For all mankind.

  • 66 Replies
  • 11577 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2014, 10:54:01 AM »
We are all wrong, because none of us really know what the hell the moon is in the first place.
Yes we do.  Core samples returned to earth give us a pretty precise mineral composition.

Quote
Of course, you can cite astronauts being there and all the rest of it.
Yes we can.

Quote
The real truth is, it's just dick measuring contests between us all, because the actual real truth may never be known...yet we can all have a best guess.
It may well be the "real truth" in your mind, but in the minds of millions of scientists it's known precisely what the composition of the moon is.  There's nothing about "guesses" involved in science.

Guessing is the purview of the flat earthers.
You keep telling yourself that, Geoff.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2014, 10:54:19 AM »

Show me the equipment that measured all this and by who's eye and what not, to come to this.

It should be evident that one doesn't measure these sorts of things with the human eye, or "equipment" LOL.  It's determined by mathematical equations—obviously.

You may need to read up on atomic weights and Avogadro's Number (6.022 X 1023) to clarify this concept.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2014, 11:02:39 AM »

Show me the equipment that measured all this and by who's eye and what not, to come to this.

It should be evident that one doesn't measure these sorts of things with the human eye, or "equipment" LOL.  It's determined by mathematical equations—obviously.

You may need to read up on atomic weights and Avogadro's Number (6.022 X 1023) to clarify this concept.
To measure something, you must know what you are measuring, so how did they see this stuff to know that it is what it is.
All this 6.22 x10 sup is fine.
The problem is, it means jack ship unless there is a method to see and measure whatever it all is.

Oh and before you say it, like, " oh you don't understand grade school science" , lol, which is what's normally used, because you people, as kids all miraculously studied all this stuff when you were at school.

My school term for science was about 5 years....the stuff you lot say is grade school stuff, should mean that you lot spent about 40 years in school. ;D  ;D

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2014, 11:26:55 AM »
Okay... you asked for it...

One mole of an ideal gas occupies 22.4 liters (dm3) at STP, and occupies 24.45 litres at SATP (Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure = 273K and 1 atm or 101.325 kPa). This volume is often referred to as the molar volume of an ideal gas.

Put another way "the principle that equal volumes of all gases at the same temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules. Thus, the molar volume of all ideal gases at 0°C and a pressure of 1 atm. is 22.4 litres"

Avogadro's Number is one of the fundamental constants of chemistry. It permits calculation of the amount of pure substance (mole), the basis of stoichiometry (the quantitative relationship between reactants and products). It also makes possible determination of how much heavier a simple molecule of one gas is than that of another, as a result the relative molecular weights of gases can be ascertained by comparing the weights of equal volumes.

Avogadro's Number (conventionally represented by N' in chemical calculations) is now considered to be the number of atoms present in 12g of the carbon-12 isotope (one mole of carbon 12) and can be applied to any type of chemical entity.

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2014, 01:47:28 PM »
Cue, "that's all rubbish that doesn't mean anything"


Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2014, 11:21:56 PM »
Besides talking about Moon or Space atmosphere which is a very iffy (Mostly Unknown) subject this video is quite good and worth a watch.

#t=647" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=647

Re: For all mankind.
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2014, 09:40:14 PM »

People like Humble_Scientist never let the facts get in the way of a good story.    ;D

Conspiracy theorists are far to eager to see errors where there are none, and often trip themselves up in their eagerness to display their superior powers of observation and logic.  Even without knowing the back-story to these screen grabs, it's more than obvious they're all from different actual missions, dry runs, or equipment testing.

Humble clearly doesn't understand what 'editing' is..

in fact, he seems to struggle with the most rudimentary of concepts... a very strange unit he is indeed.