| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Brad Guth" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2006 01:23:53 PM |
| Object: |
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
I'm thinking that life upon Earth may simply have been a wee bit
pre-ice-age iffy, as having been situated a little too far away from our
sun that simply wasn't quite as active and thereby as radiating as it is
today, especially if Earth were having to manage without benefit of such
a nearby moon. Proto-Earth obviously once upon a time offered a nearly
Venus like atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and
obviously of having sustained such complex happenstance of life, but
perhaps not offering all that much environmental quality nor of
sufficient diversity, and especially if still limited to the
below-surface environment, and worse yet if the bulk of mother Earth's
above surface environment had otherwise been so often and so nearly
entirely sub-frozen solid for so much of the time, as clearly indicated
by way of those ice core samples depicting each of the many ice-ages
that were consistently worse off per each proceeding ice-age cycle,
that's having represented such an extensive energy differential in so
much so that it simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital
mechanics w/o moon, nor that of sufficient solar energy fluctuation
cycles.
As further pointed by Henry Kroll's research, whereas there's no
apparent possibility of a lunar orbital fluctuation that's capable of
being associated with all of those previous ice-age cycles, but only
involving that of the latest thaw which seems to have no apparent end in
sight. This seems to suggest that our salty and once upon a time icy
proto-moon hasn't been orbiting around Earth for quite as long as we've
been informed, much less having been created by way of any Mars like
impactor.
However, it's perfectly interesting to taking a little notice as to how
much orbital energy that moon of ours currently represents.
Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf
The associated centrifugal energy of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2.00076e20
joules
The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25
Therefore, if leaving us at 40 mm/yr = 2.00076e20/25 = 8.00304e18
joules/yr
8.00304e18/8.76e3 = .91359e15 joules per hour = 913.6e12 jhr
913.6e12 jhr / 3.6e3 = 253.8e9 joules/sec (recession energy = 254
gigajoules)
A second calculation that's based upon a bit more robust assesment of
gravitation force gets this amount of energy a little more impressive;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp
Is the moon really old? by "Dr Don DeYoung . . . if the earth moon
system is as old as evolutionists say, we should have lost our moon long
ago."
"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."
If Dr. Don DeYong's 30e18 kgf were correct; therefore 30e18 kgf *
9.80665 = 294.2e18 Joules
At the supposed ongoing recession of 0.04 m/yr = 294.2e18/25 = 11.768e18
J/yr
Per second: 11.768e18/31.536e6 = .373161e12 or 373.161e9 J (recession
energy = 373 gigajoules)
In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and I've not yet taken into account
the amount of extra tidal energy that's having to compensate for the
drag coefficient nor of the reflected IR of whatever the physically dark
moon has to offer, whereas this still represents a rather terrific
amount of energy that's obviously powerful enough to have affected
platetonics and perhaps towards keeping our outer shell that's
surrounding our molten iron core in motion and thus extensively pumping
up and otherwise sustaining the highly beneficial if not critically
essential magnetosphere that's in the process of failing us at the rate
of 0.05%/year, as much as global warming has been roasting us.
Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we know it
wouldn't have stood much of a chance in this otherwise sub-frozen hell
of our having evolved or otherwise having coexisted upon Earth. From
other research and of reasonable conjectures that fit entirely within
the regular laws of planetology physics, we've also been informed that
early Earth and therefore most likely prior to our having a moon we had
a 50+ bar (Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere.
As it is (w/o drag coefficient), by the hour it seems a great deal of
available energy either way.
Brad Guth: 254 gj * 3.6e3 = 914.4e12 j/hr
Don DeYoung: 373 gj * 3.6e3 = 1,343e12 j/hr
Even going by way of my less impressive numbers of 914 terajoules/hr,
excluding the fact that our moon was obviously once upon a time much
closer and having been receding at a much faster rate, whereas the more
likely arrival and subsequent impact of our once upon a time icy
proto-moon, that which currently represents an absolutely horrific
amount of ongoing applied energy, plus having accommodated the extremely
beneficial tidal affects, that if this orbital energy were removed from
our environment would cause great harm in many ways other than the loss
of it's nifty moonshine and of it's reflectively good IR albedo that's
also a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of sustaining our
environment, and so much so beneficial that if this moon were to be
removed is where Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of life,
but our environment would also unavoidably and rather extensively ice up
to quite an extent.
I believe that life upon this Earth was simply too far away from the sun
if it were having to manage without benefit of our moon, and it only
gets worse yet if life were having to manage without a substantial
magnetosphere. Intelligent/intellectual life on Earth as we know it
simply couldn't have evolved and having matured and survived above the
surface without the enormous energy influx benefits of the moon.
Unfortunately, not only is the moon still moving itself away from us,
but so has the magnetosphere been dropping off by roughly .05%/year.
Others having similar notions but sharing somewhat different conclusions
as to Earth w/o moon are still somewhat skewed by the supposed science
associated with our having explored our physically dark, salty and
otherwise extremely reactive/anticathode naked moon, as though it's no
longer such a big deal.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235/no_moon/no_moon.html
Unfortunately, all forms of recorded history or otherwise of earlier
depicted history are those limited to the time since our last ice-age.
It's exactly as though we hadn't a moon prior to then, and it's also as
though intelligent/intellectual life upon Earth hadn't existed/coexisted
to any extent prior to the last ice-age.
I totally agree that proto-life as formulating below the surface was
perfectly doable without a moon, whereas the core energy of mother Earth
would have been doing it's thing of radiating and venting geothermal
energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus
unavoidably creating a great deal of complex opportunity for the random
happenstance chemistry of life to have eventually gotten off to a good
start (although our best efforts thus far haven't managed to simulate
nor otherwise having accomplished such DNA formulation on behalf of even
having created the most basic form of such proto-life). Using the soil
and/or of the available water and thereby mud certainly counts as a
viable shield against the otherwise lethal solar and cosmic radiation,
as well as for having the 50+ bar worth of an early atmosphere would
have extensively if not entirely protected early life on Earth w/o moon
and w/o magnetosphere.
My fundamental two part question is; How would the purely terrestrial
evolution of intelligence have been influenced or otherwise related to
having or not having a moon, and/or that of our not having or as per
having a magnetosphere that's essentially of what's defending our
relatively thin remainder of an atmosphere?
Part two of the above question; Excluding the basic intelligence worth
of survival that's proven as often a whole lot smarter than what many
humans seem to have at their disposal, what if anything does human
intellectual intelligence of rational/irrational thought (including our
learned and thus cultivated bigotry, greed and arrogance) have to do
with planetology or that of various orbital mechanics?
PLANETARY SCIENCE: HISTORY OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE / as published in
Nature and ScienceWeek
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031017-1.htm
Perhaps this should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the box is
extremely lethal.
It should also have addressed the fundamental physics as to what other
sorts of glancing impactor could have given enough rotational energy to
have initially started the outer surface rotating as different than our
molten interior, thus giving us the active magnetosphere to start with.
Clearly our thinking has been primarily limited or rather sequestered by
way of whatever our spendy mainstream infomercial-science has to guide
us by, whereas our NASA and thereby mostly religious faith approved Mars
impactor notion has been their all-knowing and apparently the one and
only viable alternative, that's sufficiently similar to the Alen Guth
BIG-BANG theory that's very compatible with the pro-intelligent/creation
and thus within the pro-faith realm of God, that is unless you wouldn't
mind losing all credibility and most likely your job plus seeing your
entire career and of everything associated going down the nearest
space-toilet, at least that's how insecure and/or immoral most religious
cults and of their political partnerships have managed in the past, and
of how they would still most likely deal with such fools that would
suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved and thus certified by way of
God's pagan replacement(NASA). At least that's my honest impression as
based upon this anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from hell, that which
has no apparent intentions of their cutting the rest of us any slack.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
16 Feb 2007 12:12:45 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate.mailgate.org
As long as we're losing our protective magnetosphere at the ongoing
demise of -.05%/year, as such that alone could become the worse news to
our frail DNA than whatever's global warming us to death. With applied
technology and spare energy, we can adapt ourselves to whatever's too
hot, too cold or too ocean rising wet, but cosmic and solar radiation is
an entirely different matter, as having spare energy simply isn't going
to protect your frail DNA unless it's in the form of being artificially
shielded from the polluted sky, that's no longer of sufficient density
in order to defend yourself from the influx gauntlet of all that's
becoming dark and nasty (including the TBI worthy dosage that's derived
from our very own nearby moon).
What's so terribly wrong with blocking off roughly 3.5% of our sun, as
well as having gotten rid of most of that rather pesky gravity/tidal
force, plus having eliminated the secondary IR/FIR that's also a touch
global warming us to death at the same time?
Wouldn't it also be a darn good thing, for getting that horrific orb of
gamma and hard-X-rays a little further away from us?
At four times the distance, we'd have roughly 1/16th of that lethal
dosage to deal with, and due to such efforts having accomplished nearly
zilch worth of centripetal related force is why we'd have accomplished a
mere fraction of what's pertaining to tidal energy influx that's keeping
us a little too extra warm (inside and out).
Establishing the LSE-CM/ISS (along with its tether dipole element that's
still capable of reaching to within 4r of Earth) is still perfectly
doable, and actually much better off for such being within the
protective shade of that moon, and otherwise getting full-earthshine
illuminated as being more than ideal for such a lunar space elevator and
interplanetary depot/gateway of efficient operations.
Where's the down side?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
18 Feb 2007 02:09:31 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:882473de514abd002072aa86e9536865.49644@mygate.mailgate.org
Besides my previous notions of terraforming our moon (instead of Mars),
there's also a great deal of clean energy that's existing/coexisting
between Earth and that of our pesky GW moon, that rather badly needs to
get relocated to Earth's L1 before there's not hardly a km3 worth of ice
left on Earth.
Since that moon of our's may not have a viable magnetosphere (likely
because it's w/o iron core, as semi-hallow or at best offering a salty
brine of a core), thus holding onto any significant atmosphere of CO2 or
heavier elements isn't exactly going to be as easy as you'd think.
2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the mutual
attraction of gravity is worth 6.307e27 joules/yr (1.752e24 kwhrs).
As long as our physically dark and nasty moon (that's unavoidably global
warming us to death) is in the process of losing mass, and there's
sufficient secondary tidal forces at play, it'll never again impact
Earth. If that sucker ever manages to gain mass (such as from
accommodating NEOs getting litho terminated or the likes of being
penetration impacted by Sedna) is when we'll have to put those hard
thinking yarmulkes back on.
It seems the usual disinformation gauntlet that's continually hauled
about at taxpayer and consumer expense, and mainstream flaunted at the
drop of a yarmulke, such as carried onboard our spendy good ship USS
LOLLIPOP, which apparently has butt-loads more of their infomercial
crapolla as damage-control flak to share. Otherwise, lord knows there's
damn little if any topic constructive feedback unless accommodating an
ulterior motive or hidden agenda.
Starlord:
They have maped the moon and only find the light weigth
metal ores.
Is that the reason why the moon is still so salty and otherwise loaded
down with such complex mascon issues?
Excuse please; Whom the heck is "they", and why should we believe such
remote science as provided by such faith-based and/or politically agenda
formulated individuals, that clearly owe their brown nosed loyalty to
whomever is in charge of their private parts?
Terrestrial identified moon rocks do not seem of low denisity, or didn't
you silly folks know that?
Starlord:
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far
across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the
forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some
believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to
survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
I simply believe that other life similar or entirely different from
whatever we know of, should by all the known laws of physics and of
other biological rights of pure random happenstance or via intelligent
design exist/coexist elsewhere within this vast universe (possibly even
within our solar system), and of whatever's intelligent enough to have
made space travel safely doable should also be wise enough for giving
our badly polluted Earth a wide buffer DMZ because of our inbread
arrogance, greed and bigotry that has time and again demonstrated as
having practically if not absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
Even though there could have been a far better science transponder
alternative than those terribly small passive areas of retroreflectors,
or that of whatever impact deployed reflective material, whereas until
better interactive range finding science is made available to the
extremely electrostatic dusty surface of our moon, I'd have to accept
the best available science of others, as having established that our
moon is currently leaving town at the rate of 38 mm/yr.
For our icy proto-moon to have gotten safely away from having delivered
such a glancing sucker punch of a nasty bounce off Earth to begin with,
whereas it seems this seasonal tilt making and arctic ocean basin
forming encounter required that our original icy proto-moon had to lose
or rather transfer a good deal of its original mass in the initial
impact process, and then continually having to lose other mass (such as
whatever remaining ice), and then ever since having lost a sufficient
tonnage/yr of sodium in order to be leaving us at the supposed recession
rate of 38 mm/year.
If the mass of our moon had remained essentially unchanged, it's orbit
would have long since stabilized or possibly even in spite of secondary
tidal forces surcome to the unavoidable friction of terminal velocity
and mutual gravity of attraction, whereas instead of losing our moon by
38 mm/yr, we'd be joining back up at some future date.
As it is, that moon of our's is continually in the process of losing
mostly the raw element of sodium, but w/o a protective magnetosphere is
why there's also a few other elements that are getting boiled, vacuum
sucked out and continually excavated away by the solar wind.
Here's some more of my (corrected) weird/dyslexic math:
I'm certain it's a whole lot more complex than this, such as if one
meter per year as having moved our 7.35e22 kg moon were taken to
represent 1.165e15 joules, whereas I do believe the combined effect of
tidal forces and of the ongoing loss of mass that's resulting in the 38
mm/yr recession, as reverse extrapolated from the value of KE=.5MV2 can
thereby be taken as per applied kgf/yr = 171.62e9 (171.6 megatonnes), or
of that same force were otherwise applied into kinetic energy as worth
1.683e12 joules/yr, by which if that amount were taken in addition to
the ongoing 2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the
mutual attraction of gravity, as that's worth 6.307e27 joules/yr. Seems
as though the 38 mm recession is worth far less than a mere pico-drop in
the old bucket.
So, perhaps it's not going to be nearly as energy intensive as we'd
thought for relocating our moon to Earth's L1, especially once having
doubled the distance should have greatly reduced the mutual gravity of
attraction by a good 1/4. Too bad we're either not smart enough or
there's not so much as one qualified supercomputer that's offering a
simulator of such orbital mechanics, that can draft and thereby animate
this one out for us. I guess all of those publicly paid for
supercomputers are simply too busy at downloading live smut or animating
yet another eye-popping movie for our entertainment.
Perhaps once again, I'll have to say that it's rather unfortunate that
we're not quite smart enough, such as for our not having established an
efficient station-keeping science platform as of the mid 60s, as
situated within the moon's L1 zone, whereas we'd certainly have obtained
a great deal more replicated knowledge about our unusually massive and
nearby moon, and I do believe loads more learned about Earth science,
that is if we only had half a village idiot's brain instead of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war mindset (a terribly spendy and time
consuming real life cloak and dagger reality game called "Up Yours" that
has only cost us trillions per decade and damn near brought us into
WW-III, w/o sufficient energy reserves to boot).
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
18 Feb 2007 02:36:26 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate.mailgate.org
Besides my previous notions of terraforming our moon (instead of Mars),
there's also a terrific argument as to the absolutely great deal of
clean energy that's existing/coexisting between Earth and that of our
pesky GW moon, that rather badly needs to get relocated to Earth's L1
before there's not hardly a km3 worth of ice left on Earth.
Secondly, moving our moon to Earth's L1 also makes that otherwise nasty
moon of our's into a rather nifty little 3.5% dot of shade for Earth, as
well as offering a seriously cool earthshine environment of a worthy
outpost/depot/(gateway via the LSE-CM/ISS) that's representing a whole
lot less of IR/FIR trauma, as well as being less DNA lethal, though
otherwise naked and thus exposed to whatever's cosmic and/or physical
that's coming along.
Since that moon of our's may not have a viable magnetosphere (likely
because it's w/o iron core, as semi-hallow or at best offering a salty
brine of a core), thus holding onto any significant atmosphere of CO2 or
heavier elements isn't exactly going to be as easy as you'd think.
2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the mutual
attraction of gravity is worth 6.307e27 joules/yr (1.752e21 kwhrs).
As long as our physically dark and nasty moon (that's unavoidably global
warming us to death) is in the process of losing mass, and there's
sufficient secondary tidal forces at play, it'll never again impact
Earth. If that sucker ever manages to gain mass (such as from
accommodating NEOs getting litho terminated or the likes of being
penetration impacted by Sedna) is when we'll have to put those hard
thinking yarmulkes back on.
It seems the usual disinformation gauntlet that's continually hauled
about at taxpayer and consumer expense, and mainstream flaunted at the
drop of a yarmulke, such as carried onboard our spendy good ship USS
LOLLIPOP, which apparently has butt-loads more of their infomercial
crapolla as damage-control flak to share. Otherwise, lord knows there's
damn little if any topic constructive feedback unless accommodating an
ulterior motive or hidden agenda.
Starlord:
They have maped the moon and only find the light weigth
metal ores.
Is that the reason why the moon is still so salty and otherwise loaded
down with such complex mascon issues?
Excuse please; Whom the heck is "they", and why should we believe such
remote science as provided by such faith-based and/or politically agenda
formulated individuals, that clearly owe their brown nosed loyalty to
whomever is in charge of their private parts?
Terrestrial identified moon rocks do not seem of low denisity, or didn't
you silly folks know that?
Starlord:
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far
across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the
forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some
believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to
survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
I simply believe that other life similar or entirely different from
whatever we know of, should by all the known laws of physics and of
other biological rights of pure random happenstance or via intelligent
design exist/coexist elsewhere within this vast universe (possibly even
within our solar system), and of whatever's intelligent enough to have
made space travel safely doable should also be wise enough for giving
our badly polluted Earth a wide buffer DMZ because of our inbread
arrogance, greed and bigotry that has time and again demonstrated as
having practically if not absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
Even though there could have been a far better science transponder
alternative than those terribly small passive areas of retroreflectors,
or that of whatever impact deployed reflective material, whereas until
better interactive range finding science is made available to the
extremely electrostatic dusty surface of our moon, I'd have to accept
the best available science of others, as having established that our
moon is currently leaving town at the rate of 38 mm/yr.
For our icy proto-moon to have gotten safely away from having delivered
such a glancing sucker punch of a nasty bounce off Earth to begin with,
whereas it seems this seasonal tilt making and arctic ocean basin
forming encounter required that our original icy proto-moon had to lose
or rather transfer a good deal of its original mass in the initial
impact process, and then continually having to lose other mass (such as
whatever remaining ice), and then ever since having lost a sufficient
tonnage/yr of sodium in order to be leaving us at the supposed recession
rate of 38 mm/year.
If the mass of our moon had remained essentially unchanged, it's orbit
would have long since stabilized or possibly even in spite of secondary
tidal forces surcome to the unavoidable friction of terminal velocity
and mutual gravity of attraction, whereas instead of losing our moon by
38 mm/yr, we'd be joining back up at some future date.
As it is, that moon of our's is continually in the process of losing
mostly the raw element of sodium, but w/o a protective magnetosphere is
why there's also a few other elements that are getting boiled, vacuum
sucked out and continually excavated away by the solar wind.
Here's some more of my (corrected) weird/dyslexic math:
I'm certain it's a whole lot more complex than this, such as if one
meter per year as having moved our 7.35e22 kg moon were taken to
represent 1.165e15 joules, whereas I do believe the combined effect of
tidal forces and of the ongoing loss of mass that's resulting in the 38
mm/yr recession, as reverse extrapolated from the value of KE=.5MV2 can
thereby be taken as per applied kgf/yr = 171.62e9 (171.6 megatonnes), or
of that same force were otherwise applied into kinetic energy as worth
1.683e12 joules/yr, by which if that amount were taken in addition to
the ongoing 2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the
mutual attraction of gravity, as that's worth 6.307e27 joules/yr
(1.752e21 kwhrs). Seems as though the 38 mm recession is worth far less
than a mere pico-drop in the old bucket.
So, perhaps it's not going to be nearly as energy intensive as we'd
thought for relocating our moon to Earth's L1, especially once having
doubled the distance should have greatly reduced the mutual gravity of
attraction by a good 1/4. Too bad we're either not smart enough or
there's not so much as one qualified supercomputer that's offering a
simulator of such orbital mechanics, that can draft and thereby animate
this one out for us. I guess all of those publicly paid for
supercomputers are simply too busy at downloading live smut or animating
yet another eye-popping movie for our entertainment.
Perhaps once again, I'll have to say that it's rather unfortunate that
we're not quite smart enough, such as for our not having established an
efficient station-keeping science platform as of the mid 60s, as
situated within the moon's L1 zone, whereas we'd certainly have obtained
a great deal more replicated knowledge about our unusually massive and
nearby moon, and I do believe loads more learned about Earth science,
that is if we only had half a village idiot's brain instead of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war mindset (a terribly spendy and time
consuming real life cloak and dagger reality game called "Up Yours" that
has only cost us trillions per decade and damn near brought us into
WW-III, w/o sufficient energy reserves to boot).
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
19 Mar 2007 07:12:57 AM |
|
|
An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take a thousand years, and we're either toast and/or we're
becoming Mars like.
We're deep into achieving our point of no return, of the ongoing GW
thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while all of that
nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a good enough
moon for keeping that planetology core and of a surface of interactive
tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking, as is very much the
case for mother Earth.
Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/
Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet
before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.
Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit. At that near vacuum, what would the rate of
evaporation be? Would there be any salty remainders?
Perhaps Mars was a mostly a swamp and/or of some other geothermally
forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise the necessary
quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as though it had
been nearly entirely missed upon getting its fair share of salt to
begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been strip-mined or
somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.
Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)
If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of having at least 1.5e17 kg
of whatever Na to deal with.
Have those salty types of minerals and percentage or PPM worth of
whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those robotic
samples taken and processed thus far?
Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less
quantify?
Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold?
Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations,
as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of
a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive
moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of
salt to behold than Mars. What gives?
As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars
once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it
still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of
thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume
or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once
upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life
(meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere
microbes and/or diatom like spores).
If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as
Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its
global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and
thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what
actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on
Mars.
What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based
notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much
older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived
since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most
seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar
system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been
dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of
likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy
moons and planet sized debris.
At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is
what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core energy
that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding 78 mw/m2, whereas
our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has been so much so
helping that it has become by far our primary GW consideration like
none other. Obviously adding our global dimming soot into the ongoing
GW demise of our frail environment that's also losing its portective
magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year isn't exactly
helping, at least not any more so than our artificial methods of
having been evaporating water that's only adding to our atmospheric
cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently ranges
anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes, depending
entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics driven
science you'd care to take to the bank.
It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
19 Mar 2007 01:38:44 PM |
|
|
Instead of these all-knowing folks telling us their same old
mainstream infomercial crapolla, such as informing us as to how
supposedly wet Mars had once been, tell us what we don't know about
our highly unusual moon, about Venus, or about the Sirius star/solar
system that might relate to those pesky ice ages and otherwise of our
ongoing GW fiasco, that sees no apparent end in sight as long as we
keep holding onto that nasty moon of ours.
Here's another slightly corrected/polished contribution, as intended
for those that see no problems whatsoever with their excessively
spending most all of our hard earned loot on their off-world hobby,
that which seems to include their continued snookering of all the rest
of us village idiots.
(it's no wonder these silly Usenet clowns see nothing the least bit
wrong with our resident warlord's actions, as well as accepting upon
whatever our government has done in the past or plans upon doing in
the near future is all perfectly OK, as long as they get to do their
thing at the same expense and/or demise of others)
How about instead of our wasting such supposed talents, draining our
best resources and having mostly lost precious time, why not instead
they should be talking to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's
not of Earth, telling us when that big old icy sucker arrived and of
how we subsequently obtained our seasonal tilt. If they're so gosh
darn smart, as such they can start off by telling us of whatever it's
going to take for relocating our moon, such as out to Earth's L1, so
that a significant and/or perhaps do-everything lid can once and for
all be placed upon our GW fiasco, that's going to need all the help it
can get.
Unfortunately, our "Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon" actually doesn't hold
much of a candle to the fire that's continually burning up all of
those hard earned billions upon billions of dollars, as for getting
badly spent on behalf of Mars, or of worse yet upon whatever it's
taking for going far beyond.
In spite of all that blown loot and lost time on behalf of whatever
life might have once upon a time existed on Mars, that at best sucks
real bad, and/or is of life that's going to remain as damn spendy to
boot, if not a touch lethal to our environment. If Mars life was ever
into kicking any serious butt, it's having done such without benefit
of having all that much salt, as well as having gone without a
magnetosphere or a worthy moon to boot. Titan and possibly Ceres, or
even Sedna with it's reddish ice offers more life worthy butt kicking
potential than Mars, and we obviously can't humanly go to/from either
of those places, much less return with anything worthy of humanity or
that of salvaging our badly failing environment.
An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take another iffy thousand years, and we're either toast and/
or we're soon enough on the road to becoming Mars like.
We're rather deep into achieving our point of no return, of the
ongoing GW thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while most
all of that nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a
good enough moon for keeping that planetology core and whatever
surface of interactive tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking,
as is very much the case for mother Earth.
Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/
Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet,
that is before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.
Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit.
At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be?
After the great thaw, would there be any salty remainders?
Perhaps Mars was a mostly a cool swamp and/or of some other
geothermally forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise
the necessary quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as
though it had been nearly if not entirely missed upon getting its fair
share of salt to begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been
strip-mined or somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.
Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)
If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of their having at least
1.5e17 kg of whatever Na to deal with.
Have those salty types of minerals and of their percentage or PPM
worth of whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those
robotic samples taken and processed thus far?
Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less
quantify?
Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold?
Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations,
as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of
a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive
moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of
salt to behold than Mars. What gives?
As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars
once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it
still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of
thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume
or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once
upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life
(meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere
microbes and/or diatom like spores).
If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as
Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its
global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and
thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what
actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on
Mars.
What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based
notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much
older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived
since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most
seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar
system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been
dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of
likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy
moons and planet sized debris.
At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is
what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core
thermal energy, that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding
78 mw/m2, whereas our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has
been so much so helping that it has become by far our primary GW
consideration like none other. Obviously adding our global dimming
soot into the ongoing GW demise of our frail environment that's also
losing its protective magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year
isn't exactly helping, at least not any more so than our artificial
methods of having been evaporating water that's only adding to our
atmospheric cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently
ranges anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes,
depending entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics
driven science you'd care to take to the bank.
It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.
We can't even honestly accomplish our moon's L1, much less the moon
itself, yet a fuzzy if not hocus-pocus future of spending more than a
trillion per decade seems likely without hardly a dollar going towards
resolving our need of accomplishing a substantial cache of solar and
wind derived renewable energy, much less for extracting from the
energy that's existing between Earth and our moon.
Doing Venus isn't 1% the cost of accomplishing the same task for
Mars. At least you can efficiently go about your business (if need be
all 19 months worth of it) as safely within that composite rigid
airship, transporting yourself safely above the geothermally toasty
surface of Venus, without hardly expending energy or having to ever
set a hot foot on that deck.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
18 Mar 2007 01:56:43 AM |
|
|
We're losing our trusty magnetosphere at the ongoing rate of 0.05%/
year, and that's supposedly not such a big deal, even though ISS/ESS
has to avoid that ever expanding SAA lethal contour at all cost.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
29 Mar 2007 12:31:06 PM |
|
|
Wow! would you folks take a look at all the Usenet retractions.
Downright impressive, isn't it, to see all of these mainstream rats
jumping off their own good ship LOLLIPOP.
The moon will never again smack into Earth, that is unless something
Sedna like manages to hit just exactly right, and the odds of that
ever happening are as they say astronomical. If anything, we're
losing our grip upon our salty moon, that's still in the process of
losing mass. Unfortunately, we'll have lost our protective
magnetosphere long before having entirely lost the warm and fuzzy
tidal benefits of our moon.
This following was a reply to a perfectly nifty contribution via
"rick_sobie".
rick_sobie:
There was no moon, or surely, they would have drawn it,
in some cave, at least once. Somewhere you would think.
We seem to have obtained those 10,000 BC and of much older images in
the realm of 15,000 BC, if not a bit older, of such intelligent
produced records sharing perfectly valid indications by way of such
old art as having depicted our environment illuminated by the sun,
though as always w/o moon. The moon became a part of human culture as
of something more recent than 10,000 BC, as did those indications of
folks having to migrate due to the seasonal changes which didn't seem
to be the case before noticing that we had such a moon and those nofty
tides to deal with.
I think the moon for what it really is, might have been depicted
by the short funny people of South America.
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica146.jpg
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica147.jpg
I tend to agree. So what's the approximate age of the "Labyrinthina"
moon?
Noah's most recent flood of perhaps 2250 ~ 2350 BC is yet another
indication of Earth having been impacted, and most likely getting our
environment further deposited with additional ice, that which most
likely got here by way of our icy proto-moon, that's also remaining
nearby as a somewhat unusually salty orb. However, besides the
ongoing thaw from the last ice age Earth will ever see, whereas the
original flood(s) of 5,000 ~ 5600 BC or perhaps the initial big one of
9600 BC is what could easily have been derived from the initial impact
by such as an icy proto-moon, as well as for that event having
established Earth's seasonal tilt. By all rights there would have
been multiple secondary shards of that salty ice raining down upon
Earth, whereas from time to time as those massive spacebergs of salty
moon ice having returned via their associated orbital path, returning
to the approximate origin of that initial lunar impact being Earth and
naturally of their own origin being the moon itself. (I'm thinking
Arctic ocean basin forming, as such being one of the more likely
points of initial contact, and in any event it most likely wasn't a
one time icy encounter, meaning there should have been multiple floods
over an extended period of time, not to mention a few antipode events)
Earth's reformation via multiple impacts and of those unavoidable
antipode related events is every bit as real of planetology formation
as it gets. Those massive yet unusually shallow craters upon our moon
(due to that surface having been protected by a thick layer of ice) is
proof positive that such horrific sorts of cosmic or local solar
system encounters did in fact happen. However, mention the Bible and
all of hell breaks lose within most any scientific realm, especially
by way of those pretending at being Old Testament thumpers that claim
to know all there is to know, but only if it's in a very Jewish way.
Here's yet another best effort research paper via "trustbible", that's
worth our considering, as to having shared this alternative view that
happens to include notions of getting Mars involved, of which at best
is only remotely possible. I still don't entirely agree with that
notion of Mars, especially since it's well enough understood that Mars
hasn't even its fair share of salt, although our moon is in fact
somewhat salty and otherwise downright weird about having such an
unusual geology of formation that's clearly not being allowed as
honestly understood, at least not to nearly the extent of what we're
learning about Mars that was apparently a mostly fresh water little
planetology environment before having lost its protective
magnetosphere.
http://www.trustbible.com/noah.htm
I'm not saying the Bible is as trustworthy as we'd like it to be,
however it's certainly next to the best available record of actual
events that took place, along with loads of faith-based
embellishments, with obviously some subjective analogy applications on
behalf of those interpretations, by having improved upon whatever
others likely wanted to believe, because it gave further meaning or
greater importance as to their existence (unfortunately, that's still
the infomercial forced norm as of today, including as to how our
government typically gets whatever published into textbooks, pretty
much as they'd like to stick, as representing their one and only
record of what's not exactly or even remotely accurate as to what
actually happened, or much less honest as to why such things happened)
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
30 Apr 2007 09:50:45 PM |
|
|
It's supposedly taking the equivalent of 2e20 joules, or roughly
7.2e21 KW worth of gravity force(Fg), for the task of mutually holding
onto our moon, or vise versa.
How much of that energy is getting transferred into Earth? (< 3.6e21
KW ?)
How about 0.0001% = 3.6e15 KW (that's only 7.04 KW/m2, or 3.322e-3 W/
m3 [excluding our atmosphere])
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
01 May 2007 01:47:51 PM |
|
|
How much global warming(GW) is our moon good for?
It's supposedly taking the equivalent of 2e20 joules, or roughly the
equal of 7.2e21 KW worth of gravity force(Fg), as representing the
equivalent in centripetal force(Fc) of mutually holding onto our moon,
or vise versa.
How much of that energy is getting transferred into Earth? (< 3.6e21
KW ?)
How about allowing 0.0001% = 3.6e15 KW (that's only 7.04 KW/m2, or
rather 3.322e-3 W/m3 [excluding our atmosphere], or perhaps as little
a 3.25 mw/m3 including the volume of our wet atmosphere)
Gravity is a real measured force, and the associated energy of that
force is clearly going somewhere other than into thin air (sort of
speak). Much of earth's surface and especially of its interior is not
a solid, and such stuff (including our polluted and wet atmosphere) is
affected by and thus moved along by gravity, unavoidably causing
friction. Earth's moon is considerably more than a thousand fold of
greater mass per ratio of it's planet than any other moon within our
solar system, with the exception of those little binary icy planets or
the likes of Oort cloud debris that simply arnt all that robust to
start with, and our moon is certainly close and fast moving enough to
having a significant tidal impact (inside and out) upon our
environment.
moon (IR)radiance w/m2 = ?
Like a mirror that's better at reflecting IR photons (better than
Earth's albedo that's contributing an IR planetshine worth of 266 w/
m2, whereas that naked and physically dark moon unavoidably creating
those secondary/recoil worth of FIR photons is why there's a fairly
substantial IR/FIR influx that's measurably good for having
contributed a little something of extra energy influx to our GW
situation. (too bad we still haven't established a moon L1 science
platform for actively telling us this essential information)
In the past I've asked the question; are we being global warmed to
death by our moon?
In more ways than not, I believe the regular laws of physics and of
the best available science has been telling us the truth, that in fact
we are being warmed to death by our moon that has only been with us
since the last ice age this planet will ever see.
Too bad we're not ever going to get smart enough for relocating that
nasty moon of ours out to Earth's L1.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
01 May 2007 01:44:28 PM |
|
|
The perfectly good analogy of "G=3DEMC^2 Glazier", as to contemplating
the "What if (on White Dwarfs)" of a given 4X or 5X solar mass going
postal, such as from that original Sirius B kicking out a few assorted
Oort cloud items while going red-giant, as such isn't all that
unlikely. In fact, it seems as though entirely more common place and
therefore more likely than not, especially interesting as our Sol gets
within better range of using our somewhat wussy gravity to further
attract upon whatever's headed our way.
The Milky Way's 225MY cycle is what also indicates lots of those more
frequent local stellar cycles (such as Sirius), thus not all of our
stellar surroundings remain forever in redshift.
The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood, by Nordstr=F6m
et al., as having been further improved by Hipparcos data:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D71&Ite=
mid=3D42&lang=3Den
Of whatever accumulates as cosmic ice surviving in interstellar space,
especially as for eventually cruising anywhere near 1AU of a Sol like
star, as such requires a fairly substantial volume and/or gravity
worthy core of a cool enough rock (perhaps not unlike 7.35e22 kg), and
otherwise hosting some degree of a protective atmosphere, even if such
an atmosphere is primarily sustained via those icy vapors.
I've asked of others; What is the "R" value of ice as insulation?
Eric Swanson:
Thermal Conductivity, Ice at 0 C =3D 2.22 (W/m K)
Data for other temperatures found here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html
Thermal Conductivity of -0=B0C ice =3D 2.22 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K =3D 0.45)
Thermal Conductivity of -5=B0C ice =3D 2.25 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K =3D 0.444)
Thermal Conductivity of -10=B0C ice =3D 2.3 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K =3D 0.435)
Thermal Conductivity of -30=B0C ice =3D 2.5 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K =3D 0.4)
In a few other honestly deductive words of my best dyslexic encrypted
wisdom, whereas an ejected icy covered (Sedna like) proto-moon is
entirely livable if you are adequately sequestered within/under such a
protective layer of ice, especially nifty on behalf of sufficiently
intelligent folks, plus capable of hosting all sorts of other DNA
that'll survive such an extended interstellar trek, such as getting
safely away from that white dwarf of a star that used to be of a 4X or
greater solar mass to begin with.
Just 100 meters of -30=B0C ice is good for insulating: 250 W/K
1 km of that same -30=B0C ice is good for insulating: 2.5 KW/K
100 km of -30=B0C ice becomes worthy of insulating at 250 KW/K
Obviously the thermal conduction of such ice is somewhat less (better
insulating) as for what's existing directly upon or near the rocky
surface (R/m/K =3D 0.45), as is otherwise the more thermally conductive
ice and snow that's likely capable of becoming something near 45 K
(-228=B0C) at the upper most surface of being exposed to the very worse
of whatever such a local interstellar trek would likely amount to a
heat transfer of 5.34 W/mK, with otherwise an average interstellar
medium that's worthy of perhaps something less than 98 K (-175=B0C)
losing 4.57 W/mK.
Unfortunately, I'm still that village idiot or pesky messenger from
hell that's suggesting our icy proto-moon as having arrived in a
lithobraking and Earth seasonal tilting fashion, though only as of the
last ice age this planet will ever see, while packing along as much as
262 km worth of surface ice and/or as having collected such volumes of
compacted salty Oort snow on deck, much of which becoming those extra
volumes of salty oceans and ice deposited upon Earth.
Perhaps you folks can manage to further add or subtract your best
swag, as to expanding upon the what-if of this icy DNA transport
analogy that's pretty much all Guth going yaysay postal, as to my
limited mindset favoring a good deal of panspermia influx, up to that
of accomplishing a full blown intelligent design effort that obviously
hasn't turned out quite as well as originally planned, unless absolute
hell on Earth was their intended outcome.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
09 Feb 2007 01:01:19 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate.mailgate.org
Besides our 100,000 some odd +/- year or +/- century encounters with the
Sirius star/solar system, that had been of more frequent orbital
encounters in the past, we've had that pesky moon of our's to deal with
as of the last ice age this planet will ever see. Take away our moon
and Earth gets cold. Put our moon at Earth's L1 and we extensively cool
off mother Earth in spite of what we've managed to do to our frail
environment (perhaps creating a touch too much shade, which is still
better off than mot having enough shade).
As geothermally heated from the active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and this taking of energy is even free of any
artificial CO2 potential), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly renewable
to boot. Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and
geothermally active nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as
scientifically off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers terminated, if not worse.
JFK honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult like
authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU>.
I happen to totally agree with the intent of honest renewable energy
topics, of promoting as much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a
composite of solar PV, stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in
fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe footprint of energy density
that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr/m2), that's likely to advance to the
50 kw/m2 level in the near future. Along with a national power grid
infrastructure, the areas best suited for this form of renewable energy
extraction can pick up as much as 75% of our future needs, along with
15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear (meaning near zero coal and oil).
Nations without hydroelectric or nuclear potential would obviously have
to make due with supplementing LNG and perhaps h2o2 in order to obtain
their maximum benefit with the least pollution from whatever fossil or
biofuel alternatives.
However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps their best all-inclusive
birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without a
tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and GW
deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is for going along with our utilizing
nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal
and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our global energy needs. So,
I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear. After all, there are
more than a few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't
be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and
oil spendy or otherwise unavailable, the only viable alternative may
come down to WW-III.
BTW; for this and most any other topic argument sake, the laws of
energy still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kw or 1 kwhr or
1 kjhr because, a jhr is still worth 3600 joules. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting, pillaging and
raping mother Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.
These Usenet big-energy folks that are the best at infomercial spewing
and for usually being directly or indirectly industry paid-for as
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the pro green/renewables of constructive
contributions have to share, treated as though we're their big-energy
approved toilet-paper.
BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and it's real in more ways than
one. At least we can honestly say that it's partially (10%~25%) caused
by humanity, and that there are direct and indirect environmental
consequences of our past, present and future actions. However, because
of the vast amount of required energy, the continued thawing of Earth
since the last ice age this planet will ever see, is not entirely our
fault.
Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of promoting all that's pro big-energy and of having to
protect their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus
seeing those usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on
steroids, whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems
as though rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it
must be offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" / by William Elliot
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/485872934116a87b/b34e1a7a3d8636ec?hl=en#b34e1a7a3d8636ec
The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our recently
obtained moon, which isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by
humanity (at best I'd buy into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we
all departed this Earth and let nature take its planetology course, this
Earth would continue to thaw from the last ice age this planet will ever
see. As long as we have that pesky moon of ours, ice age trapped
methanes and CO2 will in fact keep "Bubbling Through Seafloor Creates
Undersea Hills", though at a reduced rate if the human factor were
entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, another truth being told that we're not supposed to know
about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our magnetosphere
has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.
Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons that have little if any trouble
getting through to the surface that getting a little extra sooty and
otherwise polluted by the day, which includes less snow and ice coverage
that means upon average a lower global albedo, that in turn represents
an even better sol and moon energy absorber that in turn keeps our
nighttime atmosphere more cloud covered due to the increased levels of
h2o in our atmosphere.
This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sci/sci.space.station/11ebcd15a5c4f453d2b80ef55874b85e.49644%40mygate.mailgate.org?order=smart&p=1/211
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.station/browse_frm/thread/cc33d957cb50e3c5/85990d88e00958f4?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#85990d88e00958f4
Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).
Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.
Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However Sol-->Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol-->L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)
However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon
that's causing us all sorts of grief.
In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.
BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon-->planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.
If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.
On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking, that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo or whatever
faith based gasket, then perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) has a perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as
non-caring job without ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and
others of your kind.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
12 Feb 2007 04:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate.mailgate.org
Earth may soon enough be w/o its magnetosphere, thus making our GW
fiasco a somewhat minor issue for those of us without a sufficient
shelter or a viable resource of affordable rad-hard food. In other
pesky words, where the hell is all of that supposed intelligent design
expertise in DNA/RNA genetics when you need it?
Since accomplishing most anything upon or even anywhere near our moon
seems rather Usenet taboo/nondisclosure (off limits), and since folks
here in this silly Usenet land of all that's spook/mole orchestrated as
anti-think-tank naysayism, or otherwise stuck in damage control mode
simply can't manage to behave themselves, much less focus constructively
upon the original topic at hand; here's yet another of my constructive
GS(global shading) contributions, of related research work in progress
to share:
Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged from within mother Earth, whereas more likely as having
materialized from an incoming glancing sucker punch, such as by that of
a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth having received a nasty blow
(say having created an arctic ocean basin like impression, along with
causing that seasonal tilt), by a very icy proto-moon (possibly of 4,000
km).
For a brief example; If the orbital distance were made half and thus
the velocity would have to double because the mutual gravity of
attraction would have become 4X, therefore we'd have introduced 16 fold
more inside and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy to deal with, and
I'm not all that sure mother Earth would have stayed glued together at
that level of horrific gravitional and internal tidal forced trauma,
much less for cutting that orbital distance by yet another half (making
its previous orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of 4.092 km/s) would have
to impose yet another 16 fold factor, or rather suggesting 256 fold
worse global warming trauma than what we currently are suffering from
the existing tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects as is.
The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up, soon becomes a real physics *****-off; How
much time did it take for that moon which supposedly emerged from within
Earth, to have reached the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having
migrated from 96,100 km out to where it's currently operating at 384,400
km? (thus far, none of those spendy computer simulations seem clean
enough)
If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
for ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy
that's coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's
actually imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet<-->moon
energy that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or
going as to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real
energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:
object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters
grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg
Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such into no longer orbiting us, there's
actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is simply
rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this mutual
and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol-->Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of implied energy:
As for the sol<-->moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules
object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules
Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.
In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.
Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.
1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules
Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules
There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.
The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules
Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw
At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2
Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.
The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2
However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.
Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.
Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger analogies can be run as fully
3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you certainly
wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the truth, now would
we.
Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.
Perhaps if the status quo gets its usual brown-nosed Skull and Bones
worth of big-energy buttology certified way, whereas life on Venus
(though naked humanly hot) isn't looking quite as bad off as we've been
faith-based mainstream informed.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
12 Feb 2007 04:32:22 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate.mailgate.org
Earth may soon enough be w/o magnetosphere, thus making our GW fiasco a
somewhat minor issue for those of us without a sufficient shelter or a
viable resource of affordable rad-hard food. In other pesky words,
where's the hell is all of that supposed intelligent design when you
need it?
Since accomplishing most anything upon or even anywhere near our moon
seems rather Usenet taboo/nondisclosure (off limits), and since folks
here in this silly Usenet land of all that's spook/mole orchestrated as
anti-think-tank naysayism, or otherwise stuck in damage control mode
simply can't manage to behave themselves, much less focus constructively
upon the original topic at hand; here's yet another of my constructive
GS(global shading) contributions, of related research work in progress
to share:
Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged from within mother Earth, whereas more likely as having
materialized from an incoming glancing sucker punch, such as by that of
a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth having received a nasty blow
(say having created an arctic ocean basin like impression, along with
causing that seasonal tilt), by a very icy proto-moon (possibly of 4,000
km).
For a brief example; If the orbital distance were made half and thus
the velocity would have to double because the mutual gravity of
attraction would have become 4X, therefore we'd have introduced 16 fold
more inside and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy to deal with, and
I'm not all that sure mother Earth would have stayed glued together at
that level of horrific gravitional and internal tidal forced trauma,
much less for cutting that orbital distance by yet another half (making
its previous orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of 4.092 km/s) would have
to impose yet another 16 fold factor, or rather suggesting 256 fold
worse global warming trauma than what we currently are suffering from
the existing tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects as is.
The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up, soon becomes a real physics *****-off; How
much time did it take for that moon which supposedly emerged from within
Earth, to have reached the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having
migrated from 96,100 km out to where it's currently operating at 384,400
km? (thus far, none of those spendy computer simulations seem clean
enough)
If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
for ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy
that's coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's
actually imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet<-->moon
energy that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or
going as to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real
energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:
object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters
grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg
Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such into no longer orbiting us, there's
actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is simply
rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this mutual
and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol-->Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of implied energy:
As for the sol<-->moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules
object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules
Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.
In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.
Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.
1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules
Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules
There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.
The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules
Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw
At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2
Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.
The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2
However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.
Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.
Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger analogies can be run as fully
3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you certainly
wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the truth, now would
we.
Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.
Perhaps if the status quo gets its usual brown-nosed Skull and Bones
worth of big-energy buttology certified way, whereas life on Venus
(though naked humanly hot) isn't looking quite as bad off as we've been
faith-based mainstream informed.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon |
21 Jan 2007 12:24:20 PM |
|
|
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate.mailgate.org
Earth w/o moon and otherwise w/o Sirius would have remained as the
ultimate Winter Olympic destination world of our solar system. Every
100,000 some odd years the added warmth and life giving spectrums of
illuminations via Sirius would have made for a much less icy and
otherwise a terrific expedited zone of a life thriving environment
(especially for the likes of diatoms), but w/o moon it would not stay
that way for long as our solar system treks itself away from the Sirius
star/solar system and of its massive Oort cloud of icy (Sedna/Pluto
like) proto-moons.
This is still an ongoing work in progress, though badly mainstream
status quo flak damaged, I believe it's our best game in town for
appreciating what our physically dark and nasty moon, that's so
absolutely massive in ratio to its binary partner, has to offer such an
environment that would otherwise have been nearly that of a frosty
monoseason with an extremely modus solar tide and at times icy into the
tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. In other words, Earth w/o moon and w/o
Sirius would have been the ultimate Winter Olympics globe of mostly snow
and ice, that which only the winter sporting humans like us could
appreciate.
Unless you folks don't happen to believe in the regular laws of physics,
in that case I'll share my dyslexic encrypted research which essentially
stipulates that our somewhat recently obtained moon has been the primary
GW culprit, and then of course it's also caused by a little damage to
our somewhat sooty albedo, of what we've accomplished on behalf of
dimming our global environment so that we manage to get more solar
energy into our badly failing environment, and thirdly it's the sun
doing it's usual thing of gradually going postal as it expands unless
something feeds the right sort of fuel into that sucker.
With each orbital applied kgf = 9.80665 joules, the influence upon all
that's Earth by way of our extremely large, massive and nearby orbital
mascon we call our moon is worth 2e20 Joules.
At the very least, some of that orbital/tidal energy gets unavoidably
converted into heat via tidal friction that's directly associated with
our atmosphere, oceans and the internal movements of the Earth itself
that's below our dumbfounded two left feet. That's not to mention the
direct influence upon having transferred thermal energy about our globe
due to the atmospheric and ocean tidal currents.
0.001% of 2e20 j/m2 = 3.91 j/m2, or per surface m3 if you'd care to
think in terms of surface volume, that's in some way or another
distributed upon/within the average surface area of Earth. Obviously
the equator receives the vast majority of that lunar/tidal energy, and
the north/south poles receive the least in direct benefit. I'm
excluding upon the secondary/recoil worth of lunar IR/FIR because it's
still so taboo/nonmdisclosure to even talk about, and otherwise even
though our moon's IR/FIR albedo is fairly high (roughly 0.33~0.5), our
moon's IR/FIR most likely isn't worth 1% of what the gravity/tidal
influence has to offer.
Moon's tidal energy, upon average at 0.001% = 3.91 j/m2
Us humans at one kj/soul = 6.7e12 joules = 13.1 mj/m2
Mother Earth that's getting rid of 40 TJ = 78.25 mj/m2
The 2e20 J as per acting upon the total volume of Earth (excluding our
52e17 kg of atmosphere), with Earth's physical volume being 1.083e21 m3
= 185 mj/m3
At .01% of 2e20 J, isn't the moon actually worthy of 39.1 j/m2 ?
I happen to believe in the regular laws of physics, and in those thermal
dynamics that's derived from good old friction and the unavoidable
transferring of such energy about and within our globe, whereas my best
swag as to our moon's tidal affects upon Earth is leaning closer to if
not a tough greater than 0.01%, therefore we're talking about receiving
a continuous surface environment worth of 39.1 j/m2, and at best our
combined (all inclusive) human influence or environmental impact simply
isn't worth much greater than 10% of that amount (as even that's 298
kj/soul), therefore perhaps humanity isn't at best worth but 1% of the
total GW package.
So, you folks can cry all you want about whatever humanity did or didn't
do to mother Earth, and lo and behold global warming will unavoidably
continue w/o our help, though merely at a slightly reduced rate, and
that's even if each and every fossil consuming or even yellowcake energy
sucking and unavoidably soot and toxic chemical polluting soul upon this
planet were removed. Sorry about that.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
