|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
We're losing our trusty magnetosphere at the ongoing rate of 0.05%/
year, and that's supposedly not such a big deal, even though ISS/ESS has to avoid that ever expanding SAA lethal contour at all cost. - Brad Guth |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take a thousand years, and we're either toast and/or we're becoming Mars like. We're deep into achieving our point of no return, of the ongoing GW thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while all of that nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a good enough moon for keeping that planetology core and of a surface of interactive tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking, as is very much the case for mother Earth. Pat Flannery: "Subject: Very wet Mars?" As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted? http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/ Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about, as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet before having lost it's essential magnetosphere. Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt. All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus 30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is hardly worth a good spit. At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be? Would there be any salty remainders? Perhaps Mars was a mostly a swamp and/or of some other geothermally forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise the necessary quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as though it had been nearly entirely missed upon getting its fair share of salt to begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been strip-mined or somehow otherwise having its salt extracted. Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so) If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep within the remainders of such Mars salt, of having at least 1.5e17 kg of whatever Na to deal with. Have those salty types of minerals and percentage or PPM worth of whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those robotic samples taken and processed thus far? Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less quantify? Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold? Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations, as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of salt to behold than Mars. What gives? As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life (meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere microbes and/or diatom like spores). If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on Mars. What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy moons and planet sized debris. At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core energy that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding 78 mw/m2, whereas our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has been so much so helping that it has become by far our primary GW consideration like none other. Obviously adding our global dimming soot into the ongoing GW demise of our frail environment that's also losing its portective magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year isn't exactly helping, at least not any more so than our artificial methods of having been evaporating water that's only adding to our atmospheric cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently ranges anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes, depending entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics driven science you'd care to take to the bank. It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions, while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems almost sadistic, if not insane. - Brad Guth |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Instead of these all-knowing folks telling us their same old
mainstream infomercial crapolla, such as informing us as to how supposedly wet Mars had once been, tell us what we don't know about our highly unusual moon, about Venus, or about the Sirius star/solar system that might relate to those pesky ice ages and otherwise of our ongoing GW fiasco, that sees no apparent end in sight as long as we keep holding onto that nasty moon of ours. Here's another slightly corrected/polished contribution, as intended for those that see no problems whatsoever with their excessively spending most all of our hard earned loot on their off-world hobby, that which seems to include their continued snookering of all the rest of us village idiots. (it's no wonder these silly Usenet clowns see nothing the least bit wrong with our resident warlord's actions, as well as accepting upon whatever our government has done in the past or plans upon doing in the near future is all perfectly OK, as long as they get to do their thing at the same expense and/or demise of others) How about instead of our wasting such supposed talents, draining our best resources and having mostly lost precious time, why not instead they should be talking to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's not of Earth, telling us when that big old icy sucker arrived and of how we subsequently obtained our seasonal tilt. If they're so gosh darn smart, as such they can start off by telling us of whatever it's going to take for relocating our moon, such as out to Earth's L1, so that a significant and/or perhaps do-everything lid can once and for all be placed upon our GW fiasco, that's going to need all the help it can get. Unfortunately, our "Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon" actually doesn't hold much of a candle to the fire that's continually burning up all of those hard earned billions upon billions of dollars, as for getting badly spent on behalf of Mars, or of worse yet upon whatever it's taking for going far beyond. In spite of all that blown loot and lost time on behalf of whatever life might have once upon a time existed on Mars, that at best sucks real bad, and/or is of life that's going to remain as damn spendy to boot, if not a touch lethal to our environment. If Mars life was ever into kicking any serious butt, it's having done such without benefit of having all that much salt, as well as having gone without a magnetosphere or a worthy moon to boot. Titan and possibly Ceres, or even Sedna with it's reddish ice offers more life worthy butt kicking potential than Mars, and we obviously can't humanly go to/from either of those places, much less return with anything worthy of humanity or that of salvaging our badly failing environment. An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars. Give or take another iffy thousand years, and we're either toast and/ or we're soon enough on the road to becoming Mars like. We're rather deep into achieving our point of no return, of the ongoing GW thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while most all of that nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a good enough moon for keeping that planetology core and whatever surface of interactive tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking, as is very much the case for mother Earth. Pat Flannery: "Subject: Very wet Mars?" As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted? http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/ Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about, as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet, that is before having lost it's essential magnetosphere. Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt. All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus 30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is hardly worth a good spit. At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be? After the great thaw, would there be any salty remainders? Perhaps Mars was a mostly a cool swamp and/or of some other geothermally forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise the necessary quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as though it had been nearly if not entirely missed upon getting its fair share of salt to begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been strip-mined or somehow otherwise having its salt extracted. Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so) If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep within the remainders of such Mars salt, of their having at least 1.5e17 kg of whatever Na to deal with. Have those salty types of minerals and of their percentage or PPM worth of whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those robotic samples taken and processed thus far? Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less quantify? Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold? Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations, as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of salt to behold than Mars. What gives? As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life (meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere microbes and/or diatom like spores). If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on Mars. What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy moons and planet sized debris. At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core thermal energy, that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding 78 mw/m2, whereas our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has been so much so helping that it has become by far our primary GW consideration like none other. Obviously adding our global dimming soot into the ongoing GW demise of our frail environment that's also losing its protective magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year isn't exactly helping, at least not any more so than our artificial methods of having been evaporating water that's only adding to our atmospheric cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently ranges anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes, depending entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics driven science you'd care to take to the bank. It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions, while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems almost sadistic, if not insane. We can't even honestly accomplish our moon's L1, much less the moon itself, yet a fuzzy if not hocus-pocus future of spending more than a trillion per decade seems likely without hardly a dollar going towards resolving our need of accomplishing a substantial cache of solar and wind derived renewable energy, much less for extracting from the energy that's existing between Earth and our moon. Doing Venus isn't 1% the cost of accomplishing the same task for Mars. At least you can efficiently go about your business (if need be all 19 months worth of it) as safely within that composite rigid airship, transporting yourself safely above the geothermally toasty surface of Venus, without hardly expending energy or having to ever set a hot foot on that deck. - Brad Guth |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Wow! would you folks take a look at all the Usenet retractions.
Downright impressive, isn't it, to see all of these mainstream rats jumping off their own good ship LOLLIPOP. The moon will never again smack into Earth, that is unless something Sedna like manages to hit just exactly right, and the odds of that ever happening are as they say astronomical. If anything, we're losing our grip upon our salty moon, that's still in the process of losing mass. Unfortunately, we'll have lost our protective magnetosphere long before having entirely lost the warm and fuzzy tidal benefits of our moon. This following was a reply to a perfectly nifty contribution via "rick_sobie". rick_sobie: There was no moon, or surely, they would have drawn it, in some cave, at least once. Somewhere you would think. We seem to have obtained those 10,000 BC and of much older images in the realm of 15,000 BC, if not a bit older, of such intelligent produced records sharing perfectly valid indications by way of such old art as having depicted our environment illuminated by the sun, though as always w/o moon. The moon became a part of human culture as of something more recent than 10,000 BC, as did those indications of folks having to migrate due to the seasonal changes which didn't seem to be the case before noticing that we had such a moon and those nofty tides to deal with. I think the moon for what it really is, might have been depicted by the short funny people of South America. http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica146.jpg http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica147.jpg I tend to agree. So what's the approximate age of the "Labyrinthina" moon? Noah's most recent flood of perhaps 2250 ~ 2350 BC is yet another indication of Earth having been impacted, and most likely getting our environment further deposited with additional ice, that which most likely got here by way of our icy proto-moon, that's also remaining nearby as a somewhat unusually salty orb. However, besides the ongoing thaw from the last ice age Earth will ever see, whereas the original flood(s) of 5,000 ~ 5600 BC or perhaps the initial big one of 9600 BC is what could easily have been derived from the initial impact by such as an icy proto-moon, as well as for that event having established Earth's seasonal tilt. By all rights there would have been multiple secondary shards of that salty ice raining down upon Earth, whereas from time to time as those massive spacebergs of salty moon ice having returned via their associated orbital path, returning to the approximate origin of that initial lunar impact being Earth and naturally of their own origin being the moon itself. (I'm thinking Arctic ocean basin forming, as such being one of the more likely points of initial contact, and in any event it most likely wasn't a one time icy encounter, meaning there should have been multiple floods over an extended period of time, not to mention a few antipode events) Earth's reformation via multiple impacts and of those unavoidable antipode related events is every bit as real of planetology formation as it gets. Those massive yet unusually shallow craters upon our moon (due to that surface having been protected by a thick layer of ice) is proof positive that such horrific sorts of cosmic or local solar system encounters did in fact happen. However, mention the Bible and all of hell breaks lose within most any scientific realm, especially by way of those pretending at being Old Testament thumpers that claim to know all there is to know, but only if it's in a very Jewish way. Here's yet another best effort research paper via "trustbible", that's worth our considering, as to having shared this alternative view that happens to include notions of getting Mars involved, of which at best is only remotely possible. I still don't entirely agree with that notion of Mars, especially since it's well enough understood that Mars hasn't even its fair share of salt, although our moon is in fact somewhat salty and otherwise downright weird about having such an unusual geology of formation that's clearly not being allowed as honestly understood, at least not to nearly the extent of what we're learning about Mars that was apparently a mostly fresh water little planetology environment before having lost its protective magnetosphere. http://www.trustbible.com/noah.htm I'm not saying the Bible is as trustworthy as we'd like it to be, however it's certainly next to the best available record of actual events that took place, along with loads of faith-based embellishments, with obviously some subjective analogy applications on behalf of those interpretations, by having improved upon whatever others likely wanted to believe, because it gave further meaning or greater importance as to their existence (unfortunately, that's still the infomercial forced norm as of today, including as to how our government typically gets whatever published into textbooks, pretty much as they'd like to stick, as representing their one and only record of what's not exactly or even remotely accurate as to what actually happened, or much less honest as to why such things happened) - Brad Guth |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
It's supposedly taking the equivalent of 2e20 joules, or roughly
7.2e21 KW worth of gravity force(Fg), for the task of mutually holding onto our moon, or vise versa. How much of that energy is getting transferred into Earth? ( 3.6e21 KW ?) How about 0.0001% = 3.6e15 KW (that's only 7.04 KW/m2, or 3.322e-3 W/ m3 [excluding our atmosphere]) - Brad Guth |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
The perfectly good analogy of "G=EMC^2 Glazier", as to contemplating
the "What if (on White Dwarfs)" of a given 4X or 5X solar mass going postal, such as from that original Sirius B kicking out a few assorted Oort cloud items while going red-giant, as such isn't all that unlikely. In fact, it seems as though entirely more common place and therefore more likely than not, especially interesting as our Sol gets within better range of using our somewhat wussy gravity to further attract upon whatever's headed our way. The Milky Way's 225MY cycle is what also indicates lots of those more frequent local stellar cycles (such as Sirius), thus not all of our stellar surroundings remain forever in redshift. The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood, by Nordström et al., as having been further improved by Hipparcos data: http://www.aanda.org/index.php?optio... d=42&lang=en Of whatever accumulates as cosmic ice surviving in interstellar space, especially as for eventually cruising anywhere near 1AU of a Sol like star, as such requires a fairly substantial volume and/or gravity worthy core of a cool enough rock (perhaps not unlike 7.35e22 kg), and otherwise hosting some degree of a protective atmosphere, even if such an atmosphere is primarily sustained via those icy vapors. I've asked of others; What is the "R" value of ice as insulation? Eric Swanson: Thermal Conductivity, Ice at 0 C = 2.22 (W/m K) Data for other temperatures found he http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ic...ies-d_576.html Thermal Conductivity of -0°C ice = 2.22 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.45) Thermal Conductivity of -5°C ice = 2.25 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.444) Thermal Conductivity of -10°C ice = 2.3 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.435) Thermal Conductivity of -30°C ice = 2.5 (W/m K) ~ (R/m/K = 0.4) In a few other honestly deductive words of my best dyslexic encrypted wisdom, whereas an ejected icy covered (Sedna like) proto-moon is entirely livable if you are adequately sequestered within/under such a protective layer of ice, especially nifty on behalf of sufficiently intelligent folks, plus capable of hosting all sorts of other DNA that'll survive such an extended interstellar trek, such as getting safely away from that white dwarf of a star that used to be of a 4X or greater solar mass to begin with. Just 100 meters of -30°C ice is good for insulating: 250 W/K 1 km of that same -30°C ice is good for insulating: 2.5 KW/K 100 km of -30°C ice becomes worthy of insulating at 250 KW/K Obviously the thermal conduction of such ice is somewhat less (better insulating) as for what's existing directly upon or near the rocky surface (R/m/K = 0.45), as is otherwise the more thermally conductive ice and snow that's likely capable of becoming something near 45 K (-228°C) at the upper most surface of being exposed to the very worse of whatever such a local interstellar trek would likely amount to a heat transfer of 5.34 W/mK, with otherwise an average interstellar medium that's worthy of perhaps something less than 98 K (-175°C) losing 4.57 W/mK. Unfortunately, I'm still that village idiot or pesky messenger from hell that's suggesting our icy proto-moon as having arrived in a lithobraking and Earth seasonal tilting fashion, though only as of the last ice age this planet will ever see, while packing along as much as 262 km worth of surface ice and/or as having collected such volumes of compacted salty Oort snow on deck, much of which becoming those extra volumes of salty oceans and ice deposited upon Earth. Perhaps you folks can manage to further add or subtract your best swag, as to expanding upon the what-if of this icy DNA transport analogy that's pretty much all Guth going yaysay postal, as to my limited mindset favoring a good deal of panspermia influx, up to that of accomplishing a full blown intelligent design effort that obviously hasn't turned out quite as well as originally planned, unless absolute hell on Earth was their intended outcome. - Brad Guth |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
How much global warming(GW) is our moon good for?
It's supposedly taking the equivalent of 2e20 joules, or roughly the equal of 7.2e21 KW worth of gravity force(Fg), as representing the equivalent in centripetal force(Fc) of mutually holding onto our moon, or vise versa. How much of that energy is getting transferred into Earth? ( 3.6e21 KW ?) How about allowing 0.0001% = 3.6e15 KW (that's only 7.04 KW/m2, or rather 3.322e-3 W/m3 [excluding our atmosphere], or perhaps as little a 3.25 mw/m3 including the volume of our wet atmosphere) Gravity is a real measured force, and the associated energy of that force is clearly going somewhere other than into thin air (sort of speak). Much of earth's surface and especially of its interior is not a solid, and such stuff (including our polluted and wet atmosphere) is affected by and thus moved along by gravity, unavoidably causing friction. Earth's moon is considerably more than a thousand fold of greater mass per ratio of it's planet than any other moon within our solar system, with the exception of those little binary icy planets or the likes of Oort cloud debris that simply arnt all that robust to start with, and our moon is certainly close and fast moving enough to having a significant tidal impact (inside and out) upon our environment. moon (IR)radiance w/m2 = ? Like a mirror that's better at reflecting IR photons (better than Earth's albedo that's contributing an IR planetshine worth of 266 w/ m2, whereas that naked and physically dark moon unavoidably creating those secondary/recoil worth of FIR photons is why there's a fairly substantial IR/FIR influx that's measurably good for having contributed a little something of extra energy influx to our GW situation. (too bad we still haven't established a moon L1 science platform for actively telling us this essential information) In the past I've asked the question; are we being global warmed to death by our moon? In more ways than not, I believe the regular laws of physics and of the best available science has been telling us the truth, that in fact we are being warmed to death by our moon that has only been with us since the last ice age this planet will ever see. Too bad we're not ever going to get smart enough for relocating that nasty moon of ours out to Earth's L1. - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - May 24, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | May 24th 06 04:12 PM |
Space Calendar - March 23, 2006 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 23rd 06 04:18 PM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | January 28th 06 12:42 AM |
Space Calendar - October 27, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 27th 05 05:02 PM |
Space Calendar - February 25, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 25th 05 04:25 PM |