 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008Other than terrestrial water and tidal flex heating
This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt and silica combined spheres (“green glass spherules”) that researchers claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o. (that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter) Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html# http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-reveals-its-wa ter.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926644.200 ““They concluded the moon's mantle has between 260 and 700 ppm of water. "This is very surprising, because for 40 years people have studied lunar rocks and no one found any water," says Saal. "We got lucky."” I can accept this mainstream deductive interpretation, because sufficient geode sequestered remains of moon water shouldn't be all that unlikely, especially if our Selene/moon had come to us as an icy proto-moon from the Sirius star/solar system that had lost 4+ solar mass from its recent red giant phase, or perhaps even from our own icy Oort cloud (similar to Sedna and our binary Plutos). - In addition to however potentially wet or brine worthy the interior of our Selene/moon could very well be, it’s also the most likely and the primary factor of global warming Earth, but only as of the last ice- age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. What is the Selene/moon tidal flex heating of Earth? (117.68e3 tw.h) If the likes of Io and most other moons of Jupiter and Saturn are mainstream science accepted as getting tidal flex heated in addition to whatever’s the atomic/thorium core reactions taking place, whereas then it stands to good enough peer replicated reasoning that our elliptical orbiting Selene/moon with its ongoing average * 2e20 N/sec (2.04e19 kgf/sec) * of orbital tidal force is unavoidably receiving from as well as contributing to the internal and surface heating of our extremely fluid Earth. Upon this terrestrial Earth, at the surface we seem have these fully mainstream accepted sorts of basic force to energy conversions to work with. 1 kgf.m.s = 9.80665 Joules 1 kgf.m.s = 9.295e-8 therm 1 kgf.m.s = .00980665 kj 1 kgf.m.s = 2.72407e-6 kw.h 1 kgf.m.h = 9.80655e-3 kw.h Of the 2e20 N divided equally between the Earth and our Selene/moon, if we took 50% of this hourly tidal force as converted into geothermal energy of kw.h, we’d get 2.04e19 / 2 * 9.80655e-3 = 11.768e16 kw.h (117.68e15 kw.h or 117.68e6 tw.h). How about our taking just a highly conservative 0.1% of that, which gets us all the way down to the dull tidal flexing roar of just 117.68e3 terawatt hours worth of continuous geothermal heating via tidal flex. Surely our absolutely impressive Selene/moon with its fairly robust ratio to Earth is worth at least 0.05% of the 2e20 N/ sec, of which offers * 117.68e3 tw.h * in tidal flex heating (aka global warming and perhaps loads of geophysical flex morphing) seems likely, as after all, that’s 230 w/m2 (excluding vertical terrain factors) but otherwise it’s not very much applied energy per cubic meter of Earth’s volume (1.084e21 m3 [excluding our wet atmosphere]) is worth merely 108.56e-6 w/m3. To be including the volume of our wet and otherwise polluted atmosphere that’s also getting tidal flex heated, we get down to roughly 100 micro watt/m3. This isn’t to say that humanity hasn’t gone out of its way in order to having measurably contributed to our global warming. I know this seems like a lot of ongoing energy, but then I can't say with any certainty if it's equally divided between our Selene/moon and Earth or somehow getting nullified. Perhaps nearly 100% of that tidal flex is actually going directly into Earth, minus whatever is taken up by our sun. The older than Earth Selene/moon itself seems rather thick crusted and by thus kind of tidal morph/flex inert, so that perhaps not much of this mutual tidal radius force is likely morphing or flexing all that much of Selene's innards, and especially so because there's no Selene spin in relationship to Earth for whatever tidal flex to interact with, though just having a little elliptical orbit consideration might be enough to keep Selene’s low density interior from ever turning solid. If you perceive or explicitly insist that I’ve incorrectly calculated any this, as having over/under shot the mark, then simply give this your best swag and offer your improved or more correct rendition of this unavoidable geothermal heating via tidal flexing. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt and silica combined spheres (“green glass spherules”) that researchers claim to be of their NASA/Apollo moon rock samples, that which supposedly their spendy (public owned) mass spectrometers as having only recently detected as containing 260,000 ppb of good old h2o. (that's not necessarily per given mass of common moon bedrock, but of the given mass of each little portion of rock containing such lava formulated geodes as solid glass spheres that could have been contributed and/or contaminated by most any icy meteor encounter) Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html# http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-reveals-its-wa ter.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926644.200 > snip Guthball drivel < The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No flexing there, Guthball > The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the > Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No > flexing there... The large scale flexing of which you speak did indeed stop when the pair became tidally locked. But there's still gotta be some low-level seismic noise from libration, interaction with the sun's gravity etc. A Google under 'moonquakes' would probably turn up some info. BTW, there are what's called 'land tides' on Earth, but they're of much lower amplitude than ocean tides. > > The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > > far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > BTW, there are what's called 'land tides' on Earth, but they're of > much lower amplitude than ocean tides. That's another good analogy way of putting it, as having "land tides". Land tides of +/- ?? cm. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > far too puny to affect the landmass. Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it exists. This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you correctly stated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide > Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it > exists. There are also atmospheric tides that are analogous to ocean tides, and run on the lunar cycle. But these are swamped out by larger- amplitude atmosphereic tides that are on the 24 hour heating/cooling cycle. > > Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it > > exists. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > amplitude atmosphereic tides that are on the 24 hour heating/cooling > cycle. Our wet atmosphere of roughly 100 teratonnes worth of h2o is in fact getting tidal forced along by the gravity influence of our Selene/ moon. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth >>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is >>far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > correctly stated. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide It does happen on the moon also. It isn't exactly the same side of the moon which is facing Earth because of lunar libration. Of course if you don't have full rotation but only small librations your tides will be small. Also the radius of the moon is about 3.7 times smaller than Earths radius and this leads to yet smaller tides. But Earth's mass being about 81 times the mass of the moon, this increases the tidal effect on the moon. When you take all this into account what you get is very small tides on the moon, but they do exist. Alain Fournier >>>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It >>>is far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you take all this into account what you get is very small tides on the > moon, but they do exist. Good point. Is there a perigee/apogee effect as well I wonder? (similar to the effect on the Jovian moons) cheers Bill >>>>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It >>>>is far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Good point. Is there a perigee/apogee effect as well I wonder? (similar to > the effect on the Jovian moons) Yes there is a perigee/apogee effect but that is one of the components of libration, so it isn't "as well". The moon is a little egg shaped because of the tidal effect. When it gets closer to Earth it gets more egg shaped and when it goes further from Earth it gets more spherical. Alain Fournier > >>>>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It > >>>>is far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Alain Fournier What's the average tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon ??? tw/hr - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > >>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > >>far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you take all this into account what you get is very small tides on the > moon, but they do exist. They're "very" small. How do they compare to the rock tides on Earth? Are they "a lot smaller than that"? Can the heating of the moon as a result of these teeny tiny tides be measured?  SignatureTimberwoof <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. >>>>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is >>>>far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They're "very" small. How do they compare to the rock tides on Earth? > Are they "a lot smaller than that"? I just did a BoE calculation and I get that they are just a little smaller than Earth's rock tides. When I wrote my previous post I thought they would be more than one magnitude smaller than Earth's rock tides but this doesn't seem to be the case. I will let others write out the calculations, I must go out of town and away from an internet link for the next 40 hours, after that, well Paul McCartney gives an open air concert here sunday. So I won't be available until after work on monday and even then I might have to recuperate from sundays concert. > Can the heating of the moon as a result of these teeny tiny tides be > measured? I don't know how one would measure that. But it can it can be calculated. Alain Fournier > >>>>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It > >>>>is [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > after work on monday and even then I might have to recuperate from > sundays concert. Have fun at the concert! Have no fear: Brad Guth will busily misinterpret and distort your words while you're one. > > Can the heating of the moon as a result of these teeny tiny tides be > > measured? > > I don't know how one would measure that. But it can it can be calculated. :) SignatureTimberwoof <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. Alain When I think of tidal flex heating my mind jumps to Jupiter four close orbit Moons. It fits bert > >>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > >>far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Alain Fournier If the interior of our Selene/moon is of low density and perhaps even partly that of a mineral brine or mud, as such it should be getting a little tidal flex heated by way of the gravity interactions with our Sun and the elliptical orbit of Earth. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > >>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > >>far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Alain Fournier The lunar body tide amplitude due to the earth is around 10cm or so. And while the earth induced lunar body tide doesn't have much of a time-dependent effect due to orbital locking, the moon like the earth will have a solar tide with a period near the moon's orbital period or around 28 days. I suspect the solar tide is around 2-3cm. The moon's tides are smaller because it is much more rigid; the k Love number is only around .022 or so, where the Earth's is 10x greater if not more. Stuart > > >>The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > > >>far too puny to affect the landmass. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The lunar body tide I suppose "lunar body tide"... is redundant. Stuart > > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed > > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Perhaps you should look up earth tides. The effect isn't big, but it > exists. "It exists" is merely an inconsequential little truth. Perhaps you could calculate just how much heating it causes. You gave us a figure a while back about the rate at which the Earth-moon dynamic system loses energy to heat. It should be pretty straightforward to apply that to a ballpark estimate of the Earth's specific heat (I'll even grant you the leeway to apply the heat to the rocky parts of the Earth rather than the oceans) and derive a rate of heating. How many K per million years does this work out to? Once you've done that calculation, you can try it with just the Earth's oceans as the repository of "all that" energy. That should be pretty easy too. 3/4 of the Earth's surface is water, the water is a depth, on average of a few kilometers, and the specific heat of water is 1. How many K per million years does this work out to? You'll see why it's important to apply numbers to the claims you make. just adjectives aren't enough. > This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you > correctly stated. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide SignatureTimberwoof <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. In article <timberwoof.spam-EEC86B.17543418072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, <snip> > Once you've done that calculation, you can try it with just the Earth's > oceans as the repository of "all that" energy. That should be pretty > easy too. 3/4 of the Earth's surface is water, the water is a depth, on > average of a few kilometers, and the specific heat of water is 1. The specific heat of seawater, although varying with salinity, temperature, and pressure, is somewhat lower than that of pure H2O, more like 0.95 cal/gC° (3.9 J/gK). SignatureOdysseus > In article > <timberwoof.spam-EEC86B.17543418072008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > temperature, and pressure, is somewhat lower than that of pure H2O, more > like 0.95 cal/gC° (3.9 J/gK). That is true, but that error will only make the answer 5% off. That's negligible compared to the BoE figures I gave for calculating the volume of Earth's water ... and those numbers would be incalculably more accurate than Brad's. SignatureTimberwoof <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. >> > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed >> > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > easy too. 3/4 of the Earth's surface is water, the water is a depth, on > average of a few kilometers, and the specific heat of water is 1. I wasn't making any claims about the effects of earth tides, I was merely pointing out that they exist, after "Hagar" implied they did not. I think you're confusing me with the Guthball - who I also disagree with. > How many K per million years does this work out to? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> correctly stated. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide > > In article <g5r4d1$f2...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au>, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >> correctly stated. > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide Gotcha in yet another lie. You believe in anything that's mainstream status quo, that is unless it's what I happen to agree with or utilize on behalf of my argument, in which case you suddenly claim that I'm dead wrong on each and every count. "I think you're confusing me with the Guthball - who I also disagree with" Isn't that kinda DARPA bipolar or Zionist/Nazi of yourself. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed > > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > exists. This doesn't occur on the moon of course, for the reasons you > correctly stated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide Thanks for that perfectly constructive feedback. Unfortunately, our Hagar isn't willing to accept the regular laws of physics or peer replicated science that rocks his boat. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No > flexing there, Guthball Hagar, Hagar, Hagar. There's more to tidal flexology and crust morphology than oceans. Earth is at least 98.5% fluid to the likes of tidal flexing everything from our atmosphere to the very core of Earth. Of what's essentially solid about Earth is kept in motion due to solar and moon tidal flex. I agree that Earth's tidal flex on behalf of morphing our Selene/moon is limited as to the elliptical lunar orbit factor and of the very gradual interactions with our sun and Earth, and otherwise not of anything all that significant from Earth's spin. Obviously the moon itself isn't causing tidal flex upon its interior due to spin, because it has no spin with relation to Earth, and only a very slow rate of spin in relation to our sun. So, perhaps that leaves the vast bulk of the 2e20 N/sec of tidal force as primarily affecting Earth. The question remains; how much of that 2e20 N/sec becomes tidal flex worthy of terrestrial geothermal or that of global warming energy? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Why has the Pacific Ocean's surface water decreased in temperature by 0.1 degrees F. during the past 8-10 years, BradBoi? lmfjao! There is NO GLOBAL WARMING from any causes. Saul Levy >Hagar, Hagar, Hagar. There's more to tidal flexology and crust >morphology than oceans. Earth is at least 98.5% fluid to the likes of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > This topic is entirely Selene/moon related, such as the supposed > volcanic or lava fused as little and apparently not so little basalt [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Moon, since its rotational period coincides with its orbital period. No > flexing there, Guthball Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some might say that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal potential that affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not. But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence no heating Stuart > Technically speaking, the moon has a "static tide". Although some > might say > that is an oxymoron. However, there is a still a tidal potential that > affects the moon and therefor a tide, static or not. Yes. Due to its frozen "tidal bulge" the moon is actually slightly ovoid, the long axis being along the Earth-moon alignment. > But indeed, since the tide is static there is no flexing, hence > no heating. > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Stuart ? "no heating" via tidal flex ? In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about that? Do you have a supercomputer simulation that somehow excludes the laws of physics for Earth and our Selene/moon, but otherwise allows the laws of tidal flex physics to apply on behalf of other plants and of their tidal flex heated moons? Isn't Earth a relatively small and extensively fluid planet for having such a substantial moon that can measurably tidal flex the crust of Earth by as much as 55 cm? Thanks to “oldcoot” and Wikipedia: Earth tide effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide “Volcanologists use the regular, predictable Earth tide movements to calibrate and test sensitive volcano deformation monitoring instruments. The tides may also trigger volcanic events. Seismologist have determined that micro seismic events are correlated to tidal variations in Central Asia (north of the Himalayas). The semidiurnal amplitude of terrestrial tides can reach about 55 cm at the equator which is important in GPS calibration and VLBI measurements. Also to make precise astronomical angular measurements requires knowledge of the earth's rate of rotation and nutation, both of which are influenced by earth tides.” Any way you’d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via friction. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > > Stuart I've snipped stuff that doesn't make sense leaving one reasonable question. > Isn't Earth a relatively small and extensively fluid planet for having > such a substantial moon that can measurably tidal flex the crust of > Earth by as much as 55 cm? Indeed. I didn't say the moon isn't distorted by tides. It is. By while the earth is rotating, the moon always shows the same face to the Earth; hence dissipation due to the lunar tide raised by the Earth should be very small. The lunar tide due to the Sun would probably cause more dissipation, but it will still be small. Stuart > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Stuart The tidal forced heating that I'm talking about is primarily that of Earth being heated by that of our unusually large, nearby and fast moving Selene/moon, and it's by no means as insignificant as you'd care to suggest. btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating Io to such an extent? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > moving Selene/moon, and it's by no means as insignificant as you'd > care to suggest. Sorry.. the discussion above was about the moon. And thats what I was talking about. > btw, what else other than tidal flex derived energy has been heating > Io to such an extent? beats me. I was talking about the moon. Stuart > > > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Stuart Fine and dandy. By how many terawatts per each and every hour is our Selene/moon tidal flex heated by way of the solar gravity plus mainly that of Earth's elliptical distance from the moon (similar to Io that also has no spin and far less elliptical orbit)? If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/- megawatt, if not better. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth In article <b14d385f-6696-4808-8013-b4afe3609b5a@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > that of Earth's elliptical distance from the moon (similar to Io that > also has no spin and far less elliptical orbit)? Our forgetful Brad has forgotten that he presented exactly those figures a few days ago. > If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the > Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/- > megawatt, if not better. Our whiny Brad thinks that space probes can magically measure the tidal heating of our moon simply by being on our moon, even though the vast temperature differences between night and day on our month-long-day moon are vast. SignatureTimberwoof <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. On Jul 19, 12:46 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: > In article > <b14d385f-6696-4808-8013-b4afe3609...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > Our forgetful Brad has forgotten that he presented exactly those figures > a few days ago. I was speaking of Earth being tidal flex heated by our Selene/moon, by at least .05% of the 2e20 N worth of tidal radius force that's continually taking place. How much more or less were you thinking it's worth? > > If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the > > Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > temperature differences between night and day on our month-long-day moon > are vast. Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is a total waste of space, that which our science should continually ignore for their own good? Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon and Earth somehow manage to interactively exchange/cause nothing worth of tidal flex heating? If so, do tell what's keeping the likes of Io and any number of other moons so freaking active instead of being of solid dry-ice or that of just about any kind of ice except water ice? How about Titan, with its robust atmosphere: What's keeping Titan from freezing itself solid by night, if not via tidal flex heating? Are Saturn and Jupiter all that IR worthy? Are you suggesting that such active moons have a core of thorium? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth In article <41a31723-1210-47b7-ad3a-5f5043ae1dfb@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > On Jul 19, 12:46 pm, Timberwoof > <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > continually taking place. How much more or less were you thinking > it's worth? Our clueless Brad thinks force directly creates heat and that the insignificant work done by that force, when converted to heat, is significant. > > > If we had that platform of science instruments situated within the > > > Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is a total waste of space, > that which our science should continually ignore for their own good? Our preposterous Brad loves to leap to ludicrous delusions. > Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon and Earth somehow manage to > interactively exchange/cause nothing worth of tidal flex heating? Our idiotic Brad expresses interest in egregious extremes. > If so, do tell what's keeping the likes of Io and any number of other > moons so freaking active instead of being of solid dry-ice or that of > just about any kind of ice except water ice? Something having to to with our large Jupiter being large. > How about Titan, with its robust atmosphere: What's keeping Titan > from freezing itself solid by night, if not via tidal flex heating? Something having to to with our large Jupiter being large. > Are Saturn and Jupiter all that IR worthy? Infrared? > Are you suggesting that such active moons have a core of thorium? Our silly Brad is jumping to unwarranted conclusions. SignatureTimberwoof <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. Is there sulphur ice, BradBoi? lmfjao! Io is supposed to have fountains of sulphur. OH NO, thorium raises it UGLY HEAD YET AGAIN! BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Saul Levy >I was speaking of Earth being tidal flex heated by our Selene/moon, by >at least .05% of the 2e20 N worth of tidal radius force that's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Selene/moon L1, as such we'd likely know this one down to the +/- >> > megawatt, if not better. >Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is a total waste of space, >that which our science should continually ignore for their own good? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Stuart How do you combat bullshit in the world, when there are guys like Stuart around, ready to jump with just one leg in his tights, ..who can't read the question in the first place and remain silent about rubbish like this in the second:- http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/gg/classroom@sea/general_science/images/acc_prism.jpg ..and worse, this in the third:- ---------------------------------------------------- "... When two continental plates move towards each other, both plates are forced upwards in a series of folds. This caused big problems for early geologists who struggled to explain why they were finding fossils of sea creatures high up in mountains such as the Himalayas! We now know that the fossils got there due to uplift of sedimentary rocks found along the edges of the plates. (Previous suggestions often centered on religious myths / beliefs such as Noah's Great Flood.) You can simulate this process using two flat strips of modeling clay or old carpet. Put them side by side and push them together. One or both will crumple up and form a mini mountain range on your table top." http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/earth/fold_mountains.html -------------------------------------------------------- And just in case you're actually imaginatively impaired when it comes to crumpling your carpet on the tabletop (this one's for the ladies), :-) :-) you can do it with Origami. http://www.scheib.net/play/paper/01-02.jpg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that you're back from your cruise Stuart, http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html ...how about getting both legs in, ..forget about the Moon, and deal with the rubbish they're teaching in schools and universities about "fold mountains", http://tinyurl.com/598hml that noodles like you have helped to perpetrate from your vantage of receiving the gifts that these poor suckers bring to you. If you can read the question that is, .. ("How are fold mountains created?" > > > > > > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > If you can read the question that is, .. ("How are fold mountains > created?" Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and otherwise responsible for the total lack of Arctic mountains. Perhaps the Arctic ocean basin is the antifold or navel innie fold of mother Earth (aka passage to the center of Earth). Seems without a rather sizable impact for having created much of what the Arctic ocean basin represents, having set much of our seasonal tilt and having slightly modified Earth’s spin, that much of this planet would be a whole lot smoother and loads cooler. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created > those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth No foldie mounties in the Pesky Antie, Brad. It's a bad case of Flats Attack. Take cover:- http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2393048458_ed71ac13fc.jpg?v=0 http://tinyurl.com/6rz8da http://melhuish.info/simon/SouthPole/images/tam3.jpg ...We even get the yew beaut plateau preserved:- http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/1530277508_d207e8eff0.jpg See? Mounties. Nuthin' to do with foldies. Just erosion. Come on, ..you learned this at school... No counting necessary. You have to wonder what that noodle has in his noddle, don't you, ..working it all out in his thermals the way he does. I don't think he could recognise a cat even if it tickled his beqachbalos with its whiskas. (Could you, ..Stuart..) (Stuart's a dope. It's that simple. ...trying to support Plate Tectonics by thermal modelling, when the geology is saying exactly the opposite wherever you look. ) The real question though is, ..how has geology come to such a pass - when there's no such thing as foldie mounties, as wot geomorphologists have been telling us for decades - ever since books, in fact. Books? Does anybody read them any more? Or are there just these silly compilations of papers that are out of date (even by the same authors) before they're even printed... What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing? Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan? > > Perhaps those ”fold mountains” are the exact same as what created > > those pesky Antarctic mountains that haven’t measurably eroded, and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing? > Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan? Where's that mountain top erosion that's supposedly millions upon millions if not a good billion+ years old? Doesn't ice, snow and jet stream wind erode rock? What broke up Earth's crust to begin with? Dose our moon have any indications of a broken crust, or that of Mercury, Venus or Mars? When exactly was our seasonal tilt established? Why no mountains at the north pole? (instead a moon encounter sized basin) - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the > > place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing? > > Listening with Mother? ..and eating weetabix in Aberdeen with Aidan? > > Where's that mountain top erosion that's supposedly millions upon > millions if not a good billion+ years old? That's the circumglobal mountain belt (of which the Himalayas are a part) that goes all around the world (including the Antarctic). It's an eroded (ero-*ding*) (a-ling) *plateau*. No foldie mountie. > Doesn't ice, snow and jet stream wind erode rock? Yes indeed. Gravitational collapse is the name of the game, weather reduces it to rubble faster than Jack Robinson. It's a wonder that any mountains are left at all - Which is the big question where geology always begins - "How come there are mountains? " Because the crust keeps getting crumpled and thrown upwards? Where? Certainly not in the himalayas. > What broke up Earth's crust to begin with? The mantle breaking through. A lot of volcanoes do this, but they don';t really class as mountains when it comes to mountain building ('orogensis') Oro-genesis is really just another word for erosion, if the truth be told. It's erosion that makes mountains. Right back in the Archaean a lot of the lavas were probably fissure eruptions. Tectonically that's a puzzling time. Indications are that things were quite a lot different from the way things are today. > Dose our moon have any indications of a broken crust, or that of > Mercury, Venus or Mars? Don't know about MVM, but the Moon has the big Mares extruded, probably due to (Kaboom) big meteorite hits. The Earth back then was probably copping the same. So yes, ...the Archaean geology has a lot that's suggestive of big meteorite impacts (The Banded Iron Formations, . right through the mantle to the core - iron plasma dust clouds) . extrusive high magnesium basalts and ultramafic lavas, shock textured spinifex rocks. > When exactly was our seasonal tilt established? The present one syn-to-post Mesozoic. Might still be happening (adjusting). But there are indications of earlier tilt > Why no mountains at the north pole? (instead a moon encounter sized > basin) The best way to answer that one is why are all the mountains around the (old) equator? ..coupled with the other question, what is a mountain belt.... The way I see it, Mountains are not mountains at all, but just the fossilised (Pangaean) more oblate equatorial zone, so your question (rephrased) actually is "Why is the north Pole not the equator? or better, why is *a* pole not *an* equator. This is a conundrum that would tax even a dosser in trolleys. I don't think any of them would have read a book that comes anywhere near close to answering that one. So what about the mountains at the south pole? Well, apart from Mt Erebus which is a volcano they're just names to describe what are hardly more than raised beaches, ..( Like the Himalayas is a raised beach? No. The old Pangaean equatorial zone has been prised open wider than a pornstar - almost to the point of getting wrapped around its own neck (Plate Tectonics eat your heart out!) Besides much of the Antarctic is below sea level. Only the ice is high. > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > > What I don't get, is, ... where are all the geologists around the > > > place? They can't *all* be knitting with Jo. What are they doing? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > clouds) . extrusive high magnesium basalts and ultramafic lavas, shock > textured spinifex rocks. That initial big south pole crater of our Luna fits rather nicely if our icy Selene/moon had ever encountered an icy Earth sized rock, or possibly of something as little as an icy Mars sized rock, and/or conceivably doing both. Actually, as of prior to 13,000 BP, Earth was likely 99% fluid (I also have to include our thick ice-age of frozen water as sufficiently tidal flex worthy and thus fluid), and possibly even that arrival of our extremely thick ice covered Selene/moon had been a touch more fluid at its core than it is today. An ice covered Selene/moon is actually a better thermally insulated core, rather than being naked as it is once having encountered Earth. > > When exactly was our seasonal tilt established? > > The present one syn-to-post Mesozoic. Might still be happening > (adjusting). But there are indications of earlier tilt But apparently there's no specific date to any given year. Figures, doesn't it. You do realize that of us mostly naked and obviously uneducated heathens, plus most other life upon this planet, essentially didn't have to seasonally migrate prior to 13,000 BP. At least there are no apparent biological remains or any form of intelligent formulated records telling us otherwise. > > Why no mountains at the north pole? (instead a moon encounter sized > > basin) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > its own neck (Plate Tectonics eat your heart out!) Besides much of > the Antarctic is below sea level. Only the ice is high. I agree that plate tectonics can't account for all of Earth's mountains, much less of being limited as to those foldie mountains. So, you don't believe in the physics or geophysical morph of any impact and subsequent antipode process of ever having created their fair share of mountains or much less having broken up the crust of Earth, or having given us a whole lot more of a seasonal tilt to work with, but instead just favoring the gradual erosion process that can't explain as to why in places there's so little mountain eroding taking place as of relatively lately (say for the past few hundred million years), and also can't explain away the absolutely horrific scope of our Selene/moon south pole crater, and then obviously you also can seem to explain away our global warming trend that has been ongoing ever since the very last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. You do realize that I'm not another one of those all-or-nothing kind of guys, don't you? I never once said or having implied that each and every mountain on Earth was via the impact/antipode process, but that's clearly the way your all-or-nothing mindset has been thinking. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth I think the Jews were forced to migrate more than 13,000 years BP, BradBoi! lmfjao! Hawaiian volcanoes are rather large mountains sitting over a hot spot on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. The crust is moving mostly westward or there wouldn't be a CHAIN of islands. So plate tectonics and a hot spot which no one knows what's causing it. Saul Levy >You do realize that of us mostly naked and obviously uneducated >heathens, plus most other life upon this planet, essentially didn't >have to seasonally migrate prior to 13,000 BP. At least there are no >apparent biological remains or any form of intelligent formulated >records telling us otherwise. >I agree that plate tectonics can't account for all of Earth's >mountains, much less of being limited as to those foldie mountains. > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > > When exactly was our seasonal tilt established? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But apparently there's no specific date to any given year. Figures, > doesn't it. Sure, no specific date. Only if you're a born again catastrophist, ...would you be interested in one either. > You do realize that of us mostly naked and obviously uneducated > heathens, plus most other life upon this planet, essentially didn't > have to seasonally migrate prior to 13,000 BP. Woad. ... If you saw Kiera Knightley in King Arthur running about in the snow dressed only in a few woad armbands for thermal protection you'd realise there was no need for anybody to migrate anywhere 13,000 years ago, but if she chose to take a holiday, down the French Riviera, say, ..then I think the whole population would have migrated in the same direction. > At least there are no > apparent biological remains or any form of intelligent formulated > records telling us otherwise. I would wait till we hear from Ed on this one, ..except I think he's working in the Carboniferous. > I agree that plate tectonics can't account for all of Earth's > mountains, much less of being limited as to those foldie mountains. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Earth, or having given us a whole lot more of a seasonal tilt to work > with, Not at all. I think the Earth was clobbered bigTime . But it's not the process known as orogenesis, which is said to be the crumpling of the crust to throw up mountains - the making of foldies. Certainly big impacts could break the crust. I don't have the numbers, but I feel it in my water. If a meteorite less than a kilometer big can knock a hole in the Earth from here to about 70km to the east, the Astronomical Observatory said here of a near miss recently, then by my reckoning that's good for a crack in the crust anywhere in the world. Where it might go to after that is anybody's guess. Or if the impactor was tens of kilometres, ..then what? (And from what direction?) All I'm saying is that the process of making mountains (orogenesis) is nothing to do with crumpling of the crust, ..but to do with erosion.of 'uplited' areas - 'uplift' being essentially a shorthand way of talking about differences in curvature of the planet surface. A round surface is flat if it's all even, but a locally more curved bit in a changed gravity field is not. > but instead just favoring the gradual erosion process that can't > explain as to why in places there's so little mountain eroding taking > place as of relatively lately (say for the past few hundred million > years), Flat is flat. No erosion. Maybe a bit of wind drilling a hole here and there, but to get serious erosion you need the water level falling. Without that, erosion can stop indefinitely. "Surface of zero erosion potential. It can be the top of Mount Everest - till the water level falls. > and also can't explain away the absolutely horrific scope of > our Selene/moon south pole crater, A real Burster, ..eh? And the ones on the backside. Not pimples. > and then obviously you also can > seem to explain away our global warming trend that has been ongoing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Earth was via the impact/antipode process, but that's clearly the way > your all-or-nothing mindset has been thinking. Well, there are different kinds of mountains . Volcanoes for a start. And finish. Other than that I can only think of the foldie ones, which are erosional. Sure you get folds due to gravitational adjustment - just like erosion and avalanches are 'gravitational adjustment' - but that's an entirely different thing from what Plate Tectonicists (in their ignorance) are trying to get you to believe. Those kinds of avalanches and the sort that crumple the crust when it falls 'gravitationally', are much the same, in a sense. > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth I saw King Arthur last night, don. She'd look nice in a bikini too! lmao! I'd be happy to keep her warm. lmao! Saul Levy >Woad. ... If you saw Kiera Knightley in King Arthur running about in >the snow dressed only in a few woad armbands for thermal protection >you'd realise there was no need for anybody to migrate anywhere 13,000 >years ago, but if she chose to take a holiday, down the French >Riviera, say, ..then I think the whole population would have migrated >in the same direction. Last I heard was that the Himalayas were still growing, don. Or did you stop that from happening? Saul Levy >Yes indeed. Gravitational collapse is the name of the game, weather >reduces it to rubble faster than Jack Robinson. It's a wonder that >any mountains are left at all - Which is the big question where >geology always begins - "How come there are mountains? " Because the >crust keeps getting crumpled and thrown upwards? Where? Certainly >not in the himalayas. > > > The lunar tide due to the Sun would probably cause more dissipation, > > > but [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Stuart This is not the first time Stuart has proved incapable of reading a question (... much less answering it). In article <c466a76c-a661-4fee-9cbc-22e2c7dc925c@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > > > The tidal flexing, as you call it, only affects the Earth's oceans. It is > > > far too puny to affect the landmass. The Earth has no tidal effect on the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ? "no heating" via tidal flex ? Yes. What part of " there is no flexing, hence no heating" did you not understand? > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of > physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our > Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't > possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about that? They're talking about the moon not being heated. > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually moving > and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is > going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via friction. Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule. No supercomputer needed. SignatureTimberwoof <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. On Jul 19, 11:00 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: > In article > <c466a76c-a661-4fee-9cbc-22e2c7dc9...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yes. What part of " there is no flexing, hence no heating" did you not > understand? The perpetual naysay part that hasn't offered a stitch of physics or even good science backing it up. Does this mean you know why Io (without spin and hardly even elliptical) is so geophysically and geothermally active? > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of > > physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our > > Selene/moon global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that can't > > possibly avoid becoming thermal energy. Are you certain about that? > > They're talking about the moon not being heated. So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's not the least bit tidal flex heated? > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually moving > > and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is > > going to create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via friction. > > Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a slide rule. No > supercomputer needed. Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached and a healthy dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are you going to show us how simple that is? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth In article <82dcde69-2423-42b3-b968-948e3f6fc096@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > On Jul 19, 11:00 am, Timberwoof > <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The perpetual naysay part that hasn't offered a stitch of physics or > even good science backing it up. Our uneducated Brad wouldn't recognize good science if it bit you on the toe. > Does this mean you know why Io (without spin and hardly even > elliptical) is so geophysically and geothermally active? Because our gaseous multimooned and large Jupiter is large. > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of > > > physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such moon that's not > the least bit tidal flex heated? Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal heating of the earth is insignificant. The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably insignificant. > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dose of complex physics software might do the trick. Are you going > to show us how simple that is? Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics to do simple calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never considered how our genius physicists ever got any work done before the invention of complex software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers. SignatureTimberwoof <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. On Jul 19, 12:43 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: > In article > <82dcde69-2423-42b3-b968-948e3f6fc...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Because our gaseous multimooned and large Jupiter is large. Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific statement as to the specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively uniform? Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/ solid surface of Jupiter, and how nonuniform is its gravity or that of its surface of mascons?? Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing its near circular orbiting moons to death? Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting tidal flex heated? > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws of > > > > physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that of our [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the insignificant tidal heating > of the earth is insignificant. The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"? > The small size of our small earth and its > small effect on the moon make any tidal heating of our small moon small, > probably insignificant. And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how much our moon tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably hotter because of our 98.5% fluid world having that Selene/moon to continually deal with, as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors of tidal flex that by rights should go either way. > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually > > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via tidal [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > physicists ever got any work done before the invention of complex > software to run on multiple-CPU supercomputers. And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our socks off with your superior expertise, or even that of offering your best swag because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind would kick your butt) - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth In article <81a60bf3-ed7f-47e2-9930-47e793db0fe9@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > On Jul 19, 12:43 pm, Timberwoof > <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > specific size of the solid portion of Jupiter that's relatively > uniform? No. > Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as a dense/ > solid surface of Jupiter, What the hell does that mean? > and how nonuniform is its gravity or that > of its surface of mascons?? I don't know. > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing > its near circular orbiting moons to death? No. > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting > tidal flex heated? No. > > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws > > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"? Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in watts, of heat production? Compare that to the rate, in watts, of heat production by radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's heat loss to space. > > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon > > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > as well as in its highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors > of tidal flex that by rights should go either way. You're the one claiming that the heating is significant. You can do the calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated by that process. > > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually > > > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > because????? (DARPA and most everyone else of their brown-nosed kind > would kick your butt) Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any attention when anyone does try to tell him anything about real science. Our kooky Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric, adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes. > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth SignatureTimberwoof <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. On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: > In article > <81a60bf3-ed7f-47e2-9930-47e793db0...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What the hell does that mean? Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly compressed gas? Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/ mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its extremely slight elliptical orbit. > > and how nonuniform is its gravity or that > > of its surface of mascons?? > > I don't know. Me neither, that's why I was asking. > > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant > > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing > > its near circular orbiting moons to death? > > No. Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn active? > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and > > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting > > tidal flex heated? > > No. That's good to hear. > > > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws > > > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > radioactive potassium, and to the rate, in watts, of the the earth's > heat loss to space. A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a rather impressive natural source or cache of radioactive produced thermal energy, of which has to eventually migrate to the nearly 15 km average terrestrial crust, and then ever so slightly filter its way through this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into space. At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000004882, however the substantially thinner crust under our oceans might tend to bring the global average of crust insulation down to R-1024000, or thermal conductivity coefficient of .0000009765. Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a thorium core, and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our radioactive core. > > > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon > > > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > calculations, or look them up, and say how much heat is being generated > by that process. I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with any other soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream puppeteering and swag going on in order to continually avoid or simply exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3). Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage? > > > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually > > > > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Brad always prefers his own pseudoscientific, nonnumeric, > adjective-laden, paranoia-based fairy-takes. Then you'd knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi and of their New World Order that's essentially in charge of most everything that matters, even if it were based upon yet another lie or total fabrication or distortion of the actual facts that would be telling us otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth In article <87c7c0f3-d2cb-4cc4-9e7c-690f6ba1ffdc@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly > compressed gas? Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of Jupiter is only that of a highly compressed gas? No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions. > Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/ > mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its > extremely slight elliptical orbit. Why don't you just look it up on Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating > > > and how nonuniform is its gravity or that > > > of its surface of mascons?? > > > > I don't know. > > Me neither, that's why I was asking. Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or liquid core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not expected to have any mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure > > > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant > > > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh darn > active? Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit. I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by the Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit from what was expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily. Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable. > > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and > > > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's good to hear. It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form of a question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were only asking. But you should really not jump to such conclusions. I know it's a deeply ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a lot of crazy places. > > > > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws > > > > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > this crust before radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into > space. You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty space". The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards. > At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average > crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux working along with our > radioactive core. Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because y ou didn't answer my question. > > > > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon > > > > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of mainstream > puppeteering and swag going on Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again. > in order to continually avoid or simply > exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards > global warming. However, I've conservatively done just that, by > having interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available > tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100 microwatt/m3). > Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually of a greater percentage? Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of power. Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a mysterious unit of measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way to calculate what you want. Where did you get .05%? Where does the rest go? And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth? Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with anything. > > > > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually > > > > > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > otherwise. Does this mean evidence exclusion and conditional physics > follows suit in all areas of your supposed expertise? I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever you go off into that patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic you are. SignatureTimberwoof <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. On Jul 19, 10:20 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: > In article > <87c7c0f3-d2cb-4cc4-9e7c-690f6ba1f...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to conclusions. But that's what I do best, deductively connecting dots and thus jumping to a conclusion. > > Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/ > > mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven, thus more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon. > > > > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant > > > > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > expected. From father away, the mascons would not be sensed as easily. > Certainly the Earth's distance from the moon, they're not measurable. I never stated that from Earth they were affecting us. Obviously I'm not the only one jumping to those pesky conclusions. However, Earth's mascons are likely adding tidal flex heating to our Selene/moon as well as its elliptical path migrates around Earth and our sun should cause a measurable degree of geothermal heating within our Selene/ moon. > > > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and > > > > physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or to that of Earth getting [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ingrained habit with you, but you should get over it. It leads you to a > lot of crazy places. You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus, or that of our intelligent species originating from the Sirius B solar system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our Selene/moon L1, or how about the crazy but cool POOF city at Venus L2, and don't forget the crazy relocation of our Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1. > > > > > > > > In other damage-control words of your silly mindset, the laws > > > > > > > > of physics simply do not apply off world, or even as to that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into empty > space". Space isn't empty, because it's absolutely chuck full of photons, dark matter and dark energy. Even our Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21 bar vacuum isn't the least bit empty. > The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material, and a whole > lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards. I agree, that Earth's core of thorium and subsequent radioactive byproducts is good to go for billions of years. > > At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an average > > crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000, thereby [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because you didn't answer my question. How good is the average thermal insulation worth of Earth's crust? Supposedly the thinnest crust is found under our oceans, at an average of perhaps 5 km thickness. Earth is after all at least 98.5% fluid. > > > > > The small size of our small earth and its small effect on the moon > > > > > make any tidal heating of our small moon small, probably [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again. No "good grief" about it. I noticed that you haven't posted links of different research groups that concur as to having the same outcome. The tidal flex heating of Earth via our Selene/moon is measurably significant. > > in order to continually avoid or simply > > exclude whatever our Selene/moon might have to contribute towards [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that number is useless as a way > to calculate what you want. The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual gravity of attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If converting any of that continual tidal force into energy, it has to be taken as N/ sec. > Where did you get .05%? That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better swag? > Where does the rest go? You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that 2e20 N/ sec of force is going, unless it's transferring back and forth as tidal flex heating, possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid and otherwise gaseous sun. > And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in the Earth? > Until you come up with that, you have no basis for comparison with > anything. That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive) agreed upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials within Earth's core, much less the low density core of our highly unusual moon. > > > > > > > > Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems continually > > > > > > > > moving and/or distorting the crust of Earth by 55 cm via [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever you go off into that > patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic you are. So, you think there's no one swarm of any faith-based/political cult or group in charge of anything that goes badly or for the better here on Earth? (it's all purely random happenstance that's always perfectly fair and square with the rest of us village idiots?) You're saying that job security, public funded benefits, vast corporate and political profits and bragging rights that'll suit their given faith-based mindset never account for squat. Now that's interesting as hell. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth In article <54c5b426-8d62-444d-b789-675ccf850b0e@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > On Jul 19, 10:20 pm, Timberwoof > <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > But that's what I do best, deductively connecting dots and thus > jumping to a conclusion. No, it's what you do the most. If the quality of your work is to be judged by how well the conclusions match reality, you suck at it. > > > Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/ > > > mascon issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than its [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven, thus > more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon. Maybe rather than just saying that, you could show a map of gravitational anomalies for the Earth and one for the moon, and compare them. > > > > > Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas giant > > > > > planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable of tidal flexing [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > cause a measurable degree of geothermal heating within our Selene/ > moon. Well, then. Show the measurable heating. > > > > > Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital mechanics and > > > > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message