Other than terrestrial water and tidal flex heating

Stuart wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:12 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 8:47 am, Stuart wrote:



On Jul 19, 4:41 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 19, 4:57 am, Stuart wrote:

On Jul 18, 7:39 am, "Hagar" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
and silica combined spheres (�green glass spherules�) that researchers
claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
(that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)

Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...w-the-moon-rev...

snip Guthball drivel

The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
flexing there, Guthball

Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some
might say
that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal potential that
affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not.

But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence
no heating

Stuart

I've snipped stuff that doesn't make sense leaving one reasonable
question.

Isn't Earth a relatively small and extensively fluid planet for having
such a substantial moon that can measurably tidal flex the crust of
Earth by as much as 55 cm?

Indeed. I didn't say the moon isn't distorted by tides. It is.

By while the earth is rotating, the moon always shows the same face to
the
Earth; hence dissipation due to the lunar tide raised by the Earth
should be very small.

The lunar tide due to the Sun would probably cause more dissipation,
but
it will still be small.

Stuart

The tidal forced heating that I'm talking about is primarily that of
Earth being heated by that of our unusually large, nearby and fast
moving Selene/moon, and it's by no means as insignificant as you'd
care to suggest.


Sorry.. the discussion above was about the moon. And thats what I
was talking about.


btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating
Io to such an extent?

beats me. I was talking about the moon.

Stuart

How do you combat bull**** in the world, when there are guys like
Stuart around, ready to jump with just one leg in his tights, ..who
can't read the question in the first place and remain silent about
rubbish like this in the second:-
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/gg/classr.../acc_prism.jpg
..and worse, this in the third:-
----------------------------------------------------
"... When two continental plates move towards each other, both plates
are forced upwards in a series of folds. This caused big problems for
early geologists who struggled to explain why they were finding
fossils of sea creatures high up in mountains such as the Himalayas!
We now know that the fossils got there due to uplift of sedimentary
rocks found along the edges of the plates. (Previous suggestions often
centered on religious myths / beliefs such as Noah's Great Flood.)
You can simulate this process using two flat strips of modeling clay
or old carpet. Put them side by side and push them together. One or
both will crumple up and form a mini mountain range on your table
top."
http://www.geography-site.co.uk/page...mountains.html
--------------------------------------------------------
And just in case you're actually imaginatively impaired when it comes
to crumpling your carpet on the tabletop (this one's for the
ladies), :-) :-) you can do it with Origami.
http://www.scheib.net/play/paper/01-02.jpg

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that you're back from your cruise Stuart,
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html
...how about getting both legs in, ..forget about the Moon, and deal
with the rubbish they're teaching in schools and universities about
"fold mountains",
http://tinyurl.com/598hml
that noodles like you have helped to perpetrate from your vantage of
receiving the gifts that these poor suckers bring to you.

If you can read the question that is, .. ("How are fold mountains
created?"

On Jul 19, 7:10 pm, don findlay wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Jul 19, 6:12 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 8:47 am, Stuart wrote:

On Jul 19, 4:41 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 19, 4:57 am, Stuart wrote:

On Jul 18, 7:39 am, "Hagar" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed
volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt
and silica combined spheres (�green glass spherules�) that researchers
claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which
supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having
only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o.
(that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of
the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava
formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been
contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter)

Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...w-the-moon-rev...

snip Guthball drivel

The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is
far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the
Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No
flexing there, Guthball

Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some
might say
that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal potential that
affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not.

But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence
no heating

Stuart

I've snipped stuff that doesn't make sense leaving one reasonable
question.

Isn't Earth a relatively small and extensively fluid planet for having
such a substantial moon that can measurably tidal flex the crust of
Earth by as much as 55 cm?

Indeed. I didn't say the moon isn't distorted by tides. It is.

By while the earth is rotating, the moon always shows the same face to
the
Earth; hence dissipation due to the lunar tide raised by the Earth
should be very small.

The lunar tide due to the Sun would probably cause more dissipation,
but
it will still be small.

Stuart

The tidal forced heating that I'm talking about is primarily that of
Earth being heated by that of our unusually large, nearby and fast
moving Selene/moon, and it's by no means as insignificant as you'd
care to suggest.

Sorry.. the discussion above was about the moon. And thats what I
was talking about.

btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating
Io to such an extent?

beats me. I was talking about the moon.

Stuart

How do you combat bull**** in the world, when there are guys like
Stuart around, ready to jump with just one leg in his tights, ..who
can't read the question in the first place and remain silent about
rubbish like this in the second:-http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/gg/classroom@sea/general_science/images/ac...
..and worse, this in the third:-
----------------------------------------------------
"... When two continental plates move towards each other, both plates
are forced upwards in a series of folds. This caused big problems for
early geologists who struggled to explain why they were finding
fossils of sea creatures high up in mountains such as the Himalayas!
We now know that the fossils got there due to uplift of sedimentary
rocks found along the edges of the plates. (Previous suggestions often
centered on religious myths / beliefs such as Noah's Great Flood.)
You can simulate this process using two flat strips of modeling clay
or old carpet. Put them side by side and push them together. One or
both will crumple up and form a mini mountain range on your table
top."http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/earth/fold_mountains.html
--------------------------------------------------------
And just in case you're actually imaginatively impaired when it comes
to crumpling your carpet on the tabletop (this one's for the
ladies), :-) :-) you can do it with Origami.http://www.scheib.net/play/paper/01-02.jpg

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that you're back from your cruise Stuart,http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html
...how about getting both legs in, ..forget about the Moon, and deal
with the rubbish they're teaching in schools and universities about
"fold mountains",http://tinyurl.com/598hml
that noodles like you have helped to perpetrate from your vantage of
receiving the gifts that these poor suckers bring to you.

If you can read the question that is, .. ("How are fold mountains
created?"

Perhaps those �fold mountains� are the exact same as what created
those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and
otherwise responsible for the total lack of Arctic mountains. Perhaps
the Arctic ocean basin is the antifold or navel innie fold of mother
Earth (aka passage to the center of Earth).

Seems without a rather sizable impact for having created much of what
the Arctic ocean basin represents, having set much of our seasonal
tilt and having slightly modified Earth’s spin, that much of this
planet would be a whole lot smoother and loads cooler.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
uniform?

No.

Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
solid surface of Jupiter,

What the hell does that mean?

Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
compressed gas? Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
extremely slight elliptical orbit.


and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
of its surface of mascons??

I don't know.

Me neither, that's why I was asking.


Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
its near circular orbiting moons to death?

No.

Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
active?


Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
tidal flex heated?

No.

That's good to hear.


In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
certain about that?

They're talking about the moon not being heated.

So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
not the least bit tidal flex heated?

Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
heating of the earth is insignificant.

The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?

Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
heat loss to space.

A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
space.

At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.

Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
radioactive core.


The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
insignificant.

And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.

You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
by that process.

I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other
soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream
puppeteering and swag going on in order to continually avoid or simply
exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?


Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via
tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable
geothermal heat via friction.

Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule.
No supercomputer needed.

Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a
healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are
you going to show us how simple that is?

Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our
genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of
complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.

And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
would kick your butt)

Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any attention
when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky
Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric,
adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes.

Then you'd knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi and of
their New World Order that's essentially in charge of most everything
that matters, even if it were based upon yet another lie or total
fabrication or distortion of the actual facts that would be telling us
otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics
follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,


BradGuth wrote:
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
uniform?

No.

Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
solid surface of Jupiter,

What the hell does that mean?

Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
compressed gas?

Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is
only that of a highly compressed gas?

No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions.

Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
extremely slight elliptical orbit.

Why don't you just look it up on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating



and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
of its surface of mascons??

I don't know.

Me neither, that's why I was asking.

Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure

Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
its near circular orbiting moons to death?

No.

Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
active?

Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.

I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the
Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily.
Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable.

Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
tidal flex heated?

No.

That's good to hear.

It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
lot of crazy places.

In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
certain about that?

They're talking about the moon not being heated.

So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
not the least bit tidal flex heated?

Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
heating of the earth is insignificant.

The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?

Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
heat loss to space.

A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
space.

You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty
space".

The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole
lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.

At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.

Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
radioactive core.

Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because y ou didn't answer my question.

The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
insignificant.

And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.

You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
by that process.

I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other
soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream
puppeteering and swag going on

Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again.

in order to continually avoid or simply
exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?

Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
to calculate what you want.

Where did you get .05%? Where does the rest go?

And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
anything.

Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via
tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable
geothermal heat via friction.

Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule.
No supercomputer needed.

Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a
healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are
you going to show us how simple that is?

Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our
genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of
complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.

And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
would kick your butt)

Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any attention
when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky
Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric,
adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes.

Then you'd knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi and of
their New World Order that's essentially in charge of most everything
that matters, even if it were based upon yet another lie or total
fabrication or distortion of the actual facts that would be telling us
otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics
follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise?

I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever you go off into that
patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic you are.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

BradGuth wrote:


Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created
those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and
otherwise responsible for the total lack of Arctic mountains. Perhaps
the Arctic ocean basin is the antifold or navel innie fold of mother
Earth (aka passage to the center of Earth).

Seems without a rather sizable impact for having created much of what
the Arctic ocean basin represents, having set much of our seasonal
tilt and having slightly modified Earth’s spin, that much of this
planet would be a whole lot smoother and loads cooler.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

No foldie mounties in the Pesky Antie, Brad. It's a bad case of Flats
Attack. Take cover:-
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/...ac13fc.jpg?v=0
http://tinyurl.com/6rz8da
http://melhuish.info/simon/SouthPole/images/tam3.jpg
...We even get the yew beaut plateau preserved:-
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/...d207e8eff0.jpg

See? Mounties. Nuthin' to do with foldies. Just erosion. Come
on, ..you learned this at school... No counting necessary.

You have to wonder what that noodle has in his noddle, don't
you, ..working it all out in his thermals the way he does. I don't
think he could recognise a cat even if it tickled his beqachbalos with
its whiskas. (Could you, ..Stuart..)

(Stuart's a dope. It's that simple. ...trying to support Plate
Tectonics by thermal modelling, when the geology is saying exactly the
opposite wherever you look. )

The real question though is, ..how has geology come to such a pass -
when there's no such thing as foldie mounties, as wot
geomorphologists have been telling us for decades - ever since books,
in fact. Books? Does anybody read them any more? Or are there just
these silly compilations of papers that are out of date (even by the
same authors) before they're even printed...

What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the
place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing?
Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan?

Stuart wrote:


The lunar tide due to the Sun would probably cause more dissipation,
but
it will still be small.

Stuart

The tidal forced heating that I'm talking about is primarily that of
Earth being heated by that of our unusually large, nearby and fast
moving Selene/moon, and it's by no means as insignificant as you'd
care to suggest.


Sorry.. the discussion above was about the moon. And thats what I
was talking about.


btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating
Io to such an extent?

beats me. I was talking about the moon.

Stuart

This is not the first time Stuart has proved incapable of reading a
question (... much less answering it).

On Jul 19, 10:20 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
uniform?

No.

Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
solid surface of Jupiter,

What the hell does that mean?

Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
compressed gas?

Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is
only that of a highly compressed gas?

No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions.

But that's what I do best, deductively connecting dots and thus
jumping to a conclusion.


Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
extremely slight elliptical orbit.

Why don't you just look it up on Wikipedia?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating



and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
of its surface of mascons??

I don't know.

Me neither, that's why I was asking.

Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure

Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven, thus
more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon.


Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
its near circular orbiting moons to death?

No.

Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
active?

Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.

I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the
Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily.
Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable.

I never stated that from Earth they were affecting us. Obviously I'm
not the only one jumping to those pesky conclusions. However, Earth's
mascons are likely adding tidal flex heating to our Selene/moon as
well as its elliptical path migrates around Earth and our sun should
cause a measurable degree of geothermal heating within our Selene/
moon.


Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
tidal flex heated?

No.

That's good to hear.

It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
lot of crazy places.

You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, or
that of our intelligent species originating from the Sirius B solar
system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our Selene/moon L1, or how
about the crazy but cool POOF city at Venus L2, and don't forget the
crazy relocation of our Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.



In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
certain about that?

They're talking about the moon not being heated.

So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
not the least bit tidal flex heated?

Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
heating of the earth is insignificant.

The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?

Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
heat loss to space.

A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
space.

You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty
space".

Space isn't empty, because it's absolutely chuck full of photons, dark
matter and dark energy. Even our Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21 bar vacuum
isn't the least bit empty.


The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole
lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.

I agree, that Earth's core of thorium and subsequent radioactive
byproducts is good to go for billions of years.


At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.

Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
radioactive core.

Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because you didn't answer my question.

How good is the average thermal insulation worth of Earth's crust?

Supposedly the thinnest crust is found under our oceans, at an average
of perhaps 5 km thickness. Earth is after all at least 98.5% fluid.



The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
insignificant.

And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.

You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
by that process.

I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other
soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream
puppeteering and swag going on

Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again.

No "good grief" about it. I noticed that you haven't posted links of
different research groups that concur as to having the same outcome.

The tidal flex heating of Earth via our Selene/moon is measurably
significant.


in order to continually avoid or simply
exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?

Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
to calculate what you want.

The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual gravity of
attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If converting any
of that continual tidal force into energy, it has to be taken as N/
sec.


Where did you get .05%?

That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better
swag?


Where does the rest go?

You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that 2e20 N/
sec of force is going, unless it's transferring back and forth as
tidal flex heating, possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid
and otherwise gaseous sun.


And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
anything.

That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive) agreed
upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials within Earth's
core, much less the low density core of our highly unusual moon.



Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via
tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable
geothermal heat via friction.

Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule.
No supercomputer needed.

Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a
healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are
you going to show us how simple that is?

Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our
genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of
complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.

And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
would kick your butt)

Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any attention
when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky
Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric,
adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes.

Then you'd knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi and of
their New World Order that's essentially in charge of most everything
that matters, even if it were based upon yet another lie or total
fabrication or distortion of the actual facts that would be telling us
otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics
follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise?

I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever you go off into that
patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic you are.

So, you think there's no one swarm of any faith-based/political cult
or group in charge of anything that goes badly or for the better here
on Earth? (it's all purely random happenstance that's always perfectly
fair and square with the rest of us village idiots?)

You're saying that job security, public funded benefits, vast
corporate and political profits and bragging rights that'll suit their
given faith-based mindset never account for squat. Now that's
interesting as hell.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 20, 2:44 am, don findlay wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created
those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and
otherwise responsible for the total lack of Arctic mountains. Perhaps
the Arctic ocean basin is the antifold or navel innie fold of mother
Earth (aka passage to the center of Earth).

Seems without a rather sizable impact for having created much of what
the Arctic ocean basin represents, having set much of our seasonal
tilt and having slightly modified Earth’s spin, that much of this
planet would be a whole lot smoother and loads cooler.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

No foldie mounties in the Pesky Antie, Brad. It's a bad case of Flats
Attack. Take cover:-http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2393048458_ed71ac13fc.jpg?v=0http://tinyurl.com/6rz8dahttp://melhuish.info/simon/SouthPole/images/tam3.jpg
...We even get the yew beaut plateau preserved:-http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/1530277508_d207e8eff0.jpg

See? Mounties. Nuthin' to do with foldies. Just erosion. Come
on, ..you learned this at school... No counting necessary.

You have to wonder what that noodle has in his noddle, don't
you, ..working it all out in his thermals the way he does. I don't
think he could recognise a cat even if it tickled his beqachbalos with
its whiskas. (Could you, ..Stuart..)

(Stuart's a dope. It's that simple. ...trying to support Plate
Tectonics by thermal modelling, when the geology is saying exactly the
opposite wherever you look. )

The real question though is, ..how has geology come to such a pass -
when there's no such thing as foldie mounties, as wot
geomorphologists have been telling us for decades - ever since books,
in fact. Books? Does anybody read them any more? Or are there just
these silly compilations of papers that are out of date (even by the
same authors) before they're even printed...

What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the
place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing?
Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan?

Where's that mountain top erosion that's supposedly millions upon
millions if not a good billion+ years old?

Doesn't ice, snow and jet stream wind erode rock?

What broke up Earth's crust to begin with?

Dose our moon have any indications of a broken crust, or that of
Mercury, Venus or Mars?

When exactly was our seasonal tilt established?

Why no mountains at the north pole? (instead a moon encounter sized
basin)

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 19, 10:20 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
uniform?

No.

Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
solid surface of Jupiter,

What the hell does that mean?

Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
compressed gas?

Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is
only that of a highly compressed gas?

No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions.

But that's what I do best, deductively connecting dots and thus
jumping to a conclusion.

No, it's what you do the most. If the quality of your work is to be
judged by how well the conclusions match reality, you suck at it.

Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
extremely slight elliptical orbit.

Why don't you just look it up on
Wikipedia?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating



and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
of its surface of mascons??

I don't know.

Me neither, that's why I was asking.

Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure

Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven, thus
more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon.

Maybe rather than just saying that, you could show a map of
gravitational anomalies for the Earth and one for the moon, and compare
them.

Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
its near circular orbiting moons to death?

No.

Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
active?

Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.

I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the
Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily.
Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable.

I never stated that from Earth they were affecting us. Obviously I'm
not the only one jumping to those pesky conclusions. However, Earth's
mascons are likely adding tidal flex heating to our Selene/moon as
well as its elliptical path migrates around Earth and our sun should
cause a measurable degree of geothermal heating within our Selene/
moon.

Well, then. Show the measurable heating.

Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
tidal flex heated?

No.

That's good to hear.

It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
lot of crazy places.

You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, or
that of our intelligent species originating from the Sirius B solar
system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our Selene/moon L1, or how
about the crazy but cool POOF city at Venus L2, and don't forget the
crazy relocation of our Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.

Yes.

In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
certain about that?

They're talking about the moon not being heated.

So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
not the least bit tidal flex heated?

Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
heating of the earth is insignificant.

The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?

Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
heat loss to space.

A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
space.

You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty
space".

Space isn't empty, because it's absolutely chuck full of photons, dark
matter and dark energy. Even our Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21 bar vacuum
isn't the least bit empty.


The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole
lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.

I agree, that Earth's core of thorium and subsequent radioactive
byproducts is good to go for billions of years.

I always thought the core was of iron.

At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.

Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
radioactive core.

Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because you didn't answer my question.

How good is the average thermal insulation worth of Earth's crust?

Supposedly the thinnest crust is found under our oceans, at an average
of perhaps 5 km thickness. Earth is after all at least 98.5% fluid.



The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon
make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably
insignificant.

And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon
tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our
98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with,
as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors
of tidal flex that by rights should go either way.

You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the
calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated
by that process.

I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other
soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream
puppeteering and swag going on

Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again.

No "good grief" about it. I noticed that you haven't posted links of
different research groups that concur as to having the same outcome.

The tidal flex heating of Earth via our Selene/moon is measurably
significant.

So show the measurements.

in order to continually avoid or simply
exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards
global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by
having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3).
Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage?

Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power.
Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of
measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way
to calculate what you want.

The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual gravity of
attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If converting any
of that continual tidal force into energy, it has to be taken as N/
sec.


Where did you get .05%?

That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better
swag?

Oh. So you have no measurements. So much for that.

Where does the rest go?

You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that 2e20 N/
sec of force is going,

N/sec is not a measure of force. N is a measure of force. And it's not
the same thing as energy.

unless it's transferring back and forth as
tidal flex heating, possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid
and otherwise gaseous sun.

Hah!

And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth?
Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with
anything.

That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive) agreed
upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials within Earth's
core, much less the low density core of our highly unusual moon.

You certainly don't agree with the composition of the Earth's core.
Thorium indeed.

Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually
moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via
tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable
geothermal heat via friction.

Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule.
No supercomputer needed.

Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a
healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are
you going to show us how simple that is?

Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple
calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our
genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of
complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers.

And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with
your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag
because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind
would kick your butt)

Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any attention
when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky
Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric,
adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes.

Then you'd knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi and of
their New World Order that's essentially in charge of most everything
that matters, even if it were based upon yet another lie or total
fabrication or distortion of the actual facts that would be telling us
otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics
follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise?

I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever you go off into that
patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic you are.

So, you think there's no one swarm of any faith-based/political cult
or group in charge of anything that goes badly or for the better here
on Earth? (it's all purely random happenstance that's always perfectly
fair and square with the rest of us village idiots?)

You're saying that job security, public funded benefits, vast
corporate and political profits and bragging rights that'll suit their
given faith-based mindset never account for squat. Now that's
interesting as hell.

It's boring as a ... very boring thing.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On Jul 20, 2:33 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:20 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the
specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively
uniform?

No.

Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/
solid surface of Jupiter,

What the hell does that mean?

Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly
compressed gas?

Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is
only that of a highly compressed gas?

No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions.

But that's what I do best, deductively connecting dots and thus
jumping to a conclusion.

No, it's what you do the most. If the quality of your work is to be
judged by how well the conclusions match reality, you suck at it.

Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/
mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its
extremely slight elliptical orbit.

Why don't you just look it up on
Wikipedia?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating

and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
of its surface of mascons??

I don't know.

Me neither, that's why I was asking.

Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid
core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any
mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure

Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven, thus
more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon.

Maybe rather than just saying that, you could show a map of
gravitational anomalies for the Earth and one for the moon, and compare
them.

Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant
planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing
its near circular orbiting moons to death?

No.

Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn
active?

Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.

I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the
Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was
expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily..
Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable.

I never stated that from Earth they were affecting us. Obviously I'm
not the only one jumping to those pesky conclusions. However, Earth's
mascons are likely adding tidal flex heating to our Selene/moon as
well as its elliptical path migrates around Earth and our sun should
cause a measurable degree of geothermal heating within our Selene/
moon.

Well, then. Show the measurable heating.

That's rather easily accomplished from the Selene/moon L1, and only
easier yet from deep within our Selene/moon.


Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and
physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting
tidal flex heated?

No.

That's good to hear.

It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a
question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But
you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply
ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a
lot of crazy places.

You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, or
that of our intelligent species originating from the Sirius B solar
system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our Selene/moon L1, or how
about the crazy but cool POOF city at Venus L2, and don't forget the
crazy relocation of our Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.

Yes.

So, you're another stay-at-home kind of guy, deathly afraid of
whatever's dark and scary, but then you'll gladly accept and/or do
whatever your faith-based government is telling you to do or to accept
as their one and only word of God.


In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws
of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that
of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces
that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you
certain about that?

They're talking about the moon not being heated.

So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's
not the least bit tidal flex heated?

Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal
heating of the earth is insignificant.

The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?

Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat
production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by
radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's
heat loss to space.

A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather
impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal
energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average
terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through
this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into
space.

You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty
space".

Space isn't empty, because it's absolutely chuck full of photons, dark
matter and dark energy. Even our Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21 bar vacuum
isn't the least bit empty.

The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole
lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.

I agree, that Earth's core of thorium and subsequent radioactive
byproducts is good to go for billions of years.

I always thought the core was of iron.

Perhaps you and countless millions of others thought wrong, unless
iron is long-term radioactive. Is highly compressed iron heavier than
highly compressed thorium? (I don't think so)


At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average
crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby
representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882,
however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to
bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or
thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765.

Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core,
and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our
radioactive core.

Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because you didn't answer my question.