![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
for? Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour cycle too little? Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered CMs that's insurmountable? What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon? - "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's not technically positive about relocating our moon to Earth's L1 | BradGuth | Policy | 44 | September 29th 07 07:47 PM |
Earth's gravity apparently captured a tiny asteroid that ventured too near our ... Earth's "Other Moon". April 17, 2007. by Roger W. Sinnott | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | April 24th 07 05:58 AM |
Magma from the Earth's Moon | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 27th 07 04:11 AM |
Venus and Earth's Moon | Jason P. Bodine | Misc | 46 | July 10th 04 07:31 PM |