BradGuth

Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
for?

Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
cycle too little?

Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
CMs that's insurmountable?

What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

My silly goodness, our physically dark and somewhat salty moon is
still taboo/nondisclosure rated.

Even our NASA public simulator excludes our moon from ever seeing the
likes of big old and nearby Venus at the same time as our hocus-pocus
Apollo missions. How absolutely pathetic and/or hocus-pocus can we
possibly get?

Earth is 98.5% fluid, and it has that extremely nearby 7.35e22 kg
worth of a salty and totally anticathode moon that's causing most of
our global warming and otherwise sharing its Gamma and hard-Xrays.
Our moon needs to be situated at Earth's L1, along with a few of my
interactive tether CMs doing their thing.

Where's the physics or best available science telling us otherwise?
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

My silly goodness, our physically dark and somewhat salty moon is
still taboo/nondisclosure rated.

Even our NASA public simulator excludes our moon from ever seeing the
likes of big old and nearby Venus at the same time as our hocus-pocus
Apollo missions. How absolutely pathetic and/or hocus-pocus can we
possibly get?

Earth is 98.5% fluid, and it has that extremely nearby 7.35e22 kg
worth of a salty and totally anticathode moon that's causing most of
our global warming and otherwise sharing its Gamma and hard-Xrays.
Our moon needs to be situated at Earth's L1, along with a few of my
interactive tether CMs doing their thing.

Where's the physics or best available science telling us otherwise?
-
Brad Guth

Igor

To which L1 are you referring?

Igor

To which L1 are you referring?

robert casey

There would be an adverse impact on werewolves....

robert casey

There would be an adverse impact on werewolves....

BradGuth

On Jun 20, 9:18 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> To which L1 are you referring?

Good grief; Earth's L1 (as looking directly at the sun). I believe
the likes of ACE and a few other satellites are currently plarked out
there.

What other L1 (that's between us and our sun) does Earth have?

The moon's L1 is always between the moon and Earth, and would still be
between itself and Earth even long after having relocated our moon out
to Earth's L1, although there would become an interesting Earth+moon
L1 that's much further out, as always between the moon and our sun.

I know, it's complicated. That's why we'll need one of those nifty 3D
interactive orbital simulators, in order to tell us exactly what to
expect.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 20, 9:18 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> To which L1 are you referring?

Good grief; Earth's L1 (as looking directly at the sun). I believe
the likes of ACE and a few other satellites are currently plarked out
there.

What other L1 (that's between us and our sun) does Earth have?

The moon's L1 is always between the moon and Earth, and would still be
between itself and Earth even long after having relocated our moon out
to Earth's L1, although there would become an interesting Earth+moon
L1 that's much further out, as always between the moon and our sun.

I know, it's complicated. That's why we'll need one of those nifty 3D
interactive orbital simulators, in order to tell us exactly what to
expect.
-
Brad Guth

Quadibloc

BradGuth wrote:
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
..
When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
benefits are worth the effort.

Attempting to begin to do so now, however, would require a great
effort and expense. This would mean additonal energy use, doing more
bad for global warming than partially blocking the Sun with the Moon
would do good. If, through use of von Neumann machines, moving
something as heavy as the Moon were within the realm of possibility,
mining it to make a really thin aluminum foil sunshade having the same
diameter as the Moon would also be possible, and a lot easier.

I don't seriously think that reducing the intensity of the tides would
really do all that much to reduce loss of life due to earthquakes and
volcanoes. Plus, of course, it would mean we would have to be even
more scrupulous about soil erosion!

By the time we get anywhere remotely close to projects on such a
scale, though, we will have much easier ways to do things to improve
the quality of life of people on Earth. Solar power satellites, for
example, to replace fossil fuel consumption, are *trivial* compared to
your scheme. And, of course, we have an even *easier* way to achieve
the same result, known as nuclear power.

First, stop the global warming problem with nuclear power so that the
economy can work well. Then research fusion power, build solar power
satellites, colonize space, harvest the Kuiper Belt. These are simple,
conventional projects.

John Savard

Quadibloc

BradGuth wrote:
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
..
When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
benefits are worth the effort.

Attempting to begin to do so now, however, would require a great
effort and expense. This would mean additonal energy use, doing more
bad for global warming than partially blocking the Sun with the Moon
would do good. If, through use of von Neumann machines, moving
something as heavy as the Moon were within the realm of possibility,
mining it to make a really thin aluminum foil sunshade having the same
diameter as the Moon would also be possible, and a lot easier.

I don't seriously think that reducing the intensity of the tides would
really do all that much to reduce loss of life due to earthquakes and
volcanoes. Plus, of course, it would mean we would have to be even
more scrupulous about soil erosion!

By the time we get anywhere remotely close to projects on such a
scale, though, we will have much easier ways to do things to improve
the quality of life of people on Earth. Solar power satellites, for
example, to replace fossil fuel consumption, are *trivial* compared to
your scheme. And, of course, we have an even *easier* way to achieve
the same result, known as nuclear power.

First, stop the global warming problem with nuclear power so that the
economy can work well. Then research fusion power, build solar power
satellites, colonize space, harvest the Kuiper Belt. These are simple,
conventional projects.

John Savard

robert casey

>
> .
> When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
> Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
> environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
> benefits are worth the effort.
>

It'd be easier to move a few larger asteroids to pass the Earth and Moon
system to increase the radius of Earth's orbit around the Sun. You'd
want to include the Moon so it stays the same orbit around the Earth.
The same way NASA and JPL does it to get a boost with planetary space
probes.

You might be able to reuse the asteroid by stealing some orbital energy
from Venus and passing it past Earth and the Moon again a few times. Or
just crash it into Venus to get rid of it, so it doesn't come back to
Earth to cause trouble here. It's way too hot to do anything on Venus
anyway, so no big loss there.

robert casey

>
> .
> When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
> Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
> environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
> benefits are worth the effort.
>

It'd be easier to move a few larger asteroids to pass the Earth and Moon
system to increase the radius of Earth's orbit around the Sun. You'd
want to include the Moon so it stays the same orbit around the Earth.
The same way NASA and JPL does it to get a boost with planetary space
probes.

You might be able to reuse the asteroid by stealing some orbital energy
from Venus and passing it past Earth and the Moon again a few times. Or
just crash it into Venus to get rid of it, so it doesn't come back to
Earth to cause trouble here. It's way too hot to do anything on Venus
anyway, so no big loss there.

BradGuth

On Jun 21, 1:09 pm, robert casey <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > .
> > When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
> > Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
> > environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
> > benefits are worth the effort.
>
> It'd be easier to move a few larger asteroids to pass the Earth and Moon
> system to increase the radius of Earth's orbit around the Sun. You'd
> want to include the Moon so it stays the same orbit around the Earth.
> The same way NASA and JPL does it to get a boost with planetary space
> probes.
>
> You might be able to reuse the asteroid by stealing some orbital energy
> from Venus and passing it past Earth and the Moon again a few times. Or
> just crash it into Venus to get rid of it, so it doesn't come back to
> Earth to cause trouble here. It's way too hot to do anything on Venus
> anyway, so no big loss there.

You don't know what's hot is or isn't. Of course, other Zion
rusemasters of your silly kind are pretty much stuck in the very same
status quo rut of infomercial crapolla that you've created for
yourselves.

Sedna is becoming available. We should utilize Sedna for all it's red
ice is worth.

BTW, our pathetic NASA does not utilize our moon for squat. It's
still taboo/nondisclosure rated, as otherwise having been excluded
from any of their orbital simulators that simply can not share an
honest look-see at Venus from the surface of our moon, as otherwise
available from the same time of those hocus-pocus Apollo missions...
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 21, 1:09 pm, robert casey <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > .
> > When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
> > Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
> > environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
> > benefits are worth the effort.
>
> It'd be easier to move a few larger asteroids to pass the Earth and Moon
> system to increase the radius of Earth's orbit around the Sun. You'd
> want to include the Moon so it stays the same orbit around the Earth.
> The same way NASA and JPL does it to get a boost with planetary space
> probes.
>
> You might be able to reuse the asteroid by stealing some orbital energy
> from Venus and passing it past Earth and the Moon again a few times. Or
> just crash it into Venus to get rid of it, so it doesn't come back to
> Earth to cause trouble here. It's way too hot to do anything on Venus
> anyway, so no big loss there.

You don't know what's hot is or isn't. Of course, other Zion
rusemasters of your silly kind are pretty much stuck in the very same
status quo rut of infomercial crapolla that you've created for
yourselves.

Sedna is becoming available. We should utilize Sedna for all it's red
ice is worth.

BTW, our pathetic NASA does not utilize our moon for squat. It's
still taboo/nondisclosure rated, as otherwise having been excluded
from any of their orbital simulators that simply can not share an
honest look-see at Venus from the surface of our moon, as otherwise
available from the same time of those hocus-pocus Apollo missions...
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

The daunting task of relocating our moon to Earth's L1 is just the tip
of our badly melting icebergs, and otherwise providing our best
salvation from our humanly soot and toxic polluted environment that
has cultivated more dead-zone habitats for jellyfish than much of
anything else that's going for sustaining our arrogance, greed and
faith-based bigotry that's continually having wars over the global
domination of fossil and yellowcake fuels, plus otherwise sustaining
our Exxon/ENRON anti-renewable status quo.

In spite of your faith-based mindset (including Zion Atheism), it
seems that we have more tha good enough science pertaining to "locals/
ETs making Venus happen, in spite of ourselves".

There is or at least once upon a time there has been other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus, and lo and behold I've still got
those rather nifty radar obtained pictures of 36 confirming looks per
pixel, plus all the regular laws of physics and the best available
science on my side of this deductive observationology interpretation.

At least there's still no other viable explanation as to those hot
rocks looking so entirely rational, configured as though representing
a township along with its bridge, multiple reservoirs, tarmac and even
a few too many other engineered attributes like a few airships that
would make perfectly good sense.

Not that we humans along with our usual naysay mindset could ever
appreciate what to do with all of the renewable energy that's so
freaking available, the hundreds of teratonnes worth of h2o that's
contained within them acidic clouds, the advantage afforded by way of
having 90.5% gravity along with the 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, or any
of the easily extractable raw elements because of all the active
geothermal conditions of the surrounding surface that's losing roughly
256 fold greater geothermal energy than Earth (because Venus is less
old than Earth).

Just because its robust atmosphere is chuck full of S8 and CO2 plus
many other newish planetology considerations doesn't mean that a
sufficient Ovglove suit and applied technology couldn't accommodate a
few our highly bigoted souls of such profound denial. Of course,
cruising ourselves along within our composite rigid airship, along
with all of that ice cold beer and pizza isn't exactly all that
insurmountable for doing Venus in the buff (sort of speak). Even the
Venus L2(VL2) POOF City is technically doable for accommodating our
frail DNA as of more than a decade ago.

Unfortunately, the naysayers of Usenet are in such total denial that
even multiple truths confirming anything that's off-world intelligent
isn't worth squat, as they'd much rather insist that we've walked on
our moon, and otherwise insist that we can manage to survive on the
likes of Mars or that of some godforsaken other moon that'll cost us
trillions of our hard earned loot, with damn little if anything to
show for it, other than a few weird spores that could easily terminate
most all of human life and a few too many other species back here on
mother Earth that's in the process of going GW postal on us because of
our physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise absolutely
impressive mascon worth of such a nearby moon, that's unavoidably
impacting our 98.5% fluid Earth in a very GW way.

The relocation of our moon to Earth's L1 simply isn't an option that
can be ignored forever.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

The daunting task of relocating our moon to Earth's L1 is just the tip
of our badly melting icebergs, and otherwise providing our best
salvation from our humanly soot and toxic polluted environment that
has cultivated more dead-zone habitats for jellyfish than much of
anything else that's going for sustaining our arrogance, greed and
faith-based bigotry that's continually having wars over the global
domination of fossil and yellowcake fuels, plus otherwise sustaining
our Exxon/ENRON anti-renewable status quo.

In spite of your faith-based mindset (including Zion Atheism), it
seems that we have more tha good enough science pertaining to "locals/
ETs making Venus happen, in spite of ourselves".

There is or at least once upon a time there has been other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus, and lo and behold I've still got
those rather nifty radar obtained pictures of 36 confirming looks per
pixel, plus all the regular laws of physics and the best available
science on my side of this deductive observationology interpretation.

At least there's still no other viable explanation as to those hot
rocks looking so entirely rational, configured as though representing
a township along with its bridge, multiple reservoirs, tarmac and even
a few too many other engineered attributes like a few airships that
would make perfectly good sense.

Not that we humans along with our usual naysay mindset could ever
appreciate what to do with all of the renewable energy that's so
freaking available, the hundreds of teratonnes worth of h2o that's
contained within them acidic clouds, the advantage afforded by way of
having 90.5% gravity along with the 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, or any
of the easily extractable raw elements because of all the active
geothermal conditions of the surrounding surface that's losing roughly
256 fold greater geothermal energy than Earth (because Venus is less
old than Earth).

Just because its robust atmosphere is chuck full of S8 and CO2 plus
many other newish planetology considerations doesn't mean that a
sufficient Ovglove suit and applied technology couldn't accommodate a
few our highly bigoted souls of such profound denial. Of course,
cruising ourselves along within our composite rigid airship, along
with all of that ice cold beer and pizza isn't exactly all that
insurmountable for doing Venus in the buff (sort of speak). Even the
Venus L2(VL2) POOF City is technically doable for accommodating our
frail DNA as of more than a decade ago.

Unfortunately, the naysayers of Usenet are in such total denial that
even multiple truths confirming anything that's off-world intelligent
isn't worth squat, as they'd much rather insist that we've walked on
our moon, and otherwise insist that we can manage to survive on the
likes of Mars or that of some godforsaken other moon that'll cost us
trillions of our hard earned loot, with damn little if anything to
show for it, other than a few weird spores that could easily terminate
most all of human life and a few too many other species back here on
mother Earth that's in the process of going GW postal on us because of
our physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise absolutely
impressive mascon worth of such a nearby moon, that's unavoidably
impacting our 98.5% fluid Earth in a very GW way.

The relocation of our moon to Earth's L1 simply isn't an option that
can be ignored forever.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

How much is the very salvation of Earth worth these global warming
days?
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

How much is the very salvation of Earth worth these global warming
days?
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guthless overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guthless overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 24, 11:47 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
> we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
> renewable energy via a few powersats.
>
> A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
> rather nice.
>
> An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
> to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
> -
> Brad Guthless overall environmental heating via mascon induced
>
>
>
> > friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> > slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> > radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> > -
> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Take notice; this is what I'd posted, and mot the Zion modified
version that you see above.

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

On Jun 24, 11:47 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
> we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
> renewable energy via a few powersats.
>
> A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
> rather nice.
>
> An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
> to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
> -
> Brad Guthless overall environmental heating via mascon induced
>
>
>
> > friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> > slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> > radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> > -
> > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> > -
> > Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Take notice; this is what I'd posted, and mot the Zion modified
version that you see above.

In the mean time of our not relocating our moon to Earth's L1, as such
we could do nothing or, we could import a great deal of clean and 100%
renewable energy via a few powersats.

A tethered powrsat array as deployed away from our moon's L1 would be
rather nice.

An array of 12 each 100 gigaWatt IR laser cannons would be very nice
to have as dipole tethered to within 2r of mother Earth.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth

Where's all the "right stuff" when we need it the most in order to
save Earth from ourselves?

Relocating our moon to Earth's L1 is not as hard as you'd think, and
there's all sorts of secondary benefits from having done so.

In fact, there's nothing negative to consider, and thank God we've got
a little time before it's too late, although the longer we wait the
more of natures collateral damage takes place and more of our innocent
will have to die (including many species other than us humans may fail
to adapt).
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

Where's all the "right stuff" when we need it the most in order to
save Earth from ourselves?

Relocating our moon to Earth's L1 is not as hard as you'd think, and
there's all sorts of secondary benefits from having done so.

In fact, there's nothing negative to consider, and thank God we've got
a little time before it's too late, although the longer we wait the
more of natures collateral damage takes place and more of our innocent
will have to die (including many species other than us humans may fail
to adapt).
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

One more time for the old gipper of saving Earth in spite of
ourselves.

Where's all the "right stuff" when we need it the most, in order to
save Earth from ourselves?

Where's the collective swarm intelligence of humanity that's
apparently never going to prevail?

Relocating our extremely mascon worthy moon that's so nearby and thus
unavoidably tidal/friction influencing upon our 98.5% fluid Earth, as
for safely getting that somewhat salty orb parked and interactively
managed at Earth's L1 is going to be time consuming but otherwise not
as hard as you'd think, and there's all sorts of secondary benefits
from having done so. Utilizing those terrific moon resources of
unlimited basalt, loads of titanium and various other cosmic and solar
contributed substances (including He3), along with the local energy
and nearly ideal vacuum for processing such into quality tethers and a
few items of counter mass(CM) on behalf of what this relocation task
is going to demand, as such isn't nearly as insurmountable as others
within this anti-think-tank of such a typically naysayism swarm from
hell might suggest.

In fact, there's nothing all that negative to consider, and thank God
or at least our lucky stars that we've got a little practice time
before it's too late, although the longer we wait the more of nature's
collateral damage takes place and innocent folks will have to suffer
or die (including many species other than us humans that may simply
fail to adapt to this global warming and magnetosphere failing trend,
that which has been gradually happening ever since the lithobraking
arrival of our icy proto-moon and otherwise last ice age this planet
along with its nearby moon will ever see).

BTW, the faith-based swarm of intelligence having nearly everything at
risk are those of the Zion/Jewish mindset that requires conditional
laws of physics and otherwise their God given right to exclude or
banish evidence. Muslims or even Catholics have few if any such all-
or-nothing motives for excluding off-world interactions or potential
considerations, nor of taking up the sorts of remote PC traumatising
or otherwise having to block and/or divert my Internet/Usenet access.
Sadly, these other hocus-pocus minions of infomercial spewing spooks,
moles and rusemasters are so faith-based insecure, that as a damage-
control group they usually hide their remorseless shame, bigotry and
arrogance behind the cloak of Atheism, and then never bother to police
their own kind for other than to swarm upon a given topic or author
they collectively intend to terminate, exactly like another pissed off
hive of killer bees would instinctively do to any intruder or mere
innocent bystander.

You can often tell by the topic response or lack thereof, as to what's
going down. Perhaps Mel Gibson and even Michael Moore was right all
along, in that history and science is so badly skewed that sharing the
truth simply isn't possible without blowing another gasket or starting
yet another war.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

One more time for the old gipper of saving Earth in spite of
ourselves.

Where's all the "right stuff" when we need it the most, in order to
save Earth from ourselves?

Where's the collective swarm intelligence of humanity that's
apparently never going to prevail?

Relocating our extremely mascon worthy moon that's so nearby and thus
unavoidably tidal/friction influencing upon our 98.5% fluid Earth, as
for safely getting that somewhat salty orb parked and interactively
managed at Earth's L1 is going to be time consuming but otherwise not
as hard as you'd think, and there's all sorts of secondary benefits
from having done so. Utilizing those terrific moon resources of
unlimited basalt, loads of titanium and various other cosmic and solar
contributed substances (including He3), along with the local energy
and nearly ideal vacuum for processing such into quality tethers and a
few items of counter mass(CM) on behalf of what this relocation task
is going to demand, as such isn't nearly as insurmountable as others
within this anti-think-tank of such a typically naysayism swarm from
hell might suggest.

In fact, there's nothing all that negative to consider, and thank God
or at least our lucky stars that we've got a little practice time
before it's too late, although the longer we wait the more of nature's
collateral damage takes place and innocent folks will have to suffer
or die (including many species other than us humans that may simply
fail to adapt to this global warming and magnetosphere failing trend,
that which has been gradually happening ever since the lithobraking
arrival of our icy proto-moon and otherwise last ice age this planet
along with its nearby moon will ever see).

BTW, the faith-based swarm of intelligence having nearly everything at
risk are those of the Zion/Jewish mindset that requires conditional
laws of physics and otherwise their God given right to exclude or
banish evidence. Muslims or even Catholics have few if any such all-
or-nothing motives for excluding off-world interactions or potential
considerations, nor of taking up the sorts of remote PC traumatising
or otherwise having to block and/or divert my Internet/Usenet access.
Sadly, these other hocus-pocus minions of infomercial spewing spooks,
moles and rusemasters are so faith-based insecure, that as a damage-
control group they usually hide their remorseless shame, bigotry and
arrogance behind the cloak of Atheism, and then never bother to police
their own kind for other than to swarm upon a given topic or author
they collectively intend to terminate, exactly like another pissed off
hive of killer bees would instinctively do to any intruder or mere
innocent bystander.

You can often tell by the topic response or lack thereof, as to what's
going down. Perhaps Mel Gibson and even Michael Moore was right all
along, in that history and science is so badly skewed that sharing the
truth simply isn't possible without blowing another gasket or starting
yet another war.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

Apparently the whole truth is simply too much for our Usenet's
naysayism swarm intelligence to deal with, so much so that even
"Clarke Station" is off-limits, as is anything else utilizing our
moon's L1.

Relocating our salty old moon off to Earth's L1 is just imposing too
much of a good thing that would simply benefit other than just those
Zions in charge of our private parts.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

BradGuth

Apparently the whole truth is simply too much for our Usenet's
naysayism swarm intelligence to deal with, so much so that even
"Clarke Station" is off-limits, as is anything else utilizing our
moon's L1.

Relocating our salty old moon off to Earth's L1 is just imposing too
much of a good thing that would simply benefit other than just those
Zions in charge of our private parts.
-
Brad Guth



On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
> for?
>
> Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
> cycle too little?
>
> Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
> CMs that's insurmountable?
>
> What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
> better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
> moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
> otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
> friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
> slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
> radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth