| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2007 08:41:07 PM |
| Object: |
Mars salt ? |
MARS GOT SALT ?
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
17 Mar 2007 10:38:14 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
-
Brad Guth
Brad got brain?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheBookman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 02:13:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:38:14 -0600, Art Deco wrote:
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
-
Brad Guth
Brad got brain?
<Shrug> Brad got delusions.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
"Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler."
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.
WWFSMD?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 01:52:46 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, TheBookman
<thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:13:19 -0500
<1ojpa58omnl2v.fooboff4c218$.dlg@40tude.net>:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:38:14 -0600, Art Deco wrote:
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
-
Brad Guth
Brad got brain?
<Shrug> Brad got delusions.
ESL!
Maybe not. Sulfate salts have already been found.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2272
It is amazing the rovers are still operational (though
Spirit's lost drive to a wheel).
--
#191,
"Woman? What woman?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
20 Mar 2007 02:33:28 PM |
|
|
On Mar 18, 10:52 am, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
Maybe not. Sulfate salts have already been found.
Hardly enough salt for mentioning. Where's all the rest of the salt
(at the very least 1.5e17 kg)?
If Earth had that little bit of "Sulfate salts" to go by, we'd all
become quite dead, or rather never having existed in the first place.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
21 Mar 2007 02:43:09 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on 20 Mar 2007 12:33:28 -0700
<1174419208.603066.95360@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
On Mar 18, 10:52 am, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
Maybe not. Sulfate salts have already been found.
Hardly enough salt for mentioning. Where's all the rest of the salt
(at the very least 1.5e17 kg)?
If Earth had that little bit of "Sulfate salts" to go by, we'd all
become quite dead, or rather never having existed in the first place.
We've barely begun to scratch the surface here. Of course
you will have to show reasonably good evidence that the
rovers are somewhere on Mars, as opposed to a perenially
lit sound stage somewhere in lower Hollywood.
(I'll admit to some curiosity as to how big a ground-based
telescope would be needed to pick up the signals.)
-
Brad Guth
--
#191,
/dev/brain: Permission denied
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
22 Mar 2007 11:09:00 AM |
|
|
On Mar 20, 11:43 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
We've barely begun to scratch the surface here. Of course
you will have to show reasonably good evidence that the
rovers are somewhere on Mars, as opposed to a perenially
lit sound stage somewhere in lower Hollywood.
(I'll admit to some curiosity as to how big a ground-based
telescope would be needed to pick up the signals.)
There's simply not a sufficient amount of salt to behold upon Mars, as
to consider it part of the same solar system that iced and salted down
mother Earth, and of otherwise having impacted our somewhat salty moon
that's causing us so much planetology GW trauma.
Mars salt should be extensively situated upon the surface, because of
its wussy density and of that freeze dried environment insuring that
whatever salts wouldn't have gotten vaporised.
As to being staged, I don't think so, because of others (including
replicated terrestrial established science) as having extracted
similar information about Mars, and of most everything as having thus
far played by those pesky regular laws of physics is a good sign that
we're not being all that snookered about Mars.
However, trillions of hard earned dollars or whatever euros from now,
we'll still not be walking upon Mars, any more so than spending any
amount of time (if any) upon our gamma and xray lethal moon. The Mars
to/fom passage is just too damn spendy and otherwise potentially
lethal, and the Mars lander is simply demanding of too much fly-by-
rocket and momentum reaction wheels. Human DNA simply isn't rad-hard
enough for the like of Mars if you're talking about any extended say.
How many of those trillions of dollars/euros and subsequent decades
are you folks willing to spend on Mars?
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
09 Apr 2007 05:56:11 PM |
|
|
A good number of raw elements are no longer situated where they are
supposed to be, as having too much here and simply not enough there.
Looking off-world for such raw elements or clean energy simply isn't a
viable option unless our moon's L2 can first become fully utilized for
all it's worth, and lord knows our NASA isn't about to let that
happen.
If in fact little old and nearly frozen to the core Mars had once upon
a time been a very wet orb (say a billion+ years ago seems worthy
enough); where's the salt?
Is there such a thing as a freshwater planet, as thus far represented
by what Mars used to be like, as opposed to a salty soil of so many
near solid Na/sodium deposits and otherwise mostly a saltwater world
as represented by Earth, that's only getting itself saltier by the
eroson day and othewise by the lunar month that dumps a comet like
trail of even more Na/sodium our way.
Mars salt ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/f476068e9b2bf8c8/5b0cc2a2a8ad986d?lnk=st&q=mars+salt&rnum=1&hl=en#5b0cc2a2a8ad986d
Or perhaps you'd like to share your best swag as to why Earth has way
more than its fair share of salt, and getting a touch saltier by each
lunar month, as well as our having been artificially as well as
natural eroding ourselves to death, insuring that even more salt is on
its way.
The following is topic related, but more of an energy and survival
rant by Guth:
Remember, the toaster and sootier we manage in making our environment
go GW postal, and of that pesky element of sodium starts getting
suspended into a greater worth of our surface and lower most
atmospheric environment that's already going co2 acidic and otherwise
dead-zone on us, whereas much like co2 running off the charts, too
much salt added to this ongoing co2 trauma will eventually kill just
about anything that can't quickly evolve or manage to locate to higher
ground (especially if we're all given the only option of a damp and
stormy future environment of thermal and pressure extremes, whereas
this analogy is clearly where too much salt on deck is yet another
seriously bad news sort of thing to add to our nasty co2 above and
below deck thing).
The likes of drought stricken Australia building those multi million
m2 solar energy and seawater evaporation farms isn't exactly going to
help lower the surface salt content enough if at all to benefit
against whatever reductions in co2 (especially since there's no good
reason for their energy needs as not being derived mostly via
nuclear), as either element of Na or Co2 is nearly as bad as the other
if left to the ongoing demise of our surface environment.
This is starting to suggest a terrestrial population maximum of
perhaps 1e10, and without sufficient clean energy to go around (much
less affordable food), is not exactly going to make us into happy
campers.
A future of 1e3 watts/soul = 1e13 watts/Earth, whereas 10 terawatts of
continuous energy extraction is going to become a tough sell unless
most of that is via renewable alternatives, and resolved as such long
before getting to that insurmountable point of no possible return.
Fortunately, there are existing and entirely affordable solutions that
do not have to include big-energy or for the most part would not
involve nuclear except for roughly 10% of our global energy demand
that's isolated or otherwise off-grid.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
13 Apr 2007 12:43:20 PM |
|
|
Earth being as wet and salty as it is; Where's the Mars salt?
Come on you silly folks, tell us where all of that Mars salt is
hidden.
It's called "share and share alike", or "to tell the truth", that Mars
is older than Earth and likely of a somewhat different origin than
Earth, as perhaps the same can be said of Venus, in that all the best
available science is actually telling us that it's somewhat less old
than Earth.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
13 Apr 2007 01:06:01 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176486200.406099.272790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Earth being as wet and salty as it is; Where's the Mars salt?
It is hidden up Uranus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
13 Apr 2007 02:36:04 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 11:06 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176486200.406099.272790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Earth being as wet and salty as it is; Where's the Mars salt?
It is hidden up Uranus.
Now that's certainly a good little Jewish Third Reich minion's worth
of a topic contribution.
In other words, just like Hitler or that of your resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush), you've got absolutely nothing that's honestly worth
sharing.
Sorry you're having such another bad day after day, as well as bad
years after years worth of having been such a funny brown-nosed clown.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
13 Apr 2007 04:46:19 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176492964.782353.71230@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 11:06 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176486200.406099.272790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Earth being as wet and salty as it is; Where's the Mars salt?
It is hidden up Uranus.
Now that's certainly a good little Jewish Third Reich minion's worth
of a topic contribution.
Blah, blah, blah.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
13 Apr 2007 07:18:19 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 2:46 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Blah, blah, blah.
See what I mean.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
13 Apr 2007 08:01:51 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:46 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Blah, blah, blah.
See what I mean.
No one sees what you mean, Brad, you're incoherent.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
14 Apr 2007 04:25:04 PM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:130420071901516221%erfc@caballista.org...
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:46 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Blah, blah, blah.
See what I mean.
No one sees what you mean, Brad, you're incoherent.
I don't know, that time he got it spot on. All of brad's gibberish reads
like "Blah, blah.."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
13 Apr 2007 04:39:42 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
Earth being as wet and salty as it is; Where's the Mars salt?
Come on you silly folks, tell us where all of that Mars salt is
hidden.
It's called "share and share alike", or "to tell the truth", that Mars
is older than Earth and likely of a somewhat different origin than
Earth, as perhaps the same can be said of Venus, in that all the best
available science is actually telling us that it's somewhat less old
than Earth.
Why do you care, Brad?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
20 Mar 2007 02:25:27 PM |
|
|
Besides those of us electively ignoring that Earth has been getting
summarily GW traumatised by our very own massive and nearby salty old
moon, it seems we have another ongoing tit for tat with elective space
missions, as for those specifically intended for accommodating us
humans, whereas those two foremost future options being that of going
for Mars or Venus.
Going for Venus, instead of Mars that's rather badly lacking in salt,
need not be an all or nothing investment, and it's most certainly not
nearly as time consuming, as lethal and/or as horrifically spendy as
per going after Mars.
Utilizing the likes of space habitat POOFs at VL2 is quite doable, as
well within specs of what those nifty space depot structures are
capable of accomplishing at much less cost than anything ISS/ESS,
especially when Russian or Chinese launched and deployed, although
India and a few others should also be within the game plan.
A most basic data search for 'Bigelow' or 'POOF' should have
accomplished the trick as of years ago. As for otherwise I might have
to ask of those in doubt; which planet other than Earth did you folks
say you were from?
Much like the good sorts of Earth science that can easily if not best
obtained from our moon's L1, the Venus L2 outpost is perhaps offering
us even better degree of Earth science, as to understanding our
ongoing GW fiasco and of so much more.
In further speaking on behalf of utilizing VL2, I've also had to ask
of others; what's giving you folks the impression of our having to
relocate such an amount of mass?
The Ghost In The Machine:
6.5 billion people, of course. Did you not want to save humanity? :-)
Humanity has summarily screwed itself and of its frail environment in
more horrific ways than either of us can count, plus we now have such
a warm and fuzzy resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) as our born-again
pagan God, to thank for bringing us that much closer to WWIII, and
we're so much better off at making soot than making scientific
headway. So, there may not be all that many souls within our badly
failing environment that'll remain to salvage. However, VL2 is just
representing the best go-between, as a viable science platform or
space depot/gateway (potty rest-stop along the way to Venus, sort of
speak).
The Ghost In The Machine:
What exactly is your objective here?
Venus L2(VL2) is simply cool enough for hosting a nifty community of
those Bigelow POOFs, or whatever else you'd care to efficiently park
within that cool zone, and that's simply way better off than anything
ISS/ESS, or of most anything other than what my LSE-CM/ISS (Clarke
Station on tethers) has to offer.
The objective of VL2 is clearly scientific, and it's also offering by
far the most cost effective and viable interplanetary worthy
alternative in town. Venus is still the one and only known planet
that has more of whatever it takes for sustaining intelligent other
life, including on behalf of those few of us that are not totally
snookered and thus dumbfounded past the point of no return.
-
This following tidbit is what I've been having to share with a few
others that are hell bent upon doing Mars at all cost, so it's not as
such intended as for putting the likes of yourself down unless you too
believe that Mars is our one and only next pitstop.
Unless Earth or Mars are derived from somewhere other (the same being
said of our moon and Venus), there's simply insufficient Mars salt to
behold, and yet the ongoing investments into further exploring Mars
isn't in any way worthy of the past or ongoing efforts, at least not
for other than robust and clearly rad-hard robotics that couldn't all
that likely survive upon our somewhat salty and otherwise naked moon
that's causing so much GW trauma to our badly failing environment.
Usenet astronomy, physics and all sorts of related science remains
deathly afraid of their own MIB enforced status quo. It's clearly all
about the money, and of their otherwise having to somehow stick
everything within their Old Testament cultism, or else. ESA's Venus
EXPRESS mission is clearly having to operate in taboo/nondisclosure
mode, all because of their findings that simply do not support the
100% greenhouse or bust policy, and otherwise most likely causing a
greater degree of boat rocking from whatever their PFS instrument
readings are having to say, as only adding further insult to the
ongoing injury as caused by way of all those status quo lies we've
been told about Venus.
As I've had to stipulate upon the obvious from the very get-go;
Mars is only a 100% butt kicking go if whatever ongoing cost isn't a
factor, if decades of R&D plus mission time isn't a factor, if your
having to bring damn near everything imaginable along for the spendy
and potentially lethal to/from ride isn't a factor, if your not having
rad-hard DNA isn't a factor any more so than your not having half a
village idiot's brain isn't a factor. Otherwise, much like our
physically dark and reactive nasty moon, Mars is best suited for those
robust little rad-hard robots, that can if need be take on loads of
cosmic energy plus whatever direct meteorite hits and somewhat keep
right on ticking after thawing out each subfrozen to death night,
whereas we humans of frail DNA would need to pack along a rather
substantial cache of our banked bone marrow, and lots of ductape.
Otherwise, for a fat-waverider of an airship cruising above the bulk
of those acidic Venusian clouds, whereas it's still unavoidably made
solar warm by day, but otherwise becomes seriously a wee bit extra
cold by night, offering a rather good thermal difference to behold of
190=B0C, is why Venus gets so technically doable.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEMANY808BE_0.html
Higher in the atmosphere, above 110 kilometres, the mysteries
continue. In the higher atmosphere of a planet as close to the Sun as
Venus, why do we measure temperatures as low as 30 =B0C on the day side,
and even -160 =B0C on the night side?
"At around 60 kilometres altitude is a very thick cloud layer - a 20
kilometre-deep blanket surrounding the planet."
By which also means there's more than a few teratonnes worth of good
old fresh h2o available to easily extract, not to mention your having
all of the local renewable energy that you could possibly need as for
making that easily extracted h2o into the likes of h2o2 if need be.
Somewhat near the bottom (46+ km) zone of that robust Venus cloud deck
is also a rather nifty layer of S8 solids. Once situated well enough
below the S8 layer (say operating below 35 km by day and perhaps 25 km
by night) is where it gets much calmer and unavoidably warmer as
headed towards that geothermally active deck, a Venusian surface
that's emitting 20 some odd watts/m2 (emitting at least 256 fold
greater thermal energy than Earth's surface). Of course, not each and
every m2 is every bit as hot or as cool as any other, and of surface
elevations do exist where you could have a nighttime surface
environment of something less than 600 K, whereas many other active
zones of lava, mud ponds or of mud flows, or otherwise of those pesky
geothermal forced gas vents are most certainly more than smoking hot
spots to keep your distance from.
There's nothing that's technically all that insurmountable about
Venus, and thank God there's locally such an available cache of mucho/
spare and otherwise 100% renewable energy to burn (sort of speak).
With said available energy at thy disposal (of which obviously need
not be imported), there's almost nothing that can't be accommodated,
including while on the fly of utilizing that composite rigid airship,
or that of processing CO2-->CO/O2. Of course, the usual mainstream
box of status quo thinking, of what's mostly faith-based naysayism,
gets you nowhere.
Much like the ESA Venus EXPRESS mission's robust PFS instrument, the
composite rigid airship alternative is 100% doable within existing and
thus known technology. Its size doesn't actually matter, whereas with
applications of micro electronics means that such a composite airship
could be made extremely small (within as little as one cubic meter, or
at most a few meters worth of LOA), or because of the available
buoyancy and 90.5% gravity means that such a nifty composite airship
could otherwise become 10 fold larger than anything accomplished upon
Earth, as well as hauling 70 fold as much payload per m3.
Obviously you and others of your kind don't likely grasp nor otherwise
comprehend the most basic terminology meaning of "composite", or that
of being "rigid", or the matter of fact being that such an airship
would be operating as though efficiently within nearly a 10% density
of water that's actually made better by way of that buoyancy medium
being compeised mostly of clean and dry co2, which by the way is an
extremely easy element to keep outside of this Venusian configured
airship.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
20 Mar 2007 04:11:51 PM |
|
|
Where's all of the 1.5e17 kg of Mars salt?
That's roughly 1% of the total worth of all the salt upon Earth.
Even taking it down another notch to 1e17 kg of Mars salt; where is
it hiding?
How the heck did Earth get so much salt, and Mars didn't hardly get
squat?
What if Mars was supposed to be worth as much as 10% of our
terrestrial salt?
How does salt manage to migrate away from such an atmospheric
protected planet?
This seems especially extra weird if supposedly Mars isn't any older
than Earth.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Tobin" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
20 Mar 2007 09:07:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1174182067.660393.98440@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
Is English not your native language?
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
21 Mar 2007 02:17:17 AM |
|
|
On Mar 20, 6:07 pm, (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <1174182067.660393.98...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
Is English not your native language?
Silly boy, is the truth too much for your naysay mindset?
Is constructively contributing to the original topic asking too much?
How much salt does Mars actually have?
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
25 Mar 2007 01:55:45 PM |
|
|
Mars got salt? apparently not nearly enough.
Which species of Martians (likely Mulims) took most all of that salt
away?
Is Mars actually millions or perhaps a billion years older than Earth?
(must be)
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
07 Apr 2007 02:22:57 PM |
|
|
Mars is simply not hardly a slaty planet, and it's much older than
Earth.
I happen to agree with "Andrew Nowicki", that not one but many
significant impacting events must have morphed, iced down and
otherwise having so extensively salted the surface of Earth. Of
course, there's no such proof that Earth originated within this solar
system, and there's even less proof pertaining to our salty moon.
Mars seems much older than Earth, and Venus seems much less old than
Earth.
How much if any sial is on that deck of our physically dark and nasty
moon?
How much of a planetology common element does salt account for?
At times of such an icy proto-moon representing itself as an incoming
NEO, as likely having previously passed so close to impacting, it must
have seemed exactly like the end of the world to many, and actually
becoming the end of the world to many others caught in its gravity and
aerobraking wake. The actual glancing blow of that icy sucker upon
having accomplished its dastardly deed, whereas I'd have to think a
good third of most everything living upon this Earth would have been
killed off or traumatised well enough past the point of no return.
That "true geology" specified date of 11,700 BP also sounds just about
right on the money for the final lithobraking, ocean basin creating,
antipode worthy and seasonal tilt causing arrival of our moon, which
should have seriously kicked all sorts of planetology as well as human
butt upon its icy arrival. At the very least the near miss of such an
icy proto-moon should have been downright interesting, if not a touch
lethal for a great many.
There should also have been those significant teratonne spacebergs of
moon ice falling upon Earth for a few thousands of years past the time
of that initial glancing blow.
BTW; there's still nothing contained in any bible or koran, as
reasonably interpreted to our environment having that moon as of prior
to 10,000 BC (12,007 BP), or even of somewhat earlier or perhaps a bit
more recently. When exactly was the first humanly made record of our
moon?
What do you folks think about complex intelligent ET life, as for such
having survived their extended interstellar trek, as safely coexisting
within a few of those proto-moon ice caves? (I know that even I could
do as much [how about yourself?])
Within such a deep enough icy moon cave (assuming all the way down to
the moon's surface) would have accommodated all the essential elements
for survival, including sufficient isolation from the bad sorts of
cosmic and solar radiation, and otherwise having provided loads of
easily accessible O2 for sustaining our kind of frail DNA/RNA.
I'm thinking our moon could have been covered by as much as a 262 km
thick layer of salty ice, of which obviously lost much of its icy load
upon encountering Earth, and especially that of our 1AU nearby solar
energy would have summarily evaporated and/or having solar wind
extracted all such vapors of salty ice that wasn't otherwise safely
sequestered underground.
That pesky GW traumatising moon of ours is still in the process of
losing the remainders of its naked surface element of sodium. (not
nearly enough gravity nor having a magnetosphere as to otherwise
prevent the loss of such ice and sodium)
Too bad the faith-based souls of this Earth are so afraid of their own
shadows. Too bad we still haven't accomplished the Earth/moon science
platform as efficiently station-keeping itself within the moon's L1.
Too bad we're headed directly for WWIII over the remains of the
affordably accessible worth of global energy domination (including
yellowcake). Too bad that so many innocent folks have paid the
ultimate price, with lots more about to pay their's (especially nasty
if being Muslim is their only option within their established family
traditions).
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 11:08:27 AM |
|
|
Now I'm getting more of those "GOOGLE server ERROR" messages, as
though I've broken their robo moderated Usenet server. Of course, my
PC is also being summarily nailed to death by all the usual spermware/
fuckware they can muster, which might have a little something to do
with all the GOOGLE Usenet server down-time, and/or responsible for
most of those pesky server error messages that keep coming my way.
I'm also not the one that's topic/author stalking and otherwise
hijacking whatever off to those infomercial incest cesspools of
"alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks".
-
As having been reported by "captain.": If Mars supposedly kicks Venus
butt, then where's all the required butt kicking Martian salt?
Earth has its rather significant salt deposits, plus our salty oceans,
and our moon is still losing its salt, and without salt there is no
intelligent life as we know it.
Because of Mars being so much larger and otherwise more gravity
substantial than our moon, as well as for being so much further away
from the IR solar energy, and for otherwise having that mostly CO2
surrounding atmosphere means that whatever Mars salt existed as of a
billion years ago must still exist. This has to be the case unless
the origin of Mars is somehow different than the origin of Earth,
that's different again than our moon, and still different once again
than what's represented by the relatively newish planetology of Venus.
If Mars were ever alive and kicking with whatever life, as such that
salt of said life has to be there, doesn't it?
Salt can't possibly hide, nor is salt a difficult element to detect.
If salts were sufficiently heated, as they are upon our naked moon
that's supposedly more of a vacuum environment than not, as such these
salts unavoidably boil off and subsequently become easily detected via
optical/CCD or of even by way of good old Kodak film methods of taking
such observations seriously to task. Our moon is in fact still losing
sodium at perhaps 25 micrograms/m2/day, which means that our moon is
still the salty orb that likely deposited much of our terrestrial
salt, that which makes us what we are.
Much like an environment without diatoms, as well as if going without
salt means that evolved intelligent life, as well as most other forms
of life as we know it, simply wouldn't exist.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 12:12:36 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
Now I'm getting more of those "GOOGLE server ERROR" messages, as
though I've broken their robo moderated Usenet server. Of course, my
PC is also being summarily nailed to death by all the usual spermware/
fuckware they can muster, which might have a little something to do
with all the GOOGLE Usenet server down-time, and/or responsible for
most of those pesky server error messages that keep coming my way.
I'm also not the one that's topic/author stalking and otherwise
hijacking whatever off to those infomercial incest cesspools of
"alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks".
Still as clueless as ever.
-
As having been reported by "captain.": If Mars supposedly kicks Venus
butt, then where's all the required butt kicking Martian salt?
Earth has its rather significant salt deposits, plus our salty oceans,
and our moon is still losing its salt, and without salt there is no
intelligent life as we know it.
Because of Mars being so much larger and otherwise more gravity
substantial than our moon, as well as for being so much further away
from the IR solar energy, and for otherwise having that mostly CO2
surrounding atmosphere means that whatever Mars salt existed as of a
billion years ago must still exist. This has to be the case unless
the origin of Mars is somehow different than the origin of Earth,
that's different again than our moon, and still different once again
than what's represented by the relatively newish planetology of Venus.
If Mars were ever alive and kicking with whatever life, as such that
salt of said life has to be there, doesn't it?
Salt can't possibly hide, nor is salt a difficult element to detect.
If salts were sufficiently heated, as they are upon our naked moon
that's supposedly more of a vacuum environment than not, as such these
salts unavoidably boil off and subsequently become easily detected via
optical/CCD or of even by way of good old Kodak film methods of taking
such observations seriously to task. Our moon is in fact still losing
sodium at perhaps 25 micrograms/m2/day, which means that our moon is
still the salty orb that likely deposited much of our terrestrial
salt, that which makes us what we are.
Much like an environment without diatoms, as well as if going without
salt means that evolved intelligent life, as well as most other forms
of life as we know it, simply wouldn't exist.
See above. Why are you obsessed with "salt", Brad?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
31 Mar 2007 08:35:56 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 5:41 pm, wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
-
Brad Guth
You folks do realize that the planet Mars is not all that salty, don't
you.
Robotically we have been to Mars, and after having spent such years
and billions upon billions of hard earned dollars and euros looking at
and measuring damn near everything in sight, with lots more spending
and measuring to come, yet there's hardly any salt to behold.
We've also been to Venus multiple times, and lo and behold there too
is damn little salt and otherwise a geothermally hot deck that's still
getting rid of 20.5 w/m2 (roughly 256 fold more core energy than Earth
has to spare), and a somewhat nasty lower atmosphere of perhaps mostly
CO2 that's summarily chuck full of geothermally and/or of newish
planetology forced S8.
I think the supposed "disk model" of a singular solar system creation
is somewhat broken, or otherwise badly skewed off track by some weird
conditional laws of physics that only suits the Old Testament mindset.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
31 Mar 2007 09:10:52 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 5:41 pm, wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
-
Brad Guth
You folks do realize that the planet Mars is not all that salty, don't
you.
Robotically we have been to Mars, and after having spent such years
and billions upon billions of hard earned dollars and euros looking at
and measuring damn near everything in sight, with lots more spending
and measuring to come, yet there's hardly any salt to behold.
Only you care about "salt", Brad.
We've also been to Venus multiple times, and lo and behold there too
is damn little salt and otherwise a geothermally hot deck that's still
getting rid of 20.5 w/m2 (roughly 256 fold more core energy than Earth
has to spare), and a somewhat nasty lower atmosphere of perhaps mostly
CO2 that's summarily chuck full of geothermally and/or of newish
planetology forced S8.
I think the supposed "disk model" of a singular solar system creation
is somewhat broken, or otherwise badly skewed off track by some weird
conditional laws of physics that only suits the Old Testament mindset.
MI6/NSA is hiding underneath your bed, Brad.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 12:22:19 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 5:41 pm, wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
If Mars or any other orb than our moon and of Earth has its fair share
of salt; let us hear about it.
It seems a freeze dried planetology of Mars should be rather well
stocked with whatever remainders of salt(s), and it really shouldn't
have been all that hard to find.
As how otherwise explains the salt(s) of Earth, and that salt of our
moon that's still losing its sodium as we speak and/or type whatever
into this anti-think-tank Usenet.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 11:40:54 AM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 5:41 pm, wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
If Mars or any other orb than our moon and of Earth has its fair share
of salt; let us hear about it.
It seems a freeze dried planetology of Mars should be rather well
stocked with whatever remainders of salt(s), and it really shouldn't
have been all that hard to find.
As how otherwise explains the salt(s) of Earth, and that salt of our
moon that's still losing its sodium as we speak and/or type whatever
into this anti-think-tank Usenet.
You still has no clues about basic chemistry, Brad. Not a surprise.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 12:22:45 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 5:41 pm, wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
Obviously there's a Mars salt gap.
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 12:36:14 PM |
|
|
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 17, 5:41 pm, wrote:
MARS GOT SALT ?
Obviously there's a Mars salt gap.
Not at all, Brad, those pesky Venusians harvested all the free "salt"
lying about on Mars. You just haven't looked in the right place, go
back and recheck those radar images again.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Mars salt ? |
18 Mar 2007 12:36:31 PM |
|
|
Apparently Mars is seriously lacking in whatever salt, but otherwise
not the least bit lacking in the usual borg collective of brown nosed
clowns that keep popping out of those silly little MI/NSA clown cars.
Is there a little something Old Testament getting *****, or what?
Is this why I keep getting those pesky GOOGLE/Usenet posting error
messages?
Is this why my poor old PC is getting spermware/fuckware trashed via
Usenet servers?
Is this lid that's coming off the Jewish Third Reich need-to-know jar
of salt, yet another example of whatever else there is to know about?
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
