Guth Venus / the hot planet (Topic Rating *****)

On Feb 8, 10:14�am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/8/2011 12:04 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

All planets within reason offer some level of complex life or
biodiversity


No they don't.


If you have the capability of getting yourself to/from a given other
moon or planet, then it's most likely that you have enough talent,
expertise and technology to survive elsewhere for extended periods as
long as your equipment functions within limits.  If we direct our own
panspermia to another world or moon, then it's entirely possible that
others or random happenstance has accomplished the same.  Obviously
too hot, too cold, too dark or too otherwise nasty would eliminate
most life as we know it.  So the "within reason" part of this argument
is perhaps going to limit our quest for other life down to something
near 10% of the available planets and moons, and one out of ten isn't
bad odds.

Once again, this revised topic context pertaining to the planet Venus
is for those devout mainstream happy campers like our HVAC and other
pretend-Atheist and bipolar Semites that always claim being all-
knowing and always right about everything. (gee whiz, it seems with
these wise-guys having been in charge, there must be some other
stealth reasons why our nation is in such dire energy and economy
failure mode)

What can I possibly say about the planet Venus that hasn�t been said a
good thousand times before?

I actually kind of agree with contributor HVAC, that our extremely
nearby and physically dark but otherwise mineral color/hue saturated
moon can wait, mostly because it isn�t going anywhere and besides,
we�re used to the tidal induced seismic trauma and global modulation
induced heating caused by such terrific tidal interactions, and
otherwise Venus seems to be where the real action is anyway.

However, regarding our extremely nearby moon that needs to get
relocated for all the right reasons that I�ve previously stipulated,
and otherwise because it�s probably offering an inverse density
interior if not sufficiently porous or hollow enough as is (0.1<1%
hollow),  at least capable of hosting those nifty geode crystal
pockets or layers of trapped fluid brines and compressed gasses that
can be easily vented or removed so that volumes of its cozy interior
becomes available for us humans.  Its extremely tough composite and
paramagnetic basalt crust of 4+ g/cm3 would be a tad difficult to
drill/tunnel into, although once the mostly robotic diggers accomplish
getting into its inverse/softer density and thermally constant
interior is where the real fun begins.

As interesting and/or intriguing as that extremely nearby and truly
massive moon is, as well as offering all sorts of nifty and rare
minerals plus He3, there doesn�t seem to be any surface indications of
past intelligent life (other than our one-way Apollo and some Russian
related stuff that can�t even be independently replicated by the best
of our fly-by-rocket peers that you NASA/Apollo guys continually
worship.  Even go figure that our best LRO mission was mineral
colorblind, as well as incapable of taking basic radiation readings,
of which you crazy guys have always accepted as sufficient science.
There's not even an electrostatic or farad charge reading of what our
naked and gamma radiating moon has to offer, as well as raw water/ice
related objective science for 1 AU space remains unknown, so at best
our trusty moon is kind of a pathetic lost cause that remains
untouchable and/or forbidden as long as there no actual fly-by-rocket
landers capable of such a task.

If we leave the moon alone, then we can focus upon the planet Venus
that is suggesting either some kind of intelligent other life has been
there (could even possibly still be there), or that the laws of
physics and geology work entirely different for Venus.  Obviously
it�ll take for us a great deal of fly-by-rocket technology and
expertise to even visit Venus on a temporary or intermittent basis of
using a composite rigid airship/shuttle concept that never lands,
surveying that newish terrain and investigating from 25 km up as to
whatever�s interesting long before attempting to land and survive upon
its geothermally active and thus toasty surface that�s also surrounded
by a dense and buoyant atmospheric greenhouse pressure-cooker kind of
lid that�s helping to keep its surface hotter than a self cleaning
oven (some including myself might even call it hell).

Actually the planet Hell or Hades sounds more appropriate than Venus.
All in favor of a planet rename can vote right here.

So what exactly is it about our moon or Venus that�s so utterly
worthless as well as technically insurmountable for our best
technology, or even for well equipped humans?

Are you and other bipolar rusemasters suggesting that we�re never
getting our Goldilocks off this badly depleted and overpopulated Eden,
that�s about done for unless big changes are made?

Are you suggesting that we should forget about other planets or moons
that are nearby and offer loads of nifty minerals, raw valuable
elements and unlimited renewable energy in order to accomplish
everything with?

I hope you realize that I�m sort of the �Guth Venus� messenger, and by
killing off messengers doesn�t change the best available science or
the laws of physics one damn bit.

 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
 Guth Venus, at ten times resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
 https://docs.google.com/File?id=ddsdxhv_4fdgd46df_b

 http://translate.google.com/#
 Brad Guth / Guth Venus / Blog and my Google document pages:
 http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
 http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
 http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj