|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"D. Leet" wrote in message ... "captain." wrote in message news:9852h.35883$H7.2333@edtnps82... "Brad Guth" wrote in message news:bf5d3a3f4de50bb9b493f554a804ba8f.49644@mygate .mailgate.org... "captain." wrote in message news:QqU1h.35834$P7.8665@edtnps90 as i'd said before, i did not write the above question. also, i don't care about your syntax or your word selection. you don't need to worry about or fix it. as for me bugging you, well, i only have one thing to say about that... Being a silly boy again, arnt you. Avoiding anything moon or Venus by way of keeping this as off topic as possible seems par for the status quo or bust course. In other words, you know of things that you're not about to share and share alike. Is that why you have to use that silly Usenet code name of "captain"? - Brad Guth i've already given my opinion about venus and the moon. do you want me to start repeating myself? You've been repeating yourself for quite some time now. LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, lol |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"TeaTime" wrote in message
Fascinating, but can you offer us disbelieving Jews just one shred of concrete evidence to support any single one of your incredible claims? Yes, and as you damn well know that I've already been their and done that. Most folks, including the vast majority of good and perfectly honest Jews would accept the replicated science that's existing. The problem is, with much of what's NASA/Apollo simply can not be independently replicated, and there's simply too much of their own science that's as stealth as WMD and/or as missing in action as are each of those 700 boxes worth of their very own supposed expeditions to/from our moon. Mere paranoia and/or vivid imagination just won't cut the mustard with us lot, Brad. Now come on; it's a perfectly reasonable request. You say we are all avoiding the topic and burying our heads in the sand ... now I'm asking you to show us something credible. Obviously you folks don't believe the regular laws of physics are the least bit credible if applied as per having a different outcome than published within your all-knowing koran. With that said, so what's the difference? For instance; if the moon were here as of prior to the last ice age, there's be solid geological proof of such, and otherwise various humanly depicted evidence of those horrific tides, of their surviving and/or having migrated because of such dramatic seasons, and of their having depicted that especially big old impressive moon. For starters, you now state as fact that our moon has only been around since the last ice age. A possibility yes, but only one of many in scientific terms. Proof? Give me that same infomercial hyping budget plus equal access to any one of those publicly bought and paid for of such massively-parallel supercomputers, along with all of their nifty interactive 3D worth of multibody orbital mechanic software that we've also bought and paid for several times over, and I'll proceed to knock your naysay socks off, along with 3D animated simulations and custom surround-sound orchestration to boot. You've suggested that NASA are withholding truth from us regarding past/present alien occupation of Venus and the moon. Proof? How much extra proof that we've been lied too would you like? How many of those items about our supposed walking upon that moon would be required in order to support the matter of fact that we've been lied to? Is not but one lie good enough (should be), or do I have to go through and prove throughout each and every item on the list? You claim we could use some sort of airship to cruise through the Venutian atmosphere - assuming we can keep the interior cool enough to support our wussy life, won't it also need submarine performance to navigate down to the surface where CO2 at 92 atmospheres (a cubic yard of that gas weighs about 110 pounds at 900 Fahrenheit) will make it feel like travelling through a thin soup having 15% the density of seawater? Answers? I very much like your rather impressive buoyancy factor of "15% the density of seawater", although the "900 Fahrenheit" wasn't all that necessary to share unless you're planning upon walking over a geothermal stoked field of Venusian lava or of some other horrific plastic mud flows of whatever's absolutely nasty stuff, and that's not to forget all of those absolutely horrific gas vents contributing their volumes of CO2, S8 and many other hot and nasty elements. The ongoing ESA Venus Express mission is confirming that the nighttime season of Venus is in fact much cooler, especially while cruising sufficiently above that geothermally active deck. With the shell of our composite rigid airship having a structural fiber of 4.84 GPa, plus an insulative R-1024/m factor, I foresee no insurmountable problems for such rigid airship technology accommodating our frail DNA, and getting rid of surplus heat certainly isn't a problem that isn't 100% covered by the regular thermal dynamic laws of physics associated with such. Physiologically, a constant pressure of nearly any amount is not outside the ream of what we can tolerate, whereas it's the change in pressure that needs to be taken seriously and rather slowly. I'm not 'banishing' the topic - I'm asking very reasonable questions. Your turn ... In the past you've accomplished nothing but topic/author stalking and bashing, and right now you're not constructively contributing squat, are you. As per usual, you've been chuck full of those naysay loaded questions, and otherwise not the least bit into sharing one gram of anything positive or that could possibly lead us towards anything positive. You're all being too naysay mindset for your own good, as well as too anti ET and/or simply too willing to accept and/or to reinforce upon the mainstream status quo as is, no matters what the consequences. You're a very boxed soul of a person and a certified member of that status quo collective of fools on the hill that haven't a stitch of remorse about anything to spare. Unlike yourself and of those you've clearly admired, I'm not nearly as all-knowing and without error. My limited but honestly deductive reasoning as based upon the regular laws of physics and of the best available science seems to have been too much for the likes of your mindset of denial to appreciate. You also don't believe in pictures regardless of whatever the milti-look/pixel worth of their being truth worthy, yet you've more than accepted each and every NASA/Apollo (single look/pixel or rather per unfiltered Kodak moment) image as though each having been obtained by God. Sorry about that. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"captain." wrote in message
news:2Bd2h.37540$H7.6585@edtnps82 you think that the moon has only been here since the last ice age? do i dare ask why? That's right, but apparently it's still a deep and dark taboo/nondisclosure of a secret unless you can somehow manage to read through a few thousand of my dyslexic encrypted words. The moon's orbital energy represents roughly 2e20 joules. Do the math, and then share as to whatever's your best swag, as to what amount of that 2e20 J becomes tidal friction induced heat, and that's not to mention the little extra worth of secondary IR/FIR energy that's derived from our salty moon that's by far representing the most impressive ratio of planet:moon in our solar system. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"captain." wrote in message
news:9852h.35883$H7.2333@edtnps82 i've already given my opinion about venus and the moon. do you want me to start repeating myself? Don't be silly. Of course I want you and your kind to keep repeating yourself (you know, until a few of them NASA/Apollo cows come home) - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"Brad Guth" wrote in message news:4f06b43502ea1abc6576cf2fc41ed746.49644@mygate .mailgate.org... snip In the past you've accomplished nothing but topic/author stalking and bashing, and right now you're not constructively contributing squat, are you. As per usual, you've been chuck full of those naysay loaded questions, and otherwise not the least bit into sharing one gram of anything positive or that could possibly lead us towards anything positive. snip Brad Guth Well said, Brad. And I thought you had me on your kill-file. Some of your criticisms are well founded. Much of what I post here is very much tongue-in-cheek and not always well received by the ubiquitous Usenet throng. Those that do know me well would tell you that I am openminded and inquisitive, but sufficiently interested in the sciences to seek justification for new and exciting claims. I am no expert either, but I believe in the virtual certainty of alien intelligences in this big old universe. I also seriously doubt that the movie showing those brave Americans walking on the moon was shot anywhere but in a studio. That does not mean that they didn't go there, only that the publicity film was shot after (or before) the event, at least. A good deal of disinformation was disseminated during the Cold War on both sides of the fence (and still is). Regarding your various references to the 'holy scriptures': I am a staunch atheist and have never had any belief in the existence of a deity in any form. I find the whole concept of religion to be outdated and baffling. I respect those that do have faith in any form and if they'd oblige us all by not using it as a foundation for war and terrorism it would be even more acceptable. Concerning the moon's history: yes, it's also possible that the moon joined orbit with us in relatively recent times. There are several theoretical descriptions of the 1000 foot tides that would have accompanied the near miss and capture, but at this time that's all they seem to be: theoretical. The Ice Age neatly erased a large percentage of whatever artifacts may have existed so we can hardly use the absence of cave drawings depicting the moon as solid proof that it wasn't here. The moon certainly seems to be made of different stuff to us which nay-says the idea that it is a lump that broke off millennia ago. Again, all things are possible but without more knowledge and scientific foundation it remains an interesting theory rather than a fact. Moving on to ET: I follow the more interesting UFO investigations with interest. A very small minority of sightings have been backed up by large numbers of witnesses and remained unexplained. However, I have yet to see any credible evidence whatsoever for actual alien contact, abductions or conspiracies relating. Yes, it's possible that they dragged a busted up spaceship and a dying alien back from the Rosswell event. Yes, it's possible that superior beings have occupied Venus, the moon, Phobos or Europa. Yes, it's all possible, but is it probable? The thing we find hard to digest is how they made the trip from distant star systems - largely because we don't know how to do it yet. It would be fair to say that I would dearly love to see such evidence before I shrug off this mortal coil. I therefore read a lot, ask a lot of questions and am currently thinking about building an infra-red wide-field telescope with some form of dynamic signal analysis so I can peer into the clouds. Just maybe I will be lucky enough to find something other than terrestrial aircraft. If I do, I will post my findings and evidence here first. I don't think any of that makes me a nay-sayer or non-constructive. It's the guys on the fringe that often come up with the goodies. Most here would probably brand me a nut though. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
In message , TeaTime
writes Concerning the moon's history: yes, it's also possible that the moon joined orbit with us in relatively recent times. There are several theoretical descriptions of the 1000 foot tides that would have accompanied the near miss and capture, but at this time that's all they seem to be: theoretical. The Ice Age neatly erased a large percentage of whatever artifacts may have existed so we can hardly use the absence of cave drawings depicting the moon as solid proof that it wasn't here. The moon certainly seems to be made of different stuff to us which nay-says the idea that it is a lump that broke off millennia ago. Again, all things are possible but without more knowledge and scientific foundation it remains an interesting theory rather than a fact. 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 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"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. However, had the moon been captured just prior to the last Ice Age as Brad suggests, we would surely see evidence of the enormous deformations you describe. The nightmare image of mount Everest bobbing up and down by some 10 miles twice a day springs to mind. An ice age would surely have been rendered impossible for millennia with all that thermal energy being dissipated. The equatorial zones would be a sea of lava and the atmosphere predominantly steam. The origin of the moon still isn't known and neither is it's date of formation/arrival. Without tongue in cheek, I agree it has to have been around for a lot longer than 10000 years though. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
Here is a good link which theorises the effects of the moon on the earth
from the earliest times, including the slowing down from a 15 hour day to the present 24 hours: http://www.astro.oma.be/ICET/bim/text/varga1.htm It is all based on observations of fossils and rhythmic sedimentation. Interesting. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"Brad Guth" wrote in message news:5d3927b6e79f9a83867d5bf963d718d7.49644@mygate .mailgate.org... "captain." wrote in message news:2Bd2h.37540$H7.6585@edtnps82 you think that the moon has only been here since the last ice age? do i dare ask why? That's right, but apparently it's still a deep and dark taboo/nondisclosure of a secret unless you can somehow manage to read through a few thousand of my dyslexic encrypted words. The moon's orbital energy represents roughly 2e20 joules. Do the math, and then share as to whatever's your best swag, as to what amount of that 2e20 J becomes tidal friction induced heat, and that's not to mention the little extra worth of secondary IR/FIR energy that's derived from our salty moon that's by far representing the most impressive ratio of planet:moon in our solar system. - Brad Guth how does that coincide with the last ice age? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Venus is alive and kicking our NASA's butt
"Brad Guth" wrote in message news:9cd51b4cbdc2989fc3ad1d194de34c0d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org... "captain." wrote in message news:9852h.35883$H7.2333@edtnps82 i've already given my opinion about venus and the moon. do you want me to start repeating myself? Don't be silly. Of course I want you and your kind to keep repeating yourself (you know, until a few of them NASA/Apollo cows come home) - Brad Guth people who apply labels to others aren't good for much. - charles adler. |
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 |