From: Henry Wilson DSc on
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:44:50 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_s>
wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:542sl5psdg07d9rnl7vl7a5mpp9j687v0t(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:54:05 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r>

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greenland is near the pole
>>>
>>>Bwahahahahaha!
>>>Nuuk is 1790 miles from the North pole.
>>>Sydney is 2,263 miles from Antarctica.
>>>Australia is near Antarctica.
>>
>> I was talking about its relevance to the centrifugal force of the crust.
>> The effect of a glacier melting at the equator would be larger than that
>> of one
>> near the poles. ...and OK, I know there are no large glaciers near the
>> equator...
>
> http://tcnjabroad.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/kilimanjaro.jpg
>Oh right, you've never climbed a mountain, there are none in Oz.
>Did you know Kilimanjaro is near the equator?
>What's that white stuff called again?
>Oh yeah, I remember... ice and snow.

I specifically said no LARGE glaciers.
There are glaciers along the Andes in Bolivia and Peru that are disappearing
along with the country's water supply.

Henry Wilson...

........provider of free physics lessons
From: lottery nan on
Any prediction is as difficult as predicting a jackpo.
Nan
From: BradGuth on
On Jan 26, 10:38 am, lottery nan <lotterypredict...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Any prediction is as difficult as predicting a jackpo.
> Nan

Lottery jackpots have nothing whatsoever to do with physics,
objectively measured geology and the alignments of any pesky moon or
other planets that introduce tidal morphing of the lithosphere.

~ BG
From: BradGuth on
On Jan 25, 7:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:12 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 2:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:32:29 -0800 (PST), Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Why was todays, Haiti Earthquake not predictable?
>
> > > >It was ~ 7.0 scale. Why cant we model or simulate the complete earth
> > > >structure on a Super Computer. That may help predict such earth
> > > >quakes.
>
> > > What IS predictable is that we can expect far more volcanic and earthquake
> > > activity as the Earth warms and its sea level rises.
>
> > > Something has to give....
>
> > > Henry Wilson...
>
> > > Christians and muslims like to slaughter each other with bombs and bullets.
> > >         Their respective gods prefer to use earthquakes and hurricanes.
> > >                          Haiti is payback for Ache.
>
> > Don't forget our trusty moon(Selene) contributes 2e20 Joules or
> > Newtons worth of tidal binding force that has to go somewhere.
>
> Don't forget that the sun shines 1.28e17 joules of energy every second
> on the surface of the earth. That energy has to go somewhere. Could be
> disastrous!

In some biological/biodiversity and global warming ways, it has been
disastrous!

Sunlight does in fact cause insurmountable damage to human cells and
our frail DNA, plus a minuscule thermal expansion of our surface crust
and ocean volume, but not a lithospheric tidal wave of 16.9 m/s that's
out of sync with that much weaker solar tidal wave, not to mention
when our moon gets aligned plus otherwise at times boosted by the
alignment of Venus, whereas at times that litho-tidal-wave gets to be .
55+ meter high. Add that to whatever's flowing, expanding exploding/
imploding below the lithosphere or deeper into the mantel, and it
can't always be good.

As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) we 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,
plus various natural and artificial ventings of raw/toxic methane
contributions that are not exactly helping. Thanks mostly to the
solar wind, we are also losing our precious helium and hydrogen by
100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that loss might average >10 tonnes/
sec, and without our contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/
sec). In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend
a whole lot worse than mother nature could ever hope to achieve.

The good news is that essentially we’ll run ourselves out of many
natural reservoirs and buried kinds of raw elements, so that whatever
remains can 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 global dimming that
absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong with the good
life w/o slow-ice on planet Eden/Earth?

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 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.
http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml

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 by that process of capturing an icy Selene of perhaps
8e22 kg, would have pulled large portions of that thick ice away from
its surface, and thereby making its capture easier as mass and thereby
energy is extracted from Selene.

~ BG