Energy that's between us and our moon

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message

Tether? Erm...where are the attachment points of
this tether?

Tethers, as in many such basalt composite tough fiber tethers made from
the moon itself, rather easily attached deep into whatever and wherever
you'd like.

The best one can hope for is
an increase to 1101 m/s, which will just make the orbit
more elliptical.

Sounds great, although it's already "elliptical" because of the sun,
perhaps a little more so at times because of Jupiter, and once every 19
months as measurably influenced by Venus.


If we go with your suggestion, the L2 point is about 60000
km above the far side of the Moon (the Wikipedia gives
61500 but I suspect they're using mass centers). If I
understand you correctly you want to move a gigatonne mass
(10^12 kg) 183000 km (1.83 * 10^7 m) from the far side,
and attach it to the Moon's surface with a sufficiently
strong tether.

I'd found a somewhat longer moon L2 of 64,700 km, thus a 2XL2 = 129,400
km, but instead by utilizing your further reach of 183,000 km should
obviously more than accomplish the pull like hell trick.


You are attempting to move a boulder with a flea. The Moon's
mass is 7.3477 * 10^22 kg -- about 7.3477 * 10^10 times bigger.

Flea by flea, or rather perhaps as much as tonne by tonne of tether
robotic pod by pod payloads and we'd eventually get there, with 1e12 kg
efficiently sitting but otherwise still attached at 2XL2, or possibly as
you've suggested a little further out.

Obviously you can't fully read, nor hardly think outside the box. Is
that because of old age, or is it something faith-based that's screwing
up the works?


You might try moving the tether further out, though I really don't see
how this is going to work anyway. Were the tether a very rigid lever
and L2 the fulcrum point, you'd want to have your mass 4.41 * 10^20 m
out -- which is 46,600 light years.

Silly boy, arnt you. What's your big ass hurry? I was thinking of this
taking a century if need be. I's called job security.


Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
U238/U235 we're talking about?

No, sorry; was I supposed to?

Most certainly, why the hell not? After all, he's yet another Usenet
wizard that knows all there is to know, and then some.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message

Tether? Erm...where are the attachment points of
this tether?

Tethers, as in many such basalt composite tough fiber tethers made from
the moon itself, rather easily attached deep into whatever and wherever
you'd like.

The best one can hope for is
an increase to 1101 m/s, which will just make the orbit
more elliptical.

Sounds great, although it's already skewed "elliptical" because of the
sun, perhaps a little more so at times because of Jupiter, and once
every 19 months as measurably influenced by Venus.


If we go with your suggestion, the L2 point is about 60000
km above the far side of the Moon (the Wikipedia gives
61500 but I suspect they're using mass centers). If I
understand you correctly you want to move a gigatonne mass
(10^12 kg) 183000 km (1.83 * 10^7 m) from the far side,
and attach it to the Moon's surface with a sufficiently
strong tether.

I'd found a somewhat longer moon L2 of 64,700 km, thus a 2XL2 = 129,400
km, but instead by utilizing your further reach of 183,000 km should
obviously more than accomplish this pull like hell trick.


You are attempting to move a boulder with a flea. The Moon's
mass is 7.3477 * 10^22 kg -- about 7.3477 * 10^10 times bigger.

Flea by flea, or rather perhaps as much as tonne by tonne of tether
robotic pod by pod payloads and we'd eventually get there, with 1e12 kg
efficiently sitting but otherwise still attached at 2XL2, or possibly as
you've suggested a little further out.

Obviously you can't fully read, nor hardly think outside the box. Is
that because of old age, or is it something faith-based that's screwing
up the works?


You might try moving the tether further out, though I really don't see
how this is going to work anyway. Were the tether a very rigid lever
and L2 the fulcrum point, you'd want to have your mass 4.41 * 10^20 m
out -- which is 46,600 light years.

Silly boy, arnt you. What's your big ass hurry? I was thinking of this
taking a century if need be. I's called job security.


Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
U238/U235 we're talking about?

No, sorry; was I supposed to?

Most certainly, why the hell not? What could it possibly hurt to ask?
After all, he's yet another Usenet wizard that knows all there is to
know, and then some.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:0ff5414ef4dfa90bcf81b2171eb78ef6.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Here's yet another work in progress:

Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged from within mother Earth, whereas more likely having
materialized from an incoming glancing sucker punch, such as by that of
a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth having received a nasty blow
(say having created an arctic ocean basin like impression), by a very
icy proto-moon (possibly of 4,000 km).

For example; If the orbital distance were made half and thus the
velocity would have to double because the mutual gravity of attraction
would have become 4X, therefore we'd have introduced 16 fold more inside
and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy to deal with, and I'm not all
that sure mother Earth would have stayed glued together at that level of
horrific gravitional and internal tidal forced trauma, much less for
cutting that orbital distance by yet another half (making its previous
orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of 4.092 km/s) would have to impose yet
another 16 fold factor, or rather suggesting 256 fold worse global
warming trauma than what we currently are suffering from the existing
tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects as is.

The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up soon becomes; How much time did it take for
that moon which supposedly emerged from within Earth, to have reached
the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having migrated from 96,100 km
out to where it's currently operating at 384,400 km? (thus far, none of
the computer simulations seem clean enough)

If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy that's
coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's actually
imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet--moon energy
that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or going as
to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real energy.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity...tion_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:

object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters

grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg

Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth--L1

However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such into no longer orbiting us, there's
actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is simply
rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this mutual
and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol--Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of implied energy:

As for the sol--moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules

object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules

Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.

In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.

Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.

1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules

Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules

There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.

The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules

Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw

At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2

Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.

The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2

However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.

Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.

Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger analogies can be run as fully
3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you certainly
wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the truth, now would
we.

Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote
There is a great deal of energy that's between Earth and that pesky
mascon of a moon of ours.

And even more between two protons.

Isn't that odd.

"VistaJustWorks" wrote in message



"Brad Guth" wrote
There is a great deal of energy that's between Earth and that pesky
mascon of a moon of ours.

And even more between two protons.

Isn't that odd.

Not at all odd, as for the given mass of any two protons might offer a
good basis, as to sharing an analogy for coming up with the potential
joules worth of energy that's between Earth and our nearby moon, that's
so gosh darn massive by such moon standards in relationship to the given
planet's mass.

What is the energy between two protons?
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote
What is the energy between two protons?

QM predicts that it is infinite.

"VistaJustWorks" wrote in message



"Brad Guth" wrote
What is the energy between two protons?

QM predicts that it is infinite.

107 TJ/kg; But is there any such Earth/Moon Binding Energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
-begin quote-
Binding energy is the energy required to disassemble a whole into
separate parts. A bound system has a lower potential energy than its
constituent parts; this is what keeps the system together. The usual
convention is that this corresponds to a positive binding energy.

In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work which must be
done in acting against the forces which hold an object together, while
disassembling the object into component parts separated by such
sufficient distance that further separation requires negligible
additional work.

Electron binding energy is a measure of the energy required to free
electrons from their atomic orbits.

Nuclear binding energy is derived from the strong nuclear force and is
the energy required to disassemble a nucleus into free unbound neutrons
and protons. At the atomic level, the binding energy of the atom is
derived from electromagnetic interaction and is the energy required to
disassemble an atom into free electrons and a nucleus. In astrophysics,
gravitational binding energy of a celestial body is the energy required
to disassemble it into space debris (dust and gas). This quantity is not
to be confused with the gravitational potential energy, which is the
energy required to separate two bodies, such as a celestial body and a
satellite, to infinite distance, keeping each intact (the latter energy
is lower).
-end quote-

Exactly how much lower than binding energy is the energy of gravity?

Would it not be absolutely nifty having a science platform situated
within the moon's L1?

-begin quote-
Specific quantitative example: a deuteron
A deuteron is the nucleus of a deuterium atom, and consists of one
proton and one neutron. The experimentally-measured masses of the
constituents as free particles a

mproton = 1.007825 u (u is atomic mass unit)
mneutron= 1.008665 u
mproton + mneutron = 1.007825 + 1.008665 = 2.01649 u

The mass of the deuteron (also an experimentally measured quantity) is:
Atomic mass 2H = 2.014102 u
The mass difference = 2.01649 - 2.014102 = 0.002388 u. Since the
conversion between rest mass and energy is 931.494MeV/u, a deuteron's
binding energy is calculated to be:

0.002388 × 931.494 MeV/u = 2.224 MeV
Thus, expressed in another way, the binding energy is [0.002388/2.01649]
x 100% = about 0.1184 % of the total energy corresponding to the mass.
This corresponds to 1.07 x 1014 J/kg = 107 TJ/kg.
-end quote-

107 TJ/kg certainly seems rather impressive, and to think that our
little old moon has 7.35e22 kg to work with, whereas you'd think at
least some of that mass has to have at laeast a few of such protrons and
neutrons to spare.

So, perhaps the Earth/moon "binding energy" of gravity that's existing
between Earth and our nasty moon is actually greater than I'd thought.
I wonder how much greater than the 2e20 j or 7.2e20 kw worth we're
talking about, such as to whatever's the actual energy associated with
the week Earth/moon atomic binding relationship, and what exactly is
that amount of energy worth on the open physics spot market.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote
107 TJ/kg; But is there any such Earth/Moon Binding Energy?

Isn't that less than the infinite energy existing between two protons?

"VistaJustWorks" wrote in message
news
"Brad Guth" wrote
107 TJ/kg; But is there any such Earth/Moon Binding Energy?

Isn't that less than the infinite energy existing between two protons?

Silly boy or gal,
Are you folks smart enough to wipe your own butts?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"VistaJustWorks" wrote in message
Isn't that less than the infinite energy existing between two protons?


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
Silly boy or gal,
Are you folks smart enough to wipe your own butts?

Isn't the finite amount of energy you provided smaller than an infinite
amount?

Get off the drugs Brad.