Our Moon as BattleStar

(Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:_EwUb.408259$ts4.385677@pd7tw3no...

Look I don't want to argue with any lower forms of life on this planet OK?

I know Steve has a battle planet, and I know Jonesy has a battle planet,
and unless the one above our heads belongs to David, then it must be mine.

Now I watched as David spinned the thing one full revolution right
after telling me he was about to. So I'm sorry but your gravlock
theory is just pure bunk.

The only thing in question here is who brought it through the worhole.

And as you can see by the work done at Naval Space Command to determine
this, the jury is still out.

Check out this Navy TYCHO link, where they discuss the wormholes
near Jupiter and Mars, at lagrangian points.

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/trojan.html

Now listen- slowly, carefully, open your fingers, remove the hand
from around your weener...

-Mark Martin

* wrote:

On 5 Feb 2004 20:44:03 -0800, (M
Fielding) wrote:

What were you smoking when you posted this?

'sobie' is one of the nyms the psychological operatives use
in the aliens newsgroups.

"Psychological operative" is one of the fantasies used by few
terminally geeky jerkoffs, airheads, retards, little kids, and
possibly some perverts who use newsgroups to stalk them.

(Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:1YoSb.330011$JQ1.286938@pd7tw1no...
In article , says...

how about the Moon as Noah's Arch?

It is much too big to be a nanobot.

No ****, Sherlock.

In article , ULL says...


thinking the moon is revolving and orbiting. I'll leave it
to Sobie to formulate the "how," i.e., the mathematical
model of such motion (he started this nonsense), and I'll


I must have missed this important bit of information.

Well this should be abundantly clear to any true mathmocosmotologist,
such as yourself, that in fact, the moon is the center of the universe.

However, we exist in a multiverse, therefore it is meaningless to
say, that here or there is the center of the universe, as it is
only relative to the hypotenuese, of the sum, of the other two
sides of the moon itself.

As can clearly be seen in the TYCHO links which I previously provided
and I do not wish to provide again, lest Carl, get his panties
in a knot.

In article XiRUb.420853$ts4.193692@pd7tw3no, says...

In article , ULL says...


thinking the moon is revolving and orbiting. I'll leave it
to Sobie to formulate the "how," i.e., the mathematical
model of such motion (he started this nonsense), and I'll


I must have missed this important bit of information.

Well this should be abundantly clear to any true mathmocosmotologist,
such as yourself, that in fact, the moon is the center of the universe.

However, we exist in a multiverse, therefore it is meaningless to
say, that here or there is the center of the universe, as it is
only relative to the hypotenuese, of the sum, of the other two
sides of the moon itself.

As can clearly be seen in the TYCHO links which I previously provided
and I do not wish to provide again, lest Carl, get his panties
in a knot.



And while you are still scratching your head, and before you can
formulate your question regarding the larger of the square
impact craters on the moon's surface, I will answer your question.

The larger square impact crater, was caused by collision with a comet,
and as you know, comets are primarily made of ice. In this case
in ice cube form.

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:XiRUb.420853$ts4.193692@pd7tw3no...
In article ,
ULL says...


thinking the moon is revolving and orbiting. I'll leave it
to Sobie to formulate the "how," i.e., the mathematical
model of such motion (he started this nonsense), and I'll


I must have missed this important bit of information.

Well this should be abundantly clear to any true mathmocosmotologist,
such as yourself, that in fact, the moon is the center of the universe.

However, we exist in a multiverse, therefore it is meaningless to
say, that here or there is the center of the universe, as it is
only relative to the hypotenuese, of the sum, of the other two
sides of the moon itself.

As can clearly be seen in the TYCHO links which I previously provided
and I do not wish to provide again, lest Carl, get his panties
in a knot.

Tell us about the wormholes again, Uncle Ricky!

Jim

(Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:W3jSb.332577$X%5.21232@pd7tw2no...
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/Mo..._Glactica.html


Wow for a second time! still not bad ideas, could even be worth a shot
at others terraforming the likes of Earth, Mars and Venus. Along those
lines, here's a little something other that's worth doing, or at least
considering, especially if this 110,000 year timeline of the Sirius
orbit plays anything into your "Battle Star" scheme of things.

Don't ask me what the heck Sirius/abc is orbiting, as I have no idea
whatsoever, although it's fairly certain that at one time Sirius was
sufficiently close by our solar system to have sufficiently
illuminated and thereby boosted the photosynthesis levels, in order to
so have subsequently affected the reduction of CO2, though upon a
110,000 year cycle seems every bit as possible as not.

This following rant may be a little too much, as in over the heads of
folks generally opposing anything that's going against their "status
quo", such as thinking of Sirius as sort of a "once upon a time" NEO
in relationship to our solar system is certainly outside the big box.

"Sirius (A1Vm) delivers UV cycle of life for Mars, Earth and Venus"

I've recently acquired an understanding about Sirius, that of roughly
every 110,000 years is when the Sirius/abc group of stars gets
seriously close by, perhaps a little too close for comfort should that
encounter achieve much under 0.01 ly.

Latest Sirius entry, with graphics (Feb. 03, 2004):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm

LUMINOSITY is but a comparison of a star's intrinsic brightness
compared to the Sun (where Sun's luminosity = 1) whereas Sirius offers
somewhat of an ultra white "A1Vm" main sequence star of 23 ~ 26 times
brighter than our Sun, although that's still as perceived by human
vision and not inclusive of the UV spectrum. The spectral type "A1Vm"
implies an effective temperature of 9600+K and a mass roughly twice
that of the sun.

Based upon a visual perception, at 0.01 ly is where Sirius might come
across as offering a magnitude 16, as compared to our solar magnitude
of 27 seems like Sirius is still a non issue. However, the peak energy
spectrum of just Sirius/a is supposedly 314 nm instead of the visible
500 nm of our sun, and as such offering many magnitude advantages over
what our sun has to deliver, where perhaps that's worth another
magnitude 10 on top of the visible magnitude 16, plus now having such
worthy illuminations that are more often than not coming at us from
two directions at the same time. I'm thinking about this visual+UV
spectrum magnitude should place Sirius at an equivalent energy level
of perhaps 26 when taking into account those rather enormous energy
factors of UV and near UV spectrums are included.

Keeping further in mind that Sirius/b suggest an effective temperature
of about 32,000+K, thus making it way hotter than our sun, so much so
that even this tiny star emits about 900 times more radiant energy per
square meter of surface than our sun does. In other words, Sirius/b is
mostly UV/abc central, with only a relatively small percentage offered
as visible and IR spectrum. The lesser perceived visual luminosity
factor as compared to Sirius/a represents that Sirius/b has a
relatively small surface area, that is to say, that the star is in
deed highly compact and thereby classified as a white dwarf. None the
less, Sirius/b would surely only add further insult to injury whenever
this Sirius star system were within cruising range as passing our
solar system at a mere 0.01 ly, especially whenever within 3/4 of the
internal 50 year cycle where Sirius/b appears to reside along side of,
or between Sirius/a and that of our solar system.

Even though, for some God forsaken reason(s), Mars still remains our
mainstream media and astronomy focus, thus representing such a spendy
freaking joke, while we're entirely ignoring the greater implications
as for considering upon those of Sirius terraforming the likes of
Venus, that which would have been so much easier accomplished as of
40,000 years ago, and/or of 150,000 years past and so forth, as this
sort of near juncture must also have offered a fairly similar
opportunity for that of doing Earth and even Mars, just as our CO2
counts were indirectly reduced by this horrific influx of UV
illuminating as a gift of life, creating at times the global
environment of nearly 24/7 photosynthesis as being delivered by the
likes of Sirius, along with our normal solar contributions. Obviously
this added UV influx wasn't essential for Earth, as it would have been
for Mars and perhaps even benefitting Venus.

At nearest juncture (say 0.01 ly), Sirius would have created a
gravitational pull upon Pluto, that would have badly skewed it's
orbit, whereas Pluto might even have thawed out for a mere few hundred
or so years worth, clearly making it an unworthy candidate of
terraforming regardless of whatever applied technology. In other
words, you don't bother seeding any planet that's having to go into
ultra sub-freezing and irradiated to death mode for the next 100,000+
years, as what would be the point?

The prospect of terraforming Mars on the other hand may have been
worth a shot, even though lesser gravity being responsible for a
thinner atmosphere holding capability would have left all those on
Mars with a somewhat serious dilemma of surviving those incoming
meteorites, along with much greater cosmic radiation levels, though if
initially there were sufficient planetary mineral and thus natural
energy solutions, even life on a relatively cold and irradiated planet
could have managed, at least up until the last drop of accessible
energy had been extracted.

Consider if you well; upon the very nature of any planet capable of
hosting a sufficient degree of cloud cover, especially if that cloud
cover could be artificially induced into including additional mass, as
well as filtering agents, such as sulphur. As now you've created a
global environmental shield surround that's not only become nearly
meteorite proof but also quite nicely filtering out a good deal of
those bad UV and of buffering and/or shedding those more lethal
radiation spectrums, yet allowing more than a sufficient spectrum
bandwidth of 350~450 nm to slip through, giving the much needed
surface illuminations, while essentially blocking the direct impact of
the horrific IR as well as for diminishing the undesirable influx of
UV/abc to a point where sufficiently advanced life becomes survivable,
in spite of those horrific side effects of creating a rather massive
greenhouse.

If you've got surplus energy, you can certainly deal with a little too
much heat and even of not enough O2, although without such a
sufficient global atmospheric density as your primary shield, all the
energy in the universe isn't going to save your butt from the gauntlet
of solar and cosmic influx, not to be forgetting about those pesky
meteorites, like all those strewn about Mars, and of worse off being
of what's impacting our moon.

Without having such a dense atmosphere and accommodating cloud cover,
sunrise on Venus wouldn't represent the mere 5~10% increase in their
ambient, but more than likely several hundred percent, creating an
intolerable infernal differential that even highly educated folks
would be hard pressed to deal with. As in addition to those wild
day/night thermal variation, there'd be a horrifically wide spectrum
influx of solar and cosmic radiation to fend off. So thereby, as for
being parked closer to a sun, especially of any Sirius class sun, the
thicker and denser your atmosphere the better, plus having an
extremely slow planetary rotation can be just as essential if
remaining nocturnal becomes another facet of your survival equation.

If our relatively minor solar system can somehow manage to host such a
clouded planet like Venus, then it's entirely possible that something
other created and/or modified for the likes of orbiting Sirius could
have survived in spite of our ignorance (imagine that, the thought of
folks actually smarter then GW Bush).

BTW; There's still way more than a darn good chance of there being
other life of some sort existing on Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Some good but difficult warlord readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND
PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm

David Sereda (honest ideas and notions upon UV energy), for best
impact on this one, you'll really need to barrow his video tape:
http://www.ufonasa.com

The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm

Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm

(Rick Sobie) wrote:

In article
,
says...

"bookman" wrote in message
...
"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:1XoSb.337389$X%5.43855@pd7tw2no...

Then why doesn't it rotate on its axis?

"Tidal lock".
-
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwillia...shm/sld023.htm

Ir you are going to assert things about planetary
mechanics, why don't you start by reading some elementary
books on the subject? Next you'll be claiming that you
have to slow down to move from a high geostationary orbit
to a lower geostationary orbit. Sheesh.

A couple of years ago a guy actually argued something
like that
with me. He reasoned: The tangent speed of an orbiting
satellite becomes smaller with increasing altitude. Thus,
by bleeding off speed, the satellite will be induced to
spontaneously rise!

But this thing about the Moon's rotation is interesting.
So many
people come to the same misconception, that it doesn't
rotate, because it always shows the same face toward Earth.
They're not looking at the whole picture. If they were to
ask what face the Moon shows to the other planets, and the
distant stars, and the near star, our Sun... The fact that
the Moon undergoes phases is itself a demonstration of its
rotation.

-Mark Martin


Yes of course Mark. It is all in the way you look at it.

Try looking at it this way: o

Note that the moon (renamed for this exercise) has moved to
the other side of Earth (o) and the "wrong" face is visible.
Now, how in hell would you correct that situation? Hint: change
it to . (If you can't guess how to do that, shut the hell up.)

So many people get confused about what actually constitutes
rotation and axis and orbit and well isn't it all just a
matter of perspective.

You're very confused about who is confused.

For example some moons rotate one way and others rotate
another and still others like ours, doesn't rotate at all
except for around the earth. Which of course is unheard of
anywhere else in the known universe.

Nothing is unheard of in the entire universe, except maybe a
moon which moves from one side of a planet to the other, showing
the same face without rotating.

But Hans Kepler did extensive of work on the subject and as
you clearly see by going through the volumes of his work,
that a moon by any other name is just another planetary
body, by definition.

Did Hans Kepler go on to become the founder of "Kepler
University," as crazy Edmo Wollman calls that little storefront
business that calls itself a college?

And when you approach the subject from the perpsective that
it is in fact a death star, then you can clearly see why
people are quick to make up all sorts of stories in this
regard.

The cheese story was far better than yours, if only for the
reason that there are actually people retarded enough to believe
it.

For example, I have gone to great effort to compile what I
refer to as a
'reasonably quick reference of the unbelieveably
believable' and if you are interested in finding out more
about the subject you can visit this link.

Your greatest efforts aren't equal to the average person's
casual attentions.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/Mo..._Glactica.html

Regarding my missing the prize by one vote, I fully intend
to take this news with grace and dignity.

Take it as a suppository. (Please, no video.)

I will however never forgive them and you can rest assured
that when I do finally put together the crack squad of
ready good to go volunteers to go back and claim the moon
death star, they had better hope that it is in fact out of
bullets. Here is that link again for those who have
difficulty seeing with their own eyes.

Make sure none of your team members are dumber than you are.
(That's a joke. Get it?)

http://www.members.shaw.ca/rsobie/Mo..._Glactica.html

If you are still in doubt that the moon does not rotate
on its axis, then take two plastic cups and see for
yourself.

Put a spot on one and make one go round the other.

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:qPVUb.423464$ts4.409752@pd7tw3no...
In article m,
says...

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:XiRUb.420853$ts4.193692@pd7tw3no...
In article ,
says...


thinking the moon is revolving and orbiting. I'll leave it
to Sobie to formulate the "how," i.e., the mathematical
model of such motion (he started this nonsense), and I'll


I must have missed this important bit of information.

Well this should be abundantly clear to any true mathmocosmotologist,
such as yourself, that in fact, the moon is the center of the universe.

However, we exist in a multiverse, therefore it is meaningless to
say, that here or there is the center of the universe, as it is
only relative to the hypotenuese, of the sum, of the other two
sides of the moon itself.

As can clearly be seen in the TYCHO links which I previously provided
and I do not wish to provide again, lest Carl, get his panties
in a knot.

Tell us about the wormholes again, Uncle Ricky!

The worms crawl in and worms crawl out, and that is how compost is made.

Do worms type your posts too?

Jim

In article m, says...

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:XiRUb.420853$ts4.193692@pd7tw3no...
In article ,
says...


thinking the moon is revolving and orbiting. I'll leave it
to Sobie to formulate the "how," i.e., the mathematical
model of such motion (he started this nonsense), and I'll


I must have missed this important bit of information.

Well this should be abundantly clear to any true mathmocosmotologist,
such as yourself, that in fact, the moon is the center of the universe.

However, we exist in a multiverse, therefore it is meaningless to
say, that here or there is the center of the universe, as it is
only relative to the hypotenuese, of the sum, of the other two
sides of the moon itself.

As can clearly be seen in the TYCHO links which I previously provided
and I do not wish to provide again, lest Carl, get his panties
in a knot.

Tell us about the wormholes again, Uncle Ricky!

Jim




The worms crawl in and worms crawl out, and that is how compost is made.