Article View: sci.physics
Article #14504Re: How much global warming(GW) is our local mascon good for?
From: BradGuth
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:43
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:43
108 lines
7720 bytes
7720 bytes
Earth is more than rare, whereas it's unusually fluid (inside and out), along with a mostly wet surface and otherwise frozen polar caps and other volumes of ice that if melted would summarily drown or otherwise terminate most of us, and as of lately it has been more than a little salty to boot, plus going GW(global warming) postal at the same time that we're trying our level best to survive on this orb. The basic argument here is that Earth simply didn't always have that pesky moon untill after the very last ice age this planet w/moon will ever see, as for that pesky moon representing such a horrific nearby orbiting mascon, especially if that sucker were ever once upon a time orbiting at a forth the distance and thus having been contributing 16 fold greater gravity/tidal forces into our 98.5% fluid Earth, as that unfortunate outcome would have kept mother Earth more than a little extra GW hot! hot!! hot!!! Solar tides always existed, along with eventually some oceans of whatever less salty muck and of much less fluid volume had also existed, as well as for our elliptical orbit and less seasonal tilt having existed. So what? We can certainly have all of that w/o moon. There may not be those local ice cubes surviving in 1AU space, but much further out it's quite another cosmic story, especially if one of those arriving ice cubes had a fairly terrific 7.35e22 kg worth of a rocky core to start off with. Although it would have been darn nice having a few direct interactive science instruments on deck (which should have been easily accomplished if we'd actually walked on that sucker), though otherwise the best available remote science of our physically DARK and NASTY moon is more than good enough to suggest upon multiple other reasons for Earth (being 98.5% fluid) having obtained that absolutely horrific mascon of a moon, and only as of the very last ice age this gravity/ tidal forced global warming of a mostly fluid planet will ever see. Most folks here in Usenet naysay land, that are summarily stuck forever with their one and only NASA/Apollo koran version of the truth, are as such entirely unable to even consider upon any other viable alternatives. That's rather unfortunate that so much of otherwise good talent and resources must be continually wasted, along with such spendy decades upon decades blown for good. Much of our salty old moon's surface has in fact become soft, though obviously much of that moon's dusty surface is protruded by basalt, it has obviously since been terribly impacted and/or having collected everything including the cosmic kitchen sink. In addition to it's significant worth of gravity, it's also highly electrostatic charged and thus far better off at having attracted and otherwise retained most of the solar and cosmic flak that comes along, as certainly a whole lot better off at keeping its nasty stuff than anything our wussy magnetosphere manages to retain. Unfortunately, icy proto-moons are still being officially topic/author banished, as being as taboo/nondisclosure as is the truth about Iraq and a good dozen other matters. Even a simple topic of "What if (Craters)" by G=EMC^2 Glazier gets the usual mainstream status quo flak treatment, as a insurmountable gauntlet that's contributed by those Old Testament fools trying their faith-based level best at keeping the rest of us village idiots as snookered and/or as dumbfounded as possible, and for the most part it has been working. Folks here in this well orchestrated anti-think-tank Usenet of naysay land, as such really haven't allowed us to seriously look at those moon craters with any open mindset, whereas most of which are truly massive yet unusually shallow craters within those larger and even shallower craters, with much less their ever having associated any potential of ice as having once upon a time covered that big old salty sucker (I'm thinking to the tune of 262 km). Of the most recent craters being 10 fold deeper by ratio to their diameter means there was at that more recent time little if any ice on deck. Though I'd have to agree that a great amount of common moon dust by way of primary and secondary impact shards, plus local and cosmic dust has contributed to filling in the vast majority of those older craters, to the tune of such nasty composition being tens of meters deep in the most fluffy of dry and uncompacted dark/sooty (aka coal pit) looking stuff you can imagine. I often think of our moon as being a cosmic morgue, especially since nothing gets burned up prior to impact. You folks must realize that Sedna is a worthy icy proto-moon of roughly 1500~1800 km, that's likely covered by as much as 500 km of that dirty reddish and most likely salty ice. In fact, most anything Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt worthy is going to be and/or shortly become icy. For example, I can imagine the big rock and/or whatever's the core of such a hard under-surface of Sedna being that of almost no craters, as due to itself having been so nicely ice protected. For benefit of further argument; If such an icy proto-moon were moving along from Sirius to Sol, say if that interstellar trek had been taking at most a few tens of thousands of years (say incoming at 40 km/s and thereby lots of spare time for a little interactive cosmic DNA sequencing to take place), I wonder how much extra ice and snow build-up (in addition to whatever it originally had) one might expect to obtain while exiting away from the read-giant pushing realm of Sirius and obviously entering through our icy Oort cloud? You'd think this kind of fundamental planetology and cosmology research, as based entirely upon the regular laws of physics and best available science, would become another one of those nifty 3D simulation applications for a good supercomputer, don't you think. Especially since most other moons and perhaps even a few planets of this solar system seem as though having arrived after the initial creation of our Sol and whatever local planets. In fact, there's no good reasoning to perceive that Earth was born of the very same exact stuff as Sol. - Brad Guth
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1178901831.200333.148340@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<1178072047.983654.313060@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 10b271,8a07395a31c570d7 X-Google-Thread: fdc67,8a07395a31c570d7 X-Google-Thread: f74ae,8a07395a31c570d7 X-Google-Thread: 1038c2,8a07395a31c570d7 X-Google-Thread: 102f53,8a07395a31c570d7 X-Google-Attributes: gid10b271,gidfdc67,gidf74ae,gid1038c2,gid102f53,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,cam.misc Subject: Re: How much global warming(GW) is our local mascon good for? Date: 11 May 2007 09:43:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 109 Message-ID: <1178901831.200333.148340@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> References: <1178072047.983654.313060@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.91.99.235 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1178901831 12600 127.0.0.1 (11 May 2007 16:43:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:43:51 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1178072047.983654.313060@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSN 2.5; Windows 98; T312461),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.91.99.235; posting-account=zEXP4w0AAAAJ5s7atsfc5JlL--hpDELy