Re: Something i just thought was odd.

From: Matthew Hagston (otts1_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 03/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:31:13 GMT

"Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109715406.235605.69810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Matthew Hagston,
> Once again, I'll agree that intelligent design is perhaps exactly
> whatever God is all about, and yes it's entirely possible that in some
> absolutely perverted and sadistic way is what that divine order of
> whatever's to happen is somehow within the great all-knowing plan of
> the survival of our species (apparently without remorse to boot).
>
> The question is; How much of other life are you willing to forfeit?
>
> The absolute lack of whatever our physics wizards seem to know about
> and/or are willing to share about photons is absolutely staggering to
> say the least. It seems as though they're so in love with one another
> thereby so into incest cloning with one another over whatever's
> Einstein and Plank, that via their own form of evolution contributed by
> way of their own supposed intelligent design, it seems they've gone
> entirely blind.
>
> My notion of utilizing visible photons was for the sake of energy
> efficiency as well as compatible throughput that covers the widest
> possible realms of known and unknown forms of life, as well as
> technology. There's nothing of RF/microwaves that comes even remotely
> close to what visible photons can achieve, as in not in range, not in
> throughput, and certainly not in being the most species-friendly and of
> the widest possible technology compatibility to boot (as in how many
> quantum tera bits per second would you like?).
>
> The notions of any floating city above mother Earth sucks really bad
> when it comes down to the buoyancy factors. Not that it's impossible,
> however the effective payloads via using H2 which is entirely safe and
> sane (especially at good altitude) is somewhat piss-poor to say the
> least, and of even counting upon a full kw/m2 of available energy
> influx somewhat sucks if that's the one and only resource, as the best
> average solar energy conversion is going to fall short of 300 watts/m2.
> Although, a double hull airship designed as to accumulate and store
> solar influx would offer as much as half of the total surface area as
> the primary collector. Doing the math should indicate where it's
> possible as to convert a sufficient amount of solar energy as to the
> task of producing sufficient volumes of H2.
>
> I'll totally agree upon the terraforming of our moon would be a very
> profitable win-win for science and humanity, especially with the export
> of He3 being the energy motherload jackpot of all times. However, the
> likes Venus simply isn't declared dead and/or inert by way of my by
> subjective observations, just as I wouldn't rule out Titan and perhaps
> not even Mars. More important than terraforming some place other,
> perhaps for practice we should accomplish Earth before it's too late,
> and thereby before we make the same old mistakes as we've made time and
> again here upon Earth.
>
> On the topic of terraforming the likes of mother Earth, and of somewhat
> stretching that argument towards accomplishing the likes of our folks
> surviving upon Venus, here's what I'd offered to others about what's
> reasonably doable.
> -
>
> Solar/sterling energy is still far in the lead of a clean future on
> behalf of humanity; too bad we didn't accomplish this one as of at
> least a century or more earlier, as there's been no new laws of physics
> and actually darn little otherwise that would have kept us away from
> easily converting solar energy, especially as of a century ago when the
> average demand per soul upon Earth wouldn't have amounted to 100 watts.
>
> Earth total surface area: 5.112e14 m2
>
> Even though the all-knowing experts will argue as to an average of
> extracting nearly 300 W/m2 is possible, if we took an absolutely most
> conservative possible notion of obtaining 200 W/m2 as based upon 24/7
> year round.
>
> Then take all of 0.1% of the Earth surface as for accommodating said
> solar/sterling energy conversions (below which humanity, crops and
> livestock could still occupy):
>
> 200 * 5.1e11 = 1020e11 or 102 terawatts that's absolutely clean and
> thereby as green and renewable as energy ever gets, from which humanity
> can accomplish whatever our dreams and souls can imagine, including the
> production of hydrogen as to operate everything other that can't have
> an electrical cord as for taking power, and there should even spare
> energy for creating the likes of He3 that'll eventually go into fusion
> reactors.
>
> 102e12/6.5e9 = 15.7e3 W/human
>
> I guess to some (especially those individuals with coal, oil and NG
> related investments) that want it all and simply always insist upon
> consuming way more than their fair share, better than 15 kw doesn't
> sound like all that much, though actually that's quite a great deal of
> energy because it's based upon the 24/7 and thereby continuous
> available energy that could have been made accessible to the whole
> population of Earth, of which even the wealthiest individual upon Earth
> isn't responsible for consuming a tenth that much while sleeping or
> while golfing and so forth, and poor folks likely wouldn't be entitled
> to 10% of even that much.
>
> Sulfides including those of S8 may seem a wee bit off topic, but hardly
> so if we're talking about the good life upon Venus.
>
> This link is simply another lose cannon shot in the dark: Study of the
> formation of benzothiadiphosphole system: a new domino reaction!
> http://www2.fci.unibo.it/~baccolin/summaryarticles.htm
>
> However, these two and of other related links
> http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf and
> http://www.firmament-chaos.com/planets_venus.html isn't exactly such a
> lose cannon shot; Whereas according to John Ackerman and as supported
> by the limited knowledge we currently have about the atmosphere of
> Venus, the contribution of sulfides is the primary element of what's
> sustaining the 92 bar pressure at the surface, whereas raw sulfur
> purged from the within Venus is primarily that of S8, ejected at
> sufficient volumes and velocity as to insure the formation and
> sustaining of layers of RHOMBIC and MONOCLINIC sulfurs capping a
> hadesphere at roughly 46 km, whereas common ice crystals by day are not
> forming until nearly 75 km (perhaps as low as 60 km by night).
>
> Obviously the Venus cloud-top thermals and pressure differentials
> available between day and night are rather considerable, thus
> appropriately those elevations above 45 km should be given a wide range
> as to shift according to the thermal and physical dynamics at hand.
>
> Team KECK and by the talents of several others have established
> multiple spectrum images of the Venus season of nighttime, including
> those which uncovered the green glowing clouds of O2 as well as those
> via IR imaging of the Venus nighttime atmospheric thermal environment
> that only substantiates such differentials are in fact considerable,
> clearly imposing the notion of ununiform hot and cold zones which
> thereby indicates that considerable convection based thermals are hard
> at work, which is actually rather essential since not only must all of
> the potential solar influx escape but since such a geologically young
> Venus has been cooling itself off insures the greater aspect of
> geothermal heat contributions are having to be extracted as well.
>
> Unlike Earth, most of the easily available energy as for Venus is
> nicely within the surrounding atmospheric ocean, whereas as based upon
> the laws of physics and kinetics is where each and every m2 of the
> surface makes our average solar extracted worth of 200 W/m2 look fairly
> pathetic as to that of what Venus is capable of offering from a
> vertical kinetic extraction that's continuously way better than 2
> MW/m2, whereas actually 20 MW/m2 is within the applied physics of
> what's obtainable by day or night.
>
> I guess that I'm the one and only village idiot fool within this known
> universe that appreciates what having such a terrific amount of energy
> and easily obtained at that matters, as it certainly must have mattered
> to any halfwit ET heathens that were out and about looking for
> somewhere to set up their mineral mining and element extraction
> processing operations. Of course, since this is all reinforced along by
> the image interpretations from my subjective though honest
> observationology of what's situated upon Venus, of what's clearly not
> so natural and that which I've been contributing upon for the past five
> years and counting, perhaps you folks that are continually complaining
> about absolutely everything that I've had to offer should not even
> bother wiping your butts since you're so super-glued to those spendy
> cold-war and disinformation-R-us space-toilets.
>
> It seems that we're too preoccupied with our ongoing geological
> pillaging for profit and the systematic polluting of mother Earth (at
> least that's how the upper most 0.1% of humanity has it arranged), and
> thereby far too ENRON and GW Bush greedy and arrogant as to even
> realize what we've been knowingly passing up right here at home, much
> less considerate of what the likes of our moon has to offer and thereby
> of whatever's Venus isn't worth squat, yet the supposed all-knowing
> astronomy and scientific communities are uncontrollably drooling over
> the likes of Titan, and SETI/OSETI folks are remaining so far out of
> reality that they've become just another lost pathetic cause of the
> usual for-profit enterprise of essentially up-yours. Is that messed up
> or what?
>
> What's needed is a good effort from a revisionist upon portions of
> history and upon all that's astrophysics, thus the likes of applied
> physics as it would and should have been involved within the science
> realms of whatever's planetology, meaning meteorology, the demanding
> physiology of whatever's surviving, and thus biology and certainly that
> of observationology is given it's fair place within this cold-war
> perverted world of ours, as hopefully without all of the usual
> mainstreamism that's otherwise offending whatever other worlds due to
> our intellectually bigoted ways of essentially not accepting whatever
> rocks our mainstream boat.
>
> Oops, sorry if I've manage not to have offended your category or realm
> of status quo, as that certainly wasn't my intentions but strictly a
> practical limitation as to what amount of words can be contained within
> any given reply without my exceeding the 'wall-of-words' criteria.
>
> Basic township on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
> Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
>

Ok, not sure where my post went last nite but here it goes again....

Somewhat off subject, but there's an idea that's been going through my head
dealing with creating artificial gravity, before you think troll just stay
with me here. It deals with two of Einstines papers; the first stating as an
object speed accelerates closer towards the speed of light, it's mass
increases, the second states mass is directly related to gravity. So Take an
object like a large supercondictive disk, inside a vacuume to reduce
friction, and spin it. If you can make it spin fast enough you should be
able to create gravity withought having the real mass required. Creating a
sort of virtual mass so to speak. Ideas?

Very good comments btw, will post something about this later when i have
more time. 

-- 
Matthew Hagston
Loading