Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The Planet Moon - Thoroughly Modern Selene

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Painius - 27 Jun 2008 09:36 GMT
In recent times it has become necessary for the IAU to
reevaluate and reclassify certain objects in our Solar
System. This process has been going on for a long time,
and received a special kick the year Isaac Asimov died,
1992.  While scientists had thought for many years that
there were other objects way out there with Pluto, it
wasn't until 1992 that the first, (15760) 1992 QB1, was
actually discovered.  Then it took eleven more years for
the first authoritative and official statement to form...

          Modern definition of "planet" formed by
        the International Astronomical Union (IAU)

Ref.:  Main Wiki article:  "Planet"

With the discovery during the latter half of the 20th
century of more objects within the Solar System and
large objects around other stars, disputes arose over
what should constitute a planet.  There was particular
disagreement over whether an object should be
considered a planet if it was part of a distinct population
such as a belt, or if it was large enough to generate
energy by the thermonuclear fusion of deuterium.

In 2003, the IAU Working Group on Extrasolar Planets
made a position statement on the definition of a planet
that incorporated a working definition:

1) Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for
thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated
to be 13 times the mass of Jupiter for objects with the
same isotopic abundance as the Sun) that orbit stars or
stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they
formed).  The minimum mass and size required for an
extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be
the same as that used in our Solar System.

2) Substellar objects with true masses above the
limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are
"brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed or where
they are located.

3) Free-floating objects in young star clusters with
masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear
fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-
brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).

This definition has since been widely used by many
astronomers when publishing discoveries in academic
journals.  Although temporary, it remains an effective,
working definition until a more permanent one is
formally adopted.  Nevertheless, it did not address the
dispute over the lower mass limit, and steered clear of
the controversy regarding objects within the Solar
System.

This matter was finally addressed during the 2006
meeting of the IAU's General Assembly.  After much
debate and one failed proposal, the assembly voted to
pass a resolution that defined planets within the Solar
System as:

A celestial body that is

  (a) in orbit around the Sun,

  (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
        rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic
        equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and

  (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

Under this definition, the Solar System is considered to
have NINE planets.  Bodies which fulfill the first two
conditions but not the third (such as Pluto and Eris) are
classified as dwarf planets, providing they are not also
natural satellites of other planets.  Originally an IAU
committee had proposed a definition that would have
included a much larger number of planets as it did not
include (c) as a criterion.  After much discussion, it was
decided via a vote that those bodies should instead be
classified as dwarf planets.

This definition is based in modern theories of planetary
formation, in which planetary embryos initially clear
their orbital neighborhood of other smaller objects.

The end product of secondary disk accretion is a small
number of relatively large bodies (planets) in either non-
intersecting or resonant orbits, which prevent collisions
between them.  Asteroids and comets, including KBOs,
differ from planets in that they can collide with each
other and with planets.

In the aftermath of the IAU's 2006 vote, there has been
criticism of the new definition, and some astronomers
have even stated that they will not use it.  Part of the
dispute centers around the belief that point (c)
(clearing its orbit) should not have been listed, and that
those objects now categorised as dwarf planets should
actually be part of a broader planetary definition.  The
next IAU conference is in 2009, when modifications
could be made to the definition, also possibly including
extrasolar planets.

BY DEFINITION, the nine planets in our Solar System are...

           Mercury
                Venus
                      Earth
                            Selene
                                  Mars
                                        Jupiter
                                              Saturn
                                                    Uranus
                                                          Neptune

Planet Selene (the Moon) is a major terrestrial planet as
defined both by the fact that Selene demonstrates itself
to be a planet, and by the official definition agreed upon
by the members of the IAU!

Since the IAU definition of "planet" includes our Moon, it
is now "official".  Earth and Selene form a double- or
binary-planet system.

Great and powerful Selene, which gives Earth its tides,
and served to empower the formation and progress of
life, has finally come full circle. Selene is now officially a

                    Full-Fledged Major Planet

(in its own right!)

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

oldcoot - 27 Jun 2008 13:55 GMT
> Since the IAU definition of "planet" includes our Moon, it
> is now "official".  Earth and Selene form a double- or
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> (in its own right!)

...'Cept for one rather prominent criterion for status as a planet
(quoting from your text) :

"..providing they are not also
natural satellites of other planets."
Painius - 27 Jun 2008 15:25 GMT
>> Since the IAU definition of "planet" includes our Moon, it
>> is now "official".  Earth and Selene form a double- or
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> "..providing they are not also
> natural satellites of other planets."

Except for the undeniable fact that Selene is not a
natural satellite of Earth.  Didn't we already cover
this?

Please reference the post where Isaac Asimov gave
dynamite evidence that there's no way that the
Moon can be a natural satellite of Earth.  It's about
210,000 miles too far away from Earth to be natural.
Selene orbits 18-23 degrees off of Earth's equator
and only 5 degrees off the ecliptic, where natural
satellites invariably orbit the primary right on the
equatorial plane. Natural satellites have on the order
of thousands, even millions of times less mass than
their primaries.  Not so planet Selene.

There is no way that the Moon is a natural satellite
of Earth.  No Way.

I guess you're just gonna have to repeat it over and
over again, Bill...

Selene is NOT a natural satellite.
Selene is NOT a natural satellite.
Selene is NOT a natural satellite.
Selene is NOT a natural satellite.

Repeat as many times as necessary for it to sink in!

(Keep this up, Bill, i'm enjoyin' the heck out of it! (and
i'm getting very close to accepting the existence of
gravitons.  <g>))

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

oldcoot - 27 Jun 2008 15:31 GMT
> I guess you're just gonna have to repeat it over and
> over again...
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Repeat as many times as necessary for it to sink in!

OK, OK aready. Shake until well mixed. Margaritaville.

> (Keep this up.. i'm enjoyin' the heck out of it! (and
> i'm getting very close to accepting the existence of
> gravitons.  <g>))

Heh. Good one.
Hagar - 27 Jun 2008 16:16 GMT
Still trying to convince the world, hey, Paine ....

A little refresher course, free of charge, naturally:

> This matter was finally addressed during the 2006
> meeting of the IAU's General Assembly.  After much
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>   (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

The Moon (or Selene, as you prefer) orbits around the Earth.  The Earth
carries it around the Sun; whether the orbit is scalloped, sautéed or looped
is also irrelevant..

It's inclination of orbit is totally irrelevant.

The Moon has not cleared its neighborhood, the Earth did that.

Since the Earth/Moon "fulcrum" is within the radius of one of the two
bodies, that would exclude the title of binary planetary system and would
make it a true moon, by any definition.

Keep on plugging, though ...
oldcoot - 27 Jun 2008 16:38 GMT
This whole planet-vs-moon thing really boils down to a foray into DMP
(details, minutiae and particulars), and semantics. The preponderance of
DMP clearly indicate satellite. That's one truth, one 'frame of
referance'. Another truth is that of the heart, seeing the beautiful
overlighting orb in all its fullness and phases and ever-recurring
newness. It certainly has the robust looks and character of a planet and
not just a lowly 'satellite'. So let it be.
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 27 Jun 2008 18:01 GMT
oc and Hagar  What we see is by reflected light.  Early man at night had
the Moon to see by He invented fire so its light could bounce off
objects.at night. He could live without those pin points of star light.
Only Mach has shown he could not in reality live without stars.and that
is still a great mystery even today.  The Sun is the same size as the
Moon,but only the Moon can be seen as a ball moving across the sky.
Venus came later   bert  PS please don't tell me the Sun is bigger (give
me a break will ya)
Saul Levy - 30 Jun 2008 07:23 GMT
Got bad news for you, BEERTbrain!  lmao!

The Sun is also a ball moving across the sky.

Don't you read astronomy texts?

Saul Levy

>oc and Hagar  What we see is by reflected light.  Early man at night had
>the Moon to see by He invented fire so its light could bounce off
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Venus came later   bert  PS please don't tell me the Sun is bigger (give
>me a break will ya)
Painius - 27 Jun 2008 20:01 GMT
> Still trying to convince the world, hey, Paine ....
>
> A little refresher course, free of charge, naturally:

Still don't sound very affordable!

>> This matter was finally addressed during the 2006
>> meeting of the IAU's General Assembly.  After much
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> carries it around the Sun; whether the orbit is scalloped, sautéed or
> looped is also irrelevant..

The Earth does not "carry" the Moon around the Sun.
Earth and planet Selene orbit the Sun in fine-tuned
unison!  If you could get past your "flat-Earth" ideas
and tune in yourself, you'd be able to easily see how
the Moon orbits the Sun in much the same fashion as
Earth or any other major planet does -- ALWAYS
falling toward the Sun -- unlike any satellite and very
clearly JUST like and only like every major planet in
the Solar System.

> It's inclination of orbit is totally irrelevant.

Of course it is!  Just as the fact that only major
planets are on or near the ecliptic plane, and only
natural moons orbit their planets on the equatorial
planes.  Yup, sounds irrelevant to me.

> The Moon has not cleared its neighborhood, the Earth did that.

If the Moon did not clear its neighborhood, how do you
account for the buildup of its mass?  It had to accrete
matter from somewhere or it wouldn't be there for us
to love and write poetry about!  The other side of the
Moon, you know, the one with no maria and only a lot
of craters, is crystal clear evidence that the Moon did
play a large part in "clearing its neighborhood".

> Since the Earth/Moon "fulcrum" is within the radius of one of the two
> bodies, that would exclude the title of binary planetary system and would
> make it a true moon, by any definition.

I'm glad you and i can agree to disagree!

> Keep on plugging, though ...

No problemo.

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

Hagar - 27 Jun 2008 20:19 GMT
> snip <

> The Earth does not "carry" the Moon around the Sun.
> Earth and planet Selene orbit the Sun in fine-tuned
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> clearly JUST like and only like every major planet in
> the Solar System.

OK, explain that "falling towards the Sun" thing one more time.
The way I see it, in its orbit around the Earth (and I do believe
that we can all agree on that, or all of the world's calendars are wrong),
from opposition to conjunction, it does indeed "fall towards the Sun".
However, from conjunction back to opposition, it moves away from the Sun, in
an almost perfect arc.  So, where does the "ALWAYS" part come into play.

I can see the Earth "falling", a movement that is counteracted by its
orbital speed and its mass, thus its centrifugal forces balance out the
gravitational forces imparted on it.

Our Moon, however, is falling towards Earth and the same laws of physics
keep it at its present distance, in a circular orbit.  In actuality, there
is a mismatch, since is receding from the Earth at something like a few
inches per year.
Painius - 28 Jun 2008 11:52 GMT
>> The Earth does not "carry" the Moon around the Sun.
>> Earth and planet Selene orbit the Sun in fine-tuned
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> is a mismatch, since is receding from the Earth at something like a few
> inches per year.

Actually, it's just under 1 1/2 inches (3.8 cm) per year,
Hagester...

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

The easiest way to *see* the motion of planet Selene is
to close your eyes and picture yourself in the driver seat
of your favorite car.  For the sake of beginning this little
mental exercise, you and the car are not moving yet.

Your car's front tires are pointing straight, and your
driving hand is at the very top of the steering wheel....

                           S A T E L L I T E

As a satellite of a planet orbits its primary, it is also in
motion around the Sun.  This motion can be mapped to
show that it's like driving on a road with a snakelike
series of S-turns.  As you drive your favorite car in the
manner of a satellite's motion around the Sun, your
driving hand would move left, then right, pass through
the top position, go further to the right, then start back
left again.  Your hand would again pass through the top
position, continue left, then start back to the right again.
The motion is consistently repeated with your hand once
again passing through the top position, continuing right,
then back to the left again.

It's important to remember at this point that your hand
moves the steering wheel left and right, and each time
it passes through the top position it started from.

                     P L A N E T   S E L E N E

For planet Selene, the movement is almost exactly the
same.  Your hand moves left and right, however, your
hand is always to the left of the top position you started
at.  As your hand smoothly steers the wheel farther to
the left, and then back to the right, your hand gets close
to the top position, but before it gets to the top position,
you steer back to the left again.  "Always falling toward
the Sun" means that the planet is always moving to the
left, sometimes less to the left, and sometimes more to
the left.  It never moves away from the Sun in the way
that true satellites of planets move.  The motion is
sometimes more toward, sometimes less toward the
Sun, yet it is always toward the Sun.

Keep in mind that the above only describes the motion
of a binary planet system.  Both the Earth and Selene
move around the Sun in this fashion.  Earth's left/right
motion is less pronounced than Selene's due to Earth's
larger mass.  So for Earth, your driving hand would not
move as far to the left and right as it would for Selene.

The important point here is that your driving hand never
reaches the top position to continue further to the right,
as it would for a satellite.  In the case of planet Selene
or any major planet, your hand always stays to the left
of the top position as you drive your favorite car around
the Sun.

hth

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

Jeff▲Relf - 28 Jun 2008 14:55 GMT
“ In the case of planet [ ‘ car ’ ] Selene or any major planet,
 your hand always stays to the left of the top position
 as you drive your favorite ‘ car ’ around the Sun. ”, you say ..

Sure .. but, like electrons, we never run out of gas nor break down.
Fill 'er up ? no thanks.

If we could imagine nature as she really is ( we can't ) ..
4-D ( hyper ) fields ( 4-D static, 4-D motionless ) .. we'd see that
our “ car ” never accelerates, never turns, never wears out.
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 28 Jun 2008 18:10 GMT
Jeff You have described my first car. In reality it lengthened the
distance from A to B. Had it for three months and it only used a half
tank of gas at 29 cents a gallon..  Go figure  Bert
Hagar - 28 Jun 2008 16:13 GMT
.

> Actually, it's just under 1 1/2 inches (3.8 cm) per year,
> Hagester...

I knew it was close, but I was too lazy to look it up.  Thanks.

> http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

> The easiest way to *see* the motion of planet Selene is
> to close your eyes and picture yourself in the driver seat
> of your favorite car.  For the sake of beginning this little
> mental exercise, you and the car are not moving yet.

Gobbledygook.  There is no relationship, by any stretch of the imagination,
between a steering wheel/car, that even remotely resembles the Earth/Moon
relationship.  None.
The Earth is in constant motion, in a big circle around the Sun. The Moon is
in constant motion around the Earth.
So here's a much less far fetched explanation, using the "favorite car"
example:
Say you're in your favorite car.  The car would be the Earth.
Now paint a big white round spot on the side of the front tire.  That white
spot represents the Moon (any moon, btw).  Now drive the car in a huge
circle, around an imaginary, but fixed central point (the Sun). As your car
moves, the white spot goes round and round, but always in the direction of
the car's movement.  You turn the steering wheel to the left, the white spot
changes its orbital inclination a little, until the car is aligned with the
new direction. Ditto for a right turn.  As seen from the central point, the
white spot (Moon) would never appear to reverse direction, but with each
revolution of the tire (orbit), it would speed up and then slow down, but
never come to a standstill. However, its motion is solidly coupled to the
car's (Earth) motion and for an observer inside the car, the white spot
(Moon) turns at a steady, predictable speed and orbit, in relation to the
moving car.
Now, if the car were to decide to go in a straight line, i.e. leave the
Solar System, the white spot (Moon) would continue to go wherever the car
went, and would not continue to go around that central point (the Sun).
Therefore, the white spot (Moon) will always remain a satellite of the car,
and not become some imaginary autonomous object called Selene.
Painius - 28 Jun 2008 17:29 GMT
>> Actually, it's just under 1 1/2 inches (3.8 cm) per year,
>> Hagester...
>
> I knew it was close, but I was too lazy to look it up.  Thanks.
>
>> http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

You're very welcome!

>> The easiest way to *see* the motion of planet Selene is
>> to close your eyes and picture yourself in the driver seat
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> imagination, between a steering wheel/car, that even remotely resembles
> the Earth/Moon relationship.  None.

Please read that again, Hagar.  I want you to listen
closely to yourself, closely and objectively...

> Gobbledygook.  There is no relationship, by any stretch of the
> imagination, between a steering wheel/car, that even remotely resembles
> the Earth/Moon relationship.  None.

Then you proceed to contradict yourself by describing
your very own similar analogy (relationship) between
a steering wheel/car and the motion of the Earth and
its sister planet, Selene...

> The Earth is in constant motion, in a big circle around the Sun. The Moon
> is in constant motion around the Earth.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Therefore, the white spot (Moon) will always remain a satellite of the
> car, and not become some imaginary autonomous object called Selene.

The only reason a person contradicts himself like that
is because deep down he believes the other argument.
Deep down you know that to call planet Selene a mere
satellite is a contradiction of terms, so you contradict
yourself when you try to argue against Asimov.

You just proved Asimov right.  You have shown every
single person who reads your argument above that he
was right on when he showed that the Moon is NOT a
satellite, but instead is a sister planet to Earth.  Selene
is a full-fledged major planet in its own right. You know
it's true, so go on and say it...

"Planet Selene is a full-fledged major planet in its own
right!"  See how easy that was?  No contradiction of
terms.  It's so easy to say because it's TRUE!  And you
obviously know that.

But go ahead, keep on tryin'.  I'm havin' a blast!  <g>

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Signature

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.:  Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.:  http://painellsworth.net

oldcoot - 28 Jun 2008 17:44 GMT
Hagar sed, replying to Painius :

>Say you're in your favorite car. The car >would be the Earth. Now paint
a big >white round spot on the side of the front >tire. That white spot
represents the Moon >(any moon, btw). Now drive the car in a >huge
circle, around an imaginary, but >fixed central point (the Sun).

Your analogy has the plane of the lunar orbit standing vertical to the
solar orbit, instead of more-or-less in the same plane. The analogy
might work better with a rotary mower, using the rotating blade to
illustrate the moon's orbit.
                I do 'get' Painius' analogy, but being an old
fuddyduddy still do not concur with the conclusion drawn. But he `wants`
it to be a planet, so what the hey.
Hagar - 28 Jun 2008 21:16 GMT
> Hagar sed, replying to Painius :
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> fuddyduddy still do not concur with the conclusion drawn. But he `wants`
> it to be a planet, so what the hey.

OC, I merely attempted to used Painius' vehicle as an example.  Of course a
lawnmower would have presented a better analogy, but would it have had a
different impact on him ?? I think not.
I think he's weakening, though, it sounds as if he would be amenable to the
"binary planetary system" status, which I personally don't agree with,
solely based on the dreaded "barycenter" thing.
oldcoot - 29 Jun 2008 00:26 GMT
On Jun 28, 1:16 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:.

> ...I merely attempted to use Painius' vehicle as an example.  Of course a
> lawnmower would have presented a better analogy, but would it have had a
> different impact on him ?? I think not.
> I think he's weakening, though, it sounds as if he would be amenable to the
> "binary planetary system" status, which I personally don't agree with,
> solely based on the dreaded "barycenter" thing.

Yeah, for the sake of harmony i could reservedly go with binary
planets. Just hafta waive the barycenter thing and the 80 to one mass
disparity, and use a dollop of perceptual license since it does have
the `look` and character of a planet.
BradGuth - 29 Jun 2008 01:03 GMT
> On Jun 28, 1:16 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> disparity, and use a dollop of perceptual license since it does have
> the `look` and character of a planet.

Ceres and a few others could go either way if artificially given a
binary partner.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Art Deco - 29 Jun 2008 02:55 GMT
>> On Jun 28, 1:16 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

What about the oh-so necessary SALT, Brad?  Salt is binary.

Signature

"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
 -- David Tholen

Saul Levy - 02 Jul 2008 00:27 GMT
Ceres has no partner, BradBoi!  lmfjao!

Just clearing the artificial air here!  lmao!

Saul Levy

>> On Jun 28, 1:16 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
BradGuth - 29 Jun 2008 04:58 GMT
Ceres and a few others could go either way if artificially given a
binary partner.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

> On Jun 28, 1:16 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> disparity, and use a dollop of perceptual license since it does have
> the `look` and character of a planet.
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 28 Jun 2008 18:17 GMT
Hagar I hope that measurement is a half inch in or out   I want to sleep
tonight   I might dream of hell or off to the next galaxy. Its
measurements like this that keep me up.  Bert
BradGuth - 28 Jun 2008 20:09 GMT
> Hagar I hope that measurement is a half inch in or out   I want to sleep
> tonight   I might dream of hell or off to the next galaxy. Its
> measurements like this that keep me up.  Bert

Not to mention there being no such objective science telling us that
Selene is made of Earth.

The wobble and growing tilt of Earth is making those Earth~Selene
distance measurements rather complex and subjectively interpreted by
those in charge of all that gets published and into textbooks, thereby
making most other interpretations as banished or excluded as a mater
of mainstream status quo policy.

It seems that our DARPA works in mysterious ways.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Timberwoof - 28 Jun 2008 21:09 GMT
In article
<f3ecd5c8-539e-4fcd-8f35-f7fc458bac31@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> > Hagar I hope that measurement is a half inch in or out   I want to sleep
> > tonight   I might dream of hell or off to the next galaxy. Its
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> making most other interpretations as banished or excluded as a mater
> of mainstream status quo policy.

Is this process similar to your own subjective way of interpreting stuff
you read here and there and concluding, without evidence, that Sirius
spit out the Moon which then only got there ~13000 years ago?

Signature

Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

BradGuth - 29 Jun 2008 00:10 GMT
On Jun 28, 1:09 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <f3ecd5c8-539e-4fcd-8f35-f7fc458ba...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

It's every bit as deductive and as physics/science solid as your
mainstream status quo crapolla.

Besides, an icy Selene (quite possibly as lost away from Sirius-B) may
have been a good NEO for thousands of years prior to the final
lithobraking encounter that gave us another ocean basin and our
seasonal tilt.

Secondly, most every other rock within the universe offers similar to
Earth elements.  Oddly Mars seems to be low on its remainders of sea
salt, as well as not much better of various rock/mineral salts, and
otherwise having been nearly vacuum freeze dried and cold as dry-ice
for quite some time, as well as having solar wind and cosmic radiated
itself out of all surface and near surface h2o or of those brackish/
brines/muds of whatever had been once upon a time fluid.  Give or take
a few million years and our frail Earth may become a larger and
obviously hotter version of Mars, a bit sooner if we keep helping by
way of systematically depleting natural resources and polluting our
thin atmosphere and frail environment that’s losing its magnetosphere
protection at -.05%/year, as we back and forth continually rant about
so much other that doesn’t matter.

Besides no surface ice water or significant salts, has there been a
silica diatom like shell or of anything DNA worthy about Mars?  (thus
far, Mars seems like a fairly faith-based safe bet, doesn’t it)

As to relocating our Selene/moon orbit that’s currently so 2e20 N/sec
tidal GW to our frail environment that could stand all the ice it can
muster and hold onto, whereas 7.35e22 kg moved out to Earth’s L1 where
we’d retain sufficient ocean tides of roughly 50% to work with, and
otherwise having roughly 3% less solar energy to fret over, as such
would go along ways towards extending our carbon/fossil energy
dependent survival upon this mostly fluid orb we’d like to call
home.   Think of it as the entire human race plus all other life
buying off CO2 and many other nasty pollution credits, not to mention
fewer earthquakes and getting our glaciers to grow and oceans of
jellyfish populated dead zones to fall instead of rise.

As a side benefit or possible risk, we’d also get at least a good
hundred fold more of Selene’s sodium to contend with, of which might
actually reinforce our upper most atmosphere as we lose our
magnetosphere protection.

Hagar, as far a our Selene/moon mirrors (aka corner cube
retroreflectors),  there’s nothing other than robotic placements
required of such passive technology.  BTW, why did you intentionally
call them mirrors?

Soft impact deployments of such laser reflectors was technically
doable, even if it took several tries.  BTW, our physically dark
Selene is a fairy good IR reflector as is, and crashed robotic landers
of mostly shiny bright aluminum that likely exposed raw lunar sodium
are not half bad visual spectrum reflectors either.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Art Deco - 29 Jun 2008 02:54 GMT
>On Jun 28, 1:09 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>lithobraking encounter that gave us another ocean basin and our
>seasonal tilt.

Completely wrong, Brad.  It arrived via wormhole tunnel from Deneb.

>Secondly, most every other rock within the universe offers similar to
>Earth elements.  Oddly Mars seems to be low on its remainders of sea
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>protection at -.05%/year, as we back and forth continually rant about
>so much other that doesn’t matter.

I think you mean to type "I' here, rather than "we", Brad.

>Besides no surface ice water or significant salts, has there been a
>silica diatom like shell or of anything DNA worthy about Mars?  (thus
>far, Mars seems like a fairly faith-based safe bet, doesn’t it)

Salt, salt, salt!  It's all about salt!

>As to relocating our Selene/moon orbit that’s currently so 2e20 N/sec
>tidal GW to our frail environment that could stand all the ice it can
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>fewer earthquakes and getting our glaciers to grow and oceans of
>jellyfish populated dead zones to fall instead of rise.

I think all that salt has pickled your brain, Brad.

>As a side benefit or possible risk, we’d also get at least a good
>hundred fold more of Selene’s sodium to contend with, of which might
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>required of such passive technology.  BTW, why did you intentionally
>call them mirrors?

Did you forget who you were replying to in mid-rant, Brad?

>Soft impact deployments of such laser reflectors was technically
>doable, even if it took several tries.  BTW, our physically dark
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

What does "physically dark" mean, Brad?  Can you program that into a
fully 3D supercomputer stimulation?

Signature

"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
 -- David Tholen

Hagar - 28 Jun 2008 21:10 GMT
>> Hagar I hope that measurement is a half inch in or out   I want to sleep
>> tonight   I might dream of hell or off to the next galaxy. Its
>> measurements like this that keep me up.  Bert
>
> Not to mention there being no such objective science telling us that
> Selene is made of Earth.

No Brad, there isn't.  But part of the Moon is earth from planet Earth.
When the impact with another body in the same orbit occured about 4B years
ago, the materials of the two mixed and the present day Moon, which is a
result of that collision, is probably 50% original material and 50% Earth
material.  The stuff re-assembled just outside the Roche limit (appr 18,000
miles) and reformed into a neat ball and continued circling the Earth as its
new Moon.  As the Earth's rotational period as well as its orbital period
slow down ever so slowly, the Moon recedes from it at the same slow clip.
Because of the gradual slowdown, the Earth approaches the Sun at probably
millimeters per year, but the Moon, being much smaller, recedes from the
Earth at 1 1/2" per year.

Say, are you still frothing about Lithobraking ??

> The wobble and growing tilt of Earth is making those Earth~Selene
> distance measurements rather complex and subjectively interpreted by
> those in charge of all that gets published and into textbooks, thereby
> making most other interpretations as banished or excluded as a mater
> of mainstream status quo policy.

In case you didn't pay attention in school, the astronauts left a mirror on
the Moon some 30 plus years ago, which is a laser beam target and has been
used ever since to accurately determine the Moon's distance and its rate of
recession.  Only you seem to see it as a deep mysterious endeavor.

> It seems that our DARPA works in mysterious ways.

I won't even comment on that idiotic statement.
BradGuth - 29 Jun 2008 00:11 GMT
> >> Hagar I hope that measurement is a half inch in or out   I want to sleep
> >> tonight   I might dream of hell or off to the next galaxy. Its
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> I won't even comment on that idiotic statement.

See above.
- BG
Hagar - 30 Jun 2008 02:06 GMT
>> >> Hagar I hope that measurement is a half inch in or out   I want to
>> >> sleep
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> See above.
> - BG

So we agree, you're hallucinating, then ... you loony
BradGuth - 30 Jun 2008 03:24 GMT
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> So we agree, you're hallucinating, then ... you loony

You're being DARPA silly.  Is that what you Zionist/Nazi types do
whenever the going gets tough?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Saul Levy - 02 Jul 2008 00:21 GMT
What wobble and growing tilt, BradBoi?  lmfjao!

PROVE IT!

Saul Levy

>> Hagar I hope that measurement is a half inch in or out   I want to sleep
>> tonight   I might dream of hell or off to the next galaxy. Its
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.