The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: yes us, it is jesus, jesus runs my asus and my asus is russ plus we'n'us
Next: GR -> Schwarzschild Metric -> Black Holes
From: BradGuth on 30 Oct 2009 16:33 On Oct 20, 5:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 22, 8:40 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times > > > > <australia.mining-pion...(a)neuf.fr> wrote: > > On Sep 21, 6:57 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > of > > *> this. > > *> > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > and > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > *> > > *> ~ BG > > > Dear Mr Brad Guth > > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > comet > > > Yours faithfully > > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > Founder of the True Geology ) > > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > final lithobraking encounter. > > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by. > > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics. > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet > http://www.alaskapublishing.com > http://www.guarddogbooks.com Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of Earth represents? Thats really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to think that Earths interior can only increase in density and pressure per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure increase thats obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), theres hardly any other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep underground lakes or aquifers, and theres certainly not any big increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so slightly), and theres certainly no objective way of telling if the inner core is merely that of a dense shell thats hollow inside, or not. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2064-67.pdf Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever sphere isnt really as structurally compression worthy or even its density all that buoyant as wed thought. However, we certainly know that it can hold back a great deal of pressure. Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesnt mean squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature theres only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase. A true geode pocket thats mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric pressure than its external surroundings, at least until its broken into. A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust thats also rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might seem downright testy, but on the moon its actually kind of nifty to ponder. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet
From: BradGuth on 3 Nov 2009 01:12 Is our physically dark moon really just a weird monochrome kind of inert gray that's conditionally retro-reflective? Are we still being intentionally fed selective science? ~ BG On Oct 30, 12:33 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents? > > Thats really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earths interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase thats obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), theres hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and theres certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and theres certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell thats hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2.... > > Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isnt really as structurally compression worthy or even its > density all that buoyant as wed thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure. > > Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesnt mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature theres > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase. > > A true geode pocket thats mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until its broken > into. > > A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust thats also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon its actually kind of nifty to > ponder. > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet
From: BradGuth on 3 Nov 2009 14:46 On Oct 30, 12:33 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 5:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 8:40 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times > > > <australia.mining-pion...(a)neuf.fr> wrote: > > > On Sep 21, 6:57 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG > > > > Dear Mr Brad Guth > > > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet > > > > Yours faithfully > > > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology ) > > > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter. > > > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by. > > > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics. > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet > > http://www.alaskapublishing.com > > http://www.guarddogbooks.com > > Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents? > > Thats really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earths interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase thats obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), theres hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and theres certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and theres certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell thats hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2.... > > Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isnt really as structurally compression worthy or even its > density all that buoyant as wed thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure. > > Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesnt mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature theres > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase. > > A true geode pocket thats mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until its broken > into. > > A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust thats also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon its actually kind of nifty to > ponder. > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet With near zero gravity within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow substance that's sandwiched between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation that our Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow. ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 3 Nov 2009 15:31 On Oct 30, 12:33 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 5:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 8:40 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times > > > <australia.mining-pion...(a)neuf.fr> wrote: > > > On Sep 21, 6:57 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG > > > > Dear Mr Brad Guth > > > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet > > > > Yours faithfully > > > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology ) > > > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter. > > > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by. > > > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics. > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet > > http://www.alaskapublishing.com > > http://www.guarddogbooks.com > > Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents? > > Thats really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earths interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase thats obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), theres hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and theres certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and theres certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell thats hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2.... > > Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isnt really as structurally compression worthy or even its > density all that buoyant as wed thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure. > > Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesnt mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature theres > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase. > > A true geode pocket thats mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until its broken > into. > > A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust thats also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon its actually kind of nifty to > ponder. > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet With near zero gravity within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow (poorly compacted) substance that's sandwiched between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation that our Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow. Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were limited as to 0.1%, as such this kind of volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and otherwise failsafe kind of habitat thats existing as is. (2.2e16 m3 is hardly insignificant) The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt crust itself could also have existing passages and/or geode like pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to utilize as is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such didnt exist. ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 4 Nov 2009 09:40
On Oct 30, 12:33 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 5:55 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 8:40 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times > > > <australia.mining-pion...(a)neuf.fr> wrote: > > > On Sep 21, 6:57 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG > > > > Dear Mr Brad Guth > > > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet > > > > Yours faithfully > > > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology ) > > > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter. > > > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by. > > > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics. > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet > > http://www.alaskapublishing.com > > http://www.guarddogbooks.com > > Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents? > > Thats really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earths interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase thats obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), theres hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and theres certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and theres certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell thats hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2.... > > Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isnt really as structurally compression worthy or even its > density all that buoyant as wed thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure. > > Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesnt mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature theres > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase. > > A true geode pocket thats mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until its broken > into. > > A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust thats also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon its actually kind of nifty to > ponder. > > ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet Water at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and thats pretty much regardless of its volume and original mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or molecular binding force isnt necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero delta-V and especially when situated within such an extreme vacuum. If theres anything holding a given molecule of h2o together, its those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure that doesnt necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked pressure cant coexist w/o gravity or vise versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can coexist if theres a shell or artificial energy field of some kind).. The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust thats so mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers a terrific shell. Within or especially under that shell is where life as we know it could with some technology manage to survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (within geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated to suit), theres certainly no shortage of habitat volume, and the maintaining of pressure simply cant be an insurmountable problem. ~ BG |