| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Brad Guth" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2005 11:45:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: How much of Earth is shrinking; 10 mm/year? |
"bz; If time is short, a combination of the above, and perhaps your
laser cannon and some strategic H bombs to nudge it into a near miss
rather than a direct hit."
I believe you're talking about somewhat fairly large but otherwise
somewhat low mass/m3 rocks of less than 2t/m3, of which our atmosphere
would accomplish a fairly good job of diverting and/or converting such
items to something manageable before impact.
Whereas a 10+t/m3 density item isn't necessarily going to be all that
physically large but extremely capable of arriving upon Earth mostly in
tact. In which case there's not a great deal to latch onto, however a
0.05 milliradian beam or an array of such beams should enable the
necessary range and thermal contributions that'll help divert something
into the moon whereas we'll get the most bang for our buck while
generating lunar atmosphere at the same time, and obviously once and
for all eliminating the NEO threat.
At 10t/m3, even a truly nasty 10,000 tonne item isn't very large
(10x10x10 meters), however it's potential rate of velocity to that of
encountering Earth or event our moon could easily be 30+km/s. Diverting
such into the moon seems by far a whole lot better off than chancing a
near miss of mother Earth, not to mention to whatever come-back
possibility of such a diverted item getting even closer and most likely
faster at that.
"bz; don't waste energy by putting it at the bottom of the gravity
well."
I couldn't agree more, as per wasting energy isn't wise nor even safe
for the environment of Earth. However, using our moon as a galactic
punching bag seems like a perfectly sane win-win from where I'm
sitting.
A little off topic but certainly another potential threat at something
better than 1t/m3 is regarding ice in space; Is there any hard-science
as to it's existence and of how such would have survived in any
sufficient amount(s) as to populating the likes of Mars, Earth and
Venus with raw H2O.
Surely whatever's H2O didn't materialize itself from the likes of any
BIG BANG or hardly that of our sun. Perhaps long after the fact of
something other is what must have created water which then became ice,
or was it vise versa?
So, where's the all-knowing physics source of said ice, and how did it
ever manage to survive the absolute vacuum of space when there were
such terrific volumes of those trillions upon trillions of photons/atom
representing a rather considerable energy influx/m3?
Within a near perfect vacuun having such loads of influx energy, how is
it even possible for raw ice to coexist?
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: How much of Earth is shrinking; 10 mm/year? |
30 Mar 2005 05:52:55 PM |
|
|
Back on topic of Earth shrinking;
Give or take, if Earth has been shrinking by as little as 1 mm/year
and, what if we keep tossing those bricks of natural and human
pollution into our oceans; guess what happens?
Of what ends up within our lakes and oceans displaces said waters and,
thereby rising of those waters in respect to the remaining dry land
that for the most part isn't getting itself any higher, as well as for
those oceans having to spread out as to covering a greater proportion
of Earth. The growing factors of various m3/year offers a rather
significant amount that's also getting contributed to by the influence
of humanity, especially of the last century when the artificial energy
consumption has been increasing exponentially as well as having the end
result of physical contributions arriving into our oceans as what's
taking the brunt of the human impact.
Since most of whatever's a lose substance that gets created and/or
disturbed by nature or by humanity, it seems perfectly clear that those
amounts eventually end up within the oceans, at least 75% of whatever's
introduced into the air must fall into and/or near the oceans, with the
bulk of whatever remainder transferring within a given year by way of
getting washed into the oceans by rivers and storms, of which the
increased numbers of, temperament and/or velocity of said storms and
just plain old snow and ice melts are off the charts from whatever's
been recorded. Few if any glaciers are growing, most having been
significantly reduced and/or entirely vanished, and there's more of the
arctic and antarctic circles offering dry or soggy land and raw water
as becoming exposed, as well as the likes of Greenland getting exposed
which is offering a rather considerable energy accomplishment
considering the thickness of what's packed on top of Greenland.
This following list is simply a conservative notion of the cubic meters
displacing oceans.
1) Erosions carried off by rivers and of continual coastal decay
1e12
2) Storm mud and rock flows and landslides other than by rivers
3e11
3) Accelerated snow & ice melts greater than a thousand years ago
4e10
4) Volcanic contributions into the rivers and atmosphere
1e10
5) Fossil & organic fuels converted into solids
4e9
6) Diatoms & other life having become solids
4e9
7) Ocean floor upwellings (new wet/dry land)
1e9
8) Terrestrial sand and dust deposits
1e9
9) Artificial biomass, structurals & ocean fills
5e7
10) ET influx (net physical amount reaching the surface)
1e4
--------------------
Total ocean fill =
1.36005001e12 m3/year
Earth shrinkage by one mm/y = 5e11 m3 would push the fill to
2.16005001e12 m3/year
Therefore, even if the physical influx of ET debris is actually a
thousand fold greater than reported by the above conservative estimate
of 1e4 m3, that's still only 1.36006e12 m3/year. Even if the artificial
contributions of various structurals as to our displacing and/or
filling oceans is ten fold greater is still not a significant factor
compared to the top 8 items that represents better than 99.99% of
what's causing our oceans to rise. Obviously a significant ice melt is
going to shift that balance ratio to something far greater than
99.999%, which is only going to add insult to global injury by the fact
of further increasing storms and droughts which will only further
increase the primary erosions carried off by rivers and coastal decay
that'll end upon in our oceans.
Roughly, within a million years (with or w/o humanity and w/o Earth
shrinkage) waters will obviously have risen and thereby expanded to
cover perhaps as much as 80% of Earth, thus 10% more available surface
area for the evaporation process and thereby 10% more dark substance
for the solar energy to get absorbed into, that plus the fact that
there'll become even less snow and ice covered surface which has to
thereby represent dark and/or typically soot covered land for the solar
energy absorbson and lo and behold, the entire albedo of Earth could
shift by yet another 5%, making the total albedo shift of -10% from a
thousand years ago. And, if you still don't get my dyslexic drift, why
don't you ask?
As for tossing in a measurable factor of global shrinkage from
geological cooling and lo and behold, even by one mm/year is going to
suck at contributing 5e11 m3/year, whereas 10 mm/y would have to equal
5e12 m3/year, which is not saying that certain parts of dry land
wouldn't have been pushed up, while a few other zones continue to sink
and/or erode faster than whatever deposits are contributing. Either
way, Earth has not been getting itself bigger and, oceans are in fact
getting larger in area but not necessarily deeper, just spreading out
as more and more land gets covered by water. Thus the effective rate of
ocean displacement caused by Earth shrinkage is only next to the
ongoing erosions and, if Earth isn't shrinking by 1 mm/y, I guess that
I'm still one of the village idiots that wants to know, since all other
planets seem to have shrunken with age and subsequent cooling, why
hasn't Earth?
What it's looking like is that there has to be a geological 'RESET' of
sorts, as otherwise eventually the likes of Earth might end up being
90% water covered and summarily wet although hotter than holy hell, to
a point where whatever remaining humanity would have been looking
forward to a good old ice-age and all that'll result from becoming
frozen solid. At least that way the cycle of Earth coming out of the
next ice-age would certainly carve the surface into those new and quite
interesting terrains, with the entire cycle of life having to reinvent
various gods plus warlords and WMD. Of course, that still doesn't
explain where all the coal, oil and natural gas deposits came from in
the first place, since a given ice-age cycle in of itself isn't going
to create such deposits, at least not per individual 105,000 year
ice-age cycle unless there's one heck of a growth spurt for the likes
of diatoms and all other biological considerations, but more than
likely such accumulations are from millions of years involving perhaps
dozens of ice-ages.
For that sort of energy influx and thus environmental 'RESET' on behalf
of geological as well as vast biological conversions to have
transpired, my limited research and ongoing thoughts as to the Sirius
star system being our key +/- thermal and rather considerable near-UV
and UV/a photon energy factor is what should have been far enough away
by now to have started up our natural cycle of another ice-age. As that
natural cycle having been somewhat disrupted by the pollution of
humanity, and that our eventual return towards Sirius will only become
our final demise unless we've managed to get ourselves smart as to
having a serious grip upon fusion energy and/or appropriately utilize
the available solar energy we've got, of which solar has been way more
than what's needed for sustaining even the most lavish of life styles
for every soul upon Earth, and without hardly another tonne of related
pollution at that. If anything, 0.1% of Earth's surface becoming
solar/sterling should actually have cooled us off a wee bit.
Conservatively, we should have at least another 64,000 some odd years
to essentially ***** or get off the pot, whereas by then the incest
cloned likes of GW Bush will have had to have exterminated better than
90% of humanity and/or starved them out by way of dominating global
energy and holding onto dry land to the point of being will past the
WW-III point of no return, or that we'll have nearly all been flooded
to our deaths by the horrific storms and rising oceans that our
resident commander and chief village idiot warlord has brought upon us
without a stitch of remorse. By then the rather obvious stellar motions
will have been telling us what many didn't want to know about our
associations with the Sirius star system as being our true place of
birth, chances are that whatever social/political wars (hot or cold)
will have to give way to a new and improved round of religious wars
that'll suck the remaining life out of humanity. Thus either way you're
dead meat even if you're not a Cathar, Islamic or Muslim.
Of course, since the human mindset factors of whatever's physics and
science is actually what sucks worse off the environment of Earth,
whereas chances are that regardless of the numbers and/or logic which
I've provided is only going to insure that the flak remains thick in
the air and that only the utmost negative efforts are going to be
applied with their focused intent of topic and author bashings, if not
banishments. Thus rather than folks contributing their honest talents
and resources that'll be necessary in order to cope with our eventual
demise, if anything the real battles will become involved with those of
defending from ourselves, making the term 'friendly fire' seem like
another preschool game. As I've said before, these all-knowing physics
and science folks will just as soon eat their own kind as to admit
they're wrong, much less worshiping the wrong pagan gods, which is
usually the foremost god that represents the almighty dollar. As for
another buck or research extension, these folks have seemingly if not
actually killed off one another, and without remorse as for taking out
all others as collateral sport if need be (an example being our
perpetrated cold-wars and now 9/11 with no apparent end in sight).
-
This closing rant is contributed for the ongoing benefit of others (The
New York Times, The Washington Post and any other news media plus
whatever general topic newcomers), and not that any of this topic
matters to those without a stitch of remorse outside of whatever
appeases their MI6/NSA pagan NASA/Apollo cold-war or bust God(s), as in
spite of their spermware flak having the intent as to kill-off my PC if
not myself, within my spare dyslexic time I've slightly polished on my
external 'gv-topics.htm' page, and I'm remaining intent upon working on
other pages as soon to be improved. As I learn more that can be
independently supported by the regular laws of physics, by sufficient
hard-science and subjectively honest interpretations of whatever I have
been given to work with, as best I'll share that knowledge, which will
likely include revisions and retractions upon any number of what I've
offered thus far. Unfortunately, since I'm unfunded and on the usual
'need-to-know' bases with regard to anything that might rock a
mainstream boat, and that my PC is being continually attacked with
NSA/MI6 spermware, it seems this process is going to take many
thousands of my lose cannon shots before the truth and nothing but the
truth is ever going be told. And I bet you thought the likes of big and
fully loaded aircraft smashing into fully occupied tall buildings was
as bad as it gets; think again.
Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
