 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / March 2007Where's our Moon as of 10,000 BC
No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? GOT 10,000 BC NOON? GOT 10,000 BC MOON-GOD/GODDEST? - Brad Guth > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? > > GOT 10,000 BC NOON? > > GOT 10,000 BC MOON-GOD/GODDEST? Got ca. 30,000 year old lunar calendar. BTW, you are a nut. > > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Got ca. 30,000 year old lunar calendar. Thanks so much, and you've obviously got this 30,000 year old calendar along with the phases of our moon clearly depicted; where? Got any good or even wussy links to that supposed 30,000 year old moon calendar? Where the heck did that moon physically go for more than 18,000 some odd years (by some records that's being more like missing in action for somewhat better than 24,000 years)? Or wasn't that nearby moon all that important to folks managing to survive as best they could, as they were getting nearly frozen to death by the last ice age and without benefit of artificial light to work by, go into war against those othe nasty folks, and to otherwise play by such a nifty amount of vibrant moonshine, much less for not being worth an effort of depicting in items or drawings, and/or not having bothered as to include any such stinking moon within their otherwise extremely good art work. Was that moon taboo/nondisclosure rated, way back then? - Brad Guth > > > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Got any good or even wussy links to that supposed 30,000 year old moon > calendar? This is one I could find in the amount of time I'm willing to waste on you: http://www.answers.com/topic/ishango-bone This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it does date to when you say the moon was hors de combat. BTW, can you please call me an incest clone of somebody interesting? I don't see why you can bless others with such appelation, and not me, who is clearly deserving of scathing...<snickers into hand>...namecalling. > Where the heck did that moon physically go for more than 18,000 some odd > years (by some records that's being more like missing in action for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Was that moon taboo/nondisclosure rated, way back then? Nope, sorry; you are still a nut. Tom McDonald, Good grief, but thanks anyway for the highly subjective and perfectly honest swag of whatever it's worth. http://www.answers.com/topic/ishango-bone You know exactly what I meant and what I'm after, and unfortunately that nifty old bone may or may not be anything at all related to our moon. For the moment I'm just having to further speculate as to exactly where the first of any such good moon depictions are, that'll date back to something 10,000 BC or further. So far, I've got nothing that comes even close to that mark. BBC News | SCI/TECH | Oldest lunar calendar identified http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/975360.stm "What could be the oldest lunar calendar ever created has been identified on the walls of the famous, prehistoric caves at Lascaux in France." Note the qualifying phrase: "What could be the oldest lunar calendar" Whereas that moon if existed would most certainly have been a whole lot more impressive than any wussy string of those small dots. "The interpretation that symbolic paintings, dating back 15,000 years, show the Moon going through its different phases comes from Dr Michael Rappenglueck, of the University of Munich." Note the qualifying phrase: "The interpretation that symbolic paintings" Apparently the act of intelligent humans carving, depicting or otherwise painting in a big old crescent moon was against their pagan religion, or perhaps that silly moon was simply too far away, or not even there to begin with. - Any damn fool of a halfwhit village idiot can reverse extrapolate a lunar calendar out to the beginning of time, yet perfectly capable souls with well established artistic and more than an acceptable level of intelligent logic on behalf of their survival expertise, having otherwise depicted all sorts of important items, seemed to have entirely missed that big old moon until somewhat recent times since the last big freeze. Why should we suppose those Chinese were being so gosh darn dumb and dumber as to creating their lunar calendar which hadn't started until 2637 BC? (didn't they know that our moon had supposedly existed for all those thousands of years prior?) Were these Chinese folks simply stupid heathens, and otherwise without a clue as to the seasons and the marking of time? (I don't think so) Seems a little odd since those nice and extremely smart little wizards of the Dropas/Dzopas having arrived and subsequently having to hide themselves deep into China as of 10,000 BC, as you'd think they should have taken notice of that big old and of what had to have been an extremely extra vibrant earthshine illuminated moon. Were these Drops/Dzopa of a blind species of extremely small stature humans that somehow survived via braille? "Calendars of Ancient Egypt - The civil calendar was introduced some time between 2937 BC and 2821 BC" <http://www.hwt-hrw.com/calendars.php> Where the hell was that nifty moon of their's prior to 2937 BC? Isn't there much older art and/or quality depictions to behold? (I think so) Wasn't their month by month seasons worth noting as of prior to 2937 BC? (I'd think so) There are a few much older bones with markings that certainly could be associated with our moon or possibly Venus, or perhaps having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either. The World: Born in 4004 BC? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc This still sucks compared to the capability of folks as having depicted all sorts of stuff in sufficient detail, except that it's all based upon swags and reasonable conjecture because it's all represented w/o moon. Thus even the bible can't hardly manage to pull their moon-rabbit out of their very own hat prior to 4236 BC. (is that another heathen joke, or what?) No kidding folks. What's the oldest depictions or other reasonable indications of our terrestrial environment as having to deal with that pesky mascon/tidal generating moon of our's? - Brad Guth > Tom McDonald, > Good grief, but thanks anyway for the highly subjective and perfectly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > something 10,000 BC or further. So far, I've got nothing that comes > even close to that mark. So you are looking for images of the moon, and reject the possibility that such inscribed materials as the Shango bone are evidence of the moon, in all its cyclical glory. Why do you think ancient folks would have wanted to make depictions of the moon? Why do you assume that they would have found such depictions useful, or necessary, or even interesting? What you find an obvious thing to do might, to those folks, have seemed pointless. Or taboo. Or unbearably, boringly cliché. I think we don't know enough about what pre-Holocene humans thought to make such judgements. I think it is very possible that they found it important to use the moon's age for counting or planning purposes, while being so used to the phases of the moon that they didn't need to make images that included them. It is also possible that pre-Holocene folks used symbolic depictions of the moon, as perhaps a figure that changed (like a non-pregnant woman/animal; a pregnant woman/animal; and then a mother person/animal and offspring). (I don't present this as something on which to fixate, but as an indication that we might not necessarily find frank depictions of what the artist intended, but rather symbolic or pictographic representations.) Just out of curiousity, are you suggesting that our moon might not have been around during the Pleistocene? Or are you just asking when we started taking snapshot-analogs of it? <snip> > So you are looking for images of the moon, and reject the possibility > that such inscribed materials as the Shango bone are evidence of the > moon, in all its cyclical glory. I reject nothing that makes any common sense. It's a perfectly good and honest swag at whatever it could represent, but that's about it. > Why do you think ancient folks would have wanted to make depictions of > the moon? Because it was there, wasn't it? > Why do you assume that they would have found such depictions > useful, or necessary, or even interesting? Good grief, them heathens weren't exactly stupid. After all, they'd managed to survive throughout tough if not somewhat frozen times, and obviously managed without your all-knowing help. > What you find an obvious thing to do might, to those folks, have seemed > pointless. Or taboo. Or unbearably, boringly cliché. That's a perfectly good point. However, why would the second most significant item that's moving within their crisp and clear day or nighttime sky have been so ignored? > I think we don't know enough about what pre-Holocene humans thought to > make such judgements. I think it is very possible that they found it > important to use the moon's age for counting or planning purposes, > while being so used to the phases of the moon that they didn't need to > make images that included them. But they'd made all sorts of nifty images depicting far less important items or events, and did so with relatively great expertise none the less. > It is also possible that pre-Holocene folks used symbolic depictions of > the moon, as perhaps a figure that changed (like a non-pregnant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > depictions of what the artist intended, but rather symbolic or > pictographic representations.) That's perfectly understandable, though especially as even a village idiot heathen I'd still be rather impressed as all get out each and every time that big old illuminating moon came into view, especially on those crisp and clearly frosty nights. > Just out of curiousity, are you suggesting that our moon might not have > been around during the Pleistocene? Or are you just asking when we > started taking snapshot-analogs of it? That's the ticket, especially if it simply wasn't here to behold in the first place, as w/o moon those heathens would have been stuck with those wussy solar tides and most likely not having nearly as much solar/moon/cosmic radiation to deal with, and a frosty nighttime would have been extremely dark, a little extra cold and simply forbidding unless you had nocturnal starshine vision which humans never had at their evolutionary disposal, or else we'd lost that nifty part of our DNA code somewhere along the line (similar to having lost our DNA coding related to gills, plus a few dozen other considerations that we could really use right about now). - Brad Guth > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? "Our moon"? I don't recall ever giving you title to any part of it.  SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHIFT TO THE LEFT! SHIFT TO THE RIGHT! POP UP, PUSH DOWN, BYTE, BYTE, BYTE! > > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? > > "Our moon"? I don't recall ever giving you title to any part of it. Paul Hovnanian, That's a good point, however I'm not actually another incest clone of GW Bush, that's out and about looking to take over anything that's probably owned by either China or the likes of Muslims. Just wondering as to where the first of any such good depictions are, that'll date back to something 10,000 BC or further. So far, I've got nothing that comes even close to the mark. BBC News | SCI/TECH | Oldest lunar calendar identified http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/975360.stm "What could be the oldest lunar calendar ever created has been identified on the walls of the famous, prehistoric caves at Lascaux in France." Note the phrase: "What could be the oldest lunar calendar" Whereas that moon if existed would most certainly have been a whole lot more impressive than any wussy string of those small dots. "The interpretation that symbolic paintings, dating back 15,000 years, show the Moon going through its different phases comes from Dr Michael Rappenglueck, of the University of Munich." Note the phrase: "The interpretation that symbolic paintings" Apparently the act of carving, depicting or otherwise painting in a big old crescent moon was against their pagan religion, or perhaps that silly moon was simply too far away. - Any damn fool of a halfwhit village idiot can reverse extrapolate a lunar calendar out to the beginning of time, yet perfectly capable souls with well established artistic and more than an acceptable level of intelligent logic on behalf of their survival expertise, having otherwise depicted all sorts of important items, seemed to have entirely missed that big old moon until somewhat recent times since the last big freeze. Why were those Chinese being so gosh darn dumb and dumber as to their lunar calendar which hadn't started until 2637 BC? (didn't they know that our moon had supposedly existed for all those thousands of years prior?) Were these Chinese folks simply stupid heathens, and otherwise without a clue? (I don't think so) Seems a little odd since those nice and extremely smart little wizards of the Dropas/Dzopas having arrived and subsequently having to hide themselves deep into China as of 10,000 BC, as you'd think they should have taken notice of that big old and of what had to have been an extremely extra vibrant earthshine illuminated moon. Were these Drops/Dzopa of a blind species of extremely small stature humans that somehow survived via braille? "Calendars of Ancient Egypt - The civil calendar was introduced some time between 2937 BC and 2821 BC" <http://www.hwt-hrw.com/calendars.php> Where the hell was that nifty moon of their's prior to 2937 BC? Isn't there much older art and/or quality depictions to behold? Wasn't their month by month seasons worth noting as of prior to 2937 BC? There are a few much older bones with markings that certainly could be associated with our moon or possibly Venus, or perhaps having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either. The World: Born in 4004 BC? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc This still sucks compared to the capability of folks having depicted all sorts of stuff in sufficient detail, except that it's all based upon swags and reasonable conjecture because it's all w/o moon. Thus even the bible can't hardly manage to pull their moon-rabbit out of their very own hat prior to 4236 BC. (is that another heathen joke, or what?) No kidding folks. What's the oldest depictions or other reasonable indications of our terrestrial environment having to deal with that pesky mascon/tidal generating moon of our's? - Brad Guth >> > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > something 10,000 BC or further. So far, I've got nothing that comes > even close to the mark. Tom is right - you really are a nut. There are sedimentary records of tidal rhythmites right back to the middle Archaean - so the moon was there at least before then. http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F0091-76 13(2000)28%3C831:QTOTRT%3E2.0.CO%3B2 There are surely ones older than this - they just haven't been recognized yet. cheers Bill > Tom is right - you really are a nut. There are sedimentary records of tidal > rhythmites [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are surely ones older than this - they just haven't been recognized > yet. You should know damn good and well as to what I'm after, is of whatever's contributed by way of early humans having depicted that big old and extremely vibrant and otherwise unavoidably impressive moon of ours. Are you suggesting that such early humans that could carve and paint were somehow blind, and/or of those being that heathen dumb and dumber, as to have been so totally dumbfounded past the point of no return as to have not noticed the significance of our moon? I'd have to bet that I can find an ape that'll draw us pictures of that moon if it made any survival difference. Do you think an ape doesn't know what a moon looks like, and of what it represents as to their survival? Are you suggesting that such early humans that could otherwise carve and paint were actually barely ape certified as to their surviving upon Earth? BTW; w/o moon, isn't there a sun tide? - Brad Guth > > Tom is right - you really are a nut. There are sedimentary records of tidal > > rhythmites [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > paint were actually barely ape certified as to their surviving upon > Earth? Since you're intensely interested in this question, you must surely have made a comprehensive survey of what people 10,000 BC and earlier carved and painted. If you could show that this inventory of subjects presented a comprehensive picture of the visible cosmos, with one shocking omission -- the moon -- you might get some respectful attention. Have you done this? I have not. But my impression is that they carved and painted animals (some of them anyway) and people. And maybe gods that looked like animals and people. And that's about it. If you've done your homework you can easily prove me wrong. The simple ability to carve or paint does not require people to construct an encyclopedia of their known world. Ross Clark > Since you're intensely interested in this question, you must surely > have made a comprehensive survey of what people 10,000 BC and earlier > carved and painted. If you could show that this inventory of subjects > presented a comprehensive picture of the visible cosmos, with one > shocking omission -- the moon -- you might get some respectful > attention. Have you done this? Thank you very much, and yes I have respected the long standing workmanship and expertise of what so many others having since explored throughout each and every known cave as to having documented those well preserved paintings and various carvings that included most of everything that was important to the survival of humanity. Apparently our big old moon simply wasn't important enough. > I have not. But my impression is that they carved and painted animals > (some of them anyway) and people. And maybe gods that looked like > animals and people. And that's about it. If you've done your homework > you can easily prove me wrong. Why should I have to prove you wrong, whereas if you don't have such an old moon to share and share alike, as then it simply didn't exist, at least not within the eyes and hearts of such pagan heathens of having to survive such cold days and extremely crisp and clear nights. > The simple ability to carve or paint does not require people to > construct an encyclopedia of their known world. That's true, whereas only the most important of items and/or of those most hocus-pocus worthy impressions got depicted. Obviously those 10,000+BC folks must have cared less about that big old vibrant moon that kept changing it's illuminated face as it marked their seasons and denoted upon the extremely short lifespans of those having to survive without benefit of corrupt governments and perverted religious cults that would perpetrate just about anything if it meant protecting their infomercial spewing butts. - Brad Guth > > Since you're intensely interested in this question, you must surely > > have made a comprehensive survey of what people 10,000 BC and earlier [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > everything that was important to the survival of humanity. Apparently > our big old moon simply wasn't important enough. Your statement that you have "respected" (do you mean "inspected") the etc. etc. is a bit vague. I guess this means you don't actually have a list of the things depicted, and you can't point to such an inventory that has been published. And you are claiming that they depicted only "most of everything that was important to the survival of humanity", i.e. not the entire visible world. If it's only "most", then the absence of the moon begins to seem less significant. And (I had to ask eventually) in what way do you see the moon as "important to the survival of humanity"? > > I have not. But my impression is that they carved and painted animals > > (some of them anyway) and people. And maybe gods that looked like > > animals and people. And that's about it. If you've done your homework > > you can easily prove me wrong. > Why should I have to prove you wrong You should have to prove me wrong because this is a sci. group and we look for evidence. , whereas if you don't have such an > old moon to share and share alike, as then it simply didn't exist, at > least not within the eyes and hearts of such pagan heathens of having to > survive such cold days and extremely crisp and clear nights. You do not make yourself very clear. > > The simple ability to carve or paint does not require people to > > construct an encyclopedia of their known world. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that would perpetrate just about anything if it meant protecting their > infomercial spewing butts. You make yourself even less clear. Maybe in place of the venom about religions and governments you could supply some insights as to why paleolithic people would inevitably want to depict the moon in paintings or carvings. Ross Clark > You should have to prove me wrong because this is a sci. group and we > look for evidence. Isn't the lack of evidence, evidence? If there's no water in the glass, isn't the glass empty? (obviously that glass still contains air or perhaps a vacuum, and that water has to be somewhere else) Our NASA uses the lack of evidence all the time, as well as does most of religion. Folks have been legally put to death due to a lack of evidence. Our NASA/Apollo fiasco is absolutely chuck full of missing evidence, and you obviously bought into that one, didn't you. > You make yourself even less clear. Maybe in place of the venom about > religions and governments you could supply some insights as to why > paleolithic people would inevitably want to depict the moon in paintings > or carvings. Just show me the best of whatever big old moon you've got to offer, and call it good. - Brad Guth > > You should have to prove me wrong because this is a sci. group and we > > look for evidence. > Isn't the lack of evidence, evidence? If there's no water in the glass, > isn't the glass empty? (obviously that glass still contains air or > perhaps a vacuum, and that water has to be somewhere else) No, merely saying that there are no pictures of the moon is not enough. It may be true, but it is not significant unless you can show that they depicted everything _else_ in their world. I'm suggesting they actually represented a pretty narrow range of stuff -- animals, people. I don't see landscape (trees, rocks, rivers) in these paintings. I don't see the sky or the sun. So I'm not surprised when I also don't see the moon. Ross Clark > Our NASA uses the lack of evidence all the time, as well as does most of > religion. Folks have been legally put to death due to a lack of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG > Brad Guth wrote: > > Isn't the lack of evidence, evidence? If there's no water in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >see landscape (trees, rocks, rivers) in these paintings. I don't see the >sky or the sun. So I'm not surprised when I also don't see the moon. All the sudden the humanly subjestive interpretations of such old carvings and art as reviewed by "benlizross (aka Ross Clark)" gets to conclude as to whatever's the truth without further argument, as to promote upon whatever suits his/her objective, which I believe is actually the same as to what I'm doing, though without my having to exclude the regular laws of physics nor the best available evidence. Our "John Kepler" is simply a Usenet lost cause of a fool on the hill, or perhaps that of a well assimilated borg like minion of an insurmountable mindset of denial that's in denial (very GW Bush like), in so much as we might as well be communicating with a space-toilet. - Not that anyone in Usenet naysay land of denial should get all worried or anything about their not having sufficiently rad-hard DNA. However; "The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy / 7.5e12 MJ -0.05%/year" http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.creationres earch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm Of course, the more secondary poles the weaker the total magnetosphere affect at keeping the solar, cosmic and moon energy at bay, especially as more of our atmosphere gets excavated away by those nasty solar winds that are only getting worse off. BTW; "Along some shorelines, the solar tide is the only important tide" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide_clock Without that mascon influence of a nearby moon, it seems the weaker solar tidal cycle of 24 hours or that of the 12 hour and some odd seconds worth of the +/- 90 degree solar cycle of roughly half the lunar intensity would prevail rather nicely. Of course, moving oceans along at roughly half the velocity is also going to demand at most a forth the energy. http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/ >The Sun also causes tides on the Earth because even though it is so >far away, it is very massive. These solar tides are about half as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >get a higher, high tide called the Spring Tide. When the solar low >tide is added to the lunar low tide, you get the Neap Tide. Thus eliminating the moon tide simply allows the solar tide to having a free/unobstructed run of such things. - Brad Guth > > > Isn't the lack of evidence, evidence? If there's no water in the > > > glass, isn't the glass empty? (obviously that glass still contains [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > actually the same as to what I'm doing, though without my having to > exclude the regular laws of physics nor the best available evidence. There's nothing there about "without further argument". In fact I'm inviting further argument, if you have some real evidence that's better than my "humanly subjestive interpretations". If you know of paleolithic landscapes or depictions of the sun etc., why not direct me to web sites or books where I can see them? Or else admit that your argument is missing a link. Ross Clark > Our "John Kepler" is simply a Usenet lost cause of a fool on the hill, > or perhaps that of a well assimilated borg like minion of an [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > -- > Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG > There's nothing there about "without further argument". In fact I'm > inviting further argument, if you have some real evidence that's better > than my "humanly subjestive interpretations". If you know of paleolithic > landscapes or depictions of the sun etc., why not direct me to web sites > or books where I can see them? Or else admit that your argument is > missing a link. I'll be certain to do just that, as I certainly have no problems with sharing the best available science, especially if it's supported by the regular laws of physics. However, do you even accept the physics and best available science that pertains to orbital mechanics? Do you actually think Earth's humanity is all there is to behold? (I certainly don't) - Brad Guth > > There's nothing there about "without further argument". In fact I'm > > inviting further argument, if you have some real evidence that's better [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG As far as I'm concerned, you're posting to an archaeology group. I'm not interested in overthrowing the laws of physics or speculating about extra-terrestrial life. So let's see your evidence. Ross Clark > I'm not interested in overthrowing the laws of physics or speculating > about extra-terrestrial life. So let's see your evidence. Neither am I, but why are you excluding the regular laws of physics? http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html No.17 from the top left is the image that so happens to include the community of 'GUTH Venus'. "Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1" http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif Since you're so all knowing and expert at everything; Accomplish your own enlargements. - Brad Guth > > I'm not interested in overthrowing the laws of physics or speculating > > about extra-terrestrial life. So let's see your evidence. > > Neither am I, but why are you excluding the regular laws of physics? I'm not. Where did you get that from? > http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html > No.17 from the top left is the image that so happens to include the > community of 'GUTH Venus'. > "Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1" > http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html > http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif I don't want to discuss Venus. What I asked you for was your evidence that palaeolithic artists depicted everything in their world. > Since you're so all knowing and expert at everything; You must be confusing me with someone else. Accomplish your > own enlargements. I don't care about Venus. Look at the subject line. Show us your evidence. Or don't you have any? I suspect your knowledge of 10,000 BC artists comes from leafing through magazines and books of the kind that tell stories about the "Dropa". So you're engaged in a kind of holding action, badmouthing everybody on the thread in hopes they won't notice that you have nothing to back up your claims. Ross Clark >> > I'm not interested in overthrowing the laws of physics or speculating >> > about extra-terrestrial life. So let's see your evidence. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Ross Clark The earth's rotation has been slowing down for millions of years due to tidal drag from the moon, as evidenced by daily/yearly patterns in corals. Without a moon, why was rotation slowing down? (And at just the same rate it is slowing down today, with a moon) SignatureJohn Ritson > Our "John Kepler" is simply a Usenet lost cause of a fool on the hill, > or perhaps that of a well assimilated borg like minion of an > insurmountable mindset of denial that's in denial (very GW Bush like), > in so much as we might as well be communicating with a space-toilet. In your case, Mark Twain said it best in 1894..... "Never attempt to teach a pig to dance......it wastes your time and annoys the pig!" Now get back to that aluminum foil shielding before you hurt yourself! BTW, a little "fun with numbers" using my ancient ancestors three laws will quickly show how dumb/impossible your postulate is! Another quote you really should get in touch with, "If you can't express it in numbers, it's an opinion, not a fact." John > BTW, a little "fun with numbers" using my ancient ancestors three laws will > quickly show how dumb/impossible your postulate is! > > Another quote you really should get in touch with, "If you can't express it > in numbers, it's an opinion, not a fact." In other words, you still have absolutely nothing pertaining to my quest of any depicted moon that's of 10,000+ BC, other than sticking up for the infomercial-science that's in charge of your naysay mindset. What's the first/oldest unmistakable BC depiction of our moon? - Brad Guth > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? In orbit about the earth. Slightly nearer than in 2006. Solar eclipses lasted a little longer. > > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? > > In orbit about the earth. Slightly nearer than in 2006. Solar > eclipses lasted a little longer. That's another good point that is somehow lost as badly as all 700 boxes worth of those NASA/Apollo missions. Got any "solar eclipse" documented as of near or before 10,000 BC, or of whenever was the first one recorded? - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:08:51 +0000 (UTC) <33792360348636450d6a42a6aaf236f9.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: > No kidding folks; Where's our moon as of prior to 10,000 BC ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - > Brad Guth I'm frankly not sure what answer you're seeking, but the Moon is moving away from us at a rate of about 0.038m / year. If the Moon is currently 384,000,000 m away from us, this means that the Moon and Earth were practically touching 10 billion years ago -- assuming this calcuation is even close to right, which it probably isn't, since the Earth is less than half that age. However, as of 10,000 BC it might have been a little closer (as in 0.456km closer) than it is now. Barely a smidge in the celestial scheme of things. If you want to know precisely where in the sky it was at some point in 10,000 BC, you'll have to be more specific as to your date specification, and it gets a little complicated because calendars didn't exactly standardize on the January 1st start back then, although one could probably target the winter solstice or the vernal equinox easily enough. There's also the Earth's precession to consider. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133: FILE * fileptr; void f(char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fileptr); } >In sci.physics, Brad Guth ><bradguth@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Moon is moving away from us at a rate of about 0.038m / >year. Guth's a delusional kook who, among other nonsense, says the Moon has only been around for a few thousand years. SignatureBill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.] In sci.physics, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote on Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:20:17 -0500 <cq1ji2lbh31eiia2lk93ht920ireo9oofb@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics, Brad Guth >><bradguth@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Guth's a delusional kook who, among other nonsense, says the Moon has > only been around for a few thousand years. Ya think? :-) He's also on record (somewhere) as stating that 5 mile high engineered structures are on Venus that can extract power from the differences in air temperature. At least, that's what I remember; I'd have to find it. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/signature: No such file or directory The Ghost In The Machine a écrit : > In sci.physics, Bill Snyder > <bsnyder@airmail.net> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > /dev/signature: No such file or directory (this is copy of a reply I provided to you in former thread GLOBAL WARMING... I take the liberty to post it as well since you may miss it overthere) Dear Brad, I am overcome by the number of questions you are raising and hence the time necessary to reply in details to each of these. Further I have not as much time on my hand as previously as I am damned busy renovating the house... Anyway, if you care, I could send you copy of a paper I wrote sometimes back on the True Geology. Although it is incomplete, I am willing to send you copy of it and I am sure it will put you on the right track so a few questions you are asking yourself will be answered indeed.... then we will go further on the track so that you will have the proper understanding what the True Geology is about. If this agreeable to you, please send me an email confirming yours. One should realise on the one hand that the whole so-called .Science & whatever discipline is involved ( Geology, Archaeology, Physics, Economy, Medecine, Agriculture, History etc ) all is underlain by the religious beliefs of the present pre-eminent Semite JIC ( Judeo-Islamic-Christian) beliefs. The main aspect of it being that Deus-Ex-Machina response to any nagging problem. Personally I see no difference between the religious Creationists and the Big Bang Creationists Both are calling on a miracle of instantaneity to explain things while the reality is not so, and the creation as all can observe is continuous....and demonstrating such overwhelming intelligence that it is beyond words indeed. On the other hand we have all those Universities programmed so-called scientists spouting their big mouth forth and considering that they are the ultimate form of intelligence in the whole world. Nothing is even considered as possible unless they have given their agreement that effectively it is indeed. I have been often amused to listen to young children trying to rationalise the coming of toys at Xmas time, while there is no chimney conduct, nor even fire place at all.... any theory is considered as valid then , from the father Xmas having some special key, to slipping under the door .... etc Well the parallel with those brain-washed Universities formatted blokes with what they believe give them authority to debate of what is valid and not, is completely in line with the kindergarten kids 's reasoning mentioned above. Now why do the former quit their certitude and the latest do not ? Simply because an authority gave the kids the answer and because the latest are lost with all kind of authorities given them all types of answers, and obviously they pick and choose what is politically correct under a rule derived from consensus ... and this upon this process that they build their certitudes. My personal conviction is that only a few visionary ( or whatever you want to call them) are able to pave the path to awareness and that the mob of kids or scientists fall in step. Basically a so-called scientist is as childish as Father Xmas believing kid and the proof of this are all those infantile theories to which they cling during their entire lives and which are proven so derisive later ... WHICH OF PRESENT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED DERISIVE TO LATER GENERATIONS ? I have a most informed answer regarding that question in relation to Geology : ALL OF THEM !!! With best regards jpturcaud ********** > WHICH OF PRESENT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED > DERISIVE TO LATER GENERATIONS ? I have a most informed answer regarding > that question in relation to Geology : ALL OF THEM !!! Since it obviously doesn't accomplish much good sharing the truth, how best can the likes of you and myself kick the most butt? Why is the science of geology so hocus-pocus? Why are folks so terribly afraid of the truth? Isn't their real or pagan God worthy of sharing the truth? What's the big deal if Earth is older than Venus, and Mars being older than Earth, and that of our icy proto-moon having arrived just in the nick of time? - Brad Guth > He's also on record (somewhere) as stating that 5 mile > high engineered structures are on Venus that can extract > power from the differences in air temperature. At least, > that's what I remember; I'd have to find it. Christ almighty. Talk about exaggerating the facts: 5 mile high my a.s. Try at most 1.125 km structures (though even the majority of those I identified arnt worth half that amount). Due to the obvious limitations of imaging resolution, we're talking something typically less than 0.5 km, that is unless you're stipulating about that perfectly natural looking 'fluid arch' of GUTH Venus, which is damn big and impressive. No wonder you're so infomercial screwed up. Are you that far off with whatever's depicted on Mars? Those nifty thermal dynamics per km and the differentials in atmospheric pressure per km is just physics-101, doing exactly what physics does best. The nifty 65 kg/m3 benefit of buoyancy and of the 10% less gravity factor is just icing on the Venusian cake. If your NASA/Apollo conditional laws of physics and of their infomercial-science that has to exclude whatever evidence rocks-thy-boat can't make a go of it on Venus, then what's the odds of accomplishing Mars that hasn't squat going for it? - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:41:26 +0000 (UTC) <6ba4568ec86603ad6c0fab51f729daaf.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> He's also on record (somewhere) as stating that 5 mile >> high engineered structures are on Venus that can extract [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > - > Brad Guth I stand corrected. Not that it matters; were a structure on Venus producing electrical energy we'd probably have picked up the emanations by now. Anything orbiting Venus will simply have to listen for radio noise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner_2 indicates among other things a fluxgate magnetometer and a microwave radiometer. Unclear as to what the sensitivity of either one is, and whether it would be enough to pick up a, say, 100 MW generation plant under full power, operating on the planet's surface. As for the density variations -- I frankly doubt it would generate any atmospheric motion, unless the columns absorb heat from sunlight. Since there's no sunlight, just a diffuse illumination, this appears rather doubtful, though one might attempt such things as a reflective base and a black heated top. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash. > I stand corrected. Not that it matters; were a structure > on Venus producing electrical energy we'd probably have > picked up the emanations by now. Anything orbiting Venus > will simply have to listen for radio noise. What has radio got to do with intelligent other life having existed/coexisted on Venus? How much of Earth's history of intelligent humanity (say from 100,000 BC) had significant radio to work with? How much of Earth is still without the sorts of radio that could be satellite detected? Why not accommodating their extended local commumications using visible photons (say 425~450 nm) at not 0.1% the energy demands of anything radio? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner_2 > indicates among other things a fluxgate magnetometer > and a microwave radiometer. Unclear as to what > the sensitivity of either one is, and whether it would > be enough to pick up a, say, 100 MW generation plant > under full power, operating on the planet's surface. If the power generated were primarily that of DC and not AC, whereas then your detection process is made that much more difficult, if not nearly impossible to detect via remote satellite methods unless you're working with a resolution that's down to the meter by meter capability. If each power generation station were established per local task and thus perhaps worth as little as 100 KW, whereas even if that amount were AC is going to represent a fairly small and relatively low frequency electromagnetic signal, especially difficult if it's having to be detected from orbit. > As for the density variations -- I frankly doubt it > would generate any atmospheric motion, unless the columns > absorb heat from sunlight. Since there's no sunlight, > just a diffuse illumination, this appears rather doubtful, > though one might attempt such things as a reflective base > and a black heated top. According to the regular laws of physics; 4+bar/km and 10 K/km needs only a vertical tube or column of space that's open on the bottom and top. A full km vertical wind tunnel or chimney is going to represent a great deal of renewable energy that's to be found anywhere on Venus. Even a 1/10th scale or 100 meter version gets downright impressive if there's good diameter and thus sufficient volumes of that differential to take advantage of. (it's somewhat like a waterfall in reverse) Therefore, sunlight has absolutely nothing to do with it. However, the easily available geothermal energy and of natural gas vents or hot mud flows is quite another thing of viable energy that's worth looking into. - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:04:04 +0000 (UTC) <8d5c7382369d75d7443d818561f5ad2b.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> I stand corrected. Not that it matters; were a structure >> on Venus producing electrical energy we'd probably have >> picked up the emanations by now. Anything orbiting Venus >> will simply have to listen for radio noise. > What has radio got to do with intelligent other life having > existed/coexisted on Venus? If one postulates an electric power source one will have to postulate radio waves as well. Not necessarily technically inclined, mind you, but such things as arcover on mechanical switches or relays should be detectable by pocket AM radios. That's what we might find from these power-generating columns, assuming they are in fact such. Of course there might also be issues from lightning, but since current theory postulates lightning comes from charge migration -- rubbing of ice crystals, basically -- I rather doubt there's all that much on Venus. > How much of Earth's history of intelligent > humanity (say from 100,000 BC) had significant radio to work with? How [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > nearly impossible to detect via remote satellite methods unless you're > working with a resolution that's down to the meter by meter capability. That is one facet of debate, admittedly. In the late 1800's or early 1900's Tesla and Edison argued on just that. > If each power generation station were established per local task and > thus perhaps worth as little as 100 KW, whereas even if that amount were [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > easily available geothermal energy and of natural gas vents or hot mud > flows is quite another thing of viable energy that's worth looking into. Geothermal energy on Venus? An interesting notion. Anyone have data on this? > - > Brad Guth Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash. > If one postulates an electric power source one will > have to postulate radio waves as well. Not necessarily > technically inclined, mind you, but such things as arcover > on mechanical switches or relays should be detectable by > pocket AM radios. That's what we might find from these > power-generating columns, assuming they are in fact such. That's true, however there's no past nor ongoing efforts at looking for the intelligent worth of anything. Even the ESA Venus EXPRESS with it's nifty PFS instrument, that's hopefully going to soon contribute, isn't going to offer the necessary resolution nor operator expertise that's required. > Of course there might also be issues from lightning, > but since current theory postulates lightning comes from > charge migration -- rubbing of ice crystals, basically -- > I rather doubt there's all that much on Venus. You rather doubt wrong. Venus has lots of ice, h2o and unavoidably o2. What parts of Venus are you and your naysay mindset excluding? > Geothermal energy on Venus? An interesting notion. Anyone have data on > this? You bet (such as via NASA and Russia), and what notion are you talking about? Especially weird since Venus has been primarily that of a newish planetology worth of geothermal energy, that's actively spewing and/or venting as we speak, as for a couple of decades there has been lots of the sufficiently replicated science as having been reposted by myself and by many others before and since my time. Unfortunately the all-knowing naysay mindset of denial is certainly all powerful and essentially insurmountable, isn't it. You yourself don't even believe in pictures, so what's your sorry intellectual bigotry excuse? Yet you 100+% believe in those Kodak moment as having depicted that we've walked on the moon, which so happens to go against most all the laws of physics, plus having not an honest stitch of replicated science in support which simply doesn't bother your kind, does it. As I've asked before; What do you think about the 'fluid arch' that's existing on Venus? Otherwise, what do you think about good old John Ackerman and of his Venusian research? - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:29:43 +0000 (UTC) <38930ac62a1f0372705db28f5959e281.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> If one postulates an electric power source one will >> have to postulate radio waves as well. Not necessarily [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You rather doubt wrong. Venus has lots of ice, h2o and unavoidably o2. > What parts of Venus are you and your naysay mindset excluding? What parts of experimentation dredged up this notion that Venus has lots of ice and O2? O2 has very definite spectral lines. I surmise ice does also. H has probably the most well known spectral lines of all of the elements -- since it's the most abundant it's the one astronomers are presumably most likely to see. >> Geothermal energy on Venus? An interesting notion. Anyone have data on >> this? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > intellectual bigotry excuse? Yet you 100+% believe in those Kodak > moment as having depicted that we've walked on the moon, We did not walk on the moon. Only 12 men had that privilege. We of course paid for it, at least here in the US. More people have died in the space program (17) than have walked on the Moon, all of them by theoretically preventable accidents. In any event, I cannot prove anyone walked on the moon without dragging someone to the moon along with me, and then *he* gets to prove someone walked on the moon to further naysayers. Reflectance is not proof; Russia sent out two modules both of which were detected. (One has subsequently failed. The other's cubes can still reflect.) I have, however, seen the Rocket Garden. The Saturn V shell was rather impressive. (Now, I don't know where it is; last I heard it was rusting a bit so they moved it indoors.) That, admittedly, is good evidence we could build the rockets, but that's about it. > which so > happens to go against most all the laws of physics, plus having not an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As I've asked before; What do you think about the 'fluid arch' that's > existing on Venus? I think it's an arch, though it's hard to say without more data (e.g., by radar measurements). Are you suggesting that I should state that it indicates intelligence, water flow, what? > Otherwise, what do you think about good old John Ackerman and of his > Venusian research? I don't know anything about Mr. Ackerman. Wikipedia coughs up Bruce, Dick, Bettye, William, and Forrest J Ackerman. Google coughs up http://www.firmament-chaos.com/, which appears to be a modified Velikovsky-based system. Since Velikovsky is a known silly sort I'm not sure I need to pursue this further, especially since the website claims that "prior to 4000BC there existed only two terrestrial planets, what I call priori-Mars and the Earth", and then a massive traveler of some sort liberated 10^35 J -- that's about 37x the kinetic energy of the Earth currently orbiting the Sun -- as it impacted what was then a bluish-green Jupiter. (Presumably the Chinese might have something to say regarding that; they were observing things during the supposedly Biblical Flood.) An elementary knowledge of celestial mechanics would quickly point out that such an impact would leave Jupiter with an elliptical orbit: the heavier the impact, the more elliptic. Most orbital launches should require two burns: one to get into orbit, but a second to circularize that orbit (otherwise the satellite will reenter Earth's atmosphere, since perigee is effectively the rocket's launch pad). Since Jupiter is 1.899 * 10^27 kg, a liberation of 10^35 J in its immediate vicinity would at a maximum change its velocity by about sqrt(2E/m) = 10.3 km/s. Since Jupiter's mean orbital speed is about 13.056 km/s that's pretty darned big, and in fact given the right orientation Jupiter could have achieved escape velocity and sailed right out of the Solar System. Yet now Jupiter's orbit has an eccentricity of only 0.0484, with an orbital velocity that varies by only 1.266 km/s. To further postulate that the resultant ejected mass from the collision would then coalesce into the planet Venus verges on the ridiculous, even if one postulates dancing with Mars in the meantime -- the momentum is all wrong. It smells like a crank to me. > - > Brad Guth Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/brain: Permission denied > What parts of experimentation dredged up this notion that Venus > has lots of ice and O2? O2 has very definite spectral lines. > I surmise ice does also. H has probably the most well known > spectral lines of all of the elements -- since it's the most > abundant it's the one astronomers are presumably most likely > to see. Good grief, I do believe they've seen it for more than a decade, and that matter of fact has been formally published and subsequently ignored. If you'd so much as bother to include the surrounding atmosphere of Venus as being part of the package, whereas you'd have seen and have known as much or more than myself. You do realize that at roughly 150 km there's a rather nifty nighttime glow of o2, and there's more than enough ice in them thar nighttime clouds to more than choke any number of horses. > We did not walk on the moon. Only 12 men had that privilege. > We of course paid for it, at least here in the US. More people > have died in the space program (17) than have walked on the Moon, > all of them by theoretically preventable accidents. See what I mean by those conditional laws of physics and of infomercial-science that can NOT be replicated. (I didn't think so) > In any event, I cannot prove anyone walked on the moon without > dragging someone to the moon along with me, and then *he* > gets to prove someone walked on the moon to further naysayers. > Reflectance is not proof; Russia sent out two modules both of > which were detected. (One has subsequently failed. The other's > cubes can still reflect.) The good old regular laws of physics and of common deductive sense tells us what did or did not transpire, and of all those silly Kodak moments simply nailed each of those hocus-pocus coffins dead shut. Your denial is simply in denial, same as myself as of 7+ years ago. > > As I've asked before; What do you think about the 'fluid arch' that's > > existing on Venus? > > I think it's an arch, though it's hard to say without more data (e.g., > by radar measurements). Are you suggesting that I should state that > it indicates intelligence, water flow, what? Not at all. In fact I'm damn proud that you even bothered to take a subjective look-see. As far as I can tell, due to it's density or radar reflective nature is suggesting of a perfectly natural geological formation that looks as though it's a bit fluid, as perhaps even that of lava but more than likely a mud like or other hot plastic substance because, there's a fluid like beginning foundation of erosion and then a fluid like termination of surrounding erosion associated with that arch. Due to the 65 kg/m3 of buoyancy and of the 90.5% gravity makes many such things possible. > > Otherwise, what do you think about good old John Ackerman and of his > > Venusian research? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Google coughs up http://www.firmament-chaos.com/, > which appears to be a modified Velikovsky-based system. That's true, but otherwise John Ackerman is also being somewhat FW Taylor like. > Since Velikovsky is a known silly sort I'm not sure I need > to pursue this further, especially since the website claims [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to say regarding that; they were observing things during > the supposedly Biblical Flood.) I too do not agree with all of what lord/wizard Velikovsky had to offer, but not everything of his is at risk of being foolish, nor that of a "silly sort". I'll have to say the same of Ackerman. Parts of the math associated with Velikovsky and of subsequently with those more recent calculations via John Ackerman could in fact be a wee bit skewed, which doesn't mean that he wasn't on the right set of tracks, just moving along at the wrong warp speed for not having applied sufficient physics or having other substantiating science to work with (I'm fairly certain that yourself and those of your kind never once bothered to help). I'm also certain that our Einstein made his fair share of really big mistakes (most of which didn't get published, but otherwise exist). - Brad Guth | > What parts of experimentation dredged up this notion that Venus | > has lots of ice and O2? O2 has very definite spectral lines. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | > to see. | Good grief, I do believe they've seen it for more than a decade, Never mind that, what's your pathetic excuse for being such a status quo of an incest cloned bigot of such a brown-nosed collaborating Third Reich Jewish minion? Androcles In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:06:20 +0000 (UTC) <1fd28a999406ff49fdc938c25cacc1ea.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> What parts of experimentation dredged up this notion that Venus >> has lots of ice and O2? O2 has very definite spectral lines. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > more than enough ice in them thar nighttime clouds to more than choke > any number of horses. I think the CO2 would do that. :-) In any event, the percentages of CO2 and nitrogen are well-known, with ice but a trace; it wouldn't be enough to bind up with the C and the O to form sugars, certainly. >> We did not walk on the moon. Only 12 men had that privilege. >> We of course paid for it, at least here in the US. More people >> have died in the space program (17) than have walked on the Moon, >> all of them by theoretically preventable accidents. > See what I mean by those conditional laws of physics and of > infomercial-science that can NOT be replicated. (I didn't think so) Eh? Sorry, that didn't quite parse. >> In any event, I cannot prove anyone walked on the moon without >> dragging someone to the moon along with me, and then *he* [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > simply nailed each of those hocus-pocus coffins dead shut. Your denial > is simply in denial, same as myself as of 7+ years ago. So you're suggesting Mercury and Apollo are simply big cinematic productions, a la _Capricorn One_? >> > As I've asked before; What do you think about the 'fluid arch' that's >> > existing on Venus? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the 65 kg/m3 of buoyancy and of the 90.5% gravity makes many such things > possible. How does one know it's a bit fluid? Multiple observations? >> > Otherwise, what do you think about good old John Ackerman and of his >> > Venusian research? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > those more recent calculations via John Ackerman could in fact be a wee > bit skewed, Only a wee bit skewed? AFAICT it's off the wall. > which doesn't mean that he wasn't on the right set of > tracks, just moving along at the wrong warp speed for not having applied [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > share of really big mistakes (most of which didn't get published, but > otherwise exist). He did make a couple of sign errors (which cancelled, IIRC) and assumed a static universe and thereby a cosmological constant (this was prior to Hubble's redshift discovery). Those are the ones I happen to know about. Other errors are highly likely in non-mathematical areas -- apparently Einstein's love life was rather active -- but I certainly can't say much more regarding such, especially since he died some years prior to my birth. > - > Brad Guth Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Does anyone else remember the 1802? > I think the CO2 would do that. :-) In any event, the percentages > of CO2 and nitrogen are well-known, with ice but a trace; it > wouldn't be enough to bind up with the C and the O to form sugars, > certainly. I didn't realize the Venusian locals or of those visiting and/or imported troops of such ETs had a sweet tooth for local sugars, especially if having to be extracted from such altitudes none the less. BTW; wouldn't a little spare energy plus a reverse-greenhouse work rather nicely for growing whatever? (at that pressure the artificial anti-greenhouse environment shouldn't require at most more than 1% O2 and perhaps as little as 100 joules/m3, and there sure as hell isn't any local shortage of easily available energy to burn, sort of speak) > So you're suggesting Mercury and Apollo are simply big cinematic > productions, a la _Capricorn One_? We did the very best that our collective of Third Reich wizards and of their collaborating Jews of physics and rocket science could muster, and all the rest was purely hocus-pocus as based upon those necessary conditional laws of physics and of the hyped media/eye-candy of infomercial science which can only be replicated by way of our NASA's word. (I believe that nothing much as actually changed, has it) The cold war was entirely perpetrated, at a mutual global cost impact of trillions per decade, having allowed countless millions of nice folks to essentially fall off the edge of this global warming and badly polluted Earth that's still getting pillaged and raped to death, while we each played our potentially lethal and obviously spendy and time consuming war games, plus that of our 'king of the hill' game as per the ongoing space race that's now become a rather pesky global energy race of discarding and/or allowing the extermination of as many Muslims as possible. Other than that, everything else is just perfectly fine and dandy. BTW; Team MESSENGER is simply doing exactly whatever they are being told and/or allowed to do. > > As far as I can tell, due to it's density or radar reflective nature is > > suggesting of a perfectly natural geological formation that looks as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How does one know it's a bit fluid? Multiple observations? Each of the composite pixels is already that of 36 looks, and as truth in such pixels goes, that's actually getting pretty damn good. Though most anything of newish planetology/geophysics on Venus is possible, I think it's a wee bit too significant in size and/or scope for being that of a solid arch formation, and it's simply not represented as pixel bright enough as per indicating likes all of those surrounding hot rocks. > > Parts of the math associated with Velikovsky and of subsequently with > > those more recent calculations via John Ackerman could in fact be a wee > > bit skewed, > > Only a wee bit skewed? AFAICT it's off the wall. At times, the likes of good old Einstein was certainly "off the wall". Fortunately, most everything Einstein got Jewish moderated to death, thus most of his mistakes got caught prior to or banished from ever getting published in the first place. > He did make a couple of sign errors (which cancelled, IIRC) > and assumed a static universe and thereby a cosmological [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can't say much more regarding such, especially since he > died some years prior to my birth. Thus our Einstein was an actual human, and with the human ability of making his fair of mistakes, although I've got most of all them beat with having boat loads of my own mistakes that are only somewhat dyslexic if not a touch weird. - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:10 +0000 (UTC) <6867f614e9354be26f81b8f83f8f5288.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> I think the CO2 would do that. :-) In any event, the percentages >> of CO2 and nitrogen are well-known, with ice but a trace; it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > imported troops of such ETs had a sweet tooth for local sugars, > especially if having to be extracted from such altitudes none the less. The carbon has to go somewhere, if it's detached from the O2. Sugars is the Terrestrial solution for many plants (other plants pervert the concept slightly, leading to some interesting psychotropes and such). Of course Terrestrial plants have access to far more water, and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere runs about 0.038% or so. > BTW; wouldn't a little spare energy plus a reverse-greenhouse work > rather nicely for growing whatever? (at that pressure the artificial > anti-greenhouse environment shouldn't require at most more than 1% O2 > and perhaps as little as 100 joules/m3, and there sure as hell isn't any > local shortage of easily available energy to burn, sort of speak) Where's the water going to come from to remove that CO2 from the atmosphere? Also, unless the terrarium / greenhouse is ground-based (where it would probably cook!), how is one going to keep it airborne? [rest snipped] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux makes one use one's mind. Windows just messes with one's head. > The carbon has to go somewhere, if it's detached from the O2. Sugars is > the Terrestrial solution for many plants (other plants pervert the > concept slightly, leading to some interesting psychotropes and such). > Of course Terrestrial plants have access to far more water, and the > amount of CO2 in our atmosphere runs about 0.038% or so. You're not thinking sufficiently outside the box. Dry CO2 actually isn't such a big deal, as I've posted to established research as having demonstrated that certain terrestrial plants can deal with great amounts of CO2, and at great pressure to boot. Forget about Venus accommodating the likes of naked humans. It isn't going to happen, especially for the dumb and dumber souls that are so easily dumbfounded past the point of no return. > Where's the water going to come from to remove that CO2 from the > atmosphere? Also, unless the terrarium / greenhouse is ground-based > (where it would probably cook!), how is one going to keep it airborne? Why bother removing CO2 from the Venusian atmosphere? What sort of sadistic idiot are you? How many mega, giga or possibly tera tonnes of Venusian water would you like? (I'll sell it or rather the method of easily extracting such to you real cheap) You do realize that water can be formulated as sequestered within all sorts of perfectly natural products, and otherwise physically contained as well as artificially stored? Are you still planning on going to Venus in the buff? If we're going to terraform Venus into something Earth like, as such we'll need to give Venus an icy proto-moon of a sucker punch, such as perhaps driving Sedna smack into Venus, but then manage to get rid of the de-iced Sedna so that there's no additional mascon of tidal energy to deal with. - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:43:31 +0000 (UTC) <abf30ab11995be8e2b611e494f551efd.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> The carbon has to go somewhere, if it's detached from the O2. Sugars is >> the Terrestrial solution for many plants (other plants pervert the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > demonstrated that certain terrestrial plants can deal with great amounts > of CO2, and at great pressure to boot. Good for the plants. But what about people? > Forget about Venus accommodating the likes of naked humans. It isn't > going to happen, especially for the dumb and dumber souls that are so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why bother removing CO2 from the Venusian atmosphere? What sort of > sadistic idiot are you? Hopefully a practical one. If one is going to terraform Venus then one has to at least contemplate the ultimate objective. I don't consider making a green bauble where a white one used to be a sufficiently good objective. The ultimate objective is occupation by humans. > How many mega, giga or possibly tera tonnes of Venusian water would you > like? (I'll sell it or rather the method of easily extracting such to > you real cheap) 0.002% water vapor on Venus, according to Wiki. The height is estimated to be 250 km, though the pressure drops off fairly quickly. At about 50 km pressure and temperature are similar to Earth, which means floating enclosures are possible (but they would definitely have to be enclosed). These enclosures would contain plants and workers, and would be vaguely similar to Biosphere II, presumably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus > You do realize that water can be formulated as sequestered within all > sorts of perfectly natural products, and otherwise physically contained > as well as artificially stored? Certainly. So where's the water? There's not enough water to convert all of the CO2 to glucose. > Are you still planning on going to Venus in the buff? Only if the temperature and atmospheric conditions are right. > If we're going to terraform Venus into something Earth like, as such > we'll need to give Venus an icy proto-moon of a sucker punch, such as > perhaps driving Sedna smack into Venus, but then manage to get rid of > the de-iced Sedna so that there's no additional mascon of tidal energy > to deal with. In order to drive Sedna into Venus, one must first get to Sedna, then give enough impulse to drive it into Venus. This will take many years with current rocket technology. > - > Brad Guth Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733: bool f, g; if(f) g = true; else g = false; > Good for the plants. But what about people? If you're going there in person, you'll have to suck it in through a co2-->co/o2 converter, or else. (don't forget to bring lots of ice cold beer) > The ultimate objective is occupation by humans. That's true, but if you're still one of us snookered village idiots; what's the point? > 0.002% water vapor on Venus, according to Wiki. The height > is estimated to be 250 km, though the pressure drops off [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus Is this "wikipedia" going to be your one and only infomercial-science koran? You're still stuck within the mainstream status quo box, and all of the sides, bottom and top have been ductaped shut. > > You do realize that water can be formulated as sequestered within all > > sorts of perfectly natural products, and otherwise physically contained > > as well as artificially stored? > > Certainly. So where's the water? There's not enough water to convert > all of the CO2 to glucose. Why do you insist upon converting all the CO2 into glucose? (are you a diabetic?) Bone dry CO2 as well as whatever's of a dry acidic crystal is relatively harmless, or didn't you know that? For starters, most of the easiest available tonnage of water has been residing within them thar thick and acidic clouds (rather cool if not somewhat icy nighttime clouds). Otherwise raw tonnage of salty(brine) water or perhaps as 100% hydrogen peroxide can be safely imported. > > Are you still planning on going to Venus in the buff? > > Only if the temperature and atmospheric conditions are right. Good for you. Apparently you're not quite as dumbfounded as I'd thought. > In order to drive Sedna into Venus, one must first get to Sedna, then > give enough impulse to drive it into Venus. This will take many years > with current rocket technology. Lord/wizard 'tomcat' along with his massive waverider spaceplane that's thermonuclear steam-rocket powered, and/or via our all-nuclear U235 impulse driven captain 'William Mook' can take care of moving Sedna, that'll get to within 76 AU as of 2075 (it'll obviously be up to their latest offspring or the generation after that). I certainly wish them all the luck in the universe, however robotically accomplishing this daunting task seems rather doable. Once arriving at Sedna, extracting the necessary tonnage of it's reddish ice and using the thermonuclear steam producing reactor should provide enough L1 tug impulse from the steam-rocket thrusters in order to accomplish the task. Either that or they could just nuke the appropriate surface location(s) with a few H-bombs that'll produce a similar impulse affect. There's supposedly salty ice that's still sequestered within our moon. Therefore, why not simply give Venus our moon's ice? - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:04:35 +0000 (UTC) <84ef64d4c472777be98ef072fca71ff0.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> Good for the plants. But what about people? > If you're going there in person, you'll have to suck it in through a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Is this "wikipedia" going to be your one and only infomercial-science > koran? Did you have an alternate source in mind? If so, please indicate. Wikipedia is somewhat reliable, though there are probably better for peer-reviewed scientific types. > You're still stuck within the mainstream status quo box, and all of the > sides, bottom and top have been ductaped shut. We are all stuck in a box. Or did you think you could flap your arms and fly to Venus? >> > You do realize that water can be formulated as sequestered within all >> > sorts of perfectly natural products, and otherwise physically contained [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why do you insist upon converting all the CO2 into glucose? (are you a > diabetic?) I could convert it to soot, if you prefer. Those are the two chemically viable alternatives that come to mind. Soot might be preferable, in fact (no hydrogen/water needed), but would require some sort of shielding. > Bone dry CO2 as well as whatever's of a dry acidic crystal is relatively > harmless, or didn't you know that? Bone dry CO2 has the problem of holding in the heat. If the ultimate objective is surface dwelling by humans that heat will have to be dealt with somehow. > For starters, most of the easiest available tonnage of water has been > residing within them thar thick and acidic clouds (rather cool if not > somewhat icy nighttime clouds). Otherwise raw tonnage of salty(brine) > water or perhaps as 100% hydrogen peroxide can be safely imported. OK, and you've mentioned comets for the water source. An interesting idea, that. The main question is how much energy one will require to drag the comets into the Venusian atmosphere. >> > Are you still planning on going to Venus in the buff? >> >> Only if the temperature and atmospheric conditions are right. > Good for you. Apparently you're not quite as dumbfounded as I'd > thought. I would hope not. >> In order to drive Sedna into Venus, one must first get to Sedna, then >> give enough impulse to drive it into Venus. This will take many years [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There's supposedly salty ice that's still sequestered within our moon. > Therefore, why not simply give Venus our moon's ice? Why not simply boost Earth's oceans? Plenty of salty water there. > - > Brad Guth Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. An OS which actually, unlike other offerings, works. > Did you have an alternate source in mind? If so, please indicate. > Wikipedia is somewhat reliable, though there are probably better for > peer-reviewed scientific types. I agree that Wikipedia shares more information than most, but it is highly moderated and it dose believe in and promote absolutely anything that's authored and/or approved by NASA. There's a few other bits of information that's worth deductively going through, such as what the likes of FW Taylor, John Ackerman and a few others are havinga to say. > We are all stuck in a box. Or did you think you could flap your arms > and fly to Venus? Almost. At least a whole lot easier, tonnes safer and much cheaper (like 1% that of doing Mars). > >> Certainly. So where's the water? There's not enough water to convert > >> all of the CO2 to glucose. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > viable alternatives that come to mind. Soot might be preferable, in > fact (no hydrogen/water needed), but would require some sort of shielding. As a not so intelligent species, we're rather good at making more than our fair share of soot. (bet we've dropped a good point off the albedo of Earth in just the last decade) Actually co2-->co/o2 should become real sooty, or simply electrify the CO2 into being one hell of a laser cannon. > > Bone dry CO2 as well as whatever's of a dry acidic crystal is relatively > > harmless, or didn't you know that? > > Bone dry CO2 has the problem of holding in the heat. If the ultimate > objective is surface dwelling by humans that heat will have to be dealt > with somehow. Not really, as with R-1024/meter of structural composite abodes can manage quite nicely as is. Just don't bother to open any of those doors or windows. > OK, and you've mentioned comets for the water source. An interesting > idea, that. The main question is how much energy one will require to > drag the comets into the Venusian atmosphere. Hardly any if you're good enough a playing pool. > Why not simply boost Earth's oceans? Plenty of salty water there. In fact we seem to have more than our global warming fair share, thus getting rid of a few spare gigatonnes or perhaps even so much as a few teratonnes is actually a good idea. Perhaps the ESE fiasco could become a CNT straw that'll suck that necessary tonnage of spare dead ocean into LEO, along with all of those jellyfish. OOPS! it seems that we haven't any actual science as to raw water or ice coexisting in space. Now what? - Brad Guth In sci.physics, Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote on Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:52:25 +0000 (UTC) <baf6978065a378c7095a0a1b46d91700.49644@mygate.mailgate.org>: >> Did you have an alternate source in mind? If so, please indicate. >> Wikipedia is somewhat reliable, though there are probably better for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > through, such as what the likes of FW Taylor, John Ackerman and a few > others are havinga to say. If Mister Ackerman's website I've already viewed is any indication, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. FW Taylor appears to be more interested in various issues of psychology, specifically manufacturing/plant efficiency, and doesn't appear to relate to managing Venus or Venusian terraforming. Velikovsky is a known kook. >> We are all stuck in a box. Or did you think you could flap your arms >> and fly to Venus? > Almost. At least a whole lot easier, tonnes safer and much cheaper > (like 1% that of doing Mars). The main problem is getting into orbit. >> >> Certainly. So where's the water? There's not enough water to convert >> >> all of the CO2 to glucose. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > our fair share of soot. (bet we've dropped a good point off the albedo > of Earth in just the last decade) Well, OK, then. Soot or CO2 blanket. Either way, one gains heat. > Actually co2-->co/o2 should become real sooty, or simply electrify the > CO2 into being one hell of a laser cannon. And a Laser Cannon would be beneficial to Mankind precisely why? Assuming such is even possible. >> > Bone dry CO2 as well as whatever's of a dry acidic crystal is relatively >> > harmless, or didn't you know that? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > manage quite nicely as is. Just don't bother to open any of those doors > or windows. I for one wasn't planning to. But even with R1024 one still has to remove heat -- about 1/1024th of the heat one would have to deal with were one in an airtight tin shack, perhaps. That is the definition of R-factor. >> OK, and you've mentioned comets for the water source. An interesting >> idea, that. The main question is how much energy one will require to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a CNT straw that'll suck that necessary tonnage of spare dead ocean into > LEO, along with all of those jellyfish. Suck? Obviously your knowledge of fluid dynamics needs some updating. One cannot suck out the oceans, even were one as large as the Moon and very very thirsty. It would have to be pumped out, and there are issues similar to those of the Space Elevator, since something has to support the pipe, straw, tube, hose, whatever it is holding the water. > OOPS! it seems that we haven't any actual science as to raw water or ice > coexisting in space. Now what? Eh? I don't think there will be a major problem there. The piping would hopefully hold in enough heat to allow liquid water to flow until it reaches the endpoint, which is higher up than geosynch orbit. (It would have to be, in order to counterbalance.) This is admittedly dependent on the piping's thickness, insulation, and water flow. > - > Brad Guth Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net "Woman? What woman?" > As for the density variations -- I frankly doubt it > would generate any atmospheric motion, unless the column |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message