Earth will manage to get hotter

On May 18, 8:03 am, Rich wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Rich wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.

That's a lot of light pressure.

Sure. But a solar shade necessarily experiences a lot of light pressure.

OK, I had thought you were referring to the moon, not solar shades. My mistake.

I don't see how the moon at earth L1 could provide what "you'd want".

The moon, no. You'd want a much much lighter object, and more area.

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

Cheers

Rich



Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As long as our nearby mascon of a moon is kicking mother Earth's butt
from the inside out, this 98.5% fluid Earth will manage to get hotter.

The laws of physics don't lie, but most faith-based folks will do
whatever it takes, and then some.
-
Brad Guth

On May 21, 1:33 am, BradGuth wrote:
Getting a little global shade the hard way; but without question it's
more than worth it because, there's a whole lot more at stake, and
otherwise at a rather nifty investment return here than merely
obtaining that nicely diffused spot of shade.

3X L2 (moon L2X3) Tethered Tug = solar isolation worthy of -22.5 w/m2http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
A basalt tethered mass (easily made from and otherwise extracted
entirely from the moon) of accommodating 1e12 kg placed at 194,100 km
away from the backside of the moon, or essentially 578,500 km from
Earth, that's moving along at 1539.556 km/s = 4.097e15 N (4.178e14 kg
or 9.211e14 lbs) of force just to start off with.

Perhaps the honest notions of our utilizing a tethered tug of merely
4.097e15 N worth of applied force, as such only has its off-world
meaning to those few of us with actual remorse, and for otherwise
those of us as having given an honest tinkers damn worth of our
compassion towards salvaging this badly damaged environment of Earth,
of an environment that's simply not going to sustain itself, and
without intervention is only going to get itself hotter as time and
that nearby mascon of a moon accomplishes its unavoidable GW(global
warming) thing.

Of course, this greater than monumental effort of relocating our moon
isn't going to transpire overnight, or even within the next few years,
as it'll demand a good decade of creating those substantial basalt
fiber tethers and of mostly robotics subsequently relocating 1e12 kg
of that moon out towards the 3X worth of or moon's L2 (roughly 194,100
km away from the backside). As the moon gets with the agenda of
moving out, either additional mass is further contributed or otherwise
allowed to drift away from that tethered CM(counter mass), thereby
giving us a fully interactive method of control over every km step of
the way towards Earth's L1.

The moon's new and improved L1 of accommodating the greatly extended
LSE-CM/ISS (w/tether dipole element that could reach to within 2r of
mother Earth) will become part of the moon's parking brake,
interactively deployed upon approaching the relative gravity
nullification or quiet zone of Earth's L1. This LSE-CM/ISS will a;so
have been a major robotic task, taking up most of the century in order
to accomplish. Of course on behalf of complying with all that's NASA/
Apollo; as an honest pun for good measure, we plan upon suspending
those regular laws of physics pertaining to whatever's anticathode or
otherwise the least bit reactive and/or electrostatic (Van Allen belt
like) collective about our physically dark and nasty moon, that'll go
along quite nicely with our unproven fly-by-rocket landers and those
unfiltered cameras as having such **** poor dynamic range and
otherwise no color spectrum sensitivity issues, goes without question.

This multi-task application of tethers and various placements of mass
might not demand nearly as much applied mass as I've suggested,
instead possibly as little as 1e9 kg at 3X L2, but it's still going to
be seriously spendy. There are far more positive considerations than
negative, and the greater values per each positive consideration is
worth at least 10 fold more than each negative aspect.
-
Brad Guth

How to pay for relocating our moon.

In spite of all the usual topic/author stalking, bashings and as much
banishment imposed as possible, it seems the physics of relocating our
moon to Earth's L1 is technically doable.

Like taxing booze and tobacco products to death, another 10% excise
tax applied onto the global end-user cost of all forms of energy
should more than pay for this project. That way those that use or
otherwise squander the most energy get to pay the most (seems fair).
-
Brad Guth

In article .com,
BradGuth wrote:

How to pay for relocating our moon.

In spite of all the usual topic/author stalking, bashings and as much
banishment imposed as possible, it seems the physics of relocating our
moon to Earth's L1 is technically doable.

Like taxing booze and tobacco products to death, another 10% excise
tax applied onto the global end-user cost of all forms of energy
should more than pay for this project. That way those that use or
otherwise squander the most energy get to pay the most (seems fair).


You really are incongruent with reality.

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message

You really are incongruent with reality.

You really are incongruent with real scientists!

HJ

wrote:

To begin with, how you're going to hold such system against just plain
light pressure. Note that such system will have no rigidity to speak
of?

Why is rigidity needed, or even helpful, for the problem you posed?

To answer you question: light pressure on the object will vary
in inverse square fashion with the distance from the sun, so you
can think of it as multiplying the gravitation acceleration due
to the sun by a constant 1. This will shift the position of
the (unstable) equilibrium point sunward. Angel analyzes this
in his paper.

Paul

In sci.physics, Eric Gisse

wrote
on 19 May 2007 02:44:36 -0700
. com:
On May 19, 2:09 am, wrote:
In article , "Paul F. Dietz" writes:

Rich wrote:

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity

To begin with, how you're going to hold such system against just plain
light pressure. Note that such system will have no rigidity to speak
of?

****, as long as we are in the land of the absurd why not just place
something in -close- orbit around the Sun?

We could just ask the Ringworld Engineers.

Of course we'd have to find such a system first.

:-)



Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"




--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Why the heck are a few select groups of Usenet so often going down for
the count, especially as of nearly everytime folks like myself manage
to contribute a little something special and truth-worthy?

Is having to robo moderate on behalf of keeping the rest of the world
from knowing the truth, as for such taking up that much of GOOGLEs CPU
resources?

As of lately, GOOGLE/Usenet is seriously sucking and blowing its
infomercial spewing butt-cheeks in their own MI/NSA wind, meaning that
the current levels of their intellectual flatulance is running fairly
high. Otherwise meaning that new and improved topic contributions of
those most recent of updates are either delaied for hours and/or
getting robo-excluded on the fly, while other parts of Usenet are
functioning within their normal way.

So, in addition to my email accounts having been trashed and otherwise
of having files getting stealth modified and/or remote deleted is par
for the topic/author stalking and banishment course. And you folks
thought I was kidding about the Third Reich and of their Jewish
mindset friends. (fraid not)
-
Brad Guth

In spite of my newer or more recent posting, GOOGLE/NOVA/Usenet
remains stuck on keeping it's infomercial spewing ****ology queen on
top of the topic stack. I'm not the least bit surprised, are you?

At the same time my emails are getting diverted, and even calls to my
home telephone are under raps of getting moderated by those tricky
dick MI/NSA~CIA spooks and moles. It's entirely a bloody wonder much
of anything that's even half honest gets to survive within this anti-
think-tank of such an Old Testament thumping mindset, of such an
infomercial spewing Usenet from their naysay hell.

In spite of all the usual Old Testament orchestrated flak, there's
still new and improved science popping up just about everywhere. Too
bad our faith-based and koran thumping fools can't deal with anything
that's off-world, much less deal with the truth.

And we have yet another interesting perspective, as based upon the
regular laws of physics and deductively interpreted from the best
available science. Besides our moon being more than a little salty, I
wonder how much of our moon is offering the element carbon?
Warhol: Earth Tilted 23.5 Degrees
http://www.tiltedearth.org/
The end of the ice age happened suddenly... 12497 years ago and
Atlantis was destroyed by floods... The end had come, since none
didn't want to believe the warnings of the sudden cometh that would
tilt earth out its axe with sun and provoke the meltdown of all the
ice of the world till this day...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...083758,00.html
Diamonds tell tale of comet that killed off the cavemen(atlantiers)

Scientists will outline dramatic evidence this week that suggests a
comet exploded over the Earth nearly 13,000 years ago, creating a
hail
of fireballs that set fire to most of the northern hemisphere.

Primitive Stone Age cultures were destroyed and populations of
mammoths and other large land animals, such as the mastodon, were
wiped out. The blast also caused a major bout of climatic cooling
that
lasted 1,000 years and seriously disrupted the development of the
early human civilisations that were emerging in Europe and Asia.

'This comet set off a shock wave that changed Earth profoundly,' said
Arizona geophysicist Allen West. 'It was about 2km-3km in diameter
and
broke up just before impact, setting off a series of explosions, each
the equivalent of an atomic bomb blast. The result would have been
hell on Earth. Most of the northern hemisphere would have been left
on
fire.'

The theory is to be outlined at the American Geophysical Union
meeting
in Acapulco, Mexico. A group of US scientists that include West will
report that they have found a layer of microscopic diamonds at 26
different sites in Europe, Canada and America. These are the remains
of a giant carbon-rich comet that crashed in pieces on our planet
12,900 years ago, they say. The huge pressures and heat triggered by
the fragments crashing to Earth turned the comet's carbon into
diamond
dust. 'The shock waves and the heat would have been tremendous,' said
West. 'It would have set fire to animals' fur and to the clothing
worn
by men and women. The searing heat would have also set fire to the
grasslands of the northern hemisphere. Great grazing animals like the
mammoth that had survived the original blast would later have died in
their thousands from starvation. Only animals, including humans, that
had a wide range of food would have survived the aftermath.'

The scientists point out that archaeological evidence shows that
early
Stone Age cultures clearly suffered serious setbacks at this time. In
particular, American Stone Age hunters, descendants of the hunter-
gatherers who had migrated to the continent from Asia, vanished
around
this time.

These people were some of the fiercest hunters on Earth, men and
women
who made magnificent stone spearheads which they used to hunt animals
including the mammoth. Their disappearance at this time has been a
cause of intense debate, with climate change being put forward as a
key explanation. Now there is a new idea: the first Americans were
killed by a comet.

It was not just America that bore the brunt of the comet crash. At
this time, the Earth was emerging from the last Ice Age. The climate
was slowly warming, though extensive ice fields still covered higher
latitudes. The disintegrating comet would have plunged into these ice
sheets, causing widespread melting. These waters would have poured
into the Atlantic, disrupting its currents, including the Gulf
stream.
The long-term effect was a 1,000-year cold spell that hit Europe and
Asia.

The comet theory, backed by observational evidence collected by the
team, has excited considerable attention from other researchers,
following publication of an outline report of the work in Nature

'The magnitude of this discovery is so important,' team member James
Kennett, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the
journal. 'It explains three of the highest-debated controversies of
recent decades.'

These are the sudden disappearance of the first Stone Age people of
America, the disappearance of mammoths throughout much of Europe and
America and the sudden cooling of the planet, an event known as the
Younger-Dryas period. Various theories have been put forward to
explain these occurrences, but now scientists believe they have found
a common cause in a comet crash. However, the idea is still
controversial and the theory is bedevilled by problems in obtaining
accurate dates for the different events.

'We still have a long way to go,' admitted West. 'But we have a great
deal of evidence, from many sites, so this is quite a powerful case
that we are making.'
-

Now that's what I call darn interesting stuff, although if given a
"2km-3km in diameter" worth of a mostly carbon comet at something more
or less than 0.8 g/cm3, or even if that comet were half iron, simply
is not in of itself as likely enough to have tilted Earth by more than
0.01 degree (if that much), that is unless it was part of something so
much larger and more robust that was directly impacting us at a
glancing blow, such as by a 4000 km icy proto moon of 8.5e22 kg.

Their analogy of whatever transpired as of 12,497 years ago does
however sound about right. Perhaps our having been impacted and
subsequently tilted into having seasons by way of encountering that
icy proto-moon has more than a little something to do with that
unfortunate encounter having brought along that carbon rich comet, as
having exploded near Earth and having set nearly half or more of our
terrestrial O2 rich environment on fire, while the deposited salty ice
from that arriving proto-moon was icing down and otherwise flooding
the other half of this planet. Without question, 12,497 years ago was
not exactly a very human friendly environment, even without an
exploding comet.

Too bad we're still not smart enough, or otherwise being allowed to
run any of this through a good set of supercomputer fortified
simulators. I guess it'll have to remain as a deep, dark and scary
secret because of all the likely boat-rocking of our terribly frail
faith-based status quo, it'll cause.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell