On Sep 22, 7:00 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brad
In fact Mountains foldings of any type demonstrate that twisting of solid formations in all directions had no time to cool, as in the Mad & Fraudulent Geology model of 60 millionz yearz for the Alpine Orogenesis by ex.
The immediate uprise further brought up the whole horizontal layers, as in the Himalaya, in the exact position they were laid out. NO dip on most of the Himalaya Plateaux indeed !
Hence the solid structures had no choice except than to break up, to fold or to metamorphose, and the whole work was over in a mere 6 to 12 hours to the most.
Incidentally Hydraulic counter reaction is called a fluid pressure transfer.
> In fact Mountains foldings of any type demonstrate that twisting of > solid formations in all directions had no time to cool, as in the Mad > & Fraudulent Geology model of 60 millionz yearz for the Alpine > Orogenesis by ex.
> The immediate uprise further brought up the whole horizontal layers, > as in the Himalaya, in the exact position they were laid out. NO dip > on most of the Himalaya Plateaux indeed !
> Hence the solid structures had no choice except than to break up, to > fold or to metamorphose, and the whole work was over in a mere 6 to > 12 hours to the most.
> Incidentally Hydraulic counter reaction is called a fluid pressure > transfer.
> Best
> jpturcaud
Too bad that Zionist/Jews like rabbi Saul Levy and other Nazis are scared to death of ever allowing our public funded supercomputers to run models of our interpretation, as to the forming of these more recent antipodes and/or hydraulic counter reactions from an icy Selene impacting Earth.
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:40:48 -0700 (PDT), Greatest Mining Pioneer of > Australia of all Times <australia.mining-pion...@neuf.fr> wrote:
>>Dear Mr Brad Guth
> PLEASE don't feed the trolls..
Way, way too late. These two loons have incited each other and the resulting outpouring of mutual mental waste could rival the famous Krakatau eruption ...
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:40:48 -0700 (PDT), Greatest Mining Pioneer of > > Australia of all Times <australia.mining-pion...@neuf.fr> wrote:
> >>Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > PLEASE don't feed the trolls..
> Way, way too late. These two loons have incited each other and the > resulting outpouring of mutual mental waste could rival the famous > Krakatau eruption ...
That's not half bad for such a kosher parrot. I suppose now you want that cracker.
> On Jul 28, 5:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here’s yet another edited food for thought topic, about our local > > planetoid Selene/moon that has a little something hollow to say about > > itself; > > Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero) > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls > > This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't fully apply to our > > naked Selene/moon interior unless that hollow was a substantial sphere > > at nearly dead center, but none the less it's still worth our > > considering the possible implications, and it’s especially what-if > > topic worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is clearly being held within > > its thick and highly paramagnetic basalt crust, with no obvious > > indications of an iron or otherwise dense core.
> > Natural/geothermal and isotope generated gas bubbles could easily have > > created such a geode hollow(s) or even pockets of trapped mineral > > brines and perhaps a few as having become crystal lined volumes of > > weird geological anomalies representing livable voids deep within the > > moon, as well as for the continual tidal pull of Earth’s gravity may > > have significantly offset the original soft/molten interior core, > > leaving a substantial hollow/caverness void rising towards the > > extremely thick backside crust, as well as for the Earth/Selene > > lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift within > > this unusual planetoid we call our moon.
> > First of all, I have never once suggested anything lower mass than > > 7.35e22 kg (if anything I’ve proposed an extra mass of <262 km worth > > of ice for a grand total of 8.5e22 kg), nor have I ever suggested that > > our Selene/moon was 90% hollow, nor otherwise have I ever insisted the > > interior density below the thick basalt crust being as low as 1 kg/m3 > > (although the element sodium is kinda minimal density at .97 g/cm3, > > not to mention lithium). So don’t get yourselves all defensively > > crazy and huffy about any of this.
> > If the thick and paramagnetic basalt plus mineral saturated crust with > > many of those heavier lunar elements (including thorium, uranium, > > plutonium and of course radium as supposedly derived from the core of > > Earth plus via whatever else as having impacted Earth) are situated or > > somehow having been coagulated/solidified near the surface, not to > > mention a bazillion naked meteor deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and > > of course always those much heavier metallic elements including > > thorium, iron, nickel, platinum and loads of titanium, plus a little > > of whatever else was part of Earth. So, for the purely what-if of > > this semi-hollow moon topic, how about our considering a 10% hollow > > moon (2.2 billion cubic kilometers worth)?
> > How many personally safe interior habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually > > worth?
> > At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide > > percentage (more than half) for a perfectly rational (meaning > > intelligent) infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 > > m3 each.
> > However, even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering > > an off-world viable habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 > > billion units, along with 55% as still going for infrastructure. > > Seems more than adequate if such a semi-hollow moon were to be > > utilized as an off-world shelter or that of an interstellar survival > > craft (red supergiant and helium flashover lifeboat), and of course it > > gets all the better yet if it should became heavily iced over along > > the way.
> > Along with my LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator and Counter Mass with > > the terrific amount of ISS habitat interior) is what makes the to/from > > aspects of utilizing our semi-hollow Selene/moon rather simple and > > energy efficient, though most likely as owned and operated by China > > and India (so expect to pay a hefty toll).
> > > Father Haskell: > > > How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
> > Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/ > > gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice > > via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo > > Space Port).
> > As I'd said, roughly 55% as the lunar community infrastructure should > > provide enough volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating > > whatever assortments of chickens, turkeys and pigs. You know, Earth > > isn't ever going to be very far away, and even I can think of all > > kinds of ways for a continuous supply of just about anything, in > > exchange for He3 and any number of other precious elements that would > > be mostly robotic mined, processed and efficiently exported to Earth, > > or effectively stored for future needs.
> > Obviously we'd need to accommodate at most fewer than 10 billion such > > units as our lunar interior habitats, thereby leaving 95% available as > > infrastructure for working within this 1% hollow moon.
> > Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth > > stands a darn good chance of once again becoming a thriving plant and > > animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of humans and their industrial > > scale polluting. (perhaps at most 1% stays with Earth in order to > > repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed the other 99% of > > folks living within the moon, and the subsequent visiting of Earth by > > these others would become a highly restricted privilege).
> > However, if our continuing recession turns into WWIII, that gets all- > > out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise chemical and > > biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places on Earth > > worth risking further genetic mutations to your frail DNA.
> > Trust me, I have a reasonably failsafe plan. It's rather complex and > > certainly not perfect, but at least it's offering a whole lot better > > constructive option than most any other plan of salvaging humanity > > that’s designed mostly to benefit only the rich and powerful surviving > > off-world, while the rest of us village idiots get to tough it out and > > otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily benefits these > > rich and powerful individuals (including fighting their wars).
> > Btw; If a black hole were merely that of an event horizon shell of > > whatever horrific mass and density (say a thick swarm of tightly > > packed electrons orbiting this hollow void or perhaps sustaining a > > small core of positron antimatter) as surrounded by whatever makes you > > a happy camper:
> > Once again, a little physics food for thought: The gravity force > > inside a spherical shell is always zero, that is unless it has some > > kind of an extremely massive core that’s magnetically centered or > > somehow electrostatic isolated within this otherwise hollow sphere. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls
> Where's the mainstream science proving that our Selene/moon is not > somewhat hollow?
Our Selene/moon simply isn't that of a solid rock with an iron core. There's simply not sufficient mass (or average density) for such being solid clean through. Its unusually thick crust of mostly basalt proves there's less density inside of that nearby and physically dark sucker that's transferring and/or extracting 2e20 N/sec worth of orbital tidal force.
> Where's the mainstream science proving that our Selene/moon is not > somewhat hollow?
Our Selene/moon simply isn't that of a solid rock with an iron core. There's simply not sufficient mass (or average density) for such being solid clean through. Its unusually thick crust of mostly basalt proves there's less density inside of that nearby and physically dark sucker that's transferring and/or extracting 2e20 N/sec worth of orbital tidal force.
> Where's the mainstream science proving that our Selene/moon is not > somewhat hollow?
Our Selene/moon simply isn't that of a solid rock with an iron core.
There's simply not sufficient mass (or average density) for such being of a solid clean through. Its unusually thick crust of mostly basalt proves there's less density inside of that nearby and physically dark sucker that's transferring and/or extracting 2e20 N/sec worth of orbital tidal force.
On Sep 29, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where's the mainstream science proving that our Selene/moon is not > > somewhat hollow?
> Our Selene/moon simply isn't that of a solid rock with an iron core.
> There's simply not sufficient mass (or average density) for such being > of a solid clean through. Its unusually thick crust of mostly basalt > proves there's less density inside of that nearby and physically dark > sucker that's transferring and/or extracting 2e20 N/sec worth of > orbital tidal force.
Our Selene/moon simply is not through and through a solid rock, and it's core isn't very hot nor nearly as dense as we've been told by those we're supposed to trust with our lives and most all of our hard earned loot. In other words, our textbooks are simply wrong, or at the very least incomplete.
Our NASA remains unusually secretive, obfuscating and otherwise in nondisclosure denial of anything that might rock their job and benefit security boat. If you or I did such with public loot, as such we'd be tossed in jail.
> Any LEO habitat stuff simply isn't viable, because it's simply too > spendy and otherwise unsustainable, as well as undefendable against > whatever is headed our way. We can hardly manage to keep our own LEO > stuff from controlled or rogue encountering or otherwise interacting > with one another as is. If something seriously bad should happen to > Earth, there’s certainly no good odds that being in whatever LEO > habitat is going to be entirely failsafe, and certainly doomed if > there’s no further ground support.
> If your sun was about to shift from its relatively supermassive red > giant phase, down to that of a little white dwarf of less than an > eighth its original (pre red supergiant) stellar mass, and if an icy > planetoid or proto-moon were going to suddenly become tidal radii > discarded and headed in the right/general direction, away from its > failing home solar system and migrating towards that of another nearby > passive solar system, then by all means such an icy planetoid could > become safely utilized as your multi-generation interstellar space > craft, as an entirely capable sphere of hosting sustainable life (no > matters how weird, dumb or unnecessary some of that life might > represent).
> However, many are correct in thinking that most of us can't seem to > manage or otherwise pay for living here on Earth, especially within > any similar controlled ecosystem as would be required in space travels > or upon some other planet or moon that isn't already Eden approved. > Our unusual Selene/moon is however nearby but not too close, and it > likely has most everything except fresh water to work with as is, > including interior voids our hollows worth utilizing as is.
> If you don’t happen to like that idea of ever utilizing our moon, > there’s always the planet Venus that’s only a hundred times further > away every 19 months, and it certainly has more than a sufficient > cache of fresh water in those acidic clouds as is, as well as all the > minerals and elements of Earth, plus unlimited local energy that’s > essentially renewable to boot.
> ~ BG
> On Jul 28, 5:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here’s yet another edited food for thought topic, about our local > > planetoid Selene/moon that has a little something hollow to say about > > itself; > > Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero) > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls > > This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't fully apply to our > > naked Selene/moon interior unless that hollow was a substantial sphere > > at nearly dead center, but none the less it's still worth our > > considering the possible implications, and it’s especially what-if > > topic worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is clearly being held within > > its thick and highly paramagnetic basalt crust, with no obvious > > indications of an iron or otherwise dense core.
> > Natural/geothermal and isotope generated gas bubbles could easily have > > created such a geode hollow(s) or even pockets of trapped mineral > > brines and perhaps a few as having become crystal lined volumes of > > weird geological anomalies representing livable voids deep within the > > moon, as well as for the continual tidal pull of Earth’s gravity may > > have significantly offset the original soft/molten interior core, > > leaving a substantial hollow/caverness void rising towards the > > extremely thick backside crust, as well as for the Earth/Selene > > lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift within > > this unusual planetoid we call our moon.
> > First of all, I have never once suggested anything lower mass than > > 7.35e22 kg (if anything I’ve proposed an extra mass of <262 km worth > > of ice for a grand total of 8.5e22 kg), nor have I ever suggested that > > our Selene/moon was 90% hollow, nor otherwise have I ever insisted the > > interior density below the thick basalt crust being as low as 1 kg/m3 > > (although the element sodium is kinda minimal density at .97 g/cm3, > > not to mention lithium). So don’t get yourselves all defensively > > crazy and huffy about any of this.
> > If the thick and paramagnetic basalt plus mineral saturated crust with > > many of those heavier lunar elements (including thorium, uranium, > > plutonium and of course radium as supposedly derived from the core of > > Earth plus via whatever else as having impacted Earth) are situated or > > somehow having been coagulated/solidified near the surface, not to > > mention a bazillion naked meteor deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and > > of course always those much heavier metallic elements including > > thorium, iron, nickel, platinum and loads of titanium, plus a little > > of whatever else was part of Earth. So, for the purely what-if of > > this semi-hollow moon topic, how about our considering a 10% hollow > > moon (2.2 billion cubic kilometers worth)?
> > How many personally safe interior habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually > > worth?
> > At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide > > percentage (more than half) for a perfectly rational (meaning > > intelligent) infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 > > m3 each.
> > However, even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering > > an off-world viable habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 > > billion units, along with 55% as still going for infrastructure. > > Seems more than adequate if such a semi-hollow moon were to be > > utilized as an off-world shelter or that of an interstellar survival > > craft (red supergiant and helium flashover lifeboat), and of course it > > gets all the better yet if it should became heavily iced over along > > the way.
> > Along with my LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator and Counter Mass with > > the terrific amount of ISS habitat interior) is what makes the to/from > > aspects of utilizing our semi-hollow Selene/moon rather simple and > > energy efficient, though most likely as owned and operated by China > > and India (so expect to pay a hefty toll).
> > > Father Haskell: > > > How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
> > Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/ > > gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice > > via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo > > Space Port).
> > As I'd said, roughly 55% as the lunar community infrastructure should > > provide enough volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating > > whatever assortments of chickens, turkeys and pigs. You know, Earth > > isn't ever going to be very far away, and even I can think of all > > kinds of ways for a continuous supply of just about anything, in > > exchange for He3 and any number of other precious elements that would > > be mostly robotic mined, processed and efficiently exported to Earth, > > or effectively stored for future needs.
> > Obviously we'd need to accommodate at most fewer than 10 billion such > > units as our lunar interior habitats, thereby leaving 95% available as > > infrastructure for working within this 1% hollow moon.
> > Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth > > stands a darn good chance of once again becoming a thriving plant and > > animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of humans and their industrial > > scale polluting. (perhaps at most 1% stays with Earth in order to > > repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed the other 99% of > > folks living within the moon, and the subsequent visiting of Earth by > > these others would become a highly restricted privilege).
> > However, if our continuing recession turns into WWIII, that gets all- > > out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise chemical and > > biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places on Earth > > worth risking further genetic mutations to your frail DNA.
> > Trust me, I have a reasonably failsafe plan. It's rather complex and > > certainly not perfect, but at least it's offering a whole lot better > > constructive option than most any other plan of salvaging humanity > > that’s designed mostly to benefit only the rich and powerful surviving > > off-world, while the rest of us village idiots get to tough it out and > > otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily benefits these > > rich and powerful individuals (including fighting their wars).
> > Btw; If a black hole were merely that of an event horizon shell of > > whatever horrific mass and density (say a thick swarm of tightly > > packed electrons orbiting this hollow void or perhaps sustaining a > > small core of positron antimatter) as surrounded by whatever makes you > > a happy camper:
> > Once again, a little physics food for thought: The gravity force > > inside a spherical shell is always zero, that is unless it has some > > kind of an extremely massive core that’s magnetically centered or > > somehow electrostatic isolated within this otherwise hollow sphere. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls
Apparently our physically dark Selene/moon and the otherwise extremely vibrant and geothermally active planet Venus are still taboo/ nondisclosure rated. Even the moon's L1 is forbidden, and our spendy LRO/LCROSS missions aren't telling us anything that we didn't already know.
Amazing what a firm kosher grip they have on the public brain and private parts. It's almost as though their puppet warlord Hitler was still in charge of telling us exactly what to believe regardless of those pesky laws of physics or the best available science.
On Sep 29, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where's the mainstream science proving that our Selene/moon is not > > somewhat hollow?
> Our Selene/moon simply isn't that of a solid rock with an iron core.
> There's simply not sufficient mass (or average density) for such being > of a solid clean through. Its unusually thick crust of mostly basalt > proves there's less density inside of that nearby and physically dark > sucker that's transferring and/or extracting 2e20 N/sec worth of > orbital tidal force.
> ~ BG
Apparently our physically dark Selene/moon and the otherwise extremely vibrant and geothermally active planet Venus are still taboo/ nondisclosure rated. Even the moon's L1 is forbidden, and our spendy LRO/LCROSS missions aren't really telling us anything that we didn't already know.
Amazing what a firm kosher grip they have on the public brain and most of our private parts. It's almost as though their puppet warlord Hitler was still in charge of telling us exactly what to believe regardless of those pesky laws of physics or the best available science.
On Sep 29, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where's the mainstream science proving that our Selene/moon is not > > somewhat hollow?
> Our Selene/moon simply isn't that of a solid rock with an iron core.
> There's simply not sufficient mass (or average density) for such being > of a solid clean through. Its unusually thick crust of mostly basalt > proves there's less density inside of that nearby and physically dark > sucker that's transferring and/or extracting 2e20 N/sec worth of > orbital tidal force.
> ~ BG
The moon interior is offering something of a lower than any mineral saturated basalt composite density (as well as possibly semi-hollow and/or of least compacted interior, with little of any iron core) than the mostly solid basalt and mineral saturated crust of what such an unusual surface of mascons has to offer. The 1.5 tonne of TNT impact wasn’t itself likely to be visible to the naked eye, although amateur astronomy and their extremely sensitive and terrific dynamic range capable cameras should not have had any problems whatsoever, unless they were intentionally misinformed and/or simply not informed as to where and when to look. And of course the renewed and extensively upgraded Hubble should have almost filled an entire FOV of that event (nearly as good as the 395 meter focal-length KECK resolution), except the Hubble image would have had a perfectly clean shot and having been loads sharper and way better at the near IR, visual and UV spectrum. So, where’s the beef?
btw; do bother yourself as to taking proper notice as to how the average albedo of our Selene/moon as having been recorded by the terrific dynamic range of our spendy LROC, as upon average is in fact nearly as dark as coal. Too bad we’re still not being allowed to review any of the UV fluorescence imaging of those lunar minerals. If you look further, you’ll notice a few blocked out areas that the our LROC team intentionally limited their zoom-on resolution (it’s what one does whenever attempting to hide something like lunar clouds of perhaps radon gas or possibly sodium).
Apparently our spendy LRO array of high resolution and extended DR cameras, plus multiple other science instruments was nowhere in position to image or record anything of the impact event or even of its subsequent dust plume.
Of whatever electrostatic charged plume of physically sooty dark as coal moon dust that was supposed to contain loads of near polar water vapor, as such should have stood-out like a very sore thumb or even as obvious as a red clown nose. At least thus far we have next to zip/ nothing new to add to our extremely limited or rather mainstream moderated knowledge of our physically dark Selene/moon, that we’ve supposedly walked upon but somehow forgot to accomplish any truly objective science (must be why they discarded all of our public funded fly-by-rocket technology and having tossed out those 700 large and clearly marked boxes of those spendy Apollo missions, along with much of their original science data).
The moon interior is offering something of a lower than any mineral saturated basalt composite density (as well as possibly semi-hollow and/or of least compacted interior, with little of any iron core) than the mostly solid basalt and mineral saturated crust of what such an unusual surface of mascons has to offer. The 1.5 tonne of TNT impact wasn’t itself likely to be visible to the naked eye, although amateur astronomy and their extremely sensitive and terrific dynamic range capable cameras should not have had any problems whatsoever, unless they were intentionally misinformed and/or simply not informed as to where and when to look. And of course the renewed and extensively upgraded Hubble should have almost filled an entire FOV of that event (nearly as good as the 395 meter focal-length KECK resolution), except the Hubble image would have had a perfectly clean shot and having been loads sharper and way better at the near IR, visual and UV spectrum. So, where’s the beef?
btw; do bother yourself as to taking proper notice as to how the average albedo of our Selene/moon as having been recorded by the terrific dynamic range of our spendy LROC, as upon average is in fact nearly as dark as coal. Too bad we’re still not being allowed to review any of the UV fluorescence imaging of those lunar minerals. If you look further, you’ll notice a few blocked out areas that the our LROC team intentionally limited their zoom-on resolution (it’s what one does whenever attempting to hide something like lunar clouds of perhaps radon gas or possibly sodium).
Apparently our spendy LRO array of high resolution and extended DR cameras, plus multiple other science instruments was nowhere in position to image or record anything of the impact event or even of its subsequent dust plume.
Of whatever electrostatic charged plume of physically sooty dark as coal moon dust that was supposed to contain loads of near polar water vapor, as such should have stood-out like a very sore thumb or even as obvious as a red clown nose. At least thus far we have next to zip/ nothing new to add to our extremely limited or rather mainstream moderated knowledge of our physically dark Selene/moon, that we’ve supposedly walked upon but somehow forgot to accomplish any truly objective science (must be why they discarded all of our public funded fly-by-rocket technology and having tossed out those 700 large and clearly marked boxes of those spendy Apollo missions, along with much of their original science data).
~ BG
On Sep 5, 3:43 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 5:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here’s yet another edited food for thought topic, about our local > > planetoid Selene/moon that has a little something hollow to say about > > itself; > > Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero) > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls > > This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't fully apply to our > > naked Selene/moon interior unless that hollow was a substantial sphere > > at nearly dead center, but none the less it's still worth our > > considering the possible implications, and it’s especially what-if > > topic worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is clearly being held within > > its thick and highly paramagnetic basalt crust, with no obvious > > indications of an iron or otherwise dense core.
> > Natural/geothermal and isotope generated gas bubbles could easily have > > created such a geode hollow(s) or even pockets of trapped mineral > > brines and perhaps a few as having become crystal lined volumes of > > weird geological anomalies representing livable voids deep within the > > moon, as well as for the continual tidal pull of Earth’s gravity may > > have significantly offset the original soft/molten interior core, > > leaving a substantial hollow/caverness void rising towards the > > extremely thick backside crust, as well as for the Earth/Selene > > lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift within > > this unusual planetoid we call our moon.
> > First of all, I have never once suggested anything lower mass than > > 7.35e22 kg (if anything I’ve proposed an extra mass of <262 km worth > > of ice for a grand total of 8.5e22 kg), nor have I ever suggested that > > our Selene/moon was 90% hollow, nor otherwise have I ever insisted the > > interior density below the thick basalt crust being as low as 1 kg/m3 > > (although the element sodium is kinda minimal density at .97 g/cm3, > > not to mention lithium). So don’t get yourselves all defensively > > crazy and huffy about any of this.
> > If the thick and paramagnetic basalt plus mineral saturated crust with > > many of those heavier lunar elements (including thorium, uranium, > > plutonium and of course radium as supposedly derived from the core of > > Earth plus via whatever else as having impacted Earth) are situated or > > somehow having been coagulated/solidified near the surface, not to > > mention a bazillion naked meteor deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and > > of course always those much heavier metallic elements including > > thorium, iron, nickel, platinum and loads of titanium, plus a little > > of whatever else was part of Earth. So, for the purely what-if of > > this semi-hollow moon topic, how about our considering a 10% hollow > > moon (2.2 billion cubic kilometers worth)?
> > How many personally safe interior habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually > > worth?
> > At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide > > percentage (more than half) for a perfectly rational (meaning > > intelligent) infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 > > m3 each.
> > However, even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering > > an off-world viable habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 > > billion units, along with 55% as still going for infrastructure. > > Seems more than adequate if such a semi-hollow moon were to be > > utilized as an off-world shelter or that of an interstellar survival > > craft (red supergiant and helium flashover lifeboat), and of course it > > gets all the better yet if it should became heavily iced over along > > the way.
> > Along with my LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator and Counter Mass with > > the terrific amount of ISS habitat interior) is what makes the to/from > > aspects of utilizing our semi-hollow Selene/moon rather simple and > > energy efficient, though most likely as owned and operated by China > > and India (so expect to pay a hefty toll).
> > > Father Haskell: > > > How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
> > Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/ > > gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice > > via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo > > Space Port).
> > As I'd said, roughly 55% as the lunar community infrastructure should > > provide enough volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating > > whatever assortments of chickens, turkeys and pigs. You know, Earth > > isn't ever going to be very far away, and even I can think of all > > kinds of ways for a continuous supply of just about anything, in > > exchange for He3 and any number of other precious elements that would > > be mostly robotic mined, processed and efficiently exported to Earth, > > or effectively stored for future needs.
> > Obviously we'd need to accommodate at most fewer than 10 billion such > > units as our lunar interior habitats, thereby leaving 95% available as > > infrastructure for working within this 1% hollow moon.
> > Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth > > stands a darn good chance of once again becoming a thriving plant and > > animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of humans and their industrial > > scale polluting. (perhaps at most 1% stays with Earth in order to > > repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed the other 99% of > > folks living within the moon, and the subsequent visiting of Earth by > > these others would become a highly restricted privilege).
> > However, if our continuing recession turns into WWIII, that gets all- > > out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise chemical and > > biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places on Earth > > worth risking further genetic mutations to your frail DNA.
> > Trust me, I have a reasonably failsafe plan. It's rather complex and > > certainly not perfect, but at least it's offering a whole lot better > > constructive option than most any other plan of salvaging humanity > > that’s designed mostly to benefit only the rich and powerful surviving > > off-world, while the rest of us village idiots get to tough it out and > > otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily benefits these > > rich and powerful individuals (including fighting their wars).
> > Btw; If a black hole were merely that of an event horizon shell of > > whatever horrific mass and density (say a thick swarm of tightly > > packed electrons orbiting this hollow void or perhaps sustaining a > > small core of positron antimatter) as surrounded by whatever makes you > > a happy camper:
> > Once again, a little physics food for thought: The gravity force > > inside a spherical shell is always zero, that is unless it has some > > kind of an extremely massive core that’s magnetically centered or > > somehow electrostatic isolated within this otherwise hollow sphere. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls
> Once again, it’s too bad we still don’t have any platform of > instruments parked within our Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1), or for that > matter any OCO mission under way. As of 1850 we’ve
> On Sep 29, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Where's the mainstream science proving that our Selene/moon is not > > > somewhat hollow?
> > Our Selene/moon simply isn't that of a solid rock with an iron core.
> > There's simply not sufficient mass (or average density) for such being > > of a solid clean through. Its unusually thick crust of mostly basalt > > proves there's less density inside of that nearby and physically dark > > sucker that's transferring and/or extracting 2e20 N/sec worth of > > orbital tidal force.
> > ~ BG
> The moon interior is offering something of a lower than any mineral > saturated basalt composite density (as well as possibly semi-hollow > and/or of least compacted interior, with little of any iron core) than > the mostly solid basalt and mineral saturated crust of what such an > unusual surface of mascons has to offer. The 1.5 tonne of TNT impact > wasn’t itself likely to be visible to the naked eye, although amateur > astronomy and their extremely sensitive and terrific dynamic range > capable cameras should not have had any problems whatsoever, unless > they were intentionally misinformed and/or simply not informed as to > where and when to look. And of course the renewed and extensively > upgraded Hubble should have almost filled an entire FOV of that event > (nearly as good as the 395 meter focal-length KECK resolution), except > the Hubble image would have had a perfectly clean shot and having been > loads sharper and way better at the near IR, visual and UV spectrum. > So, where’s the beef?
> btw; do bother yourself as to taking proper notice as to how the > average albedo of our Selene/moon as having been recorded by the > terrific dynamic range of our spendy LROC, as upon average is in fact > nearly as dark as coal. Too bad we’re still not being allowed to > review any of the UV fluorescence imaging of those lunar minerals. If > you look further, you’ll notice a few blocked out areas that the our > LROC team intentionally limited their zoom-on resolution (it’s what > one does whenever attempting to hide something like lunar clouds of > perhaps radon gas or possibly sodium).
> Apparently our spendy LRO array of high resolution and extended DR > cameras, plus multiple other science instruments was nowhere in > position to image or record anything of the impact event or even of > its subsequent dust plume.
> Of whatever electrostatic charged plume of physically sooty dark as > coal moon dust that was supposed to contain loads of near polar water > vapor, as such should have stood-out like a very sore thumb or even as > obvious as a red clown nose. At least thus far we have next to zip/ > nothing new to add to our extremely limited or rather mainstream > moderated knowledge of our physically dark Selene/moon, that we’ve > supposedly walked upon but somehow forgot to accomplish any truly > objective science (must be why they discarded all of our public funded > fly-by-rocket technology and having tossed out those 700 large and > clearly marked boxes of those spendy Apollo missions, along with much > of their original science data).
> *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > of > *> this. > *> > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > and > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > *> > *> ~ BG
> Dear Mr Brad Guth
> Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > comet
> Yours faithfully
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > Australia Mining Pioneer > Founder of the True Geology )
Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the final lithobraking encounter.
For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> On Jul 28, 5:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here’s yet another edited food for thought topic, about our local > > planetoid Selene/moon that has a little something hollow to say about > > itself; > > Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero) > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls > > This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't fully apply to our > > naked Selene/moon interior unless that hollow was a substantial sphere > > at nearly dead center, but none the less it's still worth our > > considering the possible implications, and it’s especially what-if > > topic worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is clearly being held within > > its thick and highly paramagnetic basalt crust, with no obvious > > indications of an iron or otherwise dense core.
> > Natural/geothermal and isotope generated gas bubbles could easily have > > created such a geode hollow(s) or even pockets of trapped mineral > > brines and perhaps a few as having become crystal lined volumes of > > weird geological anomalies representing livable voids deep within the > > moon, as well as for the continual tidal pull of Earth’s gravity may > > have significantly offset the original soft/molten interior core, > > leaving a substantial hollow/caverness void rising towards the > > extremely thick backside crust, as well as for the Earth/Selene > > lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift within > > this unusual planetoid we call our moon.
> > First of all, I have never once suggested anything lower mass than > > 7.35e22 kg (if anything I’ve proposed an extra mass of <262 km worth > > of ice for a grand total of 8.5e22 kg), nor have I ever suggested that > > our Selene/moon was 90% hollow, nor otherwise have I ever insisted the > > interior density below the thick basalt crust being as low as 1 kg/m3 > > (although the element sodium is kinda minimal density at .97 g/cm3, > > not to mention lithium). So don’t get yourselves all defensively > > crazy and huffy about any of this.
> > If the thick and paramagnetic basalt plus mineral saturated crust with > > many of those heavier lunar elements (including thorium, uranium, > > plutonium and of course radium as supposedly derived from the core of > > Earth plus via whatever else as having impacted Earth) are situated or > > somehow having been coagulated/solidified near the surface, not to > > mention a bazillion naked meteor deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and > > of course always those much heavier metallic elements including > > thorium, iron, nickel, platinum and loads of titanium, plus a little > > of whatever else was part of Earth. So, for the purely what-if of > > this semi-hollow moon topic, how about our considering a 10% hollow > > moon (2.2 billion cubic kilometers worth)?
> > How many personally safe interior habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually > > worth?
> > At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide > > percentage (more than half) for a perfectly rational (meaning > > intelligent) infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 > > m3 each.
> > However, even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering > > an off-world viable habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 > > billion units, along with 55% as still going for infrastructure. > > Seems more than adequate if such a semi-hollow moon were to be > > utilized as an off-world shelter or that of an interstellar survival > > craft (red supergiant and helium flashover lifeboat), and of course it > > gets all the better yet if it should became heavily iced over along > > the way.
> > Along with my LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator and Counter Mass with > > the terrific amount of ISS habitat interior) is what makes the to/from > > aspects of utilizing our semi-hollow Selene/moon rather simple and > > energy efficient, though most likely as owned and operated by China > > and India (so expect to pay a hefty toll).
> > > Father Haskell: > > > How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
> > Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/ > > gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice > > via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo > > Space Port).
> > As I'd said, roughly 55% as the lunar community infrastructure should > > provide enough volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating > > whatever assortments of chickens, turkeys and pigs. You know, Earth > > isn't ever going to be very far away, and even I can think of all > > kinds of ways for a continuous supply of just about anything, in > > exchange for He3 and any number of other precious elements that would > > be mostly robotic mined, processed and efficiently exported to Earth, > > or effectively stored for future needs.
> > Obviously we'd need to accommodate at most fewer than 10 billion such > > units as our lunar interior habitats, thereby leaving 95% available as > > infrastructure for working within this 1% hollow moon.
> > Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth > > stands a darn good chance of once again becoming a thriving plant and > > animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of humans and their industrial > > scale polluting. (perhaps at most 1% stays with Earth in order to > > repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed the other 99% of > > folks living within the moon, and the subsequent visiting of Earth by > > these others would become a highly restricted privilege).
> > However, if our continuing recession turns into WWIII, that gets all- > > out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise chemical and > > biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places on Earth > > worth risking further genetic mutations to your frail DNA.
> > Trust me, I have a reasonably failsafe plan. It's rather complex and > > certainly not perfect, but at least it's offering a whole lot better > > constructive option than most any other plan of salvaging humanity > > that’s designed mostly to benefit only the rich and powerful surviving > > off-world, while the rest of us village idiots get to tough it out and > > otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily benefits these > > rich and powerful individuals (including fighting their wars).
> > Btw; If a black hole were merely that of an event horizon shell of > > whatever horrific mass and density (say a thick swarm of tightly > > packed electrons orbiting this hollow void or perhaps sustaining a > > small core of positron antimatter) as surrounded by whatever makes you > > a happy camper:
> > Once again, a little physics food for thought: The gravity force > > inside a spherical shell is always zero, that is unless it has some > > kind of an extremely massive core that’s magnetically centered or > > somehow electrostatic isolated within this otherwise hollow sphere. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls
> Geothermal/geodynamic derived gasses plus atomic produced hydrogen and > helium (under great pressure) = fast p-waves > 8 km/sec (obviously > stellar compressed gasses far exceed p-waves of 100 km/sec), but then > Earth and most everything else is after all made of star stuff.
> Supposedly at 65 GPa, hydrogen offers a p-wave velocity of <20 km/sec > (depending on temperature, whereas the higher the temperature you’d > think the faster those p-waves), although the low density metallic > element of sodium by rights should also offer a relatively fast > seismic p-wave, from which the average interior density of our Selene/ > moon can be interpreted. However, the potential hollowness of our > moon needs 3D seismic mapping that should have been accomplished as of > decades ago.
> Mysteries of the Inner Earth (including our hollow moon) > http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/inner_earth/inner.htm#... > The Solid Earth Hypothesis > http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/inner_earth/inner1.htm > “Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect > the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- > and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because > the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with > depth than density increases. [2]”
> “Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and > incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding > density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, > their arguments are circular.”
> “*P-wave velocity = square root of [(incompressibility + 4/3rigidity) > divided by density]. S-wave velocity = square root of [rigidity > divided by density]. In a fluid, rigidity vanishes and S waves cannot > propagate at all.”
> “On 8 June 1994, one of the largest deep earthquakes of the 20th > century, with a magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter scale, exploded 640 km > beneath Bolivia. It caused the whole earth to ring like a bell for > months on end; every 20 minutes or so, the entire planet expanded and > contracted by a minute amount. A significant feature of the Bolivian > earthquake was that it extended horizontally across a 30- by 50-km > plane within the 'subducting slab'. This undermines the hypothesis > that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a > slab suddenly being transformed into spinel in a runaway reaction when > the temperature rises above 600°C. It also undermines the theory that > gravity increases with depth; if this were true, the motion of > earthquakes at such depths should be nearly vertical [4]. There > appears to be something very wrong with scientific
> > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > of > > *> this. > > *> > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > and > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > *> > > *> ~ BG
> > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > comet
> > Yours faithfully
> > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > Founder of the True Geology )
> Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > final lithobraking encounter.
> For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
There actually is a natural or preexisting hole or vertical cave like entrance into that thick crust of our moon, plus odds are looking good there will be others discovered. There's still no objective or deductively subjective reasons to believe that moon isn't at least semi-hollow within and under that robust and heavy mineral saturated crust.
> > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > of > > *> this. > > *> > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > and > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > *> > > *> ~ BG
> > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > comet
> > Yours faithfully
> > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > Founder of the True Geology )
> Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > final lithobraking encounter.
> For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG
> > > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet
> > > Yours faithfully
> > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology )
> > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter.
> > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > of > > *> this. > > *> > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > and > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > *> > > *> ~ BG
> > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > comet
> > Yours faithfully
> > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > Founder of the True Geology )
> Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > final lithobraking encounter.
> For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of Earth represents?
That’s really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to think that Earth’s interior can only increase in density and pressure per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure increase that’s obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep underground lakes or aquifers, and there’s certainly not any big increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so slightly), and there’s certainly no objective way of telling if the inner core is merely that of a dense shell that’s hollow inside, or not. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever sphere isn’t really as structurally compression worthy or even it’s density all that buoyant as we’d thought. However, we certainly know that it can hold back a great deal of pressure.
Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesn’t mean squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature there’s only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase.
A true geode pocket that’s mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric pressure than its external surroundings, at least until it’s broken into.
A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust that’s also rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might seem downright testy, but on the moon it’s actually kind of nifty to ponder.
> Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents?
> That’s really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earth’s interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase that’s obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and there’s certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and there’s certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell that’s hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
> Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isn’t really as structurally compression worthy or even it’s > density all that buoyant as we’d thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure.
> Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesn’t mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature there’s > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase.
> A true geode pocket that’s mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until it’s broken > into.
> A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust that’s also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon it’s actually kind of nifty to > ponder.
> > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG
> > > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet
> > > Yours faithfully
> > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology )
> > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter.
> > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents?
> That’s really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earth’s interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase that’s obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and there’s certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and there’s certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell that’s hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
> Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isn’t really as structurally compression worthy or even it’s > density all that buoyant as we’d thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure.
> Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesn’t mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature there’s > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase.
> A true geode pocket that’s mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until it’s broken > into.
> A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust that’s also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon it’s actually kind of nifty to > ponder.
With near zero gravity within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow substance that's sandwiched between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation that our Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow.
> > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG
> > > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet
> > > Yours faithfully
> > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology )
> > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter.
> > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents?
> That’s really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earth’s interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase that’s obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and there’s certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and there’s certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell that’s hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
> Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isn’t really as structurally compression worthy or even it’s > density all that buoyant as we’d thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure.
> Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesn’t mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature there’s > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase.
> A true geode pocket that’s mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until it’s broken > into.
> A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust that’s also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon it’s actually kind of nifty to > ponder.
With near zero gravity within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow (poorly compacted) substance that's sandwiched between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation that our Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow.
Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were limited as to 0.1%, as such this kind of volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (2.2e16 m3 is hardly insignificant)
The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt crust itself could also have existing passages and/or geode like pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to utilize as is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such didn’t exist.
> > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG
> > > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet
> > > Yours faithfully
> > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology )
> > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter.
> > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents?
> That’s really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earth’s interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase that’s obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and there’s certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and there’s certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell that’s hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
> Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isn’t really as structurally compression worthy or even it’s > density all that buoyant as we’d thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure.
> Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesn’t mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature there’s > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase.
> A true geode pocket that’s mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until it’s broken > into.
> A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust that’s also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon it’s actually kind of nifty to > ponder.
Water at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and that’s pretty much regardless of its volume and original mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero delta-V and especially when situated within such an extreme vacuum. If there’s anything holding a given molecule of h2o together, it’s those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked pressure can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can coexist if there’s a shell or artificial energy field of some kind)..
The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s so mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers a terrific shell. Within or especially under that shell is where life as we know it could with some technology manage to survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (within geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated to suit), there’s certainly no shortage of habitat volume, and the maintaining of pressure simply can’t be an insurmountable problem.
> > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > of > > > *> this. > > > *> > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > and > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > *> > > > *> ~ BG
> > > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > comet
> > > Yours faithfully
> > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > Founder of the True Geology )
> > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > final lithobraking encounter.
> > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > Earth represents?
> That’s really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > think that Earth’s interior can only increase in density and pressure > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > increase that’s obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > underground lakes or aquifers, and there’s certainly not any big > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > slightly), and there’s certainly no objective way of telling if the > inner core is merely that of a dense shell that’s hollow inside, or > not. > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
> Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > sphere isn’t really as structurally compression worthy or even it’s > density all that buoyant as we’d thought. However, we certainly know > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure.
> Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesn’t mean > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature there’s > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase.
> A true geode pocket that’s mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until it’s broken > into.
> A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust that’s also > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > seem downright testy, but on the moon it’s actually kind of nifty to > ponder.
Since I’ve gotten nothing but grief and avoidance about our hollow moon, I’ve revised the topic from “The 1~10% hollow moon” to “The 0.1~1% hollow moon”. Not that it matters, because the mainstream still isn’t buying any of it.
Water exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and that’s pretty much regardless of its volume and original mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero delta-V and especially lost to that solar wind when situated within such an extreme vacuum. If there’s anything holding a given molecule of h2o together, it’s those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked pressure can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if there’s a shell or artificial energy field of some kind)..
The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s so mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers a terrific shell. Within or especially under that shell is where life as we know it could with some technology manage to survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (within geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated to suit), there’s certainly no shortage of habitat volume, and the maintaining of pressure simply can’t be an insurmountable problem.
> > > > *> Very interesting feedback. I'll have to get back with you on much > > > > of > > > > *> this. > > > > *> > > > > *> I'm thinking 12,300~12,900 some odd years ago is when much of this > > > > *> planet was affected by the near miss and then the impact of an icy > > > > *> Selene, and it took nearly a thousand years for the sky to open up > > > > and > > > > *> let the sunlight in as of 11,711 years ago. > > > > *> > > > > *> ~ BG
> > > > Dear Mr Brad Guth
> > > > Correct Brad, impact of the Moon normal to the center of present > > > > Pacific Ring of Fire, and producing by hydraulic counter reaction the > > > > immediate surrection of the whole Alpine type mountainous ranges. In > > > > fact the moon impact was inevitable & resulted first from the forced > > > > displacement of the Earth-Moon complex through the near miss with a > > > > comet
> > > > Yours faithfully
> > > > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > > > Founder of the True Geology )
> > > Or perhaps having multiple near misses of an icy Selene before the > > > final lithobraking encounter.
> > > For some unexplained reasons, the modern world as of the last ice age > > > has to believe that we've always had that moon of ours. I believe > > > it's mostly a faith-based kind of spooky thing, because otherwise > > > science can seem to place or nail down anything objective as to > > > exactly when Earth got the bulk of her seasonal tilt or the Arctic > > > ocean basin. It's also as though 11,711 years ago was somehow just > > > another normal terrestrial thing that we have to accept without > > > anything objective as a global and/or solar cause to go by.
> > > The "Cosmological Ice Ages" seems to fit rather nicely within the > > > elliptical trek we have had with the Sirius star system, and yet even > > > though there's nothing else out there that comes even close to what > > > Sirius has to offer, it seems the most mainstream opposition to any of > > > this is that of the kosher interpretation, that's as faith-based > > > closed mindset as you can possibly get, including their recent > > > obfuscation/exclusion of those Newtonian laws of physics.
> > Why does the geology of our moon (from its physically dark surface to > > its marginally hot core and apparent lack of any geothermal events > > taking place) have to match that of what the mostly fluid sphere of > > Earth represents?
> > That’s really odd, for all the best educated parrots of mainstream to > > think that Earth’s interior can only increase in density and pressure > > per added depth, because otherwise in deep underground caves or mine > > shafts, other than the expected dynamics of atmospheric pressure > > increase that’s obvious and somewhat minor (<42% increase per 3.5 km > > depth unless you plan on artificially cooling that vertical column of > > air in order to get a 100% increase per 3.5 km), there’s hardly any > > other significant geology pressures for our physiology to contend > > with, including while swimming or scuba diving in those deep > > underground lakes or aquifers, and there’s certainly not any big > > increase in gravity (if anything it only measurably increases ever so > > slightly), and there’s certainly no objective way of telling if the > > inner core is merely that of a dense shell that’s hollow inside, or > > not. > > http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/2506/1/IJRSP%2037(1)%2...
> > Perhaps the geometric arch and/or robust geode like shell of whatever > > sphere isn’t really as structurally compression worthy or even it’s > > density all that buoyant as we’d thought. However, we certainly know > > that it can hold back a great deal of pressure.
> > Just because the pressure within the surrounding crust/bedrock is > > increasing by roughly something less than 300 bar/km doesn’t mean > > squat, especially when the deepest Russian well started getting into > > lower pressures and/or somewhat less rock density at depths below 10 > > km, and at that kind of shaft depth and subsequent temperature there’s > > only a relatively slight atmospheric pressure increase.
> > A true geode pocket that’s mineral/glass sealed and situated deep (say > > at 10 km) might even conceivably offer less internal atmospheric > > pressure than its external surroundings, at least until it’s broken > > into.
> > A geode formulated layer or pocket with any sort of fluid(s) inside is > > technically hollow, because that fluid or even whatever less density > > substance(s) (such as sodium) can be easily removed and/or displaced > > by hydrogen, helium, methane or some other gasses. An interior cavity > > of crystals can even be easily dissolved or simply fragmented and > > removed or reutilized as is. On the backside or farside of our Selene/ > > moon, under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust that’s also > > rather unusually mineral saturated, mascon populated and otherwise > > very paramagnetic, as such could be offering quite a large volume of a > > hollow interior to work with. Being situated 100 km underground might > > seem downright testy, but on the moon it’s actually kind of nifty to > > ponder.
> Since I’ve gotten nothing but grief and avoidance about our hollow > moon, I’ve revised the topic from “The 1~10% hollow moon” to “The > 0.1~1% hollow moon”. Not that it matters, because the mainstream > still isn’t buying any of it.
> Water exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the vacuum as found at > Selene L1) pretty much instantly demoleculizes itself into something > less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and that’s pretty much > regardless of its volume and original mass. Therefore, the extremely > weak Newtonian force of gravity or molecular binding force isn’t > necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid > element itself represents a zero delta-V and especially lost to that > solar wind when situated within such an extreme vacuum. If there’s > anything holding a given molecule of h2o together, it’s those strong > electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual atomic and subatomic binding > forces and whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure that doesn’t > necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked pressure can’t > coexist w/o gravity or vise versa, whereas artificial pressure or > vacuum can only coexist if there’s a shell or artificial energy field > of some kind)..
> The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s so > mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers a terrific shell. > Within or especially under that shell is where life as we know it > could with some technology manage to survive, as well as manage to > contribute to terrestrial matters of exotic minerals and lots more. > At 0.1% hollow (within geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily > excavated to suit), there’s certainly no shortage of habitat volume, > and the maintaining of pressure simply can’t be an insurmountable > problem.
> ~ BG
With a near zero gravity within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow (poorly compacted) substance that's sandwiched between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation that our Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow.
Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were limited as to a volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of crust protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (2.2e16 m3 is hardly insignificant)
The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt crust itself could also offer existing passages and/or geode like pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to utilize as is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such voids didn’t exist.
|
