Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius

Interpretations (deductive reasoning) derived from the works of others,
whereas I'm probably not using the best words nor is my math entirely
correct, but if you're even half as smart as you claim, as then you
already have known exactly what I'm driving at, including about my use
of core sample data indicating upon CO2 and other atmospheric elements
that have been telling us a 750,000 year chemical/element story about
the fluctuations in the environment of Earth, and perhaps even the
environment of our solar system. Too bad we still don't have robotic
instruments situated upon our moon, as within the utmost ideal
geological morgue, telling us what's what without being filtered to
death by our atmosphere and otherwise dissolved by our highly corrosive
environment.

We need only to review the following spectrum data about Sirius, and to
start thinking a little outside the box, not to mention upon our
considering the ongoing progress of the ESA/Hipparcos team and of all
the incriminating data extracted from 750,000 years worth of what core
samples have been telling us.

Sirius spectrum obtained from 74"
http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/course...taanalysis.pdf

Sirius-type Binary Systems (spectra)
http://www.star.le.ac.uk/wd/posters/sirius.htm

http://www.stellar-database.com/Scri...xe?Name=sirius
Excluding the UV/bc and a little UV/a worth Sirius/b, the vast bulk of
the Sirius/a energy resides between 375 and 550 nm (significant peaks at
390 and 410 nm)
Sirius @8.6 l.y.
Radial Velocity = -9.4 km/s
Combined visual luminosity: 22.61 x Sol

Since everything goes around something, and due to the elliptical nature
of most orbits, and especially since I'm the sole chief village idiot
having been interpreting that we're still on our outbound loop as
nearing the furthest point of orbit away from Sirius, that which could
max out at 9~9.5 ly, whereas I'll further suggest for this argument that
our present rate of recession that's posted as -9.4 km/s should convert
into roughly five fold that rate upon the average returning or closing
cycle of stellar orbiting motions. Thus 9.4 x 5 = 47 km/s is what could
represent the average rate of managing over such extreme orbital
distances (if you don't like my numbers, please use whatever suits your
fancy, or sue me).

I've been suggesting our solar system as having made several fairly
tight rotations (near miss) past Sirius, and of this being the sharp end
of the egg that'll cruise us to within less than 0.01 L.Y. (0.0086 LY =
544 AU which is way clear of Sirius/b), while essentially we'd be going
like a bat out of hell. Then at the opposit end of this extended
elliptical trek being the broad end of the egg (near to where we
currently are) should equate as a much softer turn-around, affording
plenty of time for the ice-age cycle to settle in for the next 20,000
some odd years, being disrupted once again by our returning towards the
horrific intensity and certainly some IR warmth of the Sirius star
system that we'll be continually progressing ourselves towards Sirius,
thus contributing to whatever we're already receiving from sol.

http://www.stellar-database.com/Scri...exe?Name=rigel
Rigel @733 l.y.
Radial Velocity: 20.7 km/sec
Combined visual luminosity: 38771 x Sol
@21 km/s should take better than 10e6 years to reach anywhere near us,
thus even a hundred fold increase in that rate of our advancing upon
Rigel to within 7.33 LY (an absolutely impressive 1e4 intensity increase
= 38.77e7 x sol) simply isn't offering a sufficient factor with regard
to the timing of ice-age cycles that have been (according to those ice
cores and other such samples, plus most every other geological research)
transpiring upon every 105,000 (+/- 5,000) years.

The Rigel and Sirius forms of visual luminosity doesn't represent the
whole truth when it comes down to the actual energy of what's in their
near-UV and UV/a portions of the available spectrum, as the human
perception of those portions of the energy spectrum is sorely deprived
of lumens/watt or by whatever alternative measure you'd care to involve.

According to Hyperphysics.phy; human Scotopic Conversion lumen/Watt
@507 nm = 1700 lm/w
@450 nm = 774 lm/w
@400 nm = 16 lm/w
@380 nm = 1 lm/w

Even though we may need only to get ourselves within 7.33 LY from the
body of Rigel, the much closer prospect of cruising past Sirius is
offering us a somewhat better spectrum along with a higher percentage of
what's available, thus a more effective transfer of said energy getting
through our atmosphere (anything of UV/b or UV/c being rather pointless
since only slight amounts of UV/b manages to get through, and almost
zilch worth of any UV/c). For the likes of plant life, nocturnals and
especially those silica diatoms getting piled higher than 90 meters,
they'll absolutely thrive upon the extra hours of such near-UV and UV/a
illumination, while exceeding at all record of growth once given a dual
source of photons including this highly beneficial Sirius spectrum by
which to multiply and biologically convert CO2--CO/O2. If you were a
diatom, life simply doesn't get much better.

Essentially, something horrifically external to our solar system has
been responsible for the advanced growth cycles of life, and of those
ice-ages as far as we've come to know about such matters. Massive star
systems like Alpha Centauri and Rigel are simply not falling into the
proper neighborhood as to facilitate any significant influence upon our
environment, at least not within any viable timeline of ice-ages. If it
weren't for the pollution of humanity shifting the albedo of Earth by
-5%, and since Sirius is getting about as far away as ever (perhaps
another LY to go), we should have been well into our next ice-age cycle.

Alpha Centauri is certainly closest (even though we've been traveling
apart at 32 km/s), suggesting a good probability of our once being much
closer to the Alpha Centaury neighborhood. However, the combined mass is
still less than Sirius, and the energy spectrum isn't nearly as ideal,
not to mention the somewhat lethal flare aspects contributed by Proxima
(or perhaps that was the fire and brimstone aspects of whatever had
transpired from time to time) that fell within the 225~250 million year
cycle of the entire Milky Way galaxy as reported by the ESA/Hipparcos
team that seems to have acquired more expertise about stellar motions
than all of what's having NASA's stamp of approval.

I believe this leaves us with pondering the prospects of focusing our
attention and astrophysics talents upon the likes of what the Sirius
star system has to offer. Thus far, besides what those nice Dogon folks
are having to say, I can't uncover the likelihood of our NOT being
within the Sirius neighborhood every so often, subsequently our
environment influenced by the horrific energy and the nearly ideal
intensity of spectrum afforded by Sirius. Unfortunately, I don't have a
publicly paid for and continually funded CRAY supercomputer, plus all of
the multi-million dollar/euro facilities within which to crunch all
those stellar motion numbers, but I know darn well that others do. I
believe others have run those numbers with the results being on my side
of this argument.

At least within a little give or take, it seems my arguments pan out as
affording the sufficient amounts of energy differentials and timelines
that would have nicely cycled in and out of our environment. Some day I
might even improve the math, and ready or not I'll probably share that
outcome as well. In the mean time, it would be nice if other having the
necessary computers, stellar motions software and interest in going back
in time, thereby generating a graphical presentation of this magnitude,
I'd certainly be willing to post credits on your behalf, and I'd promote
those efforts in spite of all the mainstream flak.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


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

Another topic that's somewhat related;
"Life upon Venus is absolute hell, but doable"

This topic and most others are essentially all about other than human
life managing to evolve and survive in spite of what most Earth humans
might like to think. There's even a door that's remaining open for the
likes of ETs terraforming a few planets.

Why wouldn't ETs terraform a few planets? Isn't that exactly what we're
planning upon doing?

Too bad the mainstream is still too busy accomplishing their usual grant
butt suck-ups of nearly continual dog-wagging spin, hype and essentially
accommodating damage-control on behalf of those NASA/Apollo cows that
are never coming home. As otherwise it seems decades ago we would have
realized upon so much more and have subsequently accomplished so much
other than what little we're stuck with as of today, and apparently into
for the foreseeable future as long certain warlords and religious cults
remain in power.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:7cadde4c3872c70d87a5c0038e4adcbb.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Besides our 100,000 some odd year encounters with the Sirius star/solar
system, we have our moon to deal with, as of the last ice age this
planet will ever see.

As geothermally heated from the active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and this taking of energy is even free of any
artificial CO2 potential), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly renewable
to boot. Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and
geothermally active nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as
scientifically off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers terminated, if not worse.

JFK honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult like
authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU.

I happen to totally agree with the intent of honest renewable energy
topics, of promoting as much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a
composite of solar PV, stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in
fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe footprint of energy density
that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr/m2), that's likely to advance to the
50 kw/m2 level in the near future. Along with a national power grid
infrastructure, the areas best suited for this form of renewable energy
extraction can pick up as much as 75% of our future needs, along with
15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear (meaning near zero coal and oil).
Nations without hydroelectric or nuclear potential would obviously have
to make due with supplementing LNG and perhaps h2o2 in order to obtain
their maximum benefit with the least pollution from whatever fossil or
biofuel alternatives.

However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps their best all-inclusive
birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without a
tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and GW
deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is for going along with our utilizing
nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal
and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our global energy needs. So,
I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear. After all, there are
more than a few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't
be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and
oil spendy or otherwise unavailable, the only viable alternative may
come down to WW-III.

BTW; for this and most any other topic argument sake, the laws of
energy still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kw or 1 kwhr or
1 kjhr because, a jhr is still worth 3600 joules. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting, pillaging and
raping mother Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.

These Usenet big-energy folks that are the best at infomercial spewing
and for usually being directly or indirectly industry paid-for as
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the pro green/renewables of constructive
contributions have to share, treated as though we're their big-energy
approved toilet-paper.

BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and it's real in more ways than
one. At least we can honestly say that it's partially (10%~25%) caused
by humanity, and that there are direct and indirect environmental
consequences of our past, present and future actions. However, because
of the vast amount of required energy, the continued thawing of Earth
since the last ice age this planet will ever see, is not entirely our
fault.

Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of promoting all that's pro big-energy and of having to
protect their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus
seeing those usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on
steroids, whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems
as though rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it
must be offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.

Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" / by William Elliot

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...4e1a7a3d8636ec

The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our recently
obtained moon, which isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by
humanity (at best I'd buy into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we
all departed this Earth and let nature take its planetology course, this
Earth would continue to thaw from the last ice age this planet will ever
see. As long as we have that pesky moon of ours, ice age trapped
methanes and CO2 will in fact keep "Bubbling Through Seafloor Creates
Undersea Hills", though at a reduced rate if the human factor were
entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_relea...aull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, another truth being told that we're not supposed to know
about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our magnetosphere
has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.

Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons that have little if any trouble
getting through to the surface that getting a little extra sooty and
otherwise polluted by the day, which includes less snow and ice coverage
that means upon average a lower global albedo, that in turn represents
an even better sol and moon energy absorber that in turn keeps our
nighttime atmosphere more cloud covered due to the increased levels of
h2o in our atmosphere.

This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)

Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...=smart&p=1/211

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...990d88e00958f4

Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).

Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.

Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth--L1
However Sol--Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol--L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)

However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon
that's causing us all sorts of grief.

In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.

BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon--planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.

If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.

On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking, that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo or whatever
faith based gasket, then perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) has a perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as
non-caring job without ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and
others of your kind.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:7cadde4c3872c70d87a5c0038e4adcbb.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Perhaps the ongoing topic banishments or incoming naysay topic flak is
all because of our 100,000 some odd +/- year or +/- multi-century
encounters with the Sirius star/solar system, that which had been of
more frequent orbital encounters throughout each of our multiple ice age
cycle past, whereas of just somewhat lately we've had that pesky moon of
our's to deal with as of the last ice age this planet will ever see.
Take away our moon and Earth gets cold. Relocate our moon at Earth's L1
and we extensively cool off mother Earth in spite of whatever we've
managed to do to our frail environment (perhaps creating a touch too
much shade, which is still better off than not having enough shade).

Remember that nothing is in willy-nilly mode of just coasting through
space with no apparent association to any other mass. Our wussy little
solar system is unavoidably associated with the more than sufficiently
nearby, truly massive and otherwise super powerful Sirius star/solar
system, including that of its vast Oort cloud of moon sized debris, if
not somewhat larger and most likely icy items.

I'd gladly share other news you can use, except unfortunately it seems
ESAs Venus EXPRESS mission is no longer alive, as sadly MI/NSA~NASA has
pretty much nailed their science coffins shut. Having thus far excluded
their robust PFS instrument from sharing in the geothermal truth about
Venus, is actually mainstream's faith-based status quo doing exactly
what they do best. However, if push comes down to shove, we don't have
to believe their every word, nor do we have to take their damage control
ultimatums as though being the word of God.

As geothermally heated from that active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and of this taking of energy is even free of
producing any artificial CO2), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly
renewable to boot.

Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and geothermally active
nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as scientifically and
especially faith based off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics simply can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers getting terminated, if not worse.

JFK had honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult
like authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU.

In spite of all the big-energy and government orchestrated flak, I
happen to totally agree with the intent of honest renewable energy
topics, of promoting as much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a
composite of solar PV, stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in
fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe footprint of energy density
that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr/m2), that's likely to advance to the
50 kw/m2 level in the near future. Along with a national power grid
infrastructure, the areas best suited for this form of renewable energy
extraction can pick up as much as 75% of our future needs, along with
15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear (meaning near zero coal and oil).
Nations without hydroelectric or nuclear potential would obviously have
to make due with supplementing LNG and perhaps h2o2 in order to obtain
their maximum benefit with the least pollution from whatever fossil or
biofuel alternatives.

However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps their best all-inclusive
birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without a
tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and GW
deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is for going along with our utilizing
nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal
and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our global energy needs. So,
I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear. After all, there are
more than a few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't
be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and
oil spendy or otherwise unavailable, the only viable alternative may
come down to WW-III.

BTW; for this and most any other topic argument sake, the laws of
energy still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kw or 1 kwhr or
1 kjhr because, a jhr is still worth 3600 joules. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting, pillaging and
raping mother Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.

These Usenet big-energy folks that are the best at infomercial spewing
and for usually being directly or indirectly industry paid-for as
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the pro green/renewables of constructive
contributions have to share, treated as though we're their big-energy
approved toilet-paper.

BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and it's real in more ways than
one. At least we can honestly say that it's partially (10%~25%) caused
by humanity, and that there are direct and indirect environmental
consequences of our past, present and future actions. However, because
of the vast amount of required energy, the continued thawing of Earth
since the last ice age this planet will ever see, is not entirely our
fault.

Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of promoting all that's pro big-energy and of having to
protect their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus
seeing those usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on
steroids, whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems
as though rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it
must be offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.

Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" / by William Elliot

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...4e1a7a3d8636ec

The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our recently
obtained moon, which isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by
humanity (at best I'd buy into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we
all departed this Earth and let nature and the laws of physics take its
planetology course, this Earth would continue to thaw from the last ice
age this planet will ever see. As long as we have that pesky moon of
ours, ice age trapped methanes and CO2 will in fact keep "Bubbling
Through Seafloor Creates Undersea Hills", though at a reduced rate if
the human factor were entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_relea...aull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, I've shared yet another truth as being told that we're not
supposed to know about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our
magnetosphere has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.

Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons that have little if any trouble
getting through to the surface that getting a little extra sooty and
otherwise polluted by the day, which includes less snow and ice coverage
that means upon average a lower global albedo, that in turn represents
an even better sol and moon energy absorber that in turn keeps our
nighttime atmosphere more cloud covered due to the increased levels of
h2o in our atmosphere.

This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)

Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...=smart&p=1/211

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...990d88e00958f4

Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).

Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.

Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting as to what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth--L1
However Sol--Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol--L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)

However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is also why
there's no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's
having to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become
primarily in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated
L1 planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being such a pesky
moon that's causing us all sorts of grief.

In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.

BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon--planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.

If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd certainly like to hear
about that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash
upon whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your
having to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was
flat and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based
solitary existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your
conditional laws of physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on
behalf of supporting those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by
the status quo which you must worship at all cost.

On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking, that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo or whatever
faith based gasket, then perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) has a perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as
non-caring job without ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and
others of your kind.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Bookman" wrote in message


Hi, Guthball! Nice to know that AFAB still terrifies you!

Say what?

What the hell is "AFAB"?
-
Brad Guth


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