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 19 Mar 2010 13:40 On Mar 17, 9:26 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 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 > > Our moon is not exactly made of Earth, because if it were there'd > be any great number of raw elements to easily detect. > > Not that most everything off-world isnt 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 theres 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 thats 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 wasnt > permitted to publish anything that wasnt 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 rather 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 Now we're being informed by our NASA approved infomercial science that 40 of those Northern 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 extremely frozen h2o coexisting at an extreme vacuum of 3e-15 bar none the less, and yet there has never been any previously observed hint of such h2o vapors, as for suggesting any thin atmosphere evolving as ever escaping or emerging out of any of those craters, though at the same time and as of more than a decade before we've extensively documented the saturation of sodium vapor that's venting or evaporating and thus extensively surrounding and trailing away from our moon. Perhaps there's considerably greater atmospheric pressure within those polar craters, and yet apparently our considerably more spendy and technologically advanced LRO mission can't seem to replicate squat on behalf of any of that supposed discovery of such volumes of lunar ice. So here we go again, with the usual 'on again - off again' science of or NASA that gets to use those conditional laws of physics and obfuscate as to whatever they don't like, and otherwise always receives as much public funded mainstream hype on demand as they need. Considering those much greater South polar craters and their shaded depths, perhaps there's at least another billion cubic meters worth of such hocus-pocus ice hidden within those as well. That's actually not very much ice, but at the cost of perhaps $1M/kg as safely imported from Earth and otherwise safely stored on the moon for future use, whereas that 1.6 billion tonnes of existing ice becomes worth $1600 trillion (not to mention the human safety advantages of our not having to manage any of the complex and risky logistics of getting ourselves to/from that naked surface in order to build up whatever cache of water/ice). ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 19 Mar 2010 13:50 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 Now we're being media informed by our NASA approved infomercial science that 40 of those Northern 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 extremely frozen h2o coexisting for billions of years at an extreme vacuum of 3e-15 bar none the less, and yet there has never been any previously observed hint of such h2o vapors, as for suggesting any thin atmospheric elements evolving as ever escaping or emerging out of any of those craters, though at the same time and as of more than a decade before we've extensively documented the saturation of sodium vapor that's venting from or evaporating out and thus extensively surrounding and trailing away from our moon. Perhaps there's considerably greater atmospheric pressure within those polar craters, and yet apparently our considerably more spendy and technologically advanced LRO mission can't seem to replicate squat on behalf of supporting any of that supposed discovery of such volumes of lunar ice. So here we go again, with the usual 'on again - off again' science of our NASA that gets to use those conditional laws of physics and obfuscate as to whatever they don't like, and otherwise always receives as much public funded mainstream hype on demand as they need. Considering those much greater South polar craters and their shaded depths, perhaps there's at least another billion cubic meters worth of such hocus-pocus ice hidden within those as well. That's actually not very much ice, but at the cost of perhaps $1M/kg as safely imported from Earth and otherwise safely stored on the moon for future use, whereas that 1.6 billion tonnes of existing ice becomes worth $1600 trillion (not to mention the human safety advantages of our not having to manage any of the complex and risky logistics of getting ourselves to/from that naked surface in order to build up whatever cache of water/ice). Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet
From: Brad Guth on 21 Mar 2010 01:12 On Mar 18, 5:10 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Our moon is very much like an asteroid, whereas solid or not such asteroids of rare elements are extremely interesting to William Mook and many if us (including myself), except for that part of us each being a century dead before the first of any other asteroid is ever artificially captured in polar LEO, systematically taken apart and its supposed good stuff delivered to Earth, at perhaps being worth as little as $1M/ kg. On the other hand, what can be realistically accomplished within this decade? (on loot that's borrowed from China none the less) Seems getting whatever to/from the zero delta-V of our Selene L1, as such is by far the most efficient orbital logistics option, as well as one that we can all directly keep our eyes on whatever is robotic or humanly taking place. According to everything NASA/Apollo, there's hardly ever any solar or cosmic radiation to fret over, the moon itself is nothing but an inert pastel gray and otherwise entirely passive(non-reactive), whereas hardly anything gets electrostatic charged, as well as rogue meteors and whatever other passing debris are a non-issue, and loads of hot sodium that's surrounding our moon isn't even a problem worth mentioning, and apparently it's even icy cold while working that trek between Earth and our moon (checkout Apollo 13 for that science of being fully solar illuminated yet somehow freezing their butts off). So what could possibly be more ideal than that? (unlimited hot sunlight that's mostly passive, plus loads of secondary IR from the moon as well as coming off Earth, and otherwise its more than freezing cold for everything else, is nothing but super terrific physics on steroids) ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 21 Mar 2010 01:18 Our moon is very much like an asteroid, whereas solid or not such asteroids of rare elements are extremely interesting to William Mook and many if us (including myself), except for that part of us each being a century dead before the first of any other asteroid is ever artificially captured in polar LEO, systematically taken apart and its supposed good stuff delivered to Earth, at perhaps being worth as little as $1M/ kg. On the other hand, what can be realistically accomplished within this decade? (on loot that's borrowed from China none the less) Seems getting whatever to/from the zero delta-V of our Selene L1, as such is by far the most efficient orbital logistics option, as well as one that we can all directly keep our eyes on whatever is robotic or humanly taking place. According to everything NASA/Apollo, there's hardly ever any solar or cosmic radiation to fret over, the moon itself is nothing but an inert pastel gray and otherwise entirely passive(non-reactive), whereas hardly anything gets electrostatic charged, as well as rogue meteors and whatever other passing debris are a non-issue, and loads of hot sodium that's surrounding our moon isn't even a problem worth mentioning, and apparently it's even icy cold while working that trek between Earth and our moon (checkout Apollo 13 for that science of being fully solar illuminated yet somehow freezing their butts off). So what could possibly be more ideal than that? (unlimited hot sunlight that's mostly passive, plus loads of secondary IR from the moon as well as coming off Earth, and otherwise its more than freezing cold for everything else, is nothing but super terrific physics on steroids) Now we're being further informed by our NASA approved infomercial science that 40 of those Northern 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 extremely frozen h2o coexisting at an extreme vacuum of 3e-15 bar none the less, and yet there has never been any previously observed hint of such h2o vapors, as for suggesting any thin atmosphere evolving as ever escaping or emerging out of any of those craters, though at the same time and as of more than a decade before we've extensively documented the saturation of sodium vapor that's venting or evaporating and thus extensively surrounding and trailing away from our moon. Perhaps there's considerably greater atmospheric pressure within those polar craters, and yet apparently our considerably more spendy and technologically advanced LRO mission can't seem to replicate squat on behalf of any of that supposed discovery of such volumes of lunar ice. So here we go again, with the usual 'on again - off again' science of or NASA that gets to use those conditional laws of physics and obfuscate as to whatever they don't like, and otherwise always receives as much public funded mainstream hype on demand as they need. Considering those much greater South polar craters and their shaded depths, perhaps there's at least another billion cubic meters worth of such hocus-pocus ice hidden within those as well. That's actually not very much ice, but at the cost of perhaps $1M/kg as safely imported from Earth and otherwise safely stored on the moon for future use, whereas that 1.6 billion tonnes of existing ice becomes worth $1600 trillion (not to mention the human safety advantages of our not having to manage any of the complex and risky fly-by-rocket performed logistics of getting ourselves to/from that naked surface in order to build up whatever cache of water/ice). ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 31 Mar 2010 20:24
On Mar 18, 5:10 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 On Mar 31, 3:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/31/10 2:51 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > On Mar 31, 3:46 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Signs of giant comet impacts found in cores > >> An uptick in ammonium may be evidence of a 50-billion-ton strike at the > >> end of the ice age.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57790/title/Signs_of_giant... > > > How about one of 8e22 kg, as a kind of icy sucker-punch from the rear? > > > Our Selene still offers ice, loads of aluminum as well as sodium. > > Possibly there's ammonium salt as part of that lunar lithosphere or > > from its once thick ice covered surface. You know, according to my previous swags or subjective interpretations and subsequent rants on behalf of this weird notion of something very big and icy smacking into us from the rear, and glancing off after conceivably creating our Arctic ocean basin, causing loads of antipodes such as Antarctica, as well as increasing our seasonal tilt as of 12,900 BP, sounds about right. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57790/title/Signs_of_giant_comet_impacts_found_in_cores_ "In the April Geology, researchers describe finding chemical similarities in the cores between a layer corresponding to 1908, when a 50,000-metric-ton extraterrestrial object exploded over Tunguska, Siberia, and a deeper stratum dating to 12,900 years ago." ~ BG |