The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: MrT on January 22, 2013, 08:12:29 AM
-
Interesting video about the Moon landing hoax. I particularly like the last minute or two.
moon hoax not (http://#ws)
-
Interesting video about the Moon landing hoax. I particularly like the last minute or two.
moon hoax not (http://#ws)
That guy is clearly fake! Look greenscreen everywhere!! ;)
This is an excellent video and sums up what I have been trying to get through to the conspiracists on here. It would have been EASIER to go to the moon than fake it and everything else required to convince the watching world, and other nations.
His last 2 minute summary perfectly describes the idiocy and ignorance of many FE'ers.
Thanks for posting this.
-
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
-
Yeah, he just ignored the possibility of conventionally slowing video down and focused entirely on how overcranking wouldn't be feasible.
-
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
No, he's saying that in 1969 it wasn't possible to shoot enough film or video at one time to show 143 continuous minutes of slow motion. Please pay attention, will you Tom?
-
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
This is textbook Strawman argument. The author said the exact opposite of what Tom Bishop is saying: in 1969 it was possible to slow video down to half speed according to the author What the author is saying is that the technology was not there to make a continuous slow motion video of several minutes. Any attempt at a slow motion video of such a length would be full of telltale splices, or would have at least a few scratches or particles of dust that would show that the slow motion was done with 35 mm film and then passed to video.
Creating a slow motion video was possible. Doing it so well that we cannot see the defects, even now that we have all the digital equipment that was thought impossible back then, is pretty close to impossible.
-
Where is the 143 minute continuous footage of slow motion on the moon?
Exactly. The people like me who were alive at that time remember the continuous showing of long, unedited video. As far as I know, most of it was not preserved for posterity because it was just too difficult. The same goes for most local programming of that time's national television in my country and probably all others.
I can assure you, the quality of video from that time was really poor compared to today's video. The perfect cuts and scene changes we know just weren't possible. And the typical airing of weeks or months of programs without a single glitch, which is now the norm, was totally unheard of in those times. Video was full of problems. Films were frequently scratched, had visible marks, had visual signs for the operator to change reels, had white balance problems when changing scenes, and so much more. In fact, it was not uncommon to have long waits while the operator at your local cinema repaired the film after it had broken or got burned.
So, if you think they used 1969's technology for the videos, look for 1969's technologies' failures.
-
NASA is omnipotent.
-
Where is the 143 minute continuous footage of slow motion on the moon?
Exactly. The people like me who were alive at that time remember the continuous showing of long, unedited video. As far as I know, most of it was not preserved for posterity because it was just too difficult. The same goes for most local programming of that time's national television in my country and probably all others.
I can assure you, the quality of video from that time was really poor compared to today's video. The perfect cuts and scene changes we know just weren't possible. And the typical airing of weeks or months of programs without a single glitch, which is now the norm, was totally unheard of in those times. Video was full of problems. Films were frequently scratched, had visible marks, had visual signs for the operator to change reels, had white balance problems when changing scenes, and so much more. In fact, it was not uncommon to have long waits while the operator at your local cinema repaired the film after it had broken or got burned.
So, if you think they used 1969's technology for the videos, look for 1969's technologies' failures.
I think you may have misunderstood his post slightly. He's quite literally asking where the footage is.
-
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
No, he's saying that in 1969 it wasn't possible to shoot enough film or video at one time to show 143 continuous minutes of slow motion. Please pay attention, will you Tom?
Why not? At the beginning of the video the narrator says that NASA had their equipment specially built for the government from Westinghouse.
But rather than slowing the video is it more likely that they simply used wire supports, as described in the video sceptimatic posted.
-
IF space travel is possible I am sure NASA wouldn't chance it to fake it.
You can tell this guy knows his cameras.
-
Indeed an intriguing topic, though admittedly a little outside of my specialty :D
As a renown Canadian physicist, I can offer my research and extensive connections to NASA officials to clarify a couple of points regarding the moon landing. Primarily, space travel in 1969 was, in fact, quite feasible, thanks largely to Dr. Spurtan Appratox's Phyllonium III engine (that which Apollo 11 used).
Secondly, the moon landing did not actually take place; it is actually a hoax. As their spacecraft was approaching the moon's surface, the astronauts were forced to jettison their FOURTH team-member, Fred Gurgleon, due to the excessive weight of their landing craft. This is all contained in classified documents now maintained in NASA's archives and accessible only to the upper-most tier of leadership. Rather than continuing the mission, the team decided to abandon the landing and head back to Earth. The 'landing' was filmed in Casa Dunca, Mexico.
Physicists at NASA completely underestimated the weight of the lunar vehicle due to their inability to grasp the concept of the Pintamoranian gas belts that surround the moon, creating vast areas of immense gravitational pull.
And that my friends, as they say, is history. :-\
-
That video was great!! Thank you, Mexicanwave!
I loved that he did pack a political punch at the end. People blame NASA for stuff they make up while they ignore the real problems of our government.
-
When did we establish t wasn't a space agency? You saying it isnt a space agency doesnt mean we have established it isnt. ???And by the way it's aeronautics and space agency.
-
That video was great!! Thank you, Mexicanwave!
I loved that he did pack a political punch at the end. People blame NASA for stuff they make up while they ignore the real problems of our government.
What do you think N.A.S.A is?
We have established it's not a real space agency, so what could it be?
Here's a clue.
People supposedly ignore the real problems of our government. But do we?
That is the real question.
You've "established" nothing until one of you Flat Earthers gets a job at NASA and reports your findings.
-
Sceptimatic, you seem to have trouble differentiating "what you think you know" from "truth". In most of the threads you post in.
-
Have not seen this posted. Mythbusters explaining the weird shadows.
Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1 (http://#ws)
-
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
This guy seems to make a very good point about how film tech worked back then. Are you sayin what he says is wrong?
And dnt forget he addresses the mulitple light source and no stars claims.
-
Telling porkies? They have shown how the shadows we cast the way we see in the photo without using multiple light sources have they not? And as for the film itself the guy has show. How he original broadcast could not have taken place if it was a recording. Am I missing something?
-
Telling porkies? They have shown how the shadows we cast the way we see in the photo without using multiple light sources have they not? And as for the film itself the guy has show. How he original broadcast could not have taken place if it was a recording. Am I missing something?
They have proved absolutely nothing except that they are paid to manipulate tests. Simple as that.
I'm shocked that you expect people to just accept this.
-
The conspiracy says that the shadows are not all pointing in the same direction and this can only be the case if thier was multiple light sources. This video have proven the terain also causes shadows to point at different angles. It also nicely shows why stars can't be seen. Are you watching a different video or something? Their for these cannot be used as arguments for us not having been to the moon.
-
Flimsy space craft? Have you ever been in one? Have you studied the engineering drawings and load calculations? Presumably they slept in the lander and what about air supply and batteries? Are you an expert in either? And why are no stars and shadows corner stones of a conspiracy argument one minuet and when proven wrong become flimsy little details?
-
you making random numbers for the times they spent on the surface ??? they had 3 moon walks lasting roughly 7 hours each.
Flimsy space craft? Have you ever been in one? Have you studied the engineering drawings and load calculations? Presumably they slept in the lander and what about air supply and batteries? Are you an expert in either? And why are no stars and shadows corner stones of a conspiracy argument one minuet and when proven wrong become flimsy little details?
In these back packs, the Astro liars supposedly had air to breathe, a heat exchanger and some kind of radio communication
I will be generous and say that the back packs hold 4 hours each of air/oxygen.
do you actualy know how many hours worth of air in the suits? you cant just be generous and guess. you need to know.
how big were apollos tanks? what psi where they at on take off? what recycaling equiptment did they have on board? what si the consumption rate of 2 humans for 3 days? do you know any of these? becuse you need to know all of them to be able to say they did not have enough oxygen on board.
-
no i know the anserw to non of these but im not the one saying its imposible you are. i woul like to mention that all desighn drawings schimatics traning manuals technical manuals have been posted online for all the world to see. and so far not a single person that i know off using these drawings as a source have found any reason why it wasnt techniqualy possible. so have you got any other reasons we didnt land on the moon? preferably ones you actualy have some facts and figures on this time?
http://www.apolloproject.com/diagrams/diagrams.html (http://www.apolloproject.com/diagrams/diagrams.html)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf)
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspacesaturn.htm (http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspacesaturn.htm)
this is a select few sources for technical details on all aspects of the apollo program.
-
Have not seen this posted. Mythbusters explaining the weird shadows.
Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1 (http://#ws)
All this video shows is how easy it is to replicate a moon landing on nothing more than a cable TV show's budget.
-
yes a 21st centry tv show can replicate the filmed portions of the event. but this is the 21st centry not 1969 when the origional event took place. but what it does do is debunk every claim made by the conspiricy about shadows stars etc.
-
yes a 21st centry tv show can replicate the filmed portions of the event. but this is the 21st centry not 1969 when the origional event took place. but what it does do is debunk every claim made by the conspiricy about shadows stars etc.
It doesn't debunk anything. It attempts to.
Just by the speed that the mythbusters actually do all the tests and confirm as busted tells me all I need to know about the show.
Eh, they do speed things up and skip time for the sake of viewing pleasure.
-
you excuse is that becuse they managed to debunk the conspiricy that must mean they are wrong and not you? thats hilerious. you have me in stitches. no rebutal? no arguments based in science. just la la la they are wrong la la la. lol.
did you get a chance to look over any of the schematics i gave you links to? very detailed must be a gold mine for an expert in luner craft like you? ;D
-
The speed in which they achieve their results on the show is a direct result of editing out what is unnecessary. A 4 minute section of the show doesn't necessarily equal 4 minutes in real time. If there was no editing, we'd be watching them set up and prepare everything for hours.
-
Sceptimatic, don't forget you are arguing against people who are.brainwashed from birth onward to believe the moon landings really happened. After looking into all the evidence I broke out of that brainwashing. Even if the astronauts confessed to the hoax, most people would not believe them.
-
Every time I read an argument from a FE believer mentioning brainwash, the image of "Apply brainwash to brainwash to remove the brainwash" comes to mind.
-
I have been brainwashed since birth to believe in a higher power, should I question this as well?
-
I have been brainwashed since birth to believe in a higher power, should I question this as well?
You must use your own conscience when answering this question. No body else can decide for you.
-
I do believe,
and as a Zetetic i believe we landed on the moon.
-
thats becuse generaly they are nut jobs. ??? they proved the conspiracy wrong are they supposed to be upset?
-
no people questioning things are just fine. they are usualy called scientists. people continuing to question things even though all the evidence says they are wrong are generaly called nut jobs.
-
Sceptimatic, don't forget you are arguing against people who are.brainwashed from birth onward to believe the moon landings really happened. After looking into all the evidence I broke out of that brainwashing.
All the evidence?
Such as calculating the time and position of a spacecraft from the Earthrise photo?
And independent tracking of the Apollo communications from various non-NASA agencies around the world?
And the existence of moon rocks brought back which correspond to no known minerals found on earth, independently verified by non-NASA geologists?
And the retroreflector placed there by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, which can be used by anyone on earth with the right equipment to bounce a laser back off the surface?
And all the eye witnesses who watched the Saturn V rockets take off and go up into the sky?
Yes hoppy, you did a really good job looking into the evidence.
-
no people questioning things are just fine. they are usualy called scientists. people continuing to question things even though all the evidence says they are wrong are generaly called nut jobs.
If I said that you are sat in a space ship typing to me, I would expect to be called a nut job.
Questioning stuff that is clearly hoaxed does not make a person unstable or nuts. It means that the world as a whole is not totally full of brainwashed people.
You have absolutely no evidence that this stuff is hoaxed. And just because you believe certain things that most others don't, doesn't mean everybody is "brainwashed." Questioning things is very good, but considering the whole world a lie because you simply don't understand it is a different story. You're jumping to conclusions and making assumptions left and right. Just because I believe in a round Earth doesn't mean I'm just blindly going by what I'm told. It doesn't mean I'm not looking at all of your evidence and giving it a shot.
-
tens of thousnds of people directly wathced the moon missions launch every time from kenedy. so all those people we would assume.
-
tens of thousnds of people directly wathced the moon missions launch every time from kenedy. so all those people we would assume.
You got any footage of these 10's of thousands of people?
-
Sceptimatic, don't forget you are arguing against people who are.brainwashed from birth onward to believe the moon landings really happened. After looking into all the evidence I broke out of that brainwashing.
All the evidence?
Such as calculating the time and position of a spacecraft from the Earthrise photo?
And independent tracking of the Apollo communications from various non-NASA agencies around the world?
And the existence of moon rocks brought back which correspond to no known minerals found on earth, independently verified by non-NASA geologists?
And the retroreflector placed there by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, which can be used by anyone on earth with the right equipment to bounce a laser back off the surface?
And all the eye witnesses who watched the Saturn V rockets take off and go up into the sky?
Yes hoppy, you did a really good job looking into the evidence.
What about the petrified wood posing as moon rock.
Which witnesses watched the Saturn V take off?
How can non N.A.S.A geologists verify moon rocks. What makes them experts?
The retro reflector is used as some kind of proof. We are simply told there is one and also that a laser is fired at it.
1. All those people standing around in Florida looking up at the sky, at Cape Canaveral (or Kennedy as it was then) and on Cocoa Beach. Thousands saw it.
2. This is going in the Monster Fail Thread.
3. As I said, anyone can test it, and many non-NASA affiliated institutions have.
-
tens of thousnds of people directly wathced the moon missions launch every time from kenedy. so all those people we would assume.
You got any footage of these 10's of thousands of people?
Yes, plenty. All the news networks covered it.
-
crap craft? i gave you links to all the engineering drawings and schimatics. not my fault if you dont read them. they all explain how its built what with. so until you can show me using the schimatics i showed you where crap is in the construction then we can safly asume they are capable doing what they were ment to have done.
-
no people questioning things are just fine. they are usualy called scientists. people continuing to question things even though all the evidence says they are wrong are generaly called nut jobs.
If I said that you are sat in a space ship typing to me, I would expect to be called a nut job.
Questioning stuff that is clearly hoaxed does not make a person unstable or nuts. It means that the world as a whole is not totally full of brainwashed people.
You have absolutely no evidence that this stuff is hoaxed. And just because you believe certain things that most others don't, doesn't mean everybody is "brainwashed." Questioning things is very good, but considering the whole world a lie because you simply don't understand it is a different story. You're jumping to conclusions and making assumptions left and right. Just because I believe in a round Earth doesn't mean I'm just blindly going by what I'm told. It doesn't mean I'm not looking at all of your evidence and giving it a shot.
We are "ALL" brainwashed in some way or another. Every day in our lives involves some kind of brainwashing. It's just figuring out what is what.
When stuff is so blatantly fake, you have to question it, like the moon landings.
Anyone that says there is no reason to suspect the moon landings are fake, in spite of all the anomalies and crap craft used, are simply brainwashed or are seasoned debunkers that will attempt to debunk anything said against what's officially told.
No, you're not "questioning" it. You're calling it "blatantly fake" without evidence or even demonstrating why it could be fake. You've not posted one "anomaly" or any proof of the craft being "crap." I look at this stuff just as you do, I'm not just going by what's being told. I'm not trying to be rude so I apologize if it sounds that way, but I'm tired of the generalizations about everyone who doesn't believe what you believe.
-
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/videos/Counting-Down-for-the-Liftoff-to-the-Moon.html (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/videos/Counting-Down-for-the-Liftoff-to-the-Moon.html)
epic fail once again scepi. :o once again not suprised
-
tens of thousnds of people directly wathced the moon missions launch every time from kenedy. so all those people we would assume.
You got any footage of these 10's of thousands of people?
Yes, plenty. All the news networks covered it.
Can you bring one up?
Are you seriously telling me you've never seen archive footage of the Apollo 11 launch? If you've led such a sheltered life, it'll do you good to find it yourself. Meanwhile, I have some of it on a BBC documentary about the Apollo Anniversary, but it's on VHS so I have no way to show it on here.
-
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/videos/Counting-Down-for-the-Liftoff-to-the-Moon.html (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/videos/Counting-Down-for-the-Liftoff-to-the-Moon.html)
epic fail once again scepi. :o once again not suprised
Oooh, that's gotta hurt.
-
these diagrams are free to the world. every engineer, scientist and closet space enthusiast. no one has ever found anything in these diagrams that dsnt add up. can you? oh no. you cant. when you can come back and lecture us on the flight worthiness of these craft.
-
No it shouldn't because that's not evidence. That's an assumption.
-
no this is the evedice you wanted. but let me gues you will try explain it awaywith your magical conspiracy powers
-
tens of thousnds of people directly wathced the moon missions launch every time from kenedy. so all those people we would assume.
You got any footage of these 10's of thousands of people?
Yes, plenty. All the news networks covered it.
Can you bring one up?
Are you seriously telling me you've never seen archive footage of the Apollo 11 launch? If you've led such a sheltered life, it'll do you good to find it yourself. Meanwhile, I have some of it on a BBC documentary about the Apollo Anniversary, but it's on VHS so I have no way to show it on here.
I've seen plenty of footage of many launches, from Saturn to the shuttles. All faked, in terms of what they are actually supposed to be launching.
Nope. Show us that they're faked.
No it shouldn't because that's not evidence. That's an assumption.
Ok, I'm assuming it's all faked.
Indeed.
-
lol this is why you are put in the nut job catagory. have you ever seen a shuttle launch in perosn? il asume no. but every singel of the millions of [people that have are all wrong. hmmmm. sounds very sane to me.
-
no iv never seen a launch. would be amasing though. but how can you say millions of people who have are wrong when you havnt. and that vid you posted? are you kiding me? 1stly look how fast it lifts of the launch pad. way to fast. second you can easily see it isnt that far away.
space shuttle launch seen from an airplane discounting your scale model theory
Space Shuttle Launch: Viewed From an Airplane (http://#ws)
real apollo 8 launch
Apollo 8 Launch (http://#)
-
are you kidding me? have you ever heard of gyro stabilized camera mount. il asume not.
(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8623/642783main1marsoptics22.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/642783main1marsoptics22.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
I'll just leave this here to further add to his fail
QI XL - Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories (http://#)
-
do you know?
-
http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTE5ODMxMzM0/Amazoncom-Apollo-8-Saturn-V-Rocket-Launch-w-Camera-8x10-Silver- (http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTE5ODMxMzM0/Amazoncom-Apollo-8-Saturn-V-Rocket-Launch-w-Camera-8x10-Silver-)
well hear is a stabilised camera bieng used in the 1960s. so we can safly asume its was invented before then. :-X
more cameras used to track launches
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/ask-academy/issues/volume4/ata_4-7_shuttle_tracker.html (http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/ask-academy/issues/volume4/ata_4-7_shuttle_tracker.html)
http://ipadinsight.com/best-free-ipad-apps-2/best-free-ipad-app-of-the-week-ascent-commemorating-shuttle-by-nasa/ (http://ipadinsight.com/best-free-ipad-apps-2/best-free-ipad-app-of-the-week-ascent-commemorating-shuttle-by-nasa/)
-
so in other words you have once again been proven wrong and have no anserw apart from la la la your wrong. round of applause for the mighty scepi. 8)
-
Well you havnt given us any evidence of a hoax that isn't explainable so I'd imagine that would mean you are wrong so far. Unless you have any more evidence?
-
Well you havnt given us any evidence of a hoax that isn't explainable so I'd imagine that would mean you are wrong so far. Unless you have any more evidence?
I have loads of evidence that it's a hoax, yet it can all be answered by debunkers like yourself because that's what you do.
-
Well you havnt given us any evidence of a hoax that isn't explainable so I'd imagine that would mean you are wrong so far. Unless you have any more evidence?
I have loads of evidence that it's a hoax, yet it can all be answered by debunkers like yourself because that's what you do.
No you don't. Show us instead of just saying you do.
-
Does it not strike you as strange that all your evidence can be explained? Maby becuse its wrong?
-
Well when you have evidence they the moon missions we faked then come talk. Until them have fun breaking free of the bonds imposed by you by the all mighty brainwashers.
-
Well you havnt given us any evidence of a hoax that isn't explainable so I'd imagine that would mean you are wrong so far. Unless you have any more evidence?
I have loads of evidence that it's a hoax, yet it can all be answered by debunkers like yourself because that's what you do.
No you don't. Show us instead of just saying you do.
What I can show you is most likely what you have seen many times, as you clearly show an interest in debunking, so I assume there will be other sites you have asked for evidence and set about debunking it.
The fact you question nothing at all about the moon landings tells me that you are either thoroughly brainwashed or your game is debunking anything contrary to the official stories.
Another assumption that I don't question anything. I question a lot of things. I have looked at everything you have shown with an open mind. My goal is not to "debunk" but to find the truth. My investigation of these things has only confirmed my beliefs in regards to space travel. It has nothing to do with the "official stories." You simply haven't provided any evidence for me that shows me something else is going on. I would be happy to admit that something is fishy if I were presented something that showed me this. So, instead of trying to continually insult me about my differing beliefs and stick some labels on me, please show me I'm wrong in my beliefs. You can believe whatever you want about me, but don't tell me what "my game is" or how I'm some brainwashed fool. You don't know me.
-
You seem to have a deep seated psychological need for the moon missions to be a hoax. Why? Why is it so hard to imagen that humanity could come together like it did and do what it has done? You must live in a sad lonly world if you think everything around you is a conspiricy. As much as a think you are a ridiculous nut job I realy do feel sory for you.
-
Well you havnt given us any evidence of a hoax that isn't explainable so I'd imagine that would mean you are wrong so far. Unless you have any more evidence?
I have loads of evidence that it's a hoax, yet it can all be answered by debunkers like yourself because that's what you do.
No you don't. Show us instead of just saying you do.
What I can show you is most likely what you have seen many times, as you clearly show an interest in debunking, so I assume there will be other sites you have asked for evidence and set about debunking it.
The fact you question nothing at all about the moon landings tells me that you are either thoroughly brainwashed or your game is debunking anything contrary to the official stories.
Another assumption that I don't question anything. I question a lot of things. I have looked at everything you have shown with an open mind. My goal is not to "debunk" but to find the truth. My investigation of these things has only confirmed my beliefs in regards to space travel. It has nothing to do with the "official stories." You simply haven't provided any evidence for me that shows me something else is going on. I would be happy to admit that something is fishy if I were presented something that showed me this. So, instead of trying to continually insult me about my differing beliefs and stick some labels on me, please show me I'm wrong in my beliefs. You can believe whatever you want about me, but don't tell me what "my game is" or how I'm some brainwashed fool. You don't know me.
Why rely on me to give you evidence. Go and look it all up and sift through it.
If you don't believe there is anything wrong with the moon landing footage or even the blatant lying Astronauts, then you aren't interested in questioning it or looking at anomalies. You are simply here to debunk it all in whatever way you can.
No I'm not. I'm here to see why you believe these things. Again, just because I believe otherwise doesn't mean I'm "trying to debunk" you. You have presented what you believe to be anomalies, and I have looked at them. I do not see them as anomalies. Then since I don't agree you just continue to call me "brainwashed" and such. I could say all the same crap about you, but I don't. I'm not interested in telling you anything about you that I believe. I'm interested in seeing what makes you believe the moon landing is a hoax and looking at it. My conclusions in regards to it have nothing to do with why I am actually here.
-
The one I can think of right now was the photo with the shadows from the rocks. The first one that Mythbusters did. Even as a photographer I found myself thinking about it for a few minutes. I did end up playing around with shadows from different objects with one light source from a lamp to be certain and saw the same results as the Mythbusters. It makes perfect sense, but I didn't come up with the answer immediately despite the fact that I play with this kind of stuff every day. There are likely others, however I can't think of them at this time.
-
Yes I understand that, I'm also arguing with people who are simply debunking it to keep the lie going.
You keep using the word "debunk". I don't think it means what you think it means.
-
Yes I understand that, I'm also arguing with people who are simply debunking it to keep the lie going.
You keep using the word "debunk". I don't think it means what you think it means.
I don't think that you realise that I know what it does mean and you just think that I dont think it means what you are thinking I am thinking.
To debunk means to expose a lie, not to keep it going.
-
I really can't wait until the day when space travel becomes cheap enough for the average joe, so people like you can take a ride to see our beautiful globe. I'd pay top money to see your sad sad face. Then again you might just tell yourself that your eyes are lying to you, like any photograph that exists, and that you're not really in space, because humans obviously don't have the ingenuity...
-
With the privatization of the space industry, consumer space travel seems to be coming in the future...... sooooo i'll go with that instead.
-
As a renown Canadian physicist...
My skepticism of your authenticity was extremely great upon seeing your post. A 'renown', as you put it, professor of stellar physics believes we haven't went to the moon/that the earth is flat (going by posts in other threads)?. So 'renown' are you, that I cannot even find you on the entirity of the internet with the exception of this domain.
Sorry, but who are you?
What is your purpose on this forum? You just seem like a grade 'A' troll to me and I'm sure even the FE proponents do not want a hoaxer backing them up.
Sorry - I know that's off topic, but it's certainly worth questioning someone who effectively claims to be so reputable, especially when they make such extraordinary claims.
Forgive me if I am mistaken, simply direct me to the page where I can see your staff profile etc. Shouldn't be so difficult for such a 'renown' physicist as yourself.
-
I have a real problem here about this moon carry on and my problem is, I can't get my head around why in the hell those Astro liars walked on the so called moon in slow motion.
They didn't move in slow motion. They were wearing very bulky and stiff space suits in a reduced gravity environment so of course the motions are going to look a bit odd. Sometimes they moved slowly and deliberately, but I never got the impression that it was slow motion.
-
I have a real problem here about this moon carry on and my problem is, I can't get my head around why in the hell those Astro liars walked on the so called moon in slow motion.
Why slow motion?
I know what you will all be thinking...' it's slow motion because there is no atmosphere.'
I think that should actually work the opposite way and make them faster not slower.
Think about this for a minute:
The Astro liars "train" in water...yes , I said water, because apparently it's the closest thing they can use for space.
Well let's look at this then.
Go to the swimming baths and go into the deep end and swim under water...What happens?
Obviously you swim in a sort of slow motion because the density of the water is creating a big resistance against your body right?
On the moon, as we are told, there is "no atmosphere"... so that means there is " no resistance" at all on those Astronauts...None whatsoever, which means in theory they should be able to move as fast, if not a little bit faster than on Earth.
What's the reason for the slow motion then?
Though you may be able to convince yourself that the astronauts move in 'slow motion' if you look you will find that the dust they kick up is moving at something more like actual speed (taking into account reduced gravity). If you find the silly youtube videos that have speeded up the astronauts to a speed that the creator thinks looks like realtime you will notice that the dust now looks rather speedy.
-
I have a real problem here about this moon carry on and my problem is, I can't get my head around why in the hell those Astro liars walked on the so called moon in slow motion.
Why slow motion?
I know what you will all be thinking...' it's slow motion because there is no atmosphere.'
I think that should actually work the opposite way and make them faster not slower.
Think about this for a minute:
The Astro liars "train" in water...yes , I said water, because apparently it's the closest thing they can use for space.
Well let's look at this then.
Go to the swimming baths and go into the deep end and swim under water...What happens?
Obviously you swim in a sort of slow motion because the density of the water is creating a big resistance against your body right?
On the moon, as we are told, there is "no atmosphere"... so that means there is " no resistance" at all on those Astronauts...None whatsoever, which means in theory they should be able to move as fast, if not a little bit faster than on Earth.
What's the reason for the slow motion then?
The reason they appear to be moving in slow motion is because the rate of acceleration due to gravity is much slower. When an astronaut on the moon jumps up in the air it takes longer for him to come back down to the surface because he is only accelerating at 1/6th of what he would be doing on earth.
-
Dood. read my explanation just before your last post. Nobody said anything about space suits making them move slowly.
-
It would to a certain extent. You can see they're moving forward faster than they're falling that's how there able to take such big leaps.
-
You would be able to do that too if weighed as little as he did.
-
Its not magic its science. lol.
And about the last video you posted. I dont think i saw the astronaut leave the ground once during that entire clip.
-
Again its the acceleration due to gravity. He cant fall as fast as he would on earth.
-
This video is interesting in a few ways.
First of all, at the 1 minute mark onwards, take a look at the flag. You will notice that it doesn't have it's support arm to keep the flag up.
But that's not really that important.
What is important is at the 1 minute 57 mark , onwards.
Take a look at this piece of crap supposed surveyor craft that apparently landed on the moon all by itself.
Take a look at this piece of rigged up crap and tell me honestly if this thing could land on the moon, given what we are told about how the Apollo craft supposedly did.
It's not just the fact that it obviously landed perfectly, it's about what the hell fuelled it do get there in the first place.
Survey Trip to Surveyor 3 (http://#ws)
-
Again its the acceleration due to gravity. He cant fall as fast as he would on earth.
Come off it, he's suspended, never mind fall as fast . ::)
-
You can also see he is supporting himself with what appears to be a hammer in his right hand. maybe that is what is making it appear to you as tho he is being suspended.
-
You can also see he is supporting himself with what appears to be a hammer in his right hand. maybe that is what is making it appear to you as tho he is being suspended.
Let's call his hammer thing, his magic wand.
The moon landings were faked. You know it, I know it and every person who's viewed enough of the right footage knows it.
-
You can also see he is supporting himself with what appears to be a hammer in his right hand. maybe that is what is making it appear to you as tho he is being suspended.
Let's call his hammer thing, his magic wand.
The moon landings were faked. You know it, I know it and every person who's viewed enough of the right footage knows it.
You have presented no evidence of fakery that does not have a simple logical explanation, and nothing that in any way conflicts with what we would expect to see if the moon landing was real. When you can present something inconsistent with what we'd see in a real lunar mission, then please do, but until then we are all thoroughly bored with your ranting about this.
-
You can also see he is supporting himself with what appears to be a hammer in his right hand. maybe that is what is making it appear to you as tho he is being suspended.
Let's call his hammer thing, his magic wand.
The moon landings were faked. You know it, I know it and every person who's viewed enough of the right footage knows it.
You have presented no evidence of fakery that does not have a simple logical explanation, and nothing that in any way conflicts with what we would expect to see if the moon landing was real. When you can present something inconsistent with what we'd see in a real lunar mission, then please do, but until then we are all thoroughly bored with your ranting about this.
Are you the leading kid in the village of the damned or something?
" We will stop you Sceptimatic, now leave us alone."
Dinosaur Neil, You have to trust me when I say that I know I will not display any evidence at all that will convince you, because you are not here to be convinced of anything. You are here to try and convince people not to go against what most people are schooled with.
I'm not posting these things specifically for you, I'm posting so that others lurkers and posters can actually take a look and evaluate what's been said and posted up , as in pictures, video.
You are bored, yet you cannot seem to drag yourself away from the topic, or me for that matter. Try it.
-
If you can show evidence inconsistent with what one would see if the moon mission were real, then it will convince me. But you haven't done that.
-
If you can show evidence inconsistent with what one would see if the moon mission were real, then it will convince me. But you haven't done that.
I have done that perfectly well in the above two clips and you know it.
-
If you can show evidence inconsistent with what one would see if the moon mission were real, then it will convince me. But you haven't done that.
I have done that perfectly well in the above two clips and you know it.
You didn't do that good a job. You have yet to counter the points I made on the videos you showed. You just called complete BS on what i said and left it at that.
-
If you can show evidence inconsistent with what one would see if the moon mission were real, then it will convince me. But you haven't done that.
I have done that perfectly well in the above two clips and you know it.
You didn't do that good a job. You have yet to counter the points I made on the videos you showed. You just called complete BS on what i said and left it at that.
That's because what you said is complete BS.
You haven't even given the videos 10 seconds of scrutiny because you have likely seen them enough times to know what to call on them.
You are simply here to debunk any evidence shown.
-
Come on all im looking for is the reasons why you think what im saying is BS.
And to tell you the truth this is the first time i have watched a lot of these videos.
But how many times did you watch these videos before you came to the conclusion that it was all done with camera trickery and cables? If I watched them 100 more times would I eventually come to the same conclusions you did?
-
skep have you ever speed up the suposedly slowed down fotage to see what it would look like at you suposed full speed? watch this clip. it uses this thing called math. to show how much the clips need to be speed up to match earth gravity. and in the proces shows you how this cant be. i know it uses math and you dnt belive in math but the rest of the world does so you will have to accept its existance.
Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity (http://#)
-
Come on all im looking for is the reasons why you think what im saying is BS.
And to tell you the truth this is the first time i have watched a lot of these videos.
But how many times did you watch these videos before you came to the conclusion that it was all done with camera trickery and cables? If I watched them 100 more times would I eventually come to the same conclusions you did?
You need to watch them and scrutinise them to see how fake it all is.
Just simply looking over it with a mind of already believing the moon landings to be legit is putting immediate bias in your way, so naturally you won't accept what you see.
If you're a debunker of all of this, then it won't matter to you anyway.
The mere fact that you're dismissing it all as fast as you are, tells me you are not even interested in whether it's a fake.
Any person wanting to find out if it was, would at least look at the evidence and think, "hmmm this does look fishy."
-
skep have you ever speed up the suposedly slowed down fotage to see what it would look like at you suposed full speed? watch this clip. it uses this thing called math. to show how much the clips need to be speed up to match earth gravity. and in the proces shows you how this cant be. i know it uses math and you dnt belive in math but the rest of the world does so you will have to accept its existance.
Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity (http://#)
I really don;t know what you are trying to prove to me on this as it has nothing to do with the videos I posted.
There's 3 videos above, refute them all, one by one and give your reasons as to how it all happens.
You don't need math to see bullshit with your own eyes.
You don't get off that easy.
-
The Astro liars are in slow motion in this video. Don't give me all this gunk about space suits making them move in slow motion. ;D
you keep on saying that moon missions are just slowmo films taken on a sound stage. my vid shows what they would look like when sped back up again. notice that it looks rediculous. no natural at all.
-
You know there was a time maybe only a couple of years ago when I would have read some conspiracy stuff on the internet and it would have given me some real food for thought. I would have said "hey these guys are making a lot of sense, they do look like there going in slow motion, And wires! that is easyly what they could have used."
And I would have gone away wondering weather man has really ever been on the moon, And maybe if the us government where the ones who knocked the twin towers.
But then I went to college and began studying engineering. It was only when I began gaining a knowledge of stuff myself that I realised that these conspiracy theorists haven't a bulls notion of what there talking about.
THats why I get such a good lol out of this site. ;D
-
The Astro liars are in slow motion in this video. Don't give me all this gunk about space suits making them move in slow motion. ;D
you keep on saying that moon missions are just slowmo films taken on a sound stage. my vid shows what they would look like when sped back up again. notice that it looks rediculous. no natural at all.
No I don't. You interpreted that I said that, yet I make no mention of that.
What I said was, why do the Astro liars move about the moon in slow motion in the supposedly legit videos.
Read back what I've said because you have totally missed the point I was making.
Can anyone else who's viewing this, understand the point I'm making to all of this?
-
You know there was a time maybe only a couple of years ago when I would have read some conspiracy stuff on the internet and it would have given me some real food for thought. I would have said "hey these guys are making a lot of sense, they do look like there going in slow motion, And wires! that is easyly what they could have used."
And I would have gone away wondering weather man has really ever been on the moon, And maybe if the us government where the ones who knocked the twin towers.
But then I went to college and began studying engineering. It was only when I gained a knowledge of stuff myself that I realised that these conspiracy theorists haven't a bulls notion of what there talking about.
THats why I get such a good lol out of this site. ;D
All you have done here is totally convince me of your intentions.
Your goal on here is to debunk anything against the official line.
-
All you have done here is totally convince me of your intentions.
Your goal on here is to debunk anything against the official line.
And its going pretty good so far.
And why are you here? Its not like you can be convinced any different from what you are saying.
-
so if the fotage i showed isnt in slow mo then how is the pendulum moving so slow if filmed on the earth?
-
All you have done here is totally convince me of your intentions.
Your goal on here is to debunk anything against the official line.
And its going pretty good so far.
And why are you here? Its not like you can be convinced any different from what you are saying.
I can be edged towards anything that appears more plausible.
Until recently I believed in a round "stationary" Earth, yet upon seeing the evidence of the flat Earth, I've come to accept this as a more plausible scenario.
-
so if the fotage i showed isnt in slow mo then how is the pendulum moving so slow if filmed on the earth?
You are totally missing my point.
-
no i belive you are trying to skirt around mine
-
no i belive you are trying to skirt around mine
No, I'm not skirting around yours at all. I asking why the footage is depicted as slow motion on the supposed moon.
Meaning, why do N.A.S.A and the likes of you, believe that things go slower in an environment of no atmosphere.
-
so the moon fotage isnt filmed in a sound stage at normal speed and then slowed down?
-
so the moon fotage isnt filmed in a sound stage at normal speed and then slowed down?
That's not what I'm asking.
-
agreed but its what im asking.
-
agreed but its what im asking.
It's irrelevant, as that is not what I'm implying at all.
For clarity, let us assume that all N.A.S.A's videos are legit, ok?
Ok, now going by that, I know want to know why N.A.S.A depict the Astronauts as moving in slow motion. Why should this happen?
-
well when refering to free falling objects and things like the pendulum. id imagen its because gravity is weeker meaning the object has less potential energy their for will not achive the same velocity as on earth.
-
well when refering to free falling objects and things like the pendulum. id imagen its because gravity is weeker meaning the object has less potential energy their for will not achive the same velocity as on earth.
You do realise that what you are saying is a complete load of old baloney don't you?
-
which part is baloney? less gravity ? less potential energy?
-
which part is baloney? less gravity ? less potential energy?
What is creating the resistance against the Astro liars to make them run as if they were getting restricted by some kind of resistance?
-
which part is baloney? less gravity ? less potential energy?
your not ansering my question.
which part is baloney? less gravity ? less potential energy?
What is creating the resistance against the Astro liars to make them run as if they were getting restricted by some kind of resistance?
because they are wearing suits that way 185 pounds. now yes yes they dnt way that much on the moon but the mass is still the same. you try moving around with that on your back. it requers a lot of energy.
-
which part is baloney? less gravity ? less potential energy?
your not ansering my question.
which part is baloney? less gravity ? less potential energy?
What is creating the resistance against the Astro liars to make them run as if they were getting restricted by some kind of resistance?
because they are wearing suits that way 185 pounds. now yes yes they dnt way that much on the moon but the mass is still the same. you try moving around with that on your back. it requers a lot of energy.
So they can jump up with this mass yet jogging along becomes really hard and that's why they go in slow motion?
Come on Thaggy man.
-
how high do they ever jump?
-
how high do they ever jump?
About as high as they would on Earth, weirdly, eh?
::)
-
how high do they ever jump?
About as high as they would on Earth, weirdly, eh?
::)
Extra mass takes more force to move the same amount of distance. The suit is extra mass to their bodies, yet they do not exhibit extra force when jumping on the moon. However, there is less gravity. Therefore it makes sense that they do not jump higher nor less on the moon, although I don't think it's the 'exact' same.
They look slo-mo because there is longer time between when they take steps. Since there is less gravity, it takes longer for them to be pulled to the ground. Therefore they can't push off the ground as often and can't move as fast.
-
Why do you keep saying the astronaughts are moving slowley? Bending down to pick things up might be a challenge but other than that they seem to be moving around the place fairly lively.
-
how high do they ever jump?
About as high as they would on Earth, weirdly, eh?
::)
Extra mass takes more force to move the same amount of distance. The suit is extra mass to their bodies, yet they do not exhibit extra force when jumping on the moon. However, there is less gravity. Therefore it makes sense that they do not jump higher nor less on the moon, although I don't think it's the 'exact' same.
They look slo-mo because there is longer time between when they take steps. Since there is less gravity, it takes longer for them to be pulled to the ground. Therefore they can't push off the ground as often and can't move as fast.
Garbage.
-
Why do you keep saying the astronaughts are moving slowley? Bending down to pick things up might be a challenge but other than that they seem to be moving around the place fairly lively.
Are they moving about the place as quick as on Earth.
Do their movements look Earth like ?
Going by the bullshit about Earth's gravity being 6 times as heavy as the moons, plus the moon having no atmosphere, the Astro liars should be shifting about quicker than on Earth, not slower.
-
how high do they ever jump?
About as high as they would on Earth, weirdly, eh?
::)
Extra mass takes more force to move the same amount of distance. The suit is extra mass to their bodies, yet they do not exhibit extra force when jumping on the moon. However, there is less gravity. Therefore it makes sense that they do not jump higher nor less on the moon, although I don't think it's the 'exact' same.
They look slo-mo because there is longer time between when they take steps. Since there is less gravity, it takes longer for them to be pulled to the ground. Therefore they can't push off the ground as often and can't move as fast.
Garbage.
Why is that? I don't appreciate when people pass something off like that with no explanation. What parts did you find unsatisfactory?
-
Why do you keep saying the astronaughts are moving slowley? Bending down to pick things up might be a challenge but other than that they seem to be moving around the place fairly lively.
Are they moving about the place as quick as on Earth.
Do their movements look Earth like ?
Going by the bullshit about Earth's gravity being 6 times as heavy as the moons, plus the moon having no atmosphere, the Astro liars should be shifting about quicker than on Earth, not slower.
Uhh, well the atmosphere part is *somewhat* not wrong.
Except the gravity part is. Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s and the moon's is 1.6 m/s. That means that things will accelerate towards earth much faster.
-
how high do they ever jump?
About as high as they would on Earth, weirdly, eh?
::)
Extra mass takes more force to move the same amount of distance. The suit is extra mass to their bodies, yet they do not exhibit extra force when jumping on the moon. However, there is less gravity. Therefore it makes sense that they do not jump higher nor less on the moon, although I don't think it's the 'exact' same.
They look slo-mo because there is longer time between when they take steps. Since there is less gravity, it takes longer for them to be pulled to the ground. Therefore they can't push off the ground as often and can't move as fast.
Garbage.
Why is that? I don't appreciate when people pass something off like that with no explanation. What parts did you find unsatisfactory?
All of it.
-
Why do you keep saying the astronaughts are moving slowley? Bending down to pick things up might be a challenge but other than that they seem to be moving around the place fairly lively.
Are they moving about the place as quick as on Earth.
Do their movements look Earth like ?
Going by the bullshit about Earth's gravity being 6 times as heavy as the moons, plus the moon having no atmosphere, the Astro liars should be shifting about quicker than on Earth, not slower.
Uhh, well the atmosphere part is *somewhat* not wrong.
Except the gravity part is. Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s and the moon's is 1.6 m/s. That means that things will accelerate towards earth much faster. Like I kind of said earlier, they can't run because they are floating around more and have less time on the ground to run.
What are they doing floating in a vacuum ?
If Felix Baumgartner supposedly drops like a stone in a near vacuum, then Astro liars do not float on the moon.
-
Why do you keep saying the astronaughts are moving slowley? Bending down to pick things up might be a challenge but other than that they seem to be moving around the place fairly lively.
Are they moving about the place as quick as on Earth.
Do their movements look Earth like ?
Going by the bullshit about Earth's gravity being 6 times as heavy as the moons, plus the moon having no atmosphere, the Astro liars should be shifting about quicker than on Earth, not slower.
Uhh, well the atmosphere part is *somewhat* not wrong.
Except the gravity part is. Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s and the moon's is 1.6 m/s. That means that things will accelerate towards earth much faster. Like I kind of said earlier, they can't run because they are floating around more and have less time on the ground to run.
What are they doing floating in a vacuum ?
If Felix Baumgartner supposedly drops like a stone in a near vacuum, then Astro liars do not float on the moon.
Float was the wrong word choice. I just meant it takes longer for them to be pulled to the ground, and the vacuum has little to do with it.
Also, I'd still like an explanation for what I said is 'garbage'.
-
Why do you keep saying the astronaughts are moving slowley? Bending down to pick things up might be a challenge but other than that they seem to be moving around the place fairly lively.
Are they moving about the place as quick as on Earth.
Do their movements look Earth like ?
Going by the bullshit about Earth's gravity being 6 times as heavy as the moons, plus the moon having no atmosphere, the Astro liars should be shifting about quicker than on Earth, not slower.
Uhh, well the atmosphere part is *somewhat* not wrong.
Except the gravity part is. Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s and the moon's is 1.6 m/s. That means that things will accelerate towards earth much faster. Like I kind of said earlier, they can't run because they are floating around more and have less time on the ground to run.
What are they doing floating in a vacuum ?
If Felix Baumgartner supposedly drops like a stone in a near vacuum, then Astro liars do not float on the moon.
Float was the wrong word choice. I just meant it takes longer for them to be pulled to the ground, and the vacuum has little to do with it.
Also, I'd still like an explanation for what I said is 'garbage'.
Their mass is garbage for an excuse for slow motion.
-
I'm sorry but what? Ha I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
If you're talking about what I said about mass, then do you disagree that it takes more force to move more mass?
-
I'm sorry but what? Ha I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
If you're talking about what I said about mass, then do you disagree that it takes more force to move more mass?
Yes.
But you don't or wouldn't be skipping along in slow motion with no resistance.
-
I'm sorry but what? Ha I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
If you're talking about what I said about mass, then do you disagree that it takes more force to move more mass?
Yes.
But you don't or wouldn't be skipping along in slow motion with no resistance.
Was that yes to your disagreeing? If so, you are mistaken.
Your second statement makes no sense, are you saying the atmosphere allows people to skip?
-
Why do you keep saying the astronaughts are moving slowley? Bending down to pick things up might be a challenge but other than that they seem to be moving around the place fairly lively.
Are they moving about the place as quick as on Earth.
Do their movements look Earth like ?
Going by the bullshit about Earth's gravity being 6 times as heavy as the moons, plus the moon having no atmosphere, the Astro liars should be shifting about quicker than on Earth, not slower.
Yes I would say they are covering ground much quicker than they could on earth.
-
I'm sorry but what? Ha I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
If you're talking about what I said about mass, then do you disagree that it takes more force to move more mass?
Yes.
But you don't or wouldn't be skipping along in slow motion with no resistance.
Was that yes to your disagreeing? If so, you are mistaken.
Your second statement makes no sense, are you saying the atmosphere allows people to skip?
I agree it takes more force to move more mass, that's obvious.
Ok I'll put it in a nutshell and let's just concentrate on this bit here.
You explain to me, why they train Astronauts in water pools?
-
They use the pools to practice mock repairs and procedures on satalights before they do it for real in space.
THe best way i can explain it is this. Imagine THe ISS floating in space and an astronaut moving around the outside of it. There is no up or down (remember zero gravity) so he is able to move freely around the outside of the craft. And positon himself anywhere with ease.
The water somewhat replicates this freedom of movement .
Imagine if they practiced climbing around the outside of the mock space craft on dry land. (THeyre not training to be monkeys or acrobats.) They would fall off and break a leg.
Of course water is not the best representation of zero gravity. But its the best that can be done in earths gravity.
-
If Felix Baumgartner supposedly drops like a stone in a near vacuum, then Astro liars do not float on the moon.
The vacuum doesn't matter. The giant ball we know as earth with gravity at 9.8 (m/s)^2 pulling on baumgartner and that moon thing with a gravity of ~1.6 (m/s)^2 that the astronauts are walking on are what matter.
Why slow motion?
I know what you will all be thinking...' it's slow motion because there is no atmosphere.'
What? No. No that's not what we're thinking. We actually have education past middle school(most of us).
What's spectacular about this, is, he miraculously can launch himself back up...
Yes, this is known as low-gravity to anyone who can comprehend the most basic force in the universe.
Take a look at this piece of crap supposed surveyor craft that apparently landed on the moon all by itself.
Take a look at this piece of rigged up crap and tell me honestly if this thing could land on the moon, given what we are told about how the Apollo craft supposedly did.
It's not just the fact that it obviously landed perfectly, it's about what the hell fuelled it do get there in the first place.
Given the fact that space is 0g, and the moon has a very weak gravitational force, and the mission was coordinated by aerospace engineers after years of calculations and planning, it's REALLY not that hard to believe.
And.... a rocket? Seriously what the hell kind of education do you have?
*basic physics*
Garbage.
Apparently none.
-
They use the pools to practice mock repairs and procedures on satalights before they do it for real in space.
THe best way i can explain it is this. Imagine THe ISS floating in space and an astronaut moving around the outside of it. There is no up or down (remember zero gravity) so he is able to move freely around the outside of the craft. And positon himself anywhere with ease.
The water somewhat replicates this freedom of movement .
Imagine if they practiced climbing around the outside of the mock space craft on dry land. (THeyre not training to be monkeys or acrobats.) They would fall off and break a leg.
Of course water is not the best representation of zero gravity. But its the best that can be done in earths gravity.
Yes, zero gravity and a supposed vacuum. It's amazing how they float in space isn't it. But , I know, it's the speed of orbit around the Earth as they say.
I mean, the Earth wants to pull them down and yet something wants to pull them up, as speed in a vacuum would, in theory have no effect.
Weird I know.
Anyway: They train them in dense water to work in no atmosphere in supposed floaty space. Makes sense.
It's like me wanting to do a 100 metre sprint in a big vacuum filled gym with no gravity and training for it by running 100 metres under water. ::)
-
nothing is pulling them up. they are constantly falling. you realy dnt understand do you.
-
If Felix Baumgartner supposedly drops like a stone in a near vacuum, then Astro liars do not float on the moon.
The vacuum doesn't matter. The giant ball we know as earth with gravity at 9.8 (m/s)^2 pulling on baumgartner and that moon thing with a gravity of ~1.6 (m/s)^2 that the astronauts are walking on are what matter.Nobody on this Earth actually knows what gravity is, let alone calculating it...but anyway, why the hell should a giant ball create a pull on anything?
Why slow motion?
I know what you will all be thinking...' it's slow motion because there is no atmosphere.'
What? No. No that's not what we're thinking. We actually have education past middle school(most of us).Oh yes, middle school, sixth grade and blah blah blah, because all kids can calculate all this at that age, even though nobody has a clue in reality.
What's spectacular about this, is, he miraculously can launch himself back up...
Yes, this is known as low-gravity to anyone who can comprehend the most basic force in the universe.Low gravity eh?..hmmmm , you see the answers just become more vague and sillier , the more it's questioned.
Take a look at this piece of crap supposed surveyor craft that apparently landed on the moon all by itself.
Take a look at this piece of rigged up crap and tell me honestly if this thing could land on the moon, given what we are told about how the Apollo craft supposedly did.
It's not just the fact that it obviously landed perfectly, it's about what the hell fuelled it do get there in the first place.
Given the fact that space is 0g, and the moon has a very weak gravitational force, and the mission was coordinated by aerospace engineers after years of calculations and planning, it's REALLY not that hard to believe.
And.... a rocket? Seriously what the hell kind of education do you have?Well come on then, just answer this one on it's own and tell me how they sent this surveyor to the moon and manoeuvred it and landed it so smoothly on the surface. Did this have the same computer as the Lunar landers and a little robot guiding it down?
*basic physics*
Garbage.
Apparently none.
Ok Dog, over to you.
-
nothing is pulling them up. they are constantly falling. you realy dnt understand do you.
Yes I understand but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None whatsoever to believe that something can frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it.
It's fantasy.
-
thats where 17000 mph comes into it. do the math. it works. oh wait you dnt belive in math i forgot. then yes to you it is fantasy.
-
nothing is pulling them up. they are constantly falling. you realy dnt understand do you.
Yes I understand but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None whatsoever to believe that something can frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it.
It's fantasy.
Not fantasy, just simple physics that can be demonstrated with a ridiculously high mountain and a super powerful cannon.
http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html (http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/orbit.html)
(http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/rid_mtn.gif)
-
^^^^ plus almost 0 friction. = orbit!
-
Yes, zero gravity and a supposed vacuum. It's amazing how they float in space isn't it. But , I know, it's the speed of orbit around the Earth as they say.
I mean, the Earth wants to pull them down and yet something wants to pull them up, as speed in a vacuum would, in theory have no effect.
Weird I know.
OMG sceptimatic you seem to be learning something. See what happens when you use common sense.
YOu are exactly right. Everything orbiting the earth is actualy in a sort of free fall. Crazy isnt it. THe hardest part of putting something like the iss into orbit is getting it up to the correct speed it needs in order to cheat gravity. I would have to write two pages on here in order to explain it any good. But you could say they need to be moving faster than they are falling. (I know right) NOw once you are at the correct speed its quite easy to stay there. seeing as you have no atmosphere to give any resistance. Althow you do have some drag caused by gravity. thats why they have to fire up the thrusters every once and a while to give them selves a little boost.
-
thats where 17000 mph comes into it. do the math. it works. oh wait you dnt belive in math i forgot. then yes to you it is fantasy.
It doesn't work. It only works in fantasy and the fantasy minds of people who believe they can conjure up 17,000 mph craft.
-
nothing is pulling them up. they are constantly falling. you realy dnt understand do you.
Yes I understand but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None whatsoever to believe that something can frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it.
It's fantasy.
Not fantasy, just simple physics that can be demonstrated with a ridiculously high mountain and a super powerful cannon.
http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html (http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/orbit.html)
(http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/rid_mtn.gif)
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
-
^^^^ plus almost 0 friction. = orbit!
I don't care about no friction. There simply is no orbit. It's fantasy.
-
how orbits work? ??? are you reading the same pages we are? lol. you have yet to show us a experiment that proves orbits cant work
-
Yes, zero gravity and a supposed vacuum. It's amazing how they float in space isn't it. But , I know, it's the speed of orbit around the Earth as they say.
I mean, the Earth wants to pull them down and yet something wants to pull them up, as speed in a vacuum would, in theory have no effect.
Weird I know.
OMG sceptimatic you seem to be learning something. See what happens when you use common sense.
YOu are exactly right. Everything orbiting the earth is actualy in a sort of free fall. Crazy isnt it. THe hardest part of putting something like the iss into orbit is getting it up to the correct speed it needs in order to cheat gravity. I would have to write two pages on here in order to explain it any good. But you could say they need to be moving faster than they are falling. (I know right) NOw once you are at the correct speed its quite easy to stay there. seeing as you have no atmosphere to give any resistance. Althow you do have some drag caused by gravity. thats why they have to fire up the thrusters every once and a while to give them selves a little boost.
You do realise how ridiculous this sounds and people dare to have a go at those who have a flat Earth theory.
-
not realy because every piece of math and phisics back it up. show us evidence that orbits are imposible.
-
how orbits work? ??? are you reading the same pages we are? lol. you have yet to show us a experiment that proves orbits cant work
They don't work with stupid rigged up space craft doing 17,000 mph around it that's for sure.
There's still some friction, you say and that's why they have to fire their thrusters ::)
-
how orbits work? ??? are you reading the same pages we are? lol. you have yet to show us a experiment that proves orbits cant work
They don't work with stupid rigged up space craft doing 17,000 mph around it that's for sure.
There's still some friction, you say and that's why they have to fire their thrusters ::)
Try to understand it with a round earth. Many FEers agree orbits are possible in a RE.
-
yes every so oftern they have to fire the thrusters to raise its altitude. if they didnt do this then eventualy the station would burn up in the atmosphere like mir did.
-
how orbits work? ??? are you reading the same pages we are? lol. you have yet to show us a experiment that proves orbits cant work
They don't work with stupid rigged up space craft doing 17,000 mph around it that's for sure.
There's still some friction, you say and that's why they have to fire their thrusters ::)
Try to understand it with a round earth. Many FEers agree orbits are possible in a RE.
I'm not bothered who believes it's possible. I'm saying it's not possible at all.
Just give me a quick calculation as to how they come to 17,000 mph as a perfect speed to orbit.
-
yes every so oftern they have to fire the thrusters to raise its altitude. if they didnt do this then eventualy the station would burn up in the atmosphere like mir did.
Oh, so it's skimming the atmosphere is it?
-
nothing is pulling them up. they are constantly falling. you realy dnt understand do you.
Yes I understand but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None whatsoever to believe that something can frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it.
It's fantasy.
Not fantasy, just simple physics that can be demonstrated with a ridiculously high mountain and a super powerful cannon.
http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html (http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/orbit.html)
(http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/rid_mtn.gif)
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
That something, can indeed, "frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it."
-
no not skiming over anything. just drag on the station. im not sure where you get the word skiming from. maby this is part of the problem you have with understanding the physics behund it all.
how orbits work? ??? are you reading the same pages we are? lol. you have yet to show us a experiment that proves orbits cant work
They don't work with stupid rigged up space craft doing 17,000 mph around it that's for sure.
There's still some friction, you say and that's why they have to fire their thrusters ::)
Try to understand it with a round earth. Many FEers agree orbits are possible in a RE.
I'm not bothered who believes it's possible. I'm saying it's not possible at all.
Just give me a quick calculation as to how they come to 17,000 mph as a perfect speed to orbit.
The velocity that the ISS travels is determined by a couple physical variables. In the simplified case of a perfectly circular orbit the velocity can be derived by knowing:
1. The mass of the planet.
2. The distance between the orbiting object to the center of the planet.
V=Sqrt((G*M)/r)
So as you can see there is only one variable that we have control of.. Altitude.
Since the ISS flies at ~180 miles above the Earth the resulting velocity is ~17,500mph.
A.K.A the faster you go the higher you go the larger your orbital radious
-
nothing is pulling them up. they are constantly falling. you realy dnt understand do you.
Yes I understand but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None whatsoever to believe that something can frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it.
It's fantasy.
Not fantasy, just simple physics that can be demonstrated with a ridiculously high mountain and a super powerful cannon.
http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html (http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/orbit.html)
(http://my.execpc.com/%7Eculp/space/rid_mtn.gif)
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
That something, can indeed, "frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it."
Yes it can, if you live in a fantasy universe where you can make anything happen just by thoughts and scribbles. ::)
-
Skimming wouldnt be the right word the right word. The atmosphere doesnt have a definite outer edge. Technicaly it is actualy within the earths atomsphere.
-
no not skiming over anything. just drag on the station. im not sure where you get the word skiming from. maby this is part of the problem you have with understanding the physics behund it all.
how orbits work? ??? are you reading the same pages we are? lol. you have yet to show us a experiment that proves orbits cant work
They don't work with stupid rigged up space craft doing 17,000 mph around it that's for sure.
There's still some friction, you say and that's why they have to fire their thrusters ::)
Try to understand it with a round earth. Many FEers agree orbits are possible in a RE.
I'm not bothered who believes it's possible. I'm saying it's not possible at all.
Just give me a quick calculation as to how they come to 17,000 mph as a perfect speed to orbit.
The velocity that the ISS travels is determined by a couple physical variables. In the simplified case of a perfectly circular orbit the velocity can be derived by knowing:
1. The mass of the planet.
2. The distance between the orbiting object to the center of the planet.
V=Sqrt((G*M)/r)
So as you can see there is only one variable that we have control of.. Altitude.
Since the ISS flies at ~180 miles above the Earth the resulting velocity is ~17,500mph.
A.K.A the faster you go the higher you go the larger your orbital radious
And how do you calculate the mass of the Earth?
-
Skimming wouldnt be the right word the right word. The atmosphere doesnt have a definite outer edge. Technicaly it is actualy within the earths atomsphere.
So the 17,000 mph ISS is technically inside the atmosphere encountering resistance and yet orbits and sustains no damage whatsoever due to friction, however small.
Is this what you're telling me?
-
no not skiming over anything. just drag on the station. im not sure where you get the word skiming from. maby this is part of the problem you have with understanding the physics behund it all.
how orbits work? ??? are you reading the same pages we are? lol. you have yet to show us a experiment that proves orbits cant work
They don't work with stupid rigged up space craft doing 17,000 mph around it that's for sure.
There's still some friction, you say and that's why they have to fire their thrusters ::)
Try to understand it with a round earth. Many FEers agree orbits are possible in a RE.
I'm not bothered who believes it's possible. I'm saying it's not possible at all.
Just give me a quick calculation as to how they come to 17,000 mph as a perfect speed to orbit.
The velocity that the ISS travels is determined by a couple physical variables. In the simplified case of a perfectly circular orbit the velocity can be derived by knowing:
1. The mass of the planet.
2. The distance between the orbiting object to the center of the planet.
V=Sqrt((G*M)/r)
So as you can see there is only one variable that we have control of.. Altitude.
Since the ISS flies at ~180 miles above the Earth the resulting velocity is ~17,500mph.
A.K.A the faster you go the higher you go the larger your orbital radious
And how do you calculate the mass of the Earth?
This should explain it:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Mass.shtml (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Mass.shtml)
-
1. F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the
gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of
the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the
Earth).
2. GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) Now solve for M, the mass of
the Earth.
3. M = ar2/G, where a=9.8m/sec2, r=6.4 x 10 6m, and G=6.67 x 10-
11m3/(kg sec2).
4. M = 9.8 x (6.7 x 106)2/6.7 x 10-11 = 6.0 x 1024 kg
all this info is easily avalible
-
why would it cause damage? ??? friction is tiny. just enough to over a long period of time slow it down enough to de orbit it.
-
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
That something, can indeed, "frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it."
Yes it can, if you live in a fantasy universe where you can make anything happen just by thoughts and scribbles. ::)
Why do you keep asking questions if you're just going to ridicule the answer? ???
-
Skimming wouldnt be the right word the right word. The atmosphere doesnt have a definite outer edge. Technicaly it is actualy within the earths atomsphere.
So the 17,000 mph ISS is technically inside the atmosphere encountering resistance and yet orbits and sustains no damage whatsoever due to friction, however small.
Is this what you're telling me?
Why would resistance cause damage?
-
1. F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the
gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of
the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the
Earth).
2. GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) Now solve for M, the mass of
the Earth.
3. M = ar2/G, where a=9.8m/sec2, r=6.4 x 10 6m, and G=6.67 x 10-
11m3/(kg sec2).
4. M = 9.8 x (6.7 x 106)2/6.7 x 10-11 = 6.0 x 1024 kg
all this info is easily avalible
Of course it's available. The bullshit is bound to be available to fit.
So even though they have no clue what the Earth is in it's entirety as in what's down below and the elements inside it in whatever quantities and can only guess, they can still calculate the mass, whilst also basing it on a gravity that nobody has a clue what it is?
Who in the hell really writes this stuff?
-
people with an education? ??? those same equations are used for everything we do on earth. build buildings fly planes fire artilery shells fire bullets.... etc
-
1. F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the
gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of
the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the
Earth).
2. GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) Now solve for M, the mass of
the Earth.
3. M = ar2/G, where a=9.8m/sec2, r=6.4 x 10 6m, and G=6.67 x 10-
11m3/(kg sec2).
4. M = 9.8 x (6.7 x 106)2/6.7 x 10-11 = 6.0 x 1024 kg
all this info is easily avalible
Of course it's available. The bullshit is bound to be available to fit.
So even though they have no clue what the Earth is in it's entirety as in what's down below and the elements inside it in whatever quantities and can only guess, they can still calculate the mass, whilst also basing it on a gravity that nobody has a clue what it is?
Who in the hell really writes this stuff?
That's like saying you can't find the mass of a bag full of random objects since you don't know what the objects are. Failed logic.
-
why would it cause damage? ??? friction is tiny. just enough to over a long period of time slow it down enough to de orbit it.
We are told that the Earth gets bombarded by thousands and thousands of micro meteoroids.
Can you explain what system they have in place on the space station that makes it avoid these?
-
why would it cause damage? ??? friction is tiny. just enough to over a long period of time slow it down enough to de orbit it.
We are told that the Earth gets bombarded by thousands and thousands of micro meteoroids.
Can you explain what system they have in place on the space station that makes it avoid these?
Compare the size of the earth and the iss. Obviously there will be far less objects that would hit the iss.
This is how they avoid it:
http://www.quora.com/International-Space-Station/How-does-the-International-Space-Station-avoid-major-damage-from-meteors (http://www.quora.com/International-Space-Station/How-does-the-International-Space-Station-avoid-major-damage-from-meteors)
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
-
people with an education? ??? those same equations are used for everything we do on earth. build buildings fly planes fire artilery shells fire bullets.... etc
I'm not questioning your education, I accept you as you are.
On Earth you don't have to calculate the mass of the Earth or gravity, just the mass of the shell and angle, plus wind resistance and velocity.
-
1. F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the
gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of
the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the
Earth).
2. GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) Now solve for M, the mass of
the Earth.
3. M = ar2/G, where a=9.8m/sec2, r=6.4 x 10 6m, and G=6.67 x 10-
11m3/(kg sec2).
4. M = 9.8 x (6.7 x 106)2/6.7 x 10-11 = 6.0 x 1024 kg
all this info is easily avalible
Of course it's available. The bullshit is bound to be available to fit.
So even though they have no clue what the Earth is in it's entirety as in what's down below and the elements inside it in whatever quantities and can only guess, they can still calculate the mass, whilst also basing it on a gravity that nobody has a clue what it is?
Who in the hell really writes this stuff?
That's like saying you can't find the mass of a bag full of random objects since you don't know what the objects are. Failed logic.
You can pick up that bag.
Can you pick up the Earth?
-
people with an education? ??? those same equations are used for everything we do on earth. build buildings fly planes fire artilery shells fire bullets.... etc
I'm not questioning your education, I accept you as you are.
On Earth you don't have to calculate the mass of the Earth or gravity, just the mass of the shell and angle, plus wind resistance and velocity.
Pretty every thing in physics hynges on bieng able to calculate gravity. Yave you any idea how stupid your last statement sounds?
-
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
That something, can indeed, "frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it."
Yes it can, if you live in a fantasy universe where you can make anything happen just by thoughts and scribbles. ::)
Why do you keep asking questions if you're just going to ridicule the answer? ???
I'm no more ridiculing their answers as you lot are my questions.
Don't take part if you're going to whine about it.
If you believed all of what you were saying, you wouldn't be answering my questions, you would just think I'm a goon and leave me be.
The truth is though, you know that my questions pose problems and that's why you and others do your utmost to answer and use a little bit of ridicule, which I can accept, so you accept a little bit.
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
If they say micrometeorites whizz by at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour, even one the size of a grain of rice is going to cause a shit load of problems isn't it.
Yet I'm sure they will have a system that detects incoming grains from all over that body swerves the ISS out of the way, whilst still maintaining orbit.
Come on man. ::)
-
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
That something, can indeed, "frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it."
Yes it can, if you live in a fantasy universe where you can make anything happen just by thoughts and scribbles. ::)
Why do you keep asking questions if you're just going to ridicule the answer? ???
I'm no more ridiculing their answers as you lot are my questions.
Don't take part if you're going to whine about it.
If you believed all of what you were saying, you wouldn't be answering my questions, you would just think I'm a goon and leave me be.
The truth is though, you know that my questions pose problems and that's why you and others do your utmost to answer and use a little bit of ridicule, which I can accept, so you accept a little bit.
I personally answer your questions because I feel bad for you, not because they "pose problems".
-
people with an education? ??? those same equations are used for everything we do on earth. build buildings fly planes fire artilery shells fire bullets.... etc
I'm not questioning your education, I accept you as you are.
On Earth you don't have to calculate the mass of the Earth or gravity, just the mass of the shell and angle, plus wind resistance and velocity.
Pretty every thing in physics hynges on bieng able to calculate gravity. Yave you any idea how stupid your last statement sounds?
You can't calculate something you know nothing about, or what it actually is.
-
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?
That something, can indeed, "frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it."
Yes it can, if you live in a fantasy universe where you can make anything happen just by thoughts and scribbles. ::)
Why do you keep asking questions if you're just going to ridicule the answer? ???
I'm no more ridiculing their answers as you lot are my questions.
Don't take part if you're going to whine about it.
If you believed all of what you were saying, you wouldn't be answering my questions, you would just think I'm a goon and leave me be.
The truth is though, you know that my questions pose problems and that's why you and others do your utmost to answer and use a little bit of ridicule, which I can accept, so you accept a little bit.
I personally answer your questions because I feel bad for you, not because they "pose problems".
Course you do my special friend. Now do you want to just get on with what's at hand, or do we start questioning education and mental abilities?
-
The truth is though, you know that my questions pose problems...
No, your questions don't pose problems. Your apparent inability to accept (or comprehend) the answers is the problem. Some of us are genuinely trying to help you understand the problems that you seem to have with certain concepts. It would be nice if you could at least try to meet us half way.
-
You can't calculate something you know nothing about, or what it actually is.
I happen to know exactly what it is.
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
If they say micrometeorites whizz by at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour, even one the size of a grain of rice is going to cause a shit load of problems isn't it.
Yet I'm sure they will have a system that detects incoming grains from all over that body swerves the ISS out of the way, whilst still maintaining orbit.
Come on man. ::)
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Besides, the ISS is more likely to get hit by an object in a similar orbit. Obviously this means there is not as much relative velocity between the two compared to an object hitting from an orbit that's much different. Although, this doesn't mean such an impact is impossible. However, it is just sooo much less likely considering the large distances of space. If you think about it, everything has to add up just right, or the object could miss by literally inches.
-
Course you do my special friend. Now do you want to just get on with what's at hand, or do we start questioning education and mental abilities?
Hey, you brought it up, I never mentioned education or anything before. I feel bad that you can't understand simple physics and I have tried to help you.
-
The truth is though, you know that my questions pose problems...
No, your questions don't pose problems. Your apparent inability to accept (or comprehend) the answers is the problem. Some of us are genuinely trying to help you understand the problems that you seem to have with certain concepts. It would be nice if you could at least try to meet us half way.
I'm more than meeting you half way.
Trying to make me believe in bullshit will not wash with me.
None of you have the faintest clue what mass this Earth is, except a guess, just like the scientists do.
Gravity is also a guess because you don't know what it is, yet orbits are calculated from it for satellites and space stations.
If you want to help me, start by accepting that you are going on wild guesses just like scientists are with a lot of this stuff.
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
If they say micrometeorites whizz by at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour, even one the size of a grain of rice is going to cause a shit load of problems isn't it.
Yet I'm sure they will have a system that detects incoming grains from all over that body swerves the ISS out of the way, whilst still maintaining orbit.
Come on man. ::)
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Besides, the ISS is more likely to get hit by an object in a similar orbit. Obviously this means there is not as much relative velocity between the two compared to an object hitting from an orbit that's much different. Although, this doesn't mean such an impact is impossible. However, it is just sooo much less likely considering the large distances of space. If you think about it, everything has to add up just right, or the object could miss by literally inches.
You are talking about hundreds and hundreds of supposed satellites, plus a supposed space station that are supposedly orbiting Earth every second of the year...year after year and they somehow don't get hit.
It's a big fluffy orbiting fairy tale.
-
Course you do my special friend. Now do you want to just get on with what's at hand, or do we start questioning education and mental abilities?
Hey, you brought it up, I never mentioned education or anything before. I feel bad that you can't understand simple physics and I have tried to help you.
Ok then, I feel bad that you can't understand you have been brainwashed by bullshit.
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
If they say micrometeorites whizz by at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour, even one the size of a grain of rice is going to cause a shit load of problems isn't it.
Yet I'm sure they will have a system that detects incoming grains from all over that body swerves the ISS out of the way, whilst still maintaining orbit.
Come on man. ::)
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Besides, the ISS is more likely to get hit by an object in a similar orbit. Obviously this means there is not as much relative velocity between the two compared to an object hitting from an orbit that's much different. Although, this doesn't mean such an impact is impossible. However, it is just sooo much less likely considering the large distances of space. If you think about it, everything has to add up just right, or the object could miss by literally inches.
You are talking about hundreds and hundreds of supposed satellites, plus a supposed space station that are supposedly orbiting Earth every second of the year...year after year and they somehow don't get hit.
It's a big fluffy orbiting fairy tale.
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
-
but they do get hit dont you read the news? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision)
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
If they say micrometeorites whizz by at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour, even one the size of a grain of rice is going to cause a shit load of problems isn't it.
Yet I'm sure they will have a system that detects incoming grains from all over that body swerves the ISS out of the way, whilst still maintaining orbit.
Come on man. ::)
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Besides, the ISS is more likely to get hit by an object in a similar orbit. Obviously this means there is not as much relative velocity between the two compared to an object hitting from an orbit that's much different. Although, this doesn't mean such an impact is impossible. However, it is just sooo much less likely considering the large distances of space. If you think about it, everything has to add up just right, or the object could miss by literally inches.
You are talking about hundreds and hundreds of supposed satellites, plus a supposed space station that are supposedly orbiting Earth every second of the year...year after year and they somehow don't get hit.
It's a big fluffy orbiting fairy tale.
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Does the space station get punctured?
-
but they do get hit dont you read the news? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision)
::)
-
Ok then, I feel bad that you can't understand you have been brainwashed by bullshit.
YOu do realise that the physics and maths that allows the iss to orbit the earth are the very same that allows the burj dubai to stand and allows jumbo jets to fly.
-
Ok then, I feel bad that you can't understand you have been brainwashed by bullshit.
YOu do realise that the physics and maths that allows the iss to orbit the earth are the very same that allows the burj dubai to stand and allows jumbo jets to fly.
Oh is that so.
Come on. enlighten me.
-
WHere would you like me to start?
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
If they say micrometeorites whizz by at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour, even one the size of a grain of rice is going to cause a shit load of problems isn't it.
Yet I'm sure they will have a system that detects incoming grains from all over that body swerves the ISS out of the way, whilst still maintaining orbit.
Come on man. ::)
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Besides, the ISS is more likely to get hit by an object in a similar orbit. Obviously this means there is not as much relative velocity between the two compared to an object hitting from an orbit that's much different. Although, this doesn't mean such an impact is impossible. However, it is just sooo much less likely considering the large distances of space. If you think about it, everything has to add up just right, or the object could miss by literally inches.
You are talking about hundreds and hundreds of supposed satellites, plus a supposed space station that are supposedly orbiting Earth every second of the year...year after year and they somehow don't get hit.
It's a big fluffy orbiting fairy tale.
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Does the space station get punctured?
I can't tell you yes or no as I'm not sure, but I do know it is protected by thick metals and stuff so that it doesn't happen. Other satellites have been though.
-
WHere would you like me to start?
Start by comparing the orbit of the ISS to a jumbo and structure.
-
not much. its one of the biggest threats to the station. it can move out of the way of man made objects if given enough warning but om sure micro meteorites would be detected so they could destroy the station. the station can withstand certain sizes but im not sure what kind of size we are talking about.
If they say micrometeorites whizz by at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour, even one the size of a grain of rice is going to cause a shit load of problems isn't it.
Yet I'm sure they will have a system that detects incoming grains from all over that body swerves the ISS out of the way, whilst still maintaining orbit.
Come on man. ::)
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Besides, the ISS is more likely to get hit by an object in a similar orbit. Obviously this means there is not as much relative velocity between the two compared to an object hitting from an orbit that's much different. Although, this doesn't mean such an impact is impossible. However, it is just sooo much less likely considering the large distances of space. If you think about it, everything has to add up just right, or the object could miss by literally inches.
You are talking about hundreds and hundreds of supposed satellites, plus a supposed space station that are supposedly orbiting Earth every second of the year...year after year and they somehow don't get hit.
It's a big fluffy orbiting fairy tale.
The ISS and other satellites do get hit though... and they do cause damage.
Does the space station get punctured?
I can't tell you yes or no as I'm not sure, but I do know it is protected by thick metals and stuff so that it doesn't happen. Other satellites have been though.
Thick metals.
I'll look up these thick metals.
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
also some damage to the iss
(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6048/800pxiss15mmoddamage.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/800pxiss15mmoddamage.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
during a Russian spacewalk conducted by cosmonauts Fyodor Yurchikhin, Expedition 15 commander, and Oleg Kotov, flight engineer, Yurchikhin commented on damage to a multi-layer insulation protective blanket on the Zarya module. The damage, he noted, was apparently from a micrometeoroid impact.
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
also some damage to the iss
(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6048/800pxiss15mmoddamage.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/800pxiss15mmoddamage.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
during a Russian spacewalk conducted by cosmonauts Fyodor Yurchikhin, Expedition 15 commander, and Oleg Kotov, flight engineer, Yurchikhin commented on damage to a multi-layer insulation protective blanket on the Zarya module. The damage, he noted, was apparently from a micrometeoroid impact.
Insulation blanket?
What the hell do they need an insulation blanket for?
-
have you? iv seen pictures i cant see it in person its in space ???, tin foil? they are not made of tin foil.
Insulation blanket?
What the hell do they need an insulation blanket for?
[/quote]
insulation ???
-
WHere would you like me to start?
Start by comparing the orbit of the ISS to a jumbo and structure.
Imagine we have a large object that has a mass of around 20'000kg. And we need to design some sort of crane that can lift it. We know there is some sort of force that is constantly acting downwards on the object.(This is what we call gravity) In order to lift it we need to work out how big a force we need to over come the one that is holding the object to the ground. THis is where a good understanding of gravity is needed. This is a very simplafied version of a common problem that faces the people that design buildings, planes and even international space stations.
If we didnt understand gravity as you say we wouldnt be able to over come this seemingly simple problem. And we wouldnt be able to do any thing quite as amazing as what we have in the world
-
have you? iv seen pictures i cant see it in person its in space ???, tin foil? they are not made of tin foil.
Insulation blanket?
What the hell do they need an insulation blanket for?
insulation ???
[/quote] Insulation from what?
-
heat and radiation. and partial protection from micro meteorites.
-
heat and radiation. and partial protection from micro meteorites.
Are you kidding me or what. ;D
-
is that all you can ever say. no actual reasons for why. just " are you kidding me" or " are you serious" or "its all fairytales."
no evidence just 3 word anserws.
-
is that all you can ever say. no actual reasons for why. just " are you kidding me" or " are you serious" or "its all fairytales."
no evidence just 3 word anserws.
What can a blanket do ?Why does it have fibres in it, it's not keeping cold or warm air out or in, so what the hell is it for.
-
its not a blanket like on your bed.
extract
Insulation must keep the internal temperature relatively stable in fluctuating conditions and also shield the cabin from radiation and microwaves. Currently, space craft is insulated with MLI or multilayer insulation. This insulation has multiple layers that serve to insulate and shield spacecraft and satellites from extreme temperatures and radiation. The insulation is composed of Mylar and Dacron. Mylar or Melinex is used for electrical insulation and performance boat sails. It is extremely tough material and has a high tensile strength. Dacron is a thermoplastic polymer used to insulate materials. It has many industrial insulation uses. Mylar and Dacron are layered to create a strong supple insulating fabric. The Mylar also prevents electrical conduction and radiation penetration. The Mylar and Dacron are covered with Kapton – the silver copper colored paper remembered from the first lunar lander. Kapton also composes the outer layer of space suits. Water is then pumped inside the craft via a duct-way of heat exchanges and cold plates to regulate the internal and external temperatures of the craft. Convection heating and cooling is used internally for the air temperature and conduction is used for mechanical parts, engines, and external temperature regulation. Spacecraft have always been well insulated – so much that radiators are required to expel excess heat out into space.
http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html (http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html)
-
its not a blanket like on your bed.
extract
Insulation must keep the internal temperature relatively stable in fluctuating conditions and also shield the cabin from radiation and microwaves. Currently, space craft is insulated with MLI or multilayer insulation. This insulation has multiple layers that serve to insulate and shield spacecraft and satellites from extreme temperatures and radiation. The insulation is composed of Mylar and Dacron. Mylar or Melinex is used for electrical insulation and performance boat sails. It is extremely tough material and has a high tensile strength. Dacron is a thermoplastic polymer used to insulate materials. It has many industrial insulation uses. Mylar and Dacron are layered to create a strong supple insulating fabric. The Mylar also prevents electrical conduction and radiation penetration. The Mylar and Dacron are covered with Kapton – the silver copper colored paper remembered from the first lunar lander. Kapton also composes the outer layer of space suits. Water is then pumped inside the craft via a duct-way of heat exchanges and cold plates to regulate the internal and external temperatures of the craft. Convection heating and cooling is used internally for the air temperature and conduction is used for mechanical parts, engines, and external temperature regulation. Spacecraft have always been well insulated – so much that radiators are required to expel excess heat out into space.
http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html (http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html)
Yes ok. :-\
-
Mylar? Rockwool? tote bag?
More like a grow op
-
heat and radiation. and partial protection from micro meteorites.
Are you kidding me or what. ;D
Are you kidding ME? Do you not think that space in our solar system doesn't experience extreme temperatures and radiation without an atmosphere to diffuse the rays?
This is the only response I've had to every single comment you make: ???
-
its not a blanket like on your bed.
extract
Insulation must keep the internal temperature relatively stable in fluctuating conditions and also shield the cabin from radiation and microwaves. Currently, space craft is insulated with MLI or multilayer insulation. This insulation has multiple layers that serve to insulate and shield spacecraft and satellites from extreme temperatures and radiation. The insulation is composed of Mylar and Dacron. Mylar or Melinex is used for electrical insulation and performance boat sails. It is extremely tough material and has a high tensile strength. Dacron is a thermoplastic polymer used to insulate materials. It has many industrial insulation uses. Mylar and Dacron are layered to create a strong supple insulating fabric. The Mylar also prevents electrical conduction and radiation penetration. The Mylar and Dacron are covered with Kapton – the silver copper colored paper remembered from the first lunar lander. Kapton also composes the outer layer of space suits. Water is then pumped inside the craft via a duct-way of heat exchanges and cold plates to regulate the internal and external temperatures of the craft. Convection heating and cooling is used internally for the air temperature and conduction is used for mechanical parts, engines, and external temperature regulation. Spacecraft have always been well insulated – so much that radiators are required to expel excess heat out into space.
http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html (http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html)
Yes ok. :-\
What are you 15? Please get back to us after a semester of high school physics 101. I'm currently taking calculus-based engineering physics right now, and this is proving difficult to actually dumb things down for you. Please get back to us when you have the most basic understanding of matter and it's motion through space and time, so you don't sound completely clueless and make a fool of yourself every other comment. You're probably even embarrassing some FErs right now.
-
its not a blanket like on your bed.
extract
Insulation must keep the internal temperature relatively stable in fluctuating conditions and also shield the cabin from radiation and microwaves. Currently, space craft is insulated with MLI or multilayer insulation. This insulation has multiple layers that serve to insulate and shield spacecraft and satellites from extreme temperatures and radiation. The insulation is composed of Mylar and Dacron. Mylar or Melinex is used for electrical insulation and performance boat sails. It is extremely tough material and has a high tensile strength. Dacron is a thermoplastic polymer used to insulate materials. It has many industrial insulation uses. Mylar and Dacron are layered to create a strong supple insulating fabric. The Mylar also prevents electrical conduction and radiation penetration. The Mylar and Dacron are covered with Kapton – the silver copper colored paper remembered from the first lunar lander. Kapton also composes the outer layer of space suits. Water is then pumped inside the craft via a duct-way of heat exchanges and cold plates to regulate the internal and external temperatures of the craft. Convection heating and cooling is used internally for the air temperature and conduction is used for mechanical parts, engines, and external temperature regulation. Spacecraft have always been well insulated – so much that radiators are required to expel excess heat out into space.
http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html (http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html)
Yes ok. :-\
What are you 15? Please get back to us after a semester of high school physics 101. I'm currently taking calculus-based engineering physics right now, and this is proving difficult to actually dumb things down for you. Please get back to us when you have the most basic understanding of matter and it's motion through space and time, so you don't sound completely clueless and make a fool of yourself every other comment. You're probably even embarrassing some FErs right now.
I'll tell you what's embarrassing.
It's people like you that swallow every last drop of bullshit you are told, even though you can , or should plainly see how absurd it is and how fake it all looks.
I don't care what engineering physics you are doing right now because what you are doing is simply on Earth and in truth, you haven't a scooby doo what's in space, except what you will be studying.
You refuse to admit this because there's no way in hell that you would ever admit to spending a large proportion of your life studying shoehorned space physics and admit that you've been duped.
Go back and take a look at the stupid space blanket and have a good think about it.
Insulation my arse.
-
whats wrong with the insulation? are you an expert in the materials used? what woulodnt work?
the system works in conjunction with heat radiators do dispence exces heat into space. it also provides a small amount of
protection against secondary radiation.
-
whats wrong with the insulation? are you an expert in the materials used? what woulodnt work?
the system works in conjunction with heat radiators do dispence exces heat into space. it also provides a small amount of
protection against secondary radiation.
How in the hell does it work in conjunction with heat radiators.
-
Yeah I'm not going to waste my time explaining its all available on the Internet. Diagrams schematics lists of materials. Have a look. It's amazing what you can find.
-
Yeah I'm not going to waste my time explaining its all available on the Internet. Diagrams schematics lists of materials. Have a look. It's amazing what you can find.
It's amazing what bullshit you can find, you're right.
-
so where do you get your source material from? i mean if you have it all figured out then where? wheres the source that says orbital physics dont work?
Yes I understand but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. None whatsoever to believe that something can frigging fall around a sphere and yet not crash into it.
It's fantasy.
where is the sorce that says the astrnoughts dont have enough air for a trip to the moon?
Gene Cernan was supposedly on the moon for three days. Now consider that the space suits had only a few hours of air in them, how did they fill them up for 3 days and where did they sleep?.
where is the source that says no one watched the satern v launches?
Which witnesses watched the Saturn V take off?
-
Where is the 143 minute continuous footage of slow motion on the moon?
Apollo 11 - First Moonwalks (1969) (http://#)
hear is 90 minuets of the apollo 11 fottage.
-
Thank's for those clips, Phytagoras. But where is the 143 minute continuous footage of slow motion on the moon?
-
i belive the origional fottage of apollo 11 was destoyed by accident. but dsnt take away from what was said in the origional op. billions of prople watched the origional fottage. and no one saw the problems he brought up that would have occured if it was a pre recording. which they didnt have the tech to do any way even if they wanted to.
-
billions of prople watched the origional fottage. and no one saw the problems he brought up that would have occured if it was a pre recording.
How do you know?
-
how do i know what?
-
how do i know what?
billions of prople watched the origional fottage. and no one saw the problems he brought up that would have occured if it was a pre recording.
How do you know?
-
its not a blanket like on your bed.
extract
Insulation must keep the internal temperature relatively stable in fluctuating conditions and also shield the cabin from radiation and microwaves. Currently, space craft is insulated with MLI or multilayer insulation. This insulation has multiple layers that serve to insulate and shield spacecraft and satellites from extreme temperatures and radiation. The insulation is composed of Mylar and Dacron. Mylar or Melinex is used for electrical insulation and performance boat sails. It is extremely tough material and has a high tensile strength. Dacron is a thermoplastic polymer used to insulate materials. It has many industrial insulation uses. Mylar and Dacron are layered to create a strong supple insulating fabric. The Mylar also prevents electrical conduction and radiation penetration. The Mylar and Dacron are covered with Kapton – the silver copper colored paper remembered from the first lunar lander. Kapton also composes the outer layer of space suits. Water is then pumped inside the craft via a duct-way of heat exchanges and cold plates to regulate the internal and external temperatures of the craft. Convection heating and cooling is used internally for the air temperature and conduction is used for mechanical parts, engines, and external temperature regulation. Spacecraft have always been well insulated – so much that radiators are required to expel excess heat out into space.
http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html (http://www.alsnscort.org/temperatures.html)
Yes ok. :-\
What are you 15? Please get back to us after a semester of high school physics 101. I'm currently taking calculus-based engineering physics right now, and this is proving difficult to actually dumb things down for you. Please get back to us when you have the most basic understanding of matter and it's motion through space and time, so you don't sound completely clueless and make a fool of yourself every other comment. You're probably even embarrassing some FErs right now.
I'll tell you what's embarrassing.
It's people like you that swallow every last drop of bullshit you are told, even though you can , or should plainly see how absurd it is and how fake it all looks.
I don't care what engineering physics you are doing right now because what you are doing is simply on Earth and in truth, you haven't a scooby doo what's in space, except what you will be studying.
You refuse to admit this because there's no way in hell that you would ever admit to spending a large proportion of your life studying shoehorned space physics and admit that you've been duped.
Go back and take a look at the stupid space blanket and have a good think about it.
Insulation my arse.
It's actually quite well documented what's in space. And I'm not studying 'shoehorned space physics'. not that it even exists. Is physics supposed to suddenly be different once you're in space? Nothing changes. These LAWS of motion are universal throughout our universe. And I'm studying computer engineering btw.
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
Sceptimatic, since you don't believe the ISS exists, what is it you think we're looking at when we see it go overhead?
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
Sceptimatic, since you don't believe the ISS exists, what is it you think we're looking at when we see it go overhead?
Earlier he said it must be a 'blimp' or some sort of aircraft.
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
Sceptimatic, since you don't believe the ISS exists, what is it you think we're looking at when we see it go overhead?
Earlier he said it must be a 'blimp' or some sort of aircraft.
I expect he will explain how a blimp can move at those speeds and that height, then.
-
how do i know what?
billions of prople watched the origional fottage. and no one saw the problems he brought up that would have occured if it was a pre recording.
How do you know?
This isn't ancient history were are talking about. A lot of the people that 1 st watched it are still alive. So that's how i know billions of people watched it and as for the second part. Show me a person with evidence of what the op Video says should be in the film but isn't. E.g emulation scratches, base scratches, splices, dust particles. I await your evidence.
-
Let's have a think about the moon landings from the start to finish.
Apollo 11, the first landing:
It starts off with a supposedly huge Saturn V rocket that blasts off , gets into space and jettisons most of it's size.
We are left with a command module housing a Lunar lander that flies into moon orbit. How they managed to calculate what the hell moons orbit would be is anyone's guess but they will have silly figures for that.
Once near the moon, the Astronauts get into the LEM and it detaches from the command module. Once it does this, it flies on towards the moon and when it's close enough, it about turns so it's rocket nozzle faces the moon.
It then descends to the moons surface using little retro rocket boosters to keep it's balance, all done by a computer supposedly designed to steady it.
These same retro boosters made the supposed training Earth LEM prototype crash because it couldn't keep it balanced, yet in "no supposed atmosphere" some computer managed to keep balancing this LEM all the way to the surface.
While this is happening, the command module is somehow whizzing around the moon constantly.
So up to now, we have 5 engines taking the Saturn V into space, then the command module separates which also has an engine, then goes to the moon, where the LEM separates, which as an engine and lands on the moon.
Once they finish on the moon, they ascend by separating from the LEM legs and engine and using yet another engine, they ascend from the moon and somehow manage to re dock with the command module, which has never ever been attempted before but goes without a hitch.
Once connected, the LEM ,( let's call it a lime top because that's exactly what it is and a reason why they call it a LEM), then gets jettisoned once the Astronauts get into the command module, through the only place possible, which is where the "parachutes" are stored.
The command module then fires up and sends then on towards the Earth, where the cone jettisons the remaining part of the command module away and free falls to Earth, encountering supposed thousands of degree friction heat to it's underside, yet it didn't have any special supposed shuttle type heat tiles on it, it was simply a special hammerite heat resistant paint or something.
Once they hit the friction, I assume they then go into the Felix Baumgartner vacuum free fall where there is no air to keep them steady and they can go into a death spin, flip, at unbelievable speeds until they hit atmospheric friction again, which slows them down to a supposed speed where they can deploy their parachutes...obviously deployed automatically using another computer that tells the capsule when to deploy.
They then land in the sea, where a helicopter is strategically on hand to pick them up as it's all calculated somehow.
If people want to believe in all this shite then go right ahead but don;t be telling me that I'm some kind of uneducated nut job for choosing to see it for what it is and was.
-
Let's have a think about the moon landings from the start to finish.
Apollo 11, the first landing:
It starts off with a supposedly huge Saturn V rocket that blasts off , gets into space and jettisons most of it's size.
We are left with a command module housing a Lunar lander that flies into moon orbit. How they managed to calculate what the hell moons orbit would be is anyone's guess but they will have silly figures for that.
Once near the moon, the Astronauts get into the LEM and it detaches from the command module. Once it does this, it flies on towards the moon and when it's close enough, it about turns so it's rocket nozzle faces the moon.
It then descends to the moons surface using little retro rocket boosters to keep it's balance, all done by a computer supposedly designed to steady it.
These same retro boosters made the supposed training Earth LEM prototype crash because it couldn't keep it balanced, yet in "no supposed atmosphere" some computer managed to keep balancing this LEM all the way to the surface.
While this is happening, the command module is somehow whizzing around the moon constantly.
So up to now, we have 5 engines taking the Saturn V into space, then the command module separates which also has an engine, then goes to the moon, where the LEM separates, which as an engine and lands on the moon.
Once they finish on the moon, they ascend by separating from the LEM legs and engine and using yet another engine, they ascend from the moon and somehow manage to re dock with the command module, which has never ever been attempted before but goes without a hitch.
Once connected, the LEM ,( let's call it a lime top because that's exactly what it is and a reason why they call it a LEM), then gets jettisoned once the Astronauts get into the command module, through the only place possible, which is where the "parachutes" are stored.
The command module then fires up and sends then on towards the Earth, where the cone jettisons the remaining part of the command module away and free falls to Earth, encountering supposed thousands of degree friction heat to it's underside, yet it didn't have any special supposed shuttle type heat tiles on it, it was simply a special hammerite heat resistant paint or something.
Once they hit the friction, I assume they then go into the Felix Baumgartner vacuum free fall where there is no air to keep them steady and they can go into a death spin, flip, at unbelievable speeds until they hit atmospheric friction again, which slows them down to a supposed speed where they can deploy their parachutes...obviously deployed automatically using another computer that tells the capsule when to deploy.
They then land in the sea, where a helicopter is strategically on hand to pick them up as it's all calculated somehow.
If people want to believe in all this shite then go right ahead but don;t be telling me that I'm some kind of uneducated nut job for choosing to see it for what it is and was.
Would you like me to show you the math on how they calculated rendezvous with the moon and the other ship? I only ask because it will take a long time to find the figures and you will probably call it bs anyway.
-
their is absolutly nothing that says non of that is possible. calling it all fantisy dosent make it so it just means you dont understand it. thats not the worlds fault. its your bug to bear not ours. but what this vedio is getting at is all this is perfectly physicly and technoligicly possible for the time, but what isnt is filming it. filming the hoax is imposible using the technoligy of the day. i worked as a projectionist for just over a year so i know a bit of what im talking about hear. ANY and ALL films using celluloid film have the follwing.
emulsion scratch
base scratches
dust contamination
splice marks
even today when you got to the cinema and watch a celluloid film you see all these things if you look closly. so where are they on the moon mitons fotage. they have to be on it if it was recoreded on earth. becuse they would have to have used celluloid film to do it. watch any historical footage recorded on earth and you will see what i mean.
-
i belive the origional fottage of apollo 11 was destoyed by accident. but dsnt take away from what was said in the origional op. billions of prople watched the origional fottage. and no one saw the problems he brought up that would have occured if it was a pre recording. which they didnt have the tech to do any way even if they wanted to.
This is true that they "lost" the original footage. How in the world do you lose the footage of the biggest achievement of mankind. They are smart enough to make the accomplishment, and spend all that money. But not smart enough to keep the tapes, or find them in the years since they were "lost". Yeah, I believe that.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
-
i belive the origional fottage of apollo 11 was destoyed by accident. but dsnt take away from what was said in the origional op. billions of prople watched the origional fottage. and no one saw the problems he brought up that would have occured if it was a pre recording. which they didnt have the tech to do any way even if they wanted to.
This is true that they "lost" the original footage. How in the world do you lose the footage of the biggest achievement of mankind. They are smart enough to make the accomplishment, and spend all that money. But not smart enough to keep the tapes, or find them in the years since they were "lost". Yeah, I believe that.
a tragic loss. but only a mistake. but not evidence of a cover up. its only apollo 11 fotage that was lost. the rest is all still in existance as far as i am aware. so why didnt they lose all the rest if they were trying to hide anything.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
You would have been much more credible if you had posted a big dogs turd with candles in it saying happy birthday poochy poo.
I can't believe you said you would do the calculations, then come back with that crap.
If you want to do some calculations, try this.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at 17,000 mph low Earth orbit.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth, middle Earth orbit and what speed.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at high Earth orbit and at what speed.
Then tell me why and how a craft orbits a supposed moon with no atmosphere and is supposedly rotating at 10mph yet the craft supposedly orbits it at great speed.
The shit they come out with is not only embarrassing, it's verging on the insanely ridiculous.
-
i belive the origional fottage of apollo 11 was destoyed by accident. but dsnt take away from what was said in the origional op. billions of prople watched the origional fottage. and no one saw the problems he brought up that would have occured if it was a pre recording. which they didnt have the tech to do any way even if they wanted to.
This is true that they "lost" the original footage. How in the world do you lose the footage of the biggest achievement of mankind. They are smart enough to make the accomplishment, and spend all that money. But not smart enough to keep the tapes, or find them in the years since they were "lost". Yeah, I believe that.
a tragic loss. but only a mistake. but not evidence of a cover up. its only apollo 11 fotage that was lost. the rest is all still in existance as far as i am aware. so why didnt they lose all the rest if they were trying to hide anything.
Yes, I'm sure you would put your winning lottery ticket in front of a whirling fan on top of a sky scraper wouldn't you because in effect this is tantamount to what N.A.S.A may as well have done.
Lost the footage, my arse.
They appear to have lost the footage to a lot of Apollo stuff it seems.
1969 to 1972, six missions landed on the moon and 40 years later nobody has been to the moon. Not one person.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
You would have been much more credible if you had posted a big dogs turd with candles in it saying happy birthday poochy poo.
I can't believe you said you would do the calculations, then come back with that crap.
If you want to do some calculations, try this.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at 17,000 mph low Earth orbit.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth, middle Earth orbit and what speed.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at high Earth orbit and at what speed.
Then tell me why and how a craft orbits a supposed moon with no atmosphere and is supposedly rotating at 10mph yet the craft supposedly orbits it at great speed.
The shit they come out with is not only embarrassing, it's verging on the insanely ridiculous.
awww whats wrong? you cant understand so you go al poo poo on us. lol.
Yes, I'm sure you would put your winning lottery ticket in front of a whirling fan on top of a sky scraper wouldn't you because in effect this is tantamount to what N.A.S.A may as well have done.
Lost the footage, my arse.
They appear to have lost the footage to a lot of Apollo stuff it seems.
1969 to 1972, six missions landed on the moon and 40 years later nobody has been to the moon. Not one person.
what other apollo fottage has been lost?
and i went to disney once and it cost a stupid amount of money so i didnt go again. it was fun at the time and got to brag about it to my mates but wont go again unless it gets cheeper. same thing realy. they spend 100 billion dolars in todays money to go to the moon. do they seem to have that kind of money laying around today? or the political will or public suport?
-
I understand the bull shit perfectly Thaggy and I understand the reasons behind the bull shit. It doesn't make it right though.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
explain all the numbers he posted in his post then if you understand it. i await your anserw.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
explain all the numbers he posted in his post then if you understand it. i await your anserw.
I wouldn't even attempt to explain bullshit like that.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
explain all the numbers he posted in his post then if you understand it. i await your anserw.
I wouldn't even attempt to explain bullshit like that.
english translation.
i dont even understand advanced mathmatics like that. ;D lol nice one.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
explain all the numbers he posted in his post then if you understand it. i await your anserw.
I wouldn't even attempt to explain bullshit like that.
english translation.
i dont even understand advanced mathmatics like that. ;D lol nice one.
You are missing the whole point.
You can fill out as many equations as you want and math, yet it's all based on a starting point of bullshit where one piece of bullshit starts off at a number and the rest follow it to cater for more bullshit.
My reasonings are simple basic logic, not equations designed to explain bull.
-
but all this math works when applied in the real world. so please shows us where its bull? you cant build anything by using logic alone. you need math. and all math is the same not diferent types so it has to all work or non of it works. and i can assure you, math does indeed work. you just dont understand it.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
You would have been much more credible if you had posted a big dogs turd with candles in it saying happy birthday poochy poo.
I can't believe you said you would do the calculations, then come back with that crap.
If you want to do some calculations, try this.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at 17,000 mph low Earth orbit.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth, middle Earth orbit and what speed.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at high Earth orbit and at what speed.
Then tell me why and how a craft orbits a supposed moon with no atmosphere and is supposedly rotating at 10mph yet the craft supposedly orbits it at great speed.
The shit they come out with is not only embarrassing, it's verging on the insanely ridiculous.
You make me laugh ;D How are those not calculations!?!? Let me answer your questions though.
Well all 3 include "why a craft orbits earth" and it's simple; they are falling but miss earth.
To calculate the speed of a craft in circular orbit you may use this nifty equation: sqrt(μ/r) where μ is gravitational parameter and r is radius of the orbit (that is including the radius of the body it is orbiting).
LEO (160km-2,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/6,525)=7.8159km/s= 17,483mph
MEO (2,000km-35,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/8,365)=6.903km/s= 15,441mph
HEI (35,000km and up): sqrt(398,600.4418/41,365)=3.1042km/s= 6,943mph
Oh, and atmosphere and the rotation of the planet have literally NOTHING to do with orbits!!!!! Nothing! (besides the name of the orbit but w/e)
Edit: Well by atmosphere having nothing to do I mean atmospheres do not help crafts stay in orbit.
-
but all this math works when applied in the real world. so please shows us where its bull? you cant build anything by using logic alone. you need math. and all math is the same not diferent types so it has to all work or non of it works. and i can assure you, math does indeed work. you just dont understand it.
"In the real world"...correct.
We are not dealing with the real world where all this crap is concerned because we are dealing with bogus science of space.
Ok let's start from scratch.
You tell me how the size of the moon and the distance was first calculated. Just tell me that.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
You would have been much more credible if you had posted a big dogs turd with candles in it saying happy birthday poochy poo.
I can't believe you said you would do the calculations, then come back with that crap.
If you want to do some calculations, try this.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at 17,000 mph low Earth orbit.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth, middle Earth orbit and what speed.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at high Earth orbit and at what speed.
Then tell me why and how a craft orbits a supposed moon with no atmosphere and is supposedly rotating at 10mph yet the craft supposedly orbits it at great speed.
The shit they come out with is not only embarrassing, it's verging on the insanely ridiculous.
You make me laugh ;D How are those not calculations!?!? Let me answer your questions though.
Well all 3 include "why a craft orbits earth" and it's simple; they are falling but miss earth.
To calculate the speed of a craft in circular orbit you may use this nifty equation: sqrt(μ/r) where μ is gravitational parameter and r is radius of the orbit (that is including the radius of the body it is orbiting).
LEO (160km-2,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/6,525)=7.8159km/s= 17,483mph
MEO (2,000km-35,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/8,365)=6.903km/s= 15,441mph
HEI (35,000km and up): sqrt(398,600.4418/41,365)=3.1042km/s= 6,943mph
Oh, and atmosphere and the rotation of the planet have literally NOTHING to do with orbits!!!!! Nothing! (besides the name of the orbit but w/e)
Edit: Well by atmosphere having nothing to do I mean atmospheres do not help crafts stay in orbit.
So did the Apollo need to use fuel to get to the moon once it left Earth's atmosphere?
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
You would have been much more credible if you had posted a big dogs turd with candles in it saying happy birthday poochy poo.
I can't believe you said you would do the calculations, then come back with that crap.
If you want to do some calculations, try this.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at 17,000 mph low Earth orbit.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth, middle Earth orbit and what speed.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at high Earth orbit and at what speed.
Then tell me why and how a craft orbits a supposed moon with no atmosphere and is supposedly rotating at 10mph yet the craft supposedly orbits it at great speed.
The shit they come out with is not only embarrassing, it's verging on the insanely ridiculous.
You make me laugh ;D How are those not calculations!?!? Let me answer your questions though.
Well all 3 include "why a craft orbits earth" and it's simple; they are falling but miss earth.
To calculate the speed of a craft in circular orbit you may use this nifty equation: sqrt(μ/r) where μ is gravitational parameter and r is radius of the orbit (that is including the radius of the body it is orbiting).
LEO (160km-2,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/6,525)=7.8159km/s= 17,483mph
MEO (2,000km-35,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/8,365)=6.903km/s= 15,441mph
HEI (35,000km and up): sqrt(398,600.4418/41,365)=3.1042km/s= 6,943mph
Oh, and atmosphere and the rotation of the planet have literally NOTHING to do with orbits!!!!! Nothing! (besides the name of the orbit but w/e)
Edit: Well by atmosphere having nothing to do I mean atmospheres do not help crafts stay in orbit.
So did the Apollo need to use fuel to get to the moon once it left Earth's atmosphere?
Yes, and the amount can be calculated with maaaaathhhh.
-
i belive they used solar eclipses. but im not going to bother with the math as we are quite aware that you dnt understand math one small bit.
and yes to your moon question they used their engins to leave the earths orbit.
-
Alright well I did the math anyway. I didn't do the calculations for the ship rendezvous as I haven't found out enough info for it yet.
So, this is how they found the angle to get to the moon:
pi*(sqrt(6,525+385,000)^3)/(8*398,600.442)=430,997.9839 (Time)
sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=65.26 (Angular Velocity)
180-sqrt(398,600.442/385,000)*430,997.9839/385,000*180/pi=114.74 (Phase Angle)
You would have been much more credible if you had posted a big dogs turd with candles in it saying happy birthday poochy poo.
I can't believe you said you would do the calculations, then come back with that crap.
If you want to do some calculations, try this.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at 17,000 mph low Earth orbit.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth, middle Earth orbit and what speed.
Tell me why a craft orbits the Earth at high Earth orbit and at what speed.
Then tell me why and how a craft orbits a supposed moon with no atmosphere and is supposedly rotating at 10mph yet the craft supposedly orbits it at great speed.
The shit they come out with is not only embarrassing, it's verging on the insanely ridiculous.
You make me laugh ;D How are those not calculations!?!? Let me answer your questions though.
Well all 3 include "why a craft orbits earth" and it's simple; they are falling but miss earth.
To calculate the speed of a craft in circular orbit you may use this nifty equation: sqrt(μ/r) where μ is gravitational parameter and r is radius of the orbit (that is including the radius of the body it is orbiting).
LEO (160km-2,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/6,525)=7.8159km/s= 17,483mph
MEO (2,000km-35,000km): sqrt(398,600.4418/8,365)=6.903km/s= 15,441mph
HEI (35,000km and up): sqrt(398,600.4418/41,365)=3.1042km/s= 6,943mph
Oh, and atmosphere and the rotation of the planet have literally NOTHING to do with orbits!!!!! Nothing! (besides the name of the orbit but w/e)
Edit: Well by atmosphere having nothing to do I mean atmospheres do not help crafts stay in orbit.
So did the Apollo need to use fuel to get to the moon once it left Earth's atmosphere?
Yes, and the amount can be calculated with maaaaathhhh.
What kind of fuel tanks did it have? Tardis ones?
-
What kind of fuel tanks did it have? Tardis ones?
Idk, why does that matter? You can look it up if you want...
-
i belive they used solar eclipses. but im not going to bother with the math as we are quite aware that you dnt understand math one small bit.
and yes to your moon question they used their engins to leave the earths orbit.
I once saw a magician at a circus doing a magic trick when I was a kid and it looked amazing. I found out later how he done that trick and guess what?
I didn't use any calculations to figure it out.
There's a few ways to figure out bull shit.
1. you can smell it.
2. You can deduce it's bull shit by using a lie detector.
3. You can observe facial mannerisms and body movement.
4. You can use simple logic and a hunch.
5. You can find discrepancies among figures.
Seeing as this is about moon landings, we can discount number one on the basis that there's no smell. We also cannot use a lie detector because it would not be allowed.
We can observe facial mannerisms to give is a clue to a liar and number 4 can be used in conjunction with number 3.
Number 5 can be done, yet it can be manipulated by the liars.
Facial mannerisms , I'm sure many people can spot a liar but how about spotting 3.
I'd like everyone to join in here if you will.
Call this a poll over the video I'm going to show you, which is the post Apollo 11 press conference.
I'll give you 4 scenarios and all you have to do is pick one or two answers and explain why you chose it/them.
1. These Astronauts appear to be suffering from the stress of being on the moon and being quarantined?
2. Do these Astronauts appear nervous and unable to communicate properly because they are not used to the media?
3. Do these people feel ashamed that they have to spend their time lying their arses off about an event which never happened.
4. Do these Astronauts look like they are under orders to say what they are being told to say and are scared and ashamed at the same time.
Clip of Apollo 11 press conference (http://#)
-
What kind of fuel tanks did it have? Tardis ones?
Idk, why does that matter? You can look it up if you want...
I'll pass on that.
Why does it matter, Hahahaha.
-
are you a psychiatrist now and an expert in human facial expresions? makes sense i suppose. your a self proclamed expert in everything else aparently. what does any of this have to do with measurments of the moon?
and the fuels used in the 2nd and 3rd stages was liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
Sceptimatic, since you don't believe the ISS exists, what is it you think we're looking at when we see it go overhead?
Earlier he said it must be a 'blimp' or some sort of aircraft.
I expect he will explain how a blimp can move at those speeds and that height, then.
My mistake, he's ignoring the issue.
-
are you a psychiatrist now and an expert in human facial expresions? makes sense i suppose. your a self proclamed expert in everything else aparently. what does any of this have to do with measurments of the moon?
and the fuels used in the 2nd and 3rd stages was liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen
No, I'm just good at spotting liars.
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
Sceptimatic, since you don't believe the ISS exists, what is it you think we're looking at when we see it go overhead?
Earlier he said it must be a 'blimp' or some sort of aircraft.
I expect he will explain how a blimp can move at those speeds and that height, then.
My mistake, he's ignoring the issue.
Tell me how you tracked it to get it's shape?
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
Sceptimatic, since you don't believe the ISS exists, what is it you think we're looking at when we see it go overhead?
Earlier he said it must be a 'blimp' or some sort of aircraft.
I expect he will explain how a blimp can move at those speeds and that height, then.
My mistake, he's ignoring the issue.
Tell me how you tracked it to get it's shape?
That's not what he asked.
-
mir had a lot of impact damage by the end of its life. lots of pitting and cracks especialy on the solar panles. no breach of the living quarters though.
pitting and cracking eh?
Have you seen the supposed solar panels on the supposed space station?
They're tin foil effigies.
Tiny friction can't affect this tin foil, even at 17,000 mph.
Was it the shoehorned math that made you accept all this crap or was it just simple faith in what you were told?
Sceptimatic, since you don't believe the ISS exists, what is it you think we're looking at when we see it go overhead?
Earlier he said it must be a 'blimp' or some sort of aircraft.
I expect he will explain how a blimp can move at those speeds and that height, then.
My mistake, he's ignoring the issue.
Tell me how you tracked it to get it's shape?
That's not what he asked.
Well you have to look at it like this.
You can believe something is in space when it could easily be in the atmosphere, yet it depends on how a person is seeing the shape.
I want to know how the shape of it is captured by eye at the speed it's going.
-
Well you have to look at it like this.
You can believe something is in space when it could easily be in the atmosphere, yet it depends on how a person is seeing the shape.
I want to know how the shape of it is captured by eye at the speed it's going.
You can't. That's where telescopes and cameras come in.
-
Well you have to look at it like this.
You can believe something is in space when it could easily be in the atmosphere, yet it depends on how a person is seeing the shape.
I want to know how the shape of it is captured by eye at the speed it's going.
You can't. That's where telescopes and cameras come in.
You can see it by eye on a clear night. This is what I've been told. What do you see by eye on a clear night?
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
Well ok.
You can see satellites going across the night sky with binoculars despite them supposedly being no bigger than a small car or smaller right? Yet they are a few hundred miles up and yet as if by magic, you can see them.
Go up a sky scraper and see if you can view a car from 200 miles away with binoculars.
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
Well ok.
You can see satellites going across the night sky with binoculars despite them supposedly being no bigger than a small car or smaller right? Yet they are a few hundred miles up and yet as if by magic, you can see them.
Go up a sky scraper and see if you can view a car from 200 miles away with binoculars.
Cars don't reflect the sun at night. And I can see satellites at night with my naked eye all the time. You should get out sometime.
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
Well ok.
You can see satellites going across the night sky with binoculars despite them supposedly being no bigger than a small car or smaller right? Yet they are a few hundred miles up and yet as if by magic, you can see them.
Go up a sky scraper and see if you can view a car from 200 miles away with binoculars.
Cars don't reflect the sun at night. And I can see satellites at night with my naked eye all the time. You should get out sometime.
Bionic vision.
Has it ever occurred to you that what you are seeing is a shit load bigger than what you believe it to be, For instance what's known as shooting stars that you mistake for little satellites zooming across the skies.
Obviously it will be hard for you to accept because you know it's satellites because you have been told by all the nice intelligent people that they are satellites.
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
Well ok.
You can see satellites going across the night sky with binoculars despite them supposedly being no bigger than a small car or smaller right? Yet they are a few hundred miles up and yet as if by magic, you can see them.
Go up a sky scraper and see if you can view a car from 200 miles away with binoculars.
Cars don't reflect the sun at night. And I can see satellites at night with my naked eye all the time. You should get out sometime.
Bionic vision.
Has it ever occurred to you that what you are seeing is a shit load bigger than what you believe it to be, For instance what's known as shooting stars that you mistake for little satellites zooming across the skies.
Obviously it will be hard for you to accept because you know it's satellites because you have been told by all the nice intelligent people that they are satellites.
Shooting stars look nothing like satellites.
-
I have never mistaken a shooting star for a satellite.
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
Well ok.
You can see satellites going across the night sky with binoculars despite them supposedly being no bigger than a small car or smaller right? Yet they are a few hundred miles up and yet as if by magic, you can see them.
Go up a sky scraper and see if you can view a car from 200 miles away with binoculars.
Cars don't reflect the sun at night. And I can see satellites at night with my naked eye all the time. You should get out sometime.
Bionic vision.
Has it ever occurred to you that what you are seeing is a shit load bigger than what you believe it to be, For instance what's known as shooting stars that you mistake for little satellites zooming across the skies.
Obviously it will be hard for you to accept because you know it's satellites because you have been told by all the nice intelligent people that they are satellites.
Are you kidding me? Shooting stars look nothing like satellites.
-
They move much faster for starters
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
Well ok.
You can see satellites going across the night sky with binoculars despite them supposedly being no bigger than a small car or smaller right? Yet they are a few hundred miles up and yet as if by magic, you can see them.
Go up a sky scraper and see if you can view a car from 200 miles away with binoculars.
Cars don't reflect the sun at night. And I can see satellites at night with my naked eye all the time. You should get out sometime.
Bionic vision.
Has it ever occurred to you that what you are seeing is a shit load bigger than what you believe it to be, For instance what's known as shooting stars that you mistake for little satellites zooming across the skies.
Obviously it will be hard for you to accept because you know it's satellites because you have been told by all the nice intelligent people that they are satellites.
Shooting stars look nothing like satellites.
And how in the hell do you know that?
This is the problem with you people. You profess to know that there are satellites in space because you are so conditioned to believing what supposed top scientists teach you that you lose all sight of logical thought to even question it.
When you look up and see flashes of light skimming the sky, it's a satellite and other things are meteorites when it suits.
There's nothing wrong with having faith in science and there's nothing wrong with sticking rigidly to what you believe humans are capable of, even in space if you have no inclination to think or believe anything otherwise.
You accept satellites because you maybe use a sat nav, sky TV and many other varieties of things that supposedly use satellites to make your life easier and for some reason you know they are in space because you think it's impossible for it to be Earth based, yet it's blatantly clear that all of what is supposed to be in space transmitting, is easily produced on Earth, so why the need for communication satellites?
To think that many people have spent years of their lives studying something they know nothing about and yet are marked on what they absorbed whilst being schooled, only to gain a degree in something that is based on nothing more than fantasy and bull shit. That's the sad part and it's called astro physics.
-
I have never mistaken a shooting star for a satellite.
Of course you haven't.
The reason you haven't, is because you have no clue what they are so how are you going to distinguish?
-
What you would expect. A glint of light chugging across the sky. Just like any satellite going overhead. You can't see it's shape with the naked eye from 200 miles away. I thought you were the king of common sense?
Well ok.
You can see satellites going across the night sky with binoculars despite them supposedly being no bigger than a small car or smaller right? Yet they are a few hundred miles up and yet as if by magic, you can see them.
Go up a sky scraper and see if you can view a car from 200 miles away with binoculars.
Cars don't reflect the sun at night. And I can see satellites at night with my naked eye all the time. You should get out sometime.
Bionic vision.
Has it ever occurred to you that what you are seeing is a shit load bigger than what you believe it to be, For instance what's known as shooting stars that you mistake for little satellites zooming across the skies.
Obviously it will be hard for you to accept because you know it's satellites because you have been told by all the nice intelligent people that they are satellites.
Are you kidding me? Shooting stars look nothing like satellites.
You are of the belief that a shooting star as people call them, have to whizz by at faster than your supposed satellite, yet you honestly have no clue.
I get called arrogant for dismissing things but it's no more arrogant than you people pretending you know what stuff in space is and does because you have been to university or studied some space garbage.
The truth is, the most you can do as far as space goes, is map directions of stars and visual planets etc, stuff like that.
As for most other stuff, you are simply going on rigged up theories and hypothesis and a lot of absolute crap as far as space is concerned, yet are too arrogant to even dare to admit that there's a possibility you may have been duped with certain stuff as it weakens your stance and beliefs.
-
You do know they look completely different right. Not alike at all. And move at vastly different speeds. Usually you will see them burn out as well. Considering you wnt even look through a telescope you are hardly one to talk really are you?
-
You do know they look completely different right. Not alike at all. And move at vastly different speeds. Usually you will see them burn out as well. Considering you wnt even look through a telescope you are hardly one to talk really are you?
You simply believe flashes of light in the sky are satellites and the faster ones are shooting stars, meteoroids or whatever, yet can't get your head around the fact that they can all be at different speeds.
-
What dnt you understand about their speeds? Also a shotgun star only lasts a few seconds on average. Starting of realy faint then over the space of a few seconds getting much much brighter then suddenly vanishing once they have burnt up. Very easily distinguishable from sats. But I forgot, you don't look in the real world you jus watch you tube.
-
What dnt you understand about their speeds? Also a shotgun star only lasts a few seconds on average. Starting of realy faint then over the space of a few seconds getting much much brighter then suddenly vanishing once they have burnt up. Very easily distinguishable from sats. But I forgot, you don't look in the real world you jus watch you tube.
That's the problem here. I am in the real world and I see things in the real world. You see things in fantasy world and expect others to do so.
What you believe space to be is nothing of the sort...and what you believe humans can do in space, is a million miles away from what actually is.
You can sling whatever equations at me to try and prove what you know about distances of planets, stars, satellites, the moon and it will mean absolutely nothing.
Let's go to basics and you tell me how the moons distance was first measured and exactly how the Earth was measured in circumference, plus the mass and then the gravity.
-
What dnt you understand about their speeds? Also a shotgun star only lasts a few seconds on average. Starting of realy faint then over the space of a few seconds getting much much brighter then suddenly vanishing once they have burnt up. Very easily distinguishable from sats. But I forgot, you don't look in the real world you jus watch you tube.
That's the problem here. I am in the real world and I see things in the real world. You see things in fantasy world and expect others to do so.
What you believe space to be is nothing of the sort...and what you believe humans can do in space, is a million miles away from what actually is.
You can sling whatever equations at me to try and prove what you know about distances of planets, stars, satellites, the moon and it will mean absolutely nothing.
Let's go to basics and you tell me how the moons distance was first measured and exactly how the Earth was measured in circumference, plus the mass and then the gravity.
Why you just said it would mean absolutely nothing to you. We are all well aware you dnt understand any level of maths or physics so why do you want us to show you the equations?
-
What dnt you understand about their speeds? Also a shotgun star only lasts a few seconds on average. Starting of realy faint then over the space of a few seconds getting much much brighter then suddenly vanishing once they have burnt up. Very easily distinguishable from sats. But I forgot, you don't look in the real world you jus watch you tube.
That's the problem here. I am in the real world and I see things in the real world. You see things in fantasy world and expect others to do so.
What you believe space to be is nothing of the sort...and what you believe humans can do in space, is a million miles away from what actually is.
You can sling whatever equations at me to try and prove what you know about distances of planets, stars, satellites, the moon and it will mean absolutely nothing.
Let's go to basics and you tell me how the moons distance was first measured and exactly how the Earth was measured in circumference, plus the mass and then the gravity.
Why you just said it would mean absolutely nothing to you. We are all well aware you dnt understand any level of maths or physics so why do you want us to show you the equations?
You don't have to show me any math. All I want you to do, is tell me the method of how it was calculated in simplistic terms.
Let's start with the size of the moon. Just tell me how the size was calculated , you don;t need to give any calculations out, just the method of what was used.
-
How long luner eclipses lasted was the oldest way of determining the size if the moon. And was pretty accurate
-
How long luner eclipses lasted was the oldest way of determining the size if the moon. And was pretty accurate
How can a lunar eclipse determine the size of the moon?
-
In idiot terms without using math to describe it, you time how long the moon takes to travel through the shadow of the earth. But trust me that is the most simplistic way to put it. So dnt go saying that sounds ridiculous because we have to put things in realy simple Terms for you.
-
In idiot terms without using math to describe it, you time how long the moon takes to travel through the shadow of the earth. But trust me that is the most simplistic way to put it. So dnt go saying that sounds ridiculous because we have to put things in realy simple Terms for you.
Ok, so you time how long it takes the moon to travel through the shadow of Earth. Now how does that tell the size of the moon?
Keep it kiddified.
-
Because we know the size of the earth so we know the size of its shadow. If we know the distance to the moon and the size of our shadow you can measure the time taken from when the first part of the moon hits the shadow and to when it leaves the shadow to determine its diamiter
-
Because we know the size of the earth so we know the size of its shadow. If we know the distance to the moon and the size of our shadow you can measure the time taken from when the first part of the moon hits the shadow and to when it leaves the shadow to determine its diamiter
How was the circumference of the Earth calculated?
-
By putting two sticks in the ground as far apart as possible logditudaly and measuring the shadow at adsactly the same time. Remember again, this is the most simple form i can put it in so dnt go saying well how the hell does that tell you anything.
By the way every method I am telling you you can do yourself. It's not a conspiricy controled thing.
-
By putting two sticks in the ground as far apart as possible logditudaly and measuring the shadow at adsactly the same time. Remember again, this is the most simple form i can put it in so dnt go saying well how the hell does that tell you anything.
By the way every method I am telling you you can do yourself. It's not a conspiricy controled thing.
How did the shadow between the sticks give the Earth's circumference?
-
Using the difference in the length of the shadows, we can calculate the difference in the angle at which the sunlight hit the northern most post, and the sunlight that hit the southernmost post. That angle this gives us is a small bit of 360 degrees. The distance between the two of the postsis a small bit of the earth's surface.
Those little slices are proportionate to the whole, so by figuring out what percentage of 360 degrees that small angle is, it's possible to calculate what percentage of the earth's circumference the distance between the northernmost and southernmost point is.
-
Using the difference in the length of the shadows, we can calculate the difference in the angle at which the sunlight hit the northern most post, and the sunlight that hit the southernmost post. That angle this gives us is a small slice of 360 degrees. The distance between the two of the postsis a small slice of the earth's surface.
Those little slices are proportionate to the whole, so by figuring out what percentage of 360 degrees that small angle is, it's possible to calculate what percentage of the earth's circumference the distance between the northernmost and southernmost point is.
Ok.
How did they calculate the distance and the size of the Sun?
-
All this info is avalible on the Internet. I'm not doing the hard work for you just so at the end of it you say, we'll all the maths is just rigd to work. Type into googl how do we know the distance to the sun and it will tell you. Seeing as you love you tube I'm sure they will have a lovely video of it for you.
-
All this info is avalible on the Internet. I'm not doing the hard work for you just so at the end of it you say, we'll all the maths is just rigd to work. Type into googl how do we know the distance to the sun and it will tell you. Seeing as you love you tube I'm sure they will have a lovely video of it for you.
Ok.
-
You do know that a meteor entering earths atmosphere at an angle at high speed that burns up in a few seconds that can even appear orange if it's big enough and a satellite in orbit that goes from horizon to horizon at a slow but steady speed and doesn't disintegrate look different right? Of course not. That would be logical.
-
4 satellites, a shooting star and a UFO.
EEV P8079 HP Night Vision Periscope L7A1 - Stars, Satellite, Shooting Star and UFO (http://#)
-
I have never mistaken a shooting star for a satellite.
Of course you haven't.
The reason you haven't, is because you have no clue what they are so how are you going to distinguish?
What? Even if satellites are fake, there's still a clear difference between whatever they really are, and shooting stars. They don't behave the same.
-
I have never mistaken a shooting star for a satellite.
Of course you haven't.
The reason you haven't, is because you have no clue what they are so how are you going to distinguish?
No clue what they are? Satellites and shooting stars? Am I being punk'd? Ashton is that you?
-
Take your pick from any objects you would like, except for man made satellites in "space."
-
Take your pick from any objects you would like, except for man made satellites in "space."
Too vague. Try again.
-
Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.
OT: Sceptimatic, assuming you're not a troll, I'm going to try my very best to explain to you the basic workings of a satellite. First, I'm going to start off by stating that satellites aren't solely human creations; we derived the idea from those already surrounding our very existence. The Earth, the moon, the asteroid belt, and millions of other solar bodies are satellites to other solar bodies, one example being the Sun. Yes, we are in fact a satellite around our own Sun. How is this possible, you ask? By counteracting the force that gravity exerts on us with a velocity perpendicular to the direction with which gravity is exerting on us. I will NOT be explaining WHY an object exerts gravity, as I do not know why it exists, I merely know that repeated studies of gravity show it to be a force consistent enough that we can draw many scientifically-backed assumptions from it.
We'll take a look first at the idea of a cannon, as it was earlier mention in this thread. A cannon will shoot a ball forward, and since we have gravity and so much air resistance the ball will eventually slow down and return to Earth. Gravity accounts for the balls return to Earth. The atmosphere around us accounts for the balls deceleration due to friction and air pressure built up in front of it. If we increase the speed with which the ball is launched, the distance it travels also increases. If this is were drawn out, the ball would show an arc as it returns back to Earth, rather than showing a continuous straight line followed by a sudden drop in height.
Now consider this same cannon but instead of a level surface, imagine it's on the top of a large hill. The cannon will fire many balls with a different acceleration to plot the landing points. As it fires faster and faster, the balls move farther and farther down this hill. Because the hill is at a decline, the ball has to fall farther before it reaches the ground, but Earth's gravity is still pulling on it no matter how fast it travels.
If you imagine this getting larger and larger, and on a round planet, that ball is either going to return to Earth, or it's going to launch out of the atmosphere, beyond Earth's event horizon (because gravity is relative to the size of the object, and all objects exert a gravitational force) and into space.
But what if an object could move fast enough that even though it is being pulled back to Earth, it never hits? It may sound like crazy talk, but that's exactly what satellites do. They are being pulled back to Earth by its gravity, but due to their velocity the objects will move around the Earth rather than slamming into it. If the object were to lose speed over time and it wasn't compensated for it would eventually fall to the surface. If its trajectory were to be modified enough while holding an appropriate speed, the object would escape us and go off into space. I'm not saying this is an over-night endeavor to accomplish the creation of a satellite that will orbit Earth, but it's not something we haven't accomplished at all.
This explanation here is exactly how the Earth maintains its orbit around the Sun. We are moving fast enough perpendicular to the gravity that the Sun exerts on our planet that we don't crash into it, but slow enough that we don't "float" away into space. This is also how the moon stays within our orbit.
The math determined to find out how fast one needs to travel to not come crashing down has been done for me by a previous poster. Many of the numbers put into those equations are pulled from other real world situations. Gravity on Earth can be determined by dropping an object in a vacuum and timing how long it takes such an object to hit the ground. We then simplify it to its acceleration (9.8m/s^2).
You then asked how we determined the gravity of the moon. That can be determined by F = (G * m1 * m2)/r^2. G is a constant, m1 would be the mass of the moon, and m2 would be the mass of another object, and r is the distance between the two objects. In this case, m2 could be the mass of a person on the planet, and r is the distance from the center of the moon to the person on the surface. This will provide the gravity that the moon has.
Next you'll ask how we determined the mass of the moon, as well as the diameter. This here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion)) will provide you with the Laws (equations) that were determined FOUR HUNDRED years ago, and to this day have been tested and retested innumerable times and still hold up. This isn't due to brainwashing, as something would have surfaced over these 400 years to deem the laws as invalid. If someone else wants to get into details, that would be great. Reading into some detail will unveil many of the mysteries of how we have accomplished such feats in our life, such as helping determine the age of the universe, and giving us an idea of what else is out there beyond our small world.
You also mentioned that being underwater doesn't make a lick of sense for outer space training. Being underwater simulates the distortion of not knowing which way is up or down, and would also have a similar feel to a zero g environment. This, obviously, isn't eliminating the issue of an atmosphere around you, but that's not what they had problems with while in space, so it was less of an issue. An alternative to underwater training would be riding on a specially designed airplane that reaches significant altitudes and then for 30 seconds to a minute takes an almost nosedive which puts you into free fall, and is a very effective simulation to zero g.
It may be tough to grasp these concepts, especially if you don't have a whole lot of math history, but let me ask you a couple questions that anyone with such a viewpoint as yours should at least take into consideration:
1. If we had faked the moon landing, wouldn't the Soviets - who were competing tooth and nail against us - have called us out on it? What would they gain from keeping quiet about the whole ordeal? Wouldn't it have been heavily in their interest to call out our "bullshit"?
2. If satellites don't exist in orbit around our Earth, why is it that all satellite dishes in any given region all point in the exact same direction at an angle inconsistent with any sort of land-based mechanism? Wouldn't more people be stepping forward to call shenanigans on costly satellite dishes that are entirely unnecessary?
3. Why believe the Earth is flat? I know they're your beliefs to believe in, but what evidence is there to support the Earth being flat? There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I'm a very open-minded person with the mindset of live and let live; everyone should be entitled to their own opinions and ideas about life even if I don't agree with it, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you chose to believe the subject matter of the three questions I just asked. The problem with the evidence you brought forth is that none of them actually contain any objective evidence supporting any of these claims. Yeah, maybe they way some of the footage looks is a little wonky, but when you watch a video over and over again and you're absolutely determined that an event didn't happen, you're going to start finding "things". Many of these phenomena can be explained using some simple math/science/logic or researching the subject. It's perfectly all right to question what society presents us - it's an important part of critical thinking - but that doesn't mean that everything presented to us is a lie. Not comprehending all that goes on in this world and casting it aside as a brainwashing lie doesn't help progress society as a whole. So many sites on the internet offer wonderful insight into how these and many other functions work, and if you take the time to ask questions there are so many people willing to help you better understand a concept. Take advantage of these tools and be thankful that you don't live in a country like North Korea, where even having a thought of your own is enough to get you killed, if not worse.
-
Words
Beautiful
-
Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.
My, friend, this WHOLE website, is a prime example of Poe's Law.
-
Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.
My, friend, this WHOLE website, is a prime example of Poe's Law.
Agreed.
-
Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.
My, friend, this WHOLE website, is a prime example of Poe's Law.
Agreed.
I know this is kind of OT, but here goes anyway.
I joined here mainly because I just wasn't sure about this place. At first I was like, damn these guys are dolts. Then I started thinking about it and maybe I am the dolt. Now I can almost wrap my head around this flat earth idea...as a thought experiment. Maybe this is place asking the more esoteric question of "how do we know what we know." Oh well, i guess time will tell for sure...who knows maybe these guys really do think the earth is flat.
-
Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.
My, friend, this WHOLE website, is a prime example of Poe's Law.
Agreed.
I know this is kind of OT, but here goes anyway.
I joined here mainly because I just wasn't sure about this place. At first I was like, damn these guys are dolts. Then I started thinking about it and maybe I am the dolt. Now I can almost wrap my head around this flat earth idea...as a thought experiment. Maybe this is place asking the more esoteric question of "how do we know what we know." Oh well, i guess time will tell for sure...who knows maybe these guys really do think the earth is flat.
I do think they actually believe that the earth is flat. And I can agree with you on the idea that they're definitely asking some interesting questions about perception. I'm more apt to say that we should be questioning the actions of other groups, rather than singling out science and calling it a giant conspiracy. It's just too tough to follow something that can't back itself up with evidence, though. It really is.
-
I have never mistaken a shooting star for a satellite.
Of course you haven't.
The reason you haven't, is because you have no clue what they are so how are you going to distinguish?
What? Even if satellites are fake, there's still a clear difference between whatever they really are, and shooting stars. They don't behave the same.
I'm simply giving a take from the average Joe's perspective. Anything that moves extremely fast in the sky are immediately pointed to with a " oh look. a shooting star."
It doesn't mean it's a star, it just means it's a fast object of whatever sorts.
-
Poe's law applies to this thread so very much, it's actually kind of scary.
OT: Sceptimatic, assuming you're not a troll, I'm going to try my very best to explain to you the basic workings of a satellite. First, I'm going to start off by stating that satellites aren't solely human creations; we derived the idea from those already surrounding our very existence. The Earth, the moon, the asteroid belt, and millions of other solar bodies are satellites to other solar bodies, one example being the Sun. Yes, we are in fact a satellite around our own Sun. How is this possible, you ask? By counteracting the force that gravity exerts on us with a velocity perpendicular to the direction with which gravity is exerting on us. I will NOT be explaining WHY an object exerts gravity, as I do not know why it exists, I merely know that repeated studies of gravity show it to be a force consistent enough that we can draw many scientifically-backed assumptions from it.Repeated studies of gravity have come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful explanations, all of which prove nothing, except that somehow it keeps out feet on the deck, allows apples and stuff to fall and somehow allows stronger planets to pull weaker one's towards them, yet still allowing the weaker planets to resist being sucked in. In all honesty, I don't believe gravity exists at all.
We'll take a look first at the idea of a cannon, as it was earlier mention in this thread. A cannon will shoot a ball forward, and since we have gravity and so much air resistance the ball will eventually slow down and return to Earth. Gravity accounts for the balls return to Earth. The atmosphere around us accounts for the balls deceleration due to friction and air pressure built up in front of it. If we increase the speed with which the ball is launched, the distance it travels also increases. If this is were drawn out, the ball would show an arc as it returns back to Earth, rather than showing a continuous straight line followed by a sudden drop in height.(http://[glow=red,2,300]In simplistic terms, the cannon ball simply loses momentum due to it's own weight,plus friction and mass to eventually fall to the ground.[/glow])
Now consider this same cannon but instead of a level surface, imagine it's on the top of a large hill. The cannon will fire many balls with a different acceleration to plot the landing points. As it fires faster and faster, the balls move farther and farther down this hill. Because the hill is at a decline, the ball has to fall farther before it reaches the ground, but Earth's gravity is still pulling on it no matter how fast it travels.
If you imagine this getting larger and larger, and on a round planet, that ball is either going to return to Earth, or it's going to launch out of the atmosphere, beyond Earth's event horizon (because gravity is relative to the size of the object, and all objects exert a gravitational force) and into space.(http://[glow=red,2,300]It's a good story but it's based on magic, a whole lot of magic.[/glow])
But what if an object could move fast enough that even though it is being pulled back to Earth, it never hits? It may sound like crazy talk, but that's exactly what satellites do. They are being pulled back to Earth by its gravity, but due to their velocity the objects will move around the Earth rather than slamming into it. If the object were to lose speed over time and it wasn't compensated for it would eventually fall to the surface. If its trajectory were to be modified enough while holding an appropriate speed, the object would escape us and go off into space. I'm not saying this is an over-night endeavor to accomplish the creation of a satellite that will orbit Earth, but it's not something we haven't accomplished at all.You mean, like how so called satellites can orbit this Earth from 23,000 miles out and orbit it, so precisely to keep in perfect geo stationary orbit, that the Earth must have been measured to the nearest few inches. Not only that. It's how these 23,000 mile out satellites actually orbit the Earth and what speed these satellites would need to be going to keep following a 1000 mph rotating Earth.
This explanation here is exactly how the Earth maintains its orbit around the Sun. We are moving fast enough perpendicular to the gravity that the Sun exerts on our planet that we don't crash into it, but slow enough that we don't "float" away into space. This is also how the moon stays within our orbit.This is the fantasy they want us all to believe.
The math determined to find out how fast one needs to travel to not come crashing down has been done for me by a previous poster. Many of the numbers put into those equations are pulled from other real world situations. Gravity on Earth can be determined by dropping an object in a vacuum and timing how long it takes such an object to hit the ground. We then simplify it to its acceleration (9.8m/s^2).I think it's just the mass, plus weight of the object dropped in itself and has nothing to do with what's perceived as gravity. This may sound ignorant but is it any more ignorant than for us to profess we actually really know what gravity is.
You then asked how we determined the gravity of the moon. That can be determined by F = (G * m1 * m2)/r^2. G is a constant, m1 would be the mass of the moon, and m2 would be the mass of another object, and r is the distance between the two objects. In this case, m2 could be the mass of a person on the planet, and r is the distance from the center of the moon to the person on the surface. This will provide the gravity that the moon has. I honestly don;t believe in gravity. I just use it to answer questions that involve using it , to counter argue it.
Next you'll ask how we determined the mass of the moon, as well as the diameter. This here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion)) will provide you with the Laws (equations) that were determined FOUR HUNDRED years ago, and to this day have been tested and retested innumerable times and still hold up. This isn't due to brainwashing, as something would have surfaced over these 400 years to deem the laws as invalid. If someone else wants to get into details, that would be great. Reading into some detail will unveil many of the mysteries of how we have accomplished such feats in our life, such as helping determine the age of the universe, and giving us an idea of what else is out there beyond our small world. Well, I don't accept any of that. Not to be ignorant on purpose or anything. It's just that, I do not go with the moons distance or size, the same as I don't go with the Suns.
You also mentioned that being underwater doesn't make a lick of sense for outer space training. Being underwater simulates the distortion of not knowing which way is up or down, and would also have a similar feel to a zero g environment. This, obviously, isn't eliminating the issue of an atmosphere around you, but that's not what they had problems with while in space, so it was less of an issue. An alternative to underwater training would be riding on a specially designed airplane that reaches significant altitudes and then for 30 seconds to a minute takes an almost nosedive which puts you into free fall, and is a very effective simulation to zero g.To me, water is a million miles away from any zero G as we are told zero g isand it doesn't simulate anything that resembles movement in ythat environment, in fact I'd say the total opposite as you're buoyant and under dense conditions in water
It may be tough to grasp these concepts, especially if you don't have a whole lot of math history, but let me ask you a couple questions that anyone with such a viewpoint as yours should at least take into consideration:
1. If we had faked the moon landing, wouldn't the Soviets - who were competing tooth and nail against us - have called us out on it? What would they gain from keeping quiet about the whole ordeal? Wouldn't it have been heavily in their interest to call out our "bullshit"?If they were a genuine enemy and weren't faking their own space missions, then maybe, yes.
2. If satellites don't exist in orbit around our Earth, why is it that all satellite dishes in any given region all point in the exact same direction at an angle inconsistent with any sort of land-based mechanism? Wouldn't more people be stepping forward to call shenanigans on costly satellite dishes that are entirely unnecessary?Transmitters are huge and the signals are simply scrambled with sky dishes.The reason why they use dishes is to receive a direct signal from wherever the transmitter is,Nobody will call it out because nobody can prove it's not from satellites.
3. Why believe the Earth is flat? I know they're your beliefs to believe in, but what evidence is there to support the Earth being flat? There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.In my mind, there's overwhelming evidence of shoe horned theories running all the way through a round rotating Earth. There is with a flat Earth and many problems need to be ironed out, yet I'd rather focus on a flat Earth than focus on a magical round one.
I'm a very open-minded person with the mindset of live and let live; everyone should be entitled to their own opinions and ideas about life even if I don't agree with it, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you chose to believe the subject matter of the three questions I just asked. The problem with the evidence you brought forth is that none of them actually contain any objective evidence supporting any of these claims. Yeah, maybe they way some of the footage looks is a little wonky, but when you watch a video over and over again and you're absolutely determined that an event didn't happen, you're going to start finding "things". Many of these phenomena can be explained using some simple math/science/logic or researching the subject. It's perfectly all right to question what society presents us - it's an important part of critical thinking - but that doesn't mean that everything presented to us is a lie. Not comprehending all that goes on in this world and casting it aside as a brainwashing lie doesn't help progress society as a whole. So many sites on the internet offer wonderful insight into how these and many other functions work, and if you take the time to ask questions there are so many people willing to help you better understand a concept. Take advantage of these tools and be thankful that you don't live in a country like North Korea, where even having a thought of your own is enough to get you killed, if not worse.
I'm a sceptic, not a schooled physics person and I look at all stuff concerning lots of theories, some of which I can see , "to me" use fakery.
I don't have any problem with what people actually believe but I do sometimes sit back bemused when I think that some people just cannot see a discrepancy in some of the footage of certain events and appear to prefer to go along with mass thought.
-
" oh look. a shooting star."
It doesn't mean it's a star
No shit :o
-
I'm a sceptic, not a schooled physics person and I look at all stuff concerning lots of theories, some of which I can see , "to me" use fakery.
No, you are not a skeptic. You are a denier. A skeptic doubts but still has an open mind. You say that you are not schooled, yet your mind is made up no matter what anyone else (no matter how schooled) says.
-
I'm a sceptic, not a schooled physics person and I look at all stuff concerning lots of theories, some of which I can see , "to me" use fakery.
No, you are not a skeptic. You are a denier. A skeptic doubts but still has an open mind. You say that you are not schooled, yet your mind is made up no matter what anyone else (no matter how schooled) says.
I question how far in school he actually went. It's obvious he never stepped foot in a University because even a shitty physics professor would know how to explain these questions he has and show how his logic is failing.
-
Heck my HS physics instructor would have made quick work of Scepi, if he took his fingers out of his ears long enough to listen to him.
-
I'm a sceptic, not a schooled physics person and I look at all stuff concerning lots of theories, some of which I can see , "to me" use fakery.
No, you are not a skeptic. You are a denier. A skeptic doubts but still has an open mind. You say that you are not schooled, yet your mind is made up no matter what anyone else (no matter how schooled) says.
I came to this forum with a mindset on a stationary round Earth. Since reading up on the flat Earth theories, I have come to the conclusion that the flat Earth theory is the better of them all, yet I'm still working on getting my head around all of it , whilst trying to add to it.
I think that is called open minded.
-
I'm a sceptic, not a schooled physics person and I look at all stuff concerning lots of theories, some of which I can see , "to me" use fakery.
No, you are not a skeptic. You are a denier. A skeptic doubts but still has an open mind. You say that you are not schooled, yet your mind is made up no matter what anyone else (no matter how schooled) says.
I question how far in school he actually went. It's obvious he never stepped foot in a University because even a shitty physics professor would know how to explain these questions he has and show how his logic is failing.
You can question my educational state till the cows come home. If I'm uneducated to the point of being ridiculous, then treat me as such, by refusing to get into any conversation with me about stuff , in your eyes, I clearly know nothing about.
I'll take this opportunity to bypass your posts from this point on. No need to reply to this.
-
Heck my HS physics instructor would have made quick work of Scepi, if he took his fingers out of his ears long enough to listen to him.
Then go and debate with people who match up to your high physics skills then. ;D
-
I'm a sceptic, not a schooled physics person and I look at all stuff concerning lots of theories, some of which I can see , "to me" use fakery.
No, you are not a skeptic. You are a denier. A skeptic doubts but still has an open mind. You say that you are not schooled, yet your mind is made up no matter what anyone else (no matter how schooled) says.
I came to this forum with a mindset on a stationary round Earth. Since reading up on the flat Earth theories, I have come to the conclusion that the flat Earth theory is the better of them all, yet I'm still working on getting my head around all of it , whilst trying to add to it.
I think that is called open minded.
I think there is an open mind to that, but the fact that you don't take the opportunity to further understand where spinning round-earth believers come from and actually attempt to make sense of our arguments rather than taking the road of "I don't understand it, thus it must be false" or "You can't prove it true, so it's not possible" is not only being close-minded, but it's also taking the road of an argument from ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
-
I came to this forum with a mindset on a stationary round Earth. Since reading up on the flat Earth theories, I have come to the conclusion that the flat Earth theory is the better of them all...
That's a real pity because a stationary round earth model fits real world observations far better than any flat earth model presented yet.
...yet I'm still working on getting my head around all of it , whilst trying to add to it.
How can you add anything useful to a model if you don't completely understand it in the first place? ???
-
I came to this forum with a mindset on a stationary round Earth. Since reading up on the flat Earth theories, I have come to the conclusion that the flat Earth theory is the better of them all...
That's a real pity because a stationary round earth model fits real world observations far better than any flat earth model presented yet.
...yet I'm still working on getting my head around all of it , whilst trying to add to it.
How can you add anything useful to a model if you don't completely understand it in the first place? ???
None of us completely understand everything about this Earth and space, so making a best fit, means trying to add another piece to the puzzle.
-
Why can't Dog, Markjo and all the other trolls take a look at this video, so that sceptimatic can have a ten minute break?
(http://)
And don't comment it if you haven't seen it.
-
(http://)
-
Why can't Dog, Markjo and all the other trolls take a look at this video, so that sceptimatic can have a ten minute break?
(http://)
And don't comment it if you haven't seen it.
This is excellent research Dr Nor, thank you!
-
Why can't Dog, Markjo and all the other trolls take a look at this video, so that sceptimatic can have a ten minute break?
(http://)
And don't comment it if you haven't seen it.
This is excellent research Dr Nor, thank you!
The fact that they used the flag and lighting arguments automatically destroys any credibility this video even had to begin with. Those arguments have been decimated time and time again. It's like:
(http://ericlightborn.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
-
I think the major problem that many have when refusing to look at evidence of fakery with supposed scientific feats like the moon landings, is getting too focused on using mathematics to discount something that should be really plain to see, as in fakery.
Of course we need math with virtually everyday things in life from the simple to the complicated, yet sometimes, casting a critical eye first before numbers even come into it, should give a better unbiased insight into whether something appears real or looks so fake that numbers are not needed to calculate the feasibility of something like that.
We see the calculations given out for the Saturn V for instance and you will get people that say, " yes, yes, it happened because the figures add up and the Saturn V weighed x amount of kilo and the engines gave out the thrust of x amount of pounds, so it works, yet never thinking to question if such a rocket is possible in the actual size, weight and output it gives...it's just accepted as true.
People use 1969 as a time where it was hard for them to fake things, due to the limited technology, yet the film,Capricorn one was made in 1977, which is only 8 years after the supposed moon landing, so we can pretty much be certain that there was enough technology in place to pull something like this off, especially with the crap television footage they put out of the actual supposed landing.
It takes an unbiased in depth critical analysis of all footage and pictures, plus the stories from the own mouths of Astro liars involved to make up a bigger picture that at least will confirm to yourself that all is not right.
A conspiracy theory is simply that when you have no evidence to go on and even when you do find evidence of some anomaly, you have to rule out coincidence and freak happenings in video or pictures that make things appear, not what they really are.
The more anomalies you find, the more you dig.
Once you dig further and start bringing up even more anomalies, that conspiracy becomes a possibility of it being a fact, yet it's still merely a conspiracy nonetheless.
The thing about focusing and digging into stuff like this, is, you tend to be sharper and sharper each time you pull up some new footage and find you are now scrutinising the smallest details...details that most people would never dream of looking at, as in, for instance, light sources on the moon as we are led to believe they are on the moon.
So what we have to sift through, are snippets of evidence, all of which will be debunked by whatever means necessary, as it's only natural they cannot say, "oh ok it's a fair cop, you found us out" can they?
When you are focused on the digging, you come up with even more evidence, some that is more concrete than the last and then the conspiracy becomes a probability, yet the more and more you pick from what you scrutinise, it then becomes so obvious of a fake that it becomes a conspiracy "fact."
It's nailed on that any discrepancy people find about something, billed as official and the truth, will be immediately debunked no matter how absurd the debunking is.
You can make anyone believe anything, no matter how ridiculous it appears to be, as has been proved time and time and time again throughout history as long as it's remotely feasible and not 100% blatant that even a sheep can see through it.
Why would anyone question the moon landings if indeed they were mans finest moment, I mean, it would have been an exciting time for people to think that we can land on other planets or at least the moon as a starter and yet leave people to dream of what we could do in the year 2000.
Well we have seen what we can do , in the year 2000 and right up till now... we can supposedly send a rover to Mars and take live video and stuff and yet, we cannot land a man on the moon. How weird is that.
We cannot land a man on the moon because somehow we don't have the right equipment and rockets to do that, yet there is the Saturn V blue prints, which I'm sure could be tweaked to even better things, if 1969 is anything to go by. But no... we seem to be fighting against a few minor hiccups, like the radiation belts being more dangerous than first thought....hmmm. it didn't bother all the other astronauts on the 6 missions to the moon did it?
Now , it's more dangerous.
The other reasons we haven't been back is......wait for it..................... "what's the point"...yep, what's the point? we have already been there 6 times already and it's basically a cement like grey looking cratered, rocky lump of nothingness, yet we supposedly keep bouncing lasers off a few reflectors continuously, supposedly anyway.
So the moon is a waste of time, yet we can send Astro liar after Astro liar to the international space station, time and time and time again, to do stupid experiment for us all to see, like, floating about...doing somersaults, lifting weights, eating food, pissing about with globules of water and blowing on it...brushing teeth, showing us how to use a piss sucking, arse grabbing suction system, etc, etc, etc.
Are they bored of this?
Noooooooo, they are not, in-fact, they keep sending little capsules up to bolt onto it, with a few more reflectors and the latest is going to be an inflatable capsule, so by about 2025, viewing the ISS by eye will be simple for all of us, because we will notice a big numb inflatable Michelen man about 2 miles wide or something. lol
Moon landing anomalies are many and some footage is so silly , it should even need to leave any rational person in any doubt that it was faked, even though the professional debunkers use any means necessary, no matter what.
Just a few anomalies and the ones which are supposedly easily debunked and usually even get cast aside by those that believe it's a hoax are...
The flag waving on the moon:
The explanation for this is plausible on face value, which is, "oh, the Astro liar was twisting the pole into the ground and that's why the flag waves like it does, Yet it would be more understandable if they were planting the flag directly into he ground and twisting it in, like we would putting one into the ground in our gardens...we would twist it in.
The problem is, they already had a pole in the ground to simple push the top part of the flat pole into. But anyway...the other reason why the twisting effect wouldn't have caused the flag to wave like it did, was because of their gloves, which were bulky and also pressurised to 5 psi as we were told.
It would be impossible to even get a grip on a small flag pole with gloves like that on, never mind twist it, unless their gloves weren't pressurised, which means they weren't on the moon and were in a studio or the desert.
Judging by the stillness of the flags in some clips many clips, I'd say a studio, yet even a studio creates air movement, whether it's by the people on set, or the movement of the Astro liars themselves, which you can clearly see in this clip.
Watch it all because this also brings into question, the sunlight bathed flag against a dark ground, when in fact the ground should be lit up, if the flag is lit like that, unless a spotlight was focused just on the upper part of the flag and area.
Anyway, look at it all and pay attention to the flag when the Astro liar runs past the camera at about the 2.30 onwards mark.
Apollo 15 flag waving (http://#)
Remember, in the early 60's when Kennedy said they would land a man on the moon, it really was pre-historic technology and also by not knowing what the moon is made of and it's terrain etc, they had to make the moon footage as real as "they" believed the moon would be like and to do that would take a lot of thought and getting things right, which they probably believed they did get right, or right enough to fool the public as it would have only been seen once or twice in TV re-runs of that time and not something that the ordinary Joe public could rewind to watch again and again,so in that effect, they pulled it off.
Today, people have the opportunity to scrutinise it and see it for what it was, yet others will hang onto it being real because they grew up with it and accept it unconditionally as a feat of engineering and physics and human bravery and endeavour.
-
We have shown you why all your moon fake evidence is wrong over and over. You have no concrete evidence what so ever. you also have no idea how basic physics basic maths or basic photography works. We have tried explaining these to you on many many occasions and you accuse the people who out of the kindnes of thier heart are trying to help you that they are infact brainwashed and wrong. You listen to no arguments what so ever because you are so blinkerd into thinking you and you alone are right that you refuse to accept any other points of views, even when you are completely and utterly wrong with no if buts or what's about it. So why should we continue to try and help you when you are obviosuly a troll or just to unintelligent and stuborn to accept you might be wrong. Don't get me wrong i don't mean to be rude as I don't think your a uneducated fool at all I think you are a troll. Who's main aim hear is to just act so uneducated just to Anoy us. But you are one of the two for sure
-
We have shown you why all your moon fake evidence is wrong over and over. You have no concrete evidence what so ever. you also have no idea how basic physics basic maths or basic photography works. We have tried explaining these to you on many many occasions and you accuse the people who out of the kindnes of thier heart are trying to help you that they are infact brainwashed and wrong. You listen to no arguments what so ever because you are so blinkerd into thinking you and you alone are right that you refuse to accept any other points of views, even when you are completely and utterly wrong with no if buts or what's about it. So why should we continue to try and help you when you are obviosuly a troll or just to unintelligent and stuborn to accept you might be wrong. Don't get me wrong i don't mean to be rude as I don't think your a uneducated fool at all I think you are a troll. Who's main aim hear is to just act so uneducated just to Anoy us. But you are one of the two for sure
Please don't type like that, then call me uneducated.
Your problem is, you are a most probably a shill and I don't give a flying Fukushima whether you want to partake in this or not.
You have a choice to take part if you want to, just the same as everyone else. We are all stubborn in our stance, whether someone thinks they know better or not.
I'm 100% certain it was faked, so why in the hell am I going to back track when someone like you comes along and tells me that it's all been debunked when "none" of it has been debunked. It's simply been denied with a lame excuse.
-
You say that it is clear to you from the videos that things were faked, but there are no things that stand out to me in any pictures or videos. If you are honest with yourself, you are just looking for faults and don't want to accept that humanity can work together to achieve something as great as landing on the moon.
-
You say that it is clear to you from the videos that things were faked, but there are no things that stand out to me in any pictures or videos. If you are honest with yourself, you are just looking for faults and don't want to accept that humanity can work together to achieve something as great as landing on the moon.
The mere fact that you don't question one thing, tells me that you are not even looking at it critically, you are just in denial of any fakery that's all.
I do not believe, any rational person can look at it all and decide there is nothing amiss, when it's as plain as day.
Waving flag, in numerous videos.
Rockets that in reality would not leave the earth.
Astronaut suits that at best, would do you for a cold and windy winters day/night but would do nothing for you in a vacuum.
Shadows intersecting and also Astro liars lit up like beacons as are the flags and markings of the flag on loony landers.
The amount of photos taken on missions would have been impossible for the time they were on the supposed moon, when you take into account all the stuff they had to supposedly do.
Supposedly remote control operation of a camera on the moons surface by someone on earth that managed to expertly get panned video footage off the piece of crap kettle taking off from the moon.
Packing a so called lunar rover into the side of the lunar lander as if it would be balanced. lol
Unpacking the lunar rover like a fold up meccano buggy, that clicks together like a kids bike.
The lunar rover supposedly on the moons surface and yet, no tyre tracks near it as if it was lowered into position or magically hovered there.
The sun looking like a spotlight in the background,
Not a star to be seen.
Minus 250 at night and plus 250 during the day, should have flash frozen or baked the Astro liars to death as well as rendering the fuel, batteries and equipment used as no more good.
A lunar lander with a door that opens inwards, which would not allow 2 suited men inside it to actually open it to get out.
No disturbed ground under the lander, despite the rocket nozzle being about 2 feet from the deck.
The supposed top thrusters of the lunar lander that supposedly steered it horizontally would have tipped it over.
The moon supposedly rotates at 10 mph, so the lander should have at least skidded it's footpads along the surface on landing, even if it was just a few feet.
Not a speck of dust on the lander foot pads.
Astro liars jumping about and falling over whilst supposedly doing experiments, seeming oblivious to the dangers of a ripped space suit accident.
Taking off from the moon in spite of the rocket engine sitting on top of the landing engine and nozzle and yet the ascending module has no nozzle at all.
Wires can clearly be see n in some footage and also Astro liars can clearly be seen to be aided by getting pulled up by wires.
The earth looking like the size of the moon, supposedly from the moon, despite it supposedly being 4 times as big.
Interviewed Astro liars , sweating and stammering and looking guilty as sin when trying to explain their answers to questions asked of them.
In consistencies with Astro liars stories of the supposed missions.
The supposed Van Allen radiation belts caused no problems to the Astro liars, through the thin aluminium craft, yet years later after the missions, N.A.S.A decides the belts could be more dangerous than first thought. ::)
Automatically programming the lunar lander to land on the moon, regardless of the fact it had never been done before and yet 32k of memory supposedly achieved this, until Armstrong allegedly , manually steered it to the floor.
I could go on and on but this is the shit we are fed and people buy into it because excuses get made as to why this and that happened, yet there is far, far too much of it that screams fake.
Many people have actually woke up to it being faked, anyway.
I mean, they even lost a lot of data and diagrams of the supposed craft that took them to the moon. Imagine that.
The biggest achievement of mankind and they somehow lose much of the data for it all. I wonder why. ::)
-
Half of what you just said cant happen is because of your lack of basic knowledge of physics.
When where the astronauts their at night? ??? Learn some basic history.
Wires? Where ???
Stars? For god sake take a pictures of the night sky with your camera on standard shutte exposure and show me the stars. Seriously to do it and show me what you get.
The amount of photos taken? How many photos were taken on say mission adsactly?
Flags waving on the moon? Um no it's not its called momentum. You are trying to tell me that out of all the shots they took they chose the one where someone left the studio door open and let a breeze in? Get real.
Moon rover with no rover tracks? Even if it was recorded on earth it would have been pushed into position? The pictures you show are such low contrast you can make out any fine detail on the surface. Or they are surrounded in foot prints
A door opening inwards would not let them out? Have you studied the schematics and internal volume measurements to come to you conclusion or just guessed?
10 mph moon and skidding? Realy? Your lack of knowledge of basic physics is just outstanding it makes me cry with laughter.
Ascending module has no engine? Really? Did you studied the schematics or once again is this a guess?
No one has ever said passing through the can Allan belt is dangerous. I believe you pass through it in less than an hour. Only prolonged exposer is dangerous.
Why do you think big computers are needed to land the lander. All it is is basic maths. All pre calculated.
Once again an awful lot of why you can't get it is because you just don't understand basic concepts. To the point you accuse anyone who does know as being a blind sheep that is brainwashed. No they aren't brainwashed they are educated.
-
Half of what you just said cant happen is because of your lack of basic knowledge of physics.
When where the astronauts their at night? ???My mistake, I meant in the shade.
Learn some basic history.I learned basic history, it told me the moon landings were a pile of crap.
Wires? Where ???In any amount of footage but you need to take off the pitch black shades to see it. Just take them off for a few minutes and you will see.
Stars? For god sake take a pictures of the night sky with your camera on standard shutte exposure and show me the stars. Seriously to do it and show me what you get.On earth maybe. But we are talking about the dark vacuum of supposed space aren't we.
The amount of photos taken? How many photos were taken on say mission adsactly? Thousands over the supposed 6 missions.There were 6 supposed successful Apollo missions that comprised a total of 4834 minutes on the moon and took 5771 photographs.
Apollo 11 ~ 151 minutes
Apollo 12 ~ 470 minutes
Apollo 14 ~ 565 minutes
Apollo 15 ~ 1110 minutes
Apollo 16 ~ 1214 minutes
Apollo 17 ~ 1324 minutes [/glow]
Flags waving on the moon? Um no it's not its called momentum. You are trying to tell me that out of all the shots they took they chose the one where someone left the studio door open and let a breeze in? Get real.Momentum my arse, it's called "air flow."
Moon rover with no rover tracks? Even if it was recorded on earth it would have been pushed into position? The pictures you show are such low contrast you can make out any fine detail on the surface. Or they are surrounded in foot prints Nice try Sherlock but you get an F for effort.
A door opening inwards would not let them out? Have you studied the schematics and internal volume measurements to come to you conclusion or just guessed?Jim Collier studied it and done the measurements, look it up, it's intriguing.
10 mph moon and skidding? Realy? Your lack of knowledge of basic physics is just outstanding it makes me cry with laughter.Are you saying it's not moving at 10 mph now?
Ascending module has no engine? Really? Did you studied the schematics or once again is this a guess? I didn't say it had no engine I said it was sat on the lander engine and nozzle and took off and it had no nozzle on it, why would that be and how can it ignite and thrust it's ascent rocket engine whilst sitting directly on top of another engine without it causing catastrophic damage to the undrside of it?[/glow]
No one has ever said passing through the can Allan belt is dangerous. I believe you pass through it in less than an hour. Only prolonged exposer is dangerous.N.A.S.A said it. It said that the Van Allen radiation belts may be more dangerous than first thought.
Why do you think big computers are needed to land the lander. All it is is basic maths. All pre calculated.Pre-calculated my arse. Show me what you can do with 32k memory and did you see the size of those big numb computers that stored memory like that?
Once again an awful lot of why you can't get it is because you just don't understand basic concepts. To the point you accuse anyone who does know as being a blind sheep that is brainwashed. No they aren't brainwashed they are educated.
Educated people can be the most gullible people walking the planet.
-
this is a animation of two pictures taken a few seconds apart.it shows buzz aldrin with neil armstrong next to buz but just out of shot apart from his fingers in the shot. notice the movement of the the two men but no movemnet of the suposedly waving flag?
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7811/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
are you an expert in 1969 computers? can you tell us adsactly what they can and cant do ???
you couldnt have done well in history then because all history classes teach that the moon landings happend. but thats okey we already know you have very little education.
ask any photographer. any at all and ask them if the stars should be visible. any at all. they all say the same thing. the atmosphere makes no diference.
this photo was taken using a long exposure ultraviolate camera and shows earth with all its corect stars in the background
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/172pxapollo16uvphotoofe.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/172pxapollo16uvphotoofe.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
why cant you understand how they landed on the moon. what has 10 mph got to do with anything. yes the moon rotates at 10 mph at the equator remember not where they landed.. the earth rotates at just over 1000mph and a helicopter manages to land. same thing.
in reguards to the engins you have shown us no diagrams showing what your greviance is with the layout. and wiers used. no engineers that have studied the designs in detail have ever found any reason why it wouldnt work. are you an engineer?
luckely for you i have the anserws for you.
The Moon landers used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[98] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle ,further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum
remember your claim that the back packs could not work in a vacume because of the extreme temps?
well read this
The cooling units could only work in a vacuum. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate where it quickly vaporized into space. The loss of the heat of vaporization froze the remaining water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate that also sublimated into space (turning from a solid directly into a gas). A separate water loop flowed through the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment) worn by the astronaut, carrying his metabolic waste heat through the sublimator plate where it was cooled and returned to the LCG. Twelve pounds [5.4 kg] of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling; because of its bulk, it was often the limiting consumable on the length of an EVA. Because this system could not work in an atmosphere, the astronauts needed large external chillers to keep them comfortable during Earth training
everything you say is wrong isnt you just havnt done reaserch into it. this isnt denial. we have evidence to back up everything you say is wrong. denial is when you say we are wrong with no evidence youself that cant be esialy explained. everything said to be wrong is esialy explainable if you just spend time thinking it through and actualy studying the missions and not jsut watching strange 16 year olds on you tube. rememebr i told you you tube isnt the best source of info.
read this it explains all your suposed problems in absolute detail and provides refrence sorces for everything it says.
-
1. There are no wires. I see none. I await evidence.
2. Ok according to Scepi momentum doesn't exist either now
3. Form a completer logical sentence for your lander argument. I can't for the life of me understand what you're talking about.
4. Do you REALLY think they would record this in a studio(impossible at the time), have the flag waving like crazy when they're putting it down due to a breeze, and then AIR THE FOOTAGE ANYWAYS? Like seriously. Momentum is your answer, and this is why they aired it. They didn't give shit.
And fun fact: They only needed about 6500 lines of code to maneuver the lunar and command module.
-
1. There are no wires. I see none. I await evidence.
2. Ok according to Scepi momentum doesn't exist either now
3. Form a completer logical sentence for your lander argument. I can't for the life of me understand what you're talking about.
4. Do you REALLY think they would record this in a studio(impossible at the time), have the flag waving like crazy when they're putting it down due to a breeze, and then AIR THE FOOTAGE ANYWAYS? Like seriously. Momentum is your answer, and this is why they aired it. They didn't give shit.
And fun fact: They only needed about 6500 lines of code to maneuver the lunar and command module.
To be fair, 6500 doesn't necessarily mean how much memory it took up, as different lines could have varying numbers of instructions. I agree with everything else, just being pedantic.
-
1. There are no wires. I see none. I await evidence.
2. Ok according to Scepi momentum doesn't exist either now
3. Form a completer logical sentence for your lander argument. I can't for the life of me understand what you're talking about.
4. Do you REALLY think they would record this in a studio(impossible at the time), have the flag waving like crazy when they're putting it down due to a breeze, and then AIR THE FOOTAGE ANYWAYS? Like seriously. Momentum is your answer, and this is why they aired it. They didn't give shit.
And fun fact: They only needed about 6500 lines of code to maneuver the lunar and command module.
To be fair, 6500 doesn't necessarily mean how much memory it took up, as different lines could have varying numbers of instructions. I agree with everything else, just being pedantic.
Yeah I know, I'm a software developer, I was just stating a fun fact haha.
http://googlecode.blogspot.de/2009/07/apollo-11-missions-40th-anniversary-one.html (http://googlecode.blogspot.de/2009/07/apollo-11-missions-40th-anniversary-one.html)
-
It takes an unbiased in depth critical analysis of all footage and pictures,
You and others go into detail ,as many like you do..about focus, perspective, angles, shadows and such to explain something that should not even need to be explained ..and simply just accepted as fake.
So which is it?
Unbiased analysis, or biased automatic acceptance.
-
this is a animation of two pictures taken a few seconds apart.it shows buzz aldrin with neil armstrong next to buz but just out of shot apart from his fingers in the shot. notice the movement of the the two men but no movemnet of the suposedly waving flag? Now you're just trying to take the piss. Get the frig out. ;D
are you an expert in 1969 computers? can you tell us adsactly what they can and cant do ???
you couldnt have done well in history then because all history classes teach that the moon landings happend. but thats okey we already know you have very little education.Blind reliance on your masters. It's typical you.
ask any photographer. any at all and ask them if the stars should be visible. any at all. they all say the same thing. the atmosphere makes no diference.
this photo was taken using a long exposure ultraviolate camera and shows earth with all its corect stars in the backgroundYes because all thos photographers have been into space and took pictures I suppose. ;D
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/172pxapollo16uvphotoofe.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/172pxapollo16uvphotoofe.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
why cant you understand how they landed on the moon. what has 10 mph got to do with anything. yes the moon rotates at 10 mph at the equator remember not where they landed.. the earth rotates at just over 1000mph and a helicopter manages to land. same thing. But unlike your pathetic 1000 mph earth and atmosphere spin in tandem, the moon supposedly doesn't have an atmosphere.
in reguards to the engins you have shown us no diagrams showing what your greviance is with the layout. and wiers used. no engineers that have studied the designs in detail have ever found any reason why it wouldnt work. are you an engineer?No engineers? ;D You don't need engineers to build a crock of cardboard crap like this.(http://i50.tinypic.com/29c46f9.jpg)
luckely for you i have the anserws for you.
The Moon landers used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[98] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle ,further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuumOf course they work like that. Once they were found out, they had to think of something.
remember your claim that the back packs could not work in a vacume because of the extreme temps?
well read this
The cooling units could only work in a vacuum. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate where it quickly vaporized into space. The loss of the heat of vaporization froze the remaining water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate that also sublimated into space (turning from a solid directly into a gas). A separate water loop flowed through the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment) worn by the astronaut, carrying his metabolic waste heat through the sublimator plate where it was cooled and returned to the LCG. Twelve pounds [5.4 kg] of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling; because of its bulk, it was often the limiting consumable on the length of an EVA. Because this system could not work in an atmosphere, the astronauts needed large external chillers to keep them comfortable during Earth trainingTell that to the 2 Apollo 17 Astro liars who supposedly spent 74 hours on the moon. What did they do? Carry a water bowser with them or was that vacuum parachuted in from the command module?
everything you say is wrong isnt you just havnt done reaserch into it. this isnt denial. we have evidence to back up everything you say is wrong. denial is when you say we are wrong with no evidence youself that cant be esialy explained. everything said to be wrong is esialy explainable if you just spend time thinking it through and actualy studying the missions and not jsut watching strange 16 year olds on you tube. rememebr i told you you tube isnt the best source of info.
read this it explains all your suposed problems in absolute detail and provides refrence sorces for everything it says.All you have to back it up, is a complete and utter load of fabrication from those people you bow down to.
::)
-
1. There are no wires. I see none. I await evidence.This is one of many. (http://)
2. Ok according to Scepi momentum doesn't exist either nowWhere did I say that?
3. Form a completer logical sentence for your lander argument. I can't for the life of me understand what you're talking about.Take a look at this piece of crap. The ascent engine is sat on the lander engine, it should have been catastrophic the minute they ignited that, if it was real of course. (http://)
4. Do you REALLY think they would record this in a studio(impossible at the time), have the flag waving like crazy when they're putting it down due to a breeze, and then AIR THE FOOTAGE ANYWAYS? Like seriously. Momentum is your answer, and this is why they aired it. They didn't give shit. I dion;t mention momentum, Thaggy did. I said it was simply air flow, as in some dick head opened a door or the Astro liar caused the air flow as he ran past it.
And fun fact: They only needed about 6500 lines of code to maneuver the lunar and command module.
Yea and about 6500 lines of coke to even dare land on the moon with that cardboard kids project piece of crap lander. ;D
-
It takes an unbiased in depth critical analysis of all footage and pictures,
You and others go into detail ,as many like you do..about focus, perspective, angles, shadows and such to explain something that should not even need to be explained ..and simply just accepted as fake.
So which is it?
Unbiased analysis, or biased automatic acceptance.
Unbiased analysis. I used to be silly once and believed the landings happened. I've been a penned in sheep for a long time too but when you see the stuff they used, which I had never seen until about 10 years ago, then you start to question it, unbiased and open minded, which I did.
My findings are , it's 100% fake.
-
Explain a few things about this video...
How can a jalopy/ tin can/ rocket or whatever that is, just pop off the lander legs and shoot up like that, without any disturbance to the legs.
If these things can work in a vacuum (chuckles) them why didn't it blow the lander legs over or at least disturb them?
Also, why it ascends, where is the rocket nozzle and why does the camera capture it up to a certain height , then it illuminates like a beacon and starts to come back down to the moon.
I'm sure there will be some good answers to these.
Last Humans on the Moon (http://#)
-
Here's a little project for those who are not sure if the landings happened or not.
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
If you can't pick out any problems, then I don't want you to tell me...I'd prefer it if you said nothing. This is basically aimed at those that will clearly state it's all legit and how it should be. You know who you are. ;D
Apollo 16: Nothing so Hidden 1972 NASA Fifth Moon Landing, John Young, Lunar Rover (http://#)
-
Here's a little project for those who are not sure if the landings happened or not.
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
If you can't pick out any problems, then I don't want you to tell me...I'd prefer it if you said nothing. This is basically aimed at those that will clearly state it's all legit and how it should be. You know who you are. ;D
The answer is simple: 0:01, 0:02, 0:03 and so on until 29:08. If you want to say "Ugh, that stinks" without a single good reason, everything is an anomaly.
If you want to do the actual work, then choose any one thing and demonstrate its falseness with an experiment.
-
Here's a little project for those who are not sure if the landings happened or not.
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
If you can't pick out any problems, then I don't want you to tell me...I'd prefer it if you said nothing. This is basically aimed at those that will clearly state it's all legit and how it should be. You know who you are. ;D
The answer is simple: 0:01, 0:02, 0:03 and so on until 29:08. If you want to say "Ugh, that stinks" without a single good reason, everything is an anomaly.
If you want to do the actual work, then choose any one thing and demonstrate its falseness with an experiment.
That's not fair, you know Sceptimatic doesn't do experiments, not even simple ones that would prove/disprove his eccentric ideas.
-
skeptic whats your problem with these 2 photos? ???
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7811/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
you cant just ignore photos that you can explain. so please explain how two photos taken a few seconds apart from each other show movement in with the two men but 0 movement in the flag? i mean on the earth this photo cant be taken if you are saying the only reason it moves like this is because of the wind. so please entertain us....
-
skeptic in the video of the lander taking off what are you talking about? not disturbing the legs? can you not see all the shiny foil like material flaping all over the place and all the dust blown of the surface? the legs are a solid structure just like your tabe.why would they fall all over the place?
"iluminates like a beacon then and starts to come back down"
what are you on about. its iluminated because its refelecting the sun. and faling back down? at no point does the lander come back down.
and you cant see the ascent engin? why would you? its not bilowing fire. this isnt hollywood remember its real life. and look at the quality. its hardly super hd that you can zoomk in on and enhance. the engin nozzel is embeded in the botom ot the ascent stage. picture below.
(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9418/i102a.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/341/i102a.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
Here's a little project for those who are not sure if the landings happened or not.
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
If you can't pick out any problems, then I don't want you to tell me...I'd prefer it if you said nothing. This is basically aimed at those that will clearly state it's all legit and how it should be. You know who you are. ;D
The answer is simple: 0:01, 0:02, 0:03 and so on until 29:08. If you want to say "Ugh, that stinks" without a single good reason, everything is an anomaly.
If you want to do the actual work, then choose any one thing and demonstrate its falseness with an experiment.
You don't need any experiments to notice bull shit and clear bull shit too.
-
Here's a little project for those who are not sure if the landings happened or not.
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
If you can't pick out any problems, then I don't want you to tell me...I'd prefer it if you said nothing. This is basically aimed at those that will clearly state it's all legit and how it should be. You know who you are. ;D
The answer is simple: 0:01, 0:02, 0:03 and so on until 29:08. If you want to say "Ugh, that stinks" without a single good reason, everything is an anomaly.
If you want to do the actual work, then choose any one thing and demonstrate its falseness with an experiment.
That's not fair, you know Sceptimatic doesn't do experiments, not even simple ones that would prove/disprove his eccentric ideas.
Careful observation is all that's needed here.
-
skeptic whats your problem with these 2 photos? ???
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7811/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
you cant just ignore photos that you can explain. so please explain how two photos taken a few seconds apart from each other show movement in with the two men but 0 movement in the flag? i mean on the earth this photo cant be taken if you are saying the only reason it moves like this is because of the wind. so please entertain us....
You bring up one photo of a few seconds and that's proof the flag doesn't wave? Give over.
-
skeptic in the video of the lander taking off what are you talking about? not disturbing the legs? can you not see all the shiny foil like material flaping all over the place and all the dust blown of the surface? the legs are a solid structure just like your tabe.why would they fall all over the place?
"iluminates like a beacon then and starts to come back down"
what are you on about. its iluminated because its refelecting the sun. and faling back down? at no point does the lander come back down.
and you cant see the ascent engin? why would you? its not bilowing fire. this isnt hollywood remember its real life. and look at the quality. its hardly super hd that you can zoomk in on and enhance. the engin nozzel is embeded in the botom ot the ascent stage. picture below.
(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9418/i102a.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/341/i102a.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Yes, I see a bit of blowing and also, what are those fireworks?
The only way that piece of crap could take off, is by a wire, oh and if you notice in the video, which you obviously do but deny...you will notice near the end, that the camera pans down, I wonder why. ;D
-
skeptic whats your problem with these 2 photos? ???
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7811/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
you cant just ignore photos that you can explain. so please explain how two photos taken a few seconds apart from each other show movement in with the two men but 0 movement in the flag? i mean on the earth this photo cant be taken if you are saying the only reason it moves like this is because of the wind. so please entertain us....
You bring up one photo of a few seconds and that's proof the flag doesn't wave? Give over.
wel how do you take a photo of a flag in mid wave and another one a few seconds later and the flage be adsactly the same?....
thats because its not waving. it is stationary. didnt think you could explain it lol.
-
Yes, I see a bit of blowing and also, what are those fireworks?
The only way that piece of crap could take off, is by a wire, oh and if you notice in the video, which you obviously do but deny...you will notice near the end, that the camera pans down, I wonder why. ;D
[/quote]
you see fire works? i dont think you arw watching the same video. and the only way it could take of is with wires? any evidence of that. detailed interpritations of enginearing drawings? or the fuel loads and stress levels on verious parts of the structure? no? just you saying it cant. lol. so sad.
and the camera starts to pan down at the end.... so what ? whats that proof off?
-
If these things can work in a vacuum (chuckles)
, then it illuminates like a beacon and starts to come back down to the moon.
(chuckles) because you still don't accept how a rocket works.
Pythagoras pretty much explained the rest. Without the rest of the moon in the picture, auto exposure will make the only object visible look much brighter. Looks like the camera loses focus too. Try actually experimenting with an auto focus/exposure video camera some evening on distant bright objects.
It isn't a matter of the module coming back down, it's a matter of the camera not tracking it very well. You really couldn't figure that out? You really think it was descending, and then started going up and down, up and down?
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
We eagerly await the results of an in-depth review by someone who appears to have a lack of knowledge *of how shadow and lighting, camera exposure, and momentum works, and a biased and baseless opinion of how rockets work.
Yes, I see a bit of blowing and also, what are those fireworks?
The only way that piece of crap could take off, is by a wire, oh and if you notice in the video, which you obviously do but deny...you will notice near the end, that the camera pans down, I wonder why. ;D
I see a lot of blowing as it lifts off, and those fireworks are exploding bolts. Look it up.
The camera pans down back to the surface. Wow. They stopped tracking a small blurry bright module and panned back to the surface.
-
skeptic whats your problem with these 2 photos? ???
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7811/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/195pxaldrinflaganimatio.gif/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
you cant just ignore photos that you can explain. so please explain how two photos taken a few seconds apart from each other show movement in with the two men but 0 movement in the flag? i mean on the earth this photo cant be taken if you are saying the only reason it moves like this is because of the wind. so please entertain us....
You bring up one photo of a few seconds and that's proof the flag doesn't wave? Give over.
wel how do you take a photo of a flag in mid wave and another one a few seconds later and the flage be adsactly the same?....
thats because its not waving. it is stationary. didnt think you could explain it lol.
Why don't you click on the picture and make it larger. Zoom right in and you'll see plenty wrong with it.
-
If these things can work in a vacuum (chuckles)
, then it illuminates like a beacon and starts to come back down to the moon.
(chuckles) because you still don't accept how a rocket works.
Pythagoras pretty much explained the rest. Without the rest of the moon in the picture, auto exposure will make the only object visible look much brighter. Looks like the camera loses focus too. Try actually experimenting with an auto focus/exposure video camera some evening on distant bright objects.
It isn't a matter of the module coming back down, it's a matter of the camera not tracking it very well. You really couldn't figure that out? You really think it was descending, and then started going up and down, up and down?
See how many anomalies and errors you can pick up out of this full video.
Put down the times of each one.
I'll wait a day before I pick out the silliness of it.
We eagerly await the results of an in-depth review by someone who appears to have a lack of knowledge how how shadow and lighting, camera exposure, and momentum works, and a biased and baseless opinion of how rockets work.
Yes, I see a bit of blowing and also, what are those fireworks?
The only way that piece of crap could take off, is by a wire, oh and if you notice in the video, which you obviously do but deny...you will notice near the end, that the camera pans down, I wonder why. ;D
I see a lot of blowing as it lifts off, and those fireworks are exploding bolts. Look it up.
The camera pans down back to the surface. Wow. They stopped tracking a small blurry bright module and panned back to the surface.
;D ;D ;D Some silly excuses there mind. Exploding bolts, hahahaha.
-
nope nothing wrong with the picture.
and all you can say is lol exploding bolts. wow you realy are showing us the extrems of you intelligence
-
nope nothing wrong with the picture.
and all you can say is lol exploding bolts. wow you realy are showing us the extrems of you intelligence
Nothing wrong with the picture eh.
How much do you get paid to do this?
-
i get paid nothing. i enjoy it. you still havnt told us whats wrong with the picture.
-
;D ;D ;D Some silly excuses there mind. Exploding bolts, hahahaha.
What's so funny about exploding bolts? ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_fastener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_fastener)
A pyrotechnic fastener (also called an explosive bolt, or pyro, within context) is a fastener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastener), usually a nut or bolt, that incorporates a pyrotechnic charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material) that can be initiated remotely. One or more explosive charges embedded within the bolt are typically activated by an electric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity) current, and the charge breaks the bolt into two or more pieces. The bolt is typically scored around its circumference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumference) at the point(s) where the severance should occur.[1] Such bolts are often used in space applications to ensure separation between rocket stages, because they are lighter and much more reliable than mechanical latches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latch_%28hardware%29).
-
Nothing really. I suppose they had the explosives perfectly angled so that no shrapnel from the bolts would puncture the thin skin of the jalopy.
-
they are not small bombs going off. ??? and u have yet to tell us whats wrong with the picture i posted. are you trying to avoid it?
-
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going made here, as I've just had a thought.
Naturally we have to assume a rotating Earth model here, as we are told it is.
Ok so here goes.
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
I'll have to do a drawing here to show what I mean.
(http://i47.tinypic.com/2d7zg9x.jpg)
Straugh= straight.
-
they are not small bombs going off. ??? and u have yet to tell us whats wrong with the picture i posted. are you trying to avoid it?
make it bigger and you will see.
-
iv looked on full screen and nothing is wrong with it so let us in on your massive discovery. im starting to wonder if once again you have no clue what is wrong with it
-
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going made here, as I've just had a thought.
Naturally we have to assume a rotating Earth model here, as we are told it is.
Ok so here goes.
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
I'll have to do a drawing here to show what I mean.
because the apollo craft and any space craft is 1st and for most travaling at 67,000 mph with the earth and the moon. just like you me and the orange on my table. thats what relative speed means. now on top of this the iss travles at 17,000 mph to orbit the earth and the apollo craft travled at a further 24,791 mph to reach the moon. and no the apolo craft didnt go on a straight course to the moon it went more like this (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2347/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
Nothing really. I suppose they had the explosives perfectly angled so that no shrapnel from the bolts would puncture the thin skin of the jalopy.
Small shielding at each bolt to direct debris or blast outward. Not hard to to come up with. What did they actually use for this potential problem? I don't know. I'd have to look at the blueprints.
Just because something is beyond your ability to comprehend or engineer, does not mean it's beyond the rest of the world's ability to comprehend or engineer.
-
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going made here, as I've just had a thought.
Naturally we have to assume a rotating Earth model here, as we are told it is.
Ok so here goes.
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
I'll have to do a drawing here to show what I mean.
because the apollo craft and any space craft is 1st and for most travaling at 67,000 mph with the earth and the moon. just like you me and the orange on my table. thats what relative speed means. now on top of this the iss travles at 17,000 mph to orbit the earth and the apollo craft travled at a further 24,791 mph to reach the moon. and no the apolo craft didnt go on a straight course to the moon it went more like this (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2347/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Nope, it still doesn't solve the problem.
-
once again you lack of understanding of relative motion, potential energy, momentum, have all let you down so hard. :(
-
once again you lack of understanding of relative motion, potential energy, momentum, have all let you down so hard. :(
I don't think so.
Once that rocket leaves earth, it goes into space,a s we are told.
Once in space, the earth and the moon, go whizzing off at 67,000 mph around the sun, leaving the rocket crying, wondering where it's mammy has gone and yet hasn't the power to catch up, because rockets cannot do 67,000 mph.
Have a good old think about it.
-
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going made here, as I've just had a thought.
Naturally we have to assume a rotating Earth model here, as we are told it is.
Ok so here goes.
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
I'll have to do a drawing here to show what I mean.
because the apollo craft and any space craft is 1st and for most travaling at 67,000 mph with the earth and the moon. just like you me and the orange on my table. thats what relative speed means. now on top of this the iss travles at 17,000 mph to orbit the earth and the apollo craft travled at a further 24,791 mph to reach the moon. and no the apolo craft didnt go on a straight course to the moon it went more like this (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2347/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Just wait, he'll tell you that we're not moving at 67,000 mph because we should be able to feel it. Then he'll say that once we leave the Earth's atmosphere we shouldn't be travelling at the same speed, or that we'd crash land into the moon or something. So if you want to start on that rebuttal now, I'd take the opportunity.
-
and we can asume you lack of an anser for whats wrong with the picture is once again an epic fail for sceptic. lol once again.
-
once again you lack of understanding of relative motion, potential energy, momentum, have all let you down so hard. :(
I don't think so.
Once that rocket leaves earth, it goes into space,a s we are told.
Once in space, the earth and the moon, go whizzing off at 67,000 mph around the sun, leaving the rocket crying, wondering where it's mammy has gone and yet hasn't the power to catch up, because rockets cannot do 67,000 mph.
Have a good old think about it.
like i said your complete lack of any kind of an education. face palm. lol
-
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going made here, as I've just had a thought.
Naturally we have to assume a rotating Earth model here, as we are told it is.
Ok so here goes.
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
I'll have to do a drawing here to show what I mean.
because the apollo craft and any space craft is 1st and for most travaling at 67,000 mph with the earth and the moon. just like you me and the orange on my table. thats what relative speed means. now on top of this the iss travles at 17,000 mph to orbit the earth and the apollo craft travled at a further 24,791 mph to reach the moon. and no the apolo craft didnt go on a straight course to the moon it went more like this (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2347/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/apollo13nominalmissionp.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Just wait, he'll tell you that we're not moving at 67,000 mph because we should be able to feel it. Then he'll say that once we leave the Earth's atmosphere we shouldn't be travelling at the same speed, or that we'd crash land into the moon or something. So if you want to start on that rebuttal now, I'd take the opportunity.
Nice side step.
-
once again you lack of understanding of relative motion, potential energy, momentum, have all let you down so hard. :(
I don't think so.
Once that rocket leaves earth, it goes into space,a s we are told.
Once in space, the earth and the moon, go whizzing off at 67,000 mph around the sun, leaving the rocket crying, wondering where it's mammy has gone and yet hasn't the power to catch up, because rockets cannot do 67,000 mph.
Have a good old think about it.
like i said your complete lack of any kind of an education. face palm. lol
Still side stepping I see. ;D
-
Looks like it's a hard one to answer boys. I'll be back later.
-
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the Apollo craft isn't traveling at a constant velocity. The earth's gravitational field is tugging at the spacecraft, slowing it somewhat until it can reach a point where the moon's gravitational field becomes strong enough to start accelerating the craft towards the moon.
-
once again you lack of understanding of relative motion, potential energy, momentum, have all let you down so hard. :(
I don't think so.
Once that rocket leaves earth, it goes into space,a s we are told.
Once in space, the earth and the moon, go whizzing off at 67,000 mph around the sun, leaving the rocket crying, wondering where it's mammy has gone and yet hasn't the power to catch up, because rockets cannot do 67,000 mph.
Have a good old think about it.
So when an object that is traveling the same speed as another object leaves it, it just automatically slams to a dead stop by some unseen force. Is this what you're saying?
Since you're unable to even fathom something landing on a surface moving 10mph by matching that speed, I'm not surprised.
Looks like it's a hard one to answer boys. I'll be back later.
Actually it's an easy one to answer. It's still traveling along with the earth. Looks like it's just a hard one for you to grasp.
Unless you're a troll. You're not a troll are you Sceptimatic? Be honest now. :-B
-
Looks like it's a hard one to answer boys. I'll be back later.
Inertia.
Where's my cookie?
And:
Where did I say that?
Momentum my arse, it's called "air flow."
-
No but seriously we don't feel like going into heavy mathematics and physics/trajectories because it's a waste of our time when it's 'bullshit' by your standards.
*simple physics concept on earth*
Scepi: Oh yes this makes sense I can understand blah blah
*same exact concept in a vacuum(space)*
Scepi: Oh bullshit magic no work haha you guys fail shills bullshit magic!!
Scepi, it's totally fine to have a first impression of something from a logical standpoint, it's our nature.(Hmmmm the earth SEEMS flat... or ... hmmm that's really fast so I don't think that would work), but it's just that, a first impression or hypothesis.
This is where science comes in. Things are tested and tested and tested and tested until they're disproven. But until that happens they are taken as common knowledge. For example the flat earth model was beginning to be questioned around 2000 years ago, so many tests were conducted and guess what, they found a sphere model works much more logically. We're talking about some of the greatest minds in history who devoted their lives to science and astronomy, as opposed to some random guy on the internet with an obvious lack of knowledge in the basics...
By the time we reached outer space(which would be pretty sad if we couldn't do it since we're a pretty damn advanced species), there was no doubt because, well, right in their face was a giant sphere earth haha.
If none of us actually tested things using concrete evidence(math(doesn't change) and physics(almost never changes)), and went off of instinct like you do, we'd all probably still believe in a flat earth and be in the dark ages...
-
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the Apollo craft isn't traveling at a constant velocity. The earth's gravitational field is tugging at the spacecraft, slowing it somewhat until it can reach a point where the moon's gravitational field becomes strong enough to start accelerating the craft towards the moon.
Sod the gravitational field, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know it.
-
once again you lack of understanding of relative motion, potential energy, momentum, have all let you down so hard. :(
I don't think so.
Once that rocket leaves earth, it goes into space,a s we are told.
Once in space, the earth and the moon, go whizzing off at 67,000 mph around the sun, leaving the rocket crying, wondering where it's mammy has gone and yet hasn't the power to catch up, because rockets cannot do 67,000 mph.
Have a good old think about it.
So when an object that is traveling the same speed as another object leaves it, it just automatically slams to a dead stop by some unseen force. Is this what you're saying?What are you talking about? a dead stop?,when did I mention that?
Since you're unable to even fathom something landing on a surface moving 10mph by matching that speed, I'm not surprised. Forget the 10 mph, I'm on about the 67,000 mph.
Looks like it's a hard one to answer boys. I'll be back later.
Actually it's an easy one to answer. It's still traveling along with the earth. Looks like it's just a hard one for you to grasp. How in the hell can it still be travelling along with the earth, when it's left earth and left "ORBIT"
Unless you're a troll. You're not a troll are you Sceptimatic? Be honest now. :-BThis about seals it. You can't discount it , so go to plan B which is attempted ridicule. Unfortunately for you, I don't bow down that easy, as you know. ;D
-
Looks like it's a hard one to answer boys. I'll be back later.
Inertia.
Where's my cookie?
And:
Where did I say that?
Momentum my arse, it's called "air flow."
Inertia my arse, If that's the case, you have to apply it to your 23,000 mile satellites that we supposedly rely on for out sat nav and sky television,
Must try harder. ;D
-
No but seriously we don't feel like going into heavy mathematics and physics/trajectories because it's a waste of our time when it's 'bullshit' by your standards.
*simple physics concept on earth*
Scepi: Oh yes this makes sense I can understand blah blah
*same exact concept in a vacuum(space)*
Scepi: Oh bullshit magic no work haha you guys fail shills bullshit magic!!
Scepi, it's totally fine to have a first impression of something from a logical standpoint, it's our nature.(Hmmmm the earth SEEMS flat... or ... hmmm that's really fast so I don't think that would work), but it's just that, a first impression or hypothesis.
This is where science comes in. Things are tested and tested and tested and tested until they're disproven. But until that happens they are taken as common knowledge. For example the flat earth model was beginning to be questioned around 2000 years ago, so many tests were conducted and guess what, they found a sphere model works much more logically. We're talking about some of the greatest minds in history who devoted their lives to science and astronomy, as opposed to some random guy on the internet with an obvious lack of knowledge in the basics...
By the time we reached outer space(which would be pretty sad if we couldn't do it since we're a pretty damn advanced species), there was no doubt because, well, right in their face was a giant sphere earth haha.
If none of us actually tested things using concrete evidence(math(doesn't change) and physics(almost never changes)), and went off of instinct like you do, we'd all probably still believe in a flat earth and be in the dark ages...
You can read me a story of Robinson Crusoe and Jumping Jack flash...but it's all stories.
You think we are an advanced species and can get into space...and yet, advertise a massive sale at a retailer... and this advanced species will kill each other or maim anyone who gets in their way, whilst the birds, chimps, lions and other docile animals play the game with each other and share what they get.
Yes, we are advanced all right. In truth , we are as dumb as Friar TUCK.
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
You will not get out of this one lightly.
I won't let this one lie. Expect diagrams.
You will find it difficult to refute what I'm going to say, yet I can bet my bottom dollar, you and others will come out with something stupid. ;D
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
You will not get out of this one lightly.
I won't let this one lie. Expect diagrams.
You will find it difficult to refute what I'm going to say, yet I can bet my bottom dollar, you and others will come out with something stupid. ;D
I just showed you're wrong. ???
Seriously the only problem anyone might be having is understanding how you are viewing the world we live in.
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
You will not get out of this one lightly.
I won't let this one lie. Expect diagrams.
You will find it difficult to refute what I'm going to say, yet I can bet my bottom dollar, you and others will come out with something stupid. ;D
I just proved you wrong. ???
Seriously the only problem anyone might be having is understanding how you are viewing the world we live in.
The only problem people are having of viewing what I'm saying, is people like you.
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
You will not get out of this one lightly.
I won't let this one lie. Expect diagrams.
You will find it difficult to refute what I'm going to say, yet I can bet my bottom dollar, you and others will come out with something stupid. ;D
I just proved you wrong. ???
Seriously the only problem anyone might be having is understanding how you are viewing the world we live in.
The only problem people are having of viewing what I'm saying, is people like you.
That doesn't even make sense, and nice job side-stepping the fact that you don't understand inertia and relative velocity and that you know you're wrong.
-
What are you talking about? a dead stop?,when did I mention that?
Once in space, the earth and the moon, go whizzing off at 67,000 mph around the sun, leaving the rocket crying, wondering where it's mammy has gone and yet hasn't the power to catch up, because rockets cannot do 67,000 mph
So if it doesn't come to a stop only to be left behind, it either has to slow way down, or veer off in a different direction. If none of those, then I guess it will continue along at the same speed as the Earth/moon system.
Forget the 10 mph, I'm on about the 67,000 mph.
I'm bringing up your comments about the module tipping over landing on a surface traveling 10mph, because if you can't understand how that works, you're probably not going to understand the trajectories and velocities required to get to the moon either.
How in the hell can it still be travelling along with the earth, when it's left earth and left "ORBIT"
Again, does it come to a stop, slow way down, or change direction? Otherwise it continues along with the Earth and moon, moving away from the earth, and closer to the moon, after which it leaves the moon (also traveling 67k mph, and returns to Earth. Traveling with the Earth/moon system the whole time.
The moon is in orbit around Earth, so what is it between the two that would physically cause the lunar module to be 'left behind'?
so go to plan B which is attempted ridicule.
Actually I needn't bother.
Unfortunately for you, I don't bow down that easy, as you know.
Indeed, just like when you put up that long epic argument about getting heavier when climbing stairs due to some unknown force in the air. Quite the fight that one was.
-
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the Apollo craft isn't traveling at a constant velocity. The earth's gravitational field is tugging at the spacecraft, slowing it somewhat until it can reach a point where the moon's gravitational field becomes strong enough to start accelerating the craft towards the moon.
Sod the gravitational field, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know it.
I'm just saying that there is more to calculating a proper trajectory from the earth to the moon than you think. When you're trying to hit a moving target that's a quarter of a million miles away, even small changes in velocity can be significant.
-
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the Apollo craft isn't traveling at a constant velocity. The earth's gravitational field is tugging at the spacecraft, slowing it somewhat until it can reach a point where the moon's gravitational field becomes strong enough to start accelerating the craft towards the moon.
Sod the gravitational field, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know it.
Actually it has everything to do with what you're talking about and you know it. Jk you don't know anything haha.
He's basically saying even though you think it's so hard to get to the moon that it's impossible, it's even more complicated than that and we've STILL been to the moon.
-
You think we are an advanced species and can get into space...and yet, advertise a massive sale at a retailer... and this advanced species will kill each other or maim anyone who gets in their way, whilst the birds, chimps, lions and other docile animals play the game with each other and share what they get.
HAHAHAHAHAhaha Sceptimatic you're killing me here. I'll remember all that next time I watch a documentary on wildlife showing animals fighting over territory or food, lions eating gazelles, wolves eating deer, birds eating worms, so on and so on.
-
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1443/sunmoonearth.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/94/sunmoonearth.png/)
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
You will not get out of this one lightly.
I won't let this one lie. Expect diagrams.
You will find it difficult to refute what I'm going to say, yet I can bet my bottom dollar, you and others will come out with something stupid. ;D
I just proved you wrong. ???
Seriously the only problem anyone might be having is understanding how you are viewing the world we live in.
The only problem people are having of viewing what I'm saying, is people like you.
That doesn't even make sense, and nice job side-stepping the fact that you don't understand inertia and relative velocity and that you know you're wrong.
Inertia is fine but it doesn't apply in this instance.
-
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the Apollo craft isn't traveling at a constant velocity. The earth's gravitational field is tugging at the spacecraft, slowing it somewhat until it can reach a point where the moon's gravitational field becomes strong enough to start accelerating the craft towards the moon.
Sod the gravitational field, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know it.
I'm just saying that there is more to calculating a proper trajectory from the earth to the moon than you think. When you're trying to hit a moving target that's a quarter of a million miles away, even small changes in velocity can be significant.
Calculating is fine but we don't have 67,000 mph craft, so it doesn't matter which way anything is calculated.
Once the rocket leaves earth, the earth, plus the moon are racing away from it at 67,000 mph, so even if the rocket was calculated to chase the moon, it's like the fat kid (rocket) in a race against the athletes (earth and moon)..he's simply not going to catch them.
It's like jumping out of a car that's going twice or three times faster than you can run. Once you jump out...that car keeps on going, leaving you behind, yet you can try and run after it but the car will be moving away, further and further, as your speed cannot match it's speed.
-
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the Apollo craft isn't traveling at a constant velocity. The earth's gravitational field is tugging at the spacecraft, slowing it somewhat until it can reach a point where the moon's gravitational field becomes strong enough to start accelerating the craft towards the moon.
Sod the gravitational field, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know it.
Actually it has everything to do with what you're talking about and you know it. Jk you don't know anything haha.
He's basically saying even though you think it's so hard to get to the moon that it's impossible, it's even more complicated than that and we've STILL been to the moon.
It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about really.
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
You will not get out of this one lightly.
I won't let this one lie. Expect diagrams.
You will find it difficult to refute what I'm going to say, yet I can bet my bottom dollar, you and others will come out with something stupid. ;D
I just proved you wrong. ???
Seriously the only problem anyone might be having is understanding how you are viewing the world we live in.
The only problem people are having of viewing what I'm saying, is people like you.
That doesn't even make sense, and nice job side-stepping the fact that you don't understand inertia and relative velocity and that you know you're wrong.
Inertia is fine but it doesn't apply in this instance.
Yes it does. the moon is even farther away from the earth than the rocket and it doesn't get left behind. Why? Inertia. The entire area enclosed by the moon orbit is like one big system. It all kinda stays together and everything in it is going 67000 mph. Even rockets trying to reach the moon.
-
This is sad really. The earth is moving at what, 67,000 mph. The satellites is moving in the same direction at the same speed, and therefor they stay the same distance from each other, the only changes being in the satellite's orbit.
You should really understand the basics before ridiculing a subject, although I just hope you're a troll...
You will not get out of this one lightly.
I won't let this one lie. Expect diagrams.
You will find it difficult to refute what I'm going to say, yet I can bet my bottom dollar, you and others will come out with something stupid. ;D
I just proved you wrong. ???
Seriously the only problem anyone might be having is understanding how you are viewing the world we live in.
The only problem people are having of viewing what I'm saying, is people like you.
That doesn't even make sense, and nice job side-stepping the fact that you don't understand inertia and relative velocity and that you know you're wrong.
Inertia is fine but it doesn't apply in this instance.
Yes it does. the moon is even farther away from the earth than the rocket and it doesn't get left behind. Why? Inertia. The entire area enclosed by the moon orbit is like one big system. It all kinda stays together and everything in it is going 67000 mph. Even rockets trying to reach the moon.
Why is Voyager supposedly still flying millions and millions of miles into space then?
The Moon landings are a crock of shit and the spinning round earth going around a massive Sun is another absolute crock of shit.
Of course I expect explanations for anything I put up but your explanations do not stand up at all and you are well aware of that.
Either that or you are simply comatose to it all.
-
Hi sceptimatic. I am a big fan of your art, all your paintings turn out beautifully. I am currently watching your lector here - which is incredible useful by the way! - but my question is: Are your paintings copyrighted? I am considering using them in my memoir.
Respectfully yours
Dr.Nor and family
-
Hi sceptimatic. I am a big fan of your art, all your paintings turn out beautifully. I am currently watching your lector here - which is incredible useful by the way! - but my question is: Are your paintings copyrighted? I am considering using them in my memoir.
Respectfully yours
Dr.Nor and family
Use anything you want, what I put up Dr.Nor.
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
Yep, that's logic alright. And I can't refute your argument If you don't have one. Form a logical argument about... something about Voyager you were saying?
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
Yep, that's logic alright. And I can't refute your argument If you don't have one. Form a logical argument about... something about Voyager you were saying?
I''l explain Voyager when you try and get out of this explanation I gave, plus diagram.
Pointless trying to change it as I won't be backing off unless you can trump me on it, which you can't.
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
Yep, that's logic alright. And I can't refute your argument If you don't have one. Form a logical argument about... something about Voyager you were saying?
I''l explain Voyager when you try and get out of this explanation I gave, plus diagram.
Pointless trying to change it as I won't be backing off unless you can trump me on it, which you can't.
What? I'm confused. You won't explain your voyager question until I answer your voyager question? With a diagram?
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
Yep, that's logic alright. And I can't refute your argument If you don't have one. Form a logical argument about... something about Voyager you were saying?
I''l explain Voyager when you try and get out of this explanation I gave, plus diagram.
Pointless trying to change it as I won't be backing off unless you can trump me on it, which you can't.
What? I'm confused. You won't explain your voyager question until I answer your voyager question? With a diagram?
Forget Voyager for now, I'll come to that later.
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
Yep, that's logic alright. And I can't refute your argument If you don't have one. Form a logical argument about... something about Voyager you were saying?
I''l explain Voyager when you try and get out of this explanation I gave, plus diagram.
Pointless trying to change it as I won't be backing off unless you can trump me on it, which you can't.
What? I'm confused. You won't explain your voyager question until I answer your voyager question? With a diagram?
Forget Voyager for now, I'll come to that later.
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
Oh THAT? I already explained that. A cruse MS paint drawing wouldn't even get my point across, so you'll just have to use your brain :/ Maybe you forgot to read:
Yes it does. the moon is even farther away from the earth than the rocket and it doesn't get left behind. Why? Inertia. The entire area enclosed by the moon orbit is like one big system. It all kinda stays together and everything in it is going 67000 mph. Even rockets trying to reach the moon.
Now onto voyager, what are you talking about...
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
Yep, that's logic alright. And I can't refute your argument If you don't have one. Form a logical argument about... something about Voyager you were saying?
I''l explain Voyager when you try and get out of this explanation I gave, plus diagram.
Pointless trying to change it as I won't be backing off unless you can trump me on it, which you can't.
What? I'm confused. You won't explain your voyager question until I answer your voyager question? With a diagram?
Forget Voyager for now, I'll come to that later.
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
Oh THAT? I already explained that. A cruse MS paint drawing wouldn't even get my point across, so you'll just have to use your brain :/ Maybe you forgot to read:
Yes it does. the moon is even farther away from the earth than the rocket and it doesn't get left behind. Why? Inertia. The entire area enclosed by the moon orbit is like one big system. It all kinda stays together and everything in it is going 67000 mph. Even rockets trying to reach the moon.
Now onto voyager, what are you talking about...
My conversation with you is over, no need to reply.
-
but your explanations do not stand up at all
Actually they do. That's why I'm using them....
And what don't you understand about voyager? It's pretty straight forward.
Of course it's straight forward. Everything is straight forward to you people. Pure magic is straight forward to you.
You cannot stump what I've just said. If you can, then explain it to me by drawing a diagram.
Yep, that's logic alright. And I can't refute your argument If you don't have one. Form a logical argument about... something about Voyager you were saying?
I''l explain Voyager when you try and get out of this explanation I gave, plus diagram.
Pointless trying to change it as I won't be backing off unless you can trump me on it, which you can't.
What? I'm confused. You won't explain your voyager question until I answer your voyager question? With a diagram?
Forget Voyager for now, I'll come to that later.
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
Oh THAT? I already explained that. A cruse MS paint drawing wouldn't even get my point across, so you'll just have to use your brain :/ Maybe you forgot to read:
Yes it does. the moon is even farther away from the earth than the rocket and it doesn't get left behind. Why? Inertia. The entire area enclosed by the moon orbit is like one big system. It all kinda stays together and everything in it is going 67000 mph. Even rockets trying to reach the moon.
Now onto voyager, what are you talking about...
My conversation with you is over, no need to reply.
Excluding yourself from reality I see, what ever happened to 'never back down'? Oh well, It's 2am here anyways.
-
The rocket is on the earth and traveling at 63,000 mph. When it lifts off it is still going at 63,000 mph plus what ever speed it has reached due to take off. How is that hard to understand. Where in the journey from earth to space does it lose the origional 63,000 mph it origionaly had while on earth?
-
So there we have it folks. The moon landings never happened and no man has ever been in space or outside of Earths' atmosphere.
This is the magic that scientists have us believe.
Let's look at all the things they tell us that go against logic, yet anyone disputing it, are ridiculed.
We are to believe that we are spinning on a 1000 mph earth, even though we all know that we would be catapulted off of it, so they counteract that argument with "oh , it's gravity, plus the atmosphere keeping you on the deck and give out ridiculous calculations for it, regardless of not knowing what the hell gravity is and how the atmosphere supposedly grips a solid earth to rotate exactly with it.
Everything that we know about earth was supposedly calculated hundreds and hundreds of years ago and are accepted in the main as being correct, regardless of them simply being hypothesis.
Foucaults' pendulum is supposed to be the one early proof of a rotating earth, where a long plumb bob type line was hung from a church ceiling and put into a swinging motion where it slowly moved in a spiral sort of way, yet Aireys' experiment to prove Earth is stationary and it's the stars and Sun that's moving was rejected. What gives one person precedence over the other in that day?
In the 1960's, we had the Saturn V, which was so successful that it was capable of taking massive payloads, not just into space...this could also achieve a moon landing with the inner equipment it was carrying, such as a command module.
The number of separations needed by exploding bolts after bolts from segments was a feat in itself. Magical you could call it.
Apart from the Saturn V itself separating into a few parts just to get into space, the top then separated, then the command module would go towards the moon, then un-dock a lunar lander, which would go head first towards the moon.
Once near the moon, it would then do a 180 degree turn with it's legs facing the moon and fire it's main engine, then it saunters down to the moon, effortless, although some will argue that Neil Armstrong manually steered it down when he saw they were going to land in a crater.lol
Once on the moon and doing the flag planting and what not, they depart with the top of the lander exploding some bolts to escape the bottom part of the lander.
Once away from the moon, they find the command module and effortlessly dock with it, then climb into it and discard the top part of the lander.
Now it's time to head back to earth, where the command module takes them close to earth, then the back part separates, leaving just a little cone, which then hits the atmosphere of the earth and somehow steers itself down, despite it being just a silly cone, which should have violently flung those cramped Astro liars all over the place.
Once the cone reaches a certain height, regardless of the speed they would be coming in at...parachutes then release and slowly guide them into the sea, where a waiting helicopter and divers are at the ready to winch them up and on board a waiting ship, where they are immediately put into quarantine, whilst the craft they landed in, is left to float all of the little space viruses along the ocean.lol
Anyway, a nice big sturdy big payload carrying monster is replaced by a shuttle that can withstand the vigours the friction of getting out of our atmosphere and back into it, time and time and time again, with the odd tile change and a few burn marks wiped off.
This amazing craft can be bolted onto a large central tank, which is then bolted to 2 large outer solid fuel rocket boosters, which can be re-used.
One thing the space shuttle can't do, is land on the moon, due to weight and fuel I would imagine.
Anyway, this amazing shuttle take about the same time to get to the space station as it does for the Apollo Astro liars to get to the moon. Hmm. ::)
Anyway, the shuttle is deemed so efficient, it's used for 30 odd years and never ever needed any change to it, to match time ticking away.
A bit like one of us hanging onto our old style ford cortina and refusing to go with the times.
You would think we would have housing estates on the moon by now wouldn't you, with many people owning allotments and what not but yet, all we have to show for it, is a few scattered chunks of scrap laid about that no telescope on earth or space can actually pick up, except as some kind of dot that says that is a lunar lander set of legs.
So there you have it. The 1960's may have looked backward in the technological stakes but as we can see, it pisses all over todays' where conquering space is concerned. ::)
-
The rocket is on the earth and traveling at 63,000 mph. When it lifts off it is still going at 63,000 mph plus what ever speed it has reached due to take off. How is that hard to understand. Where in the journey from earth to space does it lose the origional 63,000 mph it origionaly had while on earth?
Yes, it's all magical isn't it. I knew the answer was this, just as it is on earth with everyone going around it all attached to an invisible atmosphere.
This is how Voyager works as well isn't it.
It leaves earth at 67,000 mph , plus the speed it was launched at and then flies through space at 67,000 mph in one direction and 20 odd thousand miles an hour in another direction, all relative to earth of course, regardless of it supposedly being millions of miles into space.
::)
-
If the Earth is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator and is also orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, then once this piece of shit Apollo craft leaves earth on a trajectory to the moon, how in the hell does it get back to earth when the earth has pissed off at 67,000 miles per hour, leaving the craft on it's way to the moon and also the moon is whizzing around the Earth at a few thousand mile per hour.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that because the Apollo craft isn't traveling at a constant velocity. The earth's gravitational field is tugging at the spacecraft, slowing it somewhat until it can reach a point where the moon's gravitational field becomes strong enough to start accelerating the craft towards the moon.
Sod the gravitational field, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and you know it.
I'm just saying that there is more to calculating a proper trajectory from the earth to the moon than you think. When you're trying to hit a moving target that's a quarter of a million miles away, even small changes in velocity can be significant.
Calculating is fine but we don't have 67,000 mph craft, so it doesn't matter which way anything is calculated.
Once the rocket leaves earth, the earth, plus the moon are racing away from it at 67,000 mph, so even if the rocket was calculated to chase the moon, it's like the fat kid (rocket) in a race against the athletes (earth and moon)..he's simply not going to catch them.
Speed is relative. In order to escape the earth's gravitational field, the Apollo craft must reach a speed of around 25,000 mph relative to the earth. The craft's speed relative to the sun doesn't matter because it isn't trying to escape the sun's gravitational field.
It's like jumping out of a car that's going twice or three times faster than you can run. Once you jump out...that car keeps on going, leaving you behind, yet you can try and run after it but the car will be moving away, further and further, as your speed cannot match it's speed.
No, that's not it at all. It's like one airplane using missiles or guns to shoot down another airplane. The speed of the bullet or missile is added to the speed of the airplane.
-
Hands up who thinks this piece of crap lifted off from the moon.
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9485/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg/)
-
my god sceptic!! i am struck down in awe by how advanced a human bieng you are you must be the most evolved person on on this forum. good on you!!!
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2012/11/were_getting_li.html (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2012/11/were_getting_li.html)
-
(http://www.tahiti1.com/images/canoe-vaka-poti.jpg)
These can travel 17000 kms across the Pacific Ocean. Just because it does not appear how you think it should does not mean it is incapable.
-
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
Because (as explained already) it's still traveling along with the system.
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/50/67k.gif)
-
my god sceptic!! i am struck down in awe by how advanced a human bieng you are you must be the most evolved person on on this forum. good on you!!!
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2012/11/were_getting_li.html (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2012/11/were_getting_li.html)
Thanks but I can't blow my own trumpet like that. ;)
-
(http://www.tahiti1.com/images/canoe-vaka-poti.jpg)
These can travel 17000 kms across the Pacific Ocean. Just because it does not appear how you think it should does not mean it is incapable.
Oh well there you go then, solved it in one. Well done.
-
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
Because (as explained already) it's still traveling along with the system.
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/50/67k.gif)
Yes, it's magic.
So it's going 67,000 mph and yet moving forward about 5000 mph toward to the moon and yet keep the same orbit as Earth. Yep, in fantasy world it's feasible.
-
Anyway, all you budding , brave Astronaut wannabes. How many of you would like to take off from the moon in this piece of crap cardboard and tin foil school kids project?
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9485/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg/)
-
(http://www.tahiti1.com/images/canoe-vaka-poti.jpg)
These can travel 17000 kms across the Pacific Ocean. Just because it does not appear how you think it should does not mean it is incapable.
Oh well there you go then, solved it in one. Well done.
No, all I am saying is just because it does not look like you think it should does mean it is incapable of landing on the moon. Nothing more than that.
-
Anyway, all you budding , brave Astronaut wannabes. How many of you would like to take off from the moon in this piece of crap cardboard and tin foil school kids project?
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9485/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg/)
I doubt I could stomach getting in to orbit much less possessing the fortitude and smarts of the people who actually landed on the moon.
-
(http://www.tahiti1.com/images/canoe-vaka-poti.jpg)
These can travel 17000 kms across the Pacific Ocean. Just because it does not appear how you think it should does not mean it is incapable.
Oh well there you go then, solved it in one. Well done.
No, all I am saying is just because it does not look like you think it should does mean it is incapable of landing on the moon. Nothing more than that.
Come on man, have a look at it. It's literally nothing but a rigged up cardboard and tin foil piece of crap.
They're laughing at anyone who thinks this landed and took off from the moon.
It's all battered to hell and it's supposed to be in space, in a supposed vacuum.
-
Anyway, all you budding , brave Astronaut wannabes. How many of you would like to take off from the moon in this piece of crap cardboard and tin foil school kids project?
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9485/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg/)
I doubt I could stomach getting in to orbit much less possessing the fortitude and smarts of the people who actually landed on the moon.
Well let's assume you could stomach it. Would you go to the moon in this , land and take off, knowing you had to blast bolts off for this to get off the moon from the legs?
-
I would gladly sail the open sea with that nice boat, but i would'nt leave the flat earth for a second with that Monty Phyton Flying Thing.
btw, ramaboy....give me a link to the boat, please.
-
Anyway, all you budding , brave Astronaut wannabes. How many of you would like to take off from the moon in this piece of crap cardboard and tin foil school kids project?
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9485/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg/)
I doubt I could stomach getting in to orbit much less possessing the fortitude and smarts of the people who actually landed on the moon.
Well let's assume you could stomach it. Would you go to the moon in this , land and take off, knowing you had to blast bolts off for this to get off the moon from the legs?
Yes, yes I would. Pyrotechnic fasteners are hardly something I would be concerned with.
-
Anyone wanting to find out if the moon landings were real or not, watch this all the way through and make up your mind from it.
Just type this into your search engine and watch the full lot with an open mind.
Was It Only a Paper Moon Apollo hoax James M Collier 1997
-
Anyway, all you budding , brave Astronaut wannabes. How many of you would like to take off from the moon in this piece of crap cardboard and tin foil school kids project?
(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9485/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/imageofapollo16ascentst.jpg/)
I doubt I could stomach getting in to orbit much less possessing the fortitude and smarts of the people who actually landed on the moon.
Well let's assume you could stomach it. Would you go to the moon in this , land and take off, knowing you had to blast bolts off for this to get off the moon from the legs?
Yes, yes I would. Pyrotechnic fasteners are hardly something I would be concerned with.
If they told you, you're going to the moon and that is what will be landing you and ascending, plus docking, you would run a mile farting.
Pyrotechnic fastenings for christs sake. ;D
-
I would take some time to learn about it first before I made my judgement seeing as I know very little about these things.
-
Calculating is fine but we don't have 67,000 mph craft, so it doesn't matter which way anything is calculated.
Once the rocket leaves earth, the earth, plus the moon are racing away from it at 67,000 mph, so even if the rocket was calculated to chase the moon, it's like the fat kid (rocket) in a race against the athletes (earth and moon)..he's simply not going to catch them.
It's like jumping out of a car that's going twice or three times faster than you can run. Once you jump out...that car keeps on going, leaving you behind, yet you can try and run after it but the car will be moving away, further and further, as your speed cannot match it's speed.
Didn't get a answer yet, so again I'll ask because I'm curious; what is it between the Earth and the moon that would physically slow down that rocket?
Jumping out of a car? The road is the resistance that slows the runner (the air too to a lesser extent). There's no road in orbit between the Earth and the moon. What is it that would slow it down? How far out is your orbit 'limit' anyway? The moon is in orbit too.
If you want to use cars, here's a better car/road analogy to use.
On a three lane freeway, a car traveling with other cars in the right lane at 70mph. The driver wants to travel behind a car in the left lane also doing 70mph. The car alters it's course away from the right lane, crosses the middle lane, and enters the left lane, all the while doing 70mph.
Magic?
Anyway, all you budding , brave Astronaut wannabes. How many of you would like to take off from the moon in this piece of crap cardboard and tin foil school kids project?
Sure I guess. You see, I actually did some reading and looked at photos of how it's constructed while discussing this exact same topic a while back.
Come on man, have a look at it. It's literally nothing but a rigged up cardboard and tin foil piece of crap.
They're laughing at anyone who thinks this landed and took off from the moon.
It's all battered to hell and it's supposed to be in space, in a supposed vacuum.
I guess it depends how you want to interpret the picture:
unbiased in depth critical analysis
Or
simply just accepted as fake.
Have you read about the materials used, their purpose, whether those crumpled panels are actually light pliable covers over inner compartments, whether that's 'scotch tape' or some type of industrial extreme temperature range tape, whether it's tin foil or reflective coated plastic, or if the actual crew compartment is underneath all that light-weight sun-blocking material, etc, etc?
-
I would gladly sail the open sea with that nice boat, but i would'nt leave the flat earth for a second with that Monty Phyton Flying Thing.
btw, ramaboy....give me a link to the boat, please.
Not sure if I'm on the same train of thought as him, but google Thor Heyrdahl. He was awesome.
-
I would gladly sail the open sea with that nice boat, but i would'nt leave the flat earth for a second with that Monty Phyton Flying Thing.
btw, ramaboy....give me a link to the boat, please.
Rama boy... Google Vaka Dr. Norboy...
-
I would gladly sail the open sea with that nice boat, but i would'nt leave the flat earth for a second with that Monty Phyton Flying Thing.
btw, ramaboy....give me a link to the boat, please.
Not sure if I'm on the same train of thought as him, but google Thor Heyrdahl. He was awesome.
Don't ask a norwegian to google Thor Heyerdahl. We are a small country, so we know everything about him. And Roald Amundsen. And Ole Gunnar Solskjćr. But that's all we know. We know nothing more.
-
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
Because (as explained already) it's still traveling along with the system.
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/50/67k.gif)
Yes, it's magic.
So it's going 67,000 mph and yet moving forward about 5000 mph toward to the moon and yet keep the same orbit as Earth. Yep, in fantasy world it's feasible.
Yep, in the real world it's feasible. You're unable (or refuse) to grasp it, therefore to you it's magic.
Anyone wanting to find out if the moon landings were real or not, watch this all the way through and make up your mind from it.
Just type this into your search engine and watch the full lot with an open mind.
Was It Only a Paper Moon Apollo hoax James M Collier 1997
Yep, watched a bit of it. Not the whole thing yet, but scanned through it and watched segments for now.
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
5:30- Nice high quality pictures provided there [sarcasm] and and a quick reference about shadows looking like they're going different directions when viewed from different angles on uneven ground. What about it? That's how they should appear. From above they'll be parallel, but at ground level at an angle, they won't, especially on uneven terrain.
29:00- Rooster tails from the rover don't act like he thinks they should, and the waves of dust are from air resistance. The waves are from not having a constant or steady grip on the surface. The surface is uneven, so the tires are bouncing. Everytime one digs in, it throws up a rooster tail, hence the 'waves'. 60 feet? These are small electric motors driving relatively smooth (mild chevrons for traction) tires, not a high-powered gas engine driving paddle tires. Some of the dust travels in a small arc, some is shot up more vertically instead. The rover is also in motion, which will reduce the size of the roostertails. The only real clear roost is the last one, and it looks like a nice clean arc to me.
50:13 Says there's no clouds of dust from the rocket on touchdown. How does one expect billowing clouds of dust when there's no air? The dust can be seen spraying straight out though.
46:58- He asks how the footprint could be possible in the soil without moisture. It's not soil. Soil is organic. It's regolith, and it made up of jagid particles from millions of years of meteorite impacts. The particles aren't rounded smooth.
50:18- Says the shadow changes and that couldn't have happened in seconds like it does. Yes, it can. The camera operator increased the exposure setting. Everything got brighter. Mystery solved.
6:12 and 56:54- Armstrong/Aldrin photo (again, a low quality shot of the heavily altered version is used), something about looking down at the faceplate and having to be 8 feet tall. Look at the original photo and try saying the same thing. Also says that no camera is visible in the hands of the photographer in the faceplate reflection... yeah, like it's going to be. The faceplate acts as a wide-angle lense for the reflection, which will make Armstrong(reflected photographer) appear tiny.
57:56- the crater looks to be getting further away and the angle is changing, I don't know why he says it isn't. He also says they're taking off horizontally. Does the film actually start from the moment they take off? Does it occure to him they already did the verticle takeoff, and the footage starts after they began their horizontal direction for orbit.
I might watch the whole thing eventually, but for the little bit I saw, I'm not really impressed.
-
Explain, with a diagram, why the earth and moon won;t piss off once a rocket leaves earths' atmosphere into space.
Because (as explained already) it's still traveling along with the system.
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/50/67k.gif)
Yes, it's magic.
So it's going 67,000 mph and yet moving forward about 5000 mph toward to the moon and yet keep the same orbit as Earth. Yep, in fantasy world it's feasible.
Yep, in the real world it's feasible. You're unable (or refuse) to grasp it, therefore to you it's magic.
Anyone wanting to find out if the moon landings were real or not, watch this all the way through and make up your mind from it.
Just type this into your search engine and watch the full lot with an open mind.
Was It Only a Paper Moon Apollo hoax James M Collier 1997
Yep, watched a bit of it. Not the whole thing yet, but scanned through it and watched segments for now.
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
5:30- Nice high quality pictures provided there [sarcasm] and and a quick reference about shadows looking like they're going different directions when viewed from different angles on uneven ground. What about it? That's how they should appear. From above they'll be parallel, but at ground level at an angle, they won't, especially on uneven terrain.
29:00- Rooster tails from the rover don't act like he thinks they should, and the waves of dust are from air resistance. The waves are from not having a constant or steady grip on the surface. The surface is uneven, so the tires are bouncing. Everytime one digs in, it throws up a rooster tail, hence the 'waves'. 60 feet? These are small electric motors driving relatively smooth (mild chevrons for traction) tires, not a high-powered gas engine driving paddle tires. Some of the dust travels in a small arc, some is shot up more vertically instead. The rover is also in motion, which will reduce the size of the roostertails. The only real clear roost is the last one, and it looks like a nice clean arc to me.
50:13 Says there's no clouds of dust from the rocket on touchdown. How does one expect billowing clouds of dust when there's no air? The dust can be seen spraying straight out though.
46:58- He asks how the footprint could be possible in the soil without moisture. It's not soil. Soil is organic. It's regolith, and it made up of jagid particles from millions of years of meteorite impacts. The particles aren't rounded smooth.
50:18- Says the shadow changes and that couldn't have happened in seconds like it does. Yes, it can. The camera operator increased the exposure setting. Everything got brighter. Mystery solved.
6:12 and 56:54- Armstrong/Aldrin photo (again, a low quality shot of the heavily altered version is used), something about looking down at the faceplate and having to be 8 feet tall. Look at the original photo and try saying the same thing. Also says that no camera is visible in the hands of the photographer in the faceplate reflection... yeah, like it's going to be. The faceplate acts as a wide-angle lense for the reflection, which will make Armstrong(reflected photographer) appear tiny.
57:56- the crater looks to be getting further away and the angle is changing, I don't know why he says it isn't. He also says they're taking off horizontally. Does the film actually start from the moment they take off? Does it occure to him they already did the verticle takeoff, and the footage starts after they began their horizontal direction for orbit.
I might watch the whole thing eventually, but for the little bit I saw, I'm not really impressed.
The reason you're not impressed is because the ones who always bring up these claims in videos on the internet and the like are never educated on the topics they're trying to argue against. Some may believe these people, but there's so much evidence and "common sense" (not a fan of that word combo) available to the general public that this shouldn't be a thing, that people should be able to educate themselves and understand how and why the landings happened. It's a real shame when education fails so many people, in or out of the US.
-
Scepti in a nutshell:
Insane Clown Posse - Miracles (http://#ws)
:P
-
scepti wears clown makeup? ???
-
Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
It's strange how the mock ups mimic those so called Astro liars on the moon "exactly" isn't it.
-
The reason you're not impressed is because the ones who always bring up these claims in videos on the internet and the like are never educated on the topics they're trying to argue against. Some may believe these people, but there's so much evidence and "common sense" (not a fan of that word combo) available to the general public that this shouldn't be a thing, that people should be able to educate themselves and understand how and why the landings happened. It's a real shame when education fails so many people, in or out of the US.
The education system in the western world is based on teacher tutoring pupils from day blot and those teachers were, "themselves" indoctrinated into it all and so on and so on.
You can only absorb what you are programmed to absord and your life is marked on how you remember what you have absorbed, as in, exam papers.
If your exam paper is solely about moon landings, then you either go with what you are told happened and do your exam on that basis, or you look at evidence of it not happening and go against it.
Exam sheet.
1.Who was the first man to step foot on the moon?
Answer from brainwashed: Neil Armstrong. ( tick)
Answer from sceptic. Nobody landed on the moon. ( cross)
The brainwashed person will naturally go on to university taking science courses, whilst the sceptic learns a trade or ends up in a factory.
The point I'm getting at , is, everyone wants to learn, even those that don't take interest in certain, more complicated subjects that are simply so challenging that the mathematics and equations to get anywhere are at best vague, yet can be copied without really understanding what the hell it all really means.
A scientific person will jump on what I say, in denial or arrogance, to state that he/she , does , indeed understand it all, yet , if you ask them to explain the equations behind E=MC2 or special relativity, relativity, quantum physics etc etc, they then start to vaguely explain it without really knowing what the hell it's really all about.
That's main stream science for yo.
Anyone who simply questions it, is asked to show figures to prove it wrong. It's a classic stumping mechanism, as they know it's impossible to prove wrong, the same as theirs is impossible to prove right.
-
Scepti in a nutshell:
Insane Clown Posse - Miracles (http://#ws)
:P
Do you feel better now? :-*
-
The reason you're not impressed is because the ones who always bring up these claims in videos on the internet and the like are never educated on the topics they're trying to argue against. Some may believe these people, but there's so much evidence and "common sense" (not a fan of that word combo) available to the general public that this shouldn't be a thing, that people should be able to educate themselves and understand how and why the landings happened. It's a real shame when education fails so many people, in or out of the US.
The education system in the western world is based on teacher tutoring pupils from day blot and those teachers were, "themselves" indoctrinated into it all and so on and so on.
You can only absorb what you are programmed to absord and your life is marked on how you remember what you have absorbed, as in, exam papers.
If your exam paper is solely about moon landings, then you either go with what you are told happened and do your exam on that basis, or you look at evidence of it not happening and go against it.
Exam sheet.
1.Who was the first man to step foot on the moon?
Answer from brainwashed: Neil Armstrong. ( tick)
Answer from sceptic. Nobody landed on the moon. ( cross)
The brainwashed person will naturally go on to university taking science courses, whilst the sceptic learns a trade or ends up in a factory.
The point I'm getting at , is, everyone wants to learn, even those that don't take interest in certain, more complicated subjects that are simply so challenging that the mathematics and equations to get anywhere are at best vague, yet can be copied without really understanding what the hell it all really means.
A scientific person will jump on what I say, in denial or arrogance, to state that he/she , does , indeed understand it all, yet , if you ask them to explain the equations behind E=MC2 or special relativity, relativity, quantum physics etc etc, they then start to vaguely explain it without really knowing what the hell it's really all about.
That's main stream science for yo.
Anyone who simply questions it, is asked to show figures to prove it wrong. It's a classic stumping mechanism, as they know it's impossible to prove wrong, the same as theirs is impossible to prove right.
its easy to prove the moon missions happened we prove you wrong all the time its becoming embarrassing for you. you just dismiss are answers with claims of magic and pretending that the laws of physics don't exist. lol nice job with that. the video on the op shows how faking the moon missions were impossible, but you ignore that don't you. you haven't given us answer to any of the things bought up in the original op have you.
-
Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
It's strange how the mock ups mimic those so called Astro liars on the moon "exactly" isn't it.
No, it's not strange at all. In fact, it's the whole point of making a mockup to practice with.
-
The reason you're not impressed is because the ones who always bring up these claims in videos on the internet and the like are never educated on the topics they're trying to argue against. Some may believe these people, but there's so much evidence and "common sense" (not a fan of that word combo) available to the general public that this shouldn't be a thing, that people should be able to educate themselves and understand how and why the landings happened. It's a real shame when education fails so many people, in or out of the US.
The education system in the western world is based on teacher tutoring pupils from day blot and those teachers were, "themselves" indoctrinated into it all and so on and so on.
You can only absorb what you are programmed to absord and your life is marked on how you remember what you have absorbed, as in, exam papers.
If your exam paper is solely about moon landings, then you either go with what you are told happened and do your exam on that basis, or you look at evidence of it not happening and go against it.
Exam sheet.
1.Who was the first man to step foot on the moon?
Answer from brainwashed: Neil Armstrong. ( tick)
Answer from sceptic. Nobody landed on the moon. ( cross)
The brainwashed person will naturally go on to university taking science courses, whilst the sceptic learns a trade or ends up in a factory.
The point I'm getting at , is, everyone wants to learn, even those that don't take interest in certain, more complicated subjects that are simply so challenging that the mathematics and equations to get anywhere are at best vague, yet can be copied without really understanding what the hell it all really means.
A scientific person will jump on what I say, in denial or arrogance, to state that he/she , does , indeed understand it all, yet , if you ask them to explain the equations behind E=MC2 or special relativity, relativity, quantum physics etc etc, they then start to vaguely explain it without really knowing what the hell it's really all about.
That's main stream science for yo.
Anyone who simply questions it, is asked to show figures to prove it wrong. It's a classic stumping mechanism, as they know it's impossible to prove wrong, the same as theirs is impossible to prove right.
its easy to prove the moon missions happened we prove you wrong all the time its becoming embarrassing for you. you just dismiss are answers with claims of magic and pretending that the laws of physics don't exist. lol nice job with that. the video on the op shows how faking the moon missions were impossible, but you ignore that don't you. you haven't given us answer to any of the things bought up in the original op have you.
I've given you many many answers as to why it was faked and all you have come back with is lame reasons why it happened, when it's clear to anyone who "cares" to look critically, it's faked.
-
Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
It's strange how the mock ups mimic those so called Astro liars on the moon "exactly" isn't it.
No, it's not strange at all. In fact, it's the whole point of making a mockup to practice with.
Practice what?
What can you practice on a stage set except faking the landings?
-
Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
It's strange how the mock ups mimic those so called Astro liars on the moon "exactly" isn't it.
No, it's not strange at all. In fact, it's the whole point of making a mockup to practice with.
Practice what?
What can you practice on a stage set except faking the landings?
Do you drive a car? If so, did you start driving in big cities or on an interstate highway right from the beginning or did you practice in a big, empty parking lot first? Going to the moon is a very difficult and dangerous proposition, so it only makes sense that you would ant to practice quite a lot before you're sure that you're ready to risk your life on the real thing.
-
Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
It's strange how the mock ups mimic those so called Astro liars on the moon "exactly" isn't it.
No, it's not strange at all. In fact, it's the whole point of making a mockup to practice with.
Practice what?
What can you practice on a stage set except faking the landings?
Do you drive a car? If so, did you start driving in big cities or on an interstate highway right from the beginning or did you practice in a big, empty parking lot first? Going to the moon is a very difficult and dangerous proposition, so it only makes sense that you would ant to practice quite a lot before you're sure that you're ready to risk your life on the real thing.
So, if they use the lander and all their suits in a studio of sand or cement, this will stand them in good stead for the moon mission in supposed zero atmosphere and supposed one sixth gravity will it?
It's like your mother learning you to walk about by throwing you into a swimming pool.
Director: Ok Neil, we've set up the exact moon conditions in this studio, except the atmosphere and one sixth gravity, so have a walk about will you.
Neil: Ermmm? what for Sir, what good will this do us?
Director: Nothing really but it'll show you how crap and desolate and grey, dark and murky the moon will be to you.
Neil: Great stuff, I don't feel like going now, can we just fake it.
Director: I'll decide that Neil, when the time comes.
Yeah, I'm sure they went to the moon. ::)
-
well no actually it teaches them how to move in their suits, get a feel of the conditions inside and whats required to us them properly. can you explain how they managed to film the whole thing in slow motion yet? because they didn't have the technology to do it back then.
-
well no actually it teaches them how to move in their suits, get a feel of the conditions inside and whats required to us them properly. can you explain how they managed to film the whole thing in slow motion yet? because they didn't have the technology to do it back then.
Wires and slowed down video and a few little Kubrick tricks, that's all. Nothing too difficult for a man that brought out Capricorn 1 a few years later, which I'm sure was ready in 1969.
They didn't have the technology. ;D
Did you see the pile of crap footage of the landings? Laurel and hardy had better special effects. ;D
-
did you not watch the OP video. he perfectly demonstrates how we didn't have the tech create such a long piece of fottage slowed down. also we have showed you that infact when fottage is speeded back up then the fottage looks rediculious and does not look like a person moving at normal speed. unless you are going to invent a super secret technology we had back then, which im sure you will in your next post
-
What if it wasn't slowed down? What if they were shooting that normally, and simply found a way to simulate walking on the moon?
-
its not just walking though. its dust being kicked up things being dropped even a pendulum in some footage.
-
its not just walking though. its dust being kicked up things being dropped even a pendulum in some footage.
They even done a hammer and feather test to prove they were on the moon and it was replicated on earth easily.
There is no logical reason anyway for Astro liars to be acting all slow on the moon. If anything they should have been falling over or skipping about faster than normal due to no air resistance anyway.
They slowed them down because they mistakenly believed that, the moon would make them sort of buoyant as if in water.
Naturally they had to go with that from then on because everyone had seen it all.
-
sceptic show me hoe using tech of the day the recorded that amount of time in slow motion? remember they did not have the tech to do it back then.
and in reguards to your last post. your lack of knowledge of physics and movement is not are fault. go learn some physics.
-
sceptic show me hoe using tech of the day the recorded that amount of time in slow motion? remember they did not have the tech to do it back then.
and in reguards to your last post. your lack of knowledge of physics and movement is not are fault. go learn some physics.
You're constant babbling on about," go and learn physics" is getting old squire, give it a rest. You don't need physics to see bull crap like this and see it for what it is.
You go on about technology to slow things down, what the hell are you on about?
It's as easy as anything for someone to slow stuff down and what do you mean by the recorded amount of time?
-
we go on about physics because its essential to figuring things out. that's how we build things like bridges and airplanes.
how did they record 143 minuets of film in slow motion in 1969 using magnetic tapes because they could not have done it using celluloid film.
-
we go on about physics because its essential to figuring things out. that's how we build things like bridges and airplanes.
how did they record 143 minuets of film in slow motion in 1969 using magnetic tapes because they could not have done it using celluloid film.
You don't record it in slow motion. You play it back using slow motion of the projector.
-
okey let me put it another way. how much is the moon footage slowed down by in your opinion?
-
okey let me put it another way. how much is the moon footage slowed down by in your opinion?
I can't say with any accuracy. Maybe 40/50 %.
-
well that's different to most people but okey lets go with it. so they would have needed to record 71.5 minuets of footage on to a magnetic disc recorder. but wait a minuet, magnetic recorders could only record 30 seconds of footage at full speed or 1 minuet at slow speed. a little short of the 143 minuets of footage their was ??? so...... hmmm where does that leave you?
-
well that's different to most people but okey lets go with it. so they would have needed to record 71.5 minuets of footage on to a magnetic disc recorder. but wait a minuet, magnetic recorders could only record 30 seconds of footage at full speed or 1 minuet at slow speed. a little short of the 143 minuets of footage their was ??? so...... hmmm where does that leave you?
What the hell do you mean, 'only record 1 minute of footage?' ..what's that all about?
-
to fake it they would have had to have used magnetic disc recorders. they could only record 30 seconds at a time. or if you want to slow the fottage down by 50% then one minuet. so how did they record 143 minuets slow mo or in other words 71.5 minuets at full speed. have you not seen this video? watch it. he explains it all more tactfully than i can. specificly from 4.39 http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/why-it-was-impossible-to-fake-the-1969-moon-landing-20130126/ (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/why-it-was-impossible-to-fake-the-1969-moon-landing-20130126/)
-
to fake it they would have had to have used magnetic disc recorders. they could only record 30 seconds at a time. or if you want to slow the fottage down by 50% then one minuet. so how did they record 143 minuets slow mo or in other words 71.5 minuets at full speed. have you not seen this video? watch it. he explains it all more tactfully than i can. specificly from 4.39 http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/why-it-was-impossible-to-fake-the-1969-moon-landing-20130126/ (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/why-it-was-impossible-to-fake-the-1969-moon-landing-20130126/)
Either explain what you mean or can someone else, because I have no clue what you or he is saying. Trying to make out that a disc had to be used is nonesense.
What on the footage says a disc had to be used? Oh and where is this continuous footage, do you have it?
-
ummm the billions of people that watched are proof of the continuous footage. ??? and im not shocked you have no idea what im going on about. celluloid film could not have been used what part of that cant you understand? so what are the remaining options to film with. magnetic disks. magnetic disks at the time could hold 30 seconds of film. not 71.5 minuets. are you realy this retarded or just stuck in a hole so you are acting retarded. have you even watched the film i put up which is also in the original OP?
-
ummm the billions of people that watched are proof of the continuous footage. ??? and im not shocked you have no idea what im going on about. celluloid film could not have been used what part of that cant you understand? so what are the remaining options to film with. magnetic disks. magnetic disks at the time could hold 30 seconds of film. not 71.5 minuets. are you realy this retarded or just stuck in a hole so you are acting retarded. have you even watched the film i put up which is also in the original OP?
Just explain to me, why reel film could not have been used?
Oh and who are these billions of people who watched TV sets in 1969?
-
no splice marks, base scratches, emulation flakes, dust particles gate weave no film grane etc etc etc. all of this would have been evident every where over 5300 feet of film. especially back then. you go to any cinema today and watch a modern movie on 35 mill and its everywhere. yet not one single one of the above appear anywhere in the original footage. of any of the moon landings.
-
no splice marks, base scratches, emulation flakes, dust particles gate weave no film grane etc etc etc. all of this would have been evident every where over 5300 feet of film. especially back then. you go to any cinema today and watch a modern movie on 35 mill and its everywhere. yet not one single one of the above appear anywhere in the original footage. of any of the moon landings.
Nor did they appear in any of the 2001 a space odyssey. So what's your point here?
-
didnt they? ??? they appear in every film shown on celluloid. even today with all our modern technology. every 20 minuets or so you will see the splice marks. almost always at a scene change to help hide the slight jump in the film. they have to be because all film comes in small reals. no way around it. unless you can invent a way of fitting 5300 feet of film in one film canister. every thing i posted shows up on all film even today. no exception im afraid. its not a technology thing its just the nature of the medium used to show film. so i think you will find you can see them in 2001 space odyssey. so sorry to let you down
-
didnt they? ??? they appear in every film shown on celluloid. even today with all our modern technology. every 20 minuets or so you will see the splice marks. almost always at a scene change to help hide the slight jump in the film. they have to be because all film comes in small reals. no way around it. unless you can invent a way of fitting 5300 feet of film in one film canister. every thing i posted shows up on all film even today. no exception im afraid. its not a technology thing its just the nature of the medium used to show film. so i think you will find you can see them in 2001 space odyssey. so sorry to let you down
Well show me this continuous footage that has no jumps in it then and if I don;t see any jumps or anything, I'll apologise for believing the moon landings were faked and I will never ever question anything, ever again as a conspiracy.
Ok, over to you. Show me this continuous footage of the moon landing and I'll go over it. cheers.
-
Oh so you didn't watch the video in the OP in a 26 page thread? Ok.
-
im not doing research for you.any way it dosent matter what you think because your just a troll. not a single person in history has ever found any of what is described on any of the original footage. and considering 500 million people watched the original broadcast and not a single person spotted any of this id say we can safely assume it wasn't filmed on 35 mill. considering you said non of this was evident on 2001 space Odyssey film i think we can safely assume you have no idea what we are even talking about. as usual lol
-
http://www.acontinuouslean.com/2010/04/24/nerd-alert-apollo-11-in-hd/ (http://www.acontinuouslean.com/2010/04/24/nerd-alert-apollo-11-in-hd/)
any way sceptic. remember how you said rockets dont exist and they are scale models and such? well this sight has amazing slow mo footage with comentry taken at the base of the satern v launch. didnt think they had that good cgi in 1969 ???
-
Oh and who are these billions of people who watched TV sets in 1969?
Pretty much anybody in the world that had access to a television.
-
Oh so you didn't watch the video in the OP in a 26 page thread? Ok.
I want to see the continuous footage of the 1969 moon landing. Pop it up for me please and I'll look through it.
It's the one with Neil and Buzz in the studio I think.
-
im not doing research for you.any way it dosent matter what you think because your just a troll. not a single person in history has ever found any of what is described on any of the original footage. and considering 500 million people watched the original broadcast and not a single person spotted any of this id say we can safely assume it wasn't filmed on 35 mill. considering you said non of this was evident on 2001 space Odyssey film i think we can safely assume you have no idea what we are even talking about. as usual lol
Just the 1969 "continuous" footage you are raving about please, I'll do the rest from there. Thanks.
-
http://www.acontinuouslean.com/2010/04/24/nerd-alert-apollo-11-in-hd/ (http://www.acontinuouslean.com/2010/04/24/nerd-alert-apollo-11-in-hd/)
any way sceptic. remember how you said rockets dont exist and they are scale models and such? well this sight has amazing slow mo footage with comentry taken at the base of the satern v launch. didnt think they had that good cgi in 1969 ???
I hope you are kidding me here. If not, don;t dare call me a troll.
-
Oh and who are these billions of people who watched TV sets in 1969?
Pretty much anybody in the world that had access to a television.
Not in 1969 they didn't..and also, they got one chance to view the footage and no way could they determine what was what in those days.
-
I belive the viewing figures were 500 million so yes an awful lot of people saw the fottage. And maby when you do you reaserch you should go to the source and get the origional unedited photos and videos. Yes? Instead of you tube and google search. Try the official archives for a start. So you dnt make a fool of yourself by posting a alters image and calling it the origional.
-
I belive the viewing figures were 500 million so yes an awful lot of people saw the fottage. And maby when you do you reaserch you should go to the source and get the origional unedited photos and videos. Yes? Instead of you tube and google search. Try the official archives for a start. So you dnt make a fool of yourself by posting a alters image and calling it the origional.
Ok here's the deal.
You get me the genuine footage of that day. The full 1 hour plus footage and I'll look through it.
If I can't find fault, then I'll never question anything like this again.
If you refuse to do so, consider it a cop out and your debunking is worth zilch.
The ball is in your court my friend.
-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html)
well everything you need is on thier. it has absolutly everything to do with the moon landings on their. its got vast amounts of pictures videos, audio transcripts desigh schematics trajectory calculations. you name it its on there. may i suggest you use the is your source for moon footage and images in the future and not edited versions like you have before
-
I belive the viewing figures were 500 million so yes an awful lot of people saw the fottage. And maby when you do you reaserch you should go to the source and get the origional unedited photos and videos. Yes? Instead of you tube and google search. Try the official archives for a start. So you dnt make a fool of yourself by posting a alters image and calling it the origional.
Ok here's the deal.
You get me the genuine footage of that day. The full 1 hour plus footage and I'll look through it.
If I can't find fault, then I'll never question anything like this again.
If you refuse to do so, consider it a cop out and your debunking is worth zilch.
The ball is in your court my friend.
I'm pretty sure the original footage was destroyed, so since nasa is at fault I guess that means we're copping out ::)
-
no splice marks, base scratches, emulation flakes, dust particles gate weave no film grane etc etc etc. all of this would have been evident every where over 5300 feet of film. especially back then. you go to any cinema today and watch a modern movie on 35 mill and its everywhere. yet not one single one of the above appear anywhere in the original footage. of any of the moon landings.
Don't forget that the great space agency, has claimed to have lost the original footage of mankinds's greatest achievement. Unfortunately.
-
Only of the apollo 11. All the origionaly of all the later landings still exist. If it was some kind of cover up then wouldn't they have destroyed them all? ???
Any way this goes for al FErs may I suggest you use the site I provided for all future pictorial posts about the moon seeing as it is the original source. So many times we have seen photos that are not the original and have Been alters in some way.
-
Only of the apollo 11. All the origionaly of all the later landings still exist. If it was some kind of cover up then wouldn't they have destroyed them all? ???
Any way this goes for al FErs may I suggest you use the site I provided for all future pictorial posts about the moon seeing as it is the original source. So many times we have seen photos that are not the original and have Been alters in some way.
Mans so called greatest achievement was destroyed and people wonder why the moon landings get questioned lol.
They manage to keep hold of scripts and artefacts from centuries ago, never losing them, yet footage of mans greatest achievement , destroyed like cleaning out a loft and burning the rubbish.
Poppycock.
You say, why didn't they just destroy them all?
The answer is quite simple...They learned from their mistakes the first time and righted a lot of wrongs, plus, it would have looked even more fishy, had they destroyed yet more later landing footage, don't you think?
So in effect, you have just tried to stump me on continuous footage that does not exist and yet this is proof why they did go???
Are you kidding me or what. ;D
-
are you suggesting that every piece of important historical documentation from all of history is still around today and not lost damaged or destroyed? ???
have you had a browse through the JLS website. they can answer all your technical questions you can understand as well as provide you with unedited photos for you to use instead of the edited ones you use.
-
are you suggesting that every piece of important historical documentation from all of history is still around today and not lost damaged or destroyed? ???
have you had a browse through the JLS website. they can answer all your technical questions you can understand as well as provide you with unedited photos for you to use instead of the edited ones you use.
Strange how any photos I find are all edited and yet all the ones you want me to see are not. Come on man, what are you gaining from all of this.
Any sane person can see the moon landings are a load of bull.It's so amateur, it's not funny, yet in the good old 60's, that amateur footage was deemed state of the art as nobody, or very few would have expected anything clear cut as far as footage goes, when you consider that most people had grainy black and white TV's anyway and no video recorders to play anything back. It was a one hit wonder, with no time to pick at anything.
What they didn't bank on, was technology allowing people to scrutinise the footage, which is the reason why a lot of stuff was mislaid or destroyed, accidentally of course. ::)
When I was a kid, I'd watch Frankenstein movies and be scared, yet I see them now and laugh at how amateurish they looked and how silly the make up department dolled up the monster, yet at the time it was scary and up to the minute movie time, which we looked forward to.
We are gullible people and we just don't realise how gullible we are.
As kids we would watch thunderbirds (the puppet ones) and jump up when we saw the strings, as if we were trying to convince ourselves the puppets were real at first, only for us to find that they are operated by strings.
It's a bit like the moon landing footage. We see it for what it is, yet some people can't see the strings, even though they are quite evident.
-
I tell you you use edited photos because you do use edited photos. Every time you de we provide you with the origionals iv shown you where to get the origional photos from so all you have to do in the future is to use his ALSJ site to source your material from. Simples realy. And it's not amateurish and child like. Have you seen the depth of enginering details the schimatics go into on this site. The show you entire engineering drawings down to individual bolt assemblays and hinge mechanisms used on the space craft. They explain everything you have ever questioned in more detail than your closed mined could ever even begin to comprehend.
-
I tell you you use edited photos because you do use edited photos. Every time you de we provide you with the origionals iv shown you where to get the origional photos from so all you have to do in the future is to use his ALSJ site to source your material from. Simples realy. And it's not amateurish and child like. Have you seen the depth of enginering details the schimatics go into on this site. The show you entire engineering drawings down to individual bolt assemblays and hinge mechanisms used on the space craft. They explain everything you have ever questioned in more detail than your closed mined could ever even begin to comprehend.
See if you can answer this.
The lunar lander "legs" must be made of metal right, of some description. Why would they need to wrap them in turkey foil?
What purpose would turkey foil have that is deemed necessary to be wrapped around those lander legs and footpads?
-
heat insulation. they are not solid bits of metal. they are intricate pieces of engineering. check out this page from guess where? ALSJ http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf) it provides detailed explinatons for the design and deployment positions of the legs. that's just one page their are any more.
but let me beat you to it. i predict you will say. well bull shit that's magic how can that work. lol
-
heat insulation. they are not solid bits of metal. they are intricate pieces of engineering. check out this page from guess where? ALSJ http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf) it provides detailed explinatons for the design and deployment positions of the legs. that's just one page their are any more.
but let me beat you to it. i predict you will say. well bull shit that's magic how can that work. lol
No, it's ok, I won't argue the point of tin foil insulating these super strong honey comb centred legs of immense absorption capabilities, I'll let you have this one.
What kind of tape did they use to stick them together?
What would happen to tapes adhesiveness in the vacuum of space or the cold or heat of the moon?
Any ideas?
-
what makes you think its stuck down with sticky tape? ??? i dont know what secures it you will need to look through the engineering drawings and let me know. but they did in fact use duct tape or a version of it on apollo 17 at least when a fender from the buggy was pulled off. see below
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf)
-
what makes you think its stuck down with sticky tape? ??? i dont know what secures it you will need to look through the engineering drawings and let me know. but they did in fact use duct tape or a version of it on apollo 17 at least when a fender from the buggy was pulled off. see below
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf)
Why don't you take a look at the lander I posted. It's stuck together with sticky tape, all over.
-
Duct tape only reinforces that it not a hoax.
If you can't use duct tape and wd-40 to build something then its not real.
-
what makes you think its stuck down with sticky tape? ??? i dont know what secures it you will need to look through the engineering drawings and let me know. but they did in fact use duct tape or a version of it on apollo 17 at least when a fender from the buggy was pulled off. see below
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_Fender_Extensions.pdf)
Why don't you take a look at the lander I posted. It's stuck together with sticky tape, all over.
The "turkey foil" thermal insulation was probably stuck together with Velcro, not sticky tape.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/6861117148/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/6861117148/#)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7131/6861117148_1cac56df23_z.jpg)
-
which photo are you talking about? you have posted many. perhaps you could also point out where the duct tape is on it as well.
-
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4372/lunarlander.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/lunarlander.jpg/)
This.
-
well my 1st observation would be that if this is indeed duct tape why is it gold? iv never seen gold duct tape. shouldn't it be grey black or see through?
-
Quote from: 29silhouette on February 15, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
5:05 Ceiling beams? Yes they are. That's one of the photos of their mockup on Earth for practicing. The original photos show a lot of the ceiling. They weren't trying to hide much with those pictures.
It's strange how the mock ups mimic those so called Astro liars on the moon "exactly" isn't it.
It doesn't mimic the moon exactly. Other than a slightly darkened setting, EMU suits, and some grey colored gravel, they weren't really trying to fake anything in these pictures. Ceiling beams and overhead lights are visible, there's none of the reflective or shielding covers on the module, and there are obviously a couple light sources.
Here's a couple pictures from that mockup practice session. The picture from the video is a cropped (also darker and grainier looking) picture from this set.
http://galaxywire.net/tag/moon/page/3/ (http://galaxywire.net/tag/moon/page/3/)
Practice what?
What can you practice on a stage set except faking the landings?
Setting up and using all the equipment. They do this in the EMUs so they'll be used to the limited dexterity and movement regardless of the gravity difference.
heat insulation. they are not solid bits of metal. they are intricate pieces of engineering. check out this page from guess where? ALSJ http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf) it provides detailed explinatons for the design and deployment positions of the legs. that's just one page their are any more.
but let me beat you to it. i predict you will say. well bull shit that's magic how can that work. lol
No, it's ok, I won't argue the point of tin foil insulating these super strong honey comb centred legs of immense absorption capabilities, I'll let you have this one.
What kind of tape did they use to stick them together?
What would happen to tapes adhesiveness in the vacuum of space or the cold or heat of the moon?
Any ideas?
It's an alloy coated plastic, not tin foil.
The first thing that comes to mind for insulating it would be to control metal expansion. Maybe we should actually research it though.
Why do you think vacuum would affect the adhesiveness of tape? I have metal based tape that is highly adhesive. There are probably a lot of specialized industrial tapes out there. What type of tape do you think they used?
Pages 3-11. Pretty much the same stuff that is going to come up by someone looking at a picture and assuming it's fake, and everything that is going to be explained by others actually doing an in-depth analysis and research.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54230.40.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54230.40.html)
-
well my 1st observation would be that if this is indeed duct tape why is it gold? iv never seen gold duct tape. shouldn't it be grey black or see through?
I never mentioned duct tape, I said "tape."
-
Alright then. Any tape. Why use gold tape. If they were trying to hide it would they not use less obvious colours?
-
I wasn't thinking of the vacuum itself on the tape, more like the 250 degree heat melting the adhesive on it or the 250 degree cold actually rendering it a brittle waste of time.
There is also a problem with cold welding in the vacuum of space, so I wonder how they got around that.
-
Alright then. Any tape. Why use gold tape. If they were trying to hide it would they not use less obvious colours?
Why indeed. Why indeed.
-
I wasn't thinking of the vacuum itself on the tape, more like the 250 degree heat melting the adhesive on it or the 250 degree cold actually rendering it a brittle waste of time.
There is also a problem with cold welding in the vacuum of space, so I wonder how they got around that.
well this is probably where the gold comes into play. and unless you can find out what the material is made of then how can you claim that it should be brittle or melt?
and the reason you can see it is because they had no need to hide it because they are not hiding anything. ??? quite simple realy.
-
Gold metal is used as heat insulation. Some of those layers that look like gold could be gold plated or gold leafed.
-
You're constant babbling on about," go and learn physics" is getting old squire, give it a rest. You don't need physics to see bull crap like this and see it for what it is.
Oh ok.
-
Gold metal is used as heat insulation. Some of those layers that look like gold could be gold plated or gold leafed.
And I'm a sabre toothed Tiger. ::)
-
You're constant babbling on about," go and learn physics" is getting old squire, give it a rest. You don't need physics to see bull crap like this and see it for what it is.
Oh ok.
You do not need physics to see something for what it is, amateurish bull shit. There's only observation of everything needed.
The trouble with your likes is, you live by numbers and will not accept anything else told to you, unless it has some kind of numbers to back it up, so here goes.
The moon landings were a big fake, 6x6=36+12=48. divided by 12=4+2=6 moon landing missions were faked.
-
you do when you tell us how does a moon lander land on the moon and not flip over or a rocket cant work in space because it has nothing to push against. remember those
comments? that's where your lack of physics makes you look like a fool when trying to use such arguments for why the moon landings could not happen.
why are you doing random primary school math in your posts?
-
you do when you tell us how does a moon lander land on the moon and not flip over or a rocket cant work in space because it has nothing to push against. remember those
comments? that's where your lack of physics makes you look like a fool when trying to use such arguments for why the moon landings could not happen.
why are you doing random primary school math in your posts?
I just thought I'd use a bit of maths as you and others clearly live by it, even trying to explain why they landed on the moon with it, when all you need to do is look at the footage and think of the impossibility of the crafts and obstacles, yet you hang onto it like a child grabbing his mothers dress because you don't want your space dream to come crashing down, making you feel a fool for being duped all these years.
Or..
You are being paid to simple debunk anyone who questions these landings.
Or..
You are doing it for free and you simply just want to argue the case, even though you probably are 50/50 and are trying to get some clarification yourself that you deem as concrete.
I think the latter might be your goal.
-
their is nothing wrong with the footage. your ignorance of the design of the vehicle and the way photography works just makes you think their is.
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
Ok , it was counteracted with, ' the fuel pushed "against" the rocket.'
Fair enough then but when Apollo was supposedly descending to the moon, good old Neil realised they were heading for a crater, so he steered the piece of shit cardboard and turkey foil lander, away from it, using the "RETRO THRUSTERS", which steered the craft over the crater to a smooth landing.
So, ok, let's go with the fuel pushing the rocket, or as some explain, imagine it spitting out cannon balls really fast and getting a kick each time. ::)
So the lander is ascending, at first vertically and now it also has to move horizontally so, one side of the thrusters are needed, yet in reality, this should simply tip over the craft.
Picture a Catherine wheel nailed to a fence and lighting it, it spins right?
There is no atmosphere on the moon, so they say...so if that's the case, the minute they used the side retro thruster, the craft will immediately push the top over with no air to stop it, it will simply be in motion and just slowly spin, unless they counteracted it, "immediately" with a squirt of the opposite retro thruster, which would mean, it would be pointless using them in the first place.
I'll do one of my amazing drawings of the lunar lander in stunning detail to show you what I mean.
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/3235/crashlander.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/594/crashlander.png/)
-
their is nothing wrong with the footage. your ignorance of the design of the vehicle and the way photography works just makes you think their is.
Nothing to do with "think"...I'm 100% certain it was all faked.
-
where is the center of gravity on the lander? also the manovering rockets are not that high up so nice deceptive drawing. try making at least an accurate one.
-
where is the center of gravity on the slanders?
Makes no difference.
-
well considering you are talking about balance then it is everything we are talking about. shows how much you know. to begin with the center of gravity is very very low down because all fuel supplies and engines are right neat the bottom of the craft which means the thrusters which are not at adsactly the center of gravity but above it would not cause the craft to flip as you say.
-
well considering you are talking about balance then it is everything we are talking about. shows how much you know. to begin with the center of gravity is very very low down because all fuel supplies and engines are right neat the bottom of the craft which means the thrusters which are not at adsactly the center of gravity but above it would not cause the craft to flip as you say.
If those little thrusters can push a craft sideways, they can push it over too, so don't go on about centre of gravity.
The reality is, in no atmosphere, like we are told the moon has, that craft would be unbalanced the second either side thruster was operated, unless the opposite thruster was operated, which would mean it being pointless having them.
-
trust me center of gravity matters. now onward. remember that it has thrusters on all sides that fire on all axis that can compensate for any instabilities in the craft. remember that the directional thrusters dont work in isolation but in combination. watch this video. the 1st few seconds show adsactly how they work and why your theiry is wrong.
(http://)
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
-
trust me center of gravity matters. now onward. remember that it has thrusters on all sides that fire on all axis that can compensate for any instabilities in the craft. remember that the directional thrusters dont work in isolation but in combination. watch this video. the 1st few seconds show adsactly how they work and why your theiry is wrong.
(http://)
It's a bloody animation man.
Tell me:
How does the computer know how to balance the craft in space?
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
Impossible in a vacuum but we've been there already.
-
how do you know im a man?
and yes it is an animation based on a computer simulation that runs of the same laws of physics that the real world does. also have you ever heard the phrase a picture paints a thousand words?
as for the computer. i don't know im not an expert in 1969 computers and flight navigation. are you?
-
how do you know im a man?
and yes it is an animation based on a computer simulation that runs of the same laws of physics that the real world does. also have you ever heard the phrase a picture paints a thousand words?
as for the computer. i don't know im not an expert in 1969 computers and flight navigation. are you?
I don;t know you're a man, it's simply a guess. I will call you dear from now on, is that ok?
Anyway:
Take a look at 1969 computer technology and you will see that they would have had to tow an extra piece of kit to the moon with them to house it. ;D
-
whys that? ???
hear is a nice paper going into some detail of the luner lander manual attitude contol system.
http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/LM.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/LM.pdf)
should be quite good reading for a truth seeker like yourself seeing as you love looking at an argument from both side before making a decision. lol i made that bit up
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
Impossible in a vacuum but we've been there already.
What is impossible? Is it impossible for a mechanical object to eject gases in a vacuum? And if those gases are ejected does it not change the momentum of those gases? The mechanical object and the ejected gases form one system and for this system to maintain its momentum the object must move in the opposite direction to the ejected gases.
It has nothing to do with vacuums or the presence of an atmosphere. It has to do with the properties of the rocket and its ejected gases. It has to do with Newton's second law.
Google 'The Rocket Equation' for an explanation of how it works. The derivation of the rocket equation is particularly bonny.
-
sceptic dosent believe in any of newtons laws.
-
whys that? ???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorrowsworld/8008.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorrowsworld/8008.shtml)
Of course I'm sure N.A.S.A had windows Vista (hidden from us) in those days. ;D
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
Impossible in a vacuum but we've been there already.
What is impossible? Is it impossible for a mechanical object to eject gases in a vacuum? And if those gases are ejected does it not change the momentum of those gases? The mechanical object and the ejected gases form one system and for this system to maintain its momentum the object must move in the opposite direction to the ejected gases.
It has nothing to do with vacuums or the presence of an atmosphere. It has to do with the properties of the rocket and its ejected gases. It has to do with Newton's second law.
Google 'The Rocket Equation' for an explanation of how it works. The derivation of the rocket equation is particularly bonny.
I know how a rocket works. It's not the way you have been told it works though.
I've been through this point before, so I won't bore you with the details of it all.
-
why would they need windows vista? all the computer is doing is equations not advance graphical reprisentations which is what most of a computers power these days is taken up by. if you are actually willing to learn something instead of spouting the usual rubbish then read this.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm)
-
I know how a rocket works. It's not the way you have been told it works though.
I've been through this point before, so I won't bore you with the details of it all.
You? Boring? Hush your mouth.
-
why would they need windows vista? all the computer is doing is equations not advance graphical reprisentations which is what most of a computers power these days is taken up by. if you are actually willing to learn something instead of spouting the usual rubbish then read this.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm)
In all this time, you have failed to grasp one small thing.
I don't subscribe to what main stream space science tells me.
-
yet you use it in every aspect of your life. hmmmm ironic
-
yet you use it in every aspect of your life. hmmmm ironic
"space science" my dear.
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
Impossible in a vacuum but we've been there already.
What is impossible? Is it impossible for a mechanical object to eject gases in a vacuum? And if those gases are ejected does it not change the momentum of those gases? The mechanical object and the ejected gases form one system and for this system to maintain its momentum the object must move in the opposite direction to the ejected gases.
It has nothing to do with vacuums or the presence of an atmosphere. It has to do with the properties of the rocket and its ejected gases. It has to do with Newton's second law.
Google 'The Rocket Equation' for an explanation of how it works. The derivation of the rocket equation is particularly bonny.
I know how a rocket works. It's not the way you have been told it works though.
I've been through this point before, so I won't bore you with the details of it all.
No you don't know how a rocket work, a point you have proven many times before!
And yes you may not subscribe to what mainstream space science tells you, that doesn't mean the science is wrong though.
-
yes like i said science effects your life. you seem to think science and math is different when no the earth. their isnt a magic altitude where all of a sudden it changes, its universal.
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
Impossible in a vacuum but we've been there already.
What is impossible? Is it impossible for a mechanical object to eject gases in a vacuum? And if those gases are ejected does it not change the momentum of those gases? The mechanical object and the ejected gases form one system and for this system to maintain its momentum the object must move in the opposite direction to the ejected gases.
It has nothing to do with vacuums or the presence of an atmosphere. It has to do with the properties of the rocket and its ejected gases. It has to do with Newton's second law.
Google 'The Rocket Equation' for an explanation of how it works. The derivation of the rocket equation is particularly bonny.
I know how a rocket works. It's not the way you have been told it works though.
I've been through this point before, so I won't bore you with the details of it all.
No you don't know how a rocket work, a point you have proven many times before!
And yes you may not subscribe to what mainstream space science tells you, that doesn't mean the science is wrong though.
It doesn't mean it is right either.
Oh and you cannot directly prove how a rocket would work in space, correct?
-
well yes we can. the fact they launch into space all the time. ???
-
yes like i said science effects your life. you seem to think science and math is different when no the earth. their isnt a magic altitude where all of a sudden it changes, its universal.
The mere fact that you said it's universal, tells me that you are simply hanging onto the coat tails of those main stream so called physicists that spew it all out.
-
well yes we can. the fact they launch into space all the time. ???
The only launches into space you have seen and in space are on the TV or what people tell you. Oh and the odd shape in the sky.
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
Impossible in a vacuum but we've been there already.
What is impossible? Is it impossible for a mechanical object to eject gases in a vacuum? And if those gases are ejected does it not change the momentum of those gases? The mechanical object and the ejected gases form one system and for this system to maintain its momentum the object must move in the opposite direction to the ejected gases.
It has nothing to do with vacuums or the presence of an atmosphere. It has to do with the properties of the rocket and its ejected gases. It has to do with Newton's second law.
Google 'The Rocket Equation' for an explanation of how it works. The derivation of the rocket equation is particularly bonny.
I know how a rocket works. It's not the way you have been told it works though.
I've been through this point before, so I won't bore you with the details of it all.
No you don't know how a rocket work, a point you have proven many times before!
And yes you may not subscribe to what mainstream space science tells you, that doesn't mean the science is wrong though.
It doesn't mean it is right either.
Oh and you cannot directly prove how a rocket would work in space, correct?
Do you even believe space exists and that it is a vacuum rather than the ether?
-
I argued a while back about rockets not being able to work in space and gave my reasons, as being.
If space is a vacuum, then a rocket has nothing to push against.
The rocket doesn't push against anything. The rocket moves forward due to the conservation of momentum. A relatively small amount of fuel is burnt and ejected out of the back of the rocket at high speed. For the momentum to be conserved the rocket itself moves forward. The backward momentum of the ejected gases is cancelled by the forward momentum of the rocket.
Impossible in a vacuum but we've been there already.
What is impossible? Is it impossible for a mechanical object to eject gases in a vacuum? And if those gases are ejected does it not change the momentum of those gases? The mechanical object and the ejected gases form one system and for this system to maintain its momentum the object must move in the opposite direction to the ejected gases.
It has nothing to do with vacuums or the presence of an atmosphere. It has to do with the properties of the rocket and its ejected gases. It has to do with Newton's second law.
Google 'The Rocket Equation' for an explanation of how it works. The derivation of the rocket equation is particularly bonny.
I know how a rocket works. It's not the way you have been told it works though.
I've been through this point before, so I won't bore you with the details of it all.
No you don't know how a rocket work, a point you have proven many times before!
And yes you may not subscribe to what mainstream space science tells you, that doesn't mean the science is wrong though.
It doesn't mean it is right either.
Oh and you cannot directly prove how a rocket would work in space, correct?
Do you even believe space exists and that it is a vacuum rather than the ether?
I don't believe it's a vacuum to be honest, yet I could be wrong.
That's the beauty of space. We could all be wrong about it, yet we all have a hypothesis about what it is and what shape earth is, yet only the ultimate arrogant can 100% claim they know exactly what it is.
-
Do you even believe space exists and that it is a vacuum rather than the ether?
I don't believe it's a vacuum to be honest, yet I could be wrong.
That's the beauty of space. We could all be wrong about it, yet we all have a hypothesis about what it is and what shape earth is, yet only the ultimate arrogant can 100% claim they know exactly what it is.
[/quote]
If space is essentially the ether then why (in your hypothesis) wouldn't space travel be possible as there would be a medium for the craft to move through.
-
Do you even believe space exists and that it is a vacuum rather than the ether?
I don't believe it's a vacuum to be honest, yet I could be wrong.
That's the beauty of space. We could all be wrong about it, yet we all have a hypothesis about what it is and what shape earth is, yet only the ultimate arrogant can 100% claim they know exactly what it is.
If space is essentially the ether then why (in your hypothesis) wouldn't space travel be possible as there would be a medium for the craft to move through.
[/quote] I don't know what is in space. I can guess but that's all it is "a guess."
The fact that I don't believe the earth rotates is first and foremost why space travel, "up to now" is impossible, yet we go down a dark dirty road here.
My argument is about what we have been told about space and what it is and how the crafts have entered it and orbited this earth, etc etc.
We are told that space is a vacuum and TV pictures show us Astro liars in that vacuum, space walking and on the moon and what not.
Now basing my argument against that and the fact that they say space is 220 miles up or something, then I say we do not and never have had the craft to escape the earth.
The speed needed to escape the earth is such that 5 F1 rocket engines could not attain 25,000 mph under a rocket of such proportions as we are told the Saturn V was.
I'm not interested in equations and this marries up with that so it's true baloney, because as I've stated before, it's natural they are not going to just say, ' oh this works'... for no reason. They have to back it up with figures and they do, yet it fools many people because many people hang onto the amazement of the science and achievements unconditionally.
I don't and I don't give a rats arse who tries to pull me down with figures. I just simply have an opinion that differs from the masses.
I follow my own logic and mind, until someone can actually stump me on something where I actually sit back and question my own thoughts. Once that happens, I'm open for change.
The flat earth theory has given me massive food for thought, when I was swinging more to the stationary centralised earth with everything else going around us, so the flat earth theory (although there are a few) has at least made me try and see it in a different light, than the two I only believed were possible at one stage, which was the rotating and stationary sphere.
Ridicule no matter how tame or how many attempt it with me, will only be met by ignorance and a tit for tat.
Frustration will only be met by behind screen smirks.
Legitimate debunking and arguments with a little bit of banter, will be met by my honesty and seriousness in debating or conversation and it's no more simpler than that.
-
^ teh lolz
best bit;
I have two eyes and a logical mind and the ability (in my mind) to see what looks fake and what looks genuine
-
I'm not interested in equations and this marries up with that so it's true baloney, because as I've stated before, it's natural they are not going to just say, ' oh this works'... for no reason. They have to back it up with figures and they do, yet it fools many people because many people hang onto the amazement of the science and achievements unconditionally.
To say that "I'm not interested in something therefore it's baloney" is hardly an open mind.
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
-
I brought this point up before but Sceptimatic ignored it after he couldn't answer it but here it is:
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
-
I'm not interested in equations and this marries up with that so it's true baloney, because as I've stated before, it's natural they are not going to just say, ' oh this works'... for no reason. They have to back it up with figures and they do, yet it fools many people because many people hang onto the amazement of the science and achievements unconditionally.
To say that "I'm not interested in something therefore it's baloney" is hardly an open mind.
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
Air pushing air out of the way.
-
trust me center of gravity matters. now onward. remember that it has thrusters on all sides that fire on all axis that can compensate for any instabilities in the craft. remember that the directional thrusters dont work in isolation but in combination. watch this video. the 1st few seconds show adsactly how they work and why your theiry is wrong.
(http://)
It's a bloody animation man.
Tell me:
How does the computer know how to balance the craft in space?
How about a simple diagram?
(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3241/moonlander.png)
-
I brought this point up before but Sceptimatic ignored it after he couldn't answer it but here it is:
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
How do you know they have more efficiency the higher up they go?
-
trust me center of gravity matters. now onward. remember that it has thrusters on all sides that fire on all axis that can compensate for any instabilities in the craft. remember that the directional thrusters dont work in isolation but in combination. watch this video. the 1st few seconds show adsactly how they work and why your theiry is wrong.
(http://)
It's a bloody animation man.
Tell me:
How does the computer know how to balance the craft in space?
How about a simple diagram?
(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3241/moonlander.png)
I got a laugh out of that, thanks. ;D
Anyway:
I already explained that the thrusters can't work against each other or you go nowhere, remember? It's counter productive.
It's like two equal men playing the tug of war. No one goes anywhere.
-
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
Air pushing air out of the way.
How does it push air out of the way? There is more air outside of the balloon than inside. Therefore the air outside of the balloon has a greater mass than the air inside. So a small mass can push aside a large mass? Interesting logic.
-
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
Air pushing air out of the way.
How does it push air out of the way? There is more air outside of the balloon than inside. Therefore the air outside of the balloon has a greater mass than the air inside. So a small mass can push aside a large mass? Interesting logic.
Air pressure due to the elasticity of the balloon.
-
My vote goes to the original.
-
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
Air pushing air out of the way.
How does it push air out of the way? There is more air outside of the balloon than inside. Therefore the air outside of the balloon has a greater mass than the air inside. So a small mass can push aside a large mass? Interesting logic.
Air pressure due to the elasticity of the balloon.
The ballon pushes air out of the way. That still doesn't explain why the baloon moves.
-
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
Air pushing air out of the way.
How does it push air out of the way? There is more air outside of the balloon than inside. Therefore the air outside of the balloon has a greater mass than the air inside. So a small mass can push aside a large mass? Interesting logic.
Air pressure due to the elasticity of the balloon.
The ballon pushes air out of the way. That still doesn't explain why the baloon moves.
I suppose I'm just going to have to treat you to one of my art exhibits. Give me 10 minutes whilst I put on my Leonardo Da Vinci clothes. ;D
-
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
Air pushing air out of the way.
How does it push air out of the way? There is more air outside of the balloon than inside. Therefore the air outside of the balloon has a greater mass than the air inside. So a small mass can push aside a large mass? Interesting logic.
Air pressure due to the elasticity of the balloon.
The ballon pushes air out of the way. That still doesn't explain why the baloon moves.
I suppose I'm just going to have to treat you to one of my art exhibits. Give me 10 minutes whilst I put on my Leonardo Da Vinci clothes. ;D
If you don't trust any of our pictures explaining how rockets work, then why should we trust any of your pictures explaining how rockets work?
-
I already explained that the thrusters can't work against each other or you go nowhere, remember? It's counter productive.
It's like two equal men playing the tug of war. No one goes anywhere.
They're not working opposite eachother, they working in two separate directions.
One thruster is pushing horizontally (the one that would put it into a roll). The other thruster is on the opposite side and pushes upward, which cancels the roll.
Module moves horizontally and remains level.
Your tug of war analogy is the same as if there were a big box on rollers and two equal men were pushing at the opposite sides. They don't move.
Move one man to the side instead and have them push on it. Now it's moving.
-
Oh boy here we go again, balloons, vacuum cleaners, and rockets for the next 50 pages. :D
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56543.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56543.0.html)
-
(http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1488/baloont.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/baloont.png/)
-
I already explained that the thrusters can't work against each other or you go nowhere, remember? It's counter productive.
It's like two equal men playing the tug of war. No one goes anywhere.
They're not working opposite eachother, they working in two separate directions.
One thruster is pushing horizontally (the one that would put it into a roll). The other thruster is on the opposite side and pushes upward, which cancels the roll.
Module moves horizontally and remains level.
Your tug of war analogy is the same as if there were a big box on rollers and two equal men were pushing at the opposite sides. They don't move.
Move one man to the side instead and have them push on it. Now it's moving.
I could be incorrect on this, but who's to say the rockets fired at full thrust at all times? More than likely each rocket was capable of firing at half thrust or anywhere else in between off and full, thus allowing the control movement speed and the like.
-
I brought this point up before but Sceptimatic ignored it after he couldn't answer it but here it is:
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
How do you know they have more efficiency the higher up they go?
It is observed in vacuum chambers as well as on the flight up. There may even be some math that predicted it but honestly idk.
Could you please answer the question now?
-
I already explained that the thrusters can't work against each other or you go nowhere, remember? It's counter productive.
It's like two equal men playing the tug of war. No one goes anywhere.
They're not working opposite eachother, they working in two separate directions.
One thruster is pushing horizontally (the one that would put it into a roll). The other thruster is on the opposite side and pushes upward, which cancels the roll.
Module moves horizontally and remains level.
Your tug of war analogy is the same as if there were a big box on rollers and two equal men were pushing at the opposite sides. They don't move.
Move one man to the side instead and have them push on it. Now it's moving.
I could be incorrect on this, but who's to say the rockets fired at full thrust at all times? More than likely each rocket was capable of firing at half thrust or anywhere else in between off and full, thus allowing the control movement speed and the like.
That's true. When rockets take off it is most efficient to go the speed of terminal velocity, so if they are going too fast they lower the thrust so that they don't waste fuel.
-
I might as well ask a question that I forgot to ask you a while ago. When you inflate a balloon and let it go how does it fly off?
Air pushing air out of the way.
How does it push air out of the way? There is more air outside of the balloon than inside. Therefore the air outside of the balloon has a greater mass than the air inside. So a small mass can push aside a large mass? Interesting logic.
Air pressure due to the elasticity of the balloon.
The ballon pushes air out of the way. That still doesn't explain why the baloon moves.
I suppose I'm just going to have to treat you to one of my art exhibits. Give me 10 minutes whilst I put on my Leonardo Da Vinci clothes. ;D
If you don't trust any of our pictures explaining how rockets work, then why should we trust any of your pictures explaining how rockets work?
You don't have to trust anything I say or put up. That's your prerogative.
-
(http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1488/baloont.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/baloont.png/)
I still don't understand why the baloon moves. Once the air has left the baloon why should it affect the baloon? Why doesn't the expelled air simply mingle with the ambient air? Or push the ambient air out of the way? Why should a push in one direction produce movement in the opposite direction? Newton had an explanation for this but we aren't allowed to use Newton.
Cracking drawing, by the way.
-
(http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1488/baloont.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/baloont.png/)
I still don't understand why the baloon moves. Once the air has left the baloon why should it affect the baloon? Why doesn't the expelled air simply mingle with the ambient air? Or push the ambient air out of the way? Why should a push in one direction produce movement in the opposite direction? Newton had an explanation for this but we aren't allowed to use Newton.
Cracking drawing, by the way.
Get a bike pump and inflate a bike tyre. What you will notice is, the more you compress the air in that tyre, the more resistance it has against you trying to pump it right?
Now imagine taking out the valve, then trying to pump from there, you will find that the air in the tyre is pushing against you as you are trying to push against it.
If you left go of the pump, the handle would shoot upwards. It's like acting against a spring, only the spring is the air you compressed.
Ok now think of the balloon.
If you were to let out the air slowly, it would simply mix into the atmosphere, yet let it out at speed, it will force it's air into the atmosphere and the atmosphere can't separate fast enough, so it creates a sort of resistance, like a spring to start with, as in the diagram, until the density cannot be pushed against anymore, so it sort of acts like a push back on the air hitting it and this happens all the way up but only weaker and weaker as the balloon loses pressure, then it becomes weak, like blowing gently through someones hair and so the balloon flops to the ground.
Rockets work slightly different.
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
-
Get a bike pump and inflate a bike tyre. What you will notice is, the more you compress the air in that tyre, the more resistance it has against you trying to pump it right?
Now imagine taking out the valve, then trying to pump from there, you will find that the air in the tyre is pushing against you as you are trying to push against it.
If you left go of the pump, the handle would shoot upwards. It's like acting against a spring, only the spring is the air you compressed.
Ok now think of the balloon.
If you were to let out the air slowly, it would simply mix into the atmosphere, yet let it out at speed, it will force it's air into the atmosphere and the atmosphere can't separate fast enough, so it creates a sort of resistance, like a spring to start with, as in the diagram, until the density cannot be pushed against anymore, so it sort of acts like a push back on the air hitting it and this happens all the way up but only weaker and weaker as the balloon loses pressure, then it becomes weak, like blowing gently through someones hair and so the balloon flops to the ground.
Rockets work slightly different.
You're still missing my point. Why should the movement of air in one direction produce movement in the balloon in the opposite direction. Remember, as the air is leaving the ballon it is travelling away from the balloon.
If I were to suspend an uninflated balloon on a piece of string and then blow on it the balloon would move in the direction of my breath. If I were to take this same suspended balloon and turn the hose of a vacuum cleaner on it it would move in the direction of the suction.
You haven't given this enough thought.
-
Gold metal is used as heat insulation. Some of those layers that look like gold could be gold plated or gold leafed.
And I'm a sabre toothed Tiger. ::)
Do you really doubt gold is used to protect from heat?
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5756481_gold-used-space-equipment_.html (http://www.ehow.com/facts_5756481_gold-used-space-equipment_.html)
Why do you argue science with a scientist?
-
Get a bike pump and inflate a bike tyre. What you will notice is, the more you compress the air in that tyre, the more resistance it has against you trying to pump it right?
Now imagine taking out the valve, then trying to pump from there, you will find that the air in the tyre is pushing against you as you are trying to push against it.
If you left go of the pump, the handle would shoot upwards. It's like acting against a spring, only the spring is the air you compressed.
Ok now think of the balloon.
If you were to let out the air slowly, it would simply mix into the atmosphere, yet let it out at speed, it will force it's air into the atmosphere and the atmosphere can't separate fast enough, so it creates a sort of resistance, like a spring to start with, as in the diagram, until the density cannot be pushed against anymore, so it sort of acts like a push back on the air hitting it and this happens all the way up but only weaker and weaker as the balloon loses pressure, then it becomes weak, like blowing gently through someones hair and so the balloon flops to the ground.
Rockets work slightly different.
You're still missing my point. Why should the movement of air in one direction produce movement in the balloon in the opposite direction. Remember, as the air is leaving the ballon it is travelling away from the balloon.
If I were to suspend an uninflated balloon on a piece of string and then blow on it the balloon would move in the direction of my breath. If I were to take this same suspended balloon and turn the hose of a vacuum cleaner on it it would move in the direction of the suction.
You haven't given this enough thought.
That's a good point. I tried explaining it to him earlier I think but he wouldn't listen:
The exhaust doesn't need to push off of anything. If you think about it, the exhaust is no longer in contact with the rocketship. This means that if it pushes off of anything it will only affect itself and what it pushes off of. So really what happens to the exhaust after it leaves the rocket doesn't do anything to the rocket.
-
Why do people on this website find newtons laws so hard to understand.
-
Balloons are not rockets.
-
Balloons are not rockets.
Please do some research before you come up with such definitive statements.
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/7453/lastned1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/lastned1.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
Balloons are not rockets.
No but they work on the same principal.
-
Some people should watch this.
VideoBrief: Newton's Laws of Motion illustrated with 3D animations and motion graphics (http://#ws)
-
Then put on in a vacuume and shut the twat up.
-
Then put on in a vacuume and shut the twat up.
Where does this idea come from that physics should be different in a vacuum.
-
well, based on observation, things apparently do behave differently.
i've dropped a tennis ball and a baseball down a stairwell and they hit the ground at different times. i'm told that if i do this in a vacuum they will hit at the same time.
but i've never done it. i only believe it because someone told me it was true.
-
Did you try using a heavier object than the base ball to see what would happen?
If you use heavy enough objects. air resistance wont factor as much and you will see both objects hit the ground at the same time. So you don't need a vacuum to try it.
-
Then put on in a vacuume and shut the twat up.
Where does this idea come from that physics should be different in a vacuum.
from septictank
-
how do you know im a man?
Are you a Vulcan? ;D
-
(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3239/vacuumx.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/443/vacuumx.png/)
-
Sceptimatic: You see to be very misinformed and have an odd way of looking at things. I will try to explain in a way where you can test this out for yourself.
Imagine you are on a small raft on some water, your feet are fixed to the raft, and you are carrying a medicine ball (or some other kind of reasonable weight).
There are no other forces, no waves, no wind etc. acting upon you. So there are no other influences.
You now hurl the medicine burl as hard as you can, to the left for example.
Surely you can understand as you do this you, on your raft, will move to the right. This occurs because of the conservation of momentum.
From what I can see, you seem to think that hurling the ball to the left would 'push' against the air and that is why you move. This is incorrect simply because of what would happen if you did the following:
The scenario is the same as above, but this time instead of the medicine ball (or other weight), you have a circular shape - the shape corresponds to the same shape as the medicine ball.
If you were to quickly thrust this flat shape out to the left you will not move to the right in anyway near the same manner as the above scenario. This is because the force exerted by 'pushing' against the air is negligible compared to the force exerted by conservation momentum.
Of course conservation momentum is determined by how fast you throw the ball. If you just give it a little throw you will not move as far in the opposite direction as if you were to hurl it. Momentum is defined as mass times speed, so it is determined by how heavy the thing you're throwing is, and how fast you throw it. If you try this with a tennis ball it wouldn't work because a tennis ball just isn't heavy enough.
This is the principle of how rockets work, and can work in a vacuum.
-
Sceptimatic: You see to be very misinformed and have an odd way of looking at things. I will try to explain in a way where you can test this out for yourself.
Imagine you are on a small raft on some water, your feet are fixed to the raft, and you are carrying a medicine ball (or some other kind of reasonable weight).
There are no other forces, no waves, no wind etc. acting upon you. So there are no other influences.
You now hurl the medicine burl as hard as you can, to the left for example.
Surely you can understand as you do this you, on your raft, will move to the right. This occurs because of the conservation of momentum.
From what I can see, you seem to think that hurling the ball to the left would 'push' against the air and that is why you move. This is incorrect simply because of what would happen if you did the following:
The scenario is the same as above, but this time instead of the medicine ball (or other weight), you have a circular shape - the shape corresponds to the same shape as the medicine ball.
If you were to quickly thrust this flat shape out to the left you will not move to the right in anyway near the same manner as the above scenario. This is because the force exerted by 'pushing' against the air is negligible compared to the force exerted by conservation momentum.
Of course conservation momentum is determined by how fast you throw the ball. If you just give it a little throw you will not move as far in the opposite direction as if you were to hurl it. Momentum is defined as mass times speed, so it is determined by how heavy the thing you're throwing is, and how fast you throw it. If you try this with a tennis ball it wouldn't work because a tennis ball just isn't heavy enough.
This is the principle of how rockets work, and can work in a vacuum.
A more testable version would be to get a skateboard on a flat surface, rather than using a raft on water. It loses the directionality that you had with the raft, but it's more feasible.
-
I've always considered myself as the greatest artist of FET, but realize that it is time to step down from the throne to admire the new king. His work surpasses anything I have seen before in the art/science genre, and I look forward to following the work of this young aspiring painter in the future. A wizard with a brush, a seducer of physics, and a mainstay of our dear FET. Long live sceptimatic.
-
Sceptimatic: You see to be very misinformed and have an odd way of looking at things. I will try to explain in a way where you can test this out for yourself.
Imagine you are on a small raft on some water, your feet are fixed to the raft, and you are carrying a medicine ball (or some other kind of reasonable weight).
There are no other forces, no waves, no wind etc. acting upon you. So there are no other influences.
You now hurl the medicine burl as hard as you can, to the left for example.
Surely you can understand as you do this you, on your raft, will move to the right. This occurs because of the conservation of momentum.
From what I can see, you seem to think that hurling the ball to the left would 'push' against the air and that is why you move. This is incorrect simply because of what would happen if you did the following:
The scenario is the same as above, but this time instead of the medicine ball (or other weight), you have a circular shape - the shape corresponds to the same shape as the medicine ball.
If you were to quickly thrust this flat shape out to the left you will not move to the right in anyway near the same manner as the above scenario. This is because the force exerted by 'pushing' against the air is negligible compared to the force exerted by conservation momentum.
Of course conservation momentum is determined by how fast you throw the ball. If you just give it a little throw you will not move as far in the opposite direction as if you were to hurl it. Momentum is defined as mass times speed, so it is determined by how heavy the thing you're throwing is, and how fast you throw it. If you try this with a tennis ball it wouldn't work because a tennis ball just isn't heavy enough.
This is the principle of how rockets work, and can work in a vacuum.
To make it plain and simple. Rockets do not throw out medicine balls, they simply "burn" their fuel in a continuous burn. It doesn't splutter out like someone spitting out orange pips.
-
Sceptimatic: You see to be very misinformed and have an odd way of looking at things. I will try to explain in a way where you can test this out for yourself.
Imagine you are on a small raft on some water, your feet are fixed to the raft, and you are carrying a medicine ball (or some other kind of reasonable weight).
There are no other forces, no waves, no wind etc. acting upon you. So there are no other influences.
You now hurl the medicine burl as hard as you can, to the left for example.
Surely you can understand as you do this you, on your raft, will move to the right. This occurs because of the conservation of momentum.
From what I can see, you seem to think that hurling the ball to the left would 'push' against the air and that is why you move. This is incorrect simply because of what would happen if you did the following:
The scenario is the same as above, but this time instead of the medicine ball (or other weight), you have a circular shape - the shape corresponds to the same shape as the medicine ball.
If you were to quickly thrust this flat shape out to the left you will not move to the right in anyway near the same manner as the above scenario. This is because the force exerted by 'pushing' against the air is negligible compared to the force exerted by conservation momentum.
Of course conservation momentum is determined by how fast you throw the ball. If you just give it a little throw you will not move as far in the opposite direction as if you were to hurl it. Momentum is defined as mass times speed, so it is determined by how heavy the thing you're throwing is, and how fast you throw it. If you try this with a tennis ball it wouldn't work because a tennis ball just isn't heavy enough.
This is the principle of how rockets work, and can work in a vacuum.
A more testable version would be to get a skateboard on a flat surface, rather than using a raft on water. It loses the directionality that you had with the raft, but it's more feasible.
Throw what you like, you get very little momentum doing that and is a lame way to prove how a rocket would work, yet this is the only lame solution that can be given for their rocket in a vacuum ruse.
-
I've always considered myself as the greatest artist of FET, but realize that it is time to step down from the throne to admire the new king. His work surpasses anything I have seen before in the art/science genre, and I look forward to following the work of this young aspiring painter in the future. A wizard with a brush, a seducer of physics, and a mainstay of our dear FET. Long live sceptimatic.
;D
My wife has asked me to paint the ceiling with stars and rockets and things like that but I've had to refuse her because I will not have rockets in my space. ;D
-
So is the cold air pushing the hot air into the rocket and creating thrust?
-
I've always considered myself as the greatest artist of FET, but realize that it is time to step down from the throne to admire the new king. His work surpasses anything I have seen before in the art/science genre, and I look forward to following the work of this young aspiring painter in the future. A wizard with a brush, a seducer of physics, and a mainstay of our dear FET. Long live sceptimatic.
Yea he's a real Da Vinci.
-
So is the cold air pushing the hot air into the rocket and creating thrust?
No, not quite like that. The best way to think of it, is like putting a big pressure washer against a trampoline and watching it push against the trampoline, where it will push it down a little, yet the trampoline will resist it.
With rockets spewing hot fuel out at pressure, it would be like the hot air expanding the air, or as in the trampoline, the impression becomes wider and deeper creating more mass of air.
-
So is the cold air pushing the hot air into the rocket and creating thrust?
No, not quite like that. The best way to think of it, is like putting a big pressure washer against a trampoline and watching it push against the trampoline, where it will push it down a little, yet the trampoline will resist it.
With rockets spewing hot fuel out at pressure, it would be like the hot air expanding the air, or as in the trampoline, the impression becomes wider and deeper creating more mass of air.
But in no way are you describing a method that would create thrust, merely resistance.
-
When will you understand that it has noting to do with the exhaust pushing against. some thing. It's just the mass accelerating out the back. That's why when rockets launch they become more efficient the higher they get.
-
Sceptimatic: You see to be very misinformed and have an odd way of looking at things. I will try to explain in a way where you can test this out for yourself.
Imagine you are on a small raft on some water, your feet are fixed to the raft, and you are carrying a medicine ball (or some other kind of reasonable weight).
There are no other forces, no waves, no wind etc. acting upon you. So there are no other influences.
You now hurl the medicine burl as hard as you can, to the left for example.
Surely you can understand as you do this you, on your raft, will move to the right. This occurs because of the conservation of momentum.
From what I can see, you seem to think that hurling the ball to the left would 'push' against the air and that is why you move. This is incorrect simply because of what would happen if you did the following:
The scenario is the same as above, but this time instead of the medicine ball (or other weight), you have a circular shape - the shape corresponds to the same shape as the medicine ball.
If you were to quickly thrust this flat shape out to the left you will not move to the right in anyway near the same manner as the above scenario. This is because the force exerted by 'pushing' against the air is negligible compared to the force exerted by conservation momentum.
Of course conservation momentum is determined by how fast you throw the ball. If you just give it a little throw you will not move as far in the opposite direction as if you were to hurl it. Momentum is defined as mass times speed, so it is determined by how heavy the thing you're throwing is, and how fast you throw it. If you try this with a tennis ball it wouldn't work because a tennis ball just isn't heavy enough.
This is the principle of how rockets work, and can work in a vacuum.
To make it plain and simple. Rockets do not throw out medicine balls, they simply "burn" their fuel in a continuous burn. It doesn't splutter out like someone spitting out orange pips.
You need even more help than I thought.
Of course a rocket doesn't throw out medicine balls. I produced an example to help better explain the forces at work for you to understand, seeing as you seem to have no idea how rocket propulsion works.
In the case of a rocket it is the ejection of fuel that causes the change of momentum. The fuel is ignited such that the internal pressure increases and it throws itself out.
This equates to a change in momentum which must be counteracted by the rocket, and so the rocket moves in the opposite direction to the ejected fuel. The air outside has nothing to do with it.
-
Sceptimatic why dont you consider this.
This is pretty much the opposite of what you are suggesting. As instead of hot light air being shot into a cooler denser atmosphere. You have water as you know is very cold and very dense being expelled into air.
By your logic the water should just cut threw the air and the fire fighters shouldn't feel any back pressure. Same goes for water rockets.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m497/Conbon108/MSPfirefighters_zps0be03c9f.png)
This is another reason I love this sight. YOu can make silly drawings in msp and it can still be taken seriously to an extent.
-
So is the cold air pushing the hot air into the rocket and creating thrust?
No, not quite like that. The best way to think of it, is like putting a big pressure washer against a trampoline and watching it push against the trampoline, where it will push it down a little, yet the trampoline will resist it.
With rockets spewing hot fuel out at pressure, it would be like the hot air expanding the air, or as in the trampoline, the impression becomes wider and deeper creating more mass of air.
But in no way are you describing a method that would create thrust, merely resistance.
If it was all so easy to explain, there would be no discussion would they.
Who gains a better star:
1. A sprinter running from a standing start?
2. A runner starting from the blocks?
-
When will you understand that it has noting to do with the exhaust pushing against. some thing. It's just the mass accelerating out the back. That's why when rockets launch they become more efficient the higher they get.
They become more efficient because they are getting lighter and lighter as their fuel expends.
-
Sceptimatic: You see to be very misinformed and have an odd way of looking at things. I will try to explain in a way where you can test this out for yourself.
Imagine you are on a small raft on some water, your feet are fixed to the raft, and you are carrying a medicine ball (or some other kind of reasonable weight).
There are no other forces, no waves, no wind etc. acting upon you. So there are no other influences.
You now hurl the medicine burl as hard as you can, to the left for example.
Surely you can understand as you do this you, on your raft, will move to the right. This occurs because of the conservation of momentum.
From what I can see, you seem to think that hurling the ball to the left would 'push' against the air and that is why you move. This is incorrect simply because of what would happen if you did the following:
The scenario is the same as above, but this time instead of the medicine ball (or other weight), you have a circular shape - the shape corresponds to the same shape as the medicine ball.
If you were to quickly thrust this flat shape out to the left you will not move to the right in anyway near the same manner as the above scenario. This is because the force exerted by 'pushing' against the air is negligible compared to the force exerted by conservation momentum.
Of course conservation momentum is determined by how fast you throw the ball. If you just give it a little throw you will not move as far in the opposite direction as if you were to hurl it. Momentum is defined as mass times speed, so it is determined by how heavy the thing you're throwing is, and how fast you throw it. If you try this with a tennis ball it wouldn't work because a tennis ball just isn't heavy enough.
This is the principle of how rockets work, and can work in a vacuum.
To make it plain and simple. Rockets do not throw out medicine balls, they simply "burn" their fuel in a continuous burn. It doesn't splutter out like someone spitting out orange pips.
You need even more help than I thought.
Of course a rocket doesn't throw out medicine balls. I produced an example to help better explain the forces at work for you to understand, seeing as you seem to have no idea how rocket propulsion works.
In the case of a rocket it is the ejection of fuel that causes the change of momentum. The fuel is ignited such that the internal pressure increases and it throws itself out.
This equates to a change in momentum which must be counteracted by the rocket, and so the rocket moves in the opposite direction to the ejected fuel. The air outside has nothing to do with it.
You believe that if you want to.
-
So you don't believe conservation of momentum is true?
-
(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/7031/fireman.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/fireman.png/)
-
So you don't believe conservation of momentum is true?
Yes I do believe it's true, it's just that Newtons law is getting used to portray this when it's not what it appears.
-
Care to expin what it appears to you then?
-
Care to expin what it appears to you then?
I've just explained what it appears to me.
-
I don't know how to quote pictures, but sceptimatic, answer this:
when the hot air "expands", you say the cold air push back against it. The key point here is that the cold air push against the hot air, not the rocket. In order for this scheme to work, the hot air would have to push against the rocket after getting pushed by the cold air. But we do see a column of hot air going downwards. How?
Also, about the firemen picture, what you wrote was completely irrelevant.
-
(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/7031/fireman.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/fireman.png/)
LOL holy shit! :o I really hope you are just trying to troll me.
If you have ever washed your car with a pressure washer you know how the pressure of the water can act backwards on the nozzle. How does it do this?
-
So you don't believe conservation of momentum is true?
Yes I do believe it's true, it's just that Newtons law is getting used to portray this when it's not what it appears.
Well if you cannot understand the point I made in my example, something you can test out yourself with no resources then maybe you should try giving it a go experimentally.
If you would like, I can explain with numbers and simple formula to explain how conservation of momentum allows a rocket to lift off and fly. I'll only do this if you actually care about understanding and learning more and aren't just trying to troll everyone. I see no point in wasting my time trying to help you understand something if you don't care.
Your call.
-
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
-
So you don't believe conservation of momentum is true?
Yes I do believe it's true, it's just that Newtons law is getting used to portray this when it's not what it appears.
Well if you cannot understand the point I made in my example, something you can test out yourself with no resources then maybe you should try giving it a go experimentally.
If you would like, I can explain with numbers and simple formula to explain how conservation of momentum allows a rocket to lift off and fly. I'll only do this if you actually care about understanding and learning more and aren't just trying to troll everyone. I see no point in wasting my time trying to help you understand something if you don't care.
Your call.
Of course I'm interested, just do it simply. I can't stand things that are not simplified and are made to be purposely vague.
I will mull over what you are going to do and if it makes sense to me I'll say so.
Don;t just expect me to go along with it though, yet I won't discount it just for the sake of being a twat ok. I promise you that.
-
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.
-
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.
wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
-
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.
wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
Think of a jet.
-
(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/7031/fireman.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/fireman.png/)
(http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons6/24.gif) Unbelievable. You have to be trolling now. ;D
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
-
(http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/7031/fireman.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/fireman.png/)
(http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons6/24.gif) Unbelievable. You have to be trolling now. ;D
;D I'm not trolling, it's just that I've been through all this before and I just thought your picture was funny.
-
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.
wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
Think of a jet.
Ok I'm thinking of an aircraft powered by a jet engine as opposed to this jet, is that correct?
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li9o6ne2Q71qaj7zso1_500.jpg)
-
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.
wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
Think of a jet.
Ok I'm thinking of an aircraft powered by a jet engine as opposed to this jet, is that correct?
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li9o6ne2Q71qaj7zso1_500.jpg)
Yes.
-
Oh well I'll stop thinking about her then. OK so now I'm thinking of a jet powered aircraft what next?
It works on the same fundamental principles as a rocket, hot stuff is being pushed out the back.
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/jet/jet-engine.jpg)
(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2008/nowakowski_sep/sep_files/image008.jpg)
-
So how does that jet engine propel the jet forward?
-
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.
wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
Think of a jet.
Ok I'm thinking of an aircraft powered by a jet engine as opposed to this jet, is that correct?
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li9o6ne2Q71qaj7zso1_500.jpg)
Ah, Jet... I use to fap to her when I was younger.
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
I wonder why you appear to be ignoring this question. It really disproves your theory yet you haven't answered it the 5 or so times I asked.
Edit: ^Ok then... heh
-
So how does that jet engine propel the jet forward?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3c311648c22.jpg)
-
It's a bit vague.
-
It's a bit vague.
Any more detail and your brain would explode. >:(
-
It's a bit vague.
Do you not understand it?
Or do you not believe it?
Two different things.
-
Definition of VAGUE
1
a : not clearly expressed : stated in indefinite terms <vague accusations>
b : not having a precise meaning <a vague term of abuse>
-
It's a bit vague.
Any more detail and your brain would explode. >:(
I'm a simple kind of guy who likes to view things simple.
If 1+1 =2, I want to know that it's 1 add 1 equals 2, I do not want to know that 4 quarters, plus two halves, take away 9 plus 7 sixteenths add 4 plus 4 eighths equals two, if you get my meaning.
-
It's a bit vague.
Do you not understand it?
Or do you not believe it?
Two different things.
Scientists explain s a lot of thing in a difficult way that can be easily explained using a much more simplistic way.
It is done the hard way because scientists do not like to follow any simplistic route to get to an answer as it makes their theories and themselves look ordinary and they cannot be having that as they want to be a master of their field.
-
I'm a simple kind of guy
well no shit, thing is you are trying to understand rocket science. you always ask if something can be broken down into basic terms. you say it a lot. if anything is more complex than 1+1=2 you call it 'shoe horned'.
-
I'm a simple kind of guy
well no shit, thing is you are trying to understand rocket science. you always ask if something can be broken down into basic terms. you say it a lot. if anything is more complex than 1+1=2 you call it 'shoe horned'.
No , no , no, I do not. I call things that are made to fit, shoe horned, as in , why don;t we fall off the earth? The answer is, we have a mystical atmosphere and gravity that sticks us to it and centrifugal force coupled with centripetal force keeps us all snug and the math can be done to show why it works, yet nobody has a frigging clue as to what it means.
E=MC2...? why?
Of course, we know it's energy equals mass times the speed of light blah blah blah but what the hell is it? Well, we can go and do the equations to prove this..go on try it.
I think you get my meaning about "shoehorned" now. :)
-
fair enough.
you do need to accept that a lot of things cant be broken down into such simple terms too. a lot of the things you post about (if you are genuine) are complex things that require specialist knowledge in that field. you then claim to have more feasible alternatives to what the mainstream tells you.
look at your discussion on the ISS for example. you have these ideas about it, yet you wont even observe it for yourself. this is why you are called names round here and probably on other forums you chat on. your ideas wouldnt be so stupid if you actually had some leg work behind them to prove your point.
-
fair enough.
you do need to accept that a lot of things cant be broken down into such simple terms too. a lot of the things you post about (if you are genuine) are complex things that require specialist knowledge in that field. you then claim to have more feasible alternatives to what the mainstream tells you.
look at your discussion on the ISS for example. you have these ideas about it, yet you wont even observe it for yourself. this is why you are called names round here and probably on other forums you chat on. your ideas wouldnt be so stupid if you actually had some leg work behind them to prove your point.
Try not to view me through a scientific eye then.
My name is sceptimatic for a reason. It's because I've spent a long time in my life being fed bull shit and now I tighten my lips when the spoon fed garbage goes to my mouth, until I'm sure that what I'm about to swallow, smells nice, looks nice and won;t leave a bitter after taste once I've opened up to it.
If I knocked on your door to tell you that the rep from the window firm, who you have just paid 10 grand to, has ripped you off and you can get it for cheaper, I don;t need to stand there and do you a full on calculation for you, based on the amount of windows you have do I?
You will take heed of what I say and get better quotes or you will be naive and tell me to piss off and go with the nice man in the suit who you believe has told you what you wanted to hear.
The man in the suit or the white badged overall stood in front of you at the university, may arrogantly believe he knows what he knows, yet he could also be teaching flawed science, yet he gets paid to teach what they tell him to teach and to go against it means he not only loses his job, he loses and potential to take on another job in that science, as he will be known as a black sheep.
-
So you won't look at the ISS? And the reason is?
-
So you won't look at the ISS? And the reason is?
What do you mean, "I won't look at the ISS?"
-
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.
-
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.
He said that?
-
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.
Where an when did he say so? And in what context? If you are wrong, this might be the RE-scandal of the year. You'll better find that statement very quick, sir!
waiting
-
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.
I don't have the equipment for one and also, I am not going to follow the co-ordinates of a website to track the ISS as that sets alarm bells ringing for starters.
I'd love somebody to track an orbit of this supposed ISS though. Someone who is savvy to all of this and can track it based on how they work out it's orbit, without the aid of a website that could be tied into N.A.S.A or whoever.
That person would have to be someone who doesn't simply accept as gospel what they are told though and not someone who unconditionally believes there is an ISS 230 odd miles up in space.
-
Actually yes, he did say that, but I'm sure it will take a long time to search through his last 500 or so posts.
Also, I'm still waiting for an answer Sceptimatic.
-
Actually yes, he did say that, but I'm sure it will take a long time to search through his last 500 or so posts.
Also, I'm still waiting for an answer Sceptimatic.
An answer to what?
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
-
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3c311648c22.jpg)
It's a bit vague.
&
I'm a simple kind of guy who likes to view things simple.
Too many arrows and words?
I'm not sure how much simpler it can be.
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
I still stand fast on them needing an atmosphere to work in yes.
I 100% stand by my stance on them not working in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.Which I don't believe it is what we are told to be honest.
I happen to think getting out of our atmosphere would be impossible and a shit load scarier than just breaking through an atmosphere into a vacuum.
-
I'm a simple kind of guy
well no shit, thing is you are trying to understand rocket science. you always ask if something can be broken down into basic terms. you say it a lot. if anything is more complex than 1+1=2 you call it 'shoe horned'.
No , no , no, I do not. I call things that are made to fit, shoe horned, as in , why don;t we fall off the earth? The answer is, we have a mystical atmosphere and gravity that sticks us to it and centrifugal force coupled with centripetal force keeps us all snug and the math can be done to show why it works, yet nobody has a frigging clue as to what it means.
E=MC2...? why?
Of course, we know it's energy equals mass times the speed of light blah blah blah but what the hell is it? Well, we can go and do the equations to prove this..go on try it.
I think you get my meaning about "shoehorned" now. :)
You do realize the equation e=mc2 was probably used to maintain the nuclear reactor which provided you with the electricity to write that very post.... right? :-\
-
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3c311648c22.jpg)
It's a bit vague.
&
I'm a simple kind of guy who likes to view things simple.
Too many arrows and words?
I'm not sure how much simpler it can be.
To you maybe.
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
I still stand fast on them needing an atmosphere to work in yes.
I 100% stand by my stance on them not working in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.Which I don't believe it is what we are told to be honest.
I happen to think getting out of our atmosphere would be impossible and a shit load scarier than just breaking through an atmosphere into a vacuum.
The energy is being produced inside the engine, what's so hard to understand? >:(
-
I'm a simple kind of guy
well no shit, thing is you are trying to understand rocket science. you always ask if something can be broken down into basic terms. you say it a lot. if anything is more complex than 1+1=2 you call it 'shoe horned'.
No , no , no, I do not. I call things that are made to fit, shoe horned, as in , why don;t we fall off the earth? The answer is, we have a mystical atmosphere and gravity that sticks us to it and centrifugal force coupled with centripetal force keeps us all snug and the math can be done to show why it works, yet nobody has a frigging clue as to what it means.
E=MC2...? why?
Of course, we know it's energy equals mass times the speed of light blah blah blah but what the hell is it? Well, we can go and do the equations to prove this..go on try it.
I think you get my meaning about "shoehorned" now. :)
You do realize the equation e=mc2 was probably used to maintain the nuclear reactor which provided you with the electricity to write that very post.... right? :-\
I sincerely doubt that very much. E=MC2 is a complete load of old cobblers as far as I'm concerned. It's just a stupendously baffling equation made to make people believe in magic. It's so complex that top scientists cannot even work the equation out because it's so brain busting.
Of course, the simpler thing is just to say, " oh, nuclear power?...oh golly gosh man, it's simple...that's what's used to get your Nuclear power and bombs and such,..everyone knows that."
Of course we do. ;D
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
I still stand fast on them needing an atmosphere to work in yes.
I 100% stand by my stance on them not working in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.Which I don't believe it is what we are told to be honest.
I happen to think getting out of our atmosphere would be impossible and a shit load scarier than just breaking through an atmosphere into a vacuum.
The energy is being produced inside the engine, what's so hard to understand? >:(
If I want to blow torch your hair and set it alight, I can light my blow torch and be sure that the energy needed to do that will be blowing at your hair, only ignited. It won't be travelling back up inside the nozzle.
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
I still stand fast on them needing an atmosphere to work in yes.
I 100% stand by my stance on them not working in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.Which I don't believe it is what we are told to be honest.
I happen to think getting out of our atmosphere would be impossible and a shit load scarier than just breaking through an atmosphere into a vacuum.
The energy is being produced inside the engine, what's so hard to understand? >:(
If I want to blow torch your hair and set it alight, I can light my blow torch and be sure that the energy needed to do that will be blowing at your hair, only ignited. It won't be travelling back up inside the nozzle.
A blowtorch isn't a rocket engine. (http://bleachasylum.com/images/smilies/facepalm2.gif) It's not designed for propulsion.
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
I still stand fast on them needing an atmosphere to work in yes.
I 100% stand by my stance on them not working in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.Which I don't believe it is what we are told to be honest.
I happen to think getting out of our atmosphere would be impossible and a shit load scarier than just breaking through an atmosphere into a vacuum.
You didn't answer the question, could you please answer the question?
-
I sincerely doubt that very much. E=MC2 is a complete load of old cobblers as far as I'm concerned. It's just a stupendously baffling equation made to make people believe in magic. It's so complex that top scientists cannot even work the equation out because it's so brain busting.
...
You were wrong the first time you made this claim and you are wrong again. If they can't work out the equation then why does the equation exist? Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
-
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.
Could you please answer the question now?
Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
I still stand fast on them needing an atmosphere to work in yes.
I 100% stand by my stance on them not working in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.Which I don't believe it is what we are told to be honest.
I happen to think getting out of our atmosphere would be impossible and a shit load scarier than just breaking through an atmosphere into a vacuum.
You didn't answer the question, could you please answer the question?
Put the question to me that you want answered.
-
You do realize the equation e=mc2 was probably used to maintain the nuclear reactor which provided you with the electricity to write that very post.... right? :-\
I sincerely doubt that very much. E=MC2 is a complete load of old cobblers as far as I'm concerned. It's just a stupendously baffling equation made to make people believe in magic. It's so complex that top scientists cannot even work the equation out because it's so brain busting.
...
You were wrong the first time you made this claim and you are wrong again. If they can't work out the equation then why does the equation exist? Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
[/quote] Ok, I submit to your superior knowledge.
IF....
You can do the full equation that ends with E=MC2 and explain it all. Once you do that, I will roll my cap around my fingers and say, " I've made a mistake and I'm truly sorry, I bow to your superior knowledge."
Ok , the ball is in your court Sir.
-
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Actually not that difficult. Pretty straight forward.
-
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Actually not that difficult. Pretty straight forward.
Granted.
Now do the full equation. ;D
-
Ok, I submit to your superior knowledge.
IF....
You can do the full equation that ends with E=MC2 and explain it all. Once you do that, I will roll my cap around my fingers and say, " I've made a mistake and I'm truly sorry, I bow to your superior knowledge."
Ok , the ball is in your court Sir.
Without even looking at wikipedia. Here you go.
The full equation is something like E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC^2)^2
Where
E is energy
M is mass
C is the speed of light
P is momentum
So the equation says the total energy is equal to rest-mass energy, MC^2, plus energy from momentum. Momentum of course being mass times velocity. So when the object has no velocity you can see how that term is zero and you are left with just rest-mass energy.
To use the equation for objects that have no mass, as in light photons it gets a bit tricky. For we all know light has energy but no mass. To use the equation you set rest-mass energy to zero and say that light has momentum(which can be seen in experiments) and then you can see how the equation works.
These two things I said are only true for relativistic speeds. E=MC^2 can also have the gamma term.
Gamma is 1 over the square root of velocity square over speed of light squared. This is used here on the website alot to make sure that objects don't accelerate to a velocity which is faster than the speed of light.
Satisfied?
-
To not change the post I will post this. I think my definition of gamma is wrong. The real equation is something like 1 over the square root of 1 minus velocity square of speed of light squared.
-
Ok, I submit to your superior knowledge.
IF....
You can do the full equation that ends with E=MC2 and explain it all. Once you do that, I will roll my cap around my fingers and say, " I've made a mistake and I'm truly sorry, I bow to your superior knowledge."
Ok , the ball is in your court Sir.
Without even looking at wikipedia. Here you go.
The full equation is something like E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC^2)^2
Where
E is energy
M is mass
C is the speed of light
P is momentum
So the equation says the total energy is equal to rest-mass energy, MC^2, plus energy from momentum. Momentum of course being mass times velocity. So when the object has no velocity you can see how that term is zero and you are left with just rest-mass energy.
To use the equation for objects that have no mass, as in light photons it gets a bit tricky. For we all know light has energy but no mass. To use the equation you set rest-mass energy to zero and say that light has momentum(which can be seen in experiments) and then you can see how the equation works.
These two things I said are only true for relativistic speeds. E=MC^2 can also have the gamma term.
Gamma is 1 over the square root of velocity square over speed of light squared. This is used here on the website alot to make sure that objects don't accelerate to a velocity which is faster than the speed of light.
Satisfied?
All you have done, is spouted an absolute piece of unbelievable crap based on what you believe you have copied. It's so stupid it begs the question of, "how gullible are you and those that cater to this."
Absolute shite and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this.
-
Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
-
Your ignorance does not count as evidence for your arguments.
And neither does yours.
-
You ask for the equation. You got it. You said its a load of shit.
Why ask at all?
-
Stay in school kids
-
Ok, I submit to your superior knowledge.
IF....
You can do the full equation that ends with E=MC2 and explain it all. Once you do that, I will roll my cap around my fingers and say, " I've made a mistake and I'm truly sorry, I bow to your superior knowledge."
Ok , the ball is in your court Sir.
Without even looking at wikipedia. Here you go.
The full equation is something like E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC^2)^2
Where
E is energy
M is mass
C is the speed of light
P is momentum
So the equation says the total energy is equal to rest-mass energy, MC^2, plus energy from momentum. Momentum of course being mass times velocity. So when the object has no velocity you can see how that term is zero and you are left with just rest-mass energy.
To use the equation for objects that have no mass, as in light photons it gets a bit tricky. For we all know light has energy but no mass. To use the equation you set rest-mass energy to zero and say that light has momentum(which can be seen in experiments) and then you can see how the equation works.
These two things I said are only true for relativistic speeds. E=MC^2 can also have the gamma term.
Gamma is 1 over the square root of velocity square over speed of light squared. This is used here on the website alot to make sure that objects don't accelerate to a velocity which is faster than the speed of light.
Satisfied?
All you have done, is spouted an absolute piece of unbelievable crap based on what you believe you have copied. It's so stupid it begs the question of, "how gullible are you and those that cater to this."
Absolute shite and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this.
Keep it civil.
-
Did you try using a heavier object than the base ball to see what would happen?
If you use heavy enough objects. air resistance wont factor as much and you will see both objects hit the ground at the same time. So you don't need a vacuum to try it.
there were some social consequences to dropping heavier and heavier articles down the public stairwell.
but all that would do--based on observation alone, and leaving out air resistance-- would prove that two heavy objects are more similar to each other than either might be to light objects.
-
Well here's my question:
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
-
Well here's my question:
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
How do you actually know that there is?
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
-
because enough rockets have been launched all over the world for their flight characteristics to be known well enough for us to know it is true.
no one person can personally have seen everything in life needed to understand all fields of physics. that's where experts come in. single people who devote their who lives to expanding our knowledge into single extremely complex fields of research. you inability to trust or believe experts is very reveling about yourself. life the universe and everything in it is far far to complex for anyone to be an expert in all fields of science. have you ever heard of the term jack of all trades master of none?
-
because enough rockets have been launched all over the world for their flight characteristics to be known well enough for us to know it is true.
no one person can personally have seen everything in life needed to understand all fields of physics. that's where experts come in. single people who devote their who lives to expanding our knowledge into single extremely complex fields of research. you inability to trust or believe experts is very reveling about yourself. life the universe and everything in it is far far to complex for anyone to be an expert in all fields of science. have you ever heard of the term jack of all trades master of none?
I certainly prefer my doctor to be an expert in his field.
-
indeed medicin is another example. you wouldn't want a pharmacist performing your brain surgery would you? just like we wouldn't ant sceptic explaning newton's second law of motion
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
Ok, as you have easily guessed, I am not a rocket scientist or engineer and yet I' appear to be arrogantly dismissing it.
The truth is, I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything to do with the actual rocketry as such, only in how they portray it to work in a vacuum.
That's all I'm interested in to be honest.
Let's simply take a solid fuel rocket or the hypergolic so called moon lander fuel. We are told, it ignites and that's that, meaning, once the mixtures meet and ignite, they simply burn and cannot be throttled or anything.
A solid rocket booster simply burns it's fuel.
In a vacuum as we are told space is, burning would not occur anyway for starters because any oxygen in the fuel would be gobbled up into space and the fuel would simply be gobbled up as fast as it came out.
The best way to describe it which people scoff at, is the good old thermos flask.
The only difference is, you have to look at it in an opposite effect as to space to understand what a vacuum would do.
Picture the flask in a room and you knock off the bottom glass welded tip. The thermos immediately is filled with air because that vacuum is just waiting to gobble up enough air to fill it, or if people want to be picky, the air is just waiting to attack the hole in the thermos. Either way, it's done in a fraction of a second.
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
-
you have never ever seen a rocket launch in person but you are saying everyone who has seen one is wrong and its a scale model. how is this not arrogant?
-
because enough rockets have been launched all over the world for their flight characteristics to be known well enough for us to know it is true.
no one person can personally have seen everything in life needed to understand all fields of physics. that's where experts come in. single people who devote their who lives to expanding our knowledge into single extremely complex fields of research. you inability to trust or believe experts is very reveling about yourself. life the universe and everything in it is far far to complex for anyone to be an expert in all fields of science. have you ever heard of the term jack of all trades master of none?
Yes I have heard of that term and all of the worlds experts are exactly that. A Jack of all trades and masters of none, in terms of space.
The saying goes. If something is too good to be truth, it most probably is.
-
because enough rockets have been launched all over the world for their flight characteristics to be known well enough for us to know it is true.
no one person can personally have seen everything in life needed to understand all fields of physics. that's where experts come in. single people who devote their who lives to expanding our knowledge into single extremely complex fields of research. you inability to trust or believe experts is very reveling about yourself. life the universe and everything in it is far far to complex for anyone to be an expert in all fields of science. have you ever heard of the term jack of all trades master of none?
I certainly prefer my doctor to be an expert in his field.
And mine too, yet we know that they are all dilute. They even refer to manuals when you are sat in front of them. It's not a good feeling when they do this.
-
indeed medicin is another example. you wouldn't want a pharmacist performing your brain surgery would you? just like we wouldn't ant sceptic explaning newton's second law of motion
You are happy to rely on people from the year blot to theorise on aspects of science aren't you.
-
you have never ever seen a rocket launch in person but you are saying everyone who has seen one is wrong and its a scale model. how is this not arrogant?
I am arrogant on the scale model part, I admit that. Why?...Because it "is" a scale model.
Some people cannot see past their own nose when so called space agencies are literally in your face, taking the absolute piss out of the public.
-
but im not claiming that millions of people who saw something in person are wrong. you are. we are still waiting for your conclusive proof rockets are scale models because so far its been claim after claim after claim from you only backed by videos that actually prove you to be wrong about your claims. as amusing as it may be for us it must be frustrating for you.
-
but im not claiming that millions of people who saw something in person are wrong. you are. we are still waiting for your conclusive proof rockets are scale models because so far its been claim after claim after claim from you only backed by videos that actually prove you to be wrong about your claims. as amusing as it may be for us it must be frustrating for you.
It's far from frustrating for me.
-
but im not claiming that millions of people who saw something in person are wrong. you are. we are still waiting for your conclusive proof rockets are scale models because so far its been claim after claim after claim from you only backed by videos that actually prove you to be wrong about your claims. as amusing as it may be for us it must be frustrating for you.
It's far from frustrating for me.
I think we all realise that by now
-
because enough rockets have been launched all over the world for their flight characteristics to be known well enough for us to know it is true.
no one person can personally have seen everything in life needed to understand all fields of physics. that's where experts come in. single people who devote their who lives to expanding our knowledge into single extremely complex fields of research. you inability to trust or believe experts is very reveling about yourself. life the universe and everything in it is far far to complex for anyone to be an expert in all fields of science. have you ever heard of the term jack of all trades master of none?
I certainly prefer my doctor to be an expert in his field.
And mine too, yet we know that they are all dilute. They even refer to manuals when you are sat in front of them. It's not a good feeling when they do this.
I actually find it reassuring when my GP admits he doesn't know everything about medicine as the next step is usually a rough idea of what is wrong and a referral to an expert in the specific field.
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
Ok, as you have easily guessed, I am not a rocket scientist or engineer and yet I' appear to be arrogantly dismissing it.
The truth is, I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything to do with the actual rocketry as such, only in how they portray it to work in a vacuum.
That's all I'm interested in to be honest.
Let's simply take a solid fuel rocket or the hypergolic so called moon lander fuel. We are told, it ignites and that's that, meaning, once the mixtures meet and ignite, they simply burn and cannot be throttled or anything.
A solid rocket booster simply burns it's fuel.
In a vacuum as we are told space is, burning would not occur anyway for starters because any oxygen in the fuel would be gobbled up into space and the fuel would simply be gobbled up as fast as it came out.
The best way to describe it which people scoff at, is the good old thermos flask.
The only difference is, you have to look at it in an opposite effect as to space to understand what a vacuum would do.
Picture the flask in a room and you knock off the bottom glass welded tip. The thermos immediately is filled with air because that vacuum is just waiting to gobble up enough air to fill it, or if people want to be picky, the air is just waiting to attack the hole in the thermos. Either way, it's done in a fraction of a second.
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
But all of this has nothing to do with the way the motion is created.
-
because enough rockets have been launched all over the world for their flight characteristics to be known well enough for us to know it is true.
no one person can personally have seen everything in life needed to understand all fields of physics. that's where experts come in. single people who devote their who lives to expanding our knowledge into single extremely complex fields of research. you inability to trust or believe experts is very reveling about yourself. life the universe and everything in it is far far to complex for anyone to be an expert in all fields of science. have you ever heard of the term jack of all trades master of none?
I certainly prefer my doctor to be an expert in his field.
And mine too, yet we know that they are all dilute. They even refer to manuals when you are sat in front of them. It's not a good feeling when they do this.
I actually find it reassuring when my GP admits he doesn't know everything about medicine as the next step is usually a rough idea of what is wrong and a referral to an expert in the specific field.
Yes, me too. I find it re-assuring to be sitting in front of my GP, who rubs his chin, gets out a manual and says, hmmm, I think you have this, so here's a prescription for it, bye now.
Most GP's have a field of expertise. My GP's field was in gynaecology and the rest is reading, experience and ad lib. Smashing. ;D
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
Ok, as you have easily guessed, I am not a rocket scientist or engineer and yet I' appear to be arrogantly dismissing it.
The truth is, I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything to do with the actual rocketry as such, only in how they portray it to work in a vacuum.
That's all I'm interested in to be honest.
Let's simply take a solid fuel rocket or the hypergolic so called moon lander fuel. We are told, it ignites and that's that, meaning, once the mixtures meet and ignite, they simply burn and cannot be throttled or anything.
A solid rocket booster simply burns it's fuel.
In a vacuum as we are told space is, burning would not occur anyway for starters because any oxygen in the fuel would be gobbled up into space and the fuel would simply be gobbled up as fast as it came out.
The best way to describe it which people scoff at, is the good old thermos flask.
The only difference is, you have to look at it in an opposite effect as to space to understand what a vacuum would do.
Picture the flask in a room and you knock off the bottom glass welded tip. The thermos immediately is filled with air because that vacuum is just waiting to gobble up enough air to fill it, or if people want to be picky, the air is just waiting to attack the hole in the thermos. Either way, it's done in a fraction of a second.
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
But all of this has nothing to do with the way the motion is created.
Which is why it's just a swings and roundabouts job, which I've been through. Let's just accept that you know rocketry and believe you know exactly how it all works and I know my version, whether you accept it or think I'm barking mad.
The end product is, they don't work in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
Ok, as you have easily guessed, I am not a rocket scientist or engineer and yet I' appear to be arrogantly dismissing it.
The truth is, I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything to do with the actual rocketry as such, only in how they portray it to work in a vacuum.
That's all I'm interested in to be honest.
Let's simply take a solid fuel rocket or the hypergolic so called moon lander fuel. We are told, it ignites and that's that, meaning, once the mixtures meet and ignite, they simply burn and cannot be throttled or anything.
A solid rocket booster simply burns it's fuel.
In a vacuum as we are told space is, burning would not occur anyway for starters because any oxygen in the fuel would be gobbled up into space and the fuel would simply be gobbled up as fast as it came out.
The best way to describe it which people scoff at, is the good old thermos flask.
The only difference is, you have to look at it in an opposite effect as to space to understand what a vacuum would do.
Picture the flask in a room and you knock off the bottom glass welded tip. The thermos immediately is filled with air because that vacuum is just waiting to gobble up enough air to fill it, or if people want to be picky, the air is just waiting to attack the hole in the thermos. Either way, it's done in a fraction of a second.
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
But all of this has nothing to do with the way the motion is created.
Which is why it's just a swings and roundabouts job, which I've been through. Let's just accept that you know rocketry and believe you know exactly how it all works and I know my version, whether you accept it or think I'm barking mad.
The end product is, they don't work in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
Lol, if you'd left off the last bit it would have been a decent statement :)
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
Ok, as you have easily guessed, I am not a rocket scientist or engineer and yet I' appear to be arrogantly dismissing it.
The truth is, I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything to do with the actual rocketry as such, only in how they portray it to work in a vacuum.
That's all I'm interested in to be honest.
Let's simply take a solid fuel rocket or the hypergolic so called moon lander fuel. We are told, it ignites and that's that, meaning, once the mixtures meet and ignite, they simply burn and cannot be throttled or anything.
A solid rocket booster simply burns it's fuel.
In a vacuum as we are told space is, burning would not occur anyway for starters because any oxygen in the fuel would be gobbled up into space and the fuel would simply be gobbled up as fast as it came out.
The best way to describe it which people scoff at, is the good old thermos flask.
The only difference is, you have to look at it in an opposite effect as to space to understand what a vacuum would do.
Picture the flask in a room and you knock off the bottom glass welded tip. The thermos immediately is filled with air because that vacuum is just waiting to gobble up enough air to fill it, or if people want to be picky, the air is just waiting to attack the hole in the thermos. Either way, it's done in a fraction of a second.
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
But all of this has nothing to do with the way the motion is created.
Which is why it's just a swings and roundabouts job, which I've been through. Let's just accept that you know rocketry and believe you know exactly how it all works and I know my version, whether you accept it or think I'm barking mad.
The end product is, they don't work in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
Lol, if you'd left off the last bit it would have been a decent statement :)
That's my belief.
-
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
How? ??? They've been designed to operate in a vacuum.
SpaceX Draco Thruster Vacuum Firing (http://#)
Next you'll be assuming that Aqua Lungs don't work and if I tried scuba diving with one I'd end up breathing carbon monoxide instead of oxygen ::)
-
Oh and also, could you answer my question?
It's really simple and straight forward. People here have already answered how I know it's true and I even did myself before in this thread. For someone who claims their theory is superior you should easily be able to answer it. (I'll post it again so you don't waste my time with 'what's the question?'):
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
Ok, as you have easily guessed, I am not a rocket scientist or engineer and yet I' appear to be arrogantly dismissing it.
The truth is, I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything to do with the actual rocketry as such, only in how they portray it to work in a vacuum.
That's all I'm interested in to be honest.
Let's simply take a solid fuel rocket or the hypergolic so called moon lander fuel. We are told, it ignites and that's that, meaning, once the mixtures meet and ignite, they simply burn and cannot be throttled or anything.
A solid rocket booster simply burns it's fuel.
In a vacuum as we are told space is, burning would not occur anyway for starters because any oxygen in the fuel would be gobbled up into space and the fuel would simply be gobbled up as fast as it came out.
The best way to describe it which people scoff at, is the good old thermos flask.
The only difference is, you have to look at it in an opposite effect as to space to understand what a vacuum would do.
Picture the flask in a room and you knock off the bottom glass welded tip. The thermos immediately is filled with air because that vacuum is just waiting to gobble up enough air to fill it, or if people want to be picky, the air is just waiting to attack the hole in the thermos. Either way, it's done in a fraction of a second.
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
But all of this has nothing to do with the way the motion is created.
Which is why it's just a swings and roundabouts job, which I've been through. Let's just accept that you know rocketry and believe you know exactly how it all works and I know my version, whether you accept it or think I'm barking mad.
The end product is, they don't work in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
Lol, if you'd left off the last bit it would have been a decent statement :)
That's my belief.
So again, what is it you don't understand about the diagram?
If you understood it, you'd understand why ground level outside air pressure isn't needed for the rocket to move,
... or half air pressure, .25 pressure, .025, .0000048, etc, (whatever you think the minimum air pressure is needed)
-
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
How? ??? They've been designed to operate in a vacuum.
SpaceX Draco Thruster Vacuum Firing (http://#)
Next you'll be assuming that Aqua Lungs don't work and if I tried scuba diving with one I'd end up breathing carbon monoxide instead of oxygen ::)
I hope you're not breathing in/out carbon monoxide, that stuff is pretty lethal and has no reason to ever exit your body. I believe the word you are looking for is carbon DIoxide, not MONoxide. :)
-
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
How? ??? They've been designed to operate in a vacuum.
SpaceX Draco Thruster Vacuum Firing (http://#)
Next you'll be assuming that Aqua Lungs don't work and if I tried scuba diving with one I'd end up breathing carbon monoxide instead of oxygen ::)
Can you prove to me that this is a vacuum?
-
Oh and also, could you answer my question?
It's really simple and straight forward. People here have already answered how I know it's true and I even did myself before in this thread. For someone who claims their theory is superior you should easily be able to answer it. (I'll post it again so you don't waste my time with 'what's the question?'):
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
I did answer it. Unfortunately , I could only answer it with a question.
What makes you think the rocket is more efficient the higher it goes, apart from obviously the higher it goes, in the atmosphere, the lighter it becomes.
-
I didn't see that response coming :)
Can I ask though what was wrong with the diagram I posted? You called it vague but then ignore any explanations that are more complicated. If you let me know what was vague then I'll try to improve that bit to your specific tastes.
Ok, as you have easily guessed, I am not a rocket scientist or engineer and yet I' appear to be arrogantly dismissing it.
The truth is, I'm not arrogantly dismissing anything to do with the actual rocketry as such, only in how they portray it to work in a vacuum.
That's all I'm interested in to be honest.
Let's simply take a solid fuel rocket or the hypergolic so called moon lander fuel. We are told, it ignites and that's that, meaning, once the mixtures meet and ignite, they simply burn and cannot be throttled or anything.
A solid rocket booster simply burns it's fuel.
In a vacuum as we are told space is, burning would not occur anyway for starters because any oxygen in the fuel would be gobbled up into space and the fuel would simply be gobbled up as fast as it came out.
The best way to describe it which people scoff at, is the good old thermos flask.
The only difference is, you have to look at it in an opposite effect as to space to understand what a vacuum would do.
Picture the flask in a room and you knock off the bottom glass welded tip. The thermos immediately is filled with air because that vacuum is just waiting to gobble up enough air to fill it, or if people want to be picky, the air is just waiting to attack the hole in the thermos. Either way, it's done in a fraction of a second.
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
But all of this has nothing to do with the way the motion is created.
Which is why it's just a swings and roundabouts job, which I've been through. Let's just accept that you know rocketry and believe you know exactly how it all works and I know my version, whether you accept it or think I'm barking mad.
The end product is, they don't work in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
Lol, if you'd left off the last bit it would have been a decent statement :)
That's my belief.
So again, what is it you don't understand about the diagram?
If you understood it, you'd understand why ground level outside air pressure isn't needed for the rocket to move,
... or half air pressure, .25 pressure, .025, .0000048, etc, (whatever you think the minimum air pressure is needed)
If you sat on a skate board on top of a bottle of compressed air, with the nozzle behind you and opened the nozzle. Why does it propel you forward?
-
Oh and also, could you answer my question?
It's really simple and straight forward. People here have already answered how I know it's true and I even did myself before in this thread. For someone who claims their theory is superior you should easily be able to answer it. (I'll post it again so you don't waste my time with 'what's the question?'):
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
I did answer it. Unfortunately , I could only answer it with a question.
What makes you think the rocket is more efficient the higher it goes, apart from obviously the higher it goes, in the atmosphere, the lighter it becomes.
Wow, I didn't expect that. [sarcasm] I specifically said in that post that other people answered that question and I did self earlier in this thread. We know this because they do tests in vacuum chambers and notice the effect as well as while it is in flight.
Could you now answer the question?
Edit: You once tried to answer this before in another thread without so many questions, why is that? If you're wondering, your answer was far off, and then you ignored the question after I showed you were wrong.
-
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
How? ??? They've been designed to operate in a vacuum.
SpaceX Draco Thruster Vacuum Firing (http://#)
Next you'll be assuming that Aqua Lungs don't work and if I tried scuba diving with one I'd end up breathing carbon monoxide instead of oxygen ::)
Can you prove to me that this is a vacuum?
So how does that jet engine propel the jet forward?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3c311648c22.jpg)
This doesn't prove the video was in a vacuum, but it explains really well how a rocket works, even in a vacuum. Take a second look over it and understand what it's trying to say. Also remember that when something flammable ignites in a closed space it builds pressure. These rockets ignite enough fuel fast enough that even with it escaping out the back there's enough force to push upwards on the rocket. Water-powered model rockets and balloons follow the exact same principle.
Oh and also, could you answer my question?
It's really simple and straight forward. People here have already answered how I know it's true and I even did myself before in this thread. For someone who claims their theory is superior you should easily be able to answer it. (I'll post it again so you don't waste my time with 'what's the question?'):
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
I did answer it. Unfortunately , I could only answer it with a question.
What makes you think the rocket is more efficient the higher it goes, apart from obviously the higher it goes, in the atmosphere, the lighter it becomes.
Assuming that my previous point made any sense, when it goes higher into the atmosphere the distance between it and Earth increases, which means that gravity, albeit very slowly, will weaken its hold on the rocket. This is part of the factor, but probably not significant for shorter distances as much for larger ones.
What really effects it is that when you move you compress air in front of you. Friction is a smaller factor than the air compression as you move faster and faster. That's why cars lose gas mileage as they travel faster and faster, you've got this air being compressed in front of you and that's slowing you down as it wants to expand back. It's easier to think about it as the air getting thicker around you as you travel faster. The Bugatti Veyron drops to less than 2 mpg when it's going over 200 mph, and drops even less as it approaches its record speed of roughly 267 mph. The same happens with a rocket as it goes upward. The advantage to a rocket is that as it travels higher and higher, it gets lighter from burning off fuel and has a thinner atmosphere to compress less air around it.
-
Oh and also, could you answer my question?
It's really simple and straight forward. People here have already answered how I know it's true and I even did myself before in this thread. For someone who claims their theory is superior you should easily be able to answer it. (I'll post it again so you don't waste my time with 'what's the question?'):
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
I did answer it. Unfortunately , I could only answer it with a question.
What makes you think the rocket is more efficient the higher it goes, apart from obviously the higher it goes, in the atmosphere, the lighter it becomes.
Wow, I didn't expect that. [sarcasm] I specifically said in that post that other people answered that question and I did self earlier in this thread. We know this because they do tests in vacuum chambers and notice the effect as well as while it is in flight.
Could you now answer the question?
Edit: You once tried to answer this before in another thread without so many questions, why is that? If you're wondering, your answer was far off, and then you ignored the question after I showed you were wrong.
What have you showed me I'm wrong about?
-
Now imagine space being the thermos and the rocket being the room. Once that nozzle is opened on the rocket, the very second the valves are open, it will be swallowed up immediately, rendering the rocket useless.
How? ??? They've been designed to operate in a vacuum.
SpaceX Draco Thruster Vacuum Firing (http://#)
Next you'll be assuming that Aqua Lungs don't work and if I tried scuba diving with one I'd end up breathing carbon monoxide instead of oxygen ::)
Can you prove to me that this is a vacuum?
So how does that jet engine propel the jet forward?
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3c311648c22.jpg)
This doesn't prove the video was in a vacuum, but it explains really well how a rocket works, even in a vacuum. Take a second look over it and understand what it's trying to say. Also remember that when something flammable ignites in a closed space it builds pressure. These rockets ignite enough fuel fast enough that even with it escaping out the back there's enough force to push upwards on the rocket. Water-powered model rockets and balloons follow the exact same principle.
It proves nothing to me.
-
If you sat on a skate board on top of a bottle of compressed air, with the nozzle behind you and opened the nozzle. Why does it propel you forward?
There's pressure inside the bottle pushing in all directions against the inside of it.
Opening the nozzle at the back creates a spot inside the bottle where pressure can't push against the inside of the bottle, but instead escapes. Meanwhile at the front of the bottle, pressure is still pressing in that direction, so the bottle is pushed in that direction.
Thus propelling me forward.
-
If you sat on a skate board on top of a bottle of compressed air, with the nozzle behind you and opened the nozzle. Why does it propel you forward?
There's pressure inside the bottle pushing in all directions against the inside of it.
Opening the nozzle at the back creates a spot inside the bottle where pressure can't push against the inside of the bottle, but instead escapes. Meanwhile at the front of the bottle, pressure is still pressing in that direction, so the bottle is pushed in that direction.
Thus propelling me forward.
Lets just dilute the argument.
For a rocket to work, the expended fuel has to be released from the rear if it is to be propelled forward right?
In space, the fuel will be expended into the vacuum we are told space is.
A vacuum is devoid of all matter but one thing a vacuum enjoys, is accepting any matter within it and it will be gobbled up, so any pressure you say is acting inside your tank would be rendered useless.
-
If you sat on a skate board on top of a bottle of compressed air, with the nozzle behind you and opened the nozzle. Why does it propel you forward?
There's pressure inside the bottle pushing in all directions against the inside of it.
Opening the nozzle at the back creates a spot inside the bottle where pressure can't push against the inside of the bottle, but instead escapes. Meanwhile at the front of the bottle, pressure is still pressing in that direction, so the bottle is pushed in that direction.
Thus propelling me forward.
Lets just dilute the argument.
For a rocket to work, the expended fuel has to be released from the rear if it is to be propelled forward right?
In space, the fuel will be expended into the vacuum we are told space is.
A vacuum is devoid of all matter but one thing a vacuum enjoys, is accepting any matter within it and it will be gobbled up, so any pressure you say is acting inside your tank would be rendered useless.
This would be the case if the fuel wasn't burned and expanded to create enough pressure to move it forward. The pressure is created whether you're in a vacuum or not because if it didn't build then the rocket wouldn't move anyway, even on Earth.
-
Oh and also, could you answer my question?
It's really simple and straight forward. People here have already answered how I know it's true and I even did myself before in this thread. For someone who claims their theory is superior you should easily be able to answer it. (I'll post it again so you don't waste my time with 'what's the question?'):
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
I did answer it. Unfortunately , I could only answer it with a question.
What makes you think the rocket is more efficient the higher it goes, apart from obviously the higher it goes, in the atmosphere, the lighter it becomes.
Wow, I didn't expect that. [sarcasm] I specifically said in that post that other people answered that question and I did self earlier in this thread. We know this because they do tests in vacuum chambers and notice the effect as well as while it is in flight.
Could you now answer the question?
Edit: You once tried to answer this before in another thread without so many questions, why is that? If you're wondering, your answer was far off, and then you ignored the question after I showed you were wrong.
What have you showed me I'm wrong about?
Your previous answer in another thread. I must admit, you are very skilled at avoiding important questions, maybe you should consider running for an office.
Could you please answer my question?
-
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6555/pacmanrocket.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/pacmanrocket.png/)
-
Silly image...
But only so much can escape at a time, it doesn't matter how quickly it disperses into space because the pressure is being maintained at a rate faster than the pressure is released.. If I were to fully open a freshly filled air tank into space it wouldn't instantly be empty; it takes time for the air molecules to escape through a small opening in the tank. The same is true for rockets.
-
Silly image...
But only so much can escape at a time, it doesn't matter how quickly it disperses into space because the pressure is being maintained at a rate faster than the pressure is released.. If I were to fully open a freshly filled air tank into space it wouldn't instantly be empty; it takes time for the air molecules to escape through a small opening in the tank. The same is true for rockets.
Imagine being really deep under the sea in your little submarine and your little rust spot pops open allowing the water in.
The water will force it's way n that fast, that your sub will most likely be ripped open and filled in seconds, if that.
Now think of it the opposite way round and the vacuum is trying to take that air from your fuel in your rocket. Picture it like a big hand grabbing the fuel and yanking it out.
If it can't get it, it will pull your ship apart.
Like this.
A balloon in the vacuum chamber (http://#)
-
Silly image...
But only so much can escape at a time, it doesn't matter how quickly it disperses into space because the pressure is being maintained at a rate faster than the pressure is released.. If I were to fully open a freshly filled air tank into space it wouldn't instantly be empty; it takes time for the air molecules to escape through a small opening in the tank. The same is true for rockets.
Imagine being really deep under the sea in your little submarine and your little rust spot pops open allowing the water in.
The water will force it's way n that fast, that your sub will most likely be ripped open and filled in seconds, if that.
Now think of it the opposite way round and the vacuum is trying to take that air from your fuel in your rocket. Picture it like a big hand grabbing the fuel and yanking it out.
If it can't get it, it will pull your ship apart.
Like this.
A balloon in the vacuum chamber (http://#)
It's only SORT OF like that, but not exactly so. While in the vacuum of space there is no pressure forcing in on anything, so if any pressure exists within a closed object there's more force going out than pushing in. The vacuum itself isn't trying to pull the gasses from the rocket so much as the gasses are just spreading out in an attempt to bring equilibrium to the emptiness. To prevent the rocket from blowing open they reinforce everything, kind of like how a submarine is reinforced to prevent the extreme pressures the ocean places upon it from bursting open.
The built of pressure and reinforcements required on the rockets would be drastically decreased as it rose up into the sky because it's now lighter and has less atmosphere to cut through, so it's easier to lift. The second and third stage rockets have significantly lower thrust outputs than the first stage rocket because less it needed to keep going.
-
THe reason the balloon expanded in the vacuum is because its made of rubber wich can stretch.
But luckily the people who make space craft are clever enough to use materials that can stand up to the differences in pressure in the vacuum of space.
If you where to try what that guy did with say a plastic bottle i doubt you would see much happen.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
-
THe reason the balloon expanded in the vacuum is because its made of rubber wich can stretch.
But luckily the people who make space craft are clever enough to use materials that can stand up to the differences in pressure in the vacuum of space.
If you where to try what that guy did with say a plastic bottle i doubt you would see much happen.
They might have stood a better chance if they had built the craft out of a big flaccid stretchy balloon lol.
The simple fact is, that ship or any light aluminium skinned ship would be rendered useless as soon as it expanded.
-
Aluminium isn't rubber. Aluminium can be pretty strong if you mix it with other stuff to make an alloy.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
-
Aluminium isn't rubber. Aluminium can be pretty strong if you mix it with other stuff to make an alloy.
I'm sure you have seen wording on the thickness of the aluminium skin of the lunar lander as they tell you. So you know it's not strong and you know it would be pulled open at it's weakest point if it went into a vacuum.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
-
Aluminium isn't rubber. Aluminium can be pretty strong if you mix it with other stuff to make an alloy.
I'm sure you have seen wording on the thickness of the aluminium skin of the lunar lander as they tell you. So you know it's not strong and you know it would be pulled open at it's weakest point if it went into a vacuum.
The skin of the fuselage on any jumbo jet is no more than 4mm thick. Its pretty scary if you think about it. But we know they defiantly don't explode when they meet the lower atmospheric pressure high in the air.
-
Aluminium isn't rubber. Aluminium can be pretty strong if you mix it with other stuff to make an alloy.
I'm sure you have seen wording on the thickness of the aluminium skin of the lunar lander as they tell you. So you know it's not strong and you know it would be pulled open at it's weakest point if it went into a vacuum.
The skin of the fuselage on any jumbo jet is no more than 4mm thick. Its pretty scary if you think about it. But we know they defiantly don't explode when they meet the lower atmospheric pressure high in the air.
It's working in an atmosphere. Stick one in a vacuum under the same pressure and guess what would happen.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Aluminium isn't rubber. Aluminium can be pretty strong if you mix it with other stuff to make an alloy.
I'm sure you have seen wording on the thickness of the aluminium skin of the lunar lander as they tell you. So you know it's not strong and you know it would be pulled open at it's weakest point if it went into a vacuum.
The skin of the fuselage on any jumbo jet is no more than 4mm thick. Its pretty scary if you think about it. But we know they defiantly don't explode when they meet the lower atmospheric pressure high in the air.
It's working in an atmosphere. Stick one in a vacuum under the same pressure and guess what would happen.
An atmosphere does not by any means have the same pressure all throughout. The higher you go, the less there is.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Air waves.
-
Hmm, it looks like you haven't answered my question, could you do that please?
-
Hmm, it looks like you haven't answered my question, could you do that please?
Put up the question.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Air waves.
How do airwaves have anything to do with the transmission of a radio signal, which requires no atmosphere to travel.
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Air waves.
How do airwaves have anything to do with the transmission of a radio signal, which requires no atmosphere to travel.
Tell me honestly how you know a radio signal can travel through a vacuum that we are told space is?
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
The fuel thing is irrelevant, and I explained that it is observed in flight in in vacuum chamber tests.
Will you answer (as in explain why) this effect happens now?
-
As long as your answering questions maybe you can answer mine.
How can a jet of water (eg: a pressure washer or firefighters hose) create thrust if what you say about newtons third law is true?
-
Alright, I'll de-lurk and say an extrodinary thing. Sceptimatic is at least partially right when it comes to what would happen to an air filled container with a hole in it, in the vacuum of space. The air will rush out as fast it can. Gas will move from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. This is why decompression is so exciting for aircraft at high altitude. (Although it's not quite as exciting as the movies usually make it out to be).
But a space vehicle only has to be strong enough to contain the pressure within itself and even flexible fabrics can be made strong enough to do that. The men who flew the SR-71 wore pressure suits to provide pressure and air at the high altitudes at which the aircraft travelled and they survived, so you don't have to believe in NASA to accept that pressure suits can keep you alive in low pressure zones or even a vacuum.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Air waves.
How do airwaves have anything to do with the transmission of a radio signal, which requires no atmosphere to travel.
Tell me honestly how you know a radio signal can travel through a vacuum that we are told space is?
Via testing in a vacuum created on Earth. If a transmitter's waves cannot be received by a receiver on the outside of a vacuum, or vice versa, then we would know it doesn't work. But how else do I know that it works? Because our sun and every other star emits waves along the entire light spectrum, from gamma rays all the way to microwaves and beyond. How do we know they do? We have tested for it, and found it to be true. Are you going to believe me/understand me? No.
-
Alright, I'll de-lurk and say an extrodinary thing. Sceptimatic is at least partially right when it comes to what would happen to an air filled container with a hole in it, in the vacuum of space. The air will rush out as fast it can. Gas will move from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. This is why decompression is so exciting for aircraft at high altitude. (Although it's not quite as exciting as the movies usually make it out to be).
But a space vehicle only has to be strong enough to contain the pressure within itself and even flexible fabrics can be made strong enough to do that. The men who flew the SR-71 wore pressure suits to provide pressure and air at the high altitudes at which the aircraft travelled and they survived, so you don't have to believe in NASA to accept that pressure suits can keep you alive in low pressure zones or even a vacuum.
Round of applause
-
Alright, I'll de-lurk and say an extrodinary thing. Sceptimatic is at least partially right when it comes to what would happen to an air filled container with a hole in it, in the vacuum of space. The air will rush out as fast it can. Gas will move from a high pressure area to a low pressure area. This is why decompression is so exciting for aircraft at high altitude. (Although it's not quite as exciting as the movies usually make it out to be).
But a space vehicle only has to be strong enough to contain the pressure within itself and even flexible fabrics can be made strong enough to do that. The men who flew the SR-71 wore pressure suits to provide pressure and air at the high altitudes at which the aircraft travelled and they survived, so you don't have to believe in NASA to accept that pressure suits can keep you alive in low pressure zones or even a vacuum.
Yes he is right about that part, but we are disagreeing with that causing rockets to not work in space
-
Yes he is right about that part, but we are disagreeing with that causing rockets to not work in space
They work because they push against themselves.
Which I will admit sounds like existential crazy talk. But it's Newton's third law.
Here's a quote from an article that might help some:
The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel. Let's illustrate with an example you kids can try at home. First, you need to get yourself into some sort of frictionless situation. Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics! (If you think this is because the medicine ball pushed on the air, then try the experiment without the medicine ball--just push on the air with your hands, see how far you lurch backwards.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
-
The men who flew the SR-71 wore pressure suits to provide pressure and air at the high altitudes at which the aircraft travelled .
Who told you that? NAZA?
btw, the SR-71 prosject is still not well documented, and you know that. But that's another topic, another thread and another day.
-
Tell me honestly how you know a radio signal can travel through a vacuum that we are told space is?
Simply looking into a table top vacuum chamber will show that a person can still see objects inside. As the vacuum inside becomes greater there is no distortion in the objects. Since visible light can pass though a vacuum it stands that radio waves can as well.
Not quite sure what the problem is here.
-
If you sat on a skate board on top of a bottle of compressed air, with the nozzle behind you and opened the nozzle. Why does it propel you forward?
There's pressure inside the bottle pushing in all directions against the inside of it.
Opening the nozzle at the back creates a spot inside the bottle where pressure can't push against the inside of the bottle, but instead escapes. Meanwhile at the front of the bottle, pressure is still pressing in that direction, so the bottle is pushed in that direction.
Thus propelling me forward.
Lets just dilute the argument.
For a rocket to work, the expended fuel has to be released from the rear if it is to be propelled forward right?
Yes
In space, the fuel will be expended into the vacuum we are told space is.
Yes
A vacuum is devoid of all matter but one thing a vacuum enjoys, is accepting any matter within it and it will be gobbled up,
(One way of putting it I guess) Yes
so any pressure you say is acting inside your tank would be rendered useless.
No. The pressure is pushing forward against the inside, and the pressure pushing to the rear is not pushing against the inside, it's escaping instead. Henceforth, the rocket is pushed forward.
-
Tell me honestly how you know a radio signal can travel through a vacuum that we are told space is?
Simply looking into a table top vacuum chamber will show that a person can still see objects inside. As the vacuum inside becomes greater there is no distortion in the objects. Since visible light can pass though a vacuum it stands that radio waves can as well.
Not quite sure what the problem is here.
Thanks for the more general and easier explanation.
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
The fuel thing is irrelevant, and I explained that it is observed in flight in in vacuum chamber tests.
Will you answer (as in explain why) this effect happens now?
The vacuum chamber test is a load of baloney. You cannot have a rocket work inside a "chamber" and expect it to be a " vacuum" chamber , because the minute the energy is fed into it, it becomes "not a vacuum chamber" . as in, it just isn't capable of accepting the thrust or burn of that engine...meaning it's bogus...meaning, it's a load of old baloney.
-
As long as your answering questions maybe you can answer mine.
How can a jet of water (eg: a pressure washer or firefighters hose) create thrust if what you say about newtons third law is true?
It's forced through an uneven or misshaped hose . Try it with the hose on a level ground withe the force coming from ground level and a hose that is true and straight and see if that pushes you back.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Air waves.
How do airwaves have anything to do with the transmission of a radio signal, which requires no atmosphere to travel.
Tell me honestly how you know a radio signal can travel through a vacuum that we are told space is?
Via testing in a vacuum created on Earth. If a transmitter's waves cannot be received by a receiver on the outside of a vacuum, or vice versa, then we would know it doesn't work. But how else do I know that it works? Because our sun and every other star emits waves along the entire light spectrum, from gamma rays all the way to microwaves and beyond. How do we know they do? We have tested for it, and found it to be true. Are you going to believe me/understand me? No.
This is where it all becomes complicated. You see, I'm arguing against "bogus" science, in that , we are told space, is a vacuum and naturally, we all accept that the "Sun" emits it's light/rays/radiation, from the "vacuum" of space, which I "do not" subscribe to.
Like I said, "It's complicated".
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
The fuel thing is irrelevant, and I explained that it is observed in flight in in vacuum chamber tests.
Will you answer (as in explain why) this effect happens now?
The vacuum chamber test is a load of baloney. You cannot have a rocket work inside a "chamber" and expect it to be a " vacuum" chamber , because the minute the energy is fed into it, it becomes "not a vacuum chamber" . as in, it just isn't capable of accepting the thrust or burn of that engine...meaning it's bogus...meaning, it's a load of old baloney.
You don't need to believe that it creates a complete vacuum. The question was about less air, and I'm sure you accept the chamber has less air. If you don't believe the tests were in a complete vacuum then fine, but there is less air in it and the effects are also observed in flight.
Now will you answer it?
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Air waves.
How do airwaves have anything to do with the transmission of a radio signal, which requires no atmosphere to travel.
Tell me honestly how you know a radio signal can travel through a vacuum that we are told space is?
Via testing in a vacuum created on Earth. If a transmitter's waves cannot be received by a receiver on the outside of a vacuum, or vice versa, then we would know it doesn't work. But how else do I know that it works? Because our sun and every other star emits waves along the entire light spectrum, from gamma rays all the way to microwaves and beyond. How do we know they do? We have tested for it, and found it to be true. Are you going to believe me/understand me? No.
This is where it all becomes complicated. You see, I'm arguing against "bogus" science, in that , we are told space, is a vacuum and naturally, we all accept that the "Sun" emits it's light/rays/radiation, from the "vacuum" of space, which I "do not" subscribe to.
Like I said, "It's complicated".
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
-
As long as your answering questions maybe you can answer mine.
How can a jet of water (eg: a pressure washer or firefighters hose) create thrust if what you say about newtons third law is true?
It's forced through an uneven or misshaped hose . Try it with the hose on a level ground withe the force coming from ground level and a hose that is true and straight and see if that pushes you back.
Have you tried it? How do you know what would happen.
I think you know very well what would happen.
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
The fuel thing is irrelevant, and I explained that it is observed in flight in in vacuum chamber tests.
Will you answer (as in explain why) this effect happens now?
The vacuum chamber test is a load of baloney. You cannot have a rocket work inside a "chamber" and expect it to be a " vacuum" chamber , because the minute the energy is fed into it, it becomes "not a vacuum chamber" . as in, it just isn't capable of accepting the thrust or burn of that engine...meaning it's bogus...meaning, it's a load of old baloney.
You don't need to believe that it creates a complete vacuum. The question was about less air, and I'm sure you accept the chamber has less air. If you don't believe the tests were in a complete vacuum then fine, but there is less air in it and the effects are also observed in flight.
Now will you answer it?
Your question has more than been answered adequately and you know that.
-
The thin aluminium skin of the lunar landers with air pressure inside would have been pulled apart inside a vacuum, there's no two ways about that at all. Even you should accept this.
The balloon in the vacuum chamber should be enough to tell you what would happen. The air would simply want to fill the vacuum and would expand and expand until it got it's wish, then the first weakness of the craft would be popped open releasing any air in the whole craft.
The moon landing could never have happened anyway because there would be no way of communicating through the vacuum of space in truth.
Again, you have something durable enough to withstand the forces that the air pressure places upon the inner portions of the rocket and lander. If it were the case that the air pressure were to want to escape "until it got it's wish" [sic] then we would be unable to have air tanks to begin with, and submarines would only be a thing of imagination.
Okay...you HAVE to be trolling. There is no other way you really just brought that up, no way at all. Please, just tell me you're trolling. Unable to communicate in a vacuum? Seriously?
They used this newfangled technology called a radio. Radios transmit data via energy waves within the light spectrum, usually within the range of AM and FM. These forms of energy, as well as the rest of the light spectrum, can travel through a vacuum without any problem, and in fact increases the the speed at which it travels to the full speed of light, instead of traveling at a reduced speed while within our atmosphere. None of this requires an atmosphere to move, unlike sound waves which only work when they have air molecules to vibrate. These air molecules are within the helmets that astronauts wear because without them they would suffocate.
Not with 1960's technology they didn't.
False. Radio transmitters were first used in 1905 by the Japanese Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio#Uses_of_radio)
Air waves.
How do airwaves have anything to do with the transmission of a radio signal, which requires no atmosphere to travel.
Tell me honestly how you know a radio signal can travel through a vacuum that we are told space is?
Via testing in a vacuum created on Earth. If a transmitter's waves cannot be received by a receiver on the outside of a vacuum, or vice versa, then we would know it doesn't work. But how else do I know that it works? Because our sun and every other star emits waves along the entire light spectrum, from gamma rays all the way to microwaves and beyond. How do we know they do? We have tested for it, and found it to be true. Are you going to believe me/understand me? No.
This is where it all becomes complicated. You see, I'm arguing against "bogus" science, in that , we are told space, is a vacuum and naturally, we all accept that the "Sun" emits it's light/rays/radiation, from the "vacuum" of space, which I "do not" subscribe to.
Like I said, "It's complicated".
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
-
Your question has more than been answered adequately and you know that.
Ok but I still don't see your answer. Could you please just summarize
1. What accounts for the increase in thrust and
2. What accounts for the increase in efficiency.
Honestly I don't see it in your answers so I'm sure you won't mind answering those two, seeing as I've been this patient.
-
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
Why can you see through a vacuum?
-
Your question has more than been answered adequately and you know that.
Ok but I still don't see your answer. Could you please just summarize
1. What accounts for the increase in thrust and
2. What accounts for the increase in efficiency.
Honestly I don't see it in your answers so I'm sure you won't mind answering those two, seeing as I've been this patient.
I've already told you. Read back.
-
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
Why can you see through a vacuum?
Light.
-
Your question has more than been answered adequately and you know that.
Ok but I still don't see your answer. Could you please just summarize
1. What accounts for the increase in thrust and
2. What accounts for the increase in efficiency.
Honestly I don't see it in your answers so I'm sure you won't mind answering those two, seeing as I've been this patient.
I've already told you. Read back.
Actually no you didn't, you just explained why you don't think it is true, while I repeatedly told you it is.
I would appreciate if you simply reply with your answer since many of your arguments revolve around rockets not working in space.
-
Your question has more than been answered adequately and you know that.
Ok but I still don't see your answer. Could you please just summarize
1. What accounts for the increase in thrust and
2. What accounts for the increase in efficiency.
Honestly I don't see it in your answers so I'm sure you won't mind answering those two, seeing as I've been this patient.
I've already told you. Read back.
Actually no you didn't, you just explained why you don't think it is true, while I repeatedly told you it is.
I would appreciate if you simply reply with your answer since many of your arguments revolve around rockets not working in space.
I am telling you it's not true and you are telling me it is? Do you see anything here?
-
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
Why can you see through a vacuum?
Light.
Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic waves. They just have different wavelengths. So by saying light can go through a vacuum you are saying radio waves can as well.
-
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
Why can you see through a vacuum?
Light.
Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic waves. They just have different wavelengths. So by saying light can go through a vacuum you are saying radio waves can as well.
Nope. I merely accepted that you must have been trying to use a glass vacuum chamber and seeing through it in , say, a lab.
-
Nope. I merely accepted that you must have been trying to use a glass vacuum chamber and seeing through it in , say, a lab.
You have no evidence that the electromagnetic spectrum is wrong. If visible light can pass through a vacuum so can radio waves.
-
Your question has more than been answered adequately and you know that.
Ok but I still don't see your answer. Could you please just summarize
1. What accounts for the increase in thrust and
2. What accounts for the increase in efficiency.
Honestly I don't see it in your answers so I'm sure you won't mind answering those two, seeing as I've been this patient.
I've already told you. Read back.
Actually no you didn't, you just explained why you don't think it is true, while I repeatedly told you it is.
I would appreciate if you simply reply with your answer since many of your arguments revolve around rockets not working in space.
I am telling you it's not true and you are telling me it is? Do you see anything here?
Yes, I see you are specifically ignoring the question because you know it disproves your theory. I will tell you why it is true though:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
-
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
Why can you see through a vacuum?
Light.
Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic waves. They just have different wavelengths. So by saying light can go through a vacuum you are saying radio waves can as well.
Nope. I merely accepted that you must have been trying to use a glass vacuum chamber and seeing through it in , say, a lab.
The sun (the big yellow thing in the sky) emits light(the bright stuff you see everywhere) through space(that black area above the earth), and we(humans) see(with our eyes) it(the light from the sun. Light(bright) is on the wave spectrum(includes microwaves(cooks your popcorn), visible light waves, harmful gamma rays(bad rays), radio waves(for listening to the oldies in your car), etc.), therefore by simple logic(easy for some, difficult for others(you)), radio waves can travel through space.
Understand? I tried putting it in scepi-terms.
And drop the hose argument. (It's because I'm scared to accept the truth that all firefighters are faking how powerful those hoses are).
-
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6555/pacmanrocket.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/pacmanrocket.png/)
Except the vacuum of space isn't a giant pacman monster waiting to suck the energy out of a rocket.... ::)
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
Because there's no friction beyond the atmosphere.
-
Wait, did Skepti just say the radio waves cannot travel through a vacuum? He did? Well, at this point, gentlemen, I suggest you acknowledge that he is a troll. Seriously, stop responding to him.
It's impossible.
Are you joking, Skepti? Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and vacuums are the easiest mediums for electromagnetic waves to pass through, because there is no matter to interfere.
-
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
Why can you see through a vacuum?
Light.
Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic waves. They just have different wavelengths. So by saying light can go through a vacuum you are saying radio waves can as well.
Has anyone tried to operate a radio in a vacuum apart from the lies of space?
-
Nope. I merely accepted that you must have been trying to use a glass vacuum chamber and seeing through it in , say, a lab.
You have no evidence that the electromagnetic spectrum is wrong. If visible light can pass through a vacuum so can radio waves.
You have no evidence as to what space is and to what the Sun actually is, or the moon and you don't know if they are in some kind of atmosphere....like ours at a higher point maybe.
You believe the Sun is in a vacuum 93 million miles away, so let's be honest here, who's schooling who?
-
Your question has more than been answered adequately and you know that.
Ok but I still don't see your answer. Could you please just summarize
1. What accounts for the increase in thrust and
2. What accounts for the increase in efficiency.
Honestly I don't see it in your answers so I'm sure you won't mind answering those two, seeing as I've been this patient.
I've already told you. Read back.
Actually no you didn't, you just explained why you don't think it is true, while I repeatedly told you it is.
I would appreciate if you simply reply with your answer since many of your arguments revolve around rockets not working in space.
I am telling you it's not true and you are telling me it is? Do you see anything here?
Yes, I see you are specifically ignoring the question because you know it disproves your theory. I will tell you why it is true though:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Can you 100% honestly and truthfully say that the video you posted is actually a rocket working in a vacuum?
-
So does that mean you admit that radio transmission through space is possible?
It's impossible.
Why can you see through a vacuum?
Light.
Light and radio waves are both electromagnetic waves. They just have different wavelengths. So by saying light can go through a vacuum you are saying radio waves can as well.
Nope. I merely accepted that you must have been trying to use a glass vacuum chamber and seeing through it in , say, a lab.
The sun (the big yellow thing in the sky) emits light(the bright stuff you see everywhere) through space(that black area above the earth), and we(humans) see(with our eyes) it(the light from the sun. Light(bright) is on the wave spectrum(includes microwaves(cooks your popcorn), visible light waves, harmful gamma rays(bad rays), radio waves(for listening to the oldies in your car), etc.), therefore by simple logic(easy for some, difficult for others(you)), radio waves can travel through space.
Understand? I tried putting it in scepi-terms.
And drop the hose argument. (It's because I'm scared to accept the truth that all firefighters are faking how powerful those hoses are).
You are of the acceptance that the sun is this big 1000,000 km diameter 93 million mile object in the "vacuum" of space simply because you were told it is.
The darkness of space does not mean vacuum does it. Think about it.
-
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6555/pacmanrocket.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/pacmanrocket.png/)
Except the vacuum of space isn't a giant pacman monster waiting to suck the energy out of a rocket.... ::)
Do you see my pacman sucking?
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
Because there's no friction beyond the atmosphere.
Truthfully, how do you know this?
You only know what you have been taught to know.
-
Wait, did Skepti just say the radio waves cannot travel through a vacuum? He did? Well, at this point, gentlemen, I suggest you acknowledge that he is a troll. Seriously, stop responding to him.
It's impossible.
Are you joking, Skepti? Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and vacuums are the easiest mediums for electromagnetic waves to pass through, because there is no matter to interfere.
Well show me where radio waves can travel through a vacuum.
You say there is no matter to interfere, yet there is no matter to send " waves" through either.
-
If you want to know why your thermos stays hot, it's because it has a vacuum gap in between that stops radiated heat transferring through that vacuum gap.
-
Your own video shows that radio waves can travle through a vacuum. As we can still see the bloom in side the vacuum chamber. They are the same thing just different parts of the spectrum.
-
If you want to know why your thermos stays hot, it's because it has a vacuum gap in between that stops radiated heat transferring through that vacuum gap.
Do you understand what the difference between heat being radiated, and electromagnetic radiation (light, radiowaves, xrays etc.)?
-
Your own video shows that radio waves can travle through a vacuum. As we can still see the bloom in side the vacuum chamber. They are the same thing just different parts of the spectrum.
What video?
-
If you want to know why your thermos stays hot, it's because it has a vacuum gap in between that stops radiated heat transferring through that vacuum gap.
Do you understand what the difference between heat being radiated, and electromagnetic radiation (light, radiowaves, xrays etc.)?
Yes.
-
Then if you accept that light can traverse a vacuum how can you not understand that electromagnetic radiations of differing wavelengths can?
-
Then if you accept that light can traverse a vacuum how can you not understand that electromagnetic radiations of differing wavelengths can?
Have you ever tried to communicate with a person through a vacuum?
-
Have you?
-
Have you?
Nope.
-
Why would I need to communicate through a vacuum to prove my point?
My point is that electromagnetic radiation can traverse a vacuum. The very fact that we can see sunlight and starlight is testament to this.
Similarly, we are able to observe Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation of distant stars (the spectrums are pushed towards the infrared).
Double glazed windows have a purported vacuum between each pane of glass. My mobile phone does not cease working when I call someone from behind my window.
-
Why would I need to communicate through a vacuum to prove my point?
My point is that electromagnetic radiation can traverse a vacuum. The very fact that we can see sunlight and starlight is testament to this.
Similarly, we are able to observe Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation of distant stars (the spectrums are pushed towards the infrared).
Double glazed windows have a purported vacuum between each pane of glass. My mobile phone does not cease working when I call someone from behind my window.
I believe the stars and Sun and Moon are in our atmosphere. Granted, our higher atmosphere.
Stars are just small specks of light not massive Suns. Just my opinion mind you.
-
Have you?
Nope.
Then how do you know it doesn't work? ??? Also I what you are trying desperate to make people believe is true then the strength radio waves would diminish with altitude just like the sound does inside a vacuum chamber. Which it doesn't so you are wrong. Easy. Can we move in now.
-
Why would I need to communicate through a vacuum to prove my point?
My point is that electromagnetic radiation can traverse a vacuum. The very fact that we can see sunlight and starlight is testament to this.
Similarly, we are able to observe Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation of distant stars (the spectrums are pushed towards the infrared).
Double glazed windows have a purported vacuum between each pane of glass. My mobile phone does not cease working when I call someone from behind my window.
I believe the stars and Sun and Moon are in our atmosphere. Granted, our higher atmosphere.
Stars are just small specks of light not massive Suns. Just my opinion mind you.
So you believe that the atmosphere of the earth extends to and beyond the sun and the stars?
Also this is not relate to the point about electromagnetic radiation being able to traverse a vacuum.
-
Have you?
Nope.
Then how do you know it doesn't work? ??? Also I what you are trying desperate to make people believe is true then the strength radio waves would diminish with altitude just like the sound does inside a vacuum chamber. Which it doesn't so you are wrong. Easy. Can we move in now.
The reason we can bounce signals off the ionosphere is because they can't go further, so no communications with Mr Curiosity rover, no "Houston , we have a problem" and no " That's one small step for man kind."
-
Why would I need to communicate through a vacuum to prove my point?
My point is that electromagnetic radiation can traverse a vacuum. The very fact that we can see sunlight and starlight is testament to this.
Similarly, we are able to observe Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation of distant stars (the spectrums are pushed towards the infrared).
Double glazed windows have a purported vacuum between each pane of glass. My mobile phone does not cease working when I call someone from behind my window.
I believe the stars and Sun and Moon are in our atmosphere. Granted, our higher atmosphere.
Stars are just small specks of light not massive Suns. Just my opinion mind you.
So you believe that the atmosphere of the earth extends to and beyond the sun and the stars?
Also this is not relate to the point about electromagnetic radiation being able to traverse a vacuum.
We cannot communicate outside of our atmosphere into space. Simple as that.
-
If you want to know why your thermos stays hot, it's because it has a vacuum gap in between that stops radiated heat transferring through that vacuum gap.
The vacuum is there to prevent heat loss via convection. The silvered surfaces reduce the radiated heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask)
-
Why would I need to communicate through a vacuum to prove my point?
My point is that electromagnetic radiation can traverse a vacuum. The very fact that we can see sunlight and starlight is testament to this.
Similarly, we are able to observe Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation of distant stars (the spectrums are pushed towards the infrared).
Double glazed windows have a purported vacuum between each pane of glass. My mobile phone does not cease working when I call someone from behind my window.
I believe the stars and Sun and Moon are in our atmosphere. Granted, our higher atmosphere.
Stars are just small specks of light not massive Suns. Just my opinion mind you.
So you believe that the atmosphere of the earth extends to and beyond the sun and the stars?
Also this is not relate to the point about electromagnetic radiation being able to traverse a vacuum.
We cannot communicate outside of our atmosphere into space. Simple as that.
What is the reason that this is not possible?
-
sceptic iv just told you that if radio waves cant traveler through a vacuum then at higher altitudes then radio waves would be weaker just like when we put a bell in a vacuum chamber and when we evacuate the air the sound gets quieter. this is not the case so you are wrong. quite simple relay. and this is ignoring the fact that light is the same as radio waves just at different parts of the spectrum.
-
Why would I need to communicate through a vacuum to prove my point?
My point is that electromagnetic radiation can traverse a vacuum. The very fact that we can see sunlight and starlight is testament to this.
Similarly, we are able to observe Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation of distant stars (the spectrums are pushed towards the infrared).
Double glazed windows have a purported vacuum between each pane of glass. My mobile phone does not cease working when I call someone from behind my window.
I believe the stars and Sun and Moon are in our atmosphere. Granted, our higher atmosphere.
Stars are just small specks of light not massive Suns. Just my opinion mind you.
So you believe that the atmosphere of the earth extends to and beyond the sun and the stars?
Also this is not relate to the point about electromagnetic radiation being able to traverse a vacuum.
We cannot communicate outside of our atmosphere into space. Simple as that.
What is the reason that this is not possible?
Because a vacuum holds nothing, it consists of nothing and is devoid of all matter. Nothing in communication could be sent through it to be received at the other side.
If it can, I would like to see a video of it happening which does not include space.
-
sceptic iv just told you that if radio waves cant traveler through a vacuum then at higher altitudes then radio waves would be weaker just like when we put a bell in a vacuum chamber and when we evacuate the air the sound gets quieter. this is not the case so you are wrong. quite simple relay. and this is ignoring the fact that light is the same as radio waves just at different parts of the spectrum.
The simple truth is, in peoples minds it all works, yet in reality it's poppy cock as far as I'm concerned.
-
Sceptimaniac, I have described a scenario which you can easily try at home (if you have double glazing!)
It isn't limited to mobile phones too. A TV remote control uses infrared to transmit a signal to a tv. Try pointing that through a double glazed window. You'll find it continues to function.
-
Sceptimaniac, I have described a scenario which you can easily try at home (if you have double glazing!)
It isn't limited to mobile phones too. A TV remote control uses infrared to transmit a signal to a tv. Try pointing that through a double glazed window. You'll find it continues to function.
I've worked with double glazing, they don't have a vacuum in between the glass.
-
sceptic iv just told you that if radio waves cant traveler through a vacuum then at higher altitudes then radio waves would be weaker just like when we put a bell in a vacuum chamber and when we evacuate the air the sound gets quieter. this is not the case so you are wrong. quite simple relay. and this is ignoring the fact that light is the same as radio waves just at different parts of the spectrum.
The simple truth is, in peoples minds it all works, yet in reality it's poppy cock as far as I'm concerned.
in peoples minds? it works all around us with everything. show me an example of radio waves being weaker at higher altitudes.
-
sceptic iv just told you that if radio waves cant traveler through a vacuum then at higher altitudes then radio waves would be weaker just like when we put a bell in a vacuum chamber and when we evacuate the air the sound gets quieter. this is not the case so you are wrong. quite simple relay. and this is ignoring the fact that light is the same as radio waves just at different parts of the spectrum.
The simple truth is, in peoples minds it all works, yet in reality it's poppy cock as far as I'm concerned.
in peoples minds? it works all around us with everything. show me an example of radio waves being weaker at higher altitudes.
I'm talking about the vacuum of space as we are told space is man.
-
yes but for radio waves not to work in a vacuum at all then at lower atmospheric pressures you will be able to see the effects at varying degrees depending on the altitude.
-
yes but for radio waves not to work in a vacuum at all then at lower atmospheric pressures you will be able to see the effects at varying degrees depending on the altitude.
It all goes back to deciding how high up into the atmosphere would render communication pointless and the only way we really know about communication at extreme altitudes, is in fictional man made objects supposedly sitting just above the atmosphere, apparently relaying signals all over the earth.
Look at the Astro liars on the studio moon. They have radio aerials on their backs, basically like a soldier radio operator in world war 2 or whatever and yet they are communicating to each other when in truth, it simply wouldn't work of they were really on the moon in a vacuum we are told it all is.
-
no sceptic. you are just wrong. shows us how radio waves don't work in a vacuum and until that point in time we will just as usually assume you are wrong.
-
If you want to know why your thermos stays hot, it's because it has a vacuum gap in between that stops radiated heat transferring through that vacuum gap.
The vacuum is there to prevent heat loss via convection. The silvered surfaces reduce the radiated heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask)
yes but for radio waves not to work in a vacuum at all then at lower atmospheric pressures you will be able to see the effects at varying degrees depending on the altitude.
It all goes back to deciding how high up into the atmosphere would render communication pointless and the only way we really know about communication at extreme altitudes, is in fictional man made objects supposedly sitting just above the atmosphere, apparently relaying signals all over the earth.
Look at the Astro liars on the studio moon. They have radio aerials on their backs, basically like a soldier radio operator in world war 2 or whatever and yet they are communicating to each other when in truth, it simply wouldn't work of they were really on the moon in a vacuum we are told it all is.
All of this from a man who doesn't know how a thermos flask works.
-
no sceptic. you are just wrong. shows us how radio waves don't work in a vacuum and until that point in time we will just as usually assume you are wrong.
You can assume I'm wrong about anything you want to, it's no skin off my nose. I don't expect you to accept anything I say whatsoever. I'm merely putting my own points across with how I view things and you are putting yours across because that's how they trained you.
It's just discussion and all that's happening here is, I'm gaining strength the more I get shot down, in terms of actually being more and more sure that it is all a big load of baloney and we are being lied to, so much it's hard to actually accept what will ever be really true, from what we can only view from afar in a look but don;t touch scenario.
-
If you want to know why your thermos stays hot, it's because it has a vacuum gap in between that stops radiated heat transferring through that vacuum gap.
The vacuum is there to prevent heat loss via convection. The silvered surfaces reduce the radiated heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask)
yes but for radio waves not to work in a vacuum at all then at lower atmospheric pressures you will be able to see the effects at varying degrees depending on the altitude.
It all goes back to deciding how high up into the atmosphere would render communication pointless and the only way we really know about communication at extreme altitudes, is in fictional man made objects supposedly sitting just above the atmosphere, apparently relaying signals all over the earth.
Look at the Astro liars on the studio moon. They have radio aerials on their backs, basically like a soldier radio operator in world war 2 or whatever and yet they are communicating to each other when in truth, it simply wouldn't work of they were really on the moon in a vacuum we are told it all is.
All of this from a man who doesn't know how a thermos flask works.
I'm sure you can do better than that for Pete's sake. ;D
-
The smart part of my brain tells me to not play in this game, but then the mischievous side wants to poke things...
What is the reason that this is not possible?
Because a vacuum holds nothing, it consists of nothing and is devoid of all matter. Nothing in communication could be sent through it to be received at the other side.
There's actually no such thing as a true vacuum in nature, but's let's keep this excercise simple.
Let's say we create a pure vacuum. Poof. Now there's nothing in the chamber we created. But there's no reason we can't put something in the vacuum. You can have a bit of matter surrounded by a vacuum. High school kids do this in experiments to prove that feathers and heavier objects fall at the same rate. Feathers only fall slower when there is air resistence.
Here's a video:
Feather and Ball Bearing Dropped in Vacuum (http://#)
So here we have objects in a vacuum. And... we have objects Moving through a vacuum.
If a ball bearing and a feather can move through a vacuum, there's no reason a radio wave cannot.
The reason you are thinking a radio wave cannot move through a vacuum is that you are thinking of the radio wave as something like a wave made of water. Physical waves need a medium to travel through. Electromagnetic waves (radio waves) do not. A physical wave pushes one bit of matter into the next. Electromagnetic waves "cause fluctuations in the magnetic and electric fields that permeate space-time."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Difference_between_mechanical_and_electromagnetic_waves (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Difference_between_mechanical_and_electromagnetic_waves)
Which sounds like voodoo, I know. But think about what would happen if radio waves needed to push matter to travel. Your radio would get pushed across the room everytime you turned it on.
-
Black claw. Here's your electromagnetic force.
Skip to about 5.50 onwards with this. Now I know you will come back with, "oh but it's moving air" this is not what I'm showing you. I'm showing you that in a vacuum, the electromagnetic force is useless.
Lifter Anti-Gravity Myth has been BUSTED 1 of 2 (http://#)
-
If you want to know why your thermos stays hot, it's because it has a vacuum gap in between that stops radiated heat transferring through that vacuum gap.
The vacuum is there to prevent heat loss via convection. The silvered surfaces reduce the radiated heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask)
yes but for radio waves not to work in a vacuum at all then at lower atmospheric pressures you will be able to see the effects at varying degrees depending on the altitude.
It all goes back to deciding how high up into the atmosphere would render communication pointless and the only way we really know about communication at extreme altitudes, is in fictional man made objects supposedly sitting just above the atmosphere, apparently relaying signals all over the earth.
Look at the Astro liars on the studio moon. They have radio aerials on their backs, basically like a soldier radio operator in world war 2 or whatever and yet they are communicating to each other when in truth, it simply wouldn't work of they were really on the moon in a vacuum we are told it all is.
All of this from a man who doesn't know how a thermos flask works.
I'm sure you can do better than that for Pete's sake. ;D
I have no need to. The workings of the thermos were something I remembered from my schooldays or 'brainwashing' as you would call it. If the vacuum does indeed prevent radiated heat there would be no need to silver the surfaces. I must conclude on the simple workings of a common object that heat can radiate across a vacuum.
This may be the difference between you and me. I'm quite happy to accept the expertise of others. The professor of physics knows more about physics than I do. The teacher of biology knows more about biology than I do. The Phd in mathematics knows more about mathematics than I do. I trust in this expertise, even if it is counter-intuitive, until I have hard evidence or sound reasons to disbelieve. I don't consider my intuition or my ignorance to be sufficient for disbelief.
Sceptimatic, you could be cleverer than me but if I have to choose between your opinion or that of an expert I'll choose the expert every time.
-
Mathsman. I have no qualms with what you go with and your maths and biology and whatever else will be based on sound principles, yet I'm not arguing against that. This is where people get me wrong.
My argument is not the math or equations adding up to whatever they add up to, it about how observations are made in space that start from one point and maths are used to fit everything else into it, which will obviously add up, yet it's all geared to fit in my honest opinion.
Just so you understand where I'm at.
The calculations for Moon, Sun, Saturn, Mars and you name it are based on a rotating earth model and calculating the time it takes whatever to orbit the the Sun and so on, and seasons are calculated into earths rotation, yet only because things are altered for the math to fit, as in, " wait a minute here, this is all fine and it adds up, yet earths seasons cannot fit into this calculation"......."well why don't we tilt the earth so many degrees to fit it in?"...."great idea, now we are getting somewhere."
"Oh but, now someone has mentioned the moon, how do we cater for this"..."hmmm, we shall have it rotating at 10 mph."
And so on and yet this is how it all works. Nobody can prove it wrong but common sense can question it for what it is, which is, 'in my opinion', a complete and utter fabrication.
-
but everything on that model fits what we observe. absolutely everything! and to make your accusations even weaker you offer no alternative coherent model to match and predict observations. what are we supposed to believe?
-
but everything on that model fits what we observe. absolutely everything! and to make your accusations even weaker you offer no alternative coherent model to match and predict observations. what are we supposed to believe?
You can believe what you want to.
Common sense tells you that you do not observe a 1040 mph rotating earth but we won't get into that...I'm just saying.
-
but everything on that model fits what we observe. absolutely everything! and to make your accusations even weaker you offer no alternative coherent model to match and predict observations. what are we supposed to believe?
You can believe what you want to.
Common sense tells you that you do not observe a 1040 mph rotating earth but we won't get into that...I'm just saying.
Not true. Our common sense tells us that it fits in quite nicely with what we observe in the sky. In that respect it is a successful theory. It may prove incorrect, and then we will move on. At least I will.
-
Hi again Sceptimatic.
I had a look at that video you posted of the Mythbusters, love that show.
Anyway, as Grant explains on the show (at the 5.50 mark) is that this levitation occurs because of the DC voltage ionising the air.
Obviously in a vacuum you cannot ionise the 'air' or anything else for the matter because there is nothing there.
With regards to the double glazing, if familiar with the stuff then I'm sure you are aware of vacuum insulated glazing which DOES have a vacuum between the panes of glass.
And finally, you are able to see through a vacuum (or into one) as shown in the Mythbusters episode, or any other video where a vacuum chamber is made. This is proof that electromagnetic radiation can propagate through vacuum conditions. (If it couldn't then you couldn't see these things as the light (an electromagnetic wave) would not be able to travel to your eyes.
-
but everything on that model fits what we observe. absolutely everything! and to make your accusations even weaker you offer no alternative coherent model to match and predict observations. what are we supposed to believe?
You can believe what you want to.
Common sense tells you that you do not observe a 1040 mph rotating earth but we won't get into that...I'm just saying.
Not true. Our common sense tells us that it fits in quite nicely with what we observe in the sky. In that respect it is a successful theory. It may prove incorrect, and then we will move on. At least I will.
It's a theory, yes and as far as being a successful one, it is only successful because we are force fed that theory as being the absolute truth and ridiculed for daring to have an alternative.
Our own balancing mechanisms in our bodies should be enough to tell us we are not rotating but like I say, all of our own senses are dulled to the point of backwardness in terms of accepting, "child like", anything told to us by someone who has been given letters next to his name who appears to have all the answers.
-
Hi again Sceptimatic.
I had a look at that video you posted of the Mythbusters, love that show.
Anyway, as Grant explains on the show (at the 5.50 mark) is that this levitation occurs because of the DC voltage ionising the air.
Obviously in a vacuum you cannot ionise the 'air' or anything else for the matter because there is nothing there.
With regards to the double glazing, if familiar with the stuff then I'm sure you are aware of vacuum insulated glazing which DOES have a vacuum between the panes of glass.
And finally, you are able to see through a vacuum (or into one) as shown in the Mythbusters episode, or any other video where a vacuum chamber is made. This is proof that electromagnetic radiation can propagate through vacuum conditions. (If it couldn't then you couldn't see these things as the light (an electromagnetic wave) would not be able to travel to your eyes.
It's all about how we view things.
I have no problem about seeing through a vacuum , I'm simply saying I don't believe we can communicate through a vacuum in terms of sending voice through to the other side to be discernible as a voice pattern.
-
but everything on that model fits what we observe. absolutely everything! and to make your accusations even weaker you offer no alternative coherent model to match and predict observations. what are we supposed to believe?
You can believe what you want to.
Common sense tells you that you do not observe a 1040 mph rotating earth but we won't get into that...I'm just saying.
Not true. Our common sense tells us that it fits in quite nicely with what we observe in the sky. In that respect it is a successful theory. It may prove incorrect, and then we will move on. At least I will.
It's a theory, yes and as far as being a successful one, it is only successful because we are force fed that theory as being the absolute truth and ridiculed for daring to have an alternative.
Our own balancing mechanisms in our bodies should be enough to tell us we are not rotating but like I say, all of our own senses are dulled to the point of backwardness in terms of accepting, "child like", anything told to us by someone who has been given letters next to his name who appears to have all the answers.
you say you are ridiculed for having a alternative view. but the problem is that you dont have an alternative view. you just say ours is wrong. remember your comment about not knowing how far the sun and moon are but ridicule the way we have measured it?
Also we are yet to see your calculations for the distance to the sun and the moon. Why don't you show us then? I mean you must have some seeing as you are so confident that we are wrong. So step up to the mark and tell us all. What are do your calculations show in relation to the distance to the sun and the moon?
It's impossible for me to calculate the distance, just as it's impossible for anyone to calculate it.
you say we are wrong but offer no alternative. bit of a weak point to argue from.
-
but everything on that model fits what we observe. absolutely everything! and to make your accusations even weaker you offer no alternative coherent model to match and predict observations. what are we supposed to believe?
You can believe what you want to.
Common sense tells you that you do not observe a 1040 mph rotating earth but we won't get into that...I'm just saying.
Not true. Our common sense tells us that it fits in quite nicely with what we observe in the sky. In that respect it is a successful theory. It may prove incorrect, and then we will move on. At least I will.
It's a theory, yes and as far as being a successful one, it is only successful because we are force fed that theory as being the absolute truth and ridiculed for daring to have an alternative.
Our own balancing mechanisms in our bodies should be enough to tell us we are not rotating but like I say, all of our own senses are dulled to the point of backwardness in terms of accepting, "child like", anything told to us by someone who has been given letters next to his name who appears to have all the answers.
you say you are ridiculed for having a alternative view. but the problem is that you dont have an alternative view. you just say ours is wrong. remember your comment about not knowing how far the sun and moon are but ridicule the way we have measured it?
Also we are yet to see your calculations for the distance to the sun and the moon. Why don't you show us then? I mean you must have some seeing as you are so confident that we are wrong. So step up to the mark and tell us all. What are do your calculations show in relation to the distance to the sun and the moon?
It's impossible for me to calculate the distance, just as it's impossible for anyone to calculate it.
you say we are wrong but offer no alternative. bit of a weak point to argue from.
I said "anyone" with an alternative view to the official line is ridiculed.
I don;t really mean you are wrong, I mean you are brainwashed into believing what you are told to believe.
-
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6555/pacmanrocket.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/pacmanrocket.png/)
Except the vacuum of space isn't a giant pacman monster waiting to suck the energy out of a rocket.... ::)
Do you see my pacman sucking?
Then how is the energy being reduced?
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
Because there's no friction beyond the atmosphere.
Truthfully, how do you know this?
You only know what you have been taught to know.
Because the vacuum is devoid of anything. You just said in an earlier post that the exhaust from a rocket won't be able to push against anything in a vacuum, so what's pushing against the rocket? ???
-
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6555/pacmanrocket.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/pacmanrocket.png/)
Except the vacuum of space isn't a giant pacman monster waiting to suck the energy out of a rocket.... ::)
Do you see my pacman sucking?
Then how is the energy being reduced?
The minute that rocket opened up it's valve to move, Mr pacman, (space) would just gobble it up as fast as it came out.
-
"If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite."
Please note that this is the 15th time you've side-stepped this question.
I've answered this the best way I can, haven't you been reading?
I said that the higher a rocket goes, the less weight it will be due to less weight in fuel.
I then said to you, how do you know it gains more efficiency in little or no atmosphere...as in, how do you know for certain that it does?
Because there's no friction beyond the atmosphere.
Truthfully, how do you know this?
You only know what you have been taught to know.
Because the vacuum is devoid of anything. You just said in an earlier post that the exhaust from a rocket won't be able to push against anything in a vacuum, so what's pushing against the rocket? ???
Nothing.
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
-
Scepticmatic is clearly laughing his ass off as he posts more and more rediculous stuff on here and sees the staunch roundies try to argue with it. I am calling a case of the hydrostatic priniciple of controversy on this one.
-
Black claw. Here's your electromagnetic force.
Skip to about 5.50 onwards with this. Now I know you will come back with, "oh but it's moving air" this is not what I'm showing you. I'm showing you that in a vacuum, the electromagnetic force is useless.
Lifter Anti-Gravity Myth has been BUSTED 1 of 2 (http://#)
What you showed me is that electromagnetic force cannot ionize air in a vacuum. Which is to be expected since there is no air in a vacuum, by definition. That has nothing to do with whether electromagnetic force itself can move through a vacuum.
If electromagnetic force required the presence of matter to travel, then you would physically feel that force everytime you turned on a radio because it would have to physically push its way to the radio.
The video I showed you, showed objects travelling through a vacuum. If a feather and a ball bearing can travel through a vacuum, then why can't a radio wave? What is your current objection?
-
Ok Sceptimaniac, have a look at this video:
Serial Data Transmission Over LASER (http://#ws)
You accept that light can traverse a vacuum but don't seem to think other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation can.
I've shown that some double glazing does have a vacuum and that anyone with such double glazing can still use their remote control to control their TV this way (the remote control is obviously sending communication data to the TV via the vacuum in the window.
As the video above demonstrates, not only can be utilize other wavelengths of EM radiation, but we can use light to transmit data too!
-
Scepticmatic is clearly laughing his ass off as he posts more and more rediculous stuff on here and sees the staunch roundies try to argue with it. I am calling a case of the hydrostatic priniciple of controversy on this one.
Indeed, he as much as admits it it either this thread or the one about stars and light speed. I would try to find the post but there's a lot of them to go through :)
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
No you haven't. It looks like I've stumped you here since you keep avoiding the question. I'm sure if you disagree you'd reply with the answer, but you never have. Could you do that? Just a quick summary?
-
1. Don't get sound waves and electromagnetic waves mixed up. Sound needs a medium to travel through, because it actually moves through particles in a longitudinal wave (Fun fact, if you hypothetically witnessed a supernova explosion from nearby, it would be completely silent). Electromagnetic waves don't need a medium, they are actual particles, not a 'wave' traveling through particles. A few pages ago shows you have them confused.
2. The very fact that we can see that balloon in the vacuum chamber video posted proves our point.
-
Scepticmatic is clearly laughing his ass off as he posts more and more rediculous stuff on here and sees the staunch roundies try to argue with it. I am calling a case of the hydrostatic priniciple of controversy on this one.
No. I'm simply putting my thoughts forward, whether it appears silly to others or not.
-
Black claw. Here's your electromagnetic force.
Skip to about 5.50 onwards with this. Now I know you will come back with, "oh but it's moving air" this is not what I'm showing you. I'm showing you that in a vacuum, the electromagnetic force is useless.
Lifter Anti-Gravity Myth has been BUSTED 1 of 2 (http://#)
What you showed me is that electromagnetic force cannot ionize air in a vacuum. Which is to be expected since there is no air in a vacuum, by definition. That has nothing to do with whether electromagnetic force itself can move through a vacuum.
If electromagnetic force required the presence of matter to travel, then you would physically feel that force everytime you turned on a radio because it would have to physically push its way to the radio.
The video I showed you, showed objects travelling through a vacuum. If a feather and a ball bearing can travel through a vacuum, then why can't a radio wave? What is your current objection?
My objection is, I do not believe waves can be sent through the vacuum of space and re-assembled at the other side as voice.
-
Ok Sceptimaniac, have a look at this video:
Serial Data Transmission Over LASER (http://#ws)
You accept that light can traverse a vacuum but don't seem to think other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation can.
I've shown that some double glazing does have a vacuum and that anyone with such double glazing can still use their remote control to control their TV this way (the remote control is obviously sending communication data to the TV via the vacuum in the window.
As the video above demonstrates, not only can be utilize other wavelengths of EM radiation, but we can use light to transmit data too!
What has this got to do with voice communication in a vacuum?
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
No you haven't. It looks like I've stumped you here since you keep avoiding the question. I'm sure if you disagree you'd reply with the answer, but you never have. Could you do that? Just a quick summary?
What exactly and I mean exactly have I not answered?
-
1. Don't get sound waves and electromagnetic waves mixed up. Sound needs a medium to travel through, because it actually moves through particles in a longitudinal wave (Fun fact, if you hypothetically witnessed a supernova explosion from nearby, it would be completely silent). Electromagnetic waves don't need a medium, they are actual particles, not a 'wave' traveling through particles. A few pages ago shows you have them confused.
2. The very fact that we can see that balloon in the vacuum chamber video posted proves our point.
To prove your point, all you need is to show me communication by voice through a vacuum.
-
1. Don't get sound waves and electromagnetic waves mixed up. Sound needs a medium to travel through, because it actually moves through particles in a longitudinal wave (Fun fact, if you hypothetically witnessed a supernova explosion from nearby, it would be completely silent). Electromagnetic waves don't need a medium, they are actual particles, not a 'wave' traveling through particles. A few pages ago shows you have them confused.
2. The very fact that we can see that balloon in the vacuum chamber video posted proves our point.
To prove your point, all you need is to show me communication by voice through a vacuum.
No I don't. I just showed you how it's possible. The gig's up scepi.
-
1. Don't get sound waves and electromagnetic waves mixed up. Sound needs a medium to travel through, because it actually moves through particles in a longitudinal wave (Fun fact, if you hypothetically witnessed a supernova explosion from nearby, it would be completely silent). Electromagnetic waves don't need a medium, they are actual particles, not a 'wave' traveling through particles. A few pages ago shows you have them confused.
2. The very fact that we can see that balloon in the vacuum chamber video posted proves our point.
To prove your point, all you need is to show me communication by voice through a vacuum.
No I don't. I just showed you how it's possible. The gig's up scepi.
There is no gig. I'm very sceptical of voice communication working in a vacuum.
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
No you haven't. It looks like I've stumped you here since you keep avoiding the question. I'm sure if you disagree you'd reply with the answer, but you never have. Could you do that? Just a quick summary?
What exactly and I mean exactly have I not answered?
Why is there an increase in thrust (and efficiency but I'm not asking that anymore) for a rocket engine when there is less air?
-
Well now you shouldn't be, considering we just explained in black and white terms how it works and know it works.
-
And yes, please stop avoiding his question.
-
My objection is, I do not believe waves can be sent through the vacuum of space and re-assembled at the other side as voice.
You do realize that air still contains a vacuum in between the atoms that make up air? There is no continuous line of atoms in a gas. How do radio waves pass from atom to atom across a vacuum?
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
No you haven't. It looks like I've stumped you here since you keep avoiding the question. I'm sure if you disagree you'd reply with the answer, but you never have. Could you do that? Just a quick summary?
What exactly and I mean exactly have I not answered?
Why is there an increase in thrust (and efficiency but I'm not asking that anymore) for a rocket engine when there is less air?
When have you seen this increase in thrust with less air?
-
Well now you shouldn't be, considering we just explained in black and white terms how it works and know it works.
You don't, "know" it works.
-
My objection is, I do not believe waves can be sent through the vacuum of space and re-assembled at the other side as voice.
You do realize that air still contains a vacuum in between the atoms that make up air? There is no continuous line of atoms in a gas. How do radio waves pass from atom to atom across a vacuum?
Prove to me that two people can talk to each other with radio back packs through a vacuum.That's all I'm asking. If you can do that, I'll accept I'm wrong.
-
Well now you shouldn't be, considering we just explained in black and white terms how it works and know it works.
You don't, "know" it works.
Actually I do, and so does everyone else except for you. So your welcome for the enlightenment.
And if i'm correct I believe he's talking about chamber tests where the can test it in a near vacuum and see increased efficiency.
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
No you haven't. It looks like I've stumped you here since you keep avoiding the question. I'm sure if you disagree you'd reply with the answer, but you never have. Could you do that? Just a quick summary?
What exactly and I mean exactly have I not answered?
Why is there an increase in thrust (and efficiency but I'm not asking that anymore) for a rocket engine when there is less air?
When have you seen this increase in thrust with less air?
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
No you haven't. It looks like I've stumped you here since you keep avoiding the question. I'm sure if you disagree you'd reply with the answer, but you never have. Could you do that? Just a quick summary?
What exactly and I mean exactly have I not answered?
Why is there an increase in thrust (and efficiency but I'm not asking that anymore) for a rocket engine when there is less air?
When have you seen this increase in thrust with less air?
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
And boom goes the dynamite.
-
Well now you shouldn't be, considering we just explained in black and white terms how it works and know it works.
You don't, "know" it works.
Actually I do, and so does everyone else except for you. So your welcome for the enlightenment.
And if i'm correct I believe he's talking about chamber tests where the can test it in a near vacuum and see increased efficiency.
I don't see anything. I don't even know it's in a vacuum.
-
Ok well you never answered my question and just ignored the fact that I said it being a vacuum is irrelevant, in fact I never posted a video. Could you please read this whole quote and then simply answer the question?:
Obviously you agree rockets work at ground level and a 'normal' amount of air, yes? Well, lets say they test it in a vacuum chamber. Now, you say that it won't be a full vacuum and , fine, I somewhat agree with you. However, there is definitely less air in there, yet more thrust and efficiency is produced.
According to your theory, less air would result in less thrust (although I'm not sure about efficiency so I won't ask that question anymore), so why is there an increase in thrust according to your theory?
Increase in thrust according to my theory?
Yes, there is an increase in thrust under those circumstances. I am asking you to explain why, using your theory that rockets need an atmosphere to work.
I've more than explained it. Read back.
No you haven't. It looks like I've stumped you here since you keep avoiding the question. I'm sure if you disagree you'd reply with the answer, but you never have. Could you do that? Just a quick summary?
What exactly and I mean exactly have I not answered?
Why is there an increase in thrust (and efficiency but I'm not asking that anymore) for a rocket engine when there is less air?
When have you seen this increase in thrust with less air?
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum. It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
-
My objection is, I do not believe waves can be sent through the vacuum of space and re-assembled at the other side as voice.
You do realize that air still contains a vacuum in between the atoms that make up air? There is no continuous line of atoms in a gas. How do radio waves pass from atom to atom across a vacuum?
Prove to me that two people can talk to each other with radio back packs through a vacuum.That's all I'm asking. If you can do that, I'll accept I'm wrong.
Answer the questions. How do radio waves get from atom to atom if the atoms never touch?
As for your statement. You already said light can go through a vacuum. So there is what you seek.
-
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum.
It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
^Directly from what you quoted.
Answer the question now.
-
My objection is, I do not believe waves can be sent through the vacuum of space and re-assembled at the other side as voice.
You do realize that air still contains a vacuum in between the atoms that make up air? There is no continuous line of atoms in a gas. How do radio waves pass from atom to atom across a vacuum?
Prove to me that two people can talk to each other with radio back packs through a vacuum.That's all I'm asking. If you can do that, I'll accept I'm wrong.
Answer the questions. How do radio waves get from atom to atom if the atoms never touch?
As for your statement. You already said light can go through a vacuum. So there is what you seek.
You don't make voice communication as in mimicking with light.
-
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum.
It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
^Directly from what you quoted.
Answer the question now.
Start again. Tell me what I am really supposed to be answering. Show me exactly what I'm missing here.
-
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum.
It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
^Directly from what you quoted.
Answer the question now.
Start again. Tell me what I am really supposed to be answering. Show me exactly what I'm missing here.
Why is there more thrust produced by a rocket in an environment with less air? According to your theory there should be less thrust produced.
Edit: I've literally wasted 30 posts on this one simple question btw.
-
You don't make voice communication as in mimicking with light.
What makes radio waves different than visible light waves?
-
Owned on three accounts.
1. We already proved how radio transmission is possible. Go back a page and read again because I'm not typing it out again.
2. Sokarul has a point, there is a vacuum between molecules, so how do we hear the radio in our car?
3. Near vacuum, vacuum, doesn't matter, they put rockets in these chambers and see increased efficiency. Stop with the denial.
N-no it c-c-can't be a vacuum, that would mean i'm w.......w...... wrong, can't be.....
-
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum.
It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
^Directly from what you quoted.
Answer the question now.
Start again. Tell me what I am really supposed to be answering. Show me exactly what I'm missing here.
Why is there more thrust produced by a rocket in an environment with less air? According to your theory there should be less thrust produced.
Edit: I've literally wasted 30 posts on this one simple question btw.
Where is this "more" thrust produced. Show me.
-
You don't make voice communication as in mimicking with light.
What makes radio waves different than visible light waves?
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
-
Owned on three accounts.
1. We already proved how radio transmission is possible. Go back a page and read again because I'm not typing it out again.You've proved nothing.
2. Sokarul has a point, there is a vacuum between molecules, so how do we hear the radio in our car?Because we are on earth.
3. Near vacuum, vacuum, doesn't matter, they put rockets in these chambers and see increased efficiency. Stop with the denial.They don't put rockets in vacuums.
N-no it c-c-can't be a vacuum, that would mean i'm w.......w...... wrong, can't be.....Correct.
-
You don't make voice communication as in mimicking with light.
What makes radio waves different than visible light waves?
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
You have no clue what radio and visible light waves even are. I hate to break it to you but radio waves are just like light waves, they just have a lower energy than visible light.
-
You don't make voice communication as in mimicking with light.
What makes radio waves different than visible light waves?
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
You have no clue what radio and visible light waves even are. I hate to break it to you but radio waves are just like light waves, they just have a lower energy than visible light.
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
-
As we all know. When you are talking between each other on your walkie talkies or even over the internet, you have to press a button to talk.
I'm wondering where the Astro liars talk buttons were when they were talking to each other and also talking to Richard Nixon on his "telephone" at the "White house."
How did the Astro liars manage to talk to earth with those little aerials on their back packs.
Did they have a frequency knob for speaking to earth and for speaking to each other on the moon?
Can anyone explain this?
-
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum.
It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
^Directly from what you quoted.
Answer the question now.
Start again. Tell me what I am really supposed to be answering. Show me exactly what I'm missing here.
Why is there more thrust produced by a rocket in an environment with less air? According to your theory there should be less thrust produced.
Edit: I've literally wasted 30 posts on this one simple question btw.
Where is this "more" thrust produced. Show me.
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
-
As we all know. When you are talking between each other on your walkie talkies or even over the internet, you have to press a button to talk.
I'm wondering where the Astro liars talk buttons were when they were talking to each other and also talking to Richard Nixon on his "telephone" at the "White house."
How did the Astro liars manage to talk to earth with those little aerials on their back packs.
Did they have a frequency knob for speaking to earth and for speaking to each other on the moon?
Can anyone explain this?
There may have been buttons, but they didn't need them. The button feature would have been 'always pressed' if you want to think of it like that.
-
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
He used a 2.2Ghz radio wave. Now answer my questions.
-
As we all know. When you are talking between each other on your walkie talkies or even over the internet, you have to press a button to talk.
I'm wondering where the Astro liars talk buttons were when they were talking to each other and also talking to Richard Nixon on his "telephone" at the "White house."
How did the Astro liars manage to talk to earth with those little aerials on their back packs.
Did they have a frequency knob for speaking to earth and for speaking to each other on the moon?
Can anyone explain this?
Call phones use radio waves just like radios do. They convert the analog signal (your voice) into a digital signal and transmit it to another device that converts the digital signal into an analog signal (your voice). Through space they operate on exactly the same premise.
-
As we all know. When you are talking between each other on your walkie talkies or even over the internet, you have to press a button to talk.
I'm wondering where the Astro liars talk buttons were when they were talking to each other and also talking to Richard Nixon on his "telephone" at the "White house."
How did the Astro liars manage to talk to earth with those little aerials on their back packs.
Did they have a frequency knob for speaking to earth and for speaking to each other on the moon?
Can anyone explain this?
There may have been buttons, but they didn't need them. The button feature would have been 'always pressed' if you want to think of it like that.
This is Neil Armstrong and we have landed on the moon.OVER.
President: This is the President speaking can you hear me? OVER.
Cackle cackle cackle.
President: This is the President, (talks to his aide), I think Neils' button is stuck on.
Neil Armstrong: This is Neil here, can anyone hear me. OVER.
President: Yes Neil, I can hear you on my phone at the White house for some reason, can you hear me ok. OVER.
Neil Armstrong: Will someone say something, I'm on the moon here and I'm beginning to feel isolated. OVER.
President: (speaks to his aide), the daft buggers left his button pressed on to talk and it must have jammed so he can't hear me speaking back, tell those guys at N'A'S'A to send up a flare.
-
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
He used a 2.2Ghz radio wave. Now answer my questions.
Who did? Nixon on his land line or Neil with his back pack aerial radio ?
-
As we all know. When you are talking between each other on your walkie talkies or even over the internet, you have to press a button to talk.
I'm wondering where the Astro liars talk buttons were when they were talking to each other and also talking to Richard Nixon on his "telephone" at the "White house."
How did the Astro liars manage to talk to earth with those little aerials on their back packs.
Did they have a frequency knob for speaking to earth and for speaking to each other on the moon?
Can anyone explain this?
Call phones use radio waves just like radios do. They convert the analog signal (your voice) into a digital signal and transmit it to another device that converts the digital signal into an analog signal (your voice). Through space they operate on exactly the same premise.
All the way through the atmosphere to the moon and directly into Neils aerial on his back pack eh?
-
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
He used a 2.2Ghz radio wave. Now answer my questions.
Who did? Nixon on his land line or Neil with his back pack aerial radio ?
It would be both. Do you have a point yet? Did you think up a reason that a radio wave can jump from one atom to another atom but not cross a vacuum?
-
Don't forget this:
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum.
It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
^Directly from what you quoted.
Answer the question now.
Start again. Tell me what I am really supposed to be answering. Show me exactly what I'm missing here.
Why is there more thrust produced by a rocket in an environment with less air? According to your theory there should be less thrust produced.
Edit: I've literally wasted 30 posts on this one simple question btw.
Where is this "more" thrust produced. Show me.
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
-
Was Richard Nixon using light waves to talk to Neil Armstrong on the moon from his phone at the white house?
He used a 2.2Ghz radio wave. Now answer my questions.
Who did? Nixon on his land line or Neil with his back pack aerial radio ?
It would be both. Do you have a point yet? Did you think up a reason that a radio wave can jump from one atom to another atom but not cross a vacuum?
The radio wave can do what it likes jumping onto atoms but it won;t be jumping on any through the vacuum of space to Neils back pack aerial.
-
Don't forget this:
Don't beat around the bush and just answer the freaking question. You know very well that I've explained it is observed in tests in vacuum chambers and on the rockets themselves. Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
It's not a vacuum.
It cannot be a vacuum, so what am I really seeing?
Before you reply it's not a true vacuum you should know its in situations with less air in general.
^Directly from what you quoted.
Answer the question now.
Start again. Tell me what I am really supposed to be answering. Show me exactly what I'm missing here.
Why is there more thrust produced by a rocket in an environment with less air? According to your theory there should be less thrust produced.
Edit: I've literally wasted 30 posts on this one simple question btw.
Where is this "more" thrust produced. Show me.
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
How do you know that there is more thrust with less air. What have you seen to verify this?
-
The radio wave can do what it likes jumping onto atoms but it won;t be jumping on any through the vacuum of space to Neils back pack aerial.
You just contradicted yourself. The radio wave goes through nothing to get from one atom to another but It can't go through nothing to get from one atom to another. Nice.
-
The radio wave can do what it likes jumping onto atoms but it won;t be jumping on any through the vacuum of space to Neils back pack aerial.
You just contradicted yourself. The radio wave goes through nothing to get from one atom to another but It can't go through nothing to get from one atom to another. Nice.
I don't think I have contradicted myself at all.
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
How do you know that there is more thrust with less air. What have you seen to verify this?
Answer the question, you know I've answered that 5+ times.
-
The radio wave can do what it likes jumping onto atoms but it won;t be jumping on any through the vacuum of space to Neils back pack aerial.
You just contradicted yourself. The radio wave goes through nothing to get from one atom to another but It can't go through nothing to get from one atom to another. Nice.
I don't think I have contradicted myself at all.
You said radiowaves can't travel in a vacuum but they can travel from one atom to another through a vacuum.
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
How do you know that there is more thrust with less air. What have you seen to verify this?
Answer the question, you know I've answered that 5+ times.
Right. It seems like we are going around in circles here, so to save us doing it again, what proof have you seen of this thrust in an airless or virtually airless environment, that's all I'm asking and once you show me and explain, I can then maybe provide you with some kind of answer.
If not, then I suggest you don't keep going on about it.
-
The radio wave can do what it likes jumping onto atoms but it won;t be jumping on any through the vacuum of space to Neils back pack aerial.
You just contradicted yourself. The radio wave goes through nothing to get from one atom to another but It can't go through nothing to get from one atom to another. Nice.
I don't think I have contradicted myself at all.
You said radiowaves can't travel in a vacuum but they can travel from one atom to another through a vacuum.
No I didn't.
-
You said radiowaves can't travel in a vacuum but they can travel from one atom to another through a vacuum.
No I didn't.
The radio wave can do what it likes jumping onto atoms but it won;t be jumping on any through the vacuum of space to Neils back pack aerial.
There is nothing between atoms, it's like a small vacuum. Do you understand?
-
You said radiowaves can't travel in a vacuum but they can travel from one atom to another through a vacuum.
No I didn't.
The radio wave can do what it likes jumping onto atoms but it won;t be jumping on any through the vacuum of space to Neils back pack aerial.
There is nothing between atoms, it's like a small vacuum. Do you understand?
Show me these atoms.
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
How do you know that there is more thrust with less air. What have you seen to verify this?
Answer the question, you know I've answered that 5+ times.
Right. It seems like we are going around in circles here, so to save us doing it again, what proof have you seen of this thrust in an airless or virtually airless environment, that's all I'm asking and once you show me and explain, I can then maybe provide you with some kind of answer.
If not, then I suggest you don't keep going on about it.
That's the way rockets work. It's proven in vacuum chambers and in rockets themselves, like I've said. Obviously you're driving this argument in circles and you know it.
I'm waiiiiiting.
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
How do you know that there is more thrust with less air. What have you seen to verify this?
Answer the question, you know I've answered that 5+ times.
Right. It seems like we are going around in circles here, so to save us doing it again, what proof have you seen of this thrust in an airless or virtually airless environment, that's all I'm asking and once you show me and explain, I can then maybe provide you with some kind of answer.
If not, then I suggest you don't keep going on about it.
That's the way rockets work. It's proven in vacuum chambers and in rockets themselves, like I've said. Obviously you're driving this argument in circles and you know it.
I'm waiiiiiting.
Show me the proof and the better thrust in this vacuum chamber.
-
Show me these atoms.
You changed the argument because you saw you were wrong.
-
Show me these atoms.
You changed the argument because you saw you were wrong.
I haven't changed any argument. I'm asking you to show me these atoms with a supposed vacuum in between them.
-
I haven't changed any argument. I'm asking you to show me these atoms with a supposed vacuum in between them.
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6555/pacmanrocket.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/pacmanrocket.png/)
See in your own picture how the fuel from the rocket(you colored it blue) is not solid. You agree that with me that a gas in not a solid.
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
How do you know that there is more thrust with less air. What have you seen to verify this?
Answer the question, you know I've answered that 5+ times.
Right. It seems like we are going around in circles here, so to save us doing it again, what proof have you seen of this thrust in an airless or virtually airless environment, that's all I'm asking and once you show me and explain, I can then maybe provide you with some kind of answer.
If not, then I suggest you don't keep going on about it.
That's the way rockets work. It's proven in vacuum chambers and in rockets themselves, like I've said. Obviously you're driving this argument in circles and you know it.
I'm waiiiiiting.
Show me the proof and the better thrust in this vacuum chamber.
Didn't I just tell you????
-
It was simply a colour, it was meant only to show the fuel coming out of the rocket at speed, that's why I put the man there shouting last man out stinks, as in, the fuel in a race to get out and as fast as the fuel comes out, Mr Pacman swallows it all up.
-
Don't forget this:
That makes no sense. There is more thrust with less air and that's that. It seems to me like you have 2 options:
1. Answer the question or
2. Admit you were wrong about how rockets work.
It's as simple as that, you decide.
Are you saying there is more thrust with less air?
Yes, just like I've said many times, and I eagerly await your answer once more.
How do you know that there is more thrust with less air. What have you seen to verify this?
Answer the question, you know I've answered that 5+ times.
Right. It seems like we are going around in circles here, so to save us doing it again, what proof have you seen of this thrust in an airless or virtually airless environment, that's all I'm asking and once you show me and explain, I can then maybe provide you with some kind of answer.
If not, then I suggest you don't keep going on about it.
That's the way rockets work. It's proven in vacuum chambers and in rockets themselves, like I've said. Obviously you're driving this argument in circles and you know it.
I'm waiiiiiting.
Show me the proof and the better thrust in this vacuum chamber.
Didn't I just tell you????
Show me the proof and the better thrust in this vacuum chamber.
-
It was simply a colour, it was meant only to show the fuel coming out of the rocket at speed, that's why I put the man there shouting last man out stinks, as in, the fuel in a race to get out and as fast as the fuel comes out, Mr Pacman swallows it all up.
I do not need to prove there is a difference among gases, liquids, and solids.
Now show evidence on how a radio wave can cross a gap of nothing but can't cross the nothingness of a vacuum.
-
It was simply a colour, it was meant only to show the fuel coming out of the rocket at speed, that's why I put the man there shouting last man out stinks, as in, the fuel in a race to get out and as fast as the fuel comes out, Mr Pacman swallows it all up.
I do not need to prove there is a difference among gases, liquids, and solids.
Now show evidence on how a radio wave can cross a gap of nothing but can't cross the nothingness of a vacuum.
I can't. Just as you cannot directly prove that Nixon was talking to Armstrong from the White house to the moon.
The same as you cannot prove people on earth can communicate with anything in space.
You also cannot prove what space actually is, yet you can pretend you do by reading books and such that tells you about the vacuum and the light year stars etc.
-
ok here we go...
lets go back to the image you said was vague;
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/howrocketworks_zps0d9e6655.png)
this explains what is happening. a rocket is not powered directly by the heat coming out. it is propelled by the forces acting on the INSIDE of the rocket.
before you say lalalala this is from rocket scientists, you know the people who study AND make rockets.
so why would it work better in a vacuum?
the main reason would be the lack of friction for a start.
the other point is what i really wanted to raise. you say space (as you are told it is, i know the line...) would suck all the heat out and it wouldnt work. well in actual fact this would only increase the pressure and make it go faster. thats why they work better when there is less air or none at all.
i always thought it was moving because the exhaust, however after seeing that image i thought about it and did some research and well what do ya know. you are wrong about something again!
the picture was never vague, it is quite accurate.
there is no reason as to why they wouldnt work in a vacuum until PROVEN otherwise.
im pretty sure you knew all this anyway, i think most of us just think you say what you say for attention . fair enough it works, just say things people strongly disagree with or know that its a load of shit and you get all the attention you need from strangers on the internet.
-
in reflection to my previous post its no wonder the balloons didnt move too. there was equal forces on both ends. more proof right there.
-
That sounds like a good idea, brother hoppy. You should record it on YouTube and post it in the Information Repository.
-
yeah i heard thats where the rubbish goes.
-
ok here we go...
lets go back to the image you said was vague;
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/howrocketworks_zps0d9e6655.png)
this explains what is happening. a rocket is not powered directly by the heat coming out. it is propelled by the forces acting on the INSIDE of the rocket.
before you say lalalala this is from rocket scientists, you know the people who study AND make rockets.
so why would it work better in a vacuum?
the main reason would be the lack of friction for a start.
the other point is what i really wanted to raise. you say space (as you are told it is, i know the line...) would suck all the heat out and it wouldnt work. well in actual fact this would only increase the pressure and make it go faster. thats why they work better when there is less air or none at all.
i always thought it was moving because the exhaust, however after seeing that image i thought about it and did some research and well what do ya know. you are wrong about something again!
the picture was never vague, it is quite accurate.
there is no reason as to why they wouldnt work in a vacuum until PROVEN otherwise.
im pretty sure you knew all this anyway, i think most of us just think you say what you say for attention . fair enough it works, just say things people strongly disagree with or know that its a load of shit and you get all the attention you need from strangers on the internet.
Here's a clue. I came on here with the name"sceptimatic"..this should tell you that I'm a very sceptical person.
Every person who comes and posts on this forum is vying to put their point across to gain attention to see what counter arguing or possible like minded thoughts can be of it.
Anyway back to your rocket.
If what you say about the heat not having anything to do with the rockets movement, then why ignite it at all?
If the heat coming out of the back is of no value, then there is no need for ignition at any stage, which as we all know would be silly.
-
Scepti, I thought of an experiment to help your rocket theory. I need to buy the ballons before I can do it. Previously you said you did the ballon with straw and the balloon did not move. If you tape a paper to the straw that acts as the nozzle exit of a rocket engine. If the straw and balloon move with nozzle attached , it would show.that the movement is generated by the force of the fuel reacting to hitting the nozzle. It will prove that the movement is not from the propellent exiting the vessel only, as your straw experiment did. Both experiments taken together should prove your rocket theory.
What do you thinkż
Give that a try and tell me what happens with it.
-
Do you remember where your experiment is describefż
-
yeah i heard thats where the rubbish goes.
It's where the important research goes. There is a wealth of valuable information there.
-
Do you remember where your experiment is describefż
Mine was based on a vacuum.
I will re draw what I did tomorrow sometime and show you, as I seem to have lost the drawing, although it will be in one of these threads somewhere.
-
ok here we go...
lets go back to the image you said was vague;
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/howrocketworks_zps0d9e6655.png)
this explains what is happening. a rocket is not powered directly by the heat coming out. it is propelled by the forces acting on the INSIDE of the rocket.
before you say lalalala this is from rocket scientists, you know the people who study AND make rockets.
so why would it work better in a vacuum?
the main reason would be the lack of friction for a start.
the other point is what i really wanted to raise. you say space (as you are told it is, i know the line...) would suck all the heat out and it wouldnt work. well in actual fact this would only increase the pressure and make it go faster. thats why they work better when there is less air or none at all.
i always thought it was moving because the exhaust, however after seeing that image i thought about it and did some research and well what do ya know. you are wrong about something again!
the picture was never vague, it is quite accurate.
there is no reason as to why they wouldnt work in a vacuum until PROVEN otherwise.
im pretty sure you knew all this anyway, i think most of us just think you say what you say for attention . fair enough it works, just say things people strongly disagree with or know that its a load of shit and you get all the attention you need from strangers on the internet.
Here's a clue. I came on here with the name"sceptimatic"..this should tell you that I'm a very sceptical person.
Every person who comes and posts on this forum is vying to put their point across to gain attention to see what counter arguing or possible like minded thoughts can be of it.
Anyway back to your rocket.
If what you say about the heat not having anything to do with the rockets movement, then why ignite it at all?
If the heat coming out of the back is of no value, then there is no need for ignition at any stage, which as we all know would be silly.
it ignites because increasing the temperature increases the pressure and that makes it move faster.
-
Do you remember where your experiment is describefż
Several times in throughout 50 some-odd pages of his 'light years' thread.
An inflated balloon with a straw inserted with an empty balloon on the other end that he claims as 'the vacuum' which prevents the inflated balloon from moving when the air is released.
Scepti claims this the the proof that rockets won't work in space.
I shouldn't have to point out the problems with this experiment and why it proves nothing.
-
ok here we go...
lets go back to the image you said was vague;
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/howrocketworks_zps0d9e6655.png)
this explains what is happening. a rocket is not powered directly by the heat coming out. it is propelled by the forces acting on the INSIDE of the rocket.
before you say lalalala this is from rocket scientists, you know the people who study AND make rockets.
so why would it work better in a vacuum?
the main reason would be the lack of friction for a start.
the other point is what i really wanted to raise. you say space (as you are told it is, i know the line...) would suck all the heat out and it wouldnt work. well in actual fact this would only increase the pressure and make it go faster. thats why they work better when there is less air or none at all.
i always thought it was moving because the exhaust, however after seeing that image i thought about it and did some research and well what do ya know. you are wrong about something again!
the picture was never vague, it is quite accurate.
there is no reason as to why they wouldnt work in a vacuum until PROVEN otherwise.
im pretty sure you knew all this anyway, i think most of us just think you say what you say for attention . fair enough it works, just say things people strongly disagree with or know that its a load of shit and you get all the attention you need from strangers on the internet.
Here's a clue. I came on here with the name"sceptimatic"..this should tell you that I'm a very sceptical person.
Every person who comes and posts on this forum is vying to put their point across to gain attention to see what counter arguing or possible like minded thoughts can be of it.
Anyway back to your rocket.
If what you say about the heat not having anything to do with the rockets movement, then why ignite it at all?
If the heat coming out of the back is of no value, then there is no need for ignition at any stage, which as we all know would be silly.
it ignites because increasing the temperature increases the pressure and that makes it move faster.
Furthermore, the heat produced is wasted energy in terms of propulsion. But you cannot get the kinetic energy out of the rocket system without the heat, so you have to live with some waste.
-
today we are rocket scientists, who knows what tomorrow will bring!?
i await septiks debunking tomorrow. or poor attempt to say how wrong it is.
i love how it explains how the balloon experiment doesnt work too.
-
today we are rocket scientists, who knows what tomorrow will bring!?
Like I said in the 'stars and lightyears' thread awhile back, I know more now about how rockets work than before that thread.
-
I await your response to the fact that you said electromagnetic waves can't travel through a vacuum, yet it is quite obvious we can still see things we put in vacuum chambers. Therefore light is reflecting off of them into your eyes, therefore light is travelling through the vacuum, therefore how many times do we have to tell you this.
(http://www.darvill.clara.net/emag/images/scale.jpg)
-
And again don't get sound waves moving THROUGH particles mixed up with electromagnetic 'waves' which are actual particles that travel. They don't need a medium.
Also answer the rocket question, increased thrust is observed with rockets in vacuum chambers. This is a fact. There is no debate. So now you have to explain it.
ALSO, why don't you just put a cellphone in a vacuum chamber and try to call it to prove us wrong?
-
today we are rocket scientists, who knows what tomorrow will bring!?
Like I said in the 'stars and lightyears' thread awhile back, I know more now about how rockets work than before that thread.
Yeah it's interesting what you can get out of the forum. I never put much thought into them before.
-
Do you remember where your experiment is describefż
Several times in throughout 50 some-odd pages of his 'light years' thread.
An inflated balloon with a straw inserted with an empty balloon on the other end that he claims as 'the vacuum' which prevents the inflated balloon from moving when the air is released.
Scepti claims this the the proof that rockets won't work in space.
I shouldn't have to point out the problems with this experiment and why it proves nothing.
Many experiments create problems and I'm trying to think of a better way to prove or disprove it, yet the only real clincher would be to go into space and see it for myself, yet because this is unrealistic, I have to figure out a better way.
-
ok here we go...
lets go back to the image you said was vague;
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/howrocketworks_zps0d9e6655.png)
this explains what is happening. a rocket is not powered directly by the heat coming out. it is propelled by the forces acting on the INSIDE of the rocket.
before you say lalalala this is from rocket scientists, you know the people who study AND make rockets.
so why would it work better in a vacuum?
the main reason would be the lack of friction for a start.
the other point is what i really wanted to raise. you say space (as you are told it is, i know the line...) would suck all the heat out and it wouldnt work. well in actual fact this would only increase the pressure and make it go faster. thats why they work better when there is less air or none at all.
i always thought it was moving because the exhaust, however after seeing that image i thought about it and did some research and well what do ya know. you are wrong about something again!
the picture was never vague, it is quite accurate.
there is no reason as to why they wouldnt work in a vacuum until PROVEN otherwise.
im pretty sure you knew all this anyway, i think most of us just think you say what you say for attention . fair enough it works, just say things people strongly disagree with or know that its a load of shit and you get all the attention you need from strangers on the internet.
Here's a clue. I came on here with the name"sceptimatic"..this should tell you that I'm a very sceptical person.
Every person who comes and posts on this forum is vying to put their point across to gain attention to see what counter arguing or possible like minded thoughts can be of it.
Anyway back to your rocket.
If what you say about the heat not having anything to do with the rockets movement, then why ignite it at all?
If the heat coming out of the back is of no value, then there is no need for ignition at any stage, which as we all know would be silly.
it ignites because increasing the temperature increases the pressure and that makes it move faster.
Furthermore, the heat produced is wasted energy in terms of propulsion. But you cannot get the kinetic energy out of the rocket system without the heat, so you have to live with some waste.
I don't see why.
-
today we are rocket scientists, who knows what tomorrow will bring!?
i await septiks debunking tomorrow. or poor attempt to say how wrong it is.
i love how it explains how the balloon experiment doesnt work too.
We are all smugly arrogant in our ways to prove and disprove something and we all are trying to finds ways of proving one another wrong. In my case it's more brain busting trying to answer a number of people on my own but I try.
-
today we are rocket scientists, who knows what tomorrow will bring!?
Like I said in the 'stars and lightyears' thread awhile back, I know more now about how rockets work than before that thread.
Well, if you feel you are getting something out of it, it can't be a bad thing, even though you could be looking at it the wrong way maybe.
-
I await your response to the fact that you said electromagnetic waves can't travel through a vacuum, yet it is quite obvious we can still see things we put in vacuum chambers. Therefore light is reflecting off of them into your eyes, therefore light is travelling through the vacuum, therefore how many times do we have to tell you this.
(http://www.darvill.clara.net/emag/images/scale.jpg)
I'm not convinced, yet I cannot discount anything. I await some real proof.
-
And again don't get sound waves moving THROUGH particles mixed up with electromagnetic 'waves' which are actual particles that travel. They don't need a medium.
Also answer the rocket question, increased thrust is observed with rockets in vacuum chambers. This is a fact. There is no debate. So now you have to explain it.
ALSO, why don't you just put a cellphone in a vacuum chamber and try to call it to prove us wrong?
The cell phone inside a vacuum chamber would be an excellent idea. I wonder if there are any experiments done on this?
-
I await your response to the fact that you said electromagnetic waves can't travel through a vacuum, yet it is quite obvious we can still see things we put in vacuum chambers. Therefore light is reflecting off of them into your eyes, therefore light is travelling through the vacuum, therefore how many times do we have to tell you this.
(http://www.darvill.clara.net/emag/images/scale.jpg)
I'm not convinced, yet I cannot discount anything. I await some real proof.
What would you consider to be real proof?
-
I await your response to the fact that you said electromagnetic waves can't travel through a vacuum, yet it is quite obvious we can still see things we put in vacuum chambers. Therefore light is reflecting off of them into your eyes, therefore light is travelling through the vacuum, therefore how many times do we have to tell you this.
(http://www.darvill.clara.net/emag/images/scale.jpg)
I'm not convinced, yet I cannot discount anything. I await some real proof.
What would you consider to be real proof?
Maybe mimicking the Apollo Astro liars talking to each other on the moon, maybe 10 feet away from each other.
How can this be achieved?
Well the best way I can think of would be to use two mobile phones, one put inside a balloon with air inside it, plus a small recorder inside it , taped to the ear piece of the phone, with the phone on answer mode, then put all that inside a vacuum chamber, then talk through the other phone that is in the room and see if the voice is recorded on the phone inside the vacuum chamber when it is released.
If something like this was done, I'll hold my hands up and accept I'm wrong.
Or
Something similar on these lines.
If I had a vacuum chamber I'd love to do this.
Does any independent person...i.e , someone who is open minded about this, who has the means to perform this experiment?
-
Can I just check though, do you think that visible light is not a form of electromagnetic radiation in a very narrow wavelength that we can just happen to see?
-
when will you understand that you don't need to. do you not except that light and radio waves are the same thing? or do you think they are completely unrelated ? cant you see that a object in a vacuum chamber can be seen once evacuated with air. is this not proof enough?
-
Can I just check though, do you think that visible light is not a form of electromagnetic radiation in a very narrow wavelength that we can just happen to see?
I don't know.
-
when will you understand that you don't need to. do you not except that light and radio waves are the same thing? or do you think they are completely unrelated ? cant you see that a object in a vacuum chamber can be seen once evacuated with air. is this not proof enough?
If I keep my mouth closed, can I have a conversation with you by looking at you or shining a torch into your eyes?
-
when will you understand that you don't need to. do you not except that light and radio waves are the same thing? or do you think they are completely unrelated ? cant you see that a object in a vacuum chamber can be seen once evacuated with air. is this not proof enough?
If I keep my mouth closed, can I have a conversation with you by looking at you or shining a torch into your eyes?
yes Morse code.
but please answer my question do you think they are different things completely unrelated?
-
when will you understand that you don't need to. do you not except that light and radio waves are the same thing? or do you think they are completely unrelated ? cant you see that a object in a vacuum chamber can be seen once evacuated with air. is this not proof enough?
If I keep my mouth closed, can I have a conversation with you by looking at you or shining a torch into your eyes?
yes Morse code.
but please answer my question do you think they are different things completely unrelated?
I'm trying to keep what I say simplistic, as you know, I'm a simple guy with questions.
I am asking about the "VOICE" as in the vibrations that result in one voice being transmitted to another appliance, that a person can hear and distinguish it as the voice they know of the person they physically hear from their own mouth without an appliance.
Now I know this can be done in an atmosphere and I want to know if it can be done through a vacuum and that's all I want to know.
I've put up an experiment that I think would go a long way into making me satisfied one way or the other and I wonder if anyone has the means to perform this experiment...not you by the way. No offence.
-
if you want thinks simplistic then why are you making it complicated. simple question requiring a yes no answer. do you think that light waves and radio waves are different things.
-
if you want thinks simplistic then why are you making it complicated. simple question requiring a yes no answer. do you think that light waves and radio waves are different things.
Yes, in frequency.
-
if you want thinks simplistic then why are you making it complicated. simple question requiring a yes no answer. do you think that light waves and radio waves are different things.
Yes, in frequency.
so what does frequency have to do with its ability to travel through a vacuum?
-
when will you understand that you don't need to. do you not except that light and radio waves are the same thing? or do you think they are completely unrelated ? cant you see that a object in a vacuum chamber can be seen once evacuated with air. is this not proof enough?
If I keep my mouth closed, can I have a conversation with you by looking at you or shining a torch into your eyes?
yes Morse code.
but please answer my question do you think they are different things completely unrelated?
I'm trying to keep what I say simplistic, as you know, I'm a simple guy with questions.
I am asking about the "VOICE" as in the vibrations that result in one voice being transmitted to another appliance, that a person can hear and distinguish it as the voice they know of the person they physically hear from their own mouth without an appliance.
Now I know this can be done in an atmosphere and I want to know if it can be done through a vacuum and that's all I want to know.
I've put up an experiment that I think would go a long way into making me satisfied one way or the other and I wonder if anyone has the means to perform this experiment...not you by the way. No offence.
I had to read this a few times as you seem to be confusing sounds waves and radio waves and assuming they work in the same way.
-
if you want thinks simplistic then why are you making it complicated. simple question requiring a yes no answer. do you think that light waves and radio waves are different things.
Yes, in frequency.
so what does frequency have to do with its ability to travel through a vacuum?
I don't know. I want to find out How it's possible for Neil Armstrong to receive a signal from earth to the aerial on his back pack to his ear piece and also how he communicated back from that very same back pack.
You obviously cannot answer it, so I'll see if anyone else can.
I'd just like to know how the voice travels through the atmosphere, then into space, then 240,000 supposed miles to the moon to hit Armstrongs back pack radio antenna, and as to how he communicates back from the very same back pack.
What kind of batteries would allow that anyway and what strength would be needed to transmit from a back pack from 240,000 miles.
-
when will you understand that you don't need to. do you not except that light and radio waves are the same thing? or do you think they are completely unrelated ? cant you see that a object in a vacuum chamber can be seen once evacuated with air. is this not proof enough?
If I keep my mouth closed, can I have a conversation with you by looking at you or shining a torch into your eyes?
yes Morse code.
but please answer my question do you think they are different things completely unrelated?
I'm trying to keep what I say simplistic, as you know, I'm a simple guy with questions.
I am asking about the "VOICE" as in the vibrations that result in one voice being transmitted to another appliance, that a person can hear and distinguish it as the voice they know of the person they physically hear from their own mouth without an appliance.
Now I know this can be done in an atmosphere and I want to know if it can be done through a vacuum and that's all I want to know.
I've put up an experiment that I think would go a long way into making me satisfied one way or the other and I wonder if anyone has the means to perform this experiment...not you by the way. No offence.
I had to read this a few times as you seem to be confusing sounds waves and radio waves and assuming they work in the same way.
I'm simply asking a question of how a vibrating sound from one end can be sent through the atmosphere, into space and onto the moon to be heard and also how that back pack sent it back from that small aerial.
I don't profess to know it all, I'm asking questions.
-
Sceptimatic, do you mind having a read about how a radio works before we continue?
-
Sceptimatic, do you mind having a read about how a radio works before we continue?
I know how a radio works. I want to know how they worked on the moon in 1969.
-
I'm simply asking a question of how a vibrating sound from one end can be sent through the atmosphere, into space and onto the moon to be heard and also how that back pack sent it back from that small aerial.
I don't profess to know it all, I'm asking questions.
Radio waves are not "vibrating sound waves." You are still thinking that radio waves are mechanical (physical) waves. They are not.
Until you understand the difference between mechanical and electromagnetic waves, you will not be able to understand the answer to your question.
1. Electromagnetic waves travel in a vacuum whereas mechanical waves do not.
2. The ripples made in a pool of water after a stone is thrown in the middle are an example of mechanical wave. Examples of electromagnetic waves include light and radio signals.
3. Mechanical waves are caused by wave amplitude and not by frequency. Electromagnetic Waves are produced by vibration of the charged particles.
4. While an electromagnetic wave is called just a disturbance, a mechanical wave is considered a periodic disturbance.
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/ (http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/)
-
This is the experiment I'd like someone to do, if they have the equipment.
This would mimic someone from earth (outside phone in diagram) talking to an Astronaut through space and then through his air pressure suit to his ears.
If the phone inside the air filled balloon hears the "hello" from outside, the tape will then record that"hello", so when the tape is recovered, if it indeed records hello, then I am wrong about communication in space.
If it does not record, then I am correct. Fair enough?
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1521/cellphoneinvacuum.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/cellphoneinvacuum.png/)
-
I'm simply asking a question of how a vibrating sound from one end can be sent through the atmosphere, into space and onto the moon to be heard and also how that back pack sent it back from that small aerial.
I don't profess to know it all, I'm asking questions.
Radio waves are not "vibrating sound waves." You are still thinking that radio waves are mechanical (physical) waves. They are not.
Until you understand the difference between mechanical and electromagnetic waves, you will not be able to understand the answer to your question.
1. Electromagnetic waves travel in a vacuum whereas mechanical waves do not.
2. The ripples made in a pool of water after a stone is thrown in the middle are an example of mechanical wave. Examples of electromagnetic waves include light and radio signals.
3. Mechanical waves are caused by wave amplitude and not by frequency. Electromagnetic Waves are produced by vibration of the charged particles.
4. While an electromagnetic wave is called just a disturbance, a mechanical wave is considered a periodic disturbance.
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/ (http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/)
The experiment above this should verify it I think.
-
I'm simply asking a question of how a vibrating sound from one end can be sent through the atmosphere, into space and onto the moon to be heard and also how that back pack sent it back from that small aerial.
I don't profess to know it all, I'm asking questions.
Radio waves are not "vibrating sound waves." You are still thinking that radio waves are mechanical (physical) waves. They are not.
Until you understand the difference between mechanical and electromagnetic waves, you will not be able to understand the answer to your question.
1. Electromagnetic waves travel in a vacuum whereas mechanical waves do not.
2. The ripples made in a pool of water after a stone is thrown in the middle are an example of mechanical wave. Examples of electromagnetic waves include light and radio signals.
3. Mechanical waves are caused by wave amplitude and not by frequency. Electromagnetic Waves are produced by vibration of the charged particles.
4. While an electromagnetic wave is called just a disturbance, a mechanical wave is considered a periodic disturbance.
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/ (http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/)
The experiment above this should verify it I think.
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
-
I'm simply asking a question of how a vibrating sound from one end can be sent through the atmosphere, into space and onto the moon to be heard and also how that back pack sent it back from that small aerial.
I don't profess to know it all, I'm asking questions.
Radio waves are not "vibrating sound waves." You are still thinking that radio waves are mechanical (physical) waves. They are not.
Until you understand the difference between mechanical and electromagnetic waves, you will not be able to understand the answer to your question.
1. Electromagnetic waves travel in a vacuum whereas mechanical waves do not.
2. The ripples made in a pool of water after a stone is thrown in the middle are an example of mechanical wave. Examples of electromagnetic waves include light and radio signals.
3. Mechanical waves are caused by wave amplitude and not by frequency. Electromagnetic Waves are produced by vibration of the charged particles.
4. While an electromagnetic wave is called just a disturbance, a mechanical wave is considered a periodic disturbance.
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/ (http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-mechanical-and-electromagnetic-waves/)
The experiment above this should verify it I think.
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
-
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
Lol, and what does that have to do with the transmission of radio waves through a vacuum?
-
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
Lol, and what does that have to do with the transmission of radio waves through a vacuum?
It will go to prove that either it can be done, or it can't.
-
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
Lol, and what does that have to do with the transmission of radio waves through a vacuum?
It will go to prove that either it can be done, or it can't.
So please explain how a text message is sent to a phone?
-
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
Lol, and what does that have to do with the transmission of radio waves through a vacuum?
It will go to prove that either it can be done, or it can't.
So please explain how a text message is sent to a phone?
No.
The experiment diagram I've put, is to hopefully get someone to test it out, who have access to a vacuum cylinder, plus the obvious 2 phones and balloon, plus some small recording device.
Because Nixon and Armstrong were talking in virtually (so we are told) the same type of environment as my diagram, I would like it replicating to hear the voice of, "HELLO!", through the air filled balloon phone to the recorder.
-
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
Lol, and what does that have to do with the transmission of radio waves through a vacuum?
It will go to prove that either it can be done, or it can't.
So please explain how a text message is sent to a phone?
No.
The experiment diagram I've put, is to hopefully get someone to test it out, who have access to a vacuum cylinder, plus the obvious 2 phones and balloon, plus some small recording device.
Because Nixon and Armstrong were talking in virtually (so we are told) the same type of environment as my diagram, I would like it replicating to hear the voice of, "HELLO!", through the air filled balloon phone to the recorder.
I call BS on this as it's not even remotely relevant to whether radio waves can travel through a vacuum. If a phone can receive a text using radio waves then it can receive a phone call using radio waves.
-
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
Lol, and what does that have to do with the transmission of radio waves through a vacuum?
It will go to prove that either it can be done, or it can't.
So please explain how a text message is sent to a phone?
No.
The experiment diagram I've put, is to hopefully get someone to test it out, who have access to a vacuum cylinder, plus the obvious 2 phones and balloon, plus some small recording device.
Because Nixon and Armstrong were talking in virtually (so we are told) the same type of environment as my diagram, I would like it replicating to hear the voice of, "HELLO!", through the air filled balloon phone to the recorder.
I call BS on this as it's not even remotely relevant to whether radio waves can travel through a vacuum. If a phone can receive a text using radio waves then it can receive a phone call using radio waves.
Maybe it can. There's the experiment. Go and try it out and if it works, then I'll accept I'm wrong.
-
Spot the tyre tracks.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/541/lunarrovertracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/lunarrovertracks.jpg/)
-
Why not just send a text message to the phone in a vacuum?
Did Richard Nixon send a text to Neil Armstrong?
Lol, and what does that have to do with the transmission of radio waves through a vacuum?
It will go to prove that either it can be done, or it can't.
So please explain how a text message is sent to a phone?
No.
The experiment diagram I've put, is to hopefully get someone to test it out, who have access to a vacuum cylinder, plus the obvious 2 phones and balloon, plus some small recording device.
Because Nixon and Armstrong were talking in virtually (so we are told) the same type of environment as my diagram, I would like it replicating to hear the voice of, "HELLO!", through the air filled balloon phone to the recorder.
I call BS on this as it's not even remotely relevant to whether radio waves can travel through a vacuum. If a phone can receive a text using radio waves then it can receive a phone call using radio waves.
Maybe it can. There's the experiment. Go and try it out and if it works, then I'll accept I'm wrong.
No, you're the one who thinks radio waves don't work how they do, and you'd not believe me even if i did it so I'm afraid you're stuck doing it yourself. Sorry about that :)
You'll need something other than a balloon though, i'd suggest a jar or some other solid air tight container (not metal).
-
Spot the tyre tracks.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/541/lunarrovertracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/lunarrovertracks.jpg/)
Can you post the full image please
-
Spot the tyre tracks.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/541/lunarrovertracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/lunarrovertracks.jpg/)
Can you post the full image please
Spot the tyre tracks.
-
Spot the tyre tracks.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/541/lunarrovertracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/lunarrovertracks.jpg/)
Can you post the full image please
Spot the tyre tracks.
And I asked for the full original image so I can see the cropped picture in context.
-
Spot the tyre tracks.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/541/lunarrovertracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/lunarrovertracks.jpg/)
Can you post the full image please
Spot the tyre tracks.
And I asked for the full original image so I can see the cropped picture in context.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/21apr_ducttape/ (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/21apr_ducttape/)
-
Spot the tyre tracks.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/541/lunarrovertracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/lunarrovertracks.jpg/)
Can you post the full image please
Spot the tyre tracks.
And I asked for the full original image so I can see the cropped picture in context.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/21apr_ducttape/ (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/21apr_ducttape/)
I've just realised this is trying to get back to the original thread, I'd almost forgotten what it was about ;D
I'm probably not the best person to talk to about Apollo pictures, while I believe they went to the moon I can also see a scenario (I don't believe it but can see it as possible) where they got back to earth and when the photo's were developed they went "these photo's are rubbish, Neil you've chopped off Buzz's head here, this one's all blurry and look we told you not to picture the aliens" :)
In this scenario I could see Nasa faking/recreating some of the pictures so I can't really argue against you with the passion you seem to like!
I'll give it a go though, let's see. There's no indication how long the rover had been stood in the one place before the photo was taken but there is evidence given the prints around it that it was a while as some prints are more filled in than fresh ones. From the footage I've seen of the astronauts they kicked up dirt with just about every step and so did the rover, so you have the dust kicked up by the rover settling first and partially filling in the tracks then they get off the rover and walk around a bit doing their thing (especially if they were working on that wheel).
There is also a faint trace of a track behind the wheel, though at best it's inconclusive and little more than a straight line in the dirt.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
-
Maybe it can. There's the experiment. Go and try it out and if it works, then I'll accept I'm wrong.
There's no maybe about it. Go and learn how cell phones transmit data; then go and learn about eletromagnetic waves; then go to youtube, search vacuum chamber, choose a video and watch it. There you go
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
-
Maybe it can. There's the experiment. Go and try it out and if it works, then I'll accept I'm wrong.
There's no maybe about it. Go and learn how cell phones transmit data; then go and learn about eletromagnetic waves; then go to youtube, search vacuum chamber, choose a video and watch it. There you go
I didn't know there was an experiment done with the cell phones and recorder in the vacuum. Can you bring it up for me please, as I cannot find it.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
Saying they are covered by the tracks on top is not "dressing it up" its pretty reasonable actually. Regardless, this would not be conclusive of a global conspiracy, the jump from missing tire tracks to conspiracy is enormous.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
I didn't say there were tyre tracks, I said that the dirt infront of the wheel has been pushed up while there is no sign of this behind the wheel. Any idea how this happened in your placed scenario?
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
Saying they are covered by the tracks on top is not "dressing it up" its pretty reasonable actually. Regardless, this would not be conclusive of a global conspiracy, the jump from missing tire tracks to conspiracy is enormous.
Nah, I'm sorry but you aren't very convincing. If those tyre tracks has been partially covered, I would have said, " ok fair deal."
The fact is, there aren't any tyre tracks because they planted the buggy and forgot to make some tracks.
Whether this was an attempt at whistle blowing, I don't know but if it wasn't, it was certainly an oversight.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
I didn't say there were tyre tracks, I said that the dirt infront of the wheel has been pushed up while there is no sign of this behind the wheel. Any idea how this happened in your placed scenario?
A classic case of something being lowered into place and being dropped to the deck with a slight marginal punt forward.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
Saying they are covered by the tracks on top is not "dressing it up" its pretty reasonable actually. Regardless, this would not be conclusive of a global conspiracy, the jump from missing tire tracks to conspiracy is enormous.
Nah, I'm sorry but you aren't very convincing. If those tyre tracks has been partially covered, I would have said, " ok fair deal."
The fact is, there aren't any tyre tracks because they planted the buggy and forgot to make some tracks.
Whether this was an attempt at whistle blowing, I don't know but if it wasn't, it was certainly an oversight.
It does not matter if you are convinced. I likely could not do that unless I sent you to the moon myself. However, it is a reasonable explanation and still leaves you a long ways off from making a global conspiracy seem likely.
-
I didn't know there was an experiment done with the cell phones and recorder in the vacuum. Can you bring it up for me please, as I cannot find it.
That's why I told you to learn about cell phone transmission and eletromagnetic waves. Then you'd see that seeing something in a vacuum chamber proves that radio waves can travel through vacuum.
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
I didn't say there were tyre tracks, I said that the dirt infront of the wheel has been pushed up while there is no sign of this behind the wheel. Any idea how this happened in your placed scenario?
A classic case of something being lowered into place and being dropped to the deck with a slight marginal punt forward.
The answer to this is in the text of the page that accompanied the image.
The rover has not yet been driven anywhere, so there will not be any tire tracks. The rover is attached, in a semi folded state, to the side of the landing module and is lowered into position. The Apollo 17 rover fender was damaged immediately after it had been lowered, set up and loaded. The photo shows the first of two repair attempts. The second fix was made after moving away from the deployment position
Details on how the rover is deployed can be found here:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html)
There are numerous videos that can be found on YouTube that show how the rover is deployed both in testing on Earth and during the actual Apollo missions.
So Sceptimatic is right in that the rover was lowered but wrong in that a flatbed was not required.
Ta Ta
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
I didn't say there were tyre tracks, I said that the dirt infront of the wheel has been pushed up while there is no sign of this behind the wheel. Any idea how this happened in your placed scenario?
A classic case of something being lowered into place and being dropped to the deck with a slight marginal punt forward.
The answer to this is in the text of the page that accompanied the image.
The rover has not yet been driven anywhere, so there will not be any tire tracks. The rover is attached, in a semi folded state, to the side of the landing module and is lowered into position. The Apollo 17 rover fender was damaged immediately after it had been lowered, set up and loaded. The photo shows the first of two repair attempts. The second fix was made after moving away from the deployment position
Details on how the rover is deployed can be found here:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html)
There are numerous videos that can be found on YouTube that show how the rover is deployed both in testing on Earth and during the actual Apollo missions.
So Sceptimatic is right in that the rover was lowered but wrong in that a flatbed was not required.
Ta Ta
Cool
-
cant refute rockets and phones in vacuums.
here is a picture of a wheel with no tracks...
failed again.
what you got next spetic?
-
I'm simply asking a question of how a vibrating sound from one end can be sent through the atmosphere, into space and onto the moon to be heard and also how that back pack sent it back from that small aerial.
I don't profess to know it all, I'm asking questions.
Person on ground talks
sound/voice travels through air to microphone
microphone converts to electrical current to radio set
radio sends out the radio wave (which is the same thing as light, only a much longer wavelenth)
radio wave travels up through atmosphere and through vacuum (just like visible light does) to moon
radio wave hits antenna of radio unit with astronaut
unit converts signal to electrical AC voltage to speaker
speaker emits sound, which travel as sound wave through air inside suit to astronauts ear
sound wave travels through ear canal to eardrum.. (do I need to cover this much of it?)
Astronaut speaks, sound wave travels to microphone
radio unit transmits as radio wave
radio wave travels through vacuum to earth
recieved, converted, and sent to speaker.
speaker emits sound waves to listener.
-
I didn't know there was an experiment done with the cell phones and recorder in the vacuum. Can you bring it up for me please, as I cannot find it.
That's why I told you to learn about cell phone transmission and eletromagnetic waves. Then you'd see that seeing something in a vacuum chamber proves that radio waves can travel through vacuum.
Can you show me something that resembles my diagram?
-
At least you are trying Manarq.
The strong twine you are hanging on to is fraying.
Its a reasonable explanation. The photo is inconclusive of much, especially a global conspiracy.
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
If they just placed it there then why is the dirt in front of the wheel raised slightly, as though the vehicle had locked it's wheels just before stopping but there is no indication of this behind the wheel? If the vehicle had just been placed there and this was evidence of it sinking into the surface it would be visible infront and behind the wheel.
There are no tyre tracks. No matter how you dress it up, there are no tyre tracks.
I didn't say there were tyre tracks, I said that the dirt infront of the wheel has been pushed up while there is no sign of this behind the wheel. Any idea how this happened in your placed scenario?
A classic case of something being lowered into place and being dropped to the deck with a slight marginal punt forward.
The answer to this is in the text of the page that accompanied the image.
The rover has not yet been driven anywhere, so there will not be any tire tracks. The rover is attached, in a semi folded state, to the side of the landing module and is lowered into position. The Apollo 17 rover fender was damaged immediately after it had been lowered, set up and loaded. The photo shows the first of two repair attempts. The second fix was made after moving away from the deployment position
Details on how the rover is deployed can be found here:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html)
There are numerous videos that can be found on YouTube that show how the rover is deployed both in testing on Earth and during the actual Apollo missions.
So Sceptimatic is right in that the rover was lowered but wrong in that a flatbed was not required.
Ta Ta
I don't think so but nice try anyway.
-
cant refute rockets and phones in vacuums.
here is a picture of a wheel with no tracks...
failed again.
what you got next spetic?
I'm still on with this. Nobody has debunked any of it.
-
I'm simply asking a question of how a vibrating sound from one end can be sent through the atmosphere, into space and onto the moon to be heard and also how that back pack sent it back from that small aerial.
I don't profess to know it all, I'm asking questions.
Person on ground talks
sound/voice travels through air to microphone
microphone converts to electrical current to radio set
radio sends out the radio wave (which is the same thing as light, only a much longer wavelenth)
radio wave travels up through atmosphere and through vacuum (just like visible light does) to moon
radio wave hits antenna of radio unit with astronaut
unit converts signal to electrical AC voltage to speaker
speaker emits sound, which travel as sound wave through air inside suit to astronauts ear
sound wave travels through ear canal to eardrum.. (do I need to cover this much of it?)
Astronaut speaks, sound wave travels to microphone
radio unit transmits as radio wave
radio wave travels through vacuum to earth
recieved, converted, and sent to speaker.
speaker emits sound waves to listener.
Fine. Now all I want to see, is some proof of it, like in my diagram.
-
cant refute rockets and phones in vacuums.
here is a picture of a wheel with no tracks...
failed again.
what you got next spetic?
I'm still on with this. Nobody has debunked any of it.
You have been shown in simple terms how rockets work and how they work in a vacuum. We have met your criterier again and again.
-
cant refute rockets and phones in vacuums.
here is a picture of a wheel with no tracks...
failed again.
what you got next spetic?
I'm still on with this. Nobody has debunked any of it.
You have been shown in simple terms how rockets work and how they work in a vacuum. We have met your criterier again and again.
I don't think so.
-
Then what do you need? You have had simple clear explanation on how rockets work. What was your problem with my explanation?
-
Fine. Now all I want to see, is some proof of it, like in my diagram.
Then build a vacuum chamber, put a cell phone or walkie talkie in a jar with a recorder (my cell phone requires me pushing a button or opening the phone to answer) and call or key the mic and talk, and then remove the recorder and listen to your voice.
No one here (me anyway) is going to go to the trouble of setting all this up just to see something we know works, yet you refuse to acknowledge how it works.
Light passes through vacuum. Radio waves are long wavelengths of light. Put the two together.
-
When I was at school we had a balloon in a bell jar that was made into a vacuum. We could all see the balloon.
Oh yeah and a bell in a vacuum. When the vacuum was switched on the bell could not be heard. However we could see it.
-
Fine. Now all I want to see, is some proof of it, like in my diagram.
Then build a vacuum chamber, put a cell phone or walkie talkie in a jar with a recorder (my cell phone requires me pushing a button or opening the phone to answer) and call or key the mic and talk, and then remove the recorder and listen to your voice.
No one here (me anyway) is going to go to the trouble of setting all this up just to see something we know works, yet you refuse to acknowledge how it works.
Light passes through vacuum. Radio waves are long wavelengths of light. Put the two together.
If you had studied my diagram, you will see I catered for all of what you said.
Oh and by the way, I don't want you to do it. I will happily do it myself when I get a vacuum chamber or make one.
I was mainly looking for an independent unbiased person to perform the experiment.
Telling me it works, is not proof it works.
We are talking 1969 technology as well.
-
When I was at school we had a balloon in a bell jar that was made into a vacuum. We could all see the balloon.
Oh yeah and a bell in a vacuum. When the vacuum was switched on the bell could not be heard. However we could see it.
Good.
All I want to know is if you can talk into the phone inside the balloon by using the recorder, also inside the balloon, inside the vacuum. I'm well aware you can see it.
-
Try it then. We await the results.
-
sceptic you are very selective with your evidence aren't you. for every photo the lunar rover which is bad enough quality usually to show no tyre tracks i can show you a hundred that do show tyre tracks. for your 1 video that makes it hard to make out the size of a rocket i can show you a thousand that show adsactly the size of the rockets.
-
can show you a thousand that show adsactly the size of the rockets.
You talk a lot, Pyton, but you never put your words into deeds. I guess you will never show us a thousand videos that show adsactly the size of the rockets. Am i right?
yes
-
yes i could but im sure the mods would have a issue if i post 1000 links to other sites. its called a figure of speech. have you got anything else helpful to contribute?
to help you out i will post an example that perfectly shows the true size of the space shuttle which i found after 48 seconds of searching the internet.
(http://)
-
999 to go.
-
obviously you don't have anything to contribute. and obviously you can read what a surprise.
-
Show me just ONE video of a true size space shuttle, and i will forget about the thousand faked i have seen. And not a plastic full scale parade shit shuttle. And please, not a NAZA video again.
-
Fine. Now all I want to see, is some proof of it, like in my diagram.
Then build a vacuum chamber, put a cell phone or walkie talkie in a jar with a recorder (my cell phone requires me pushing a button or opening the phone to answer) and call or key the mic and talk, and then remove the recorder and listen to your voice.
No one here (me anyway) is going to go to the trouble of setting all this up just to see something we know works, yet you refuse to acknowledge how it works.
Light passes through vacuum. Radio waves are long wavelengths of light. Put the two together.
If you had studied my diagram, you will see I catered for all of what you said.
Oh and by the way, I don't want you to do it. I will happily do it myself when I get a vacuum chamber or make one.
I was mainly looking for an independent unbiased person to perform the experiment.
Telling me it works, is not proof it works.
We are talking 1969 technology as well.
Since when does the year change how radio waves work? If you're bothered about the level of tech though you should probably modify your experiment and use a transistor radio as the receiver and use the tape recorder to see if it still picks up the station you tune it too. Make sure though that you try the experiment first without the vacuum so that you can rule out any of the apparatus as a cause of interference.
-
Show me just ONE video of a true size space shuttle, and i will forget about the thousand faked i have seen. And not a plastic full scale parade shit shuttle. And please, not a NAZA video again.
Time-lapse: Space shuttle Endeavour squeezes through L.A. streets (http://#ws)
or do you mean of one working?
-
1 taken from an airplane
(http://)
a tour of the launch pad
(http://)
launch of a delta IV seen from many angles with various objects in shot to judge scale more carefully.
(http://)
-
A lot of plastic fantastic, a couple of nice rockets, starting stright up but ending almost with nose down........and then they stopped filming, lol. The last part of the last video was hilarious :) And a lot of crazy filming in all of them.
Sorry my outstanding bad english today, sweethearths. Some norwegian cognaq combined with sigarettes make me dizzy. And goodbye for now, i will go downstairs to the numbergame and talk about videogames.
-
A lot of plastic fantastic, a couple of nice rockets, starting stright up but ending almost with nose down........and then they stopped filming, lol. The last part of the last video was hilarious :) And a lot of crazy filming in all of them.
Sorry my outstanding bad english today, sweethearths. Some norwegian cognaq combined with sigarettes make me dizzy. And goodbye for now, i will go downstairs to the numbergame and talk about videogames.
Please define what would be acceptable, as short of a man stood next to the shuttle as it blasts (obviously not a wise thing to do) I'm not sure what would convince you? If you've already predetermined that you can't be convinced then why bother in the first place?
-
rockets going into orbit don't just go straight up. they perform a role shortly after clearing the launch pad to give them horizontal speed as well as vertical. do you know how launches work? i suggest you do a bit of reaserch you are an awful lot like sceptic lots of opinions and statements but not a shred of evidence or sources. hmmm
and yes the last bit of the last video is a graphical representation of where the rocket is in its flight. your problem being? ???
-
sceptic you are very selective with your evidence aren't you. for every photo the lunar rover which is bad enough quality usually to show no tyre tracks i can show you a hundred that do show tyre tracks. for your 1 video that makes it hard to make out the size of a rocket i can show you a thousand that show adsactly the size of the rockets.
If all the rover pictures had no tyre tracks, yet footprints, we could easily call the hoax couldn't we, yet out of all the pictures, it's a case of sifting through them to find a discrepancy or a clue and we do in certain ones, including the "odd" one without tyre tracks.
Does it prove the landings didn't happen? No!
What it does do, is add another anomaly to the hundreds already picked upon, regardless of the lame explanations for them.
-
but you dont take the context of the picture into account. like the picture you posted of the liner rover on the moon with no tracks. its been pointed out that it has just been unpacked from the lander. that's why it has no tyre tracks. yet you still harp on about it as if you have made a massive discovery that no one can explain. well guess what.... we have now move on.
-
1 taken from an airplane
(http://)
a tour of the launch pad
(http://)
launch of a delta IV seen from many angles with various objects in shot to judge scale more carefully.
(http://)
I really don't know what to say to these. I mean,was I supposed to see the real shuttle in that tour because I got a good view of tanks and some nozzles hiding behind a mass of construction steel.
That Delta rocket looks like 3 oxy tanks welded together, it looks as fake as hell, seriously.
-
A lot of plastic fantastic, a couple of nice rockets, starting stright up but ending almost with nose down........and then they stopped filming, lol. The last part of the last video was hilarious :) And a lot of crazy filming in all of them.
Sorry my outstanding bad english today, sweethearths. Some norwegian cognaq combined with sigarettes make me dizzy. And goodbye for now, i will go downstairs to the numbergame and talk about videogames.
Please define what would be acceptable, as short of a man stood next to the shuttle as it blasts (obviously not a wise thing to do) I'm not sure what would convince you? If you've already predetermined that you can't be convinced then why bother in the first place?
Well, something convincing for a start.
No sane person on the planet would get into any of these pieces of rigged up foam and composite Jalopies.
-
rockets going into orbit don't just go straight up. they perform a role shortly after clearing the launch pad to give them horizontal speed as well as vertical. do you know how launches work? i suggest you do a bit of reaserch you are an awful lot like sceptic lots of opinions and statements but not a shred of evidence or sources. hmmm
and yes the last bit of the last video is a graphical representation of where the rocket is in its flight. your problem being? ???
Of course they perform a roll. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to land in the ocean and also, going straight up, they would be out of fuel quite quickly and fall back to earth for everyone to see.
-
but you dont take the context of the picture into account. like the picture you posted of the liner rover on the moon with no tracks. its been pointed out that it has just been unpacked from the lander. that's why it has no tyre tracks. yet you still harp on about it as if you have made a massive discovery that no one can explain. well guess what.... we have now move on.
So what your saying is, they unpacked it from the lander, then carried it to the spot it's at before jumping in a driving away?
Because I don't see no lander next to it.
-
but you dont take the context of the picture into account. like the picture you posted of the liner rover on the moon with no tracks. its been pointed out that it has just been unpacked from the lander. that's why it has no tyre tracks. yet you still harp on about it as if you have made a massive discovery that no one can explain. well guess what.... we have now move on.
So what your saying is, they unpacked it from the lander, then carried it to the spot it's at before jumping in a driving away?
Because I don't see no lander next to it.
No, as detailed in the link and numerous other references, when the LRV is unpacked from the Lander Module it is orientated with the front of the rover facing away from the LM. The front of the rover is on the right of the image, the rear (with taped fender) is nearest to the LM. The angle from which your linked image is taken results in the LM being offscreen to the left.
As for carrying the rover, the rover would weigh a mere 35kgs in Lunar gravity. Easy for two fit astronauts to relocate if necessary.
Ta Ta
-
but you dont take the context of the picture into account. like the picture you posted of the liner rover on the moon with no tracks. its been pointed out that it has just been unpacked from the lander. that's why it has no tyre tracks. yet you still harp on about it as if you have made a massive discovery that no one can explain. well guess what.... we have now move on.
So what your saying is, they unpacked it from the lander, then carried it to the spot it's at before jumping in a driving away?
Because I don't see no lander next to it.
No, as detailed in the link and numerous other references, when the LRV is unpacked from the Lander Module it is orientated with the front of the rover facing away from the LM. The front of the rover is on the right of the image, the rear (with taped fender) is nearest to the LM. The angle from which your linked image is taken results in the LM being offscreen to the left.
As for carrying the rover, the rover would weigh a mere 35kgs in Lunar gravity. Easy for two fit astronauts to relocate if necessary.
Ta Ta
Yep, easy for two fit Astronauts to move. I mean, you're on the moon, "in a space suit" and you will lift an object that has the potential to tear your suit.
Who writes this stuff?
-
Dear Mrs dephelis. 9 posts, 2 toodles and 4 Ta Ta's? You must stop it. I'm getting nervous.
-
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
Oh okay. There are some cheese sticks in my fridge that weren't in there earlier, and there are no cheese tracks so they must have been placed there. And by your logic I can conclusively conclude that arctic monkeys dressed in suits dropped them off.
I don't think so but nice try anyway.
He literally agreed with your point(excluding the ridiculous flat-bed truck bit).......... and you disagree with him. Wow.
We are talking 1969 technology as well.
Radio was radio and still is radio. That's like saying the color blue was different in the 60's.
What it does do, is add another anomaly to the hundreds already picked upon, regardless of the lame explanations for them.
Possibly a small one, that could easily be explained with 5 minutes of research I'm too lazy to do. So for the moment, WOWZERS the moon landings were faked! The tracks! Not posssible! Fake!
And i'd like to see an 'anomaly' I couldn't easily debunk with my eyes shut and my feet tied behind my back...
-
it looks as fake as hell, seriously.
(http://i4.minus.com/iypDadFv9ONeS.png)
-
1 taken from an airplane
(http://)
a tour of the launch pad
(http://)
launch of a delta IV seen from many angles with various objects in shot to judge scale more carefully.
(http://)
I really don't know what to say to these. I mean,was I supposed to see the real shuttle in that tour because I got a good view of tanks and some nozzles hiding behind a mass of construction steel.
That Delta rocket looks like 3 oxy tanks welded together, it looks as fake as hell, seriously.
Once again statements and opinions with no facts evidence or sources. Nice one sceptic.
-
but you dont take the context of the picture into account. like the picture you posted of the liner rover on the moon with no tracks. its been pointed out that it has just been unpacked from the lander. that's why it has no tyre tracks. yet you still harp on about it as if you have made a massive discovery that no one can explain. well guess what.... we have now move on.
So what your saying is, they unpacked it from the lander, then carried it to the spot it's at before jumping in a driving away?
Because I don't see no lander next to it.
No, as detailed in the link and numerous other references, when the LRV is unpacked from the Lander Module it is orientated with the front of the rover facing away from the LM. The front of the rover is on the right of the image, the rear (with taped fender) is nearest to the LM. The angle from which your linked image is taken results in the LM being offscreen to the left.
As for carrying the rover, the rover would weigh a mere 35kgs in Lunar gravity. Easy for two fit astronauts to relocate if necessary.
Ta Ta
Yep, easy for two fit Astronauts to move. I mean, you're on the moon, "in a space suit" and you will lift an object that has the potential to tear your suit.
Who writes this stuff?
Clearly ... on lunar surface suit tears rover.
Toodles
-
Just to clarify it was a hammer on his belt that got caught under the lip of the due guard as he walked by the rover.
-
The photo is conclusive of one thing. That the moon buggy has been placed in it's location, not drove.
So I can conclude that the moon buggy has been brought in, on a flat bed truck maybe and lifted off with the overhead crane in the large hangar that's being used as a studio, then placed on the fake lunar soil.
Oh okay. There are some cheese sticks in my fridge that weren't in there earlier, and there are no cheese tracks so they must have been placed there. And by your logic I can conclusively conclude that arctic monkeys dressed in suits dropped them off.The fact is, they were placed there. You didn't drive them there did you.
I don't think so but nice try anyway.
He literally agreed with your point(excluding the ridiculous flat-bed truck bit).......... and you disagree with him. Wow.Cleverly he did agree and then nudged it ever so delicately away from agreeing, to fit his way, which is clearly incorrect.
We are talking 1969 technology as well.
Radio was radio and still is radio. That's like saying the color blue was different in the 60's.Agreed...but radio strengths for a distance like that might be fine from earth, (even assuming it was possible for it to reach the moon), yet these Astro liars had back packs on with little batteries, transmitting from a silly aerial on their back packs.
What it does do, is add another anomaly to the hundreds already picked upon, regardless of the lame explanations for them.
Possibly a small one, that could easily be explained with 5 minutes of research I'm too lazy to do. So for the moment, WOWZERS the moon landings were faked! The tracks! Not posssible! Fake!Completely faked. To be honest, I think the only thing that is real about the whole missions is the actors who took part in it all.
And i'd like to see an 'anomaly' I couldn't easily debunk with my eyes shut and my feet tied behind my back...Every single anomaly can be debunked. Easily debunked. The reason why it can all be easily be debunked is because, anything and everything is simply made up to cover for any anomaly, no matter how stupid or outlandish it is. The biggest factor in you being believed against those that argue against it is simply strength in numbers, which adds no legitimacy to your debunking arguments.
Some people, or should I say, "many" people cannot seem to think for themselves when they have followed a trend all their life and they become stuck on whatever they were brainwashed into.
This might sound harsh, yet it's not meant to be, because being brainwashed happens to us all, every day in some form.
Think like a detective and look over the amount of evidence for and against , from start to finish and you will find that there are more questions than answers, if you dare to look past the lame excuses given for attempted debunking of anomalies.
-
it looks as fake as hell, seriously.
(http://i4.minus.com/iypDadFv9ONeS.png)
Nice drawings. Lovely and bright. Well done...
You are basically correct in how I see the launches, except, I would have hidden the Donkey behind a wall or something.
The second drawing is how those at the top revel in making fun of the gullible public.
The annoying part for them is when too many people start to wake up, so they send in the so called experts to debunk those tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nutters, with the likes of Myth busters, that allegedly perform all the experiments that sways the weak minded to actually, once again, believe it really happened.
They forget that they have just witnessed a "TV" experiment.
I wonder if they would be so quick to do the experiments with a live on set audience of 100 sceptics?
I doubt it.
-
its a unicorn ::)
-
its a unicorn ::)
Now you can see how they bloody fake things. ;D
-
words
Are you trying to delegitimize mythbusters? Blasphemy.
-
52 pages and counting.
Troll Master
-
52 pages and counting.
Troll Master
As much as I would like to believe that, I think he's for real.
-
52 pages and counting.
Troll Master
As much as I would like to believe that, I think he's for real.
Yes, that's the frightening part.
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
I agree, you and squevil are a good example.
-
lol i was gonna say something similar XD
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
I agree, you and squevil are a good example.
Wow, that was clever. I'm impressed.
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
I agree, you and squevil are a good example.
Hahaha that's a good one! Hahahah didn't see that coming hahahah :D whewwwwwwwww
-
52 pages and counting.
Troll Master
Nice input. You came on to type that and you are calling me a troll master?? ;D
-
52 pages and counting.
Troll Master
As much as I would like to believe that, I think he's for real.
Yeah, I'm for real. I'd be normal if you and others could beat me down to a whimper. The fact that you and others cannot do it, makes you resort to tactics like this, it's tantamount to attempting to cut Samsons hair with blunt scissors and watching it grow as you try.
A little tip.
Sharpen them. ;)
-
52 pages and counting.
Troll Master
As much as I would like to believe that, I think he's for real.
Yes, that's the frightening part.
Is it any more scary than believing a massive round ball spins at over 1000 mph on a tilt and a wobble, whilst we dance on it?
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
You would be surprised.
I knew of a physics university professor who could make even the most staunch intelligent debater start rolling his cap in his hands whilst looking sheepishly down at the floor.
The very same man was fleeced out of Ł15,000 to have a few roof tiles and some chimney stack re-pointing done. A job that was worth a few hundreds pounds, yet he paid.
It was only when his neighbour, a Mr nobody in the grand scheme of things was called upon by the same cowboy builders, who offered to do similar work.
He was sceptical about their appearance and politely refused upon hearing the price quoted.
He decided to call on the professor and inquire about the price he paid. it was only then that the Professor realised he'd been duped.
Gullibility or stupidity?
What am I getting at here?
Well...people can be arrogant in their field of expertise and can leave like minded people quivering and pissing themselves, yet can be humbled by rough and ready gob shite from a bunch of neanderthal looking cowboy builders with a mouthful of patter.
If they can do it to him, what can he to the humble quivering students and like minded people he deems below him?
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
You would be surprised.
I knew of a physics university professor who could make even the most staunch intelligent debater start rolling his cap in his hands whilst looking sheepishly down at the floor.
The very same man was fleeced out of Ł15,000 to have a few roof tiles and some chimney stack re-pointing done. A job that was worth a few hundreds pounds, yet he paid.
It was only when his neighbour, a Mr nobody in the grand scheme of things was called upon by the same cowboy builders, who offered to do similar work.
He was sceptical about their appearance and politely refused upon hearing the price quoted.
He decided to call on the professor and inquire about the price he paid. it was only then that the Professor realised he'd been duped.
Gullibility or stupidity?
What am I getting at here?
Well...people can be arrogant in their field of expertise and can leave like minded people quivering and pissing themselves, yet can be humbled by rough and ready gob shite from a bunch of neanderthal looking cowboy builders with a mouthful of patter.
If they can do it to him, what can he to the humble quivering students and like minded people he deems below him?
Not sure what you're getting it, are you saying you're a "neanderthal looking cowboy builder with a mouthful of patter?"
Or are you saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's hardly a revelation.
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
You would be surprised.
I knew of a physics university professor who could make even the most staunch intelligent debater start rolling his cap in his hands whilst looking sheepishly down at the floor.
The very same man was fleeced out of Ł15,000 to have a few roof tiles and some chimney stack re-pointing done. A job that was worth a few hundreds pounds, yet he paid.
It was only when his neighbour, a Mr nobody in the grand scheme of things was called upon by the same cowboy builders, who offered to do similar work.
He was sceptical about their appearance and politely refused upon hearing the price quoted.
He decided to call on the professor and inquire about the price he paid. it was only then that the Professor realised he'd been duped.
Gullibility or stupidity?
What am I getting at here?
Well...people can be arrogant in their field of expertise and can leave like minded people quivering and pissing themselves, yet can be humbled by rough and ready gob shite from a bunch of neanderthal looking cowboy builders with a mouthful of patter.
If they can do it to him, what can he to the humble quivering students and like minded people he deems below him?
Not sure what you're getting it, are you saying you're a "neanderthal looking cowboy builder with a mouthful of patter?"
Or are you saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's hardly a revelation.
Nope. I'm saying that even the so called smart guys who believe they know what they're talking about and delight in believing they have the power to make what they believe are less smart people fumble their thumbs, can be made to look equally as dumb as they believe other people are.
Those who call others stupid, need look no further than themselves.
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
You would be surprised.
I knew of a physics university professor who could make even the most staunch intelligent debater start rolling his cap in his hands whilst looking sheepishly down at the floor.
The very same man was fleeced out of Ł15,000 to have a few roof tiles and some chimney stack re-pointing done. A job that was worth a few hundreds pounds, yet he paid.
It was only when his neighbour, a Mr nobody in the grand scheme of things was called upon by the same cowboy builders, who offered to do similar work.
He was sceptical about their appearance and politely refused upon hearing the price quoted.
He decided to call on the professor and inquire about the price he paid. it was only then that the Professor realised he'd been duped.
Gullibility or stupidity?
What am I getting at here?
Well...people can be arrogant in their field of expertise and can leave like minded people quivering and pissing themselves, yet can be humbled by rough and ready gob shite from a bunch of neanderthal looking cowboy builders with a mouthful of patter.
If they can do it to him, what can he to the humble quivering students and like minded people he deems below him?
Not sure what you're getting it, are you saying you're a "neanderthal looking cowboy builder with a mouthful of patter?"
Or are you saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's hardly a revelation.
Nope. I'm saying that even the so called smart guys who believe they know what they're talking about and delight in believing they have the power to make what they believe are less smart people fumble their thumbs, can be made to look equally as dumb as they believe other people are.
Those who call others stupid, need look no further than themselves.
So you're saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's still hardly a revelation.
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
You would be surprised.
I knew of a physics university professor who could make even the most staunch intelligent debater start rolling his cap in his hands whilst looking sheepishly down at the floor.
The very same man was fleeced out of Ł15,000 to have a few roof tiles and some chimney stack re-pointing done. A job that was worth a few hundreds pounds, yet he paid.
It was only when his neighbour, a Mr nobody in the grand scheme of things was called upon by the same cowboy builders, who offered to do similar work.
He was sceptical about their appearance and politely refused upon hearing the price quoted.
He decided to call on the professor and inquire about the price he paid. it was only then that the Professor realised he'd been duped.
Gullibility or stupidity?
What am I getting at here?
Well...people can be arrogant in their field of expertise and can leave like minded people quivering and pissing themselves, yet can be humbled by rough and ready gob shite from a bunch of neanderthal looking cowboy builders with a mouthful of patter.
If they can do it to him, what can he to the humble quivering students and like minded people he deems below him?
Not sure what you're getting it, are you saying you're a "neanderthal looking cowboy builder with a mouthful of patter?"
Or are you saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's hardly a revelation.
Nope. I'm saying that even the so called smart guys who believe they know what they're talking about and delight in believing they have the power to make what they believe are less smart people fumble their thumbs, can be made to look equally as dumb as they believe other people are.
Those who call others stupid, need look no further than themselves.
So you're saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's still hardly a revelation.
Maybe you won't figure it out. It's ok.
-
im not 100% sure. i have heard of them but i dont think people are really that stupid. are they?
You would be surprised.
I knew of a physics university professor who could make even the most staunch intelligent debater start rolling his cap in his hands whilst looking sheepishly down at the floor.
The very same man was fleeced out of Ł15,000 to have a few roof tiles and some chimney stack re-pointing done. A job that was worth a few hundreds pounds, yet he paid.
It was only when his neighbour, a Mr nobody in the grand scheme of things was called upon by the same cowboy builders, who offered to do similar work.
He was sceptical about their appearance and politely refused upon hearing the price quoted.
He decided to call on the professor and inquire about the price he paid. it was only then that the Professor realised he'd been duped.
Gullibility or stupidity?
What am I getting at here?
Well...people can be arrogant in their field of expertise and can leave like minded people quivering and pissing themselves, yet can be humbled by rough and ready gob shite from a bunch of neanderthal looking cowboy builders with a mouthful of patter.
If they can do it to him, what can he to the humble quivering students and like minded people he deems below him?
Not sure what you're getting it, are you saying you're a "neanderthal looking cowboy builder with a mouthful of patter?"
Or are you saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's hardly a revelation.
Nope. I'm saying that even the so called smart guys who believe they know what they're talking about and delight in believing they have the power to make what they believe are less smart people fumble their thumbs, can be made to look equally as dumb as they believe other people are.
Those who call others stupid, need look no further than themselves.
So you're saying that people who are an expert in one field aren't neccesarily an expert in another unrelated field? That's still hardly a revelation.
Maybe you won't figure it out. It's ok.
Ah so you're saying that they can be made to look dumb when discussing their field of expertise with a builder?
-
thing is septic you dont have any expertise an anything you talk about. the only thing you are an expert on is where to get the latest conspiracy websites. and you lap it up like a mug.
you story is quite relevant only we have yet to see what you are actually an expert on...
-
thing is septic you dont have any expertise an anything you talk about. the only thing you are an expert on is where to get the latest conspiracy websites. and you lap it up like a mug.
you story is quite relevant only we have yet to see what you are actually an expert on...
You know, that's strange because I've yet to see what any of you are expert on. Obviously we can all be expert Googlers and such.
I can be an expert in any field you choose. Pick one and ask me any questions on it and I'll answer as soon as I find it on Google.
It's one of the reasons why I take with a pinch of salt as to who is an expert in whatever field.
Pythagoras(Thaggy) would be an expert in every field known to man , yet is he, or is he cheating? What do you think?
I won't ask you about your expertise. If you want to tell me, then that's your business. I prefer to let you accept me for whatever you believe I am.
Fair enough?
-
minecraft
warhammer
autisim
xbox
rap music
although no expert these are my fields.
however my point is that you dont know about the subjects you talk so strongly about. you say this yourself, but then argue all day long that mainstream science is worng. how can you be so sure if you dont even understand the basics about the subjects you argue about?
you mention that what people learn is bullshit, well why do they learn about it then? you do realise that they get an education in those fields and then go to work in those fields. my friend is a master chemist and works with nuclear technology in the uk for a military based company. he works directly for the company. however its safe to say the conspiracy is rather cheap as he isnt making more than a lot of people do. eventually i guess as he gets promoted (ok closer to the truth... ::) ).
-
minecraft
warhammer
autisim
xbox
rap music
although no expert these are my fields.
however my point is that you dont know about the subjects you talk so strongly about. you say this yourself, but then argue all day long that mainstream science is worng. how can you be so sure if you dont even understand the basics about the subjects you argue about?
you mention that what people learn is bullshit, well why do they learn about it then? you do realise that they get an education in those fields and then go to work in those fields. my friend is a master chemist and works with nuclear technology in the uk for a military based company. he works directly for the company. however its safe to say the conspiracy is rather cheap as he isnt making more than a lot of people do. eventually i guess as he gets promoted (ok closer to the truth... ::) ).
Does your friend work with fissioning Uranium? Thought not.
Anyway, your expertise are mainly in fantasy. I don't mean that in a bad way of course, I'm merely saying that you excel at that.
What you have to ask yourself is, what are we taught in life that is real and what is fantasy?
Of course, you can stand up and shout, " what we are taught is all real, by real tutors."...which is fine...but like I said a while ago, it's all about teachers teaching future teachers all along the line and they teach you and you tell everyone what you know from what you were taught.
Can we be duped as easily as this and to what purpose?
Well, the hard part is trying to distinguish what is real, yet logically, you will soon find out the real stuff because you can physically see it or use it or test it.
Can you be sure of what you cannot test or physically see and can't use? The answer to this is NO.
You can believe you can if you want to but you cannot 100% say it's true until you can do all the things I've mentioned.
Do you believe medicine and pills help the ailments you are told they help?
Your answer maybe be yes but in reality you cannot be sure, as you know that you can be given a "placebo" to cure an ailment that your doctor believes is in your mind but he will give you the pills to cure it and they can work if it is indeed in your mind, or they don't work and your doctor can now treat you for the real ailment, now that he/she is sure it isn't just in your mind.
The point is, you will never know, yet you will happily sit in the pub and tell all your friends that your first batch of pills didn't help you and you were given a stronger dose. etc.
Such is life, we have to trust a certain amount and that applies to schools, colleges and universities, where theory is concerned, because you are committing it to memory to reel back off on your exam date, which gives you licence to work in that field.
If you took astro physics, then you do your exam on what you are taught and you will have to calculate what they tell you to, plus name planets that they tell you are light years away, all seen by a floating telescope in space and by super whizzing probes scooting about the universe.
Do you know they are there? Of course you don't but you are studying it, so it's there.
I think you get my meaning.
-
minecraft
warhammer
autisim
xbox
rap music
although no expert these are my fields.
however my point is that you dont know about the subjects you talk so strongly about. you say this yourself, but then argue all day long that mainstream science is worng. how can you be so sure if you dont even understand the basics about the subjects you argue about?
you mention that what people learn is bullshit, well why do they learn about it then? you do realise that they get an education in those fields and then go to work in those fields. my friend is a master chemist and works with nuclear technology in the uk for a military based company. he works directly for the company. however its safe to say the conspiracy is rather cheap as he isnt making more than a lot of people do. eventually i guess as he gets promoted (ok closer to the truth... ::) ).
Does your friend work with fissioning Uranium? Thought not.
Anyway, your expertise are mainly in fantasy. I don't mean that in a bad way of course, I'm merely saying that you excel at that.
What you have to ask yourself is, what are we taught in life that is real and what is fantasy?
Of course, you can stand up and shout, " what we are taught is all real, by real tutors."...which is fine...but like I said a while ago, it's all about teachers teaching future teachers all along the line and they teach you and you tell everyone what you know from what you were taught.
Can we be duped as easily as this and to what purpose?
Well, the hard part is trying to distinguish what is real, yet logically, you will soon find out the real stuff because you can physically see it or use it or test it.
Can you be sure of what you cannot test or physically see and can't use? The answer to this is NO.
You can believe you can if you want to but you cannot 100% say it's true until you can do all the things I've mentioned.
Do you believe medicine and pills help the ailments you are told they help?
Your answer maybe be yes but in reality you cannot be sure, as you know that you can be given a "placebo" to cure an ailment that your doctor believes is in your mind but he will give you the pills to cure it and they can work if it is indeed in your mind, or they don't work and your doctor can now treat you for the real ailment, now that he/she is sure it isn't just in your mind.
The point is, you will never know, yet you will happily sit in the pub and tell all your friends that your first batch of pills didn't help you and you were given a stronger dose. etc.
Such is life, we have to trust a certain amount and that applies to schools, colleges and universities, where theory is concerned, because you are committing it to memory to reel back off on your exam date, which gives you licence to work in that field.
If you took astro physics, then you do your exam on what you are taught and you will have to calculate what they tell you to, plus name planets that they tell you are light years away, all seen by a floating telescope in space and by super whizzing probes scooting about the universe.
Do you know they are there? Of course you don't but you are studying it, so it's there.
I think you get my meaning.
The problem with this line of thinking is fairly easy to see. I will try and illustrate by asking this question: Are you sure that there is a digital signal connecting you to the "Internet"? You can't see it and the effects of it can only be observed indirectly. Yet I would assume by your frequent use of this signal for communication that you do not doubt it. This same trust is applied roundly in everyday life yet you have decided to select certain elements to disbelieve, not based upon any substantial knowledge but upon your intuition. Surely to be fair you must apply your mistrust of everything you cannot directly observe and deem them to not exist until you have observed them. But if you were to do that every country you have never been to does not exist. Every movie you have not seen does not exist. Every person you have never met does not exist. Doesn't this seem a preposterous idea? It does to me. Human experience and senses are limited and so we must at times make the leap of trust that there are things beyond our everyday perception which is what extreme Zeteitcism seems to call for. Please do not let the limits of our bodies be the limit of our knowledge.
-
Rama: You are over analyzing the whole situation and you know this.
There's being sceptical of events and certain things and there's an acceptance of things.
I accept that most things in life work as told, or there about, yet I haven't tested the inner working of it all.
Let me just clarify something.
If men went to the moon in the 60's and there was very little discrepancies, regardless of them supposedly being debunked, I would have accepted it for what it was, even today, even if people picked up on the few things wrong..
The reality is, it's riddled to hell with anomalies and I don't care whether people tell me I'm no expert...neither are they.
Are you telling me that you find everything above board with the moon landings and nothing looks odd to you?
-
Rama: You are over analyzing the whole situation and you know this.
There's being sceptical of events and certain things and there's an acceptance of things.
I accept that most things in life work as told, or there about, yet I haven't tested the inner working of it all.
Let me just clarify something.
If men went to the moon in the 60's and there was very little discrepancies, regardless of them supposedly being debunked, I would have accepted it for what it was, even today, even if people picked up on the few things wrong..
The reality is, it's riddled to hell with anomalies and I don't care whether people tell me I'm no expert...neither are they.
Are you telling me that you find everything above board with the moon landings and nothing looks odd to you?
I am not being over-analytical. I have a big problem with people calling the moon landings fake and doubting nuclear energy though. I lump it in with holocaust denial as dangerous lines of thought because they lead to the belief of things like mysterious golbal conspiracies. That is neither here nor there, just my personal belief.
Do I find everything above board with the moon landings?
Overall yes I find the moon landings to be above board. My technical knowledge is limited but the explanations of alleged discrepancies make sense to me based on my hobbyists knowledge of both science and my professional work in the film industry. I especially do not ascribe validity to any questions of the speed or quality of movement on the moon as I have seen the alleged "slo-mo" footage sped up and it looks utterly ridiculous. If suspicion of the moon landings were only confined to Apollo 11, then I would hold it in higher regard as that is where most people find fault. To say all moon landings are false seems to be an exptraordinary claim to me since I have seen no attempt, other than your lunar landing module photo the other day, to show the other moon landings were false. I have seen people explain them away with the incredibly lazy explanation, "If you can fake one, you can fake them all". But that does no favors to the motion that all moon landings were false, because I could think of reasons why they might fake one and not the others. In summary, I have not found any compelling evidence to say the moon landings are fake, and just so you dont think I am generally close-minded, I think there is more suspicious activity around 9/11 than the moon landings, so please dont exclude me on the grounds of "being brainwashed" as you are wont to do.
Thanks. (someone hates that, not sure why.)
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
That is wishful thinking. Me being in the film industry does not predispose me to "knowing" the moon landings are fake. I said that I have not seen any evidence of a faked moon landing that does not have a very reasonable explanation and I have seen nothing put forward regarding the other 7 moon landings either. You may think I am lying but your willingness to believe in conspiracies over other explanations makes that unsurprising. Like I said, you are better off convincing me 9/11 was fishy than the moon landings.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
That is wishful thinking. Me being in the film industry does not predispose me to "knowing" the moon landings are fake. I said that I have not seen any evidence of a faked moon landing that does not have a very reasonable explanation and I have seen nothing put forward regarding the other 7 moon landings either. You may think I am lying but your willingness to believe in conspiracies over other explanations makes that unsurprising. Like I said, you are better off convincing me 9/11 was fishy than the moon landings.
That's just my un-trusting sceptical nature, I'm afraid.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
You understand that the possibility of something happening (i.e. a moon landing being faked) is substantially different than the actuality of the event happening? Knowing that it could have been faked does not get you all the way to your conclusion.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
You understand that the possibility of something happening (i.e. a moon landing being faked) is substantially different than the actuality of the event happening? Knowing that it could have been faked does not get you all the way to your conclusion.
You are correct.
It's like, why am I here on this flat earth forum? Why are you?
Why is anyone on any forum that argues point against point?
I don't expect to find the truth to most of anything, yet I also will not just simply accept something because a mass of people decide I'm in a minority.
If you genuinely see no reason at all that anything is faked about space, then carry on. I won;t be following that line of thought because I'm 100% convinced in my own mind , after viewing and listening to astro liars, plus footage and pictures, plus craft etc, that it's all FAKED.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
You understand that the possibility of something happening (i.e. a moon landing being faked) is substantially different than the actuality of the event happening? Knowing that it could have been faked does not get you all the way to your conclusion.
You are correct.
It's like, why am I here on this flat earth forum? Why are you?
Why is anyone on any forum that argues point against point?
I don't expect to find the truth to most of anything, yet I also will not just simply accept something because a mass of people decide I'm in a minority.
If you genuinely see no reason at all that anything is faked about space, then carry on. I won;t be following that line of thought because I'm 100% convinced in my own mind , after viewing and listening to astro liars, plus footage and pictures, plus craft etc, that it's all FAKED.
So your position is that no one can know anything for certain except in the special case of you and the moon landing where you are 100% convinced.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
You understand that the possibility of something happening (i.e. a moon landing being faked) is substantially different than the actuality of the event happening? Knowing that it could have been faked does not get you all the way to your conclusion.
You are correct.
It's like, why am I here on this flat earth forum? Why are you?
Why is anyone on any forum that argues point against point?
I don't expect to find the truth to most of anything, yet I also will not just simply accept something because a mass of people decide I'm in a minority.
If you genuinely see no reason at all that anything is faked about space, then carry on. I won;t be following that line of thought because I'm 100% convinced in my own mind , after viewing and listening to astro liars, plus footage and pictures, plus craft etc, that it's all FAKED.
So your position is that no one can know anything for certain except in the special case of you and the moon landing where you are 100% convinced.
You can know anything and everything you believe you know, as I can and everyone else. You question what I believe and I question what you believe. It doesn't stop us believing what we still believe, unless you get someone that did believe something, who sees alternative views and decides to check it all out for themselves, which may lead them to take a different route.
The problem with in plain site but top secret stuff, it's never going to be cut and dried either way, because it cannot be directly proved, even though evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of it being a scam, hoax or whatever.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying all. Just the one's can't see any wrong in all the pictures and footage of the moon landings.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
Have you watched any videos comparing Kubrik's style of filming vs moon landing videos. If you haven't, search them out and you will know what scepti is talking about.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying all. Just the one's can't see any wrong in all the pictures and footage of the moon landings.
So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion that a photo is fake, they're being paid to tell you and are a part of a conspiracy? Is that not paranoia? What exactly leads you to believe this other than the fact that they defend the position that it's not fake?
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
Have you watched any videos comparing Kubrik's style of filming vs moon landing videos. If you haven't, search them out and you will know what scepti is talking about.
I have and honestly I'm not surprised with the coincidences and similarities. If you look for something like this and hunt for clues in films, you're going to find them. Lots. I haven't watched some of that stuff in a while so I may look back at them soon, and if any are posted here I will gladly watch them.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying all. Just the one's can't see any wrong in all the pictures and footage of the moon landings.
So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion that a photo is fake, they're being paid to tell you and are a part of a conspiracy? Is that not paranoia? What exactly leads you to believe this other than the fact that they defend the position that it's not fake?
Not at all.
If someone doesn't agree that there is something fishy about the moon landings and tells me it's all legitimate, I call bull and it's as simple as that.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
Have you watched any videos comparing Kubrik's style of filming vs moon landing videos. If you haven't, search them out and you will know what scepti is talking about.
I have and honestly I'm not surprised with the coincidences and similarities. If you look for something like this and hunt for clues in films, you're going to find them. Lots. I haven't watched some of that stuff in a while so I may look back at them soon, and if any are posted here I will gladly watch them.
It's not a case of, 'if you look, you will see anything', it's a case of looking and seeing it blatantly.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying all. Just the one's can't see any wrong in all the pictures and footage of the moon landings.
So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion that a photo is fake, they're being paid to tell you and are a part of a conspiracy? Is that not paranoia? What exactly leads you to believe this other than the fact that they defend the position that it's not fake?
Not at all.
If someone doesn't agree that there is something fishy about the moon landings and tells me it's all legitimate, I call bull and it's as simple as that.
Call bull on them believing it's legitimate?
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying all. Just the one's can't see any wrong in all the pictures and footage of the moon landings.
So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion that a photo is fake, they're being paid to tell you and are a part of a conspiracy? Is that not paranoia? What exactly leads you to believe this other than the fact that they defend the position that it's not fake?
Not at all.
If someone doesn't agree that there is something fishy about the moon landings and tells me it's all legitimate, I call bull and it's as simple as that.
Call bull on them believing it's legitimate?
Believing it's "ALL", legitimate, as in seeing nothing at all odd about it.
-
Rama, I don't think you are brainwashed. You're in the film industry, so I can fully exclude you from being brainwashed.
The fact that you are in the film industry and cannot see any fault in the moon landings puts you firmly in the Thaggy bracket. Maybe a tag team eh?
It doesn't matter at the end of the day as things will be faked and continue to be faked, yet it's just nice to know I don't sit and swallow it all or get remotely swayed by people who clearly know it's a fake but defend it like a lioness with her cubs.
I don't "clearly know its a fake". I don't understand how you can say that.
If you are in the film industry, you know it's fake.
Now I'm curious. How do you figure that?
Well, the way I figure it, he will know just how Kubrick went about it all and how the stuff is set up with studio props and stuff. Or maybe I'm assuming he's part of that side and maybe he's not part of filming or anything like that. If so, I will apologise to him.
Do you really think if Kubrick did that, all future filmmakers would be involved? Why would he know about all this stuff you say Kubrick did?
Because he will know the system. It may have different scenery but the ways will be similar in how they do it all.
I am an aspiring filmmaker and what you are saying just makes no sense to me. Kubrick's "system" wouldn't matter. Not all filmmakers follow the same systems or rules or whatever you're talking about. If Kubrick did fake this stuff and Rama Set was going to film his own fake landing footage, he wouldn't have to know anything about Kubrick's "system". Of course he could be influenced by it, study it to perfect his own picture. Suggesting that all people involved with the film industry would know that this stuff is all fake and a conspiracy is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying all. Just the one's can't see any wrong in all the pictures and footage of the moon landings.
So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion that a photo is fake, they're being paid to tell you and are a part of a conspiracy? Is that not paranoia? What exactly leads you to believe this other than the fact that they defend the position that it's not fake?
Not at all.
If someone doesn't agree that there is something fishy about the moon landings and tells me it's all legitimate, I call bull and it's as simple as that.
Call bull on them believing it's legitimate?
Believing it's "ALL", legitimate, as in seeing nothing at all odd about it.
Then I call bull on you believing it's a hoax. You're actually a normal person who KNOWS the landings happened, and you're just trolling us.
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
Any of you moon landing believers care to explain your way out of this?
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
Any of you moon landing believers care to explain your way out of this?
Have you got the link to the original image?
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
Any of you moon landing believers care to explain your way out of this?
Have you got the link to the original image?
No, just this.
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
Any of you moon landing believers care to explain your way out of this?
Have you got the link to the original image?
No, just this.
Then there's nothing to explain.
-
Well of course there isn't, because to explain it would mean the lie is exposed.
I mean, you don;t think N.A.S.A would keep this picture up on their site do you, after being exposed.
You see N.A.S.A just sit back and wait for people to expose their lies and each picture the conspiracy theorists bring up as dubious, N.A.S.A alters or it disappears, just like the many things of the moon landing have disappeared.
-
Well of course there isn't, because to explain it would mean the lie is exposed.
I mean, you don;t think N.A.S.A would keep this picture up on their site do you, after being exposed.
You see N.A.S.A just sit back and wait for people to expose their lies and each picture the conspiracy theorists bring up as dubious, N.A.S.A alters or it disappears, just like the many things of the moon landing have disappeared.
If you can't say where the picture came from then there is nothing to explain and no proof of a conspiracy using this picture, as a conspiracy believer would say "jeez you believe that, those tyre tracks are so fake"
-
Well of course there isn't, because to explain it would mean the lie is exposed.
I mean, you don;t think N.A.S.A would keep this picture up on their site do you, after being exposed.
You see N.A.S.A just sit back and wait for people to expose their lies and each picture the conspiracy theorists bring up as dubious, N.A.S.A alters or it disappears, just like the many things of the moon landing have disappeared.
If you can't say where the picture came from then there is nothing to explain and no proof of a conspiracy using this picture, as a conspiracy believer would say "jeez you believe that, those tyre tracks are so fake"
Oh, I'm well aware of that and I know that many debunkers will immediately say it's faked and what not.
The point is, It's there as a picture and the tyre tracks could be faked, although in reality that's a genuine N.A.S.A picture that's just been discarded(in my opinion) because they made a boo boo having tracks with a supposed moon buggy still packed up.
You are entitled to think it's a fake though, so fair deal.
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
Any of you moon landing believers care to explain your way out of this?
Have you got the link to the original image?
No, just this.
Then there's nothing to explain.
If you look at the photo preceding it in the sequence you can see its position relative to the LM as well as the track in the photo you show and the tracks made by the other wheels.
-
The aforementioned photo can be found here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-140-21369 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-140-21369)
-
I found a larger image here http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519 (http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519) but I was looking for either the original nasa image or evidence that it's a composite.
-
I found a larger image here http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519 (http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519) but I was looking for either the original nasa image or evidence that it's a composite.
That must be one of the moon buggies left behind by other Astro liars mustn't it, because the other one is yet to be unpacked.
-
I found a larger image here http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519 (http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519) but I was looking for either the original nasa image or evidence that it's a composite.
That must be one of the moon buggies left behind by other Astro liars mustn't it, because the other one is yet to be unpacked.
Where do you think they kept the cover that the LRV was transported in? Like I say I'm trying to find the original so I can take a closer look at the packed lrv/cover on the side of the lander. For someone so skeptical you're awfully trusting of things that agree with your point of view.
-
I found a larger image here http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519 (http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519) but I was looking for either the original nasa image or evidence that it's a composite.
That must be one of the moon buggies left behind by other Astro liars mustn't it, because the other one is yet to be unpacked.
I can't see where the rover is in the image you posted. Can you please point it out to me or post a link that shows where it is? Thanks.
-
I found a larger image here http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519 (http://hellyesnasa.tumblr.com/image/37775499519) but I was looking for either the original nasa image or evidence that it's a composite.
That must be one of the moon buggies left behind by other Astro liars mustn't it, because the other one is yet to be unpacked.
Where do you think they kept the cover that the LRV was transported in? Like I say I'm trying to find the original so I can take a closer look at the packed lrv/cover on the side of the lander. For someone so skeptical you're awfully trusting of things that agree with your point of view.
Only when I know it's all been faked to hell.
-
Here is the Apollo 17 image library which contains the photo Sceptimatic posted:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagE (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagE)
Here is the only image I have found thus far of what the LRV looks like packed up on the LM:
(http://www.myspacemuseum.com/lrvstow.jpg)
Thus far I cannot find a visual match of this on the photo that sceptimatic posted to confirm that the LRV is packed on the LM.
-
I found this one in the apollo 16 photos, sorry it's just a link
http://www.dvidshub.net/image/748217/apollo-16-mission-image-astronaut-john-w-young-commander-apollo-16-lunar-landing-mission-works-lunar#.USzQFaXIZPo (http://www.dvidshub.net/image/748217/apollo-16-mission-image-astronaut-john-w-young-commander-apollo-16-lunar-landing-mission-works-lunar#.USzQFaXIZPo)
it's very similar to the one scepti posted
similar type of picture but from a different angle here
http://www.dvidshub.net/image/834695/irwin-loads-up-rover#.USzUyqXIZPo (http://www.dvidshub.net/image/834695/irwin-loads-up-rover#.USzUyqXIZPo)
-
There are two errors in the last photo, and they are so obvious that I do not need to point them out. Ridiculous errors, if you ask me.
-
There are two errors in the last photo, and they are so obvious that I do not need to point them out. Ridiculous errors, if you ask me.
Fair enough.
-
There are two errors in the last photo, and they are so obvious that I do not need to point them out. Ridiculous errors, if you ask me.
so obvious you wont point them out. so we can assume you have seen no errors then. thanx again for a quality dr nor post.
-
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9916/tyretracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/tyretracks.jpg/)
-
There are two errors in the last photo, and they are so obvious that I do not need to point them out. Ridiculous errors, if you ask me.
so obvious you wont point them out. so we can assume you have seen no errors then. thanx again for a quality dr nor post.
Stop being so spiteful, please. 1. The umbrella to the right in the image is upside down. 2. It doesn't rain on the moon.
In your face!
-
like a origionaly said. another quality post by Dr now
-
There are two errors in the last photo, and they are so obvious that I do not need to point them out. Ridiculous errors, if you ask me.
so obvious you wont point them out. so we can assume you have seen no errors then. thanx again for a quality dr nor post.
Stop being so spiteful, please. 1. The umbrella to the right in the image is upside down. 2. It doesn't rain on the moon.
In your face!
;D I'm crying with laughing here. Nice one.
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
Any of you moon landing believers care to explain your way out of this?
What. The MESA is lowered and the rover has already been deployed and driven. The MESA and rover were stowed in two different places.
Again, which is it?
It takes an unbiased in depth critical analysis of all footage and pictures,
..and simply just accepted as fake.
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9916/tyretracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/tyretracks.jpg/)
No, I can clearly see where the rover was maneuvered around, and in the process of walking around they obscured some of the tire tracks.
Scepti, you've already demonstrated your (lack of ) ability to spot fake pictures with the 'running shoe print on the moon' picture in that video you posted a little while back. It was an obvious photoshop, which you admitted you couldn't tell was fake. Why should we take you seriously when you say, "this looks faked"?
-
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9916/tyretracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/tyretracks.jpg/)
1stly is this the original photo?
can we have the source of your photo considering you history of posting edited photos.
-
Here's a source I found.
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001140.html (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001140.html)
-
Here's a source I found.
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001140.html (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001140.html)
your photo looks like slightly better quality actually thanx.
and sceptic i showed you a photo that had been stitched together and you did not even notice while spouting off all sorts of other rubbish about the picture being fake, but now you can spot a photo stitch?
their is no stitch in this photo. its just a few tracks that line up for a small section of the photo
-
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
Video didn't exist in 1969. It was film. Standard home movie projection ran at about 18 frames per second. The reason old movies ran so fast is because they were recorded at 10 FPS and played at 18 FPS. The simple way to slow video is to record it at 18 and play it at 10.
However, Popular Science debunked every single conspiracy theory so far.
-
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9916/tyretracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/tyretracks.jpg/)
Footprints?
-
I'm still waiting....
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
-
Video didn't exist in 1969.
Actually, it did. Videotape was developed in the early 1950s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape#Early_formats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape#Early_formats)
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Have you seen this?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
-
Spot the mistake.
(http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6439/buggypacked.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/buggypacked.png/)
Any of you moon landing believers care to explain your way out of this?
What. The MESA is lowered and the rover has already been deployed and driven. The MESA and rover were stowed in two different places.
Again, which is it?
It takes an unbiased in depth critical analysis of all footage and pictures,
..and simply just accepted as fake.
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9916/tyretracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/tyretracks.jpg/)
No, I can clearly see where the rover was maneuvered around, and in the process of walking around they obscured some of the tire tracks.
Scepti, you've already demonstrated your (lack of ) ability to spot fake pictures with the 'running shoe print on the moon' picture in that video you posted a little while back. It was an obvious photoshop, which you admitted you couldn't tell was fake. Why should we take you seriously when you say, "this looks faked"?
You don't have to take me seriously or anything. That's your prerogative.
I certainly don't take people seriously when they frantically try to find ways of getting out of tight situations and when they can't figure it out, either by looking for debunking articles on it, they will make up something, no matter how silly it looks.
That's just the way it is.
-
Here's a source I found.
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001140.html (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001140.html)
your photo looks like slightly better quality actually thanx.
and sceptic i showed you a photo that had been stitched together and you did not even notice while spouting off all sorts of other rubbish about the picture being fake, but now you can spot a photo stitch?
their is no stitch in this photo. its just a few tracks that line up for a small section of the photo
I'll tell you what. Bring up that stitched together photo and let's see what all these people in here can see of it being stitched together because it didn't look stitched together by what I saw.
The reason it was said to be stitched together was because it was proved to be fake with anomalies, so what to do, what to do. Ok we will say it's stitched together, yet a picture like what you posted had no reason whatsoever to be stitched together at all.
So over to you. Bring it up. I want to see that picture.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at about 200kms, they are not geo-synchronous. Here is a photo of Aplollo gear from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera:
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/628459main_Apollo_11.jpg)
Edit: Seeing as the LRO is about 1000kgs (http://lro.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft.html (http://lro.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft.html)) and the KH-11 is about 12700kgs (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm)), so it looks like the KH-11 has more payload available and therefore can carry a higher resolution camera and/or optics systems.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at about 200kms, they are not geo-synchronous. Here is a photo of Aplollo gear from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera:
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/628459main_Apollo_11.jpg)
Edit: Seeing as the LRO is about 1000kgs (http://lro.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft.html (http://lro.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft.html)) and the KH-11 is about 12700kgs (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm)), so it looks like the KH-11 has more payload available and therefore can carry a higher resolution camera and/or optics systems.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites zoom in on our homes of cars and we can see them picture perfect and yet an orbiter about the moon can only bring up stupid images like this that look like some pervo have lost his load?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Have you seen this?
Not myself, but my friend from NASA has. Oh wait...NASA.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
How do you know they can't see it? Because they won't share their prize pics with you?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Have you seen this?
Not myself, but my friend from NASA has. Oh wait...NASA.
Was your friend from NASA on holiday near the moon or did he use a replica fake ground based hubble?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
How do you know they can't see it? Because they won't share their prize pics with you?
You mean that's not the real picture that's posted of the LM and stuff? ::)
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
How do you know they can't? Have you talked to them?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
How do you know they can't see it? Because they won't share their prize pics with you?
You mean that's not the real picture that's posted of the LM and stuff? ::)
No. I meant "How do you know they can't see it?"
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Have you seen this?
Not myself, but my friend from NASA has. Oh wait...NASA.
Was your friend from NASA on holiday near the moon or did he use a replica fake ground based hubble?
Do you want to have a logical discussion or simply play games?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Unfortunately, this article is date almost five years ago.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Unfortunately, this article is date almost five years ago.
Could they be using the technique (whose name escapes me atm) where you use several smaller telescopes over a wide area to create the effect of a huge telescope?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
I answered you. The LRO weighs 100kgs, to the KH-11s 12,000kgs. The KH-11 carries more in the way of optical magnifiers including a massive mirror for image focusing. The KH-11 has a better camera by a wide margin. On the links I posted you can see that the LROC achieves 50cm/pixel resolution on wide angle to the KH-11s 15cm/pixel despite the atmosphere and distance. Makes sense considering it has a smaller variety of instruments and is 12x as massive.
EDIT: Also the LRO orbits at 30 miles, so its more like 50kms.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
I answered you. The LRO weighs 100kgs, to the KH-11s 12,000kgs. The KH-11 carries more in the way of optical magnifiers including a massive mirror for image focusing. The KH-11 has a better camera by a wide margin. On the links I posted you can see that the LROC achieves 50cm/pixel resolution on wide angle to the KH-11s 15cm/pixel despite the atmosphere and distance. Makes sense considering it has a smaller variety of instruments and is 12x as massive.
EDIT: Also the LRO orbits at 30 miles, so its more like 50kms.
100kg to 12000kg is 120 times bigger
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Yes! I meant to write 1000kgs!
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
I answered you. The LRO weighs 100kgs, to the KH-11s 12,000kgs. The KH-11 carries more in the way of optical magnifiers including a massive mirror for image focusing. The KH-11 has a better camera by a wide margin. On the links I posted you can see that the LROC achieves 50cm/pixel resolution on wide angle to the KH-11s 15cm/pixel despite the atmosphere and distance. Makes sense considering it has a smaller variety of instruments and is 12x as massive.
EDIT: Also the LRO orbits at 30 miles, so its more like 50kms.
100kg to 12000kg is 120 times bigger
Yes! I meant to write 1000kgs! Thank you!
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
How do you know they can't? Have you talked to them?
Well if they can, why aren't we shown photos of the landers in quality photos. Let us see the stuff on the moon that we have all become familiar with.
Will it silence many critics?
I bet it would silence three quarters, which would mean NASA has the ball in their court once again, so why don;t they show us?
I'll tell you why.
Because there is no man made object of any description on that moon and they can't fake it as it would take too much time to fake it all again using what they supposedly left as props and stuff would be long gone and making new ones would prove a pain in the arse and they know it.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Have you seen this?
Not myself, but my friend from NASA has. Oh wait...NASA.
Was your friend from NASA on holiday near the moon or did he use a replica fake ground based hubble?
Do you want to have a logical discussion or simply play games?
It depends on what you want to do. Do you want a logical discussion or are you going to use friends at NASA as back up?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Hubble
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
I answered you. The LRO weighs 100kgs, to the KH-11s 12,000kgs. The KH-11 carries more in the way of optical magnifiers including a massive mirror for image focusing. The KH-11 has a better camera by a wide margin. On the links I posted you can see that the LROC achieves 50cm/pixel resolution on wide angle to the KH-11s 15cm/pixel despite the atmosphere and distance. Makes sense considering it has a smaller variety of instruments and is 12x as massive.
EDIT: Also the LRO orbits at 30 miles, so its more like 50kms.
Ok let's get this straight.
We can see our cars from a supposed satellite in space 200 km up and an orbiter going over the moon at 50km was equipped with a crap camera that cannot emulate or even better one from a satellite that's been up for decades?
Is this what you are telling me?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Hubble
Hubble's resolution is not good enough to see objects on the moon. It is meant only to see objects in deep space where you do not need the kind of resolution seen on a spy satellite.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Hubble
Hubble's resolution is not good enough to see objects on the moon. It is meant only to see objects in deep space where you do not need the kind of resolution seen on a spy satellite.
So explain to me why Hubble can see zillions of miles away but can't seem to make out the moon.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
I'm afraid to say this isn't true. A lunar orbiter recently took pictures of some of the landing sites but they are in orbit of the moon obviously. You can't see the landing sites with a telescope on the moon. As much as I wish you could.
That would be an incredible sight, but yes all we have are fuzzy pictures from that orbiter which is ONLY 30 miles above the surface :/
Explain to me why a supposed satellite can zoom in on your car in your street as clear as anything from supposedly 23,000 miles into space, through an atmosphere and yet a lunar orbiter, supposedly only 30 miles above a moon with supposedly no atmosphere cannot see the stuff the Astro liars left.
Explain this please?
Spy satellites orbit at a relatively low altitude, especially when compared to geostationary ones. Here's a link to a discussion about what they probably can and can't see. I say probably as we're really talking about military tech (read confidential) but the stuff about theoretical limits is interesting.
http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate (http://everything2.com/title/Spy+satellites+can%2527t+read+your+license+plate)
and here's a link to the specifications for the LRO
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lroc.php?pg=specifications)
it has a resolution of 0.5m per pixel.
On a purely practical note though it's easier to send an object into a low orbit around the earth than to the moon therefore it's easier to stick a big camera around the earth than the moon. As the main declared goal of the mission wasn't to provide proof of the lunar landings then they will have sent the best camera that can to do what they want for the lowest weight.
I'll ask once again.
Why can satellites see our cars, even from 200 km high and see them perfectly well and in focus and the colour, yet an orbiting 30km probe cannot even distinguish anything that remotely looks like a lander, even though it has no atmosphere to scupper it's view.
I answered you. The LRO weighs 100kgs, to the KH-11s 12,000kgs. The KH-11 carries more in the way of optical magnifiers including a massive mirror for image focusing. The KH-11 has a better camera by a wide margin. On the links I posted you can see that the LROC achieves 50cm/pixel resolution on wide angle to the KH-11s 15cm/pixel despite the atmosphere and distance. Makes sense considering it has a smaller variety of instruments and is 12x as massive.
EDIT: Also the LRO orbits at 30 miles, so its more like 50kms.
Ok let's get this straight.
We can see our cars from a supposed satellite in space 200 km up and an orbiter going over the moon at 50km was equipped with a crap camera that cannot emulate or even better one from a satellite that's been up for decades?
Is this what you are telling me?
What I am telling you is this:
That the LRO which is 1/12th the mass of a KH-11 (and smaller again than the KH-12) has significantly less space for optical systems than a KH-11. Since it cannot accommodate the large optical systems it has much larger limitations on its resolving power.
My question for you is, "Why do you think the LROshould be able to make out the stars on a flag on the moon or something else suitably small?"
There are photos posted earlier in this thread and easily available online, so perhaps you should concentrate on what you see rather than what you assume?
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Hubble
Hubble's resolution is not good enough to see objects on the moon. It is meant only to see objects in deep space where you do not need the kind of resolution seen on a spy satellite.
So explain to me why Hubble can see zillions of miles away but can't seem to make out the moon.
It can make out the moon, it cannot make out objects on the moon. If you have looked at a Hubble telescope image, you can see that there is not a lot of fine detail in them. It takes in a lot of light but does not resolve it in to fine images.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Hubble
Hubble's resolution is not good enough to see objects on the moon. It is meant only to see objects in deep space where you do not need the kind of resolution seen on a spy satellite.
So explain to me why Hubble can see zillions of miles away but can't seem to make out the moon.
this might answer it
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134 (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134)
-
100kg to 12000kg is 120 times bigger
I was about to make that correction, but you beat me to the punch. Thanks a lot, meanie.
-
You do know that you can look through a powerful telescope and see the lunar rover sitting on the moon.
Unfortunately, telescopes that powerful don't currently exist.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/)
Hubble
Hubble's resolution is not good enough to see objects on the moon. It is meant only to see objects in deep space where you do not need the kind of resolution seen on a spy satellite.
So explain to me why Hubble can see zillions of miles away but can't seem to make out the moon.
this might answer it
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134 (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134)
Awesome link Manarq! I sumbitted a question asking why the LROC cannot see details on the Lunar Rover on the moon. Once I get the answer I will post it here!
-
Pythagoras wrote:
because once again you have no idea what you are talking about. satellites that take those pictures are at 500-600 kilometers and are designed for looking at the surface in as much detail as technologically possible.
the name of the craft that took pictures of the moon was called the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. its mission was as follows
Areas of investigation include:[16]
Selenodetic global topography.
Characterization of deep space radiation in lunar orbit.
The lunar polar regions, including possible water ice deposits and the lighting environment. The lunar polar regions experience temperatures of −223 °C (−369.4 °F) and may be able to hold water ice.[17]
High-resolution mapping (max 0.5 metres (1.6 ft)) to assist in the selection and characterization of future landing sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter)
its mission was not taking photos of the lunar landers. so it was not designed to.
...................................................
So Thaggy, they don't have the technology to take any photo's that can clearly show what's left on the moon?
-
yes we do but in orbit around the earth. not the moon. it costs a lot of money to send things into orbit around the moon. and NASA dosent waste money sending hugely more complex craft to the moon than it needs to just to satisfy losers that watch to much you tube conspiracy stuff.
-
Pythagoras wrote:
because once again you have no idea what you are talking about. satellites that take those pictures are at 500-600 kilometers and are designed for looking at the surface in as much detail as technologically possible.
the name of the craft that took pictures of the moon was called the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. its mission was as follows
Areas of investigation include:[16]
Selenodetic global topography.
Characterization of deep space radiation in lunar orbit.
The lunar polar regions, including possible water ice deposits and the lighting environment. The lunar polar regions experience temperatures of −223 °C (−369.4 °F) and may be able to hold water ice.[17]
High-resolution mapping (max 0.5 metres (1.6 ft)) to assist in the selection and characterization of future landing sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter)
its mission was not taking photos of the lunar landers. so it was not designed to.
...................................................
So Thaggy, they don't have the technology to take any photo's that can clearly show what's left on the moon?
Sceptimatic, not being designed to photgraph gear left on the moon and not having the technology are entirely different things. Don't confuse the two ideas.
-
yes we do but in orbit around the earth. not the moon. it costs a lot of money to send things into orbit around the moon. and NASA dosent waste money sending hugely more complex craft to the moon than it needs to just to satisfy losers that watch to much you tube conspiracy stuff.
Well we already know they don't waste money sending complex craft to the moon by the tin foil and card board craft they used.
So even though a quarter of the world knows the moon landings were faked, don't you think they would prove it wasn't once and for all and equip an extra camera to an orbiter already 50 km near the moon.
Just think, I mean it's your job on the line I know but...just think, if they just done that and showed us all the stuff on the moon, it would satisfy everyone except just a few small pockets of people as long as what they showed was how it was all left of course.
That way, they could save a fortune in paying people like you to constantly keep their side going.
-
Pythagoras wrote:
because once again you have no idea what you are talking about. satellites that take those pictures are at 500-600 kilometers and are designed for looking at the surface in as much detail as technologically possible.
the name of the craft that took pictures of the moon was called the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. its mission was as follows
Areas of investigation include:[16]
Selenodetic global topography.
Characterization of deep space radiation in lunar orbit.
The lunar polar regions, including possible water ice deposits and the lighting environment. The lunar polar regions experience temperatures of −223 °C (−369.4 °F) and may be able to hold water ice.[17]
High-resolution mapping (max 0.5 metres (1.6 ft)) to assist in the selection and characterization of future landing sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter)
its mission was not taking photos of the lunar landers. so it was not designed to.
...................................................
So Thaggy, they don't have the technology to take any photo's that can clearly show what's left on the moon?
Sceptimatic, not being designed to photgraph gear left on the moon and not having the technology are entirely different things. Don't confuse the two ideas.
True.
I mean 44 years nearly and they can't attach a video to an orbiter that can capture mans journey to the moon and show all the young people of today just what was left there.
Imagine that?
But no...they won;t do that because they don't want to appear to satisfy the tin foil hat nutters who say it was fake. Those same nutters who are looked on by society as being so odd, they need therapy. Yet to think, they could still do it and show mans greatest achievement and show it all clearly. ::)
-
yes we do but in orbit around the earth. not the moon. it costs a lot of money to send things into orbit around the moon. and NASA dosent waste money sending hugely more complex craft to the moon than it needs to just to satisfy losers that watch to much you tube conspiracy stuff.
Well we already know they don't waste money sending complex craft to the moon by the tin foil and card board craft they used.
So even though a quarter of the world knows the moon landings were faked, don't you think they would prove it wasn't once and for all and equip an extra camera to an orbiter already 50 km near the moon.
Just think, I mean it's your job on the line I know but...just think, if they just done that and showed us all the stuff on the moon, it would satisfy everyone except just a few small pockets of people as long as what they showed was how it was all left of course.
That way, they could save a fortune in paying people like you to constantly keep their side going.
Conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe it anyway so why bother? You've been shown a picture taken from a small craft orbiting the moon that shows man made objects on the moon but your argument is "it's not a good enough resolution", if it was good enough to see footprints your argument would be "that's too clear, it's obviously a sound stage". So I ask again why should they bother?
-
yes we do but in orbit around the earth. not the moon. it costs a lot of money to send things into orbit around the moon. and NASA dosent waste money sending hugely more complex craft to the moon than it needs to just to satisfy losers that watch to much you tube conspiracy stuff.
Well we already know they don't waste money sending complex craft to the moon by the tin foil and card board craft they used.
So even though a quarter of the world knows the moon landings were faked,
Where did this figure come from? Sounds made up.
don't you think they would prove it wasn't once and for all and equip an extra camera to an orbiter already 50 km near the moon
Just think, I mean it's your job on the line I know but...just think, if they just done that and showed us all the stuff on the moon, it would satisfy everyone except just a few small pockets of people as long as what they showed was how it was all left of course.
That way, they could save a fortune in paying people like you to constantly keep their side going.
There is a photo of gear on the moon posted in this thread and others are available online, check them out. Why would their jobs be on the line? You think that the House of Representatives or the President dont believe the moon landing? Pretty bold claim, I would like some proof of that. You think Pythagoras is being paid by NASA to post on this site? Interesting.
-
if this was done you would just say that it was photo shopped. i will repeat. NASA does not waste tax payers money sending vastly more complex and heavy craft to the moon
than it needs to just to satisfy lossers who watch to much you tube conspiracy's R us channels.
and in reguards to your challange to show you where the photos are stitched together i think you will find i also posted a video that shows you all the origionals and where they were cut to fit together. maby you should re acquaint your self with it
-
Pythagoras wrote:
because once again you have no idea what you are talking about. satellites that take those pictures are at 500-600 kilometers and are designed for looking at the surface in as much detail as technologically possible.
the name of the craft that took pictures of the moon was called the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. its mission was as follows
Areas of investigation include:[16]
Selenodetic global topography.
Characterization of deep space radiation in lunar orbit.
The lunar polar regions, including possible water ice deposits and the lighting environment. The lunar polar regions experience temperatures of −223 °C (−369.4 °F) and may be able to hold water ice.[17]
High-resolution mapping (max 0.5 metres (1.6 ft)) to assist in the selection and characterization of future landing sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter)
its mission was not taking photos of the lunar landers. so it was not designed to.
...................................................
So Thaggy, they don't have the technology to take any photo's that can clearly show what's left on the moon?
Sceptimatic, not being designed to photgraph gear left on the moon and not having the technology are entirely different things. Don't confuse the two ideas.
True.
I mean 44 years nearly and they can't attach a video to an orbiter that can capture mans journey to the moon and show all the young people of today just what was left there.
Imagine that?
But no...they won;t do that because they don't want to appear to satisfy the tin foil hat nutters who say it was fake. Those same nutters who are looked on by society as being so odd, they need therapy. Yet to think, they could still do it and show mans greatest achievement and show it all clearly. ::)
They dont need to supplement the video, audio and photographic evidence that already exists. The accomplishment is well-documented. You choose not to believe it and that is fine, but it is ridiculous to assume that NASA needs to add any further evidence of what they have done. They are moving on to other things like plans for putting a base on the moon. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
-
maby i should wright to NASA and ask to be put on the pay role?. i dont see why wanting to defend are species greatest achivments from unbalanced lunatics is so hard for you to believe. you just make it realy easy by knowing nothing about any subject you are talking about. that's your problem not mine.
-
yes we do but in orbit around the earth. not the moon. it costs a lot of money to send things into orbit around the moon. and NASA dosent waste money sending hugely more complex craft to the moon than it needs to just to satisfy losers that watch to much you tube conspiracy stuff.
Well we already know they don't waste money sending complex craft to the moon by the tin foil and card board craft they used.
So even though a quarter of the world knows the moon landings were faked, don't you think they would prove it wasn't once and for all and equip an extra camera to an orbiter already 50 km near the moon.
Just think, I mean it's your job on the line I know but...just think, if they just done that and showed us all the stuff on the moon, it would satisfy everyone except just a few small pockets of people as long as what they showed was how it was all left of course.
That way, they could save a fortune in paying people like you to constantly keep their side going.
Conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe it anyway so why bother? You've been shown a picture taken from a small craft orbiting the moon that shows man made objects on the moon but your argument is "it's not a good enough resolution", if it was good enough to see footprints your argument would be "that's too clear, it's obviously a sound stage". So I ask again why should they bother?
That picture shows nothing of the sort.
I'm going to put this to you and this will give me a clear indication if you are even worth answering to, so here goes.
In that picture, can you see man made objects on the moon that you can discern as man made objects or can you see them because you have been told that this is the site of a landing and that's the spot with blobs and dots as remnants of stuff left behind.
Give me an answer which one is it?
-
yes we do but in orbit around the earth. not the moon. it costs a lot of money to send things into orbit around the moon. and NASA dosent waste money sending hugely more complex craft to the moon than it needs to just to satisfy losers that watch to much you tube conspiracy stuff.
Well we already know they don't waste money sending complex craft to the moon by the tin foil and card board craft they used.
So even though a quarter of the world knows the moon landings were faked, don't you think they would prove it wasn't once and for all and equip an extra camera to an orbiter already 50 km near the moon.
Just think, I mean it's your job on the line I know but...just think, if they just done that and showed us all the stuff on the moon, it would satisfy everyone except just a few small pockets of people as long as what they showed was how it was all left of course.
That way, they could save a fortune in paying people like you to constantly keep their side going.
A quarter of the Earth's population not believing in the moon landings is a pretty bold claim, to say the least. You cannot please all of the people all of the time, and more would be in an uproar about wasting money to prove something to a very small minority than those that would be satisfied by the results. Even if, for some inexplicable reason, they decided to prove to the "nonbelievers" that we had been to the moon, the majority of this small group would pass it off as fake anyway, thus making their money and efforts a complete waste of time.
-
if this was done you would just say that it was photo shopped. i will repeat. NASA does not waste tax payers money sending vastly more complex and heavy craft to the moon
than it needs to just to satisfy lossers who watch to much you tube conspiracy's R us channels.
and in reguards to your challange to show you where the photos are stitched together i think you will find i also posted a video that shows you all the origionals and where they were cut to fit together. maby you should re acquaint your self with it
Just bring up the photo you say it stitched.
-
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9486/news121310j.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/news121310j.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
below is the extremly high res version
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/as1140586369.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/as1140586369.jpg/)
-
Putting a base on the moon are they.
They want to learn to put a rocket into space before they do that.
They could be a bit rusty after 44 years.
The fake story.
To put a base upon the moon, you scrap the moon missions from 1972 onwards, then you build a shuttle or two and a space station.
You keep sending up shuttles with men and women on, to add bits to the space station, whilst doing important experiments like taking guitars up there and flutes, plus toy lions and such.
All of a sudden, you scrap the shuttle and leave it up to Russian rockets that use basically the same thing everyone used in the 60's, which is a re-entry capsule that lands in the ocean.
Even though all technology advances. The space program takes a massive step backwards in time.
Now it's time to send people back to the moon and actually build moon bases regardless of no man ever being there since 1972...yet immediately get to work building moon bases.
Not only do they have to get rockets built that's capable of this but they have to build something capable of landing moon base equipment to build it.
How in the hell people cannot see this for the absolute complete and utter trash it is, I honestly don't know but each to their own.
-
maby i should wright to NASA and ask to be put on the pay role?. i dont see why wanting to defend are species greatest achivments from unbalanced lunatics is so hard for you to believe. you just make it realy easy by knowing nothing about any subject you are talking about. that's your problem not mine.
I know enough to know it's all fake.
-
The MESA is lowered and the rover has already been deployed and driven. The MESA and rover were stowed in two different places.
No, I can clearly see where the rover was maneuvered around, and in the process of walking around they obscured some of the tire tracks.
You don't have to take me seriously or anything. That's your prerogative.
I certainly don't take people seriously when they frantically try to find ways of getting out of tight situations and when they can't figure it out, either by looking for debunking articles on it, they will make up something, no matter how silly it looks.
That's just the way it is.
I don't, and neither should anyone else who has at least an average, or above average, understanding of cameras and imaging.
I didn't frantically make anything up. I looked at the picture, and then looked up information on the lander. The MESA is a large bundle that folds out of the lander just like the rover. They're in two different locations. The rover has been deployed and driven whilst the MESA is lowered in that picture.
The other picture doesn't look like it's been edited. I looked closely at it too. Tire marks back and forth, and foot prints back and forth with dust kicked around. I don't see any definitive line, pixel difference, shadow difference, so on and so forth.
-
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9486/news121310j.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/news121310j.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
below is the extremly high res version
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/as1140586369.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/as1140586369.jpg/)
Let's see if any unbiased photo experts can see what you see.
Could you do me a favour Thaggy.
Can you paint in some arrows to point out where all this stitching is, or can anyone else?
-
The MESA is lowered and the rover has already been deployed and driven. The MESA and rover were stowed in two different places.
No, I can clearly see where the rover was maneuvered around, and in the process of walking around they obscured some of the tire tracks.
You don't have to take me seriously or anything. That's your prerogative.
I certainly don't take people seriously when they frantically try to find ways of getting out of tight situations and when they can't figure it out, either by looking for debunking articles on it, they will make up something, no matter how silly it looks.
That's just the way it is.
I don't, and neither should anyone else who has at least an average, or above average, understanding of cameras and imaging.
I didn't frantically make anything up. I looked at the picture, and then looked up information on the lander. The MESA is a large bundle that folds out of the lander just like the rover. They're in two different locations. The rover has been deployed and driven whilst the MESA is lowered in that picture.
The other picture doesn't look like it's been edited. I looked closely at it too. Tire marks back and forth, and foot prints back and forth with dust kicked around. I don't see any definitive line, pixel difference, shadow difference, so on and so forth.
We need a few unbiased photography experts on here or at least experts that don't accept the moon landings as 100% real.
-
unbiased? you mean people who share your twisted views? ::)
this isnt a conspiracy website, just thought you should know.
-
just go to the ALSJ website it shows you all the original photos and the way they were stitched together. being an expert on how the moon missions were hoaxed i assume know this site inside and out seeing as it is a source of original and unedited photos transcripts engineering drawings orbital calculations and training regimes. no? ???
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html)
-
unbiased? you mean people who share your twisted views? ::)
this isnt a conspiracy website, just thought you should know.
Well in the rules, it says put your conspiracies in here. What do you suppose that means?
-
just go to the ALSJ website it shows you all the original photos and the way they were stitched together. being an expert on how the moon missions were hoaxed i assume know this site inside and out seeing as it is a source of original and unedited photos transcripts engineering drawings orbital calculations and training regimes. no? ???
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html)
Can you place arrows at the points where that picture you put up are stitched together please.
-
so you cant do any research of your own? bit lazy isnt it. i even posted a video showing everything you are asking now. how lazy can you be?
-
so you cant do any research of your own? bit lazy isnt it. i even posted a video showing everything you are asking now. how lazy can you be?
Can you place arrows at the points where that picture you put up are stitched together please.
-
(http://)
nice little video explaing in baby steps for you. enjoy
-
(http://)
nice little video explaing in baby steps for you. enjoy
Can you place arrows at the points where that picture you put up are stitched together please.
-
are you retarded or something? ??? i just gave you a video that shows the integral photos and where they are stitched together. but instead you want painted on arrows? should i use finger paint or Microsoft paint?
-
are you retarded or something? ??? i just gave you a video that shows the integral photos and where they are stitched together. but instead you want painted on arrows? should i use finger paint or Microsoft paint?
Can "YOU" place arrows at the points where that picture "YOU" put up are stitched together please.
-
get back to me when you fix the repeat button on your computer
-
so you cant do any research of your own? bit lazy isnt it. i even posted a video showing everything you are asking now. how lazy can you be?
Can you place arrows at the points where that picture you put up are stitched together please.
I think that was a no.
-
get back to me when you fix the repeat button on your computer
You won;t do it because you know it's not stitched together and you can't find it.
Prove me wrong with that exact picture you put up and show me the stitched up pieces.
You appear to be backing out of this.
May day may day, are there any clever photographers that can give me an unbiased scrutinisation of this picture and tell me if you can see where it's been stitched together by many different photos into it?
The picture is below.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/as1140586369.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/as1140586369.jpg/)
-
3 main photos used in the assembled panorama.
image one
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5863.jpg (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5863.jpg)
image 2
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg)
image 3
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5865 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5865)
source describing which photos were used to create the panorama
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html)
1 November 2012
In early 2008, Ed Hengeveld used portions of AS11-40-5863 to 69 to create a view of Buzz on the porch (4.0 Mb or 0.4 Mb). Neil did not capture the top rear of the LM with these pictures, so Ed filled the gap with a portion of AS11-44-6576, which was taken in orbit after undocking. Late in 2012, AwE130 suggested that Ed's creation more properly belongs on the page with other creative works, rather than in the Apollo 11 Image Library.
ROUGH lines indicating where the photos have been overlayed
(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3707/assembledpanorama.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/assembledpanorama.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
Well Thaggy: maybe my scrutinisation skills aren't up to it but I see no stitching whatsoever in that picture .
-
that's because a professional did it. hear is another slightly different version of the same picture.
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1125/c0114916apollo11moonlan.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/c0114916apollo11moonlan.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
that's because a professional did it. hear is another slightly different version of the same picture.
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1125/c0114916apollo11moonlan.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/c0114916apollo11moonlan.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Oh come on Thaggy lol.
-
oh com on what? its a composite photograph. showing Buzz Aldrin climbing down the ladder. it uses the same photos as in the 1st one i posted but changed the photos used over the ladder portion of the photo. so... come on what?
-
that's because a professional did it. hear is another slightly different version of the same picture.
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1125/c0114916apollo11moonlan.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/c0114916apollo11moonlan.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
lol
-
oh com on what? its a composite photograph. showing Buzz Aldrin climbing down the ladder. it uses the same photos as in the 1st one i posted but changed the photos used over the ladder portion of the photo. so... come on what?
I'm not interested in any other one, I'm only interested in the first one you posted that you said was stitched together.
I cannot find anywhere where you have pointed that tells me it's stitched together and I'd like someone else to point it out.
The fact that some of your backers are not, who claim to be experts on photography, tells me, it's not stitched together at all.
-
thats because you are not actually capable of spotting photo shop. your fault not mine
-
thats because you are not actually capable of spotting photo shop. your fault not mine
Obviously I can't be. I'd like a second/third/fourth or however many other opinions on what can be seen as stitched mind. I do admit , it's some fantastic stitching...he must have used wonder web.
-
Well Thaggy: maybe my scrutinisation skills aren't up to it but I see no stitching whatsoever in that picture .
Well, maybe if you look hard enough for long enough...
-
this isnt a conspiracy website, just thought you should know.
Lurk moar.
-
What's going on in here, I swear I only left for 5 minutes...
-
What's going on in here, I swear I only left for 5 minutes...
I know the feeling ;D
-
What's going on in here, I swear I only left for 5 minutes...
I know the feeling ;D
You didn't miss much.
-
this isnt a conspiracy website, just thought you should know.
Lurk moar.
That is a matter of opinion.
-
this isnt a conspiracy website, just thought you should know.
Lurk moar.
That is a matter of opinion.
Not at all. The conspiracy is referenced all the time. It's even in the wiki (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Conspiracy).
-
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9916/tyretracks.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/tyretracks.jpg/)
Says he can see evidence of photoshoping in one picture....
Well Thaggy: maybe my scrutinisation skills aren't up to it but I see no stitching whatsoever in that picture .
And now he can't in another.
So are you able to see evidence of image manipulation or not?
I do admit , it's some fantastic stitching...he must have used wonder web.
I'm surprised you didn't say he used magic.
-
I'm not interested in any other one, I'm only interested in the first one you posted that you said was stitched together.
I cannot find anywhere where you have pointed that tells me it's stitched together and I'd like someone else to point it out.
The fact that some of your backers are not, who claim to be experts on photography, tells me, it's not stitched together at all.
I gave it a quick try. I found 27 *edited* items that I found suspicious. Some were obvious, some weren't, but they didn't look right either way. #12 was the only one I thought might have been a seam, but when I looked at the originals afterward, I found out it isn't. Oops.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img89/2534/as1140586369composite.jpg)
-
I'm not interested in any other one, I'm only interested in the first one you posted that you said was stitched together.
I cannot find anywhere where you have pointed that tells me it's stitched together and I'd like someone else to point it out.
The fact that some of your backers are not, who claim to be experts on photography, tells me, it's not stitched together at all.
I gave it a quick try. I found 28 items that I found suspicious. Some were obvious, some weren't, but they didn't look right either way. #12 was the only one I thought might have been a seam, but when I looked at the originals afterward, I found out it isn't. Oops.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img89/2534/as1140586369composite.jpg)
Just circling them is not going to help - can you give us a list of the numbers and tell us why you found each one suspicious.
-
On second thoughts, I get the impression you are taking the piss.
-
Just circling them is not going to help - can you give us a list of the numbers and tell us why you found each one suspicious.
Very well since I'm going to be the only one to analyze and publish my findings. Also since we know perfectly well no FE'r will do so, especially Scepti....
1. (left and right) shading of surface doesnt' match
2. blurry spots
3. shading difference can be seen
4. bottom two steps angle is off
5. seam visible
6. seam and extra fill visible
7. shading and double image
8. antenna sun-lit from wrong direction
9. lighting doesn't look right
10 ladder rail doesn't match
11 strut not straight
12 seam (actually is part of original photo, probably fold down compartment seam)
13 strut not straight
14 see above
16 see above
15 seam
17 see above
18 see above
19 all messed up
20 strut lighting and edges obvious from alt source
21 strut seam
22 horizon joint (will have to double check- I might be too picky)
23 rocks and shading double
24 shading not right (will double check this too)
25 shading definatly not right
26 blurriness
27 (screwed up my numbering- kids don't multitask and count while drawing, you get sea-sick)
28 sun is just too perfect
-
Just circling them is not going to help - can you give us a list of the numbers and tell us why you found each one suspicious.
Very well since I'm going to be the only one to analyze and publish my findings. Also since we know perfectly well no FE'r will do so, especially Scepti....
1. (left and right) shading of surface doesnt' match
2. blurry spots
3. shading difference can be seen
4. bottom two steps angle is off
5. seam visible
6. seam and extra fill visible
7. shading and double image
8. antenna sun-lit from wrong direction
9. lighting doesn't look right
10 ladder rail doesn't match
11 strut not straight
12 seam (actually is part of original photo, probably fold down compartment seam)
13 strut not straight
14 see above
16 see above
15 seam
17 see above
18 see above
19 all messed up
20 strut lighting and edges obvious from alt source
21 strut seam
22 horizon joint (will have to double check- I might be too picky)
23 rocks and shading double
24 shading not right (will double check this too)
25 shading definatly not right
26 blurriness
27 (screwed up my numbering- kids don't multitask and count while drawing, you get sea-sick)
28 sun is just too perfect
I am not convinced, I think you could literally do this with any photo, and find what seem like errors. But I will take a good look.
-
It's not small anomalies I'm after. It's arrows pointing to where Thaggy said it was many photos stitched together.
He says I can't spot fakes, yet if this photo is stitched together, then he's right, I can't, yet it appears nobody else can either, so my conclusion is, it isn't stitched at all, it's simply a staged photo in a studio.
-
It's not small anomalies I'm after. It's arrows pointing to where Thaggy said it was many photos stitched together.
He says I can't spot fakes, yet if this photo is stitched together, then he's right, I can't, yet it appears nobody else can either, so my conclusion is, it isn't stitched at all, it's simply a staged photo in a studio.
You appear to be ignoring 29silhouette's post.
-
It's not small anomalies I'm after. It's arrows pointing to where Thaggy said it was many photos stitched together.
He says I can't spot fakes, yet if this photo is stitched together, then he's right, I can't, yet it appears nobody else can either, so my conclusion is, it isn't stitched at all, it's simply a staged photo in a studio.
Why is this annoying you so much, didn't he draw big boxes around where the original pictures were and then link to a vid as well? I can't see the joins either but I did go and have a look at the original images to check
-
It's not small anomalies I'm after. It's arrows pointing to where Thaggy said it was many photos stitched together.
He says I can't spot fakes, yet if this photo is stitched together, then he's right, I can't, yet it appears nobody else can either, so my conclusion is, it isn't stitched at all, it's simply a staged photo in a studio.
Why is this annoying you so much, didn't he draw big boxes around where the original pictures were and then link to a vid as well? I can't see the joins either but I did go and have a look at the original images to check
He based that photo on me not being able to see the stitching together of many and said I couldn't even tell it was different photos to prove to me that I can't spot photo shop and such, so I told him to put it up and let others see the stitching of which I admit, I can't and yet he's put boxes in 3 places and I still can't see the stitching. It appears no one else can either.
-
The photos weren't simply laid on top of each other. They were laid on top, aligned, resized, stretched to align, other spots were filled in with material from yet other photographs, lens flare spots were removed, some were added, bits of one picture were copied and pasted next to spots to fill in gaps, so on and so on. It's not just a simple "spot the edge of the photos".
I looked and spotted things that indicated to me it was a photoshop, and then looked at the original three images that are provided in the links to verify that what I found were indeed effects of editing.
I would say you should try following your own advice there Scepti:
It takes an unbiased in depth critical analysis of all footage and pictures
However it appears you don't want to, or don't know how.
So in that case, when you say a picture is fake, why should we take you seriously?
-
I am not convinced, I think you could literally do this with any photo, and find what seem like errors. But I will take a good look.
Have a look then. Pythagoras put links to the original three images on the previous page. I circled what seemed like errors, and then looked at the originals. It takes some zooming in to spot most of them.
-
i don't understand why sceptic thinks their will be a huge visible line where the photos are put together. ??? its a edited picture for publication iv shown all original videos plus a video showing what has been done to stitch the video. ( sceptic refuses to watch it)
a lot of silhouette things are actually right.
8. antenna sun-lit from wrong direction
no antenna in original photo. it was taken from another mission entirely.
20 strut lighting and edges obvious from alt source
21 strut seam
22 horizon joint (will have to double check- I might be too picky)
23 rocks and shading double
24 shading not right (will double check this too)
25 shading definatly not right
26 blurriness
this is the main seam of two of the main pictures.
28 sun is just too perfect
sun is completely added. not even a picture of the sun.
1. (left and right) shading of surface doesnt' match
lens flair removed
4. bottom two steps angle is off
pphoto is vertically stretched.
not to sure about the rest but good shout on most of it.
-
I'm interested in the stitching together and I cannot see any. I'm not concentrating on small anomalies. That wasn't the issue Thaggy and you know it.
I'd like some unbiased opinions on this supposed stitching together if there is any, which I cannot see and I don't care how good it's stitched, you would still notice something with those contrasts I can tell you that much.
Let's just assume it has though Thaggy: what possible reason would someone do that for?
-
20 strut lighting and edges obvious from alt source
21 strut seam
22 horizon joint (will have to double check- I might be too picky)
23 rocks and shading double
24 shading not right (will double check this too)
25 shading definatly not right
26 blurriness
is a stitch between the bottom right main picture and the center picture.
-
Let's just assume it has though Thaggy: what possible reason would someone do that for?
its an assembled panorama. from where he is standing you cannot get the whole lander in the shot so he takes multiple photos of different parts of the lander and the surrounding and then the photos are stitched together to give the impression of one photo. is it relay that hard to understand. even for you?
-
Let's just assume it has though Thaggy: what possible reason would someone do that for?
its an assembled panorama. from where he is standing you cannot get the whole lander in the shot so he takes multiple photos of different parts of the lander and the surrounding and then the photos are stitched together to give the impression of one photo. is it relay that hard to understand. even for you?
I'll tell you what is hard to understand Thaggy. See if you agree with me, (chortle)...
What I find hard to understand is, why would an Astro liar go to the moon with a big numb Hasselblad camera strapped to his chest knowing how extremely difficult it was to take pictures and get focus with no view finder etc and decide to take a panoramic view of that piece of cardboard and tin foil crap?
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
-
yes they did know it was going to be hard that's why they spent months with it strapped to their chests to practice and it was not a standard camera it was heavily modified.
also they took many hundreds to thousands of pictures over the course of all the missions and what is published our the highlights I.E the best photos. if you go to the official archive* you will see all the ones not published, many were awful quality as well as the ones that were good quality before they were edited for release. this is an example of a bad photo
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/8631/as1611118191.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/as1611118191.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
* ofidial source for Apollo imagery http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html)
-
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
I don't think I've ever actually had to explain this, so I'll give it a go.
So he can get a close up detailed shot, and then also add the views that couldn't be framed in the single image. Putting them together gives an added sense of the size of an object. Standing that close to something, you'd have to turn your head multiple directions to look directly at parts of it. You can take pictures looking in these different directions, and put them together to show that entire view.
It's a technique one can use in the absence of a wide angle or fish eye lens. I've done it several times with my own pictures. Just last Saturday I did a panoramic of a waterfall series at a local creek. I did a rough composite of three pictures, but haven't taken the time to really blend the edges. I did another set of 5 or 6, but haven't worked with them at all yet.
Whether it's a small waterfall, or the landing module, it results in a more impressive view of a scene as opposed to simple backing up and zooming in.
-
I wonder what happened to that photo.
I don't just mean the exposure, I mean the sloppy way it was taken. I mean , I thought these Astro liars had been highly trained not to get these out of focus considering the fantastic pictures they took which would have made a professional photographer proud even using a tripod.
Anyway, just out of interest, what caused this particular picture to go like this in terms of blur?
-
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
I don't think I've ever actually had to explain this, so I'll give it a go.
So he can get a close up detailed shot, and then also add the views that couldn't be framed in the single image. Putting them together gives an added sense of the size of an object. Standing that close to something, you'd have to turn your head multiple directions to look directly at parts of it. You can take pictures looking in these different directions, and put them together to show that entire view.
It's a technique one can use in the absence of a wide angle or fish eye lens. I've done it several times with my own pictures. Just last Saturday I did a panoramic of a waterfall series at a local creek. I did a rough composite of three pictures, but haven't taken the time to really blend the edges. I did another set of 5 or 6, but haven't worked with them at all yet.
Whether it's a small waterfall, or the landing module, it results in a more impressive view of a scene as opposed to simple backing up and zooming in.
That's fair enough in what you are doing.
Just be honest with me here. Do you not find it odd that men would go to the moon and spend time getting pictures just so they can show a panoramic view of stitched together photos, when they have video of it all and also considering these big cameras were strapped to their chests.
Does this not seem odd to you at all?
-
i just told you and gave you a link the the official source of all Apollo photos. they took 4834 photos. (iv just found that out) many are awful quality and or of just boring landscapes. you are lazy you just pick the best quality and usually edited versions to try and claim its all a hoax.
-
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
I don't think I've ever actually had to explain this, so I'll give it a go.
So he can get a close up detailed shot, and then also add the views that couldn't be framed in the single image. Putting them together gives an added sense of the size of an object. Standing that close to something, you'd have to turn your head multiple directions to look directly at parts of it. You can take pictures looking in these different directions, and put them together to show that entire view.
It's a technique one can use in the absence of a wide angle or fish eye lens. I've done it several times with my own pictures. Just last Saturday I did a panoramic of a waterfall series at a local creek. I did a rough composite of three pictures, but haven't taken the time to really blend the edges. I did another set of 5 or 6, but haven't worked with them at all yet.
Whether it's a small waterfall, or the landing module, it results in a more impressive view of a scene as opposed to simple backing up and zooming in.
That's fair enough in what you are doing.
Just be honest with me here. Do you not find it odd that men would go to the moon and spend time getting pictures just so they can show a panoramic view of stitched together photos, when they have video of it all and also considering these big cameras were strapped to their chests.
Does this not seem odd to you at all?
odd that they take photos of the most important moment in history? ???
-
i just told you and gave you a link the the official source of all Apollo photos. they took 4834 photos. (iv just found that out) many are awful quality and or of just boring landscapes. you are lazy you just pick the best quality and usually edited versions to try and claim its all a hoax.
Is it best to pick shit quality to prove a hoax?
Is the 4,834 pictures the pictures of all missions?
-
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
I don't think I've ever actually had to explain this, so I'll give it a go.
So he can get a close up detailed shot, and then also add the views that couldn't be framed in the single image. Putting them together gives an added sense of the size of an object. Standing that close to something, you'd have to turn your head multiple directions to look directly at parts of it. You can take pictures looking in these different directions, and put them together to show that entire view.
It's a technique one can use in the absence of a wide angle or fish eye lens. I've done it several times with my own pictures. Just last Saturday I did a panoramic of a waterfall series at a local creek. I did a rough composite of three pictures, but haven't taken the time to really blend the edges. I did another set of 5 or 6, but haven't worked with them at all yet.
Whether it's a small waterfall, or the landing module, it results in a more impressive view of a scene as opposed to simple backing up and zooming in.
That's fair enough in what you are doing.
Just be honest with me here. Do you not find it odd that men would go to the moon and spend time getting pictures just so they can show a panoramic view of stitched together photos, when they have video of it all and also considering these big cameras were strapped to their chests.
Does this not seem odd to you at all?
odd that they take photos of the most important moment in history? ???
Do you think taking a picture of a panoramic view of a tin foil piece of crap best serves anyone?
-
i just told you and gave you a link the the official source of all Apollo photos. they took 4834 photos. (iv just found that out) many are awful quality and or of just boring landscapes. you are lazy you just pick the best quality and usually edited versions to try and claim its all a hoax.
Is it best to pick shit quality to prove a hoax?
Is the 4,834 pictures the pictures of all missions?
i believe thats all missions.
and no its not best to pick bad quality photos for proving its a hoax but you cant say how are all the photos so perfect as if taken by a professional when a lot of them are in fact awful quality and many of the so called professional photos you post are not the originals and are edited.
-
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
I don't think I've ever actually had to explain this, so I'll give it a go.
So he can get a close up detailed shot, and then also add the views that couldn't be framed in the single image. Putting them together gives an added sense of the size of an object. Standing that close to something, you'd have to turn your head multiple directions to look directly at parts of it. You can take pictures looking in these different directions, and put them together to show that entire view.
It's a technique one can use in the absence of a wide angle or fish eye lens. I've done it several times with my own pictures. Just last Saturday I did a panoramic of a waterfall series at a local creek. I did a rough composite of three pictures, but haven't taken the time to really blend the edges. I did another set of 5 or 6, but haven't worked with them at all yet.
Whether it's a small waterfall, or the landing module, it results in a more impressive view of a scene as opposed to simple backing up and zooming in.
That's fair enough in what you are doing.
Just be honest with me here. Do you not find it odd that men would go to the moon and spend time getting pictures just so they can show a panoramic view of stitched together photos, when they have video of it all and also considering these big cameras were strapped to their chests.
Does this not seem odd to you at all?
odd that they take photos of the most important moment in history? ???
Do you think taking a picture of a panoramic view of a tin foil piece of crap best serves anyone?
yes its the craft they traveled there in. ??? large panorama like these allow much more detail to be taken their for you get a better quality. if you stand further back and zoom in you lose clarity in the photo.
-
i just told you and gave you a link the the official source of all Apollo photos. they took 4834 photos. (iv just found that out) many are awful quality and or of just boring landscapes. you are lazy you just pick the best quality and usually edited versions to try and claim its all a hoax.
Is it best to pick shit quality to prove a hoax?
Is the 4,834 pictures the pictures of all missions?
i believe thats all missions.
and no its not best to pick bad quality photos for proving its a hoax but you cant say how are all the photos so perfect as if taken by a professional when a lot of them are in fact awful quality and many of the so called professional photos you post are not the originals and are edited.
You mean like the professional so called legitimate ones you post that are all edited?
-
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
I don't think I've ever actually had to explain this, so I'll give it a go.
So he can get a close up detailed shot, and then also add the views that couldn't be framed in the single image. Putting them together gives an added sense of the size of an object. Standing that close to something, you'd have to turn your head multiple directions to look directly at parts of it. You can take pictures looking in these different directions, and put them together to show that entire view.
It's a technique one can use in the absence of a wide angle or fish eye lens. I've done it several times with my own pictures. Just last Saturday I did a panoramic of a waterfall series at a local creek. I did a rough composite of three pictures, but haven't taken the time to really blend the edges. I did another set of 5 or 6, but haven't worked with them at all yet.
Whether it's a small waterfall, or the landing module, it results in a more impressive view of a scene as opposed to simple backing up and zooming in.
That's fair enough in what you are doing.
Just be honest with me here. Do you not find it odd that men would go to the moon and spend time getting pictures just so they can show a panoramic view of stitched together photos, when they have video of it all and also considering these big cameras were strapped to their chests.
Does this not seem odd to you at all?
No. I don't find it odd.
I'd be taking pictures of all sorts of angles too. Pictures of the entire scene in one shot, multiple pictures for panoramics, etc. The image quality from any video is not as clear as the still shots, so yes, I'd be taking lots of still shots.
-
Can you explain why anyone would do this?
I don't think I've ever actually had to explain this, so I'll give it a go.
So he can get a close up detailed shot, and then also add the views that couldn't be framed in the single image. Putting them together gives an added sense of the size of an object. Standing that close to something, you'd have to turn your head multiple directions to look directly at parts of it. You can take pictures looking in these different directions, and put them together to show that entire view.
It's a technique one can use in the absence of a wide angle or fish eye lens. I've done it several times with my own pictures. Just last Saturday I did a panoramic of a waterfall series at a local creek. I did a rough composite of three pictures, but haven't taken the time to really blend the edges. I did another set of 5 or 6, but haven't worked with them at all yet.
Whether it's a small waterfall, or the landing module, it results in a more impressive view of a scene as opposed to simple backing up and zooming in.
That's fair enough in what you are doing.
Just be honest with me here. Do you not find it odd that men would go to the moon and spend time getting pictures just so they can show a panoramic view of stitched together photos, when they have video of it all and also considering these big cameras were strapped to their chests.
Does this not seem odd to you at all?
No. I don't find it odd.
I'd be taking pictures of all sorts of angles too. Pictures of the entire scene in one shot, multiple pictures for panoramics, etc. The image quality from any video is not as clear as the still shots, so yes, I'd be taking lots of still shots.
Ok.
-
All the photos taken from all the supposed moon landings.
Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986
The time spent on the moon by all missions.
Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)
Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.
That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon. ::)
-
All the photos taken from all the supposed moon landings.
Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986
The time spent on the moon by all missions.
Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)
Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.
That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon. ::)
Neat. Sounds like they were busy.
-
All the photos taken from all the supposed moon landings.
Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986
The time spent on the moon by all missions.
Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)
Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.
That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon. ::)
I belive you might want to double check your last bit of math. And you are using EVA time from what I can tell not the entire time they spent on the moon. Apollo 11 for instance spent 23 hours 36 mins on the surface. Many photos were taken from within the LEM
-
That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon. ::)
Sceptimatic's posts- 2235 (20.888 per day)
Does that mean you have been posting exactly 20.888 times a day since you registered here?
-
All the photos taken from all the supposed moon landings.
Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986
The time spent on the moon by all missions.
Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)
Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.
That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon. ::)
Damn...you make it sound like they actually went to the moon to do work. I thought they just went to play swords with one another.
-
Although they did get a game if golf in ^^^^ lol ;D
-
Although they did get a game if golf in ^^^^ lol ;D
Oh, okay. So they went up to the moon to play swords and golf, gotcha! :) It's obvious that no one would ever go to space to actually do work; who the hell wants to do that?
-
All the photos taken from all the supposed moon landings.
Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986
The time spent on the moon by all missions.
Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)
Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.
That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon. ::)
I belive you might want to double check your last bit of math. And you are using EVA time from what I can tell not the entire time they spent on the moon. Apollo 11 for instance spent 23 hours 36 mins on the surface. Many photos were taken from within the LEM
A number of those pictures were taken from the command module as well.
-
An awful lot of photos considering on 3 missions they were supposedly running about in moon buggies taking video and such.
How did they change film cartridges.
I'm fairly sure that most of you know it's a fake.
-
An awful lot of photos considering on 3 missions they were supposedly running about in moon buggies taking video and such.
How did they change film cartridges.
I'm fairly sure that most of you know it's a fake.
we are all fairy sure you never know what on earth you are on about.
how did they change the film cartages? lol com on really? you are really asking that question?
an awful lot of photos? no not realy we just said a lot were taken inside the LEM and the command modual as well as on the surface. so no not realy.
-
An awful lot of photos considering on 3 missions they were supposedly running about in moon buggies taking video and such.
How did they change film cartridges.
I'm fairly sure that most of you know it's a fake.
we are all fairy sure you never know what on earth you are on about.
how did they change the film cartages? lol com on really? you are really asking that question?
an awful lot of photos? no not realy we just said a lot were taken inside the LEM and the command modual as well as on the surface. so no not realy.
Through which window of the LEM were these taken from. I only ask this as I can't spot anything like a window on it.
Can you show me the windows on the LEM on the moons surface I mean, not the LEM in space.
-
their is a entire section of the ALSJ archive dedicated to just that
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html)
but hear is an example
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/8535/as11395830.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/as11395830.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
Can you show me a picture of a LM on the moon showing a window?
-
the window is in that shot. its taken through the window. windows are transparent. you know this right?
-
the window is in that shot. its taken through the window. windows are transparent. you know this right?
So where would this window be situated on the LM to get this shot and also get a shadow of the rocket nozzle sneaking out from under the lander?
-
the window is in that shot. its taken through the window. windows are transparent. you know this right?
So where would this window be situated on the LM to get this shot and also get a shadow of the rocket nozzle sneaking out from under the lander?
that's not a rocket nozzle shadow sticking out from under the lander. its on of the directional control thruster located on all 4 sides of the lander.
-
the window is in that shot. its taken through the window. windows are transparent. you know this right?
So where would this window be situated on the LM to get this shot and also get a shadow of the rocket nozzle sneaking out from under the lander?
that's not a rocket nozzle shadow sticking out from under the lander. its on of the directional control thruster located on all 4 sides of the lander.
Oh, that's one of those little directional little nozzles is it?
-
the window is in that shot. its taken through the window. windows are transparent. you know this right?
So where would this window be situated on the LM to get this shot and also get a shadow of the rocket nozzle sneaking out from under the lander?
that's not a rocket nozzle shadow sticking out from under the lander. its on of the directional control thruster located on all 4 sides of the lander.
Oh, that's one of those little directional little nozzles is it?
yes it is. below is a picture a window taken from the interior of the Lunar lander
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3043/lpdin.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/lpdin.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
-
An awful lot of photos considering on 3 missions they were supposedly running about in moon buggies taking video and such.
How did they change film cartridges.
I'm fairly sure that most of you know it's a fake.
The moon landings were definitely faked.
-
An awful lot of photos considering on 3 missions they were supposedly running about in moon buggies taking video and such.
How did they change film cartridges.
I'm fairly sure that most of you know it's a fake.
The moon landings were definitely faked.
Great contribution
(http://image.wtfux.org/0b969832/clap.gif)
-
Hi,
Has anyone got any pics, or links to pics of the earth photographed from standing on the surface of the moon?, not from the space craft orbiting the moon.
All I can seem to find is the orbital ones.
A response with information would be appreciated.
-
Hi,
Has anyone got any pics, or links to pics of the earth photographed from standing on the surface of the moon?, not from the space craft orbiting the moon.
All I can seem to find is the orbital ones.
A response with information would be appreciated.
There aren't any.
The reason for this is not clear but I'd hazard a guess that the Astro liars thought it was much better to video and photograph mounds and mounds of cement/sand like moon dust.
For them to take pictures of the earth from the moon would require the moon to be directly above their heads and huge. Maybe they didn't have the necessary technology at the time to fake this, which makes sense as the other fakery is laughable.
-
I'd like to know the reason why the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle are white and the larger centre fuel tank is a rusty colour.
-
I'd like to know the reason why the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle are white and the larger centre fuel tank is a rusty colour.
To save weight cos it wasnt reused?
or is their a secret reason you are hinting at? :D
-
I'd like to know the reason why the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle are white and the larger centre fuel tank is a rusty colour.
To save weight cos it wasnt reused?
or is their a secret reason you are hinting at? :D
To save weight?
-
yes
to save weight, paint is very heavy but it does have some mass.....something like the 10lbs per gallon of water would be a not insignificant extra load on the shuttle at take off
-
yes
to save weight, paint is very heavy but it does have some mass.....something like the 10lbs per gallon of water would be a not insignificant extra load on the shuttle at take off
So they just leave it to rust?
-
I dont think that copper / aluminium alloys are noted for rusting all that often ;)
-
yes
to save weight, paint is very heavy but it does have some mass.....something like the 10lbs per gallon of water would be a not insignificant extra load on the shuttle at take off
So they just leave it to rust?
The foam insulation that covers the fuel tank is orange
-
yes
to save weight, paint is very heavy but it does have some mass.....something like the 10lbs per gallon of water would be a not insignificant extra load on the shuttle at take off
So they just leave it to rust?
The foam insulation that covers the fuel tank is orange
Perfect colour isn't it. would you not think they could make white foam. Also, why the hell did they paint the foam on the tank for the first few missions?
It seems strange why you would cover a tank in rust coloured foam and even stranger why they could not make that foam white in colour anyway and even stranger as to why they would paint over foam in the first place.
For supposed geniuses, they do some silly things don't they.
A big space shuttle like that and a little woodpecker can scupper the launch. ;D
(http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2924/damagecustome424f8e9ca5.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/404/damagecustome424f8e9ca5.jpg/)
-
I don't suppose that big tank could be all foam could it? Nahhhhh, they wouldn't do that would they?
I don't think they would launch a foam covered frame would they. Maybe the shuttle is a foam covered frame as well.There's a thought.
-
NO, that doesn't even qualify as a sentient action, let alone a proper thought.....
The fuel tank was painted white at firstto reduced the effects of sunlight whilst on the launch pad, after that it was realised that the unit wasnt out in the sunshine long enough for this to be required. Like I said before, which you ignored cos it doesnt fit your agenda, the tanks are made from Copper/aluminium alloy so arnt going rust are they?
-
NO, that doesn't even qualify as a sentient action, let alone a proper thought.....
The fuel tank was painted white at firstto reduced the effects of sunlight whilst on the launch pad, after that it was realised that the unit wasnt out in the sunshine long enough for this to be required. Like I said before, which you ignored cos it doesnt fit your agenda, the tanks are made from Copper/aluminium alloy so arnt going rust are they?
Oh I know what you said. I haven't argued that have I?
So why worry about sunlight anyway if it's covered in woodpecker attracting foam?
-
I don't suppose that big tank could be all foam could it? Nahhhhh, they wouldn't do that would they?
I don't think they would launch a foam covered frame would they. Maybe the shuttle is a foam covered frame as well.There's a thought.
You asked why the tank was orange, you now know. If you have a problem with the answer please direct your complaints to NASA.
-
I don't suppose that big tank could be all foam could it? Nahhhhh, they wouldn't do that would they?
I don't think they would launch a foam covered frame would they. Maybe the shuttle is a foam covered frame as well.There's a thought.
You asked why the tank was orange, you now know. If you have a problem with the answer please direct your complaints to NASA.
I am directing my complaints to NASA. I'm just doing it through you and your mates.
-
Questioning the colour of a tank is kinda sad isnt it? What on earth would colour of a tank have to do with the conspiracy?
How is it convenient the tank is orange?
-
Questioning the colour of a tank is kinda sad isnt it? What on earth would colour of a tank have to do with the conspiracy?
How is it convenient the tank is orange?
I just find it odd why they would cover a tank in foam and make the foam look like the colour of a rusty tank. Don't you find that a bit odd?
Obviously you won't find it odd, I know that but I find it extremely odd. I also find it extremely odd as to why they would cover a tank like that in foam in the first place, yet even more odd that they would decide to actually paint the foam white on the first few missions.
They sorted the woodpecker problem out though. It takes genius to sort of those pesky woodpeckers.
What you do is, you hang a balloon up with an owls face on it and bingo, no woodpecker will mess with an owl balloon, even if it's a crap owl lookalike painted on it.
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/7830/owlballoon1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/owlballoon1.jpg/)
Check mate, you pesky woodpeckers. ;D
-
It makes perfect sense to cover it in foam. It's insulating a substance that is minus a couple of hundred degrees. As for the colour I have no idea why its orange. You realy are picking holes in tiny inconsequential things.
-
Hi,
Has anyone got any pics, or links to pics of the earth photographed from standing on the surface of the moon?, not from the space craft orbiting the moon.
All I can seem to find is the orbital ones.
A response with information would be appreciated.
There aren't any.
The reason for this is not clear but I'd hazard a guess that the Astro liars thought it was much better to video and photograph mounds and mounds of cement/sand like moon dust.
For them to take pictures of the earth from the moon would require the moon to be directly above their heads and huge. Maybe they didn't have the necessary technology at the time to fake this, which makes sense as the other fakery is laughable.
This was not very hard to find: (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img/20071113_kaguya_01l.jpg)
-
It makes perfect sense to cover it in foam. It's insulating a substance that is minus a couple of hundred degrees. As for the colour I have no idea why its orange. You realy are picking holes in tiny inconsequential things.
It's not me that's picking holes. You can blame those pesky woodpeckers for that.
Do you think that the big rusty looking tank isn't actually a tank at all and it just an empty cylinder of foam and inner skeleton of mesh and stuff.
-
Hi,
Has anyone got any pics, or links to pics of the earth photographed from standing on the surface of the moon?, not from the space craft orbiting the moon.
All I can seem to find is the orbital ones.
A response with information would be appreciated.
There aren't any.
The reason for this is not clear but I'd hazard a guess that the Astro liars thought it was much better to video and photograph mounds and mounds of cement/sand like moon dust.
For them to take pictures of the earth from the moon would require the moon to be directly above their heads and huge. Maybe they didn't have the necessary technology at the time to fake this, which makes sense as the other fakery is laughable.
This was not very hard to find: (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img/20071113_kaguya_01l.jpg)
He said from on the surface of the moon.
-
No. Because their is now evidence to suggest this. Just you Saying it. And this isn't evidence it's uneducated opinion. It makes perfect sense for it to be coverd in foam because it needs to be for what it is.
-
And that photo I think but can't be 100% sure that its a earth rise photo taken from the command module
-
And that photo I think but can't be 100% sure that its a earth rise photo taken from the command module
No this was taken by the Japanese lunar probe. Apologies for misreading the previous posters request.
-
It makes perfect sense to cover it in foam. It's insulating a substance that is minus a couple of hundred degrees. As for the colour I have no idea why its orange. You realy are picking holes in tiny inconsequential things.
It's not me that's picking holes. You can blame those pesky woodpeckers for that.
Do you think that the big rusty looking tank isn't actually a tank at all and it just an empty cylinder of foam and inner skeleton of mesh and stuff.
-
The best way to keep minus 300 degree Hydrogen as liquid is to spray one inch...(1 inch) of foam thickness onto the tank and this keeps your Hydrogen from turning back into gas and blowing your shuttle to smithereens.
This foam can also withstand 25,000 mph speeds. It's no match for woodpeckers though.
-
Are you trying to say that foam should hold back all that preasure? ??? You know it's a metal tank covered in foam right? And the tank isn't traveling at 250000 mph it never reaches that speed at all. And only reaches its top speed once its in the upper atmosphere where air density is many magnitudes less causing many times less friction.
Why are you inventing random numbers like 25,000 mph? Is it to make your argument stronger? Because it just proves to us you have no idea what you are talking about. Please stick to official numbers when you are trying argue your case.
-
Are you trying to say that foam should hold back all that preasure? ??? You know it's a metal tank covered in foam right? And the tank isn't traveling at 250000 mph it never reaches that speed at all. And only reaches its top speed once its in the upper atmosphere where air density is many magnitudes less causing many times less friction.
Why are you inventing random numbers like 25,000 mph? Is it to make your argument stronger? Because it just proves to us you have no idea what you are talking about. Please stick to official numbers when you are trying argue your case.
Oh ok then, let's pick a random number. How about 10, 000 mph, would this be ok?
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
Can you please link to the articles you're quoting for these assertions.
Cheers
-
Are you trying to say that foam should hold back all that preasure? ??? You know it's a metal tank covered in foam right? And the tank isn't traveling at 250000 mph it never reaches that speed at all. And only reaches its top speed once its in the upper atmosphere where air density is many magnitudes less causing many times less friction.
Why are you inventing random numbers like 25,000 mph? Is it to make your argument stronger? Because it just proves to us you have no idea what you are talking about. Please stick to official numbers when you are trying argue your case.
Oh ok then, let's pick a random number. How about 10, 000 mph, would this be ok?
no it wouldn't. you use the actual speeds the craft travels at. if you are trying to question the ability of a craft to travel at certain speeds you need to actually use the speeds it travels at. not random numbers you pick from your head.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
they don't worry about paint on take off. can we have a source that confirms this? they worry about flecks of paint sized debris once in orbit but not take off. and the saturn v didn't have a problem because the ice had nothing to hit. its just a long tall cylinder but the space shuttle has fuel tanks bolted on the side of the orange tank which not to mention the space shuttle itself.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
Can you please link to the articles you're quoting for these assertions.
Cheers
They're all well documented, just look them up.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
they don't worry about paint on take off. can we have a source that confirms this? they worry about flecks of paint sized debris once in orbit but not take off. and the saturn v didn't have a problem because the ice had nothing to hit. its just a long tall cylinder but the space shuttle has fuel tanks bolted on the side of the orange tank which not to mention the space shuttle itself.
It's probably me just being silly. I thought the Saturn had tail fins at the bottom.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
Can you please link to the articles you're quoting for these assertions.
Cheers
They're all well documented, just look them up.
no they are not well documented because it dosent exist as a problem in launch. provide us with a link or we will assume as usual you are wrong.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
they don't worry about paint on take off. can we have a source that confirms this? they worry about flecks of paint sized debris once in orbit but not take off. and the saturn v didn't have a problem because the ice had nothing to hit. its just a long tall cylinder but the space shuttle has fuel tanks bolted on the side of the orange tank which not to mention the space shuttle itself.
It's probably me just being silly. I thought the Saturn had tail fins at the bottom.
yes the bottom stage that gets jettisoned soon after launch has small fins that can take small impacts because they are not designed to hold pressure like a fuel tank or re entry heat like the space shuttle. so whats your problem their then?
edit* the bottom stage burns for 150s then is jettisoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC)
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
Can you please link to the articles you're quoting for these assertions.
Cheers
They're all well documented, just look them up.
no they are not well documented because it dosent exist as a problem in launch. provide us with a link or we will assume as usual you are wrong.
Ice doesn't exist as a problem in launch ?
Of course it doesn't exist as a problem. It would do, if it was a real lift off.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
they don't worry about paint on take off. can we have a source that confirms this? they worry about flecks of paint sized debris once in orbit but not take off. and the saturn v didn't have a problem because the ice had nothing to hit. its just a long tall cylinder but the space shuttle has fuel tanks bolted on the side of the orange tank which not to mention the space shuttle itself.
It's probably me just being silly. I thought the Saturn had tail fins at the bottom.
yes the bottom stage that gets jettisoned soon after launch has small fins that can take small impacts because they are not designed to hold pressure like a fuel tank or re entry heat like the space shuttle. so whats your problem their then?
edit* the bottom stage burns for 150s then is jettisoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC)
So because the bottom stage only burns for 150 seconds, bollocks to any damage caused to the fins?
Is this what you are saying?
-
no we are talking about your assertion that paint flecks are a problem during launch. so please provide us with a source describing this as a problem during launch. we await your response
-
In the 150 seconds that the Saturn's first stage rocket lasts, it burns 2, 250 tons of fuel, just in that first stage apparently. ::)
-
no we are talking about your assertion that paint flecks are a problem during launch. so please provide us with a source describing this as a problem during launch. we await your response
No. let's talk about the ice on the Saturn falling from a height and the tail fins not being anything of importance, shall we.
-
This is where things get really stupid with these launches.
One minute they are worried about flecks of paint....yes paint, (on earlier fake missions) falling off and then they worried about foam falling off on "launch"...
They did not worry one little bit about the massive chunks of ice falling from the Saturn V.....nooooo. it's just frozen water and not dangerous like flaking paint or super dense ;) shuttle destroying foam.
I'm quite sure sensible people can see just what a load of garbage this all is, except the shills of course.
they don't worry about paint on take off. can we have a source that confirms this? they worry about flecks of paint sized debris once in orbit but not take off. and the saturn v didn't have a problem because the ice had nothing to hit. its just a long tall cylinder but the space shuttle has fuel tanks bolted on the side of the orange tank which not to mention the space shuttle itself.
It's probably me just being silly. I thought the Saturn had tail fins at the bottom.
yes the bottom stage that gets jettisoned soon after launch has small fins that can take small impacts because they are not designed to hold pressure like a fuel tank or re entry heat like the space shuttle. so whats your problem their then?
edit* the bottom stage burns for 150s then is jettisoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC)
So because the bottom stage only burns for 150 seconds, bollocks to any damage caused to the fins?
Is this what you are saying?
firstly you need to prove to us what damage ice would cause to the fins then perhaps reference us to some engineering drawings of the Saturn v S-IC stage detailing the fins you describe showing us how the fins could not cope with impacts from falling ice and if their are any parts of the design ment to mitigate this.
-
no we are talking about your assertion that paint flecks are a problem during launch. so please provide us with a source describing this as a problem during launch. we await your response
No. let's talk about the ice on the Saturn falling from a height and the tail fins not being anything of importance, shall we.
so we can take from this that you are wrong once again. lol this gets easier and easier. you know its okay to admit you are wrong you know. i get things wrong and i admit to them. we all make mistakes.
-
I get the feeling the Sceptic is more likely to be a "plant" than anything else......Spouting such rubbish only does harm to the validity of any arguement in favour of space travel being a hoax.
-
The Saturn V rocket stood 363 ft (over 35 stories tall) 33 ft in diameter, and weighed around 3,000 Tons.
The height was about 2 times that of the space shuttle.
To us, thinking about the size, it doesn't really register does it but if you try and picture it, just think of the average sized house is about 30 feet from floor to roof peak, now imagine 12 of them all balanced on top of each other and there's your 5 f1 engined Saturn ready for take off. ::)
The power generated by the 5 F1 engines of its first stage was in excess of 150 GW (1 GW = 1,000 MW). That’s roughly equivalent to the entire installed power generation capacity in India! Or nearly 2.5 times of the power generation capacity in Texas. ::)
The fuel consumption of the first stage was a staggering 15 Tons / sec of Kerosene. The fuel pumps that fed the engines alone consumed 100s of MW of power, enough to light an entire city. ::)
The total lift capacity for putting a payload in a ‘low earth orbit’ (LEO) was about 120 Tons. And the capacity for putting a payload in a lunar orbit was around 47 Tons. For comparison imagine putting an entire fully loaded Boeing 757 into a low earth orbit, or a Boeing 737 into a lunar orbit! ::)
The thrust generated by each of the first stage’s F1 engine was around 7.6 Million lb ft. Again compare that with a supersonic fighter jet, F16: 23,000 lb ft and an engine of the Boeing 747: 60,000 lb ft......5 f1 engines as well, would you believe. ::) ;D
The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles away. Apparently, this does not affect cameras or the rocket itself shaking tins of ice off of itself like a shooting gallery towards the tail fins. ::)
The 1st stage of the Saturn V rocket consumed kerosene and liquid oxygen. The 2nd and 3rd stages consumed liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Unlike the space shuttle, or any of the rockets in the Indian Space Program, there were no solid fuel boosters. A majority of the 3000 tons lift off weight of the Saturn V comprised of the propellant and liquid oxygen. Apparently, they did not need spray on foam for these stages as it was ok for ice to form and fall off, plus allowing the temperature to raise wasn't a problem in the late 60's. ::)
. The costing of the Saturn V program is also quite staggering. It was one of the biggest chunks of the overall Apollo Program. Across the 1960s and early 1970s, the Saturn V program cost around US $ 6.5 B – this figure adjusted for today’s prices comes at around US $ 35- 40 B !
And to think, we've managed to bin the shuttle and some entrepreneurs can do it for a few million or less now. ::)
-
no we are talking about your assertion that paint flecks are a problem during launch. so please provide us with a source describing this as a problem during launch. we await your response
No. let's talk about the ice on the Saturn falling from a height and the tail fins not being anything of importance, shall we.
so we can take from this that you are wrong once again. lol this gets easier and easier. you know its okay to admit you are wrong you know. i get things wrong and i admit to them. we all make mistakes.
Don't you feel you can answer this question?
-
I get the feeling the Sceptic is more likely to be a "plant" than anything else......Spouting such rubbish only does harm to the validity of any arguement in favour of space travel being a hoax.
You're nowhere near as good a shill as Thaggy.
You must be on an apprentice shill scheme are you?
-
you have invented a problem and expect us to answer it. the problem does not exist to begin with. why wont you provide us a source describing pain flecks as a problem during launch? you must have a source if you said it in the 1st place so why wont you provide us with it? if you were mistaken in your comment then just say so. its not a problem all you need to do is say you were mistaken. because the problem you describe is a problem in orbit but not on launch. its a easy mistake to make.
-
Why do I get the feeling you are thinking (if thats the right term) of F1 racing car engiens?? :D
-
Why do I get the feeling you are thinking (if thats the right term) of F1 racing car engiens?? :D
I don't know, why are you getting that feeling?
-
The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles away. Apparently, this does not affect cameras or the rocket itself shaking tins of ice off of itself like a shooting gallery towards the tail fins. ::)
Shockwaves and sound would spread out and away from the source. Have you looked at how they mitigated the vibrations through the rocket?
-
The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles away. Apparently, this does not affect cameras or the rocket itself shaking tins of ice off of itself like a shooting gallery towards the tail fins. ::)
Shockwaves and sound would spread out and away from the source. Have you looked at how they mitigated the vibrations through the rocket?
I don't really need to. Those rockets would never have left the ground.
-
The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles away. Apparently, this does not affect cameras or the rocket itself shaking tins of ice off of itself like a shooting gallery towards the tail fins. ::)
Shockwaves and sound would spread out and away from the source. Have you looked at how they mitigated the vibrations through the rocket?
I don't really need to. Those rockets would never have left the ground.
Why not?
-
you still haven't provided us with that source. And your reason for not looking into something is because you know it's not real? So how do you know it's not real if you haven't looked into it?
-
The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles away. Apparently, this does not affect cameras or the rocket itself shaking tins of ice off of itself like a shooting gallery towards the tail fins. ::)
Shockwaves and sound would spread out and away from the source. Have you looked at how they mitigated the vibrations through the rocket?
I don't really need to. Those rockets would never have left the ground.
I will lump this in with the proof that you dont really have an open mind and make as many assumptions as the debunkers.
-
The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles away. Apparently, this does not affect cameras or the rocket itself shaking tins of ice off of itself like a shooting gallery towards the tail fins. ::)
Shockwaves and sound would spread out and away from the source. Have you looked at how they mitigated the vibrations through the rocket?
I don't really need to. Those rockets would never have left the ground.
Why not?
I think it's pretty obvious why not.
-
no, its pretty obvious why it did, not why it didn't
Do you even beleive that rocket technology works?
-
you still haven't provided us with that source. And your reason for not looking into something is because you know it's not real? So how do you know it's not real if you haven't looked into it?
I'm not really interested in the silly paint.
-
The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles away. Apparently, this does not affect cameras or the rocket itself shaking tins of ice off of itself like a shooting gallery towards the tail fins. ::)
Shockwaves and sound would spread out and away from the source. Have you looked at how they mitigated the vibrations through the rocket?
I don't really need to. Those rockets would never have left the ground.
I will lump this in with the proof that you dont really have an open mind and make as many assumptions as the debunkers.
I used to have an open mind but I have a very sceptical mind now, only through seeing lies after lies over the years.
-
no, its pretty obvious why it did, not why it didn't
Do you even beleive that rocket technology works?
Yes but not space rockets.
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
Noooooo, not this one again ;D
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
I've been through this before but size and power and duel are one reason and the other is, they wouldn't work in space.
Don't even ask me why they wouldn't work in space, you will have to look back in the topic.
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
Noooooo, not this one again ;D
No, not this one again, I've already explained my reasons and I'm not going to do it again. ;D
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
Noooooo, not this one again ;D
No, not this one again, I've already explained my reasons and I'm not going to do it again. ;D
I don't remember you going into the size limits for a working rocket though it's probably in there somewhere :)
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
Noooooo, not this one again ;D
No, not this one again, I've already explained my reasons and I'm not going to do it again. ;D
I don't remember you going into the size limits for a working rocket though it's probably in there somewhere :)
I don't think I did, maybe because I was concentrating on the fuel/vacuum stuff.
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
Noooooo, not this one again ;D
No, not this one again, I've already explained my reasons and I'm not going to do it again. ;D
I don't remember you going into the size limits for a working rocket though it's probably in there somewhere :)
I don't think I did, maybe because I was concentrating on the fuel/vacuum stuff.
Well it is one of your crazier ideas.
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
Noooooo, not this one again ;D
No, not this one again, I've already explained my reasons and I'm not going to do it again. ;D
I don't remember you going into the size limits for a working rocket though it's probably in there somewhere :)
I don't think I did, maybe because I was concentrating on the fuel/vacuum stuff.
Well it is one of your crazier ideas.
It would be great if there was a way to prove it, one way or the other wouldn't it.
-
What is the difference between a space rocket and one that doesnt go into space? apart from size and/or power
Noooooo, not this one again ;D
No, not this one again, I've already explained my reasons and I'm not going to do it again. ;D
I don't remember you going into the size limits for a working rocket though it's probably in there somewhere :)
I don't think I did, maybe because I was concentrating on the fuel/vacuum stuff.
Well it is one of your crazier ideas.
It would be great if there was a way to prove it, one way or the other wouldn't it.
You can prove it though, but you would need access to a vacuum chamber and a rocket of course. You could try making them, but idk if that's legal. :P
-
Hi,
Has anyone got any pics, or links to pics of the earth photographed from standing on the surface of the moon?, not from the space craft orbiting the moon.
All I can seem to find is the orbital ones.
A response with information would be appreciated.
There aren't any.
The reason for this is not clear but I'd hazard a guess that the Astro liars thought it was much better to video and photograph mounds and mounds of cement/sand like moon dust.
For them to take pictures of the earth from the moon would require the moon to be directly above their heads and huge. Maybe they didn't have the necessary technology at the time to fake this, which makes sense as the other fakery is laughable.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=earth+from+moon (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=earth+from+moon)
-
And to think of all the thousands of hours work that went into making those fake photographs - You could almost beleive they really were taken by one of a myriad of space exploration craft, that dont really exist ;)
-
And to think of all the thousands of hours work that went into making those fake photographs - You could almost beleive they really were taken by one of a myriad of space exploration craft, that dont really exist ;)
Hey, yeah! Let's talk about that. What about all of the man hours put into working on these things? What were all of these people doing in that time if this was all a hoax?
-
Hi,
Has anyone got any pics, or links to pics of the earth photographed from standing on the surface of the moon?, not from the space craft orbiting the moon.
All I can seem to find is the orbital ones.
A response with information would be appreciated.
There aren't any.
The reason for this is not clear but I'd hazard a guess that the Astro liars thought it was much better to video and photograph mounds and mounds of cement/sand like moon dust.
For them to take pictures of the earth from the moon would require the moon to be directly above their heads and huge. Maybe they didn't have the necessary technology at the time to fake this, which makes sense as the other fakery is laughable.
Thanks Spectimatic.
Agree seems odd, how many years have man stood on earth looking at the moon, even taking photographs of it. Now when they are standing on the moon, there's not a photo STANDING on the moons surface looking at the earth?
-
Hi,
Has anyone got any pics, or links to pics of the earth photographed from standing on the surface of the moon?, not from the space craft orbiting the moon.
All I can seem to find is the orbital ones.
A response with information would be appreciated.
There aren't any.
The reason for this is not clear but I'd hazard a guess that the Astro liars thought it was much better to video and photograph mounds and mounds of cement/sand like moon dust.
For them to take pictures of the earth from the moon would require the moon to be directly above their heads and huge. Maybe they didn't have the necessary technology at the time to fake this, which makes sense as the other fakery is laughable.
Thanks Spectimatic.
Agree seems odd, how many years have man stood on earth looking at the moon, even taking photographs of it. Now when they are standing on the moon, there's not a photo STANDING on the moons surface looking at the earth?
Ahem. Of course there will be cries of fakery, but here it is.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Astronaut_Harrison_%27Jack%27_Schmitt%2C_American_Flag%2C_and_Earth_%28Apollo_17_EVA-1%29.jpg/597px-Astronaut_Harrison_%27Jack%27_Schmitt%2C_American_Flag%2C_and_Earth_%28Apollo_17_EVA-1%29.jpg)
-
Well Marko:
I'm sure that even you would agree. For that picture to be passed off as real and going by what we are told to believe, then the earth is looking very anorexic isn't it when you consider it's supposed to be 4 times bigger than the moon.
-
Well Marko:
I'm sure that even you would agree. For that picture to be passed off as real and going by what we are told to believe, then the earth is looking very anorexic isn't it when you consider it's supposed to be 4 times bigger than the moon.
it looks adsactly as it should do. their are various things that can change apparent size of an object in the background. that beside it looks to be the size it should be anyway.
-
Well Marko:
I'm sure that even you would agree. For that picture to be passed off as real and going by what we are told to believe, then the earth is looking very anorexic isn't it when you consider it's supposed to be 4 times bigger than the moon.
it looks adsactly as it should do. their are various things that can change apparent size of an object in the background. that beside it looks to be the size it should be anyway.
Of course it does. If it were a shoe instead of the earth, you would say it's correct and earth is just in it's brogue phase. ;D
-
so in your expert opinion what should it look like? this should be interesting
-
so in your expert opinion what should it look like? this should be interesting
I haven't got the faintest idea what earth should "exactly" look like from space, because I've never been into space but judging by the fake pictures and how big we are told the earth is compared to the moon, I would expect the earth to look considerably bigger than the moon looks to us, yet it doesn't.
-
so you dont know what it should look like, just that we that pic is wrong? ??? lol you are a joke
-
so you dont know what it should look like, just that we that pic is wrong? ??? lol you are a joke
I don't know, you don't know and neither does anyone else but plenty can go on fake pictures and books to believe they know.
Brainwashed.
-
so you dont know what it should look like, just that we that pic is wrong? ??? lol you are a joke
I don't know, you don't know and neither does anyone else but plenty can go on fake pictures and books to believe they know.
Brainwashed.
once again you offer opinion as fact and uneducated observations as evidence. you mix them up all the time. the picture appears adsactly as it should do you offer us no reason to think otherwise
you use the word brainwashed frequently yet you have constantly proven to us that you are the most closed minded person on this site
-
so you dont know what it should look like, just that we that pic is wrong? ??? lol you are a joke
I don't know, you don't know and neither does anyone else but plenty can go on fake pictures and books to believe they know.
Brainwashed.
once again you offer opinion as fact and uneducated observations as evidence. you mix them up all the time. the picture appears adsactly as it should do you offer us no reason to think otherwise
you use the word brainwashed frequently yet you have constantly proven to us that you are the most closed minded person on this site
It's all about opinions Thaggy.
-
Well Marko:
I'm sure that even you would agree. For that picture to be passed off as real and going by what we are told to believe, then the earth is looking very anorexic isn't it when you consider it's supposed to be 4 times bigger than the moon.
See, I told you that it wouldn't do any good to post a picture of exactly what you were asking for. Why do you keep asking questions when you have no intention of accepting the answer?
-
Well Marko:
I'm sure that even you would agree. For that picture to be passed off as real and going by what we are told to believe, then the earth is looking very anorexic isn't it when you consider it's supposed to be 4 times bigger than the moon.
See, I told you that it wouldn't do any good to post a picture of exactly what you were asking for. Why do you keep asking questions when you have no intention of accepting the answer?
I'll accept an answer when I get a true answer and not until.
-
Well Marko:
I'm sure that even you would agree. For that picture to be passed off as real and going by what we are told to believe, then the earth is looking very anorexic isn't it when you consider it's supposed to be 4 times bigger than the moon.
See, I told you that it wouldn't do any good to post a picture of exactly what you were asking for. Why do you keep asking questions when you have no intention of accepting the answer?
I'll accept an answer when I get a true answer and not until.
How do you know if the answer is true or not?
-
Well Marko:
I'm sure that even you would agree. For that picture to be passed off as real and going by what we are told to believe, then the earth is looking very anorexic isn't it when you consider it's supposed to be 4 times bigger than the moon.
See, I told you that it wouldn't do any good to post a picture of exactly what you were asking for. Why do you keep asking questions when you have no intention of accepting the answer?
I'll accept an answer when I get a true answer and not until.
How do you know if the answer is true or not?
I won't know for sure...but if it strikes a chord and makes me sit back and think, " hang on a minute, this is real" or " I wonder if I'm wrong about this stuff" then I will surely say it, if I believe I am wrong.
I'm not going to do it just because I'm in a minority or from peer pressure, intimidation or ridicule, (not from you by the way, I mean in general)...I will make my decisions myself based on everything I see.
Everything I see up to now, stinks of fakery and until somethings' are shown that appear nailed on correct, I'll evaluate my stance.
I see too many people saying I'm closed minded, yet I have changed my stance from a round stationary earth to a massive siding towards a flat earth and I didn't do it by being ridiculed into it, I done it because that makes more logical sense, so that tells anyone that I am open minded, I just have an allergy to what appears to be bull crap and that's what I see coming from those that can see absolutely no wrong in anything official.
-
Sorry but Sceptimatics objection is justifiable here. Why is the earth so small on this picture? I also think it should be bigger. I have no idea, really. Could that all be a big conspiracy started by the Bavarian Globemaker's Guild 500 years ago...
-
Sorry but Sceptimatics objection is justifiable here. Why is the earth so small on this picture? I also think it should be bigger. I have no idea, really. Could that all be a big conspiracy started by the Bavarian Globemaker's Guild 500 years ago...
I agree the moon should look bigger too.
-
Sorry but Sceptimatics objection is justifiable here. Why is the earth so small on this picture? I also think it should be bigger. I have no idea, really. Could that all be a big conspiracy started by the Bavarian Globemaker's Guild 500 years ago...
I agree the moon should look bigger too.
The earth seen from the moon should look bigger than the moon seen from the earth. If not show me why or I declare earth to be flat at once and I am much more powerful than Thork and Darth Vader together! (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)
-
It's a little more than 1/4, and I guess we need a picture of the moon from earth with the identical lens setup to know for sure.
-
Everything I see up to now, stinks of fakery and until somethings' are shown that appear nailed on correct, I'll evaluate my stance.
Again, how can you know that something looks fake if you don't know what the real thing looks like?
Sorry but Sceptimatics objection is justifiable here. Why is the earth so small on this picture? I also think it should be bigger. I have no idea, really.
The size of an object in a photo depends on the size of the object, the distance from the camera and the relationship between the focal length of the lens and the size of the film. How do you know that a 7900 mile diameter sphere 250,000 miles away isn't supposed to look like that to a 70mm camera with a 60mm lens?
-
Everything I see up to now, stinks of fakery and until somethings' are shown that appear nailed on correct, I'll evaluate my stance.
Again, how can you know that something looks fake if you don't know what the real thing looks like?
Sorry but Sceptimatics objection is justifiable here. Why is the earth so small on this picture? I also think it should be bigger. I have no idea, really.
The size of an object in a photo depends on the size of the object, the distance from the camera and the relationship between the focal length of the lens and the size of the film. How do you know that a 7900 mile diameter sphere 250,000 miles away isn't supposed to look like that to a 70mm camera with a 60mm lens?
I don't.
-
Everything I see up to now, stinks of fakery and until somethings' are shown that appear nailed on correct, I'll evaluate my stance.
Again, how can you know that something looks fake if you don't know what the real thing looks like?How do you know something like this is real?
Sorry but Sceptimatics objection is justifiable here. Why is the earth so small on this picture? I also think it should be bigger. I have no idea, really.
The size of an object in a photo depends on the size of the object, the distance from the camera and the relationship between the focal length of the lens and the size of the film. How do you know that a 7900 mile diameter sphere 250,000 miles away isn't supposed to look like that to a 70mm camera with a 60mm lens?
-
Again, how can you know that something looks fake if you don't know what the real thing looks like?
How do you know something like this is real?
How do you know if anything is real? How do I know that you are real?
-
Again, how can you know that something looks fake if you don't know what the real thing looks like?
How do you know something like this is real?
How do you know if anything is real? How do I know that you are real?
This is where we use logic.
My logic tells me you are real and your logic also tells you that I am real.
Whether we are is irrelevant because we are typing to each other and accept it as logical we both exist.
If you are a robot, then you are still Markjo. If you are a ghost, you are still Markjo.
I'm typing to Markjo and I picture a male of some description. What I cannot do is accurately picture your attributes but I can build one based on things you may say, yet still pass you in the street, as my image will not reflect the image you portray, unless I somehow managed to get lucky and the same applies to anyone.
-
Again, how can you know that something looks fake if you don't know what the real thing looks like?
How do you know something like this is real?
How do you know if anything is real? How do I know that you are real?
This is where we use logic.
My logic tells me...
:'D had to stop there