|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#551
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
On 1/9/12 1:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 13 2011, 9:30 am, Sam wrote: On 12/13/11 11:21 AM, Brad Guth wrote: Not made the least bit darker according to your NASA/Apollo and their rad-hard Kodak film era, and supposedly they even utilized a polarized optical filter in order to further darken surface glare (guess it didn’t work all 6 times). What's your evidence that a polarizing filter was used. The moon's surface has no need of a polarizing filter. http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm It was clearly specified as inventory and as having been utilized by most of their camera lens combinations. Are you saying that photons from our sun were not the least bit polarized? Perhaps Brad does not understand processes that cause polarization of light. :-o |
#552
|
|||
|
|||
Earth Moon tidal power transfer.
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote: You mean the sun and its tidal influence is recorded by geological dating. Nothing objective pertaining to our moon until roughly less than 12,000 years ago. A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past). |
#553
|
|||
|
|||
Earth Moon tidal power transfer.
On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth wrote: You mean the sun and its tidal influence is recorded by geological dating. *Nothing objective pertaining to our moon until roughly less than 12,000 years ago. A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past). That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on your part). When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you please) When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you please) http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#554
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
On Jan 9, 6:37*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/9/12 1:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote: On Dec 13 2011, 9:30 am, Sam *wrote: On 12/13/11 11:21 AM, Brad Guth wrote: Not made the least bit darker according to your NASA/Apollo and their rad-hard Kodak film era, and supposedly they even utilized a polarized optical filter in order to further darken surface glare (guess it didn’t work all 6 times). * * What's your evidence that a polarizing filter was used. The moon's * * surface has no need of a polarizing filter. * * *http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm It was clearly specified as inventory and as having been utilized by most of their camera lens combinations. Are you saying that photons from our sun were not the least bit polarized? * *Perhaps Brad does not understand processes that cause polarization * *of light. *:-o Are you saying the moon doesn't have a sodium atmosphere, among several other lofty elements? Where exactly are those NASA/Apollo science records pertaining to polarized light outside of Earth's atmosphere? Since when are images from LEO or from other science missions not having to deal with polarized illumination issues, plus metallicity colors none the less? "Shining with light from the central star reflected by dust, the frigid Boomerang Nebula is believed to be a star or stellar system evolving toward the planetary nebula phase. This Hubble image was recorded using polarizing filters (analogous to polaroid sunglasses) and color coded by the angle associated with the polarized light. The gorgeous result traces the small dust particles responsible for polarizing and scattering the light. The Boomerang Nebula spans about one light year and lies about 5,000 light years away toward the constellation Centaurus." "By studying polarized light from the Egg Nebula, scientists can tell a lot about the physical properties of the material responsible for the scattering, as well as the precise location of the central (hidden) star. The fine dust is largely carbon, manufactured by nuclear fusion in the heart of the star and then ejected into space as the star sheds material. Such dust grains are essential ingredients for building dusty disks around future generations of young stars, and possibly in the formation of planets around those stars." Need I look any further? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#555
|
|||
|
|||
Earth Moon tidal power transfer.
On Jan 9, 5:54*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth wrote: You mean the sun and its tidal influence is recorded by geological dating. *Nothing objective pertaining to our moon until roughly less than 12,000 years ago. A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past). That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on your part). When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you please) When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you please) *http://translate.google.com/# *Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it? (to the exact year if you please) Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these... http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...HT_thesis..pdf http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract .... you call these subjective? Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion... \Paul A |
#556
|
|||
|
|||
Earth Moon tidal power transfer.
On Jan 9, 6:40*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jan 9, wrote: On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST),BradGuth wrote: You mean the sun and its tidal influence is recorded by geological dating. *Nothing objective pertaining to our moon until roughly less than 12,000 years ago. A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past). That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on your part). When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you please) When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you please) *http://translate.google.com/# *BradGuth, Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet” When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it? (to the exact year if you please) Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these... http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...sis/tides_CHT_... http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract ... you call these subjective? Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion... \Paul A Birds of a feather, two peas in a pod. Get where I'm going with this? That moon (aka planetoid Selene) was most likely captured. NASA/Apollo science is either bogus or made to fit your pathetic closed mindset. The fact that you can not deal with having been snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return is not my problem. Perhaps you should have been standing in the top floors of those WTC buildings as of that morning of 9/11, as you trusted your government to have never lied, obfuscated or having ever done a very bad thing. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#557
|
|||
|
|||
Earth Moon tidal power transfer.
On Dec 7 2011, 6:14*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:28 pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Dec 7, 4:38 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: ... It's about 80 Megatons/day, that is the power transferred to the moon, cuz the Earth's rotation is slowing ~.0018 secs/century. I published a calculation on that if you really need it, I could find it, it's online. Regards Ken Thanks a *bunch, Ken You're welcome Brad. Though it sounds anti-intuitive, tidal power induced into the Earth from the Moon (& Sun) reduces Earth's rotation rate, thus Angular Momentum and Angular Energy, but the A.M. needs to conserved so the Moon receeds currently at ~ 3.8 cm/year from Earth to conserve A.M. Here's a brief calculation I found... ================================ I figure 70 Megatons refers to the amount of TNT energy the moon transfers to the earth in one day, by tidal action. Given that the moon is receeding from the Earth at 3.8 cm/year, as best determined by laser ranging, and assuming the moon isn't contracting, or the Earth isn't expanding, we balanced the Angular Momentum *(A.M.) and found the Earth's day to be increasing by 0.0018 seconds/century, in order to conserve Earth-moon system A.M. * At this rate, we have calculated a net energy of 26,000 Megatons equivalent of TNT is placed into the Earth's lithosphere and crust per year, or about 70 megatons per day. * Of course, the Angular Energy must be conserved as well. This amounts to only about 5 milliwatts/meter^2, but it integrates in effect. ((earthquakes etc.)) * *The tidal force from moon's gravity creates variable torque forces on earth's lithosphere. * Some interplanetary geological theory.... This in turn creates a *curl field* that causes tectonic current, something not in evidence in Venus, but should have been if the circulation is caused by convection. (ie. radio-isotopes). * *We conclude the moon is mainly responsible for tectonic and seismic action in and on Earth. Reference equations, Moment of inertial for a sphere with constant density, * * * I = 2/5 M R^2. Radians /sec *= w. Angular Momentum, *AM = I w. Angular Energy AE = 1/2 I w^2. Mass (earth) = 6*10^24 kgrams Mass (moon) = 0.012 Earth's 1 kgram TNT = 4.2 Mjoules I'm wondering if 70 megatons is within +/- 10% of the answer., but it's a bit low if the Sun is figured in. Regards Ken S. Tucker kxsxt11 1 ton of TNT = 4.184e9 J 70e6 * 4.184e9 = 2.93e17 Joules = 81.4e12 watts (sounds about right to me if it were per hour in order to include the global heating via modulation) I believe most of the volumetric ice melt is taking place from the bottom up. Considering that our planet receives 4.15e18 watts per day of solar influx is why the moon even at 1.954e15 watts per day isn’t such a big deal, although it is always adding this energy rather than cooling us off. I've had the moon worth 64e12 watts per hour, but your number is certainly within the ballpark as long as it's per hour instead of per day in order to include global heating via tidal forces. |
#558
|
|||
|
|||
Earth Moon tidal power transfer.
On Jan 9, 8:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:40*pm, palsing wrote: On Jan 9, wrote: On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST),BradGuth wrote: You mean the sun and its tidal influence is recorded by geological dating. *Nothing objective pertaining to our moon until roughly less than 12,000 years ago. A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past). That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on your part). When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you please) When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you please) *http://translate.google.com/# *BradGuth, Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet” When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it? (to the exact year if you please) Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these... http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...sis/tides_CHT_... http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract ... you call these subjective? Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion... \Paul A Birds of a feather, two peas in a pod. *Get where I'm going with this? I doubt that even you know where you are going with this... That moon (aka planetoid Selene) was most likely captured I believe that most astronomers today would disagree with you about this, the capture theory has fallen into disfavor. NASA/Apollo science is either bogus or made to fit your pathetic closed mindset. I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out... The fact that you can not deal with having been snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return is not my problem. Again, lay off the grass for a while, it's making you paranoid... Perhaps you should have been standing in the top floors of those WTC buildings as of that morning of 9/11, as you trusted your government to have never lied, obfuscated or having ever done a very bad thing. WTF is that supposed to mean? |
#559
|
|||
|
|||
Earth Moon tidal power transfer.
On Jan 9, 10:26*pm, palsing wrote:
On Jan 9, 8:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Jan 9, 6:40*pm, palsing wrote: On Jan 9, wrote: On Jan 9, 7:00*am, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:13:14 -0800 (PST),BradGuth wrote: You mean the sun and its tidal influence is recorded by geological dating. *Nothing objective pertaining to our moon until roughly less than 12,000 years ago. A record of lunar tides is found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years. Because both annual and diurnal patterns are observed, it is possible to directly determine both the length of the day (which was shorter in the past) and the orbital period of the Moon (which was shorter in the past). That's totally subjective, or simply unfounded (aka wishful thinking on your part, or perhaps it's the total lack of deductive thinking on your part). When did our planet get its seasonal tilt? (to the exact year if you please) When did Earth get its Arctic ocean basin? (to the exact year if you please) *http://translate.google.com/# *BradGuth, Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet” When did you take your brain out to play with it, and then lose it? (to the exact year if you please) Why do you think that a record of lunar tides, found in sedimentary rocks dating back hundreds of millions of years, is totally subjective, or just wishful thinking? Read these... http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/input/car...sis/tides_CHT_.... http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/c.../1154.abstract ... you call these subjective? Dude, lay off the grass for a while, give yourself a chance to put your mind in gear before putting your mouth in motion... \Paul A Birds of a feather, two peas in a pod. *Get where I'm going with this? I doubt that even you know where you are going with this... That moon (aka planetoid Selene) was most likely captured I believe that most astronomers today would disagree with you about this, the capture theory has fallen into disfavor. NASA/Apollo science is either bogus or made to fit your pathetic closed mindset. I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out... The fact that you can not deal with having been snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return is not my problem. Again, lay off the grass for a while, it's making you paranoid... Perhaps you should have been standing in the top floors of those WTC buildings as of that morning of 9/11, as you trusted your government to have never lied, obfuscated or having ever done a very bad thing. WTF is that supposed to mean? You obviously trust whatever our government agencies have to say, about everything. Good luck with that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 10 03:27 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | March 9th 06 03:10 PM |
Global warming v. Solar warming | Roger Steer | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 18th 05 10:58 AM |