🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 20, 8:32 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, Art Deco
> <e...@caballista.org>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:59:46 -0600
> <200420070859466889%e...@caballista.org>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Ghost In The Machine <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
> >>In sci.physics, Art Deco
> >><e...@caballista.org>
> >> wrote
> >>on Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:32:10 -0600
> >><160420071432108538%e...@caballista.org>:
> >>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Obviously the mostly Jewish mainstream status quo is not a very happy
> >>>>camper these days, but then not much of anything made their Hitler and
> >>>>the likes of their resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) a happy camper,
> >>>>especially as long as those pesky Muslims were sitting on all of that
> >>>>oil.
>
> >>>>Too bad that VL2 simply isn't as worthy of being as perpetrated cold-
> >>>>war cloak and dagger worthy.
>
> >>> Why are you obsessed with "salt",Brad?
>
> >>Because of the Moon's sodium tail, presumably; plus, if his hypothesis
> >>is correct (I'm not all that hopeful!), we captured it from Sirius about
> >>15,000 years back, with far more salt and water than it has now.
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/363105.stm
>
> > "The tail of sodium gas that streams out for great distances behind the
> > Moon has been observed better than ever before."
>
> > Elemental sodium is not "salt".  Braddoesn't understand first-year
> > chemistry.
>
> True, although I'm now wondering where the chlorine is, if there is salt
> on the moon.
>
>
>
> > "There are less than 50 atoms of sodium per cubic centimetre in the
> > atmosphere just above the surface of the Moon,"
>
> The tail is long enough to reach Earthside.  If one takes it as being
> conical, and the cone has height 9.00 * 10^8 m, radius 1.7 * 10^6 m,
> one gets 8.17 * 10^21 m^3, or 4.09 * 10^29 atoms or 678,000 moles
> or 15.6 metric tonnes of elemental sodium.
>
> If one instead takes 3.85 * 10^8 m, one gets 6.68 metric tonnes.
>
> I don't know what the "lossage" rate might be for this tail, but
> assuming uniform density (which is probably not all that accurate
> anyway) one does get a few tonnes of material.
>
>
>
> > YetGuthrants about "tonnes" of "salt" being removed from the Moon. I
> > haven't tried the caluculation but that seems a mite excessive.
>
> Without a rate (tonnes per year?  century?  million-year period?)
> it's a mite meaningless to me. :-)
>
>
>
> > The real challenge when attempting to interpretGuth'sscreeds is
> > determining what goofy notion he is trying to support with his maze of
> > words and numbers.  In this case, I have to agree with your guess; it
> > is somehow connected to his obsession with Sirius.
>
> He has stated such in the past, though I'd have to find it.
> Personally, I think the coalescence hypothesis far more
> probable; something slammed into us, putting gas and dust
> into an elliptical orbit which cooled and eventually formed
> into the Moon through agglutination/aggregation.
>
> Were something to come in from Sirius, it would probably
> be spinning at a rather odd angle (like, say, Uranus),
> and judging from our spin rates it would probably still be
> spinning today, especially if it were captured only 15,000
> years back.  Tidal drag isn't that forceful, although
> it does cause the Moon's orbit to increase maybe 3.8 cm
> per year.  I could work out how much it slows the Moon's
> rotation (assuming the Moon maintains its 1 rotation per
> revolution in a sidereal frame while its orbit balloons
> outward).  Of course a more quickly rotating Moon might
> have more drag...
>
> The Moon's orbit, however, is rather interesting.  It has
> an eccentricity of 0.0549 according to Wiki, with perigee
> 3.63104 * 10^8 m and apogee 4.05696 * 10^8 m.  It is also
> inclined 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic.  I'll admit to
> being naive about the matter but a circular ring appears
> to me more probable than an elliptical one.  However,
> I don't really know.
>
> I doubt we captured it from Sirius 15,000 years back; the
> numbers simply don't add up.  The Solar System's escape
> velocity at Earth's orbit is about sqrt(2) * 30 km/s =
> 42.43 km/s.  If the body is lucky, it might pass Earth at
> about 12.43 km/s -- which might be just enough to capture
> it into a highly elliptical orbit, or it might not (8 *
> sqrt(2) = 11.31 km/s), if it passes Earth at very close
> range.  The Moon's current speed is about 1 km/s, and its
> present position would require an orbit expansion of 25.7
> km/year -- far more than the 3.8 cm/year observed today.
> (At that rate, a near miss from outside would take 10
> billion years, assuming a linear interpolation, which
> isn't quite right but this is all back-of-the-napkin
> stuff anyway.)
>
> --
> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
> Murphy was an optimist.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A 4 or 5 solar mass star likely became Sirius B, and in that process
of having gone giant red and otherwise postal, all sorts of Sirius
stuff (including a few worthy Oort cloud items of icy proto-moons)
likely came our way.

Lithobraking does absolute wonders as for slowing down and tidal
locking a new arrival.

More importantly, is to tell us why are you still crossposting any of
this into "alt.fan.art-bell, alt.usenet.kooks"?
-
Brad Guth