Sunlight alone doesn't insure life:

Just a brief topic reminder, that I tend to snip and/or ignore
whatever is boring or infomercial crapolla. Sorry about that,
although I will from time to time return the warm and fuzzy topic/
author stalking and bashing favor, with all the love and affection
that I and my battery of lose cannons can muster.

Unlike your typically bigoted anti-ET and/or anti most anything off-
world-intelligent mindset of this anti-think-tank Usenet that's more
Zionish naysayism than not, whereas I simply do not exclude whatever
rocks my boat, especially if it goes along with the regular laws of
physics and having some deductive degree or scope of science that's at
least capable of being replicated.

Though most other life isn't independently space travel worthy
(similar to 99.9999% of other complex life on Earth), never the less
ETs do exist, whereas otherwise our profound Usenet of such Zion borg
like naysayism has been noted from the very get go, as excluding
whatever's of other intelligent life, no matters what.

Interplanetary travels are in fact doable, with interstellar travels
using an icy proto-moon or planetoid that's going in the right
direction is also entirely doable, as providing the ultimate
spacecraft for safely accommodating such extended travels in case your
Federation ENTERPRISE craft isn't available.

Sunlight alone doesn't insure life; as you can have the most ideal of
a sun like our, as your world resides itself entirely within the zone
of life as we know it, and still be that of an inert or toxic plant or
moon that's otherwise summarily dead as far as DNA, much less of
anything intelligent worthy unless having been imported and
artificially sustained.

The odds on behalf of other life (intelligent or not) existing,
coexisting and/or having evolved on some other than Earth like wet and
salty planet, or atmospheric enhanced moon, are going to be rather
great if there's still local geothermal energy to being had, and
otherwise such other life is somewhat limited if nonexistent should
that planet or moon be a cold one without any significant elements of
other local energy at its disposal. Unless there's an artifical
source of imported energy provided, as for otherwise, a thin
atmosphere is not exactly a good sign, unless that orb has one heck of
a terrific magnetosphere that's good for at least 10 billions of
years.

A robust atmosphere, even if basically S8+CO2 or otherwise toxic to us
wet humans, is actually a good sign of what's possible to exist/
coexist within that environment (hot or cold).

Of the life on Earth that's most important of all being diatoms, is
worthy of our appreciating, whereas removing such diatoms from our
environment would have absolutely dire and lethal consequences, with
few if any biological or physiological adaptations that could manage
to circumvent that shortage or gap of evolution or the sustaining of
whatever panspermia.

Cosmic life may yet be entirely unlike anything on Earth. However,
the likely panspermia of complex DNA life arriving into our 98.5%
fluid world of such a nifty self-replicating planetary environment,
along with this Earth having some of its own energy and a fairly
protective magnetosphere in addition to it's diatom sustained
atmosphere, is what seems the more likely method of a given planet
being terraformed by happenstance or via intelligent design.

BTW, cosmic sunlight usually includes a much wider spectrum of energy
than provided by our somewhat wussy sun. For example, the spectrums
of energy derived from the Sirius star system far out-performs on
behalf of cultivating essential DNA formation, than is otherwise
available by the filtered spectrum of what relatively passive solar
energy we have to work with, especially of the UV moderated portion
that gets through our polluted air, along with hosting 100+ teratonnes
of h2o that's an important part of our atmosphere, which defends us
from the solar and cosmic soft and hard-Xrays, while otherwise
moderating the gamma spectrum enough so that our frail DNA has a
fighting chance.

Of course, with applied physics and of utilizing technology is what
makes most any planet or moon usable by various intelligent forms of
life (such as us). At least that's exactly what we humans accomplish
whenever having to survive within such environments that are otherwise
lethal to our survival in the buff, and you'd think ETs smart enough
to be getting around would be at least capable of their expertise
being one up on us.

Unfortunately, our usual faith-based methods of having skewed the past
and/or having excluded such evidence of other life as having been
existing/coexisting on or off-world, is simply a whole lot more
systematic pathetic than merely unfortunate. Much of the opposition
to whatever discovery of anything that's off-world intelligent is
usually based upon the published record, of which only they control.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

If you have a physically dead/inert planet or moon, as such only
applied technology as imported is going to save whatever butts that
dare to venture about on that solar illuminated but otherwise forsaken
orb.

No amount of ideal sunshine is ever going to make any such inert
planet or moon livable to the slow pace of evolution as we know it,
whereas only smart enough ETs are going to manage whatever actions
taken on behalf of depositing or extracting whatever from that
inactive orb.

An active planetology like Venus is quite another thing, and every 19
months it's within 100 fold the distance of our somewhat salty old
moon that's so naked and thus anticathode reactive.
-
Brad Guth

Sunlight and even a good amount of applied intelligence isn't all
there is to life as we know it, whereas it also takes an interactive
planet that's far from dead in of itself. Meaning that an inactive
planet such as Mars is a good example of a lost cause, whereas a
newish and obviously geothermally active planet such as Venus is where
most of the future action is, that is unless we can manage to save our
own world from its over-populated swarms of souls, that for the most
part haven't been allowed to having an honest clue.

The future simply isn't ours to behold, especially if our existing
swarm collectives are opposed to the honest advancements by way of
their allowing and/or perpetrating such a global energy fiasco, as to
exist over the continued global pillaging of fossil and yellowcake
fuels as being extensively consumed by less than 10% of the
population.

Including many terrestrial energy altennatives that are clean and
renewable, there's other space exploration related technology that's
doable, but, will any of it happen in time to save us from ourselves?
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gs...p_i_02_N54.pdf

In order to make nifty things happen that are good for us and our
environment, we'll need a clean terrestrial resource of energy, such
as fortified by h2o2.

The wind, sun and tidal energy is offering way more than enough
renewable resource for the makings of h2o2, and even of those
conventional LH2/LO2 products, without demanding one extra kwhr as
obtained from fossil or yellowcake fuels.

There is no such shortage of clean and fully renewable energy to
behold, we're just not being allowed to directly benefit from such
local or home brewed alternatives because, the likes of Exxon/ENRON
can't get their usual 90% fair share cut of the action.

Why now in addition to all of the usual rusemasters of Usenet, we have
the warm and fuzzy likes of Usenet lord/wizard Damien Valentine, that
want us to think there's absolutely nothing faith-based ever
responsible for anything bad going down. All the sudden there's not
one such faith-based group (other than supposedly those pesky Muslims)
at fault to behold, and of all that's so terribly wrong simply isn't
the fault of anyone if there's any swarm mindset to honestly consider.

.....Congress Wrestles with replacing Fossil Fuels.!

Unfortunately, this ongoing fight of our lives has been fixed from the
very get go, whereas our very own elected swarm of $congress$ wrestles
mostly with its own private parts, and then applies every other Zion
swarm like trick in their dirty Old Testament black book in order to
wrestle with our private parts, a whole lot more so than honestly
dealing with God's truth about promoting clean renewable energy, that
which could easily have replaced the vast bulk of fossil and
yellowcake fuels (just ask Willie Moo, Warren Buffet or countless
others if you want a second, third or forth opinion).

On behalf of consuming such spendy fossil or bio fuels, a clean
100+mpg in a Hummer-H2 is in fact doable, and otherwise 200+mpg for
the rest of us village idiots without those nifty H2s, and without
either one of us discharging NOx to boot. God forbid, we can't have
that sort of clean and energy efficient outcome if it's not keeping
the likes of Exxon/ENRON as happy campers.

Whatever is accomplished via our warm and fuzzy $Congress$ is simply
for the almighty buck and/or vote. Usually at best it's too little to
late unless we really want it bad enough that whatever the excessive
cost or delay isn't a factor. I bet you folks in charge can't hardly
wait to zoom the rest of pass the $1/Kwhr mark (plus mega loads of
soot, CO2, NOx and spent nuclear fuels plus several related DNA toxic
elements as Ra--Rn222 included at no extra charge).

Of course at best our human global warming factor is worth perhaps 25%
of the actual reason we're losing the bulk of our ice and otherwise
continually having to pay the ultimate price. At the ongoing rate of
extracting 100 million tonnes of our food per year from our polluted
and becoming dead-zone populated oceans, along with fewer than ever
diatoms available and a badly failing magnetosphere is why global
polluting and thus assisting in warming our environment is soon enough
becoming the least of our survival problems.

It's not that the required physics and science doesn't exist, whereas
it's the butt-saving swarm mindset that's keeping the whole truth and
nothing but the truth from emerging until every last bit of hard
earned loot is extracted from our pockets. Therefore, it's ourselves
at fault for having allowed our collective swarms to control this
infomercial spewing superhighway. In other words, apparently via
modern evolution we're no longer smart enough to grab onto the brass
ring, much less protect our private parts from the swarm mindset that
has no intentions of ever letting go of any such brass ring, or that
of our private parts.

Basically we're not going in the right direction, as we're stuck in
the fossil and yellowcake dark ages, and at the rate we're going is
why hell on Earth isn't ever going to see another ice age, much less
enough dry land to go around, and our frail DNA simply isn't mutating
fast enough to becoming rad-hard. So, we have a few problems that are
not getting the attention they need, and as being swarm orchestrated
is why we're still looking in all the wrong places.
-
Brad Guth

It's nice our having a sun as having been made nearly passive by such
a robust magnetosphere plus 10 tonnes/m2 worth of a sufficient
atmosphere. However, in spite of what the mainstream status quo has
to say, a given sun is not actually required if your planet or even
livable moon is sufficiently massive and/or geothermally active for
whatever reasons, including the thick ice covered option, and has that
ample cache of renewable or that of its core energy to draw upon.

Much like our once upon a time icy proto-moon, Venus is quite the
interstellar worthy planet, that which could have migrated from away
one solar system that may have been going red giant postal, as for
moving over to another nearby passive solar system without such a
interstellar trek having lost all possible forms of its terrestrial
evolved life. Having established that robust atmosphere of CO2, S8
and good old N2 would have been exactly what their doctor ordered.

BTW, our old cold-war Blackbird SR-71, cruising at 85,000' and mach
3.2, with an outer skin temperature of 1200 degree F is a good 200
degrees C hotter than Venus. Yet each and every time the crew of any
such Blackbird returned to the tarmac, as though none worse off for
ware.
-
Brad Guth

It has been nice our having a sun around, as having been made nearly
passive by such a robust magnetosphere plus 10 tonnes/m2 worth of a
sufficient atmosphere as our primary shield with low antichathode
properties, and having somewhat recently obtained our seasonal tilt
and tidal causing moon. However, in spite of what the mainstream
status quo has to say, a given sun is not actually required if your
planet or even livable moon is sufficiently massive and/or
geothermally active for whatever reasons, as well as including the
thick ice covered option, and having that ample cache of renewable or
that of its substantial core energy to draw upon.

Much like our once upon a time icy proto-moon, Venus is quite the
interstellar worthy planet, that which could have migrated away from
one solar system that may have been going red giant postal, as for
moving over to another nearby passive solar system without such a
interstellar trek having lost all possible forms of its terrestrial
evolved life. Having established that robust atmosphere of CO2, S8
and good old N2 would have been exactly what their doctor ordered.

BTW, our good old perpetrated cold-war's Blackbird SR-71, as for
cruising along at 85,000' and mach 3.2, with an outer skin temperature
of 1200 degree F is actually more than a good 200 degrees C hotter
than Venus. Yet each and every time the crew of any such Blackbird
SR71 returned to the tarmac, it's as though each being none the worse
off for ware.

Sort of makes you wonder, as to what in hell is the insurmountable
problem with our accomplishing Venus, especially if wearing that
Ovglove jumpsuit along with enough ice cold beer in hand.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 4:43 am, BradGuth wrote:

snip extended example of online self-loathing

Surely you mean "ensure" rather than "insure"?

Perhaps "inshore" would be more biologically relevant to your
monologue?

Are you an example of flawed AI clutching at straws or 1000 chimps
armed with broken typewriters?

We should be told!

On Jul 9, 1:57 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Jul 6, 4:43 am, BradGuth wrote:

snip extended example of online self-loathing

Surely you mean "ensure" rather than "insure"?

Perhaps "inshore" would be more biologically relevant to your
monologue?

Are you an example of flawed AI clutching at straws or 1000 chimps
armed with broken typewriters?

We should be told!

Is that another damage control pun via your Zion swarmism?
-
Brad Guth

Having a binary partner of a brown dwarf/spent star is actually more
than good enough, although if the planet core is massive enough and
otherwise not too old to begin with (such as Venus) is also doable as
is for interstellar space travels or migrations without having a sun
like star to light your way.

Having a local cache of energy is what counts the most. Having a
nearby mascon of a spent brown dwarf star as your moon is one better,
or even that of a salty and extremely icy moon has obvious life
transport and sustaining benefits to share.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 13, 9:40 am, BradGuth wrote:
Having a binary partner of a brown dwarf/spent star is actually more
than good enough, although if the planet core is massive enough and
otherwise not too old to begin with (such as Venus) is also doable as
is for interstellar space travels or migrations without having a sun
like star to light your way.

Having a local cache of energy is what counts the most. Having a
nearby mascon of a spent brown dwarf star as your moon is one better,
or even that of a salty and extremely icy moon has obvious life
transport and sustaining benefits to share.
-
Brad Guth

Put yer tinfoil hat back on and take your meds Retard.

On Jul 13, 6:55 am, huskerdont wrote:
Put yer tinfoil hat back on and take your meds Retard.

Yet another Zion approved naysayer comes to our rescue.
-
Brad Guth