What's not technically positive about relocating our moon to Earth's L1

How much is the very salvation of Earth worth these global warming
days?
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth wrote:
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

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guth

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guthless 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

On Jun 24, 11:47 pm, BradGuth wrote:
In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guthless 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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Take notice; this is what I'd posted, and mot the Zion modified
version that you see above.

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guth

Where's all the "right stuff" when we need it the most in order to
save Earth from ourselves?

Relocating our moon to Earth's L1 is not as hard as you'd think, and
there's all sorts of secondary benefits from having done so.

In fact, there's nothing negative to consider, and thank God we've got
a little time before it's too late, although the longer we wait the
more of natures collateral damage takes place and more of our innocent
will have to die (including many species other than us humans may fail
to adapt).
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth wrote:
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

One more time for the old gipper of saving Earth in spite of
ourselves.

Where's all the "right stuff" when we need it the most, in order to
save Earth from ourselves?

Where's the collective swarm intelligence of humanity that's
apparently never going to prevail?

Relocating our extremely mascon worthy moon that's so nearby and thus
unavoidably tidal/friction influencing upon our 98.5% fluid Earth, as
for safely getting that somewhat salty orb parked and interactively
managed at Earth's L1 is going to be time consuming but otherwise not
as hard as you'd think, and there's all sorts of secondary benefits
from having done so. Utilizing those terrific moon resources of
unlimited basalt, loads of titanium and various other cosmic and solar
contributed substances (including He3), along with the local energy
and nearly ideal vacuum for processing such into quality tethers and a
few items of counter mass(CM) on behalf of what this relocation task
is going to demand, as such isn't nearly as insurmountable as others
within this anti-think-tank of such a typically naysayism swarm from
hell might suggest.

In fact, there's nothing all that negative to consider, and thank God
or at least our lucky stars that we've got a little practice time
before it's too late, although the longer we wait the more of nature's
collateral damage takes place and innocent folks will have to suffer
or die (including many species other than us humans that may simply
fail to adapt to this global warming and magnetosphere failing trend,
that which has been gradually happening ever since the lithobraking
arrival of our icy proto-moon and otherwise last ice age this planet
along with its nearby moon will ever see).

BTW, the faith-based swarm of intelligence having nearly everything at
risk are those of the Zion/Jewish mindset that requires conditional
laws of physics and otherwise their God given right to exclude or
banish evidence. Muslims or even Catholics have few if any such all-
or-nothing motives for excluding off-world interactions or potential
considerations, nor of taking up the sorts of remote PC traumatising
or otherwise having to block and/or divert my Internet/Usenet access.
Sadly, these other hocus-pocus minions of infomercial spewing spooks,
moles and rusemasters are so faith-based insecure, that as a damage-
control group they usually hide their remorseless shame, bigotry and
arrogance behind the cloak of Atheism, and then never bother to police
their own kind for other than to swarm upon a given topic or author
they collectively intend to terminate, exactly like another ****ed off
hive of killer bees would instinctively do to any intruder or mere
innocent bystander.

You can often tell by the topic response or lack thereof, as to what's
going down. Perhaps Mel Gibson and even Michael Moore was right all
along, in that history and science is so badly skewed that sharing the
truth simply isn't possible without blowing another gasket or starting
yet another war.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth wrote:
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

Apparently the whole truth is simply too much for our Usenet's
naysayism swarm intelligence to deal with, so much so that even
"Clarke Station" is off-limits, as is anything else utilizing our
moon's L1.

Relocating our salty old moon off to Earth's L1 is just imposing too
much of a good thing that would simply benefit other than just those
Zions in charge of our private parts.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth wrote:
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

On Jun 30, 10:24 pm, "John \"C\"" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message

...

BradGuth wrote:

Apparently the whole truth is simply too much for our Usenet's
naysayism swarm intelligence to deal with, so much so that even
"Clarke Station" is off-limits, as is anything else utilizing our
moon's L1.

Relocating our salty old moon off to Earth's L1 is just imposing too
much of a good thing that would simply benefit other than just those
Zions in charge of our private parts.
-
BradGuth

I'm for relocating a 1949 DeSoto to Earth's L1, Vern.

Old men and their cars are a lot alike!

Damn, Deco you're almost 60, KKKrap!

HJ

Putting Art Deco's "1949 DeSoto to Earth's L1" would at least be a
start in the right direction, with only 7.35e22 kg to go.

BTW, why did you feel the need as to alter the topic entro from
"What's not technically positive about relocating our moon to Earth's
L1"?
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth wrote:
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
-BradGuth

Ignoring or otherwise banishing the notions of relocating of our moon
to Earth's L1 is not exactly a good option, as eventually our sun is
going to start pushing us outward, along with Venus, our moon and
other most other planets migrating further out, as likely surviving in
spite of ourselves that'll have burned out every last drop and tonne
of fossil and yellowcake fuels as of billions of years before our
orbital demise. The planet Mercury isn't likely going to survive no
matters how much of our resources or applied astrophysics comes to its
rescue.

I somewhat agree with the likes of Christine(CRxx), that we're but a
single specimen among millions of other interesting specks of complex
life, many of which having survived millions if not a good billion
years longer than us, as clearly far better at their survival and even
better at having retained nifty physical attributes than us humans,
but there's also new stuff of DNA arriving all the time, and thusfar
we haven't nailed down a clue as to connecting our frail DNA dots to
those early robust proto-humanity dots of DNA that supposedly had to
have included many of those somewhat nifty and robust survival
attributes, especially if we'd emerged as though our DNA only having
originated upon this 98.5% fluid planet of such an extremely salty,
wet and/or at times mostly frozen surface because, at the time it
simply didn't have its moon or even the full benefit of our sun that
apparently was not quite up to snuff.

It's as though our complex yet extremely frail DNA arrived out of
nowhere. Either that or perhaps some nifty creation or at least
intelligent design effort having kicked into high gear, in order to
terraform this planet.

Perhaps the other intelligent life that's existing/coexisting on Venus
managed in the same way, except without their having any of that pesky
surface ice or salty oceans to deal with. Instead, only global
cooling is the ongoing threat to Venus.

In our case, we've clearly lost track of some of the absolute best DNA
code around, and any trace of such is simply nowhere in sight.
Meaning that either we didn't originate here, or that most other
complex life (much of which surviving where we humans simply can not)
got imported into our terrestrial zoo. Either way it represents that
other complex and most likely including intelligent other life has
existed off-world.

The anti-ET or off-world naysayism of this Zion Usenet swarm mindset,
as such is simply proof positive that others and I'm right more often
than not, which further explains as to why all of their ongoing swarm
taboo/nondisclosure mindset about our salty old moon and that of a
newish Venus that offers those clear observationology indications of
intelligent other life.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 1, 8:15 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth wrote:





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
-BradGuth

Ignoring or otherwise banishing the notions of relocating of our moon
to Earth's L1 is not exactly a good option, as eventually our sun is
going to start pushing us outward, along with Venus, our moon and
other most other planets migrating further out, as likely surviving in
spite of ourselves that'll have burned out every last drop and tonne
of fossil and yellowcake fuels as of billions of years before our
orbital demise. The planet Mercury isn't likely going to survive no
matters how much of our resources or applied astrophysics comes to its
rescue.

I somewhat agree with the likes of Christine(CRxx), that we're but a
single specimen among millions of other interesting specks of complex
life, many of which having survived millions if not a good billion
years longer than us, as clearly far better at their survival and even
better at having retained nifty physical attributes than us humans,
but there's also new stuff of DNA arriving all the time, and thusfar
we haven't nailed down a clue as to connecting our frail DNA dots to
those early robust proto-humanity dots of DNA that supposedly had to
have included many of those somewhat nifty and robust survival
attributes, especially if we'd emerged as though our DNA only having
originated upon this 98.5% fluid planet of such an extremely salty,
wet and/or at times mostly frozen surface because, at the time it
simply didn't have its moon or even the full benefit of our sun that
apparently was not quite up to snuff.

It's as though our complex yet extremely frail DNA arrived out of
nowhere. Either that or perhaps some nifty creation or at least
intelligent design effort having kicked into high gear, in order to
terraform this planet.

Perhaps the other intelligent life that's existing/coexisting on Venus
managed in the same way, except without their having any of that pesky
surface ice or salty oceans to deal with. Instead, only global
cooling is the ongoing threat to Venus.

In our case, we've clearly lost track of some of the absolute best DNA
code around, and any trace of such is simply nowhere in sight.
Meaning that either we didn't originate here, or that most other
complex life (much of which surviving where we humans simply can not)
got imported into our terrestrial zoo. Either way it represents that
other complex and most likely including intelligent other life has
existed off-world.

The anti-ET or off-world naysayism of this Zion Usenet swarm mindset,
as such is simply proof positive that others and I'm right more often
than not, which further explains as to why all of their ongoing swarm
taboo/nondisclosure mindset about our salty old moon and that of a
newish Venus that offers those clear observationology indications of
intelligent other life.
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And as per rusemaster usual, we have more of the same old Art Deco
"alt.usenet.kooks" swarm of flatulance, as Zion intellectual butt-
flapping damage control.
-
Brad Guth