ones of 716 and 450 MBP) of nearly full global glaciations to
> the equator, simply could not have taken place if you have a pesky old
> asteroid or planetoid the mass of our moon(Selene) orbiting, much less
> if that sucker were orbiting any closer than it is right now, not to
> mention the relatively thin crust of Earth wasn’t exactly any thicker
> back then.  Sorry about all that.
>
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

From: Brad Guth on 12 Mar 2010 15:06
On Mar 11, 1:18 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently our LRO mission is still color blind, as well as unable to
> detect anything of mineral/element interest with its UV or gamma
> spectrometry, and it's SAR equipment is nearly useless. (perhaps
> because there's too much sodium to deal with)
>
>  ~ BG

Is there also a little something weird about those unusually deep
holes in our moon that only the LRO SAR can manage to get any look-see
as to how deep those suckers are?

How much of that hot and highly electrostatic charged sodium is
negatively affecting our spendy LRO mission?

~ BG
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
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 ).