|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"captain." wrote in message
news:hjD2h.40144$P7.7059@edtnps90 "captain." wrote in message news:2Bd2h.37540$H7.6585@edtnps82 you think that the moon has only been here since the last ice age? do i dare ask why? That's right, but apparently it's still remains as a deep and dark taboo/nondisclosure of a secret unless you can somehow manage to read through a few thousand of my dyslexic encrypted words. The moon's orbital energy represents roughly 2e20 joules. Do the math, and then share as to whatever's your best swag, as to what amount of that 2e20 J becomes tidal friction induced heat, and that's not to mention the little extra worth of secondary IR/FIR energy that's derived from our salty moon that's by far representing the most impressive ratio of planet:moon in our solar system. - Brad Guth how does that coincide with the last ice age? The most likely fact that we have obtained by far the largest and most massive moon in relationship it's planet, whereas you'd think that factor alone should ring a bell or two, although apparently nothing much in your lofty all-knowing bell tower ever gets rung. So, you clearly have no honest intentions of ever sharing in anything the least bit topic constructive. Gee whiz, why am I not the least bit surprised. In spite of yourself and those other infomercial spewing Usenet spooks of your kind: If the global tidal friction were merely 0.01% of 2e20 j, this represents 2e16 j 2e16 j / 5.112e14 = .39123636e2 or 39.12363 j/m2 39 j/m2 of extra global warming is actually quite a bit of applied energy (roughly 10% of the average solar influx that hits the deck), wouldn't you say. Even 0.001% of 2e20 j is still worth 3.9 j/m2, which is supposedly more GW than all of what humanity is currently responsible for. (actual worth of humanity; 6.7e9 folks at 1e4 j/soul = global thermal impact of merely 0.131 j/m2) As such, Earth w/o moon would have been extensively icy (especially if you'd care to exclude the secondary IR/FIR energy that's derived from our physically dark and reactive moon), the fact that our sun wasn't as active, and only that of our 100,000 year orbital association with the Sirius star/solar system would have been responsible for each of the previous thermal cycles that were transpiring more frequently as this planetology realm or scope of our multiple ice ages goes back in time. Trust me on this one, without much doubt I do believe we are not the smartest DNA in the known universe (not even if you're stoked with Jewish DNA), so stop asking those silly questions as though I'm some kind of all-knowing wizard. Instead, give us your best swag as to whatever else is entirely possible, or otherwise as to simply improving upon a few of my notions. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"captain." wrote in message
news:ikD2h.40163$P7.7719@edtnps90 people who apply labels to others aren't good for much. - charles adler. In your case of being yet another Usenet spook that goes by the hocus-pocus code name of "captain", obviously because you're so afraid of your own shadow, whereas there's not all that much that anyone else can possibly say that really matters unless we can somehow lable the status quo box that your all-knowing mindset is sequestered within. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"Brad Guth" wrote in message news:c2abf28180cad3eb2093050637795640.49644@mygate .mailgate.org... "captain." wrote in message news:hjD2h.40144$P7.7059@edtnps90 "captain." wrote in message news:2Bd2h.37540$H7.6585@edtnps82 you think that the moon has only been here since the last ice age? do i dare ask why? That's right, but apparently it's still remains as a deep and dark taboo/nondisclosure of a secret unless you can somehow manage to read through a few thousand of my dyslexic encrypted words. The moon's orbital energy represents roughly 2e20 joules. Do the math, and then share as to whatever's your best swag, as to what amount of that 2e20 J becomes tidal friction induced heat, and that's not to mention the little extra worth of secondary IR/FIR energy that's derived from our salty moon that's by far representing the most impressive ratio of planet:moon in our solar system. - Brad Guth how does that coincide with the last ice age? The most likely fact that we have obtained by far the largest and most massive moon in relationship it's planet, whereas you'd think that factor alone should ring a bell or two, although apparently nothing much in your lofty all-knowing bell tower ever gets rung. okay. i've had enough. you started off interestingly enough but quickly degenerated into some kind of troll. if you want people to listen to your ideas, you need to reexamine how you present yourself. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
In message , TeaTime
writes "Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... No. It's absolute, total nonsense. The change in day length over several hundred million years is known with some precision, and the only plausible explanation for that is lunar tides. Those tidal effects have been understood for over a hundred years - find out something about George Darwin. Here's a reference to tides 3.2 billion years ago http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5487/2005c And I don't know where you get 1000 foot tides - this paper (which is not the conventional explanation for the Moon's origin) talks about 10km tides _in the Earth's crust_ and a billion years to achieve a circular orbit http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998LPICo.957Q..24M Yes, well George Darwin suggested that the moon was plucked out of the Pacific ocean, but his understanding of the 3-body problem did pave the way to our current model. However, the only reason we know the change in day length over several hundred million years with some precision is because we rely on the refined model and interpolate backward. (3.2 billion years ago the moon would have been about 50,000 miles closer to us and the tides substantially higher than they are today. The land still bobs up and down by about a metre, I believe.) The only geological indications of tidal effect from so long ago only 'appear' to be tidal and are not therefore a proof of timescale. Just in case Brad regards this as support for his idea, I'm sure you're aware that although we obviously don't have direct evidence over geological time, we do have direct evidence that the Moon is currently receding from the Earth (echoes from the reflectors left by Apollo and Lunokhod missions) and that the day length is increasing (ancient eclipse observations and modern tracking of artificial satellites). The figures roughly agree. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"captain." wrote in message
news:rLh3h.52577$H7.50379@edtnps82 okay. i've had enough. you started off interestingly enough but quickly degenerated into some kind of troll. if you want people to listen to your ideas, you need to reexamine how you present yourself. In other words, never use the actual truth and nothing but the truth, and otherwise hide myself behind a phony-baloney Usenet code name like yourself and all those other Usnet spooks of your kind. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
Here's a little more of my tit for tat of what's currently too hot and
otherwise fully taboo/nondisclosure (topic/author banishment worthy) on behalf of Venus. Too bad ESA's Venus EXPRESS team of supposed wizards are currently sequestered until each and every one of those NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows manage to come home, and certainly not otherwise before our hocus-pocus fat lady sings. Nighttime Exploring of Venus with a Composite Rigid Airship (perhaps if we cloak our rigid airship as being flat-black and pray that we're damn lucky, they'll never see us coming to pillage, plunder and otherwise infect their planet with our superior bigotry, arrogance and greed). Where necessary having a meter thick insulative skin that's made extensively of the 4.84 GPa basalt fibers (Elastic modulus GPa of 89) and otherwise of basalt micro-balloons, plus a fair percentage of having those not so micro balloons that might as well contain H2 or simply incorporate a good vacuum, is what should obtain the structurally insulative R-1024/m that'll also benefit from the local 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, which should cut the net tonnage or cubic density of that outer hull plus offsetting much of the airship's internal framing and various infrastructure aspects of decks and structured compartments by as great as 50%, though perhaps at first a 25% offset of the total structural consideration that's due to the cubic volumetric buoyancy factor is more than likely going to be the case. Of course the primary buoyancy that afforded by it's volumetric shell needn't be nearly as insulative, just made robust and otherwise tough enough in order to take the submarine like pressure of perhaps 2000 psi (138 bar), or perhaps not even 10% of that much if using a displacement gas such as H2 that can be created while on the fly. Tossing in the 90.5% gravity as offering yet another attractive factor is what should rather nicely facilitate this form of Venusian exploration as a technological done deal, that which airframe size or total volume of this rigid airship (AKA fat waverider/shuttle) is nearly a none issue except for having to fend off all of the usual mainstream flak that's to be expected from those naysay mindsets that wouldn't so much as accept the truth even if it meant salvaging their own status quo butts. I believe the necessary R&D on behalf of accomplishing this Venusian rigid airship/(fat waverider/shuttle or whatever robotic probe) isn't even all that insurmountable, as for being terrestrial constructed and fully proof-tested right here on Earth, especially if at first we're talking about a purely robotic application which wouldn't demand 1% of the mass if pertaining to merely sustaining each of the various scientific instrumentation demands. As far as accomplishing this task robotically, we're not talking about all that large nor aerodynamically configured worth of any such craft (could be just a rigid sphere of an airship), nor would the onboard energy demands be all that daunting. The nicely retrograde weather that's relatively calm below them nifty acidic clouds is actually a rather terrific efficiency consideration that'll nearly always work on behalf of enhancing much of the expedition's navigating considerations, thereby very little propulsion energy is going to be required. Of CCD's and other ICs on diamond, or simply employing miniature vacuum tube applications are going to more than function as being entirely within their thermal spec, meaning that little if any auxiliary cooling need be applied. So, one should be thinking on behalf of robotically flown rigid airships being anything from a few cubic meters to as large as you'd dare to achieve, and of those humanly operated rigid airships of anything from as little as 1,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3 should be seriously considered. Unlike having to accomplish our moon, there's nothing about this rigid airship technology that's technically outside the expertise and scope of existing science and proven technology that'll efficiently and safely operate within the Venusian atmosphere, as well as entirely within the regular laws of physics. Extreme high temperature diamond IC's insteasd of merely silicon carbide (SiC) for high temperature semiconductor applications, whereas SiC works perfectly fine even when it's glowing hot, and if the process of doping diamond isn't too pesky is where this element of diamond (C) should take over whenever the SiC application isn't quite sufficient. A less densely populated high temperature rated IC would obviously demand perhaps as great a 10 fold increase in area, therefore a CCD on SiC or C of 50 micron pixels (possibly as tightly populated at 25 micron/pixels) should be doable within existing technology. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2000/5000/5510okojie.html Conventional IC gate densities that might achieve 100000 gates/mm2 should become merely 10000 gates/mm2, although I believe 15000 gates/mm2 is entirely doable and at that being way overkill for the Venusian applications that's nearly always operating within something less than the worse case of 811 K. Within a conventional 0.35 micron process, a gate density of 18000 gates per square millimeter can be achieved, whereas dividing that gate population by a factor of 10 is obviously worthy of laying down 1800 gates/mm2 that'll more than survive the thermal trauma with a few roasting degrees to spare. What this means is that folks that would rather drop dead than to utilize vacuum tube circuitry that's more than suited to surviving 900 K should be right at home on the toasty range of cruising within the nighttime season of that geothermally roasting Venusian deck, using their SiC or C alternatives in thermally tolerant ICs that are simply less populated devices than the norm. However, since internal probe/airship space and whatever mass isn't hardly a factor, so what's the difference. In spite of what all we've been informed of over and over, Venus is more than technically doable as is. Though having been geothermally toasty and very much alive and kicking that rather newish planetology butt, it's simply not too hot nor too nasty to go visit, at least from the relative safety of a good composite rigid airship. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
hahaha ! these idiots talk all day and know nothing about astronomy.
how bore-some for netters to see your oil bottle dirty vagina posts. why you cross post to my ng? this is my territory. go die ! Brad Guth wrote: Here's a little more of my tit for tat of what's currently too hot and otherwise fully taboo/nondisclosure (topic/author banishment worthy) on behalf of Venus. Too bad ESA's Venus EXPRESS team of supposed wizards are currently sequestered until each and every one of those NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows manage to come home, and certainly not otherwise before our hocus-pocus fat lady sings. Nighttime Exploring of Venus with a Composite Rigid Airship (perhaps if we cloak our rigid airship as being flat-black and pray that we're damn lucky, they'll never see us coming to pillage, plunder and otherwise infect their planet with our superior bigotry, arrogance and greed). Where necessary having a meter thick insulative skin that's made extensively of the 4.84 GPa basalt fibers (Elastic modulus GPa of 89) and otherwise of basalt micro-balloons, plus a fair percentage of having those not so micro balloons that might as well contain H2 or simply incorporate a good vacuum, is what should obtain the structurally insulative R-1024/m that'll also benefit from the local 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, which should cut the net tonnage or cubic density of that outer hull plus offsetting much of the airship's internal framing and various infrastructure aspects of decks and structured compartments by as great as 50%, though perhaps at first a 25% offset of the total structural consideration that's due to the cubic volumetric buoyancy factor is more than likely going to be the case. Of course the primary buoyancy that afforded by it's volumetric shell needn't be nearly as insulative, just made robust and otherwise tough enough in order to take the submarine like pressure of perhaps 2000 psi (138 bar), or perhaps not even 10% of that much if using a displacement gas such as H2 that can be created while on the fly. Tossing in the 90.5% gravity as offering yet another attractive factor is what should rather nicely facilitate this form of Venusian exploration as a technological done deal, that which airframe size or total volume of this rigid airship (AKA fat waverider/shuttle) is nearly a none issue except for having to fend off all of the usual mainstream flak that's to be expected from those naysay mindsets that wouldn't so much as accept the truth even if it meant salvaging their own status quo butts. I believe the necessary R&D on behalf of accomplishing this Venusian rigid airship/(fat waverider/shuttle or whatever robotic probe) isn't even all that insurmountable, as for being terrestrial constructed and fully proof-tested right here on Earth, especially if at first we're talking about a purely robotic application which wouldn't demand 1% of the mass if pertaining to merely sustaining each of the various scientific instrumentation demands. As far as accomplishing this task robotically, we're not talking about all that large nor aerodynamically configured worth of any such craft (could be just a rigid sphere of an airship), nor would the onboard energy demands be all that daunting. The nicely retrograde weather that's relatively calm below them nifty acidic clouds is actually a rather terrific efficiency consideration that'll nearly always work on behalf of enhancing much of the expedition's navigating considerations, thereby very little propulsion energy is going to be required. Of CCD's and other ICs on diamond, or simply employing miniature vacuum tube applications are going to more than function as being entirely within their thermal spec, meaning that little if any auxiliary cooling need be applied. So, one should be thinking on behalf of robotically flown rigid airships being anything from a few cubic meters to as large as you'd dare to achieve, and of those humanly operated rigid airships of anything from as little as 1,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3 should be seriously considered. Unlike having to accomplish our moon, there's nothing about this rigid airship technology that's technically outside the expertise and scope of existing science and proven technology that'll efficiently and safely operate within the Venusian atmosphere, as well as entirely within the regular laws of physics. Extreme high temperature diamond IC's insteasd of merely silicon carbide (SiC) for high temperature semiconductor applications, whereas SiC works perfectly fine even when it's glowing hot, and if the process of doping diamond isn't too pesky is where this element of diamond (C) should take over whenever the SiC application isn't quite sufficient. A less densely populated high temperature rated IC would obviously demand perhaps as great a 10 fold increase in area, therefore a CCD on SiC or C of 50 micron pixels (possibly as tightly populated at 25 micron/pixels) should be doable within existing technology. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2000/5000/5510okojie.html Conventional IC gate densities that might achieve 100000 gates/mm2 should become merely 10000 gates/mm2, although I believe 15000 gates/mm2 is entirely doable and at that being way overkill for the Venusian applications that's nearly always operating within something less than the worse case of 811 K. Within a conventional 0.35 micron process, a gate density of 18000 gates per square millimeter can be achieved, whereas dividing that gate population by a factor of 10 is obviously worthy of laying down 1800 gates/mm2 that'll more than survive the thermal trauma with a few roasting degrees to spare. What this means is that folks that would rather drop dead than to utilize vacuum tube circuitry that's more than suited to surviving 900 K should be right at home on the toasty range of cruising within the nighttime season of that geothermally roasting Venusian deck, using their SiC or C alternatives in thermally tolerant ICs that are simply less populated devices than the norm. However, since internal probe/airship space and whatever mass isn't hardly a factor, so what's the difference. In spite of what all we've been informed of over and over, Venus is more than technically doable as is. Though having been geothermally toasty and very much alive and kicking that rather newish planetology butt, it's simply not too hot nor too nasty to go visit, at least from the relative safety of a good composite rigid airship. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... Just in case Brad regards this as support for his idea, I'm sure you're aware that although we obviously don't have direct evidence over geological time, we do have direct evidence that the Moon is currently receding from the Earth (echoes from the reflectors left by Apollo and Lunokhod missions) and that the day length is increasing (ancient eclipse observations and modern tracking of artificial satellites). The figures roughly agree. I entirely agree, Jonathan. As the earth rotates, it generates over half its total received thermal energy from tidal effect. As the earth's rotation gradually slows, the balance of energy transferred to the moon causes it to gradually speed up thus widening its orbit. This much is straightforward mechanics and all measurable as you say. Without the moon, the earth would be a much colder place with dramatically different weather patterns. There is no evidence to suggest that the moon has joined orbit with us in recent times, let alone proof. Beyond that, one can only conjecture as to its formation/arrival. The most likely theory we have, which fits all the circumstantial indications, is that the moon coalesced out of orbiting debris at the time of the proto-earth some 4 billion years ago and long before the oceans formed. That would mean it formed in a similar way to the earth itself, relatively soon after the earth formed. We know that there were many more collisions and impacts going on at those early times which may have contributed to the mechanism too. The original supercontinent Pangea may have been what was left standing proud after a huge impact that produced enough ejecta to 'seed' the moon's coalescence even. But many alternative scenarioes and timescales are possible. Whilst there is no hard proof, only plausible theories, Brad's notions about the Ice Age and our oceans' salinity do extend beyond the pale. Whilst it remains a possibility, it is one of extremely small probability and hardly worth pursuing on the grounds that we don't see cave depictions of the moon older than about 12,000 years...I wonder why Venus doesn't have any moons. Perhaps it did have and the same clumsy devil that tilted Uranus onto its side knocked it into the position Mercury holds today, before diving into the sun to confound us thereafter. Ah, the music of the spheres. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"lechergod" wrote in message
oups.com hahaha ! these idiots talk all day and know nothing about astronomy. how bore-some for netters to see your oil bottle dirty vagina posts. why you cross post to my ng? this is my territory. go die ! Gee whiz. Are we having yet another bad Usenet day of snookering humanity and of screwing mother Nature for all she's worth? Apparently the regular laws of physics and those various items of replicated science is simply too much for you folks to deal with. I guess that means anything of observationology is off-limits, or rather topic/author taboo if not sequestered as some kind of need-to-know of whatever's officially nondisclosure rated. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
this **** is telling lies again for her own profession : prostitution.
official annoucement says the state-owned enterpirse is still 76%. how lies-telling is this **** to say captitalist environment !!!!!! taboo? hahahaha! Brad Guth wrote: "lechergod" wrote in message oups.com hahaha ! these idiots talk all day and know nothing about astronomy. how bore-some for netters to see your oil bottle dirty vagina posts. why you cross post to my ng? this is my territory. go die ! Gee whiz. Are we having yet another bad Usenet day of snookering humanity and of screwing mother Nature for all she's worth? Apparently the regular laws of physics and those various items of replicated science is simply too much for you folks to deal with. I guess that means anything of observationology is off-limits, or rather topic/author taboo if not sequestered as some kind of need-to-know of whatever's officially nondisclosure rated. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt | Brad Guth | Policy | 210 | April 12th 07 06:43 PM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | Policy | 3 | August 12th 06 04:11 PM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 12th 06 04:11 PM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | History | 1 | August 12th 06 09:22 AM |
Venus/Moon ~ to Terraform, to DNA Seed, to Visit or NOT! | Brad Guth | UK Astronomy | 1 | August 12th 06 09:22 AM |