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 14 Mar 2010 01:03
Is there a little something weird about those unusually deep holes in
our moon that only the LRO SAR can manage to get any depth-worthy look-
see, as to telling us exactly how deep those suckers are?

Otherwise I'd like to know how much of that extremely hot and highly
electrostatic charged sodium is negatively affecting our spendy LRO
mission?

Where's that detailed surface mineral saturation map of our moon?

Where's the detailed surface radiation intensity map of our moon?

~ 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 17 Mar 2010 13:26
On Mar 3, 11:09 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 thatmoonwas 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 ourmoon(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 it’s 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
> it’s predictably speeding up as we get closer.
>
>  ~ BG

Our moon is not exactly made of Earth.

Not that most everything off-world isn’t originated from the same
basic cosmic and star stuff that made our Eden/Earth. However,
according to most everything NASA/Apollo, it seems our personal No.1
asteroid/moon(Selene) is rather pale gray and relatively inert,
meaning there’s no significant minerals or raw elements for the
cosmic, solar or its own local energy to react with. Even our LRO
mission seems oddly color/hue blind, as unable to detect or share
anything that’s the least bit UV, X-ray or Gamma reactive, and the
science pertaining to our Earth-moon L1(Selene L1) is all but missing
in action, like most all of the original Apollo R&D plus subsequent
science and of those collecting such data are as equally nowhere to be
found, as well as unpublished. Even our James Van Allen wasn’t
permitted to publish anything that wasn’t moderated to death by those
in charge, so that his own personal interpretations of the best
available science is seemingly nowhere to be found in public archives
without considerable digging.

This is actually extremely odd because our moon(Selene) is very much
physically dark and colorful or mineral secondary hue saturated as
viewed from Earth. So what gives?

How many natural color/hue saturated image examples of our
moon(Selene) would any of you like to review?

~ BG
From: spudnik on 17 Mar 2010 16:51
most of the surface rock would have been mined-out
of useful minerals by life, oxidized & sedimented in the maria.

I think, if you read van Allen's papers, you wouldn't find taht
they had been "edited" so much, and his opbservation were just
the first ones!

> This is actually extremely odd because our moon(Selene) is very much
> physically dark and colorful or mineral secondary hue saturated as
> viewed from Earth.  So what gives?

thus:
actually, I doubt if Young used photo paper;
his set-up, a pinhole "splitting" at two other pinholes,
was probably only adequate for teh amazing sensitivity
of the human eye; did he just draw hte moire'?

> (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity);
> among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" --
> 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern
> on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source

thus:
Rodriguez's observations are dquite valid,
he being an on-duty custodian at one of the towers;
however, his interp[retations are open to questioning!

> Of course not, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. That's why we

thus:
I'm an idiot. what's funny is that
I attended the Ninth Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA,
where the keynoter told the story of how,
Newton stole the inverse second-power law
(the algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints).

thus:
that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
(from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).

> why would Fermat explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
> (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)

thus:
ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).
Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
he must be using the new "mental operating system!"

thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!
http://larouchepub.com
From: Brad Guth on 17 Mar 2010 17:47
On Mar 17, 12:51 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> most of the surface rock would have been mined-out
> of useful minerals by life, oxidized & sedimented in the maria.

You speak as though you are blind, or at the vary least color blind.

>
> I think, if you read van Allen's papers, you wouldn't find taht
> they had been "edited" so much, and his opbservation were just
> the first ones!
>
> > This is actually extremely odd because our moon(Selene) is very much
> > physically dark and colorful or mineral secondary hue saturated as
> > viewed from Earth.  So what gives?
>
> thus:
> actually, I doubt if Young used photo paper;
> his set-up, a pinhole "splitting" at two other pinholes,
> was probably only adequate for teh amazing sensitivity
> of the human eye; did he just draw hte moire'?
>
> > (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity);
> > among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" --
> > 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern
> > on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion.  (his source
>
> thus:
> Rodriguez's observations are dquite valid,
> he being an on-duty custodian at one of the towers;
> however, his interp[retations are open to questioning!
>
> > Of course not, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. That's why we
>
> thus:
> I'm an idiot.  what's funny is that
> I attended the Ninth Nonlinear Science Conference at UCLA,
> where the keynoter told the story of how,
> Newton stole the inverse second-power law
> (the algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints).
>
> thus:
> that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
> thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
> (from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).
>
> > why would Fermat explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
> > (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)
>
> thus:
> ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).
>     Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
> How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
> he must be using the new "mental operating system!"
>
> thus:
> most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
> a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
> in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
> as a "mass"  (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
> the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
> eletrical device.  here are two ways to get over this: a)
> just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
> show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
> to absorb a particular frequency of light.
>     so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
> of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
> one cycle of the frequency?
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
>
> --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
>
> --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
> ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!http://larouchepub.com

It's hard to figure where you're coming from, or headed towards.
From: Brad Guth on 18 Mar 2010 21:10
On Mar 13, 10:03 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a little something weird about those unusually deep holes in
> our moon that only the LRO SAR can manage to get any depth-worthy look-
> see, as to telling us exactly how deep those suckers are?
>
> Otherwise I'd like to know how much of that extremely hot and highly
> electrostatic charged sodium is negatively affecting our spendy LRO
> mission?
>
> Where's that detailed surface mineral saturation map of our moon?
>
> Where's the detailed surface radiation intensity map of our moon?
>
>  ~ BG

Now we're being informed by our NASA that 40 of those North polar
craters upon of our moon have hidden 600 million cubic meters worth of
raw surface ice that's immune to the laws of physics, as frozen h2o
coexisting at an extreme vacuum of 3e-15 bar none the less, and yet
there's never any hint of h2o vapors, as for suggesting any thin
atmosphere ever escaping or emerging out of any of those craters.

Perhaps there's considerably greater atmospheric pressure within those
craters.

~ BG

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 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 ).