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 21 Feb 2010 15:43
On Feb 19, 6:36 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Our moon(Selene) is simply not a solid fused kind of rock or voidless
> compression of inert terrestrial minerals, and it's certainly not
> nearly as inert and monochrome light-gray (~67% albedo) as so often
> suggested and having been recorded as unfiltered on Kodak film that
> was somehow immune to thermal and radiation extremes.
>
> On Jan 31, 10:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Might as well shade Earth a little with our moon, and otherwise
> > minimize our seismic trauma as well as directly benefit and profit
> > from whatever that physically dark and mineral saturated surface has
> > to offer.  Off-world habitat wise, it just a matter of applied
> > technology in order to take full advantage of whatever’s within or
> > under that thick basalt lithosphere.
>
> > As long as we can’t afford to establish those Mars habitats (outside
> > of mostly robotics) because 99% of everything needed for sustaining us
> > humans has to come from Earth to begin with, therefore why not utilize
> > at least the relatively failsafe interior of our moon(Selene) that’s
> > easy to get technology and ourselves to/from, that otherwise offers
> > such an abundance of nifty and valuable cache of surface elements, as
> > well as likely accessible voids and/or low density (only slightly
> > compacted) material inside of its tough lithosphere, including brines
> > that should have been trapped within/under that robust fused basalt
> > crust (no good reason to perceive that hollow geode pockets don’t
> > exist).  Otherwise, besides all those valuable minerals and 3He, we
> > should ponder as to how much of our moon(Selene) offers carbonado, or
> > could be easily utilized for the bulk manufacturing of carbonado.
>
> > Would you like to see those surface exposed minerals, as merely
> > natural hue saturation enhanced in living color? (isn’t UV secondary/
> > recoil fluorescence unavoidably nifty)
> >  http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.html
> >  http://blog.deepskycolors.com/archive/2008/10/12/moon-in-full-color.html
>
> > Here’s a somewhat less-saturated color/hue version (lots more of the
> > same posted on the internet), and as anyone can plainly see there’s
> > nothing false colored about it, because those surface minerals are in
> > fact the only photon source of each and every color pixel that’ll only
> > get more intense and/or darker the closer that camera gets.
> >  http://web.telia.com/~u18524382/moon_color.jpg
> >  http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg
>
> > Many color images of our moon(Selene) exist (including those from our
> > NASA), depicting its physically dark and complex mineralogy.
> >  http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/175836main_image_feature_819_ys_fu...
>
> > Apparently our NASA still doesn’t know that our naked and physically
> > dark moon is unavoidably saturated in solar UV that subsequently gives
> > off its wealth of secondary/recoil mineral colors (it’s called
> > intrinsic fluorescence).
>
> > Mineral colors (long-wave/short-wave UV), as perceived by what the
> > camera and human eye detects as secondary/recoil photons, and please
> > try to understand that our naked moon receives a great deal of solar
> > UV that’s only slightly filtered by the surrounding sodium laced
> > atmosphere that reaches out 9r and otherwise offers a comet like tail
> > of 900,000 km.
> >  http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artnov06macro/rm-macro.html
> >  http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~hamblen/uvminerals/show/
> >  http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/minerals/fluores.html
> >  http://www.uraniumminerals.com/Notes/Fluor.htm
> >  http://www.minerant.org/gallery1.html
> >  http://wordcraft.net/fluorescent1.html
> >  http://uvminerals.org/gallery
>
> > Apparently our spendy LRO mission is still astrogeology/mineralogy
> > color blind.
> >  http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/
> >  http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse
>
> > As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) with its average 2e20 N worth
> > of tidal binding force (each and every second by second = 2e20 Joules)
> > plus its reflected and secondary IR of <1230 w/m2, we simply can't
> > possibly have another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts
> > worth of our mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and
> > natural water cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads
> > of sulfur emissions,  plus various natural and artificial ventings of
> > raw/toxic methane contributions that are not exactly helping our
> > biodiversity or cooling us off.  Thanks mostly to the solar wind, we
> > are also losing our precious radioactive decay element of helium plus
> > always hydrogen by 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that global
> > loss might average >10 tonnes/sec, and without artificial
> > contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/sec at minimal solar
> > wind).  In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend
> > a whole lot worse and way more community toxic than mother nature
> > could ever hope to achieve.
>
> > The good news, is that essentially we’ll run ourselves out of many
> > natural reservoirs and those buried kinds of raw and often toxic
> > elements, so that whatever biodiversity remains can eventually
> > readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of getting on
> > with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its diminished
> > biodiversity of traumatized evolution, that’ll have considerably fewer
> > humans to deal with.
>
> > Other than all that, plus a measured factor of our artificial global
> > dimming that absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong
> > with the good life w/o glacial slow-ice on our planet Eden/Earth?
>
> > How to capture a moon:
> > Here’s a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for
> > everyone. (have yourself a ball)
>
> > Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as
> > well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer
> > of its icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved
> > within this simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example
> > of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished.
>
> > Think of our moon(Selene) as a spent icy comet or an icy rogue
> > planetoid, whereas 6.5e21 < 1e22 kg of ice from Selene is not any
> > small volume to pick from, even if only 10% of it stuck with us is
> > representing a substantial addition of water to our terrestrial
> > environment.
>
> > Important factors of aerodynamic drag(aerobraking) should have been
> > much greater and further reaching before we had that moon, as well as
> > we’re lacking a few other important considerations of those primary
> > and secondary lithobraking impact(s), encounter induced trajectory
> > shift, loss/transfer of icy mass and those other pesky tidal forces of
> > the sun and possibly Venus are not involved within this basic
> > simulation, but none the less it’s still a good enough example of how a
> > capture might actually be easily accomplished when the approach angle
> > and velocity are just right.
>
> >  http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
> >  Launch angle: -128
> >  Launch force:  6.15
>
> >  Launch angle: -129
> >  Launch force:   6.0
>
> >  Launch angle:  -56.94
> >  Launch force:  7.4
>
> >  Launch angle: -66.666
> >  Launch force:   9.69
>
> > As you any most any dysfunctional 5th grader can see, a number of
> > encounter angles and velocity options seem to apply, whereas besides
> > those exclusions of complex lithobraking and aerobraking encounter
> > issues plus ice evaporation via solar energy, there’s also the Roche
> > Limit to consider:
> >  “In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was
> > held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would
> > be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces
> > of the primary would exceed the satellite’s binding forces and would
> > tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996].”
>
> > “The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their
> > densities:”
> >  Earth  18,470 km
> >  Jupiter 175,000
> >  Saturn 147,000
> >  Uranus 62,000
>
> > Each near miss that's within this Roche Limit and of course by way of
> > that initial lithobraking process of capturing an icy Selene of
> > perhaps 8e22 kg(<8.5e22 kg), would most likely have fractured and
> > pulled large portions of that thick ice away from its basalt surface,
> > and thereby making its capture process easier as its mass and thereby
> > energy is extracted from the encounter.  Of course this tremendous
> > encounter and subsequent capture would have unavoidably caused
> > terrestrial seismic and tidal havoc as well as having transferred
> > teratonnes of that ice to Earth, and perhaps otherwise that fully
> > fused and thick basalt lithosphere of Selene should have extensively
> > remained in tact, morphing perhaps only into offering the relatively
> > shallow south polar crater that resulted from encountering Eden/Earth
> > at roughly where our arctic basin exist.
>
> The ongoing lack and/or obfuscation of lunar science is another
> indication of how little our own government really cares.  If we cut
> off their funding, then perhaps we too could care less.
>
>   Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Question is; how much will China charge per kg, per round trip to/
from our moon(Selene)?

One million dollars per kg may not be sufficient for anything but a
one-way ticket, but if it's the only available ticket then perhaps
that price/kg can be literally as high as the sky.

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 25 Feb 2010 07:33
Tidal energy should be interpreted as essentially extreme long-wave IR
that doesn’t reflect but morphs the lithosphere <55 cm at <16 m/s, and
via secondary convection up-welling that obviously does eventually
manage to get rid of such thermal energy is what heats our surface
environment.

Ideally, if the nighttime cloud cover doesn’t increase we’re better
off. However, nature plus we humans have extensively increased the
amounts of atmospheric water saturation, as well as our having made it
sooty and acidic enough to etch class. This kind of artificial global
dimming and increased nighttime cloud cover is not exactly helping to
keep us cool or much less weather stabilized.

Earth is 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 might become worth as little as 8 TW.

1 btu = approximate amount of energy needed to heat .4527 kg of
water by one degree Fahrenheit, and most often that’s also given as or
interpreted as to represent the volume of h2o per hour.
1 btu = 1055.06 joules
1 kw.h = 3412 BTU
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 warmed up by an extra 1°F

7.26e25 btu = 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 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 closer orbit upon physically encountering us, more
than qualifies. There’s even an extensive NASA infomercial production
of nifty eyecandy as to how such an asteroid/moon heated up the planet
Mars.

I personally could doubt that more than 10% of this GW trend via tidal
interaction is the case, 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 that energy influx which
makes it 1214.5 years per 1°F rise, although where the other energy is
going I haven’t the slightest idea, unless it’s sustaining some kind
of electrostatic charge differential.

Of course the moon itself isn’t a solid inert rock, and therefore some
kind of geothermal considerations with considerably less activity than
Earth has to coexist under that unusually thick and mineral saturated
lunar crust. So, as I research and manage to learn more, I’ll have to
rethink in order to update/revise this interpretation. I doubt others
with better physics and science expertise that are mostly public
funded will bother to help investigate, because supposedly Earth has
nearly always had that physically dark and crystal dry moon of ours.

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


From: Brad Guth on 25 Feb 2010 09:36
Relocating our captured moon/Selene out to Earth L1 isn’t going to
eliminate ocean tides, although it’s going reduce those tides by at
least 50% plus cut the lunar induced seismic considerations by at
least 8:1, as well as giving us roughly 3% shade to work with..

Lunar tidal energy should be interpreted as essentially extreme long-
wave IR that doesn’t reflect but morphs or modulates throughout the
lithosphere <55 cm at <16 m/s, and via secondary convection up-welling
that obviously does eventually manage to get rid of such thermal
energy is what contributes heat and pollution to our surface
environment. If it was just up to the much weaker tidal influence of
our sun and its illuminating form of heat, and especially if without a
seasonal tilt, we’d be extensively iced up nearly to the tropics of
Cancer and Capricorn.

Ideally, if the nighttime cloud cover doesn’t increase we’re better
off having a moon that modulates the entire body of this planet.
However, nature plus we humans have extensively increased the amounts
of atmospheric water saturation, as well as our having made it sooty
and acidic enough to etch class. 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 is 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 might become worth as little as 8 TW.

1 btu = approximate amount of energy needed to heat .4527 kg of
water by one degree Fahrenheit, and most often that’s also given as or
interpreted as to represent the volume of h2o heated by one degree per
hour.

1 btu = 1055.06 joules
1 kw.h = 3412 BTU
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 warmed up by an extra 1°F

7.26e25 btu = 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 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 closer orbit upon physically encountering us, more
than qualifies. There’s even an extensive NASA infomercial production
of nifty eyecandy as to how such an asteroid/moon heated up the planet
Mars.

I personally could doubt that more than 10% of this GW trend via tidal
interaction is the case, 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 that energy influx which
makes it worth 1214.5 years per 1°F rise, although where the other
energy is going I haven’t the slightest idea, unless it’s sustaining
some kind of electrostatic charge differential.

Of course the moon itself isn’t a solid inert rock, and therefore some
kind of geothermal considerations with considerably less activity than
Earth, has to coexist under that unusually thick and mineral saturated
lunar crust. So, as I research and manage to learn more, I’ll have to
continually rethink in order to update/revise this 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 even utilize its L1.

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


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: Brad Guth on 27 Feb 2010 22:47
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 Earth’s 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 that’s roughly 2/3
moon and 1/3 solar, that’s also 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 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 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 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), 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 that’s 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, 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, 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 the 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 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 it’s nearby
and otherwise easily viewed in detail by a probe fly-by, though
unfortunately it’s 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 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 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

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

From: Brad Guth on 28 Feb 2010 00:04
On Feb 27, 8:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/10 9:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Besides our moon being porous or semi-hollow under that thick crust,
> > we also need to understand what it's doing to us.
>
>    No it's not!
>
>    Vibrational mode show that it is not porous or semi-hollow!

Your purely subjective interpretation is noted.

Then perhaps it's the only orb in the universe that's fused and
compressed solid.

Its relatively low density interior and seismic ringing suggest that
it's anything but solid.

Its offset core gives further room for something less than
representing a pure solid.

Are you also suggesting our moon(Selene) is without pockets of gas or
fluids?

~ 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 ).