Venus is not too hot to touch with the Ovglove

On Jul 20, 6:54 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics, BradGuth

wrote
on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:25:02 -0000
.com:

On Jul 19, 6:49 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
So OK, we have a fluid Earth. How, precisely, does that allow the
Moon to be captured from Sirius or from Venus?

Good grief, it really doesn't. Earth being sufficiently fluid is what
simply allows the gravity of sol and that of our moon's combined tidal
energy to keep Earth's mostly fluid planetology in motion, and thus
unavoidably kept a little extra warm and toasty (mostly from the
inside out), although the friction associated with the moving of our
badly polluted oceans and atmosphere is certainly added right along
with the little extra worth of secondary IR/FIR that's also
contributed by way of our unusually massive and nearby moon. It's
called "Global Warming" or GW, and for the most part it's extensively
via friction.

An interesting answer, actually. Not sure I believe it without some
calculations, which I'm not all that sure how to do at the moment.
Boiled down, the Earth's flexing (as though it were a rubber ball) as
it rotates under the Moon is partly responsible for global warming. I
have no idea how to estimate the heat generated by that flexing.

Well folks, it's all about good old Earth and moon science that we
obviously seem to have been failing rather badly at. Yet supposedly
we've walked on that unusually passive moon, but only at the times
when Venus was invisible and when the moon's surface looked exactly
like a terrestrial guano island that was getting rather nicely xenon
arc lamp spectrum illuninated to boot.

Apparently their physics laws of photons, albedo and of unfiltered
Kodak film worked entirely different while on that salty old moon of
ours.

BTW, where otherwise than into our mostly fluid Earth do you suppose
all of that horrific tidal forced energy is going, if not into
creating heat?


The only thing that could possibly have been beneficial of Earth's
fluid nature is on behalf of folks on either orb having survived the
lithobraking encounter that helped establish our seasonal tilt, and
having deposited so much of that salty ice along with whatever complex
DNA within or having otherwise intentionally come along for the ride
of getting away from a somewhat pesky binary star system that had just
recently gone red giant, thereby migrating a few spare items into a
somewhat passive and reasonably nearby solar system like ours. I'm
thinking that's where the first use of phrases like "Christ almighty"
and "thank your lucky stars" came to past.

How's that?

Needs more salt. :-) Erm, I mean, work.

Then go right ahead and put the salt of your fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator and of its supercomputer to work, because that's
exactly what sort of "work" it needs.

BTW, the public already owns dozens of such spendy supercomputers,
plus all of the necessary interactive orbital software that's well
suited for accommodating this retro astrophyiscs task.
- Brad Guth

If Venus is NOT too hot to touch with that Ovglove, then it's NOT too
hot for other established forms of our applied technology, and that's
not even for the likes of computers made of micro cold-cathode vacuum
tubes becomes fully doable, especially since the required volume and/
or of whatever mass isn't the least bit of a compromise on behalf of
our doing Venus. ICs on diamond have also been fully within thermal
and pressure spec.

Many forms of complex life that coexist on Earth have long since
demonstrated their expertise or DNA/RNA intelligence of having
survived as complex species, as well as for their having survived much
longer than us humans, and often within environments that would be
downright lethal to our humanly frail DNA. Some existing forms of
this complex life actually lives on CO2 or survives within CO2
saturated environments as is. So why exactly is Venus continually
touted to us as being so off-limits?

The newish planetology of Venus is actually offering a solid win-win
for the likes of sustaining intelligent or even complex plant life,
whereas CO2 via applied physics can actually be converted into the raw
elements of a fuel, CO and O2 (similar to what plant photosynthesis
has to offer).

A relatively slight compression ratio applied to the CO2 loaded
atmosphere of Venus turns it into its liquid phase, which then becomes
an extremely effective refrigerant. Otherwise that rather nicely
geothermal preheated gas of CO2 can be technically managed on behalf
of becoming directly suitable for sustaining intelligent other life,
such as us within our artificial anti-greenhouse abode or efficiently
cruising along within our composite rigid airships.

Catalyst could help turn CO2 into fuel
18:00 15 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Tom Simonite
http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...into-fuel.html
A new catalyst that can split carbon dioxide gas could allow us to use
carbon from the atmosphere as a fuel source in a similar way to
plants.

"Breaking open the very stable bonds in CO2 is one of the biggest
challenges in synthetic chemistry," says Frederic Goettmann, a chemist
at the Max Planck Institute for Colloids and Interfaces in Potsdam,
Germany. "But plants have been doing it for millions of years."

Plants use the energy of sunlight to cleave the relatively stable
chemical bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in a carbon dioxide
molecule. In photosynthesis, the CO2 molecule is initially bonded to
nitrogen atoms, making reactive compounds called carbamates. These
less stable compounds can then be broken down, allowing the carbon to
be used in the synthesis of other plant products, such as sugars and
proteins.

In an attempt to emulate this natural process, Goettmann and
colleagues Arne Thomas and Markus Antonietti developed their own
nitrogen-based catalyst that can produce carbamates. The graphite-like
compound is made from flat layers of carbon and nitrogen atoms
arranged in hexagons.

The team heated a mixture of CO2 and benzene with the catalyst to a
temperature of 150 ºC, at about three times atmospheric pressure. In a
first step, the catalyst enabled the CO2 to form a reactive carbamate,
like that made in plants.

Oxygen grab
The catalyst's next useful step was to enable the benzene molecules to
grab the oxygen atom from the CO2 in the carbamate, producing phenol
and a reactive carbon monoxide (CO) species.

"Carbon monoxide can be used to build new carbon-carbon bonds,"
explains Goettmann. "We have taken the first step towards using carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere as a source for chemical synthesis."

Future refinements could allow chemists to reduce their dependence on
fossil fuels as sources for making chemicals. Liquid fuel could also
be made from CO split from CO2, says Goettmann. "It was common in
Second World War Germany and in South Africa in the 1980s to make fuel
from CO derived from coal," he adds.

The researchers are now trying to bring their method even closer to
photosynthesis. "The benzene reaction currently supplies the energy
that splits the CO2," Goettmann says, "but in plants it is light." The
new catalyst absorbs ultraviolet radiation, so the team is
experimenting to see if light can provide the energy instead.
-

In addition to the natural and/or artificially forced photosynthesis
process, there is simply nothing all that hocus-pocus or otherwise
insurmountable about CO2, of our converting it into the raw elements
of CO/O2, or directly utilizing the CO2 itself as refrigerant. As
long as we've got unlimited local energy that's renewable and
essentially everywhere to behold while on Venus, as such there's no
problems whatsoever with taking advantage of all that nifty CO2. The
amounts of dry and thus passive atmospheric S8(sulphur) are easily
managed, capable of safely coexisting or being diverted and/or
extracted and thus removed from whatever ongoing applications of
utilizing and/or the converting of CO2 into pure elements of CO and
O2.

This argument or ongoing rant means that Venus has been technically
doable as is, and that you don't have to be hardly much smarter than a
hot rock in order to accomplish the task of surviving on Venus.
- Brad Guth

On Jul 21, 9:07 am, Bob Officer wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:36:52 -0500, in alt.astronomy, Bill Snyder





wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:32:35 -0700, Bob Officer
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:28:51 -0500, in alt.astronomy, Bill Snyder
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:50:34 -0700, Bob Officer
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:10:51 -0500, in alt.astronomy, Bill Snyder
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:45:20 -0700, Bob Officer
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:24:20 -0000, in alt.astronomy, BradGuth
wrote:
roups.com
On Jul 6, 12:07 pm, BradGuth wrote:
roups.com
On Jul 6, 10:14 am, BradGuth wrote:
roups.com
On May 29, 6:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
groups.com

Brad, Stop talking to your self, it is a sign of mental instability.

Sign, my ass; in the Guthtard's case it's somewhere between a neon-lit
billboard, and skywriting with letters a mile high.

What ever it is, it is a sign.

In dealing with the Guthbot, one simply has to remember the three
simple rules which govern our existence:

RULE #1: Everything which is A) bad, or B) hard to understand, or C)
incompatible with Bishop Ussher's chronology, like 9/11, or quantum
superposition, or the theory of evolution, is a product of the Evil
Jewish Conspiracy. (Yes, Part A includes the Nazis, and earthquakes,
and Paris Hilton. Yes, Part B includes Apollo 11, and relativity, and
Form 1040. Yes, Part C includes isotope dating, and archaeology, and
Zsa Zsa Gabor. What did you think we meant by "EVERYTHING?")

RULE #2: Anybody who laughs at Rule #1 is part of the conspiracy.

RULE #3: Anybody who says that Rule #2 is crazy is part of the
conspiracy.

Those sound familiar? They have to do with discussion of Zeta-noids
and Nancy Lieder don't they?

Not to my knowledge; if I was borrowing from anyone, it was
unconsciously.

IT is an old theme. When you examine some people's ideas and question
them, the start lashing with cries of conspiracy. It seems to be a
strong theme in many of the Kooks we see today.

Just keep these fundamentals in mind, and you and Brad and his friends
can keep having happy and fruitful discussions until you are all as
old as coal.

Nice little Ed Conrad reference you slipped into the mix. Is he still
trying to sell his "coal" on e-bay?

Oh, Brad is an admirer of Ed, although I'm sure they're Just Good
Friends, really.

No surprise, there.

As for Ed's marketing, a cursory search didn't turn
anything up, but it seems unlike Scamrad to give up; maybe he has it
on there under a some disguising description.

I suspect E-bay pulled the auctions. there is some sort of
liability involved, maybe.

Conrad is in my Scorefile and seldom see anything from him directly.

he seems like a very broken record...

--
Ak'toh'di

Why are Yids and others like yourself so deathly afraid of the truth?
- Brad Guth

Unlike the mainstream status quo that's continually constipated beyond
the point of no return, as for their having to **** those Yiddish
infomercial bricks, whereas my observationology and deductive
interpretations without my having such flatulence of painful bricks as
based entirely upon the regular laws of physics and the best available
science, is still every bit as good as it was 7+ years ago.

Why otherwise is there so much Old Testament flak and the MIB damage-
control gauntlet to deal with?

Is it anti-Yiddish to openly think that Carl Sagan was more right than
we'd thought possible?
- Brad Guth

Besides Venus having been where all the newish planetology and
geothermal action is still kicking butt, what's this off-world
spacecraft all about? (robotic obtained image or infomercial hoax??)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc7mkHtuLOs
As I'd said before about this extremely weird and very artificial
looking item which seems in fact quite old if not ancient looking, but
otherwise at least offering an interesting notion to ponder, and
especially attractive since I believe ETs and variously complex DNA
had utilized our icy proto-moon on behalf of having survived their
interstellar trek. However, the very best of our NASA still does not
have such proven fly-by-rocket expertise (robotic or manned), nor have
we the required rad-hard DNA or any of that totally nonreactive/
(spectrum insensitive) Kodak film that supposedly had such hocus-pocus
**** poor DR(dynamic range) in that somehow it couldn't possibly have
recorded Venus (even though Venus should by rights have been there and
having been a brighter little speck of an item than any similar
optical speck of Earth). Go figure.

Unlike the mainstream status quo that's continually constipated beyond
the point of no return, as for their having to continually **** those
Yiddish infomercial bricks, whereas my observationology and deductive
interpretations without my having to pass such flatulence of painful
bricks, as based entirely upon the regular laws of physics and the
best available science, is still every bit as good and as painless as
it was 7+ years ago.

Why otherwise is there so much Old Testament flak and their MIB damage-
control gauntlet to deal with?

Is it simply anti-Yiddish to openly think that Carl Sagan was more
right than we'd thought possible?

It seems that faith of one sort or another is what got us into most
cold or hot wars, as well as this never-ending energy and GW fiasco in
the first place, and it's this undertow of faith that's puppeteering
on behalf of sustaining each of their status quo mindsets at all
cost. Therefore, any possible revision of the past, present or future
simply isn't allowed, no matters what. The anti antigravity cultism
is simply another portion of that swarm like mindset that's willing to
kill even their own kind in order to keep those various Old Testament
lids on tight.

Global warming has extensively to do with the lithobraking arrival of
our moon as of roughly 12,000 BP. However, on the behalf of various
lord/wizard/spook/mole/rusemaster (aka official Usenet naysayers),
I'll gladly say the following again and again, with as much honest
love and affection as I can muster in spite of the mainstream gauntlet
of flak that's sustaining their status quo.

Truth has always been in the swarm cultivated eye of the beholder, as
well as it's also why we've got to live with the swarm mindset of our
supposedly having walked on that physically dark and unavoidably
anticathode nasty moon of ours, while all of that time Venus remained
invisible as to any possible rad-hard Kodak moment to boot.

Carl Sagan's constructive yaysayism was absolutely correct, in that
there's endless possibilities of complex and even intelligent other
life within the Universe. Unfortunately, the local realm of this
crazy but otherwise vast universe seems rather unusually taboo/
nondisclosure rated, whereas the regular laws of physics that pertain
to our terrestrial existence seem not to apply to other local planets
or moons, especially if there's anything faith-based taken into
consideration.

Somehow, not even the honestly deductive interpretations on behalf of
any exploration obtained image, especially if it's derived from a
proper composite made of 36 radar looks or confirming exposures per
pixel, is simply not allowed no matters what those interpretations
have to offer, as not even the perfectly natural planetology of such a
geothermally active and thus newish planet such as Venus can be openly
shared without such topics taking on the lethal gauntlet of all that's
faith-based and/or ulterior motivated past the point of no return.
It's as though whatever laws of physics, the science of planetology
and even biology that works on behalf of interpreting our terrestrial
existence simply can not be applied on behalf of any other planet or
moon (including our own moon that's simply need-to-know or entirely
off-limits to anything except the NASA/Apollo holy grail). We can't
even honestly contemplate utilizing our moon's L1, much less the
relocation of our moon to Earth's L1, or forbid having anything to do
with establishing POOF City at Venus L2(VL2) as our first truly
interplanetary depot/gateway.

It seems our one and only viable alternative is to accept the past,
present and future as having been interpreted and thus scripted by the
faith-based mindset or swarm like intelligence, that's clearly
unwilling to look or even allow of others to look outside their
mainstream status quo box. This leaves us with the one and only
global domination options of war upon war until the last of whatever
dissenting mindset has been eliminated. Being that we'll all have to
accept whatever the upper most 0.1% of humanity has to say (or else),
doesn't exactly leave all that many of us off of their NO FLY list.

The ongoing swarm like manipulations of physics as having been made or
otherwise forced to suit their faith-based interpretations of science,
is simply the exposed tip of their badly polluted iceberg that's
clearly melting rather nicely before our typically dumbfounded eyes.

Those in charge of our mainstream media and especially of public
textbooks and science journals that are permitted to exist are also
those in charge of having established our past, present and future,
that no matters what has to reinforce upon all that came before.
Therefore, revisionism of any kind simply is not allowed, regardless
of the truths or replicated scientific evidence that gets presented.
Only of whatever allows the past to remain unchanged is permitted, and
even that much usually has to conform to the prevailing faith-based
mindset of those in charge.

In other words, Carl Sagan would have to agree that it's far better to
hide or exclude whatever truth(s), and/or to essentially lie your butt
off than to rock thy mainstream status quo good ship LOLLIPOP,
especially if that ship has a Jewish captain.

How am I doing so far?
- Brad Guth

"Bob Officer" wrote in message

I find your racism and bigotry to be sickening.

Then stop "religiously" reading his posts, you Deco dick sucker!

Your Pal,
HJ

"Bob Officer" wrote in message

You are an idiot.

You are a Deco dick sucker.

HJ

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:36:59 -0500, "John \"C\""
wrote:


"Bob Officer" wrote in message

You are an idiot.

You are a Deco dick sucker.

You're not fooling anybody. Why don't you just come out of the
closet, instead of making all the suggestive comments?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

Where's the all-knowing expertise when it's needed?

Why is the cool location of Venus L2(VL2) so gosh darn complicated?

Why is VL2 and Venus itself being kept so taboo/nondisclosure rated?

Why are those pesky Yids still grasping onto your private parts?
-
Brad Guth

According to wizard John Griffin (speaking on behalf of his fellow
brown-nosed Yiddish clowns):
There are no faith-based cults on Venus. Too ****in' hot

I replied; Perhaps that's a darn good thing. However, there's
unlimited ice cold beer and pizza that once taken out of the freezer
cooks itself before your dumbfounded eyes.

BTW, you silly folks can always use any one of my robust composite
rigid airships if you don't want to set a human hot-foot on that
toasty surface, that's geothermlly forcing their newish planetology
environment as being so freaking hot from the bottom up.

BTW No.2 I also have those full body Ovglove suits that'll help keep
your private parts just cool enough.
- Brad Guth

In spite of all the excluded evidence and orchestraded naysayism flak,
it seems those darn old regular laws of physics actually do apply to
the relatively newish planetology of Venus, and lo and behold it is at
least technically survivable, that is unless your swarm mindset of
such profound naysayism is not quite as smart as a hot rock.

Notice how these all-knowing wizards of Usenet are continually having
to pretend being atheists and otherwise totally dumbfounded past the
point of no return.

Notice how their Jewish controlled public media, plus that of our
textbooks and even GOOGLE/NOVA are still unable to so much as break
wind without letting yet another one of their nondisclosure lids get
lose. Clearly the hocus-pocus of such infomercial skewed faithism is
sucking and blowing in the wind of the nearby revisionism that's
unavoidable.
- Brad Guth