🚀 go-pugleaf

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:1jo8e4-fqs.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In sci.physics, Randy Poe
> <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on 2 Apr 2007 09:31:23 -0700
> <1175531483.260261.24580@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Apr 2, 8:47 am, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 6:18 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > > On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > >> MARS GOT SALT ?
>>> > >> -
>>> > >> Brad Guth
>>>
>>> > > That's odd;  still hardly any Mars salt.
>>>
>>> > > Is sodiun a forbidden element that's weird and/or not so easily
>>> > > detectable?
>>>
>>> > > Shouldn't there be at the very least 1.5e17 kg of Na/sodium?
>>>
>>> > Okay, I have been watching you repeat this question or
>>> > variations of it for a while, now.
>>>
>>> > Why, exactly do you think that the sodium content of the
>>> > rocks of Mars is any lower than the sodium content of the
>>> > rocks on Earth?
>>>
>>> Earth rock has hardly any salt.  The vast bulk of Earth's salt was a
>>> deposit, similar to our salty oceans having been doposited.
>>
>> What in your mythology did this depositing?
>
> I'll admit to wondering.  Standard geology explains
> this fairly nicely, methinks; no need to introduce giant
> wandering bodies of ice from Sirius.


Remember this is KookGuth posting... 

On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> MARS GOT SALT ?
> -BradGuth

How much salt does ETI require?  and why otherwise do we have so much
salt?

With all the very best of intentions, or otherwise, we can make our
calculations or especially those spendy 3D animated supercomputer
forced models of whatever say just about anything you'd care to pay
for, especially since so little is known with any certainty of Earth's
planetology, and especially because we've got next to nothing known
first hand about our very own massive and nearby moon.  We actually
know of more truths about Mars than about our moon.  In other words,
your best swag that's based upon whatever hard or soft numbers
pertaining to our moon are nearly as good as most any.  Too bad we
still haven't a do-everything science platform at the moon's L1, much
less situated upon the physically dark and nasty surface of our moon
(perhaps the likes of China or India will fix that).

Within the first 50 km of Earth's surface we've got roughly 2.5e19 m3
of mother Earth's rock to draw upon, of which the raw element of such
common/terrestrial rock salt is worth 2.2 g/cm3.  Trust me when others
and I say that Earth's primary rock is not all that salty, as to
account for having leached out 1.5e19 kg of that sodium/Na stuff.

Mountains of extremely hard rock formations have often been formulated
rather quickly as antipodes.  Rock formations via lava flows or from
the results of gradual plate tectonic forced rock are not the same
thing as antipode forced rock that's relatively low in sodium and
clearly hard enough to resist hundreds of millions if not a few
billion years worth of atmospheric erosion.  As best we know, Earth
hasn't entirely renewed its surface for the past 4+ billion years, but
it has been seriously impacted.

Softer and/or porous "alkaline basalt is relatively poor in silica and
rich in sodium.  Alkali basalts predominate among the lavas of the
ocean basins and are also common in mountain belts."  There's little
if any argument that much of Earth's salt is in fact obtained from our
salty oceans that arrived at some unknown time, similar to our ocean
basin formations having been created at some unknown time, as similar
to Earth's seasonal tilt having gotten established at some unknown
time, and otherwise similar to why Earth had all of those horrific ice
ages and subsequent thaws for some entirely weird and thus unknown
reasons that seem to have little if anything to do with whatever's
terrestrial, obviously having next to nothing to do with the various
species of humanity that was relatively few and far between at such
early times.

Of course, if there were a moon as of prior to 10,000 BC, as such we'd
have those multiple forms of solid proof and very objective evidence
of such because, folks as having survived way back then and even prior
to 15,000 BC were actually extremely intelligent and thereby fully
capable of their having taken notice of and having lived by the nifty
moon light and unavoidable tidal forces of that nearby moon that's
greater than a thousand fold massive by ratio than any other such
moon, as well as providing strong evidence as depicted of their having
to migrate due to the seasonal changes that otherwise w/o moon should
been more of a monoseason w/o that icy proto-moon having previously
impacted Earth, with many having suggested Earth's orbit w/o moon has
having been more elliptical and perhaps even a bit tilt worthy
unstable.

Even if Mars were only as old as Earth, the erosion and whatever
leaching process, along with the freeze dried nature of Mars today
being nearly a vacuum realm of a nearly frozen orb to its core, is
good reason as to why whatever Mars salt should still be on deck (sort
of speak).  From all indications as derived from the best available
science, Mars is actually hundreds of millions if not a good billion
years older than Earth, which means the erosion and/or leaching
process of obtaining whatever salts from within is simply way past
due, especially if that were the one and only way for a given planet
to obtain its salt.

Next to h2o, I'd place the element of salt as being 2nd in line to
sustaining that very essential DNA/RNA code of life as we know it,
which doesn't mean that other places of a more or less salty
environment couldn't easily accommodate and/or sustain other life
every bit as intelligent if not more so, especially if some of that
other life were merely half as genetically intelligent and/or having
been intentionally or by accident imported along with a degree of
expertise or applied technology (such as us humans are soon enough
becoming capable of doing another planet or moon).

Fortunately there are the very good and unfortunately more than our
fair share those bad sorts of germs or bugs that are a whole lot more
survival smarter than most of us humans, and there are those extra
survival smart little robust spores or perhaps a few diatoms that
wouldn't even require a protective spacecraft in order to survive some
vast interplanetary panspermia trek (fully interstellar worthy if
safely sequestered within an icy proto-moon or onboard whatever
atmospheric enhanced proto-planet), that would without any naked
question entirely nail or frail DNA in more ways than most of us can
count.  Human biology and physiology is essentially a somewhat
dumbfounded collective of rather poorly engineered DNA/RNA (meaning
there's a lot of nifty DNA/RNA code that we're missing), that's
continually in need of our frail existence being extensively educated
as well as protected from just about everything (including from
ourselves), meaning that our natural ability to survive isn't all that
great unless all that surrounds us is within a somewhat narrow spec,
and that our partner or neighbor isn't continually attempting to
implement upon those new and improved ways of terminating or otherwise
eating us alive.

Of potentially older and/or as forced evolved via intelligent design,
and thereby of likely smarter ETs that were given more or less of an
environment to work with, as such these species of intelligent folks
could actually be considerably better off at their having survived in
places we'd consider as hell, or worse.  Though being such a survival
evolved or educated smart ET doesn't hardly require their being space
travel worthy, or even RF communications capable, or for any good
reason the least bit interested, which only makes for most everything
SETI somewhat pointless, if not pathetic.

Being ET smart is simply being alive when most of us dumbfounded
humans if given the same environment or circumstances would have been
long dead.  However, the toasty and thus newish planetology
environment of Venus is not the least bit insurmountable, especially
with all of those raw elements and vast renewable energy resources at
hand, which makes Earth look downright wussy (though obviously near
ideal for the sorts of such a dumbfounded village idiot species as
we've proven to be).  To have once upon a time survived Mars
(especially as of the last billion years), now that would have been a
highly intelligent and robust ET, whereas if there was so much as a
Martian worm, I'd be seriously impressed.

As the terrestrial sequestered intelligent life that we supposedly
are, if we weren't so freaking arrogant and summarily faith-based
dumbfounded past the point of no return, as such we wouldn't require
1% of the salt and perhaps not 10% of the water.  How the heck did we
get stuck with more than our fair share of h2o and Na?

In fact, as to how little h2o and Na is doable on behalf of sustaining
ETI is still worth a good argument, because if an Earth like planet
having just 1% the water and 0.1% the salt would obviously be worthy
of holding our attention, even if it were merely a moon of Jupiter or
Saturn, or God forbid Venus that offers more of just about everything,
more than most of us can shake our born-again fist full of burning
sticks at.
-
Brad Guth

On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> MARS GOT SALT ?
> -BradGuth

How much salt does ETI require?  and why otherwise do we have so much
salt?

With all the very best of intentions, or otherwise, we can make our
calculations or especially those spendy 3-D animated supercomputer
forced models of whatever say just about anything you'd care to pay
for, especially hocus-pocus worthy since so little is known with any
certainty of Earth's planetology, and especially because we've got
next to nothing known first hand about our very own massive and nearby
moon.  We actually know of more truths about Mars than about our
moon.  In other words, your best swag that's based upon whatever hard
or soft numbers pertaining to our moon are nearly as good as most
any.  Too bad we still haven't a do-everything science platform at the
moon's L1, much less situated upon the physically dark and nasty
surface of our moon (perhaps the likes of China or India will fix
that).

Within the first 50 km of Earth's surface we've got roughly 2.5e19 m3
of mother Earth's bedrock to draw upon, of which the raw element of
such common/terrestrial rock salt is worth 2.2 g/cm3.  Trust me when
others and I say that Earth's primary rock is not all that salty, as
to account for having leached out 1.5e19 kg of that sodium/Na stuff.

Mountains of extremely hard rock formations have often been formulated
rather quickly as antipodes.  Rock formations via lava flows or from
the results of gradual plate tectonic forced rock are not the same
thing as antipode forced rock that's relatively low in sodium and
clearly hard enough to resist hundreds of millions if not a few
billion years worth of atmospheric erosion.  As best we know, Earth
hasn't entirely renewed its surface for the past 4+ billion years, but
it has been seriously impacted.

Softer and/or porous "alkaline basalt is relatively poor in silica and
rich in sodium.  Alkali basalts predominate among the lavas of the
ocean basins and are also common in mountain belts."  There's little
if any argument that much of Earth's salt is in fact obtained from our
salty oceans that arrived at some unknown time, similar to our ocean
basin formations having been created at some unknown time, as similar
to Earth's seasonal tilt having gotten established at some unknown
time, and otherwise similar to why Earth had all of those horrific ice
ages and subsequent thaws for some entirely weird and thus unknown
reasons that seem to have little if anything to do with whatever's
terrestrial, obviously having next to nothing to do with the various
species of humanity that was relatively few and far between at such
early times.

Of course, if there were a moon as of prior to 10,000 BC, as such we'd
have those multiple forms of solid proof and very objective evidence
of such because, folks as having survived way back then and even prior
to 15,000 BC were actually extremely intelligent and thereby fully
capable of their having taken notice of and having lived by way of
that nifty moon light and unavoidable tidal forces as having been
contributed by that nearby moon that's greater than a thousand fold
massive by ratio than any other such moon, as well as providing strong
evidence as depicted of their having to migrate due to the seasonal
changes that otherwise w/o moon should been more of a monoseason w/o
that icy proto-moon having previously impacted Earth, with many having
suggested Earth's orbit w/o moon has having been more elliptical and
perhaps even a bit tilt worthy unstable.

Even if Mars were only as old as Earth, the erosion and whatever
leaching process, along with the freeze dried nature of Mars today
being nearly a vacuum realm of a nearly frozen orb to its core, is
good reason as to why whatever Mars salt should still be on deck (sort
of speak).  From all indications as derived from the best available
science, Mars is actually hundreds of millions if not a good billion
years older than Earth, which means the erosion and/or leaching
process of obtaining whatever salts from within is simply way past
due, especially if that were the one and only way for a given planet
to obtain its salt.

Next to h2o, I'd place the element of salt as being 2nd in line to
sustaining that very essential DNA/RNA code of life as we know it,
which doesn't mean that other places of a more or less salty
environment couldn't easily accommodate and/or sustain other life
every bit as intelligent if not more so, especially if some of that
other life were merely half as genetically intelligent and/or having
been intentionally or by accident imported along with a degree of
expertise or applied technology (such as us humans are soon enough
becoming capable of doing another planet or moon).

Fortunately there are the very good and unfortunately more than our
fair share those bad sorts of germs or bugs that are still a whole lot
more survival smarter than most of us humans, and there are those
extra survival smart little robust spores or perhaps a few diatoms
that wouldn't even require a protective spacecraft in order to survive
some vast interplanetary panspermia trek (fully interstellar worthy if
safely sequestered within an icy proto-moon or onboard whatever
atmospheric enhanced proto-planet), that would without any naked
question entirely nail our frail DNA in more nasty ways than most of
us can count.  Human biology and physiology is essentially a somewhat
dumbfounded collective of rather poorly engineered DNA/RNA (meaning
there's a lot of nifty DNA/RNA code that we're missing), that's
continually in need of our frail existence being extensively educated
as well as protected from just about everything (including from
ourselves), meaning that our natural ability to survive isn't all that
great unless all that surrounds us is within a somewhat narrow spec,
and that our partner or neighbor isn't continually attempting to
implement upon those new and improved ways of terminating or otherwise
eating us alive.

Of potentially older and/or as forced evolved via intelligent design,
and thereby of likely smarter ETs that were given more or less of an
environment to work with, as such these species of intelligent folks
could actually be considerably better off at their having survived in
places we'd consider as hell, or worse.  Though being such a survival
evolved or educated smart ET doesn't hardly require their being space
travel worthy, or even RF communications capable, or for any good
reason the least bit interested, which only makes for most everything
SETI somewhat pointless, if not pathetic.

Being ET smart is simply being alive when most of us dumbfounded
humans if given the same environment or circumstances would have been
long dead.  However, the toasty and thus newish planetology
environment of Venus is not the least bit insurmountable, especially
with all of those raw elements and vast renewable energy resources at
hand, which makes Earth look downright wussy (though obviously near
ideal for the sorts of such a dumbfounded village idiot species as
we've proven to be).  To have once upon a time survived Mars
(especially as of the last billion years), now that would have been a
highly intelligent and robust ET, whereas if there was so much as a
Martian worm, I'd be seriously impressed.

As the terrestrial sequestered intelligent life that we supposedly
are, if we weren't so freaking arrogant and summarily faith-based
dumbfounded past the point of no return, as such we wouldn't require
1% of the salt and perhaps not 10% of the water.  How the heck did we
get stuck with more than our fair share of h2o and Na?

In fact, as to how little h2o and Na is doable on behalf of sustaining
ETI is still worth a good argument, because if an Earth like planet
having just 1% the water and 0.1% the salt would obviously be worthy
of holding our attention, even if it were merely a moon of Jupiter or
Saturn, or God forbid Venus that offers more of just about everything,
more than most of us can shake our born-again fist full of burning
sticks at.
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1175630235.686339.163310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> MARS GOT SALT ?
>> -BradGuth
>
> How much salt does ETI require?

1.4g per kg bodyweight per day.


You really are hatstand. 

Mars is simply not hardly a slaty planet, and it's much older than
Earth.

I happen to agree with "Andrew Nowicki", that not one but many
significant impacting events must have morphed, iced down and
otherwise having so extensively salted the surface of Earth.  Of
course, there's no such proof that Earth originated within this solar
system, and there's even less proof pertaining to our salty moon.
Mars seems much older than Earth, and Venus seems much less old than
Earth.

How much if any sial is on that deck of our physically dark and nasty
moon?

How much of a planetology common element does salt account for?

At times of such an icy proto-moon representing itself as an incoming
NEO, as likely having previously passed so close to impacting, it must
have seemed exactly like the end of the world to many, and actually
becoming the end of the world to many others caught in its gravity and
aerobraking wake.  The actual glancing blow of that icy sucker upon
having accomplished its dastardly deed, whereas I'd have to think a
good third of most everything living upon this Earth would have been
killed off or traumatised well enough past the point of no return.

That "true geology" specified date of 11,700 BP also sounds just about
right on the money for the final lithobraking, ocean basin creating,
antipode worthy and seasonal tilt causing arrival of our moon, which
should have seriously kicked all sorts of planetology as well as human
butt upon its icy arrival.  At the very least the near miss of such an
icy proto-moon should have been downright interesting, if not a touch
lethal for a great many.

There should also have been those significant teratonne spacebergs of
moon ice falling upon Earth for a few thousands of years past the time
of that initial glancing blow.

BTW;  there's still nothing contained in any bible or koran, as
reasonably interpreted to our environment having that moon as of prior
to 10,000 BC (12,007 BP), or even of somewhat earlier or perhaps a bit
more recently.  When exactly was the first humanly made record of our
moon?

What do you folks think about complex intelligent ET life, as for such
having survived their extended interstellar trek, as safely coexisting
within a few of those proto-moon ice caves? (I know that even I could
do as much [how about yourself?])

Within such a deep enough icy moon cave (assuming all the way down to
the moon's surface) would have accommodated all the essential elements
for survival, including sufficient isolation from the bad sorts of
cosmic and solar radiation, and otherwise having provided loads of
easily accessible O2 for sustaining our kind of frail DNA/RNA.

I'm thinking our moon could have been covered by as much as a 262 km
thick layer of salty ice, of which obviously lost much of its icy load
upon encountering Earth, and especially that of our 1AU nearby solar
energy would have summarily evaporated and/or having solar wind
extracted all such vapors of salty ice that wasn't otherwise safely
sequestered underground.

That pesky GW traumatising moon of ours is still in the process of
losing the remainders of its naked surface element of sodium. (not
nearly enough gravity nor having a magnetosphere as to otherwise
prevent the loss of such ice and sodium)

Too bad the faith-based souls of this Earth are so afraid of their own
shadows.  Too bad we still haven't accomplished the Earth/moon science
platform as efficiently station-keeping itself within the moon's L1.
Too bad we're headed directly for WWIII over the remains of the
affordably accessible worth of global energy domination (including
yellowcake).  Too bad that so many innocent folks have paid the
ultimate price, with lots more about to pay their's (especially nasty
if being Muslim is their only option within their established family
traditions).
-
Brad Guth

Our extremely massive and nearby moon is still measurably salty, and
Mars simply is not nearly salty enough for supposedly having been
within the same life viable realm of space.

Mars has simply not hardly indicating as though ever having been a
salty planet, and it's otherwise indicating as being much older than
Earth.  What gives?

I happen to agree with "Andrew Nowicki", that not one but many
significant impacting events must have morphed, iced down and
otherwise having so extensively salted the surface of Earth.  Of
course, there's no such absolute proof that Earth originated within
this solar system, and there's even less proof pertaining to that of
our salty moon.  Mars seems nearly dead to the core and thereby much
older than Earth, and Venus seems more than a little extra hot to the
core and thereby much less old than Earth.  What gives?

How much if any sial is on that deck of our physically dark and nasty
moon?

How much of a planetology and/or moon common element does salt account
for?

At the early times of such an icy proto-moon representing itself as an
incoming NEO, as likely having previously passed so close to
impacting, whereas it must have seemed exactly like the end of the
world to many, and actually becoming the end of the world to many
others caught in its gravity and aerobraking wake.  The actual
glancing blow of that icy sucker upon having accomplished its
dastardly lithobraking deed, whereas I'd have to think a good third of
most everything living upon this Earth would have been killed off or
traumatised well enough past the point of no return.

That "true geology" specified date of 11,700 BP (or most likely
shortly thereafter) also sounds just about right on the money for the
final lithobraking, of ocean basin creating, antipode worthy and
seasonal tilt causing arrival of our moon, which should have seriously
kicked all sorts of planetology as well as human butt upon its icy
arrival.  At the very least the previous near miss of such an icy
proto-moon should have been downright interesting, if not a touch
lethal for a great many.

There should also have been those significant teratonne spacebergs of
moon ice falling upon Earth for a few hundred if not thousands of
years past the time of that initial glancing blow.

BTW;  there's still nothing contained in any bible or koran, as
reasonably interpreted about our environment having that moon as of
prior to 10,000 BC (12,007 BP), or even of somewhat earlier or perhaps
even a bit more recently.

When exactly was the first humanly made record of our moon?

What do you folks think about complex intelligent ET life, as for such
off-world life having survived their extended interstellar trek, as
safely coexisting within a few of those proto-moon ice caves? (I know
that even I could do as much [how about yourself?])

Within such a deep enough icy moon cave (assuming all the way down to
the moon's surface) would have accommodated all of those essential
life sustaining elements for their survival, including more than
sufficient isolation from the bad sorts of cosmic and solar radiation,
and otherwise having provided loads of easily accessible O2 for
sustaining our kind of extremely frail DNA/RNA.

I'm thinking our interstellar trekking moon could have been covered by
as much as a 262 km thick layer of salty ice, of which obviously lost
much of its icy load upon encountering Earth, and especially that of
our 1AU nearby solar energy influx would have summarily evaporated and/
or having solar wind extracted all such vapors of salty ice that
wasn't otherwise safely sequestered underground.

That pesky GW traumatising moon of ours is still in the continual
process of having to lose the remainders of its naked surface element
of sodium. (not nearly enough gravity nor having a worthy
magnetosphere as to otherwise prevent the loss of such ice and sodium)

Too bad the faith-based souls of this Earth remain so afraid of their
own shadows.  Too bad we still haven't accomplished the Earth/moon
science platform as efficiently station-keeping itself within the
moon's interactive L1 sweet spot.  Too bad we're headed directly for
WWIII over the remainders of the affordably accessible worth of
enforcing our global energy domination (including yellowcake) policy
that has no intentions of ever slowing down.  Too bad that so many
innocent folks have since paid the ultimate price, with lots more
about to pay their's (getting especially nasty if being Muslim is the
only option within their established family traditions).
-
Brad Guth

Still no Mars salt to behold.  Imagine that, I'm right as rain, even
if it's terribly acidic and even a bit toxic rain.  Sorry about that.

You folks be sure to let us know when all of that missing Mars salt is
discovered.
-
Brad Guth

A good number of raw elements are no longer situated where they are
supposed to be, as having too much here and simply not enough there.
Looking off-world for such raw elements or clean energy simply isn't a
viable option unless our moon's L2 can first become fully utilized for
all it's worth, and lord knows our NASA isn't about to let that
happen.

If in fact little old and nearly frozen to the core Mars had once upon
a time been a very wet orb (say a billion+ years ago seems worthy
enough);  where's the salt?

Is there such a thing as a freshwater planet, as thus far represented
by what Mars used to be like, as opposed to a salty soil of so many
near solid Na/sodium deposits and otherwise mostly a saltwater world
as represented by Earth, that's only getting itself saltier by the
eroson day and othewise by the lunar month that dumps a comet like
trail of even more Na/sodium our way.

Mars salt ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/f476068e9b2bf8c8/5b0cc2a2a8ad986d?lnk=st&q=mars+salt&rnum=1&hl=en#5b0cc2a2a8ad986d

Or perhaps you'd like to share your best swag as to why Earth has way
more than its fair share of salt, and getting a touch saltier by each
lunar month, as well as our having been artificially as well as
natural eroding ourselves to death, insuring that even more salt is on
its way.

The following is topic related, but more of an energy and survival
rant by Guth:

Remember, the toaster and sootier we manage in making our environment
go GW postal, and of that pesky element of sodium starts getting
suspended into a greater worth of our surface and lower most
atmospheric environment that's already going co2 acidic and otherwise
dead-zone on us, whereas much like co2 running off the charts, too
much salt added to this ongoing co2 trauma will eventually kill just
about anything that can't quickly evolve or manage to locate to higher
ground (especially if we're all given the only option of a damp and
stormy future environment of thermal and pressure extremes, whereas
this analogy is clearly where too much salt on deck is yet another
seriously bad news sort of thing to add to our nasty co2 above and
below deck thing).

The likes of drought stricken Australia building those multi million
m2 solar energy and seawater evaporation farms isn't exactly going to
help lower the surface salt content enough if at all to benefit
against whatever reductions in co2 (especially since there's no good
reason for their energy needs as not being derived mostly via
nuclear), as either element of Na or Co2 is nearly as bad as the other
if left to the ongoing demise of our surface environment.

This is starting to suggest a terrestrial population maximum of
perhaps 1e10, and without sufficient clean energy to go around (much
less affordable food), is not exactly going to make us into happy
campers.

A future of 1e3 watts/soul = 1e13 watts/Earth, whereas 10 terawatts of
continuous energy extraction is going to become a tough sell unless
most of that is via renewable alternatives, and resolved as such long
before getting to that insurmountable point of no possible return.

Fortunately, there are existing and entirely affordable solutions that
do not have to include big-energy or for the most part would not
involve nuclear except for roughly 10% of our global energy demand
that's isolated or otherwise off-grid.
-
Brad Guth

Earth being as wet and salty as it is;  Where's the Mars salt?

Come on you silly folks, tell us where all of that Mars salt is
hidden.

It's called "share and share alike", or "to tell the truth", that Mars
is older than Earth and likely of a somewhat different origin than
Earth, as perhaps the same can be said of Venus, in that all the best
available science is actually telling us that it's somewhat less old
than Earth.
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176486200.406099.272790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Earth being as wet and salty as it is;  Where's the Mars salt?
>

It is hidden up Uranus. 

On Apr 13, 11:06 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176486200.406099.272790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Earth being as wet and salty as it is;  Where's the Mars salt?
>
> It is hidden up Uranus.

Now that's certainly a good little Jewish Third Reich minion's worth
of a topic contribution.

In other words, just like Hitler or that of your resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush), you've got absolutely nothing that's honestly worth
sharing.

Sorry you're having such another bad day after day, as well as bad
years after years worth of having been such a funny brown-nosed clown.
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176492964.782353.71230@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:06 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176486200.406099.272790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Earth being as wet and salty as it is;  Where's the Mars salt?
>>
>> It is hidden up Uranus.
>
> Now that's certainly a good little Jewish Third Reich minion's worth
> of a topic contribution.
>

Blah, blah, blah. 

On Apr 13, 2:46 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

> Blah, blah, blah.

See what I mean.
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 2:46 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
>> Blah, blah, blah.
>
>See what I mean.

No one sees what you mean, Brad, you're incoherent.

-- 
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
  -- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus?  Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
  -- Dr. David Tholen

Where's the salt of Mars?

How can Mars have such a deficient deposit of salt?

Where the heck was little old Mars, when Earth was getting it's salty
oceans of water and ice?
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 14, 11:18 am, "John \"C\"" <honestj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> "John "C"" <honestj...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>
> news:OLadnaneUPG1jbzbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> > "Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
>
> > > Why are you obsessed with "salt", Brad?
>
> > He wants to put the flames on your flaming Duckie-friend with salt.
>
> > HJ
>
> He wants to put "OUT" the flames.
>
> <sorry>
>
> HJ

Here's the correctly cross-posted reply that excludes those Jewish
Third Reich "alt.fan.art-bell and alt.usenet.kooks" silly groups.

<sorry> is damn right.  What silly flames are they talking about?

Venus does have a great many active lava and geothermally forced mud
flows to deal with, as well as those nifty S8 gas vents that by rights
should be extremely above the thermal consideration of whatever's
merely toasty.  The one thing that unusually dry and hot Co2/S8
environment most likely doesn't have is open flame, any more so than
being the least bit corrosive unless you're planning upon doing a
little mud-flow walking in your Ovglove jumpsuit.

At least Venus has something geothermal cooking within (256 fold more
so than Earth), and otherwise unlimited amounts of easily obtained
energy that's above the surface, and having that surface environment
which is rather nicely shielded against those bad kinds of solar or
cosmic energy influx, as well as extensively moderating whatever's
physically arriving, whereas the only spendy sorts of 'footsteps to
Mars' are those of the dumbfounded and soon to be dead astronauts
walking (perhaps before they ever get there).

I'm afraid that we don't actually get all that much NASA bang for a
mere trillion hard earned dollars or euros these badly inflated days,
therefore doing Mars is going to be little more than an artificial
black hole where our hard earned money, resources and best available
talent goes in and nothing ever comes back out.  At least Venus comes
close enough to being classified as a worthy NEO, at merely 100 fold
the distance of our moon, and that's actually damn close for something
that nearly the mass of Earth, and somewhat tidal locked to boot.
-
Brad Guth

"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message 
news:130420071901516221%erfc@caballista.org...
> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 13, 2:46 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Blah, blah, blah.
>>
>>See what I mean.
>
> No one sees what you mean, Brad, you're incoherent.
>


I don't know, that time he got it spot on. All of brad's gibberish reads 
like "Blah, blah.." 

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176527496.252772.50340@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Where's the salt of Mars?
>
> How can Mars have such a deficient deposit of salt?

Your specialist line of gibberish is hilarious.

> Where the heck was little old Mars, when Earth was getting it's salty
> oceans of water and ice?

It was orbiting Uranus, I've told you. 

On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> MARS GOT SALT ?
> -BradGuth

Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.

Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
missing in action.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 18, 12:55 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > MARS GOT SALT ?
> > -BradGuth
>
> Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
> topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
> their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.
>
> Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
> missing in action.
> -BradGuth

See what I mean.  Silly brown-nosed old farts, arn't they.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 18, 4:58 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:58:39 -0600, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org>
> wrote:
>
> ><bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Apr 18, 12:55 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Still replying to yourself in desperation?
>
> Who else would tell him that he's "obviously right?"
>
> --
> Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]

More of the usual jewspeak to go into your mutual "alt.fan.art-bell,
alt.usenet.kooks" cesspools?

Got anything that's on topic? (didn't think so)
-
Brad Guth

On 18 Apr 2007 17:52:09 -0700, bradguth@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 18, 4:58 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:58:39 -0600, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ><bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Apr 18, 12:55 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Still replying to yourself in desperation?
>>
>> Who else would tell him that he's "obviously right?"
>>
>> --
>> Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]
>
>More of the usual jewspeak to go into your mutual "alt.fan.art-bell,
>alt.usenet.kooks" cesspools?
>
>Got anything that's on topic? (didn't think so)

What is salt's number in the Periodic Table, fruitbat?  And are you
ever going to get tired of tonguing Hitler's ass?

-- 
Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]

On Apr 18, 2:48 pm, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> MARS GOT SALT ?
> >> -BradGuth
>
> >Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
> >topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
> >their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.
>
> >Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
> >missing in action.
>
> Still confusing sodium with "salt", Brad?
>

Only your lies and the lies of others you brown-nose with are
confusing, but that's only because they don't hold up to the regular
laws of physics, or match with any other replicated science.

Are all the Jews that you and others of your incest mutated kind
associate with, as dumb and dumber bigots as yourself?

What other faith-based fuckology expertise (besides your being a Third
Reich minion) do you claim to represent?

Notice how only your kind are so into such agressive topic/author
stalking, bashings and as much banishment as you folks can muster
between sucking on those private parts.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 18, 6:06 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2:48 pm, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
> > <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> MARS GOT SALT ?
> > >> -BradGuth
>
> > >Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
> > >topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
> > >their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.
>
> > >Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
> > >missing in action.
>
> > Still confusing sodium with "salt", Brad?
>
> Only your lies and the lies of others you brown-nose with are
> confusing, but that's only because they don't hold up to the regular
> laws of physics, or match with any other replicated science.
>
> Are all the Jews that you and others of your incest mutated kind
> associate with, as dumb and dumber bigots as yourself?
>
> What other faith-based fuckology expertise (besides your being a Third
> Reich minion) do you claim to represent?
>
> Notice how only your kind are so into such agressive topic/author
> stalking, bashings and as much banishment as you folks can muster
> between sucking on those private parts.
> -
> Brad Guth

As per usual;  still no Mars salt, not even up Art Deco's ass.

I guess certain human DNA/RNA just isn't quite all that it can be.

So the truth be told, we honest folk have uncovered the holy grail of
truth about the likes of those Third Reich minions that dare to call
themselves choosen.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 18, 5:57 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 17:52:09 -0700, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 18, 4:58 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:58:39 -0600, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> ><bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>On Apr 18, 12:55 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>> On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >Still replying to yourself in desperation?
>
> >> Who else would tell him that he's "obviously right?"
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]
>
> >More of the usual jewspeak to go into your mutual "alt.fan.art-bell,
> >alt.usenet.kooks" cesspools?
>
> >Got anything that's on topic? (didn't think so)
>
> What is salt's number in the Periodic Table, fruitbat?  And are you
> ever going to get tired of tonguing Hitler's ass?
>
> --
> Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is that your best jewspeak code for something Third Reich minion
worthy of your naysay status quo?

Otherwise, your constructive contribution to this topic is ???????
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176932049.815790.239250@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 18, 12:55 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > MARS GOT SALT ?
>> > -BradGuth
>>
>> Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
>> topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
>> their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.
>>
>> Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
>> missing in action.
>> -BradGuth
>
> See what I mean.  Silly brown-nosed old farts, arn't they.

I doubt posting replies to yourself on a public USENET group is a sign of 
sanity, is it? 

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176956758.125501.34520@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 18, 5:57 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2007 17:52:09 -0700, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 18, 4:58 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:58:39 -0600, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> ><bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>On Apr 18, 12:55 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>> On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >Still replying to yourself in desperation?
>>
>> >> Who else would tell him that he's "obviously right?"
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]
>>
>> >More of the usual jewspeak to go into your mutual "alt.fan.art-bell,
>> >alt.usenet.kooks" cesspools?
>>
>> >Got anything that's on topic? (didn't think so)
>>
>> What is salt's number in the Periodic Table, fruitbat?  And are you
>> ever going to get tired of tonguing Hitler's ass?
>>
>> --
>> Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]- Hide quoted 
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Is that your best jewspeak code for something Third Reich minion
> worthy of your naysay status quo?
>
> Otherwise, your constructive contribution to this topic is ???????

Much more than yours will ever be. 

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1176944777.158848.209880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 18, 2:48 pm, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> MARS GOT SALT ?
>> >> -BradGuth
>>
>> >Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
>> >topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
>> >their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.
>>
>> >Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
>> >missing in action.
>>
>> Still confusing sodium with "salt", Brad?
>>
>
> Only your lies and the lies of others you brown-nose with are
> confusing,

No seriously, you claim salt is an element. When challenged you whined 
something about sodium.

Are you confusing "Sodium" (the element) with "Salt" (something you sprinkle 
on the fries you serve in your day job). 

On Apr 19, 7:53 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> What a waste of bandwidth

You silly borg like folks really can't think inside the box, much less
outside, can you.

Since you have not a freaking clue as to where all the Mars salt has
gone, so instead you fall back on your faith-based policy of failsafe
naysayism.
-
Brad Guth

On 19 Apr 2007 11:07:14 -0700, bradguth@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 19, 7:53 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> What a waste of bandwidth
>
>You silly borg like folks really can't think inside the box, much less
>outside, can you.
>
>Since you have not a freaking clue as to where all the Mars salt has
>gone, so instead you fall back on your faith-based policy of failsafe
>naysayism.

What Mars salt, moron?

-- 
Bill Snyder   [This space unintentionally left blank.]

On Apr 19, 11:10 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007 11:07:14 -0700, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Apr 19, 7:53 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >> What a waste of bandwidth
>
> >You silly borg like folks really can't think inside the box, much less
> >outside, can you.
>
> >Since you have not a freaking clue as to where all the Mars salt has
> >gone, so instead you fall back on your faith-based policy of failsafe
> >naysayism.
>
> What Mars salt, moron?

That's exactly what I say.  Mars must have been a mostly freshwater
planet (w/o salt), and otherwise mostly an icy one at that unless
going way back into the geothermal forced era when there was more of
its core heat per m2 than solar influx, and of also having that viable
magnetosphere to work with.

How much older than Earth is Mars?
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177007140.969885.169920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 11:10 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2007 11:07:14 -0700, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 19, 7:53 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> What a waste of bandwidth
>>
>> >You silly borg like folks really can't think inside the box, much less
>> >outside, can you.
>>
>> >Since you have not a freaking clue as to where all the Mars salt has
>> >gone, so instead you fall back on your faith-based policy of failsafe
>> >naysayism.
>>
>> What Mars salt, moron?
>
> That's exactly what I say.  Mars must have been a mostly freshwater
> planet (w/o salt)

When?

>, and otherwise mostly an icy one at that unless
> going way back into the geothermal forced era when there was more of
> its core heat per m2 than solar influx, and of also having that viable
> magnetosphere to work with.
>
> How much older than Earth is Mars?


18.7 seconds. 

On Apr 19, 10:39 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176944777.158848.209880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2:48 pm, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> MARS GOT SALT ?
> >> >> -BradGuth
>
> >> >Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
> >> >topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
> >> >their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.
>
> >> >Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
> >> >missing in action.
>
> >> Still confusing sodium with "salt", Brad?
>
> > Only your lies and the lies of others you brown-nose with are
> > confusing,
>
> No seriously, you claim salt is an element. When challenged you whined
> something about sodium.
>
> Are you confusing "Sodium" (the element) with "Salt" (something you sprinkle
> on the fries you serve in your day job).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've taken notice that you're still not getting any outside or inside
help on this one.  How does it feel being so all alone in the universe
that's limited to whatever fits between your infomercial spewing butt-
cheeks?
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1177134456.916981.80370@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 10:39 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176944777.158848.209880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 2:48 pm, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
>> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> MARS GOT SALT ?
>> >> >> -BradGuth
>>
>> >> >Hard to miss all the mostly Jewish brown nosed clowns this Mars salt
>> >> >topic has attracted.  Too bad none of them is smart enough to wipe
>> >> >their own butt, with other than a nose of their own kind.
>>
>> >> >Obviously I'm right as rain, in that Mars salt is for the most part
>> >> >missing in action.
>>
>> >> Still confusing sodium with "salt", Brad?
>>
>> > Only your lies and the lies of others you brown-nose with are
>> > confusing,
>>
>> No seriously, you claim salt is an element. When challenged you whined
>> something about sodium.
>>
>> Are you confusing "Sodium" (the element) with "Salt" (something you 
>> sprinkle
>> on the fries you serve in your day job
>
> I've taken notice that you're still not getting any outside or inside
> help on this one.

On what planet do you think I need any help on this one? You are the kook 
avoiding answering the questions.

Are you ready to admit when you keep mewling crap like "got salt" you mean 
"got sodium?"

Are you ready to admit your inability to realise the difference between 
"salt" and "sodium?"

Do you need help?

> How does it feel being so all alone in the universe
> that's limited to whatever fits between your infomercial spewing butt-
> cheeks?

Wow. Interesting visual imagery aside, is this supposed to be some sort of 
insult? Or just a stream of gibberish? 

On Apr 21, 10:06 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

> On what planet do you think I need any help on this one? You are the kook
> avoiding answering the questions.

You're supposedly the all-knowing wizard, and I'm merely the village
idiot that's asking those pesky questions, that which you and others
of your kind are not forking over the answers for.

Which MIB shadow(s) are you afraid of this time around?

Not only has Mars lost its salt, but most of its fresh water has been
gone as well.  In my book that's more than a little odd for such a
capable planet that's well within the life zone of Sol (same viable
zone as Earth and even Venus).
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 22, 10:12 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177259087.103702.106660@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 21, 10:06 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
> >> On what planet do you think I need any help on this one? You are the kook
> >> avoiding answering the questions.
>
> > You're supposedly the all-knowing wizard,
>
> I am flattered but, says who?

Says me, plus most anyone else that you've stalked and bashed.

>
> > and I'm merely the village idiot
>
> Finally something we can agree on.
>
> > that's asking those pesky questions, that which you and others
> > of your kind are not forking over the answers for.
>
> > Which MIB shadow(s) are you afraid of this time around?
>
> None. Conspiracy theories are for crackpots.

And hiding the truth by way of telling us lies upon lies is in fact
very MI/NSA spook worthy, as well as faith-based worthy, isn't it.

>
> > Not only has Mars lost its salt,
>
> What do you mean by salt?

Sodium, plus whatever goes along for the ride.  Common old sea salt is
actually more than good enough.


>
> > but most of its fresh water has been
> > gone as well.
>
> "Most?"

OK, 99.9% of it is gone with the solar wind.

>
> > In my book that's more than a little odd for such a
> > capable planet that's well within the life zone of Sol (same viable
> > zone as Earth and even Venus).
>
> I am sure lots of things are odd in your book...

You silly folks do like to divert a given topic, by playing word
games, don't you.

What would actually happen to you or others of your kind, if you folks
actually shared an honest thought that was 100% on topic and otherwise
honestly constructive? (death by MIB?)

Are you merely afraid of the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Unlike this typically racist and otherwise bigoted usenet (as easily
interpreted from most all of their past and current Usenet posted
replies), I sort of like most any reasonably open mindset, even if
it's faith-based.  Why exactly is your mindset so terribly status quo
and otherwise closed and/or simply so entirely naysay worthy?
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 22, 11:38 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> You are funny. You rant and froth, doing the very things you accuse others
> of doing. You are so heavily ensconced in your conspiracy theories you can
> no longer relate to the universe around you.
>
> I am surprised you can feed yourself.

In other words, you and others of your kind still can't deliver.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 22, 12:21 pm, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177269003.625009.282650@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 22, 11:38 am, "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> >> You are funny. You rant and froth, doing the very things you accuse
> >> others
> >> of doing. You are so heavily ensconced in your conspiracy theories you
> >> can
> >> no longer relate to the universe around you.
>
> >> I am surprised you can feed yourself.
>
> > In other words, you and others of your kind still can't deliver.
>
> You see, you snip all the post you don't like and then project that sort of
> behaviour upon others. The irony is brilliant.
>
> Seriously though, do you have home help?

You see, still no Mars salt.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 22, 5:38 pm, "John \"C\"" <honestj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> "Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
>
> news:220420071413167250%erfc@caballista.org...> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >What would actually happen to you or others of your kind, if you folks
> > >actually shared an honest thought that was 100% on topic and otherwise
> > >honestly constructive? (death by MIB?)
>
> > You do know that the "Men in Black" movies were fiction, don't you Brad?
>
> However, Colorado Carl (Art Deco) did star in a porno movie called "Men In
> Pink", where the Pinkies apprehend and alien Gay Duck and probe its anus.
>
> HJ

It actually gets more between their lips, and I also think it's mostly
a Jewish thing between the private parts of these two pagan fools.
-
Brad Guth

<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177339115.321756.177460@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 22, 5:38 pm, "John \"C\"" <honestj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> > "Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
> >
> > news:220420071413167250%erfc@caballista.org...> <bradg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > >What would actually happen to you or others of your kind, if you
folks
> > > >actually shared an honest thought that was 100% on topic and
otherwise
> > > >honestly constructive? (death by MIB?)
> >
> > > You do know that the "Men in Black" movies were fiction, don't you
Brad?
> >
> > However, Colorado Carl (Art Deco) did star in a porno movie called "Men
In
> > Pink", where the Pinkies apprehend and alien Gay Duck and probe its
anus.
> >
> > HJ
>
> It actually gets more between their lips, and I also think it's mostly
> a Jewish thing between the private parts of these two pagan fools.
> -
> Brad Guth
>
It's Masonic.

Gay stuff from Albert Pike (famous cannibal from the past).

HJ

On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>Of course the rovers have barely scratched the surface here. :-)

Scratched the surface, my ass.

We've spent more than a combined hundred plus billion, and still
there's not enough common or even weird salt on Mars to behold.  How
many extra billions is Mars worth, or should we say an extra trillion
hard earned dollars/euros worth if we're actually thinking about
walking on that little sucker?

So, either Mars existed within and/or arrived from a mostly freshwater
solar system, or that we and/or that of our highly unusual moon came
in from a salty one.  It's one or the other, not both or much less all
of the above.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics, bradguth@gmail.com
<bradguth@gmail.com>
 wrote
on 24 Apr 2007 12:38:35 -0700
<1177443515.293965.88170@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
> On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>Of course the rovers have barely scratched the surface here. :-)
>
> Scratched the surface, my ass.
>
> We've spent more than a combined hundred plus billion, and still
> there's not enough common or even weird salt on Mars to behold.  How
> many extra billions is Mars worth, or should we say an extra trillion
> hard earned dollars/euros worth if we're actually thinking about
> walking on that little sucker?
>
> So, either Mars existed within and/or arrived from a mostly freshwater
> solar system, or that we and/or that of our highly unusual moon came
> in from a salty one.  It's one or the other, not both or much less all
> of the above.
> -
> Brad Guth
>

And an Easter Bunny is proven to be solid chocolate because
one can scrape off a shaving from the side of his ear.

You'll have to do better than that.

Ideally we'd set up some sort of drilling rigs at some point, and
bore holes at various points in the Martian or Venusian surface.  The
core samples would then be sent back to Earth for analysis, or perhaps
analyzed right there if there's sufficient equipment.  We might even
find some ice down there.

One can also envision seismographic monitoring (there's already stuff
looking for moonquakes, courtesy of the non-existent moon missions).

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, bradg...@gmail.com
> <bradg...@gmail.com>
>  wrote
> on 24 Apr 2007 12:38:35 -0700
> <1177443515.293965.88...@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> > <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> >>Of course the rovers have barely scratched the surface here. :-)
>
> > Scratched the surface, my ass.
>
> > We've spent more than a combined hundred plus billion, and still
> > there's not enough common or even weird salt on Mars to behold.  How
> > many extra billions is Mars worth, or should we say an extra trillion
> > hard earned dollars/euros worth if we're actually thinking about
> > walking on that little sucker?
>
> > So, either Mars existed within and/or arrived from a mostly freshwater
> > solar system, or that we and/or that of our highly unusual moon came
> > in from a salty one.  It's one or the other, not both or much less all
> > of the above.
> > -
> >BradGuth
>
> And an Easter Bunny is proven to be solid chocolate because
> one can scrape off a shaving from the side of his ear.
>
> You'll have to do better than that.

NO, as actually it's you silly folks that'll have to do better, a
whole lot better, especially since thus far your Mars has hardly its
fair share of salt (perhaps as little as 1% of whatever it should
have).

Why is salt limited as to Earth and that of our unusually massive,
nearby and sodium spewing moon?

>
> Ideally we'd set up some sort of drilling rigs at some point, and
> bore holes at various points in the Martian or Venusian surface.  The
> core samples would then be sent back to Earth for analysis, or perhaps
> analyzed right there if there's sufficient equipment.  We might even
> find some ice down there.

I agree, and for how many hundreds of billions and perhaps yet another
iffy decade is that worth, finding underground water-ice or perhaps
simply pockets of dry-ice or that of some weird gas, as though the
likes of Mars and that of our icy proto-moon came in from the cold of
an interstellar trek, or is it that perhaps we'd arrived from a very
wet and salty place, yet unknown.

>
> One can also envision seismographic monitoring (there's already stuff
> looking for moonquakes, courtesy of the non-existent moon missions).

On behalf of robotics hard-landing or that of impact deployed
technology has been doable, as is still the only viable option at our
disposal.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, bradg...@gmail.com
> <bradg...@gmail.com>
>  wrote
> on 24 Apr 2007 12:38:35 -0700
> <1177443515.293965.88...@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> > <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> >>Of course the rovers have barely scratched the surface here. :-)
>
> > Scratched the surface, my ass.
>
> > We've spent more than a combined hundred plus billion, and still
> > there's not enough common or even weird salt on Mars to behold.  How
> > many extra billions is Mars worth, or should we say an extra trillion
> > hard earned dollars/euros worth if we're actually thinking about
> > walking on that little sucker?
>
> > So, either Mars existed within and/or arrived from a mostly freshwater
> > solar system, or that we and/or that of our highly unusual moon came
> > in from a salty one.  It's one or the other, not both or much less all
> > of the above.
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
> And an Easter Bunny is proven to be solid chocolate because
> one can scrape off a shaving from the side of his ear.
>
> You'll have to do better than that.
>
> Ideally we'd set up some sort of drilling rigs at some point, and
> bore holes at various points in the Martian or Venusian surface.  The
> core samples would then be sent back to Earth for analysis, or perhaps
> analyzed right there if there's sufficient equipment.  We might even
> find some ice down there.
>
> One can also envision seismographic monitoring (there's already stuff
> looking for moonquakes, courtesy of the non-existent moon missions).
>
> --
> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
> Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of at least two previous postings as being missing in action, I see
that your GOOGLE/Usenet has been into stealth moderating/excluding of
my stuff again.  Why is that?

Why are the mostly Jewish folks of this infomercial spewing Usenet so
afraid of their own shadows?

Why are the faith-based of such little faith, especially of your born-
again LLPOF species?

Why haven't you folks constructively contributed as to the topic at
hand, such as with those hard scientific numbers?

Where's all of your all-knowing science and physics that fits into
this mold of Mars w/o salt, and of Earth with way more than its fair
share of salt (including that of our salty moon)?

You're all dancing around in the nude, arnt you.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics, BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com>
 wrote
on 26 Apr 2007 09:57:18 -0700
<1177606638.042568.60010@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In sci.physics, bradg...@gmail.com
>> <bradg...@gmail.com>
>>  wrote
>> on 24 Apr 2007 12:38:35 -0700
>> <1177443515.293965.88...@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
>> > <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> >>Of course the rovers have barely scratched the surface here. :-)
>>
>> > Scratched the surface, my ass.
>>
>> > We've spent more than a combined hundred plus billion, and still
>> > there's not enough common or even weird salt on Mars to behold.  How
>> > many extra billions is Mars worth, or should we say an extra trillion
>> > hard earned dollars/euros worth if we're actually thinking about
>> > walking on that little sucker?
>>
>> > So, either Mars existed within and/or arrived from a mostly freshwater
>> > solar system, or that we and/or that of our highly unusual moon came
>> > in from a salty one.  It's one or the other, not both or much less all
>> > of the above.
>> > -
>> > Brad Guth
>>
>> And an Easter Bunny is proven to be solid chocolate because
>> one can scrape off a shaving from the side of his ear.
>>
>> You'll have to do better than that.
>>
>> Ideally we'd set up some sort of drilling rigs at some point, and
>> bore holes at various points in the Martian or Venusian surface.  The
>> core samples would then be sent back to Earth for analysis, or perhaps
>> analyzed right there if there's sufficient equipment.  We might even
>> find some ice down there.
>>
>> One can also envision seismographic monitoring (there's already stuff
>> looking for moonquakes, courtesy of the non-existent moon missions).
>>
>> --
>> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>> Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Of at least two previous postings as being missing in action, I see
> that your GOOGLE/Usenet has been into stealth moderating/excluding of
> my stuff again.  Why is that?

Say what?

I respond when I choose to respond.  You use Google; I use TeraNews.
Obviously you've not yet mastered the intricacies of the
store/forward/publish/subscribe system that is UseNet.

>
> Why are the mostly Jewish folks of this infomercial spewing Usenet so
> afraid of their own shadows?

Why are you so afraid of those who profess the Jewish faith?
Are they that dangerous with their yarmulkes and three-piece suits?

(Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.)

>
> Why are the faith-based of such little faith, especially of your born-
> again LLPOF species?

An intelligent question!

>
> Why haven't you folks constructively contributed as to the topic at
> hand, such as with those hard scientific numbers?

More like napkin calculation parameters in my case.  I suppose I could
look up the Russian missions and calculate a more precise value for the
amount of propellant/energy required.  I'm not sure there's much point.

>
> Where's all of your all-knowing science and physics that fits into
> this mold of Mars w/o salt, and of Earth with way more than its fair
> share of salt (including that of our salty moon)?
>
> You're all dancing around in the nude, arnt you.

I'd like to know where you get the notion that:

[a] the Moon is salty, and
[b] Mars is not.

Especially since there are so many forms of salts, especially if one
goes into the organic realm.  One salt, for instance, is baking soda;
it's a combination of sodium and the acid/ketone (HO)2C=O, which is
close to formic acid (HCOOH) and oxalic acid (COOH)2, but isn't
either one.

> -
> Brad Guth
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
    if(*i == thing) {...}

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

>In sci.physics, BradGuth
><bradguth@gmail.com>
> wrote
>on 26 Apr 2007 09:57:18 -0700
><1177606638.042568.60010@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Apr 24, 9:50 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>> In sci.physics, bradg...@gmail.com
>>> <bradg...@gmail.com>
>>>  wrote
>>> on 24 Apr 2007 12:38:35 -0700
>>> <1177443515.293965.88...@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
>>> > <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>> >>Of course the rovers have barely scratched the surface here. :-)
>>>
>>> > Scratched the surface, my ass.
>>>
>>> > We've spent more than a combined hundred plus billion, and still
>>> > there's not enough common or even weird salt on Mars to behold.  How
>>> > many extra billions is Mars worth, or should we say an extra trillion
>>> > hard earned dollars/euros worth if we're actually thinking about
>>> > walking on that little sucker?
>>>
>>> > So, either Mars existed within and/or arrived from a mostly freshwater
>>> > solar system, or that we and/or that of our highly unusual moon came
>>> > in from a salty one.  It's one or the other, not both or much less all
>>> > of the above.
>>> > -
>>> > Brad Guth
>>>
>>> And an Easter Bunny is proven to be solid chocolate because
>>> one can scrape off a shaving from the side of his ear.
>>>
>>> You'll have to do better than that.
>>>
>>> Ideally we'd set up some sort of drilling rigs at some point, and
>>> bore holes at various points in the Martian or Venusian surface.  The
>>> core samples would then be sent back to Earth for analysis, or perhaps
>>> analyzed right there if there's sufficient equipment.  We might even
>>> find some ice down there.
>>>
>>> One can also envision seismographic monitoring (there's already stuff
>>> looking for moonquakes, courtesy of the non-existent moon missions).
>>>
>>> --
>>> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>>> Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted
>>> text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Of at least two previous postings as being missing in action, I see
>> that your GOOGLE/Usenet has been into stealth moderating/excluding of
>> my stuff again.  Why is that?
>
>Say what?
>
>I respond when I choose to respond.  You use Google; I use TeraNews.
>Obviously you've not yet mastered the intricacies of the
>store/forward/publish/subscribe system that is UseNet.

Google Groups has been pretty unreliable the past few days.  Because he
thinks usenet is the same as Google Groups (don't bother trying to
dissuade him of this notion), he translates this into a conspiracy to
silence his vital information about the Moon, Mars, Venus, and salt by
inserting various forms of virii into his poor little PC (aka
"malware/spermware/fuckware in Guth-speak).
>
>>
>> Why are the mostly Jewish folks of this infomercial spewing Usenet so
>> afraid of their own shadows?
>
>Why are you so afraid of those who profess the Jewish faith?
>Are they that dangerous with their yarmulkes and three-piece suits?
>
>(Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.)

Anyone who responds, or fails to respond, to Brad's posts is
automatically "Jewish".

-- 
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:ol28g4-kao.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In sci.physics, BradGuth
> <bradguth@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 26 Apr 2007 09:57:18 -0700
>> Why are the mostly Jewish folks of this infomercial spewing Usenet so
>> afraid of their own shadows?
>
> Why are you so afraid of those who profess the Jewish faith?
> Are they that dangerous with their yarmulkes and three-piece suits?
>
> (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.)

Brad Guth is a certified net kook and is apparantly antisemitic as well.

Jeff
-- 
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
     little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
     safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) 

In sci.physics, Jeff Findley
<jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:22:55 -0400
<8c6d1$4631f92f$927a2cda$6863@FUSE.NET>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:ol28g4-kao.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In sci.physics, BradGuth
>> <bradguth@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> on 26 Apr 2007 09:57:18 -0700
>>> Why are the mostly Jewish folks of this infomercial spewing Usenet so
>>> afraid of their own shadows?
>>
>> Why are you so afraid of those who profess the Jewish faith?
>> Are they that dangerous with their yarmulkes and three-piece suits?
>>
>> (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.)
>
> Brad Guth is a certified net kook and is apparantly antisemitic as well.

Yeah, but his Venus Lagrange 2 point idea isn't too bad as an idea.
Not that I see much practicality, admittedly, but then there wasn't
all that much practicality in going to the moon in the 60's, either;
it was scientific research and the notion to boldly go where no man
had gone before.

And we did.  (Cost 1/4 of our GDP back then, too.)

However, absent some major technological boost to our rocket exhaust
velocity (chemical rockets have poor performance but lots of thrust),
it's going to be expensive to get into space no matter what we do.

>
> Jeff


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false;  return h;}

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
news:s1i9g4-1f8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> However, absent some major technological boost to our rocket exhaust
> velocity (chemical rockets have poor performance but lots of thrust),
> it's going to be expensive to get into space no matter what we do.

I believe this is a flawed assertion.  The hard limit on launch costs is the 
cost of fuel and oxidizer since that would be your only reoccurring cost for 
a reusable launch vehicle.  And if you do the math, the cost of fuel and 
oxidizer for a LOX/kerosene launch vehicle isn't bad at all.

Jeff
-- 
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
     little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
     safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) 

In sci.physics, Jeff Findley
<jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:26:32 -0400
<e56d3$46323246$927a2cda$25726@FUSE.NET>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message 
> news:s1i9g4-1f8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> However, absent some major technological boost to our rocket exhaust
>> velocity (chemical rockets have poor performance but lots of thrust),
>> it's going to be expensive to get into space no matter what we do.
>
> I believe this is a flawed assertion.  The hard limit on launch costs is the 
> cost of fuel and oxidizer since that would be your only reoccurring cost for 
> a reusable launch vehicle.  And if you do the math, the cost of fuel and 
> oxidizer for a LOX/kerosene launch vehicle isn't bad at all.
>
> Jeff

It depends on the rocket performance -- v_e in Tsiolkovski's Rocket
Equation:

v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)

Unfortunately, because Earth drags us all down, chemical rockets are
about the only things that have enough thrust to overcome their own
weight for sufficiently long to get into low Earth orbit and beyond.

Ion drives have nice high v_e but very low thrust, for example.

The best I can do is boil water a la Asimov using a nuclear
pile, and such rockets would have to be huge and very
high pressure.  You probably remember the Cassini mission
(which is now happily orbiting Saturn; AFAIK there's no
aliens out there complaining about the plutonium canisters
whose radioactive decay is used as a power source :-) ).
A nuclear reactor would generate even more heat -- and
not for the purpose of producing lifting thrust.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
"Woman?  What woman?"

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com