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 20 Jan 2010 00:56
On Jan 18, 12:15 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 04:11:06PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Do not compound your crime with yet more baseless accusations. Usenet
> Control will examine the record or relevant posts very carefully, in
> particular, messages after the fact are sometimes the most revealing.
Interesting transference you got going there.

>
> > 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.
>
> Well, no. Usenet Control would if necessary contact the Galactic Patrol
> if they thought there was a serious issue of that sort. I hope you
> aren't thinking of messing with the Galactic Patrol; they have no
> sense of humor.
Good news, seans (aka Usenet control) are Republicans.

>
> > 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.
>
> A Collaborator collaborator? But anyways, as I said I was not really
> interested in the moon.
Get yourself interested, if not in our moon, then at least do Venus,
as otherwise you have no business in this topic or most any other
topic that I publish.

>
> > 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?
>
> Ear plugs?
>
> Robert Collins

So, what's not to like about our moon or Venus?

Our NASA/Apollo thinks it's rather colorless (as in monochrome light/
pastel gray), and supposedly it's passive and otherwise entirely inert
(as in safer than some places right here on Earth) and not even the
least bit UV reactive.

How about: The moon is ours (sort of) / Brad Guth

Our moon(Selene) should become worth trillions per year to anyone that
can deal with its harsh naked environment of thermal and radiation
extremes, as well as many outright physical threats (such as easily
being nailed by a passing or imacting meteor that's unavoidably
attracted to the gravity and electrostatic charge of Selene), not to
mention whatever that downright nifty Zero Delta-V of its L1 has to
offer.

For some reason(s) that our NASA nor Seans can explain, it seems that
our spendy LRO mission still can't manage to accomplish what an Earth
based astronomy class of retail digital color imaging and modest
telescope can (in spite of being on average 385,350 km further away
and having our polluted atmosphere in the way) as accomplished by
Filipe Alves, including the nice job of picking up those UV secondary/
recoil fluorescent forced colors of our otherwise physically dark
lunar surface of mostly basalt and various minerals, that by rights
from the LRO crystal clear and low orbit of 50 km should have been at
the very least ten fold better at such color/hue saturations.

Canon 300D and a 10" Newtonian (real mineral colors)
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

Those perfectly natural and otherwise UV secondary/recoil fluorescent
colors of that naked surface that's saturated in raw minerals, should
have been telling us lots as of four decades ago as to what's even a
whole lot better inside. Imagine what a properly configured 10 meter
KECK could have managed, and especially while masked down to the
smaller pinhole aperture for greatly increased resolution from its 395
meter focal length potential, and of course our spendy LRO mission
should be at the very least ten fold better yet.

moon surface area = 3.796e13 m2(excluding terrain features)
<4e13 m2 including all terrain slopes and features
Surface vacuum lift = 6.25e4 kg/m2

noteworthy: Total suction/lift (zero psi inside): 4e13 * 6.25e4 =
-2.5e18 kg

However, I wonder how much interior pressure 78 km worth of fused
basalt crust might help create. (seems like it could be lots, as in
more than enough to inflate our moon)

Crust average thickness ~ 78 km
Crust volume = 2.83e18 m3
lunar paramagnetic (heavy mineral saturated) basalt at 3.3e3 kg/m3
lunar crust mass at 3.3e3 kg/m3 * 2.83e18 = 9.34e21 kg

There should also be much heavier element saturated basalts worth as
great as 3.75 g/cm3, especially if containing thorium, uranium and
radium among other dense and otherwise extremely valuable elements,
whereas on the other end of this spectrum is h2o and 3He that should
bring some of that basalt density down below 3 g/cm3. Personally, I'm
thinking that lunar core is worth 4<5e21 kg and subsequently keeping
itself small and significantly offset towards us in order to
compensate for the much thicker farside crust, as well as pulling that
in-between filling densitty down below 3e3 kg/m3 and/or leaving voids
as somewhat geode pockets.

The moon supposedly has a relatively small iron core of roughly 1.5e21
kg, in which case that doesn't leave all that much volumetric density
between its core and that robust crust which represents roughly 12.7%
of the lunar mass.

Lunar core mass = 1.5e21 kg
volume between core and crust = 1.95e19 m3 * 3.2e3 = 6.24e22 kg

Whatever's below that robust and substantially fused lunar crust of
mostly paramagnetic basalt that's representing <6.25 fold greater mass
than whatever the wussy little iron core has to offer, whereas if the
in-between filler were given an average density of 3.2e3 kg/m3 isn't
hardly limited as to compacted basalt (Earth magma worth <3.5 g/cm3),
but more than likely of something less dense or at least porous or
hollow enough to allow for such a low average density to coexist at
such depths and subsequent pressures of whatever 78+ km has to offer,
which can't be insignificant.

In other words, our trusty moon(Selene) is ripe for picking, and it's
always extremely nearby. So what's with all this exoplanet hunting
and public funded hype that offers no conceivable hope whatsoever from
anything outside the reach of our moon and perhaps the planet Venus,
that are each mainstream treated as though need-to-know or taboo/
nondisclosure rated to boot?

BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”

~ BG
From: BradGuth on 20 Jan 2010 15:12
Earth is cooling off and ever so slightly shrinking by perhaps <1mm/
year, though somewhat less cooling than possible is taking place due
to having that 2e20 N/sec of tidal force from our moon(Selene) to
always contend with.

Islands of basalt crust are never entirely alone, as being essentially
100% packed up against other islands of crust. Trust me, that's a
very good thing, as opposed to dealing with any Warhol "lake of
fire" (vast open sores of magma would be a very bad sign, such as if
greater Yellowstone opened up or any portion of the ocean floor were
to sink into the magma due to whatever lack of buoyancy).

Question: is the outer crust of Earth expanding or contracting as it
cools?

The entire crust of Earth, as massive and dense as it is, solidifying
at roughly 1 mm/century, essentially floats on a substaitial mantel of
<5.75 g/cm3 that's frosted with a fluid ocean of magma that's worth
~3.5 g/cm3. The average basalt crust density of perhaps <3.3 g/cm3
leaves us with >0.2 g/cm3 worth of buoyancy (let us say 0.25 g/cm3) to
work with, giving our crust roughly a volumetric 7.5% buoyancy factor.

The relatively thin crust of Earth (roughly less than a fifth that of
our moon) has also been badly broken and shifting about for quite some
time, and our trusty moon(Selene) is simply most responsible for
keeping it that way. However, the solidified basalt crust of our moon
is not broken, and forms a continuous outer sell like structure that
could be vapor tight enough to hold considerable internal pressure,
and conceivably even including brine/water as well as hosting crystal
populated geode pockets that could conceivably accommodate every human
on Earth, with volume to spare.

As the ocean basin crust gets closer to the density of 3.5 g/cm3, the
amount of buoyancy becomes neutral and just as likely to sink as swim
(so to speak). Fortunately this issue is never going to happen on our
moon(Selene).

How was Venus w/o moon made so differently than Earth?

It seems the mantel of Venus must be more dense and thus a little more
buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and thinner crust is so
much unlike that of our cooler terrestrial magma and thicker crust.
Of course the 90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the
thinner and much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that
kinda screws most everything up for understanding the planet Mercury
that isn't losing nearly as much of its geothermal heat.

Venus is giving off 20.5 w/m2, as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2,
suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner than any
known other planet or moon. Either that it's not as old as Earth or
whatever's under the Venus crust is perhaps extensively of heavier
elements such as thorium and uranium, because it's simply not the 5%
of solar energy that's getting through those thick acidic clouds
that's keeping Venus so unusually hot from the inside out.


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”

From: BradGuth on 21 Jan 2010 16:48
In spite of our global warming above-surface environment trends
(thawing most every km3 of glacial ice and otherwise systematically
trashing our biodiversity), Earth itself as a whole is cooling off and
ever so slightly eroding plus shrinking by perhaps <1mm/year, though
somewhat less cooling than possible is taking place due to our having
that 2e20 N/sec of tidal binding force contributed from our moon
(Selene), as always morphing or modulating the entire crust plus
interior of Earth at <16.9 m/s (obviously the core is not affected).

Terrestrial islands of basalt crust are never entirely alone, as being
essentially 100% packed up against other islands of crust. Trust me,
that's a very good thing, as opposed to dealing with any Warhol "lake
of fire" (vast open sores of magma would be a very bad sign, such as
if greater Yellowstone opened up or any portion of the ocean floor
were to sink into that infernal layer of magma due to whatever lack of
litho buoyancy). Thus far there's no indications that the thinner
crust of Venus has any disconnected or individual plates of its litho
working against one another, and it's also cooling off and shrinking
much faster because there's no moon stirring it up, as well as it's
hardly spinning itself at 243 times slower than Earth, and there's
also not much seasonal tilt, so there little solar tidal modulation to
contend with.

Question: is the outer crust of Earth expanding or contracting as it
cools?

Obviously our moon(Selene) can't get much cooler or more solidified.
In other words, whatewver's naturally porous or hollow about our moon
is essentially a done deal.

The entire crust of Earth, as massive and dense as it is, perhaps
solidifying at roughly 1 mm/century, essentially floats on a
substantial mantel of <5.75 g/cm3 that's frosted or lubricated with a
highly fluid ocean layer of magma that's worth ~3.5 g/cm3. The
average basalt crust density of perhaps <3.3 g/cm3 leaves us with >0.2
g/cm3 worth of buoyancy (let us say 0.25 g/cm3) to work with, giving
our crust roughly a volumetric 7.5% buoyancy factor.

The relatively thin crust of Earth (less than a fifth that of our
moon) has also been badly broken, shifting about and seemingly
suffering from deep 100+MT implosions as additional surface quake
triggers for quite some time, and our trusty moon(Selene) is simply
most responsible for keeping it that way. However, the solidified
basalt crust or substantial litho of our moon is not broken, and forms
a continuous outer sell like structure that could be fused vapor tight
enough to hold considerable internal pressure, and conceivably even
including brine/water as well as hosting crystal populated geode
pockets that could conceivably accommodate every human on Earth, with
volume to spare.

As the relativly thin ocean basin crust of Earth gets closer to the
density of 3.5 g/cm3, the amount of its litho buoyancy becomes neutral
and just as likely to sink as swim (so to speak). Fortunately this
issue of plate tectonics is never going to happen on our moon(Selene),
and even the hot outer crust of Venus seems relatively stable even
though highly populated with volcanic and geothermal vents.

A more than century old question: How was the planet Venus w/o moon
and w/o capture made so differently than Earth?

It seems the mantel of Venus must be somewhat more dense and thus a
little more litho buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and
thinner crust is so much unlike that of our cooler terrestrial magma
and thicker crust, and all of those mountainous terrains of Venus had
to have been volcanic instead of plate tectonic formed. Of course the
90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the thinner and
much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that kinda screws
most everything up for our understanding the planet Mercury which
supposedly have an extremely thick litho and that's also w/o moon and
subsequently isn't losing nearly as much of its geothermal heat
because of its much thicker crust (10+ fold thicker than Earth's
litho) that's receiving an average day of <9.9 kw/m2 of solar influx
because of the thin atmosphere and there's never a cloud in that sky.
In other words, Venus just doesn't add up.

The "measured up-welling radiation"
"papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact
that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the
planet than is being received from the Sun."
http://firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf

"Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate
that Venus is radiating 153 +/-13 watts/meter2 while absorbing only
132 +/-13 watts/meter2 from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21
watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet (6)."

"Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that
sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus
is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a
large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer
(LIR) on the large probe, designed to detect visible and near
infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km)
to the surface, “all channels produced signals that increased
unreasonably” (9)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
"The actual illumination of the surface is about 5,000–10,000 lux,
comparable to that of Earth during a dark, very cloudy day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
"The peak of the luminosity function is at 555 nm (green); the eye's
visual system is more sensitive to light of this wavelength than any
other. For monochromatic light of this wavelength, the irradiance
needed to make one lux is minimum, at 1.464 mW/m2. That is, one
obtains 683.002 lux per W/m2 (or lumens per watt) at this wavelength."

It seems if multiple instruments at different times and of entirely
different missions are each interpreting the surface itself is
excessively radiating geothermal energy, whereas a NASA and faith-
based approved scientist is obligated to merely obfuscate/exclude
whatever thermal upwelling or outflux of surface energy upsets their
predisposition or mandate.

I am suggesting that Venus is most likely giving off an average of
20.5 w/m2 (within the mid ballpark of what our most objective
instruments suggest), as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2 and that of
our moon <22 mw/m2(could just as easily be less than half that
amount), suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner and/
or more thermally conductive than any known other planet or moon, as
well as suggesting either that Venus is simply not as old as Earth, or
whatever's under that thin Venus litho is perhaps extensively of
heavier elements such as thorium and uranium, because it's simply not
the 5% of solar energy (<133 w/m2 by day) that's getting through those
thick acidic clouds that's keeping the surface of Venus so unusually
hot from the inside out, and of course this isn't excluding greenhouse
heating on top of whatever that surface of thermal upwelling is
radiating (including active geothermal vents and volcanism that are
not in short supply). On the other hand, the interior of our unusual
moon(Selene) with its thick litho seems as dead or worse than Mars.

The Venus EXPRESS mission was supposed to thoroughly quantify this
thermal imbalance (net up-welling), however their public funded PFS
instrument data remains private (supposedly as non-functioning), so
that to date there's still nothing of any improvements or revisions
over previous missions that obviously don't wish to be made to look
inadequate or bogus.

~ 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 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”

From: BradGuth on 22 Jan 2010 18:55
How many tonnes/day of carbonado can we produce within the Earth-moon
L1(Selene L1) that offers perhaps 3e-21 bar (3e-19 kPa)?

~ BG


On Jan 21, 1:48 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In spite of our global warming above-surface environment trends
> (thawing most every km3 of glacial ice and otherwise systematically
> trashing our biodiversity), Earth itself as a whole is cooling off and
> ever so slightly eroding plus shrinking by perhaps <1mm/year, though
> somewhat less cooling than possible is taking place due to our having
> that 2e20 N/sec of tidal binding force contributed from our moon
> (Selene), as always morphing or modulating the entire crust plus
> interior of Earth at <16.9 m/s (obviously the core is not affected).
>
> Terrestrial islands of basalt crust are never entirely alone, as being
> essentially 100% packed up against other islands of crust. Trust me,
> that's a very good thing, as opposed to dealing with any Warhol "lake
> of fire" (vast open sores of magma would be a very bad sign, such as
> if greater Yellowstone opened up or any portion of the ocean floor
> were to sink into that infernal layer of magma due to whatever lack of
> litho buoyancy). Thus far there's no indications that the thinner
> crust of Venus has any disconnected or individual plates of its litho
> working against one another, and it's also cooling off and shrinking
> much faster because there's no moon stirring it up, as well as it's
> hardly spinning itself at 243 times slower than Earth, and there's
> also not much seasonal tilt, so there little solar tidal modulation to
> contend with.
>
> Question: is the outer crust of Earth expanding or contracting as it
> cools?
>
> Obviously our moon(Selene) can't get much cooler or more solidified.
> In other words, whatewver's naturally porous or hollow about our moon
> is essentially a done deal.
>
> The entire crust of Earth, as massive and dense as it is, perhaps
> solidifying at roughly 1 mm/century, essentially floats on a
> substantial mantel of <5.75 g/cm3 that's frosted or lubricated with a
> highly fluid ocean layer of magma that's worth ~3.5 g/cm3. The
> average basalt crust density of perhaps <3.3 g/cm3 leaves us with >0.2
> g/cm3 worth of buoyancy (let us say 0.25 g/cm3) to work with, giving
> our crust roughly a volumetric 7.5% buoyancy factor.
>
> The relatively thin crust of Earth (less than a fifth that of our
> moon) has also been badly broken, shifting about and seemingly
> suffering from deep 100+MT implosions as additional surface quake
> triggers for quite some time, and our trusty moon(Selene) is simply
> most responsible for keeping it that way. However, the solidified
> basalt crust or substantial litho of our moon is not broken, and forms
> a continuous outer sell like structure that could be fused vapor tight
> enough to hold considerable internal pressure, and conceivably even
> including brine/water as well as hosting crystal populated geode
> pockets that could conceivably accommodate every human on Earth, with
> volume to spare.
>
> As the relativly thin ocean basin crust of Earth gets closer to the
> density of 3.5 g/cm3, the amount of its litho buoyancy becomes neutral
> and just as likely to sink as swim (so to speak). Fortunately this
> issue of plate tectonics is never going to happen on our moon(Selene),
> and even the hot outer crust of Venus seems relatively stable even
> though highly populated with volcanic and geothermal vents.
>
> A more than century old question: How was the planet Venus w/o moon
> and w/o capture made so differently than Earth?
>
> It seems the mantel of Venus must be somewhat more dense and thus a
> little more litho buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and
> thinner crust is so much unlike that of our cooler terrestrial magma
> and thicker crust, and all of those mountainous terrains of Venus had
> to have been volcanic instead of plate tectonic formed. Of course the
> 90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the thinner and
> much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that kinda screws
> most everything up for our understanding the planet Mercury which
> supposedly have an extremely thick litho and that's also w/o moon and
> subsequently isn't losing nearly as much of its geothermal heat
> because of its much thicker crust (10+ fold thicker than Earth's
> litho) that's receiving an average day of <9.9 kw/m2 of solar influx
> because of the thin atmosphere and there's never a cloud in that sky.
> In other words, Venus just doesn't add up.
>
> The "measured up-welling radiation"
> "papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact
> that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the
> planet than is being received from the Sun."
> http://firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
>
> "Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate
> that Venus is radiating 153 +/-13 watts/meter2 while absorbing only
> 132 +/-13 watts/meter2 from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21
> watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet (6)."
>
> "Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that
> sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus
> is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a
> large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer
> (LIR) on the large probe, designed to detect visible and near
> infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km)
> to the surface, “all channels produced signals that increased
> unreasonably” (9)."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
> "The actual illumination of the surface is about 5,000–10,000 lux,
> comparable to that of Earth during a dark, very cloudy day."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
> "The peak of the luminosity function is at 555 nm (green); the eye's
> visual system is more sensitive to light of this wavelength than any
> other. For monochromatic light of this wavelength, the irradiance
> needed to make one lux is minimum, at 1.464 mW/m2. That is, one
> obtains 683.002 lux per W/m2 (or lumens per watt) at this wavelength."
>
> It seems if multiple instruments at different times and of entirely
> different missions are each interpreting the surface itself is
> excessively radiating geothermal energy, whereas a NASA and faith-
> based approved scientist is obligated to merely obfuscate/exclude
> whatever thermal upwelling or outflux of surface energy upsets their
> predisposition or mandate.
>
> I am suggesting that Venus is most likely giving off an average of
> 20.5 w/m2 (within the mid ballpark of what our most objective
> instruments suggest), as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2 and that of
> our moon <22 mw/m2(could just as easily be less than half that
> amount), suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner and/
> or more thermally conductive than any known other planet or moon, as
> well as suggesting either that Venus is simply not as old as Earth, or
> whatever's under that thin Venus litho is perhaps extensively of
> heavier elements such as thorium and uranium, because it's simply not
> the 5% of solar energy (<133 w/m2 by day) that's getting through those
> thick acidic clouds that's keeping the surface of Venus so unusually
> hot from the inside out, and of course this isn't excluding greenhouse
> heating on top of whatever that surface of thermal upwelling is
> radiating (including active geothermal vents and volcanism that are
> not in short supply). On the other hand, the interior of our unusual
> moon(Selene) with its thick litho seems as dead or worse than Mars.
>
> The Venus EXPRESS mission was supposed to thoroughly quantify this
> thermal imbalance (net up-welling), however their public funded PFS
> instrument data remains private (supposedly as non-functioning), so
> that to date there's still nothing of any improvements or revisions
> over previous missions that obviously don't wish to be made to look
> inadequate or bogus.
>
> ~ 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 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”

From: BradGuth on 22 Jan 2010 19:43
On Jan 22, 3:55 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> How many tonnes/day of carbonado can we produce within the Earth-moon
> L1(Selene L1) that offers perhaps 3e-21 bar (3e-19 kPa)?

CVD diamond making only needs a vacuum plus electrons, and there's no
place better suited than Selene L1, along with carbon that's easily
extracted from the moon(Selene).

~ BG



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 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 ).