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

"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

"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.

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.

"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

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

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

"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.

"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

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