Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus

From: Brad Guth (bradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/22/05 

Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:45:26 +0000 (UTC)

"No one knows for sure since accurate earth temps are a little over 100
years and our study of the sun even less."

"What evidence to do have of a 105,000 year cycle? I read that the last
ice
age was a mere 10,000 years ago."

Not so fast, as we now have multiple deep core samples that go way back
750,000 years, sharing all sorts of viable data that's essentially
unaffected by humanity. It's only the last couple of thousand years that
humanity has been a sufficient influence to being noticed as 'global
warming' due mostly to the -5% albedo shift we've imposed upon the
environment of Earth.

I've reviewed several core sample charts that clearly establish the
levels of atmospheric CO2 and several other gas/vapor elements
throughout time, of which the consensus remains fairly well established
as to how our long-term environment changed so that those readings came
about, and of such long-term shifts in the environment certainly wasn't
achieved by way of anything that our sun introduced, or that other
planetary/geological considerations permitted, at least not time after
time.

You do realize how much of an accelerated growth process it requires for
an accumulation of diatoms to build one cm?

To offer some further perspective as to how much diatom deposits
amounted to from just our last cycle go-around, the White Cliffs of
Dover are primarily of diatomaceous earth, those cliffs represent many
layers upon layers of diatom deposits which are essentially the skeleton
remains of diatoms, whereas the timeline of all known humanity (say
50,000 years) is perhaps responsible for not more than 0.1% of that
level of contribution. Thus clearly a temporary influx of illumination
or geological transition simply isn't going to cut it. Diatoms need
additional warmth and mostly additional near-UV and UV/a spectrums of
energy for thousands of years at a time.

http://www.cycle-n-sleep.co.uk/rinfo/related/garden/dovercliffs.htm
"White Cliffs of Dover The White Cliffs, up to 300 feet high, are made
up of millions of small sea creatures ..."

That's roughly 90 meters worth of mostly diatom contributions, and how
persay does your conditional laws of physics and of your ozone layer
depletion theory deal with that?

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rhmiller/depositionfeatures1/DepositionalFeatures1.htm
SEDIMENTARY FORENSICS: DECIPHERING THE STRATIGRAPHIC RECORD

Your "if we are really part of a binary" is being somewhat of a broad
analogy. Although, it seems that the 225 million year cycle of the Milky
Way galaxy is suggesting upon another perfectly good number of
alternatives that don't quite fit your golden book of astrophysics
rules. Your "other than Pluto's orbit and inclination" excludes the
Kuiper and oort zone debris, of which Sirius should afford something
similar, though much greater.

What other star could possibly yield that sort of illumination upon
Earth, especially of one that's anywhere within our neighborhood?

Is there another fast-tracking mega A1+ class star that's worthy of our
consideration besides Sirius?

Certainly there are bigger and even more intense illuminating stars than
Sirius. However those suckers are nowhere within reach of our solar
system, at least not upon any 105,000 year cycle. Whereas reported by
the ESA/Hipparcos stellar motions team, it seems even more likely that
our travels, including those of the Sirius star system, have been
somewhat different than the bulk of the vast Milky Way, which should
only add further weight to my argument.

"All you had to say was that the sun is a G2 star and Sirius is an A1,
Geez! Also its proper motion is not that great suggesting little chance
of actually being in orbit with us. In short, it, like other stars is
the solar neighborhood, is acting exactly like a typical star."

and "If we are part of a sun/Sirius system, then what is the orbital
period?"

Actually I've stipulated that Sirius isn't orbiting us (much like our
sun doesn't orbit Earth), as much as I meant that it's our somewhat
minor solar system as being dragged summarily along and thereby in orbit
and/or close fly-by association with the massive Sirius star system. Of
course there's other nearby gravity influences, and no doubt you've
already figured all of that one out because you're so darn smart, and
I'm not.

By best guess/estimate is a relationship of roughly 105,000 years, give
or take a few thousand since there's other stars to consider than just
the influence of the Siruius star system, possibly even a few small
blackholes out there to boot.

Obviously you haven't considered a recorded timeline of various gas
elements as clearly recorded from within the past 750,000 years as
worthy science, nor proper stellar motions being worth squat, thus
there's no point in even mentioning the relative speed or direction of
our solar system with respect to absolutely anything, as apparently our
solar system remains isolated upon some individual frame of existence,
somewhat of an island that has absolutely no associations with anything
that's within your conditional book of astrophysics. Apparently you
consider the likes of the ESA/Hipparcos mission as every bit as much of
a ruse as I perceive those Russian lunar landers and that of our
NASA/Apollo cold-war ruse of the century. In other words, of whatever
doesn't apply to your standards is either a joke or a lie, preferably
both, yet you'll probably insist there are WMD.

"The theory is that the ozone layer is diminishing. And it has nothing
to do with Sirius! Sirius' association with fire is seasonal at best."

I like your back-door and save-thy-*** theory which managed to leave
out the far greater importance and subsequence influence of a
drastically falling magnetosphere as the prime influence upon our ozone
layer as well as the Van Allen zone of death that's been falling off
like a rock, which by the way is not suggesting any sufficient
re-cycling event that matches up with those recorded ice-age cycles, of
which humanity is at best only an extremely small part of that equation,
and much like what transpired on behalf of the Mars magnetosphere
whereas it didn't manage to re-cycle on behalf of salvaging whatever
life on Mars, so why would and/or could our magnetosphere do better. Why
are you digging throughout the intellectual mainstream cesspool for more
of your usual dog-wagging spin and damage-control hype, especially when
you could be working outside and upwind of the stinking box, on behalf
of humanity?

Being that we have our sun as a calibration marker-post, is there any
chance your superior talents and resources can divulge some specific
illumination numbers on behalf of exactly what the likes of Sirius would
deliver into the surface environment of Earth from the distance of 0.086
light year (100 times closer)?

I can tell by your warm and fuzzy all-knowing expertise, which by the
way so far hasn't offered squat on behalf sharing any specific numbers
or whatever else on behalf of this topic, that you're only here to stalk
and topic/author bash your way along. However, perhaps since you seem to
know all there is to know, you should inform our pagan warlord where
some of those WMD are stashed, that way our resident commander and chief
village idiot moron will not have to even consider any aspects of
remorse in his war-crimes trial, or is that one going a little to far
outside the mainstream, by asking too much?

BTW; what's science fiction about a little or a lot of perfectly natural
terraforming going on, or don't you belive in panspermia?

Isn't that exactly what Dr. Zubrin and thousands of others have been
insisting, that we should be artificially doing with regard to Mars?

I don't suppose that you're another one of those Titan or bust sorts, of
becoming another must do or die trying to get humanity onto Titan?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG