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: BradGuth on 12 Jan 2010 13:06
On Jan 11, 4:55 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:40 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:50 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6 2009, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least
> > > > bit hollow?
>
> > > > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1
> > > > (Selene L1) environment?
>
> > > > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained
> > > > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible,
> > > > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
>
> > > >  ~ BG
>
> > > What’s not holding up that robust lunar crust?
>
> > > Moon interior open space as geode like hollows/voids w/air at 14.7
> > > psi:
> > >  14.7 psi = 10.335e3 kgf/m2 (x 6 becomes a force worth holding up 62 t/
> > > m2)
>
> > > Exterior Vacuum at 3e-15 bar = 1.2e-12 inch h2o = 3.06e-15 kgf/cm2
> > >  Otherwise a negative pull or suction of 14.7 psi (10.335e3 kgf/m2) =
> > > 62 t/m2
>
> > > Assuming this mineral saturated lunar basalt is that of a sufficiently
> > > fused molecular kind of solid that’s only leaking sodium, whereas
> > > 1/6th gravity should become worth 124 tonnes/m2 of holding that lunar
> > > basalt shell up/away from the porous or semi-hollow mantel and its
> > > tidal offset core, as such is going to lift or hold up a serious
> > > amount of that basalt crust per km2 (124e6 tonnes/km2), not to mention
> > > whatever interior pressure below that thick and heavy crust should by
> > > rights be something considerably greater than 14.7 psi.
>
> > > Due to the crust porosity and various mineral leakage as having
> > > allowed some degree of subsequent pressure/vacuum equalization,
> > > whereas even I might doubt that we’d get anywhere near that kind of
> > > result, but it’s certainly fun to ponder.
>
> > > Seems it’s going to be a little tough for our moon(Selene) not to have
> > > those cavernous hollows/voids of some kind, at least a few solidified
> > > geode like pockets, porous layers or accessible vugs within and under
> > > that extremely thick and robust basalt crust, especially where that
> > > supposedly iron core has shifted at least several percent (<25%)
> > > towards Earth in order to help offset that much thicker and mascon
> > > saturated farside crust.
>
> > > The farside mass offset of this unusually heavy mineral saturated
> > > basalt crust is worth <4e21 kg, and the maximum <450 km radii of the
> > > metallic core is supposedly worth 4<5e21 kg (more than likely it’s
> > > only worth <4e21 kg). Therefore this dense metallic core of supposed
> > > iron needs to be considerably offset towards Earth, so that the
> > > greater proportion of lunar mass is always facing Earth.
>
> > > Not that any thick and mineral saturated form of fused basalt crust is
> > > ever going to easily collapse under it's own mass, especially not at
> > > 1/6th gravity (even less gravity below that crust), and of course
> > > better yet if the average interior atmosphere of whatever pockets or
> > > voids of gasses were <100 bar (1470 psi) shouldn’t be unexpected.
>
> > >   Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > Why is it always so hard for so many to deal with the best available
> > truths?
>
> > Where's our 5th grade and older spunk?
>
> > So what if our NASA/Apollo wizards didn't accomplish all that much
> > with their "right stuff", and then lost track of most everything
> > important as though it was of no significant value.
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> Perhaps this topic should have been named "The 100% solid moon that's
> passive and inert"
>
> Adding that we've simply chosen to never set foot on that sucker
> again, because it's so boring and monochrome light gray (in most
> places near off-white, or lets call it antique-white).  At least that
> way I wouldn't have upset our NASA/Apollo good ship LOLLIPOP so much.
>
> Odd that something that supposedly cooled off and thus having
> solidified in orbit (within such a terrific vacuum), by rights it
> should have become uniformly rather dense, all the way through.

Meaning that it's supposedly not porous, as in airless or without
gaseous formed pockets or that of hosting any residual fluids that
could easily be extracted and unavoidably vaporize at such extreme
vacuum. Problem is, seems our extremely unusual moon is not
sufficiently dense under that robust basalt crust, and it has only a
relatively minimal iron core that could actually be of something other
because, there's simply not a sufficient magnetic or paramagnetic
marker other than what the mineral saturated basalt crust has to
offer.

~ BG
From: Robert Collins on 16 Jan 2010 15:40
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:32:05PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
> On Jan 2, 3:18�pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
> >
> > I can remain silent no longer. �Here with the above quoted evidence I
> > would like to register a formal complaint with Usenet Control about
> > the entity that calles itself 'Brad Guth'. �The complaint is as
> > follows: �Brad Guth, or whatever it is, is a poor example of space
> > activism and degrades the greater enterprise with its format. �It
> > should therefore be held to shut up until it can present its
> > propaganda in a civilized and reasonable way.
> >
> > Robert Collins
>
> Gee whiz, you don't seem to have any support for your mainstream
> interpretation of my research, that by the way uses as much of your
> NASA and other public funded data that fits into my ongoing and
> continuously emerging interpretations.

Your fits are more 'abram' than anything, and hence I don't really see
why you think anyone should respect the content of your posts, other
than as some sort of bizarre ego-gratification at your ability to
froth at the keyboard. You obviously type far too quickly for your
own good, or anyone else's. If you look closely at what I wrote there
It might be implied that "continuously emerging interpretations"
doesn't do much for space exploration, which would be fantastic if you
were being funded by the NSF and needed a good reason to continue your
'research'.

> Why don't you instead provide us with your independent interpretations
> as to how hollow and otherwise valuable that moon of ours is?

I'd probably prefer to look at a jovian moon or perhaps something in
the asteroid belt, but there are lots of good things about the moon.
For one thing, an authoritarian government such as the Chinese
Communist Party wouldn't have far to send a large military force if
there was ever a rebellion uprising on some moon colony. Never mind
that large state and non-state corporations would be there with an eye
to assuring an environment condusive to profitable buisness
undertakings, at least in theory.

The moon is in extremely close proximity to a large market hugry for
products and services as well as raw materials, in relation to
astronomical scales. The sale of those products and services can
drive development in the first part of any expansionist phase; after
that it is difficult to say where the money is. But, we don't really
have to worry about that now since there isn't _anything_ going on any
further out than L5 as far as human activity is concerned. Voyager (or
whatever it's called these days) notwithstanding.

None of this, of course, should be news to anyone here. Personally, I
like some of the moons on other planets just because its further away
from the Earth and all of its crazies. Tin-pot dictators of
yesteryear, who influence contemporary affairs to an intolerable
degree now, are the last people you want near, say, the delicate
machinery of an airlock. The "stuttering" method of your writing
probably tells us your also a physical spastic, perhaps with a special
helmet and a name-plate riveted to a spot in some quasi-rural, little
yellow schoolbus. Hell, *you'd* probably drool on the controls one day
and space everyone in your compartment by accident -- that is, if we
are somehow unable to reliably build drool-proof airlocks, on account
of the fact that Dancing With The Stars is on TV right now and I'll be
right back with the rest of this article.

(If you want, you can take a break from reading this post for about
twenty-two minutes, thirty if you don't skip the commercials.)

So, like I was saying, I'd prefer to skip the Moon and get a little
further away. That makes it harder since the start-up costs go way,
way up but I figure that should be all that much of a problem since
one the the things that H. Sap. is really, really good at is spending
money buying stuff. Engineering and Science, not so much, but that
can be fixed with education, at least in theory. (Hold on, I've got a
caller... "No, I don't need any your goddamned life insurance!" *slam*)

Uh, where was I. Oh yeah, moons. And asteroids. Asteroids are
probably a good choice, but only if we can get robots to push them out
of the belt and somewhere where it's easier to work on them. Again,
expensive, but not as expensive as trying to work *in* the asteroid
belt.

It's just as cold or colder than the Moon in the further reaches of
the Solar System, and the vaccum is just as hard so it insulates well
no matter where you are. In neither place will there be trouble with
cooling your computers and machinery unless you choose Venus or
Mercury in a fit of insanity. I couldn't personally imagine a
scenario where anyone would want to colonize Venus, but it's a good
thing to consider and reject just in case we need to be prepared to
put Venus advocates in straightjackets the moment they start
campaigning for Venusian operations. But otherwise I wouldn't dream
of it even if I had a nuclear robot body, which I note would probably
require a smog test in California and annoying paperwork anywhere it
went. Don't get me started on software updates and preventative
maintenance, either. Let's just stick with tele- operated robotics,
CNC, or semi-autonomous robot agents with specialized field-level AI
and leave it at that. It's so much simpler.

Other destinations in the solar system are good from the standpoint of
epidemiology: any disease will have further to travel in the isolating
conditions of extra-planetary commerce. A pandemic on Earth would be
much less likely to infect the personnel of a space-station on Titan
or Io, whereas the Moon is close enough that frequent travel would
make the two atmospheres effectively linked from the standpoint of
microbiology. Nanotechnology presents similar challenges, but we
don't know exactly what they are yet so it is difficult to form a
perspective without more hard data.

Speculation is fun, though, and there's a bunch of good fiction out
there with entertaining scenarios on the future of people and cities
in space. Not much committment from the public on getting there, but
hey it's only the twenty-first century. There's a long, long way to
go before it will be commonplace to live in off-planet settlements
with advanced technological comforts and labour-saving devices. Maybe
someone can convince Microsoft to name one of its releases "Windows
Jupiter", "Titan 9.0" or something to raise awareness and nudge things
along a bit faster. And we probably need something better than the
AT&T Death-Star logo. Symbolic associations with cute puppies and
kittens wouldn't hurt either, perhaps a Hello-Kitty mascot to narrate
infomercials on YouTube wouldn't be out of order.

See, Brad? There's lots of things you can do with coherent English
that just aren't possible with word salad.

As promised, I have informed Usenet Control of your transgression and
expect their response at any moment.



Robert Collins

From: BradGuth on 16 Jan 2010 19:11
On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:32:05PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 3:18 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
>
> > > I can remain silent no longer. Here with the above quoted evidence I
> > > would like to register a formal complaint with Usenet Control about
> > > the entity that calles itself 'Brad Guth'. The complaint is as
> > > follows: Brad Guth, or whatever it is, is a poor example of space
> > > activism and degrades the greater enterprise with its format. It
> > > should therefore be held to shut up until it can present its
> > > propaganda in a civilized and reasonable way.
>
> > > Robert Collins
>
> > Gee whiz, you don't seem to have any support for your mainstream
> > interpretation of my research, that by the way uses as much of your
> > NASA and other public funded data that fits into my ongoing and
> > continuously emerging interpretations.
>
> Your fits are more 'abram' than anything, and hence I don't really see
> why you think anyone should respect the content of your posts, other
> than as some sort of bizarre ego-gratification at your ability to
> froth at the keyboard. You obviously type far too quickly for your
> own good, or anyone else's. If you look closely at what I wrote there
> It might be implied that "continuously emerging interpretations"
> doesn't do much for space exploration, which would be fantastic if you
> were being funded by the NSF and needed a good reason to continue your
> 'research'.
>
> > Why don't you instead provide us with your independent interpretations
> > as to how hollow and otherwise valuable that moon of ours is?
>
> I'd probably prefer to look at a jovian moon or perhaps something in
> the asteroid belt, but there are lots of good things about the moon.
> For one thing, an authoritarian government such as the Chinese
> Communist Party wouldn't have far to send a large military force if
> there was ever a rebellion uprising on some moon colony. Never mind
> that large state and non-state corporations would be there with an eye
> to assuring an environment condusive to profitable buisness
> undertakings, at least in theory.
>
> The moon is in extremely close proximity to a large market hugry for
> products and services as well as raw materials, in relation to
> astronomical scales. The sale of those products and services can
> drive development in the first part of any expansionist phase; after
> that it is difficult to say where the money is. But, we don't really
> have to worry about that now since there isn't _anything_ going on any
> further out than L5 as far as human activity is concerned. Voyager (or
> whatever it's called these days) notwithstanding.
>
> None of this, of course, should be news to anyone here. Personally, I
> like some of the moons on other planets just because its further away
> from the Earth and all of its crazies. Tin-pot dictators of
> yesteryear, who influence contemporary affairs to an intolerable
> degree now, are the last people you want near, say, the delicate
> machinery of an airlock. The "stuttering" method of your writing
> probably tells us your also a physical spastic, perhaps with a special
> helmet and a name-plate riveted to a spot in some quasi-rural, little
> yellow schoolbus. Hell, *you'd* probably drool on the controls one day
> and space everyone in your compartment by accident -- that is, if we
> are somehow unable to reliably build drool-proof airlocks, on account
> of the fact that Dancing With The Stars is on TV right now and I'll be
> right back with the rest of this article.
>
> (If you want, you can take a break from reading this post for about
> twenty-two minutes, thirty if you don't skip the commercials.)
>
> So, like I was saying, I'd prefer to skip the Moon and get a little
> further away. That makes it harder since the start-up costs go way,
> way up but I figure that should be all that much of a problem since
> one the the things that H. Sap. is really, really good at is spending
> money buying stuff. Engineering and Science, not so much, but that
> can be fixed with education, at least in theory. (Hold on, I've got a
> caller... "No, I don't need any your goddamned life insurance!" *slam*)
>
> Uh, where was I. Oh yeah, moons. And asteroids. Asteroids are
> probably a good choice, but only if we can get robots to push them out
> of the belt and somewhere where it's easier to work on them. Again,
> expensive, but not as expensive as trying to work *in* the asteroid
> belt.
>
> It's just as cold or colder than the Moon in the further reaches of
> the Solar System, and the vaccum is just as hard so it insulates well
> no matter where you are. In neither place will there be trouble with
> cooling your computers and machinery unless you choose Venus or
> Mercury in a fit of insanity. I couldn't personally imagine a
> scenario where anyone would want to colonize Venus, but it's a good
> thing to consider and reject just in case we need to be prepared to
> put Venus advocates in straightjackets the moment they start
> campaigning for Venusian operations. But otherwise I wouldn't dream
> of it even if I had a nuclear robot body, which I note would probably
> require a smog test in California and annoying paperwork anywhere it
> went. Don't get me started on software updates and preventative
> maintenance, either. Let's just stick with tele- operated robotics,
> CNC, or semi-autonomous robot agents with specialized field-level AI
> and leave it at that. It's so much simpler.
>
> Other destinations in the solar system are good from the standpoint of
> epidemiology: any disease will have further to travel in the isolating
> conditions of extra-planetary commerce. A pandemic on Earth would be
> much less likely to infect the personnel of a space-station on Titan
> or Io, whereas the Moon is close enough that frequent travel would
> make the two atmospheres effectively linked from the standpoint of
> microbiology. Nanotechnology presents similar challenges, but we
> don't know exactly what they are yet so it is difficult to form a
> perspective without more hard data.
>
> Speculation is fun, though, and there's a bunch of good fiction out
> there with entertaining scenarios on the future of people and cities
> in space. Not much committment from the public on getting there, but
> hey it's only the twenty-first century. There's a long, long way to
> go before it will be commonplace to live in off-planet settlements
> with advanced technological comforts and labour-saving devices. Maybe
> someone can convince Microsoft to name one of its releases "Windows
> Jupiter", "Titan 9.0" or something to raise awareness and nudge things
> along a bit faster. And we probably need something better than the
> AT&T Death-Star logo. Symbolic associations with cute puppies and
> kittens wouldn't hurt either, perhaps a Hello-Kitty mascot to narrate
> infomercials on YouTube wouldn't be out of order.
>
> See, Brad? There's lots of things you can do with coherent English
> that just aren't possible with word salad.
>
> As promised, I have informed Usenet Control of your transgression and
> expect their response at any moment.
>
> Robert Collins

Wow! nice blocks of well crafted word salad, that unfortunately has
nothing whatsoever to do with our semi-hollow or porous moon(Selene).
However, for fun I'll eventually read through parts of it so as to
insure that you get full credit.

At least my honest speculations are those based upon interpreting the
best available science, plus as always sticking within those pesky
regular laws of physics.

I sure hope that "Usenet Control" has nothing better to do, than to
follow up your request to terminate anyone having any deductive
formulated mindset, such as mine.

In the mean time, perhaps you can tell us why that unusual moon isn't
the least bit hollow or otherwise sufficiently porous within or under
that thick crust.

Otherwise, I'd like us to collaborate as to exactly what that 7.35e22
kg captured asteroid/moon(Selene) has to offer, including it's L1
usage that Clarke, Boeing and a few others thought was extremely
nifty, as did I for accommodating my LSE-CM/ISS.

Venus is another issue that's hardly insurmountable, at least by most
any 5th grader or older person that isn't brainwashed to whatever
status quo standards that you seem to approve of.

Do you have a better plan of action (besides extensive use of blinders
and ear plugs) that we should follow?

~ BG
From: Hagar on 16 Jan 2010 19:51

"BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ae1f0e7-2bb8-4f4b-825b-9af61d052233(a)14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:32:05PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
>> > On Jan 2, 3:18 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:

Give it up, GuthBall, I'm not the only one who thinks you are retarded.
Bob Collins wants to take action to have you barred from the NGs ...
I think we should call Nurse Cratchett and have you permanently
confined to the Cookoo's Nest, complete with padded cell and
straight-jacket, with pictures of the Moon. Venus and Sirius
plastered all over your cell walls.


From: BradGuth on 18 Jan 2010 20:45
For some reason our spendy LRO mission can't accomplish what a Earth
bound astronomy class of color imaging can (in spite of our polluted
atmosphere) by Filipe Alves, including picking up those secondary/
recoil UV fluorescent colors of lunar surface minerals that by right
from the crystal clear low orbit of 50 km should be at least ten fold
better.
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

~ BG


On Jan 4, 10:50 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6 2009, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least
> > bit hollow?
>
> > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1
> > (Selene L1) environment?
>
> > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained
> > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible,
> > where's the other 99.9% of our public fundedLROscience?
>
> > ~ BG
>
> What’s not holding up that robust lunar crust?
>
> Moon interior open space as geode like hollows/voids w/air at 14.7
> psi:
> 14.7 psi = 10.335e3 kgf/m2 (x 6 becomes a force worth holding up 62 t/
> m2)
>
> Exterior Vacuum at 3e-15 bar = 1.2e-12 inch h2o = 3.06e-15 kgf/cm2
> Otherwise a negative pull or suction of 14.7 psi (10.335e3 kgf/m2) =
> 62 t/m2
>
> Assuming this mineral saturated lunar basalt is that of a sufficiently
> fused molecular kind of solid that’s only leaking sodium, whereas
> 1/6th gravity should become worth 124 tonnes/m2 of holding that lunar
> basalt shell up/away from the porous or semi-hollow mantel and its
> tidal offset core, as such is going to lift or hold up a serious
> amount of that basalt crust per km2 (124e6 tonnes/km2), not to mention
> whatever interior pressure below that thick and heavy crust should by
> rights be something considerably greater than 14.7 psi.
>
> Due to the crust porosity and various mineral leakage as having
> allowed some degree of subsequent pressure/vacuum equalization,
> whereas even I might doubt that we’d get anywhere near that kind of
> result, but it’s certainly fun to ponder.
>
> Seems it’s going to be a little tough for our moon(Selene) not to have
> those cavernous hollows/voids of some kind, at least a few solidified
> geode like pockets, porous layers or accessible vugs within and under
> that extremely thick and robust basalt crust, especially where that
> supposedly iron core has shifted at least several percent (<25%)
> towards Earth in order to help offset that much thicker and mascon
> saturated farside crust.
>
> The farside mass offset of this unusually heavy mineral saturated
> basalt crust is worth <4e21 kg, and the maximum <450 km radii of the
> metallic core is supposedly worth 4<5e21 kg (more than likely it’s
> only worth <4e21 kg). Therefore this dense metallic core of supposed
> iron needs to be considerably offset towards Earth, so that the
> greater proportion of lunar mass is always facing Earth.
>
> Not that any thick and mineral saturated form of fused basalt crust is
> ever going to easily collapse under it's own mass, especially not at
> 1/6th gravity (even less gravity below that crust), and of course
> better yet if the average interior atmosphere of whatever pockets or
> voids of gasses were <100 bar (1470 psi) shouldn’t be unexpected.
>
> BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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 ).