The Planet Moon - Thoroughly Modern Selene
|
|
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 doesnt 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, doesnt it) Salt, salt, salt! It's all about salt!
>As to relocating our Selene/moon orbit thats 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, wed also get at least a good >hundred fold more of Selenes 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
|
|
|