From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Jan 2010 20:18 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 26 Jan 2010 13:38 Any prediction is as difficult as predicting a jackpo. Nan
From: BradGuth on 26 Jan 2010 13:56 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 26 Jan 2010 14:39
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 well 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 thatll 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? Heres 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 its a good enough example of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished. http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml Theres 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 satellites 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 |