Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs

From: Brad Guth (ieisbradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/21/05 

Date: 21 Mar 2005 10:05:11 -0800

It seems that all that's being suggested about our lunar surface neatly
fits into the classical yet entirely conditional laws of physics, all
the way from Kodak film that's not only thermally and hard-X-ray
insensitive but entirely insensitive as to recording the unfiltered
near-UV and UV/a energy that's a good 256 fold greater than existing
here upon Earth, to whatever it takes in order to sustain their
perpetrated cold-war ruse/sting of the century. Thus whatever
'knowledge in = conditional law of physics out' remains as exactly as
it's supposed to be, even though there's not an actual stitch worth of
hard-science backing that up.

"bz; The rock is ALWAYS radiating photons. The amount depends on its
temperature. After sunrise, as the rock reaches equilibrium under the
new conditions, it will be radiating 1.4 kw/m2 into space and absorbing
1.4 kw/m2 from the sun.

In other words that my three remaining dyslexic brain cells can
understand, said solar heated rock is semi-exposed above the meters
deep clumping-moon-dirt, that which in of itself is highly insulative.
Nearby a considerable surround of other semi-exposed dark basalt rocks,
and the surrounding soil itself being mostly that of strewn basalt
shards from countless meteorite impacts and from the ongoing collective
process of absolutely anything and everything that comes along, that
plus whatever the gravity assist of 1.623 m/s/s can attract since
there's supposedly hardly any atmosphere that might otherwise have
diverted and/or partially dissolved whatever stuff upon reentry. Thus
for supposedly 3.5+ billions of years this moon of ours has been in
100% accumulation mode (minus a few megatonnes worth of displaced moon
rock which landed mostly upon Earth), plus whatever volcanic deposits
and, since this is an absolute cosmic morgue where absolutely none of
that volcanic substance nor anything other has ever eroded and/or
compacted due to the rather obvious lack of moisture, as well as hardly
due to having such a slight factor of gravity.

Here's my second hot-rock lose cannon shot in the dark;
If that partially exposed rock that's offering a good average square
meter that's continuously receiving said solar influx of 1.4 kw per
each and every second, and is associated with a mass of 7.87 tonnes of
total rock (say a little more than 2.5 m3 of mostly basalt) that this
rock that is roughly equal to a m3 worth of iron is supposedly going to
eventually become toasted to not more than 123°C throughout, and
partially because of that 2.5 m3 rock being so nicely insulated by the
near vacuum and by all of the magic clumping-moon-dirt, that in order
to increase that item by 100°C it's going to take:

.45 * 7.87e6 * 1e2 = 3.5415e8 joules

3.5415e8 / 1.4e3 = 2.53e5 seconds = 70.267 hrs or roughly 2.928 days.

Thus obviously there's sufficient hours within a given moon-day to
fully heat the entire body of that partially exposed rock by an
differential amount of 100°C, and then some. Therefore, if there were
but a 300°C differential from night to day we're into roughly 8.8
Earth days worth of solar influx as to creating that 300°C amount of
differential thermal shift. However, since most of said rock is nicely
burried deep into that vacuum cash of magic clumping-moon-dirt and thus
extremely well insulated, as such perhaps not all of the solar influx
is lost by night. Of course, since there's never been an interactive
instrument telling us squat worth of hard-science about the lunar
surface (much less of what the core of any rock is like), and so much
less of the sub-surface, chances are that the variables involved are
going to be somewhat complex and thus extremely difficult as to
continually speculate as based solely upon whatever highly conditional
laws of physics are suggesting is the case.

Supposedly 'energy in = energy out' is what I believe is the case.
However, that equation as being applied to the physical and atmospheric
lunar environment is clearly somewhere outside the known box.

Of how much actual hard-science of stellar influx or even earthshine
influx contributes is unknown.

Of how much of the residual influx of heated rock remains prior to
sunrise remains unknown.

Of exactly how much of the lunar core heat has contributed is still
another unknown.

Of how much other heat as contributed from other nearby surface-exposed
rocks is unknown.

Of how much solar IR is reflected off the surface and other rocks on
behalf of heating said rock in question is at least somewhat unknown
but otherwise entirly unknown as to specific hard-science.

Of how much of the solar influx is converted into secondary/recoil
photons of IR is unknown.

Even so much as for how long an exposed liter of water would have
lasted if set upon said rock is unknown.

In fact, the hard-science of any volume of ice or water surviving upon
the moon or even in space is still entirely unknown.

In fact, the secondary-recoil dosage of hard-X-rays/m2 remains as
entirely unknown.

In fact, the near surface atmosphere of heavy atmospheric atoms remains
as unknown.

Since the best reported optical resolution of our moon is suggested as
80+ meter/pixel, and even SMART-1 at best 30 meters/pixel means there's
really not a good method of independently telling much of anything
about the surface environment of the moon.

Obviously data from orbiting missions has been better off than from
terrestrial sources. Still the best resolution images from orbit being
those of the Apollo missions, of which there's no question as to those
being the real thing. However, it does little good having only what's
filtered and thus moderated to death by whatever suits the NASA/Apollo
mainstream status quo. Thus whatever hard-science as to the surface
environment that we do have either cold-war sucks as dog-wagging
perpetrations or, it's simply inadequate and/or entirely bogus from the
very get-go, based almost entirely upon the best possible speculations
from conditional laws of physics that suck wherever it's necessary in
order to conform to the status quo.

Subjective postulations and whatever conjectures as based upon the
known laws of physics and of the computer models as based upon remote
readings is all that what we have of our moon. Thereby so darn little
is actually known from hard-science about our own moon that other moons
like those of Saturn are entirely outside the box of everything that's
known about moons. Missions such as the more than decade postponed
LUNAR-A have only added further evidence exclusions to deal with. Thus
knowing what damn little we do of our own moon is more than reason
enough to achieve a well documented AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander as
safely deploying instruments perhaps for the very first and only time
upon our moon, with all of the essential instruments and even an energy
efficient laser transponder as beacon and atmospheric spectrum tool is
what's needed, along with my phonon detector and a dozen other
invaluable instruments that'll share the hard-science truth about our
moon. Of course that should have transpired decades ago, and guess
what, it's still not happening and there's no honest plans of ever
allowing such to happen.

For the ongoing benefit of others, and not that it matters to those
without a stitch of remorse outside of whatever appeases their
NASA/Apollo cold-war or bust God, within my spare dyslexic time I've
slightly polished on my external 'gv-topics' page, and I'm working on
other pages as soon to be improved. As I learn more that can be
independently supported by sufficient hard-science, I'll share that
knowledge, which will likely include revisions and retractions of what
I've offered thus far. Unfortunately, since I'm unfunded and on the
usual 'need-to-know' bases with regard to anything that might rock a
mainstream boat, this process is going to take many thousands of my
lose cannon shots before the truth and nothing but the truth is going
be told. And I bet you thought big and fully loaded aircraft smashing
into fully occupied tall buildings was as bad as it gets; think again.

Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... as the rock reaches equilibrium under the ... it radiates more and more heat. ... > influx contributes is unknown. ... On the moon, water, even at -233 degC would first freeze and then ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Great new cooking site!!!
    ... specifically for foodies to share video recipes and tips....very cool! ... Thank you for sharing! ... One gmail poster promoting another. ... Riiiiiight! ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: Difference between compresson and volume maximizer?
    ... See my Peak Slammer review for an explanation of how these devices work: ... But over-compression reduces the dynamic range to zero and adds ... If you were producing final ... possible, negating the usual benefit of 24bit recording, that being the ability ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Can Tabbouleh be frozen??
    ... I wouldn't try to eat it as salad when thawed, but you could maybe use it ... inna soup or a curry or something. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: Extreme(?) crosscut dadoes
    ... sides of a corner cabinet. ... Would a handheld router with an clamp-on guide make you feel more ... and a clamp guide something like this: http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page=16448 ...
    (rec.woodworking)