Is the moon is losing time?

Either our moon is losing it's orbital velocity as it's gradually
leaving us in it's salty moon dust, as perhaps for the same interactive
tidal related reason as to why Earth's rotation is winding down, or else
the holy grail of perpetual cosmic energy has been identified without
such ever being noticed until now.

If our moon is going away from us at supposedly 38 mm/year, then it's
taking longer upon each subsequent orbit by roughly 0.0193 meter, of
which that unavoidably takes extra time unluess it's somehow made to
travel a wee bit faster per orbit.

According to my dyslexic encrypted math (that's not always correct);
If that moon of ours was in fact moving off by nearly 38 mm/year, and as
such not even slowing down one iota, whereas per year as based upon an
initial orbital radius of 384,400 km and making an average velocity of
1.023 km/s, whereas by the numbers it should have been taking an extra
2.334e-4 second longer for getting that horrifically big old and massive
sucker another .23877 meter around us on just the last orbit of each
successive year, especially if we're using the lunar year worth of
12.3685 lunar orbits.

Obviously, if the tidal forced analogy were somehow all inclusive, as to
representing what's causing our moon's recession, and that's without my
having included whatever the subsequent velocity loss of what that
recession amounts to, along with my not having taken into account
whatever's the Vt/slug factor of our moon's orbital environment, whereas
it should if anything have caused the orbital velocity as having been
somewhat diminished, as measurably trekking along at a slower rate from
that of each previous year.

Therefore, if anything fits neatly into this argument, the extra amount
of orbital time required by rights should have become much greater than
attributed by way of my having imposed the fixed velocity factor of
1.023 km/s, that's taking 2.334e-4 second longer to get around Earth
upon it's final annual orbit. However, just because Earth's rotation is
slowing down is not a valid excuse as for suggesting the moon's velocity
is increasing, because it may simply not be the case. Perhaps even in
spite of tidal forces, our moon's orbital velocity could still be losing
some of it's relative velocity, that is unless there's an amount of mass
that's exiting away from the moon.

Of course, as for adding those eleven previous orbits, at their having
contributed .0193 meter extra per orbit, as collectively piled onto the
final orbit of that extra .23877 + .2123 meter = .45107 meter.

..45107/1023 = 4.441e-4 sec longer for just 12 of those receding orbits

Call it good at 4.53e-4 sec extra for the 12.3685 of lunar orbits/year

Too bad we're still not quite smart enough for having established any
viable form of interactive science platform within our moon's L1.
Perhaps China or India can help us out, although Germany should be right
next in line as to taking over some station-keeping control, as to their
squatting within a portion of our moon's L1, and for holding on to it
(with force if need be).

Besides all my usual spelling, syntax and a few pesky math corrections,
how am I doing?
-
Brad Guth


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

On Mar 5, 3:50 am, "Brad Guth" wrote:
[...]

Too bad we're still not quite smart enough for having established any
viable form of interactive science platform within our moon's L1.
Perhaps China or India can help us out, although Germany should be right
next in line as to taking over some station-keeping control, as to their
squatting within a portion of our moon's L1, and for holding on to it
(with force if need be).

Try Japan:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_mdgrape2.htm

Sue...


Besides all my usual spelling, syntax and a few pesky math corrections,
how am I doing?
-
Brad Guth

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

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com

On Mar 5, 3:50 am, "Brad Guth" wrote:
[...]

Too bad we're still not quite smart enough for having established any
viable form of interactive science platform within our moon's L1.
Perhaps China or India can help us out, although Germany should be right
next in line as to taking over some station-keeping control, as to their
squatting within a portion of our moon's L1, and for holding on to it
(with force if need be).

Try Japan:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_mdgrape2.htm

Sue...

Thanks much, as I'll try contacting Bruce Elmegreen at the IBM Watson
Research Center for this help, of processing such complex orbital
mecanics.

Those 2560 MD-GRAPE2 chips running at an additional 50 Teraflops should
more than accomplish the task. Of course, that performance was reported
way back in the CPU dark ages of the year 2000, as such it should be
worth at least ten fold if not 100 fold better by now.

However, if the ongoing IBM Research in Tokyo (mgr. Shigenori Shimizu),
in collaboration with Dr. Ebisuzaki at the Institute of Physical and
Chemical Research (RIKEN) isn't interested, then what?
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:5a1b490b9c00901053006a1a57fd7180.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

If tidal forces and/or whatever amount of mass that's leaving our moon
is what's causing the ongoing recession of 38 mm/year, whereas our moon
simply has to be running a touch slower due to its having to cover more
ground each year, and that's not including the likelihood of actually
having lost velocity in the process of overcoming the Vt/slug factor of
space travel for having such a rough surface area of 40e12 m2 to deal
with.

Is there actually enough secondary tidal energy alone, as to otherwise
not losing time by way of having increased the velocity of our moon by
0.451 meter/year?

Using E=MV2

7.35e22 * .2034 = 1.495e22

1.495e22 joules of such tidal energy as made available per year:

14.95e21/3.15576e7 = 473.737e12 joules of continuous applied energy.

So the real question is: how much time is the moon losing per year?

Once we know for certain, of what it's taking to motivate our moon as
is, whereas perhaps then the next phase of devising upon methods of
relocating our moon out to Earth's L1 can be mastered.
-
Brad Guth


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

On Mar 5, 10:03 am, "Brad Guth" wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message

oups.com

On Mar 5, 3:50 am, "Brad Guth" wrote:
[...]

Too bad we're still not quite smart enough for having established any
viable form of interactive science platform within our moon's L1.
Perhaps China or India can help us out, although Germany should be right
next in line as to taking over some station-keeping control, as to their
squatting within a portion of our moon's L1, and for holding on to it
(with force if need be).

Try Japan:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_mdgrape2.htm

Sue...

Thanks much, as I'll try contacting Bruce Elmegreen at the IBM Watson
Research Center for this help, of processing such complex orbital
mecanics.

Those 2560 MD-GRAPE2 chips running at an additional 50 Teraflops should
more than accomplish the task. Of course, that performance was reported
way back in the CPU dark ages of the year 2000, as such it should be
worth at least ten fold if not 100 fold better by now.

However, if the ongoing IBM Research in Tokyo (mgr. Shigenori Shimizu),
in collaboration with Dr. Ebisuzaki at the Institute of Physical and
Chemical Research (RIKEN) isn't interested, then what?

You might want to use Google and see how many similar
simulations have already run.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&btn G=Search

If it over a hundred then you'll have a pretty good idea why
they aren't intrested.

However, don't do anything brash like that before you ask.
I just tried it and smoke started billowing out of my computer.

)

Sue...




-
Brad Guth

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

On Mar 5, 10:03 am, "Brad Guth" wrote:



However, if the ongoing IBM Research in Tokyo (mgr. Shigenori Shimizu),
in collaboration with Dr. Ebisuzaki at the Institute of Physical and
Chemical Research (RIKEN) isn't interested, then what?

All in one place:
http://grape.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/...ion/index.html

Sue...

-
Brad Guth

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

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com

However, don't do anything brash like that before you ask.
I just tried it and smoke started billowing out of my computer.

MY poor old PC usually gets hit with more than my fair share of their
status quo spermware/****ware, so much so and so often that I usually
have to reboot half a dozen times.

I've in the past somewhat looked extensively for such other simulations,
but haven't thus far come across any that pertain to utilizing our
moon's L1, on behalf of the daunting relocation of our moon to Earth's
L1, or those of whatever other alternatives as for where that big old
physically dark and nasty sucker might have come from.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com

Sue,
Thanks for offering this impressive "GRAPE Publication list"
http://grape.astron.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/...ion/index.html

In the mean time, here's my latest revised topic: "Is our moon losing
time?"

Either our moon is losing it's orbital velocity as it's gradually
leaving us in it's salty moon dust, as perhaps for the same interactive
tidal related reason as to why Earth's rotation is winding down, or else
the holy grail of perpetual cosmic energy has been identified, without
such ever being noticed until now.

If our moon is going away from us at supposedly 38 mm/year, then it's
taking longer upon each subsequent orbit by roughly 0.0193 meter, of
which that trek unavoidably takes extra time unluess it's somehow made
to travel a wee bit faster per orbit.

According to my dyslexic encrypted math (that's not always correct);
If that moon of ours was in fact moving off by nearly 38 mm/year, and as
such not even slowing down one iota, whereas per year as based upon an
initial orbital radius of 384,400 km and making an average velocity of
1.023 km/s, whereas by the numbers it should have been taking an extra
2.334e-4 second longer for getting that horrifically big old and massive
sucker another .23877 meter around us on just the last orbit of each
successive year, especially if we're using the lunar year worth of
12.3685 lunar orbits.

Obviously, if the tidal forced analogy were somehow all inclusive, as to
representing what's causing our moon's recession, and that's without my
having included whatever the subsequent velocity loss of what that
recession amounts to, along with my not having taken into account
whatever's the Vt/slug factor of our moon's orbital environment, whereas
it should if anything have caused the orbital velocity as having been
somewhat diminished, as measurably trekking along at a slower rate from
that of each previous year.

Therefore, if anything fits neatly into this argument, the extra amount
of orbital time required by rights should have become much greater than
attributed by way of my having imposed the fixed velocity factor of
1.023 km/s, that's taking 2.334e-4 second longer to get around Earth
upon it's final annual orbit. However, just because Earth's rotation is
slowing down is not a valid excuse as for suggesting the moon's velocity
is increasing, because it may simply not be the case. Perhaps even in
spite of tidal forces, our moon's orbital velocity could still be losing
some of it's relative velocity, that is unless there's an amount of mass
that's exiting away from the moon.

Of course, as for adding those eleven previous orbits, at their having
contributed .0193 meter extra per orbit, as collectively piled onto the
final orbit of that extra .23877 + .2194 meter = .45817 meter.

..45817/1023 = 4.44787e-4 sec longer for 12.3685 of those receding orbits

Call it good at 4.45e-4 sec extra for those 12.3685 of lunar orbits/year

Too bad we're still not quite smart enough for having established any
viable form of interactive science platform within our moon's L1.
Perhaps China or India can help us out with that, although Germany
should be right next in line, as to their taking over some L1
station-keeping control, as to their squatting whatever within a portion
of our moon's L1, and for holding on to it (with force if need be).

-

If tidal forces and/or whatever amount of mass that's leaving our moon
is what's causing the ongoing recession of 38 mm/year, whereas our moon
simply has to be running a touch slower due to its having to cover more
ground each year, and that's not including the likelihood of actually
having lost velocity in the process of overcoming the Vt/slug factor of
space travel for having such a rough surface area of 40e12 m2 to deal
with.

Is there actually enough secondary tidal energy alone, as to otherwise
not losing time by way of having increased the velocity of our moon by
0.4582 meter/year?

Using E=MV2, and based upon having kept the 1023 m/s velocity:

7.35e22 * .209947 = 1.5431e22

1.5431e22 joules of such tidal energy as made available per year:

15.431e21/3.15576e7 = 488.9479e12 joules of continuous applied energy.

So the real question is: how much time is that moon losing per year?

Once we know for certain, of what it's taking to motivate our moon by
the 38 mm/year as is, whereas perhaps then the next phase of devising
upon methods of relocating our moon out to Earth's L1 can be mastered.
-
Brad Guth


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