GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy

"John Baker" wrote in message



"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...

snip typica Guth lunacy

Yes, Brad, Venus is hot, all right. Far too hot for any kind of life to
exist.

For humans, especially stupid ones, yes indeed, Venus is way too hot.

But no it's actually not too hot for lizard folk at night, as their
Venus season of nighttime is quite long and, every btu of solar influx
must exit the night side of Venus, or else there simply would not be
Venus (physics 101; energy in = energy out).

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/road-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-basics.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/Reservoirs.html
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/image-proof.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-bridge.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/energy-options.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/heat-is-relative.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-nocturnals.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-evolution.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-numbers.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lizard-folk.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/radio-maybe.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/airship-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-air.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/positive.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
and there's certainly lots more where these testy pages came from (their
dyslexic content is yet another bonus).

Regards, Brad Guth IEIS~GASA / discovery of other LIFE on Venus
Alternate URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com phone: 1-253-8576061


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

This may be getting some folks a wee bit off topic from Venus life,
lizard folk and all, but according to some recent feedback, I've
learned a thing or two about our nasty moon, as a place that I believe
we need to establish a lunar space elevator in order to be getting
ourselves off to visiting the wizard of Oz at Venus L2, as well as for
reaching out to those irradiated to death snowman/snowwoman on Mars:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

Here's a little typical feedback of supposed facts from: Jay Windley
)
"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun. They come from
outside the solar system, and our sun is the primary defense against
them. The particles released by the sun itself are of considerably
lower energy and thus their secondary effects in the ambient are
minimal."

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-radiation.htm

Fortunately, I never specified upon any specific "high-energy cosmic
rays", just pointing out that our sun is certainly capable of tossing
out its fair share of far worse things than visible photons plus IR
worth of BTUs and of those nasty UVs. Obviously a supernova is worth a
thousand fold in terms of being nasty, thereby from the far off
generated galactic influx must offer a measurable degree of such, and
of the secondary radiation given off by all that infamous clumping
lunar dirt should become a fairly darn good indicator.

The assertions or premise offered by the likes of Jay Windley, that of
not only lacking an atmosphere but also without a Van Allen buffer
zone is not such a bad thing if you're out and about on the lunar
surface, seems somewhat risky if not downright lethal. I might have
come into that understanding if we're referring to an earthshine
illuminated lunar surface, but not so far if that's of any fully solar
illuminated environment while wearing a moon suit because, we're not
talking about avoiding a 270 nm UV sun burn.

Sorry about all my reverse engineering logic, or lack thereof. I was
simply trying to establish upon the amount of solar radiation that
becomes hard X-Ray class.

"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun"

Do we suppose that happens to include the likes of the last couple of
weeks of solar flak?

Seems there should be some specific knowledge (excluding Apollo) of
what's what pertaining to the solar illuminated surface as opposed to
the absolute lunar nighttime environment and, of something specific
pertaining to whatever earthshine contributes.

This is somewhat like my getting a grasp upon the applied energy
(thrust) involved in accelerating something the size and mass of the
moon.

As feedback provided from: Ami Silberman )

"The mechanisms for the lunar recession have been well understood for
decades. In a nutshell, tides cause friction between the oceans and
the ocean floors, which transfers energy from the solid part of the
earth to the oceans. One of the effects of this friction is that the
tidal bulge is off-center, and is located "eastward" of the moon. (So
the high tide actually occurs when the moon is west of overhead.) The
result of the tidal bulge being off center is that there is a torgue
effect placed on the moon, and this in turn transfers energy from the
earth to the moon. The earth's spin rate slows, the moon is speeded in
its orbit and therefor moves further away from the earth. (This
transfer of energy is essentially a transfer of angular momentum,
which is a conserved quantity.) The historical (over geological eras)
rate of recession has varied due to varying amounts of tidal friction
due to shallower or deeper oceans, and the positions of the
continents."

For the benefit of all my loyal critics, I've conceded that there's a
darn good chance that the likes of Tim Thompson has more than a few
valid points as to his version of what's what. This following page is
just another example of my learning from the pros, of accepting other
input, which may even including the likes of what you've just
presented, that I'd not be calling flak, as there actually seems to be
some considerable worth to at least Tim's version of the lunar
recession, if I don't say so myself.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com