Cool Mission?

1. These big tanks? They leave them behind when they go into space. I always thought this was wasteful and short-sighted.

Like a whole industry to drill and mine to supply your car with gas it consumes?

Have a better way?  With fuel that has the power density required?

But now that I understand what I do about space travel and ignition, it also seems pretty good proof that the entire thing is crap.

No.  Your feeble little mind can’t handle man has placed objects in space that provide services, actively broadcast, for satellites not in geosynchronous orbit there is the signature Doppler shift of the broadcast moving relative to a stationary ground station, and objects that have visibly change the night sky.  Then the eyewitness accounts of actual manned space missions.

They waste all their fuel within the atmosphere?

The stages that are dropped along the way.  Not the propellant stored on the actual spacecraft for maneuvering in Space.

They have none for outer space? How then do these big tanks make any difference (unless they are only used for the big ignition show).

Why would’nt the craft be designed to have a reserve of the propellant they need while in space.

 

2. Again, it snuffs in under one second. We can see what lsngths he needs to go to in order  to slow it down. At 0.25 speed, I was able to see the trail but not at 1.0 speed on Youtube without him doing something.

False.  The fuel and the oxidizer was consumed faster than normal.  I’m guessing the electric igniter was sized too large for the motor, and caused the motor to burn up faster by adding too much energy.

Is it false the rocket motor created enough thrust to move itself forward.


And your ignoring two things…

First.   The design of the model rocket motor allows for no support from oxygen in the atmosphere. As repeatedly shown…


Again…
Somehow thinks this is using and dependent on oxygen from the atmosphere to burn and for its power..

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Tech/How_Rocket_Engines_Work

Second..
You keep ignoring the second video

Again…
Because it’s odd the rocket motor  in the water tank seems to burn well, and more true to its design..

Burning Model Rocket Engine Underwater in 4K Slow Motion - Rockets (S1 • E4)

I know what a smokeout looks like.

WTF?

From what fuel?  From what reaction? Smoke vs exhaust?


Smoke from this burning reaction?  Fuel and oxidizer…




Note…. Added this..



See the detail concerning “After the propellant is used up, the delay is activated, producing tracking smoke and allowing the rocket to
coast.”
https://estesrockets.com/get-started/


Or …

It is the variety of propellant types available from the various rocket manufacturers which allow us to enhance the visual aspects of a rocket launch. It then makes sense to describe what is available in propellant formulations so you can make your choice.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter217.pdf

The rockets going into space probably have no need…. But chemicals can be added to the fuel to make specific smoke for easier tracking..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 03:10:02 AM

I know what a smokeout looks like.

WTF?

From what fuel?  From what reaction? Smoke vs exhaust?


Smoke from this burning reaction?  Fuel and oxidizer…

Which burns when the valve is opened, releasing it to the air.  The oxidizer does not burn in a vacuum (inside its own tank). The torch is safe to use precisely because it will NEVER ignite inside its container.

If it could, this torch would be banned, because at any moment it could spontaneously combust. You can clearly see the valve of the torch in full open position.

What exactly have you proven here?

Which burns when the valve is opened, releasing it to the air.

Doesn’t need air.  The fuel has its own oxidizer.

You can use a cutting torch underwater because you supply a fuel and oxidizer..

The PVL underwater cutting torch, faster and more efficient than conventional underwater cutting torches.

https://www.seascapesubsea.com/product/underwater-cutting-torch/


Unrivalled user convenience. Besides the torch,
you require only oxygen and propylene gas;

Like this cutting torch doesn’t care about our atmosphere that’s is an about 21.9% oxygen and 78% nitrogen.  It cares the fuel is being supplied in proper ratio to the oxidizer pure oxygen. 



In fact, because oxy acetylene welding supplies it’s own oxidizer in the form of pure oxygen, a flux is often used to push out atmospheric gases to make for a better weld.

The oxidizer does not burn in a vacuum

No.  The oxidizer and fuel together burns underwater, in a fluxed weld, in an inert atmosphere, or in a vacuum.

(inside its own tank).

No.  The flame is at the top or nozzle. 

The torch is safe to use precisely because it will NEVER ignite inside its container.

WTF?

HOSE LINE FLASHBACK ARRESTORS
Hose line flashback arrestors can be used with oxy-fuel gas welding, heating, cutting and allied processes. Usually: (1) they are installed in the gas system between the outlet of the regulator and the inlet of the hose leading to the torch; (2) the inlet and outlet connections are “B” size right hand thread (CGA-022) for oxygen service and “B” size left hand thread (CGA-023) for fuel gas service; and (3) they are about 2" in diameter with a body length of about 2" and an overall length of about 3 1⁄2”.
The flashback arrestors are intended to prevent a flashback in the hose from reaching the regulator; the devices also often contain check valves intended to prevent the backflow of gas. The subject flashback arrestors are not a substitution for the station outlet protective equipment (Sf, So, or Pf” required in NFPA-51 “Standard for the Design and Installation of Oxygen-Fuel Gas Systems for Welding and Cutting.” They may, if listed or approved, be used in conjunction with other approved devices to meet the requirements of NFPA-51.

https://osha.oregon.gov/OSHARules/interps/valve.pdf

flashback arrestors are used in cutting hose line..

If it could, this torch would be banned, because at any moment it could spontaneously combust. You can clearly see the valve of the torch in full open position.

WTF?

Are you you even going on about?

What exactly have you proven here?

I haven’t proven anything.  You keep affirming you have no idea how a fuel and oxidizer work, your a troll, and/or stupid.

The oxidizer does not burn in a vacuum (inside its own tank).

Here are some more videos..

Burning Model Rocket Motor In Liquid Nitrogen - 4K Slow Motion



Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized



I did find it interesting, and to be open and honest, the igniters had to be sealed in.  I don’t think it has anything to do with sealing in atmosphere.  I think it was more to ensure a physical contact with fuel and oxidizer. 


Might as well add this one too..

Rocket Launch From Underwater (In 4K Slow Motion)

, and the ignition is immediately snuffed out,

For the test of your associated screenshot?

Not a true statement.  The fuel and oxidizer were totally consumed.  We definitely know it’s true in the tests where the model rocket consumed all its fuel and oxidizer, burnt up the delay fuse/tracking smoke, then deployed the ejection charge.  Especially in the tank experiments where the ejection charge broke the tank.

Remember the design of most model rocket engines.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Tech/How_Rocket_Engines_Work

Even if you think the encased fuel is some how getting its oxygen from the atmosphere, how is it getting passed the combustion gases?

Even in the vacuum chamber tests, the rocket motor is creating its own inert atmosphere.

This was driven home by something I read about oxy-acetylene welding, and that it “combustion gases from the torch is the shielding”.  As in shielding gas to protect the weld puddle from oxygen and moisture in the atmosphere.


https://app.aws.org/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=2496

From the launch of the rocket from the water tank, any oxygen you think is supporting the burn of the fuel, which burns bottom up the case, would be completely pushed away by the exhaust gases. 

Again what about this is a solid test?

Again, ignition and thrust in a vacuum.
Clearly demonstrating your claims about rockets not working in a vacuum are pure garbage.

1. These big tanks? They leave them behind when they go into space.

And more dishonesty.
They use the tank until it is empty, and then ditch it.

Most rockets have stages. This is to allow them to burn a bunch of fuel, and then ditch all the dead weight and have the next stage light.

The Shuttle ditched the tank just before achieving orbit so it would fall back to Earth rather than clutter up space, and used its orbital manoeuvring system to make the final manoeuvres to enter orbit.

But now that I understand what I do about space travel and ignition, it also seems pretty good proof that the entire thing is crap. They waste all their fuel within the atmosphere? They have none for outer space?

You mean, now you will spout even more dishonest, delusional BS.

They don't burn all their fuel in the atmosphere.
Just what garbage makes you think that?

Do you really know anything about space travel and ignition? Or are you just spouting whatever ignorant garbage you can think of to attack it.
Then when it is sufficiently shown to be complete and utter garbage you just flee, not even admitting you were entirely incorrect.
Just like you have done with the accelerometers, and like you recently did with explosive decompression.

2. Again, it snuffs in under one second.

No, it doesn't.
What you see is a bunch of smoke blocking the view. But you can still see the orange/red from the flame on the side.

They are not leaving the atmosphere.

Prove it.
All the available evidence shows they are.
Why should we believe your entirely baseless, delusional claim over all the evidence?

I believe in God

Another demonstration you believe complete crap with no evidence at all.

and have no use for the godless view that we are just specks in a universe

You mean you can't handle reality, that overall you are insignificant to the universe, and instead want to get comfort in being the toy of a childish evil tyrant?

So you reject the RE, because you can't handle reality.

Let us read up on the components to a rocket.

Yet you don't even provide a source.
Is it because you don't want others to be able to go there and show you the information you are intentionally leaving out?

e.g. at the top of the page, it starts with this:

the shuttle uses the following components:

two solid rocket boosters (SRB)
three main engines of the orbiter
the external fuel tank (ET)
orbital maneuvering system (OMS) on the orbiter

But you decided to leave out the OMS.
I wonder why?

Solid rocket boosters are separated

Yes. They provide thrust, and when they don't do that any more because they are used up, they are ditched to make it so less mass needs to be accelerated.
What would be wasteful is keeping them as dead weight and taking them to orbit.

Emptying a pool in 10 seconds. This doesn't sound fuel-efficient enough to reach the moon, much less Mars! Further, all that is sent back is a tiny pod.

The shuttle can't reach the moon.
But regardless, your statement makes no sense at all.
The fuel flow rate in no way tells you if it can reach the moon or not.
You are again looking for pathetic excuses to dismiss reality, because you can't handle it.

Again, they don't need to burn fuel for the entire trip.
This is not like a road trip.

The EFT is also left behind, it I remember correctly. This means all this waste is done simply to "leave the atmosphere".

You mean if you ignore what your own source says and instead just spout whatever nonsense you want.
If you bother continuing to read, you see this:

T plus 9 min - ET separates from the orbiter. The ET will burn up upon re-entry.
T plus 10.5 min - OMS engines fire to place you in a low orbit.

That means the external tank is going into space, but is sub-orbital.
The OMS does the final burn to put them into orbit.

That means it is not done simply to leave the atmosphere. It puts them at a very high velocity such that only a small burn is needed to put it into orbit.

The "reserve" you are appealing to would be the fuel on the shuttle for the OMS.

The idea that somehow it make it out through space on just that, when space has no air? Without keeping reserve tanks? Propeling back from the moon just from a simple launcher? The entire thing is preposterous.

What is preposterous is your pathetic attempt at dismissing it.
You have no rational argument or evidence to support your position. Just pathetic dismissal and dishonesty.

But for the grace of God, we wouldn't be able to breathe.

You mean but for the grace of man.
If you want to involve God, blame the evil POS for giving you asthma, something that could have killed you prior to modern science.

Which burns when the valve is opened, releasing it to the air.

Only a quite pathetic flame.
It burns much better when the oxygen line is opened as well.

The oxidizer does not burn in a vacuum

The oxidiser doesn't burn. It allows the fuel, the combustible material, to burn.

The oxidiser and fuel is stored in separate tanks, with separate tubing to take it to the torch. There it is combined and burned.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 04:16:40 AM

The oxidizer does not burn in a vacuum (inside its own tank).

Here are some more videos..

Burning Model Rocket Motor In Liquid Nitrogen - 4K Slow Motion



Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized



I did find it interesting, and to be open and honest, the igniters had to be sealed in.  I don’t think it has anything to do with sealing in atmosphere.  I think it was more to ensure a physical contact with fuel and oxidizer. 


Might as well add this one too..

Rocket Launch From Underwater (In 4K Slow Motion)

These videos all seem to be the same channel.

Methinks there is an axe to grind.

If it's like the others, if we were to take the slow motion off, we would see that most of these readily snuff after about a second or two.

The fire triangle is not a "one of these are needed for fire" equation, all three are needed in order to produce a complete combustion.

If I were to gather damp wood as tinder, I would only manage a smoky fire.

If I were to start a fire in a smoker, it would be mostly smoke not fire. It might dry out salmon or something, but this is an incomplete burn.

And if you try to start a fire but there is no fuel at all, you don't typically have a fire at all. I'm not talking about oil (no showing me lighters that use friction sparks after the fluid is gone). I mean fuel as in anything to burn as well.

No matter what you can show in slow motion.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 08, 2023, 05:53:50 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 04:16:40 AM

The oxidizer does not burn in a vacuum (inside its own tank).

Here are some more videos..

Burning Model Rocket Motor In Liquid Nitrogen - 4K Slow Motion



Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized



I did find it interesting, and to be open and honest, the igniters had to be sealed in.  I don’t think it has anything to do with sealing in atmosphere.  I think it was more to ensure a physical contact with fuel and oxidizer. 


Might as well add this one too..

Rocket Launch From Underwater (In 4K Slow Motion)

These videos all seem to be the same channel.

Methinks there is an axe to grind.

No. He is an engineer all about engines and slo-mo. From combustion, to jets, to rockets, to electric, to steam, you name it. He does all kinds of stuff with all kinds of engines. And lots of see-thru and slo-mo to show how they all work.

https://www.youtube.com/@WarpedPerception/videos

If you cared to drop all things conspiratorial for just a nano second you might see the truth as opposed to ignorantly just assuming.

Is he an engineer because he says he is?

Someone on here told me they were an engineer.

Funny how engineers seem to pop up of the woodwork when people need credentials to disprove some flatty punk, but disappear just as easily when you want to find one to build you a submarine so you can check out Antarctica undetected.

Let's face it. If any of these were real, I would be able to duplicate them myself, with no slow-motion needed. You would make a sustained burn, and there would be no need to show up people by slowing things down. 

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."




Neither movement nor sound work in a vacuum.

(Oh look, it's easy to play your videos, but mine you gotta go to Youtube)

This video has no ignition, yet is actually managing to show the point I've noticed has been deflected again and again to talk about ignition.
Yes, air resistance slows the motion of objects. But I think it also makes such motion possible. Nothing to push against means motion stops dead. The only motion in a vacuum is maybe an object falling (heavier than absence of air).

"Well what about meteors?"

I believe I already told you. They are moving along atmospheric tracks. This is why big meteors don't hit us. They are too big to follow such tracks. They drift off course and then they stall. We get asteroids instead of meteors. We have an endless source of meteors between Earth and Mars, yet they aren't all diving toward Earth. 

Since we're gonna quote a bunch of stuff from the same Youtube person, two can play at this game.

Is he an engineer because he says he is?

Are you a writer because you say you are?

These videos all seem to be the same channel.
Methinks there is an axe to grind.

Methinks they like rockets, and you have an axe to grind against reality.

If it's like the others, if we were to take the slow motion off, we would see that most of these readily snuff after about a second or two.

Including the one that left the water and went into the air.
That is all the burn for.
It is what this type of rocket does.

The fire triangle is not a "one of these are needed for fire" equation, all three are needed in order to produce a complete combustion.

Good thing this has all of them.
It has the fuel and oxidiser in the solid matrix.
It has the heat from the igniter and subsequent combustion.
It has all it needs.

Notice how the fire triangle doesn't demand an atmosphere?

Let's face it. If any of these were real, I would be able to duplicate them myself, with no slow-motion needed.

And you can, but you refuse to do so.
That is on you.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."

And you are a great example of that, being fooled by FE BS, while refusing to accept that you have been fooled.

Neither movement nor sound work in a vacuum.

Repeating the same refuted BS wont help you. (There is no need to bring sound into this, it is just more blatant dishonesty from you. The suit the astronauts were wearing had air in them, and the microphone was in the suit, inside the environment with air. Sound also doesn't need air specifically, any medium will do. That means it can travel through the solid body of the hammer and into the suit. There was no need for any sound to travel through a vacuum, unless you are trying to bring up your previously refuted BS of radio waves being sound waves?)
Providing a video baselessly asserting crap wont help you.
Providing a video that blatantly lies by claiming doing the math shows it doesn't work wont help you.

Providing a video that you already disagree with, by using a vacuum cleaner in place of a vacuum wont help you, and just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

The nozzle of a vacuum cleaner will suck things towards it.
That means it will be applying a force to the object under test which must be considered.
Failing to consider that force to reach a bold conclusion that rockets can't work in a vacuum just shows dishonesty or stupidity.

Attaching something to deflect the air from the rocket also doesn't help, as yet again this creates another force.
Now the air is pushing against that deflector, and that is providing a force trying to move it backwards.
The simple way to analyse it is to consider the momentum of the gas in the balloon (as a bulk gas).
It starts stationary in the balloon, and then ends up split going out either side with no net momentum. This means it shouldn't impart a force to move the craft forwards.

But to further drive home just how dishonest it is, it uses a cut of this video:

What it doesn't include is the balloon with paper attached but not deflecting the air, where it still fails to move until it is pushed by the person.
They then need to quite significantly cut down the sheet of paper to have it start moving again.

So both of the "experiments" in that useless videos of yours entirely fails to demonstrates rockets can't work in a vacuum.

This video has no ignition, yet is actually managing to show the point I've noticed has been deflected again and again to talk about ignition.

The one deflecting here is you.
You have been provided footage showing rockets igniting and burning in a vacuum, producing thrust.
But you deflect because you don't like reality.

But I think it also makes such motion possible. Nothing to push against means motion stops dead.

And what you think doesn't change reality.
Nothing to push against would mean to acceleration, not that motion magically stops.
But the rocket is pushing against the exhaust.

Since we're gonna quote a bunch of stuff from the same Youtube person, two can play at this game.

Providing a bunch of BS to deflect from your inability to justify your delusional BS or defend against the refutation of your BS just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

Is he an engineer because he says he is?

I don’t know, and don’t care.  He is able to build and make functional experiments.  And seems to honestly and happily document the efforts.  How many flat earther’s do that with active experiments to the same extent.  And seems to be part of a successful business building turbos and race engines.


Jet Powered Tesla

This video proves his credibility.
 

I believe I already told you. They are moving along atmospheric tracks. This is why big meteors don't hit us. They are too big to follow such tracks. They drift off course and then they stall. We get asteroids instead of meteors.

In the reality where it was witnessed a comet broke apart and hit Jupiter.  In a reality not all comets survive being near the sun.  In a reality where we have sent space probes to intercept comets.

Your rant still doesn’t explain why we can’t travel in a similar fashion and speeds witnessed in comets.

Let me get this straight.  In the reality of space that provides negligible atmospheric resistance, gravity assist, and comets orbit the sun and some planets.  You don’t think rockets can pulse their engines to drift at speed through space.  But you think comets in your delusion of no gravity can endlessly travel with no apparent power plant and no apparent loss of momentum in tracks of atmosphere?  Atmospheric tracks has no proof, and makes no sense other than a fairytale.

We have an endless source of meteors between Earth and Mars, yet they aren't all diving toward Earth. 

Because the larger ones would be asteroids that came to a mostly stabile orbit some time ago around the sun like planets with moons around the planets.

Orbit around what, exactly?

Keep in mind that this is the orbit you're supposed to believe in according to heliocentric "science".



In all this circus, we should be crashing into asteroids, rather than the other way around.

Are you a writer because you say you are?

Oooh, "touche". Well, you'd have a case for saying so if writing was about making profit. But if we're talking about published books I've written about seven books that can be bought, and others that can be read online.

Mune Shinri
Aiken no Michi
Bonds and Boundaries
New Gaia
Oracle of Tao
Town of Winter
Aiken Abridged Bible

https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&bbn=283155&rh=p_27%3ASamantha+Rinne+Hooker&s=relevancerank&dc&qid=1673529816&rnid=2470954011&text=Samantha+Rinne+Hooker&ref=is_r_p_85_1&ds=v1%3AF0xUu3iOmweiX%2FIn2quTe9rhehG8%2F6IeyLcB85iAwms

If this engineer is a real engineer, he should make me a submarine to explore Antarctica. But no, he crawls back into the woodwork when it's time to do that.

Meanwhile, my books stay published.

Ohh and uhh has this engineeer any response for this?



How do rockets keep from being blasted by radiation that nukes their passengers and fries their guidance systems?

Orbit around what, exactly?

Keep in mind that this is the orbit you're supposed to believe in according to heliocentric "science".

Ok.  See you can’t handle the truth.  Need to change the subject.

Ok.  So you don’t think the planets orbit around the sun?

And you don’t think the planets have moons that orbit them?

And you didn’t think comets orbit the sun?

And you don’t think there is a band of asteroids that orbit the sun between Earth and Mars as they orbit the sun?


And you don’t think there are rings of debris that orbit Saturn?

What does showing an art conception view of a person with zero motion relative to the solar system instead of traveling along with the solar system supposedly have to do with the fact objects that have known orbits in our known solar system.

It’s no different than dropping a ball in a car going at a constant speed. To the person or persons in the car, the ball appears to go straight down.  To a person outside the car standing still relative to the car, the view is the balling dropping down and also moving in the direction the car is traveling while it drops.


Added.  So in your mind a mechanically geared wrist watch wouldn’t work going down the highway?  What’s your point? 

How do rockets keep from being blasted by radiation that nukes their passengers and fries their guidance systems?

What radiation are we talking about?  And at what strength?  For what length of time?

Ever hear of the radiation cookie analogy?

Radiation and the Cookie Test


https://letstalkaboutscience.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/radiation-and-the-cookie-test/

So if we are concerned about radiation safety, how do we treat different sources of ionizing radiation? The cleverest way I’ve heard it summed up is by the ‘cookie test’: imagine that you have four cookies. One is an alpha emitter, one is a beta emitter, one is a gamma emitter, and one is a neutron emitter. You can throw one cookie away, but you have to put one in your pocket, hold one in your hand, and eat one. How do you pick which cookies to do what with?

Well, remember that alpha particles are particularly bad when they get close to vital tissue, so that’s a good one not to eat. Both neutron and gamma radiation are tough to shield against, but of the two gamma is more likely to pass through you without causing issues. Beta radiation can be damaging but is also easily blocked. So you can throw away the neutron emitter, and if the gamma emitter is anywhere near you, you may as well have eaten it. The alpha emitter should be further from your vital organs, so put that one in your hand, which leaves the beta emitter to go into your pocket and be blocked by your clothing.

Of course, you might say that ideally you’d throw all the cookies away, because who eats radioactive cookies anyway? But the thing to remember is that all these radioactive processes occur naturally, so while there are dangerous levels of each kind of radiation, you are receiving a low-level dose of radiation all the time from chemical processes in the materials around you. And in fact, radioactive processes occur inside your body! So while radiation can be dangerous, it’s also an important part of the natural world.

You can't handle the truth. So you change the subject.

You accuse me of changing the subject.

But you won't address the question I asked.

You say that these asteroids don't all gravitate towards us because of their orbit.

I ask what orbit, and you accuse me of changing the subject. Sorry but I think I kept the subject. These are not, as you appear to think, asteroids close enough to circle around like Saturn's ring. These are just sitting there at a midpoint where it's fairly clear a planet used to be. They don't orbit Mars, they don't orbit Earth.

So again I ask, what are they orbiting? The sun? Then we are talking a series of unnamed rock planets. It's not Mars or Earth, they are a distance from either of them.

You can't handle the truth. So you bait me to change the subject.

I don't think that asteroid field goes anywhere. Which means that it is an obstacle in the supposed orbit through space.

In other words, if the Earth moves, why do we have to have comets and meteors hit us? Can't we just crash into them? But this has never been discussed this way. They always tell that it is objects that come plowing into us.

Even though it is far more difficult to hit a moving object than a still one.

But let us assume the Earth is in orbit and circling around the galaxy. That we can slam into asteroids (which aren't pulled along in orbit to the sun because they are orbiting something else). You'll have to explain why during this big orbit, Earth hasn't flown into a star or black hole. Billions of years. Potential to end all life. Hasn't happened. This is basically like rolling the dice and every second getting lucky.

Or wouldn't it be easier to understand that the Earth is not a moving target? That these asteroids are static? That only small shards head toward Earth?

What does showing an art conception view of a person with zero motion relative to the solar system instead of traveling along with the solar system supposedly have to with the fact objects that have known orbits in our known solar system.

It's funny you should call it an artistic model.



This is indeed what heliocentric theory teaches. It's just suddenly news to you, so you call it an artistic depiction.

Is he an engineer because he says he is?

Someone on here told me they were an engineer.

Man.  Would you stick to one argument.  How the fuck do you go from claiming someone has to be an engineer to this crap?

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2023, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 08, 2023, 06:41:54 AM

You've never once questioned any claims from your 'astronomers', who have NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true, or not true, which means they are NOT telling us the truth, because that is the ONLY reason they don't allow others to validate their claims as true, because they know it is NOT true.

This has got to be one of the strangest claims ever.

There are any number of observatories where you can go and are invited to even look through a mighty large telescope. You can buy your own high-powered telescope and look for yourself at leisure. There are a gazillion amateur astronomer/astro-videographers and photographers around, astronomy clubs, online and offline. Have you even thought to actually seek the "truth" yourself or are you just sitting there on a couch in the basement typing away at what's only inside your head?

If you don't want to be a sheeple, actually go and do something about it. Get out there and explore the cosmos yourself rather than just making up things to satisfy your internal sheeple belief system. Why so lazy?

You can study astronomy in college/uni if you so desire and have access to any data you want. Heck, even my old public high school now has a dome on the roof with a 12-inch Cassegrain telescope inside for upper level students of astronomy.

Just because you as a sheeple choose not to take advantage of the open access available is more a personal problem of yours - An extremely ignorant and bizarre claim that astronomers NEVER allow others to see if their claims ARE true. Have you ever even looked through a telescope? Binoculars?

Actually, it's totally valid.

Suppose I told you I have a painting. But all I let you see in person is this:


I tell you whenever you ask to see my painting, that the oils are very sensitive (and loads of other excuses) and there are spirits that will burn if exposed to air.  I show you a copy of this painting by computer that I tell you that I was able to photograph in a special airless room. This picture looks like this:
 



Shouldn't you be asking to see the painting in person? If only to make sure that I didn't take it from Black★Rock Shooter? Or make it up, for that matter?

But you don't. You never call bullshit on this fraud. You instead tell me, who is trying to get you to ask basic questions, that I am the one doing fraud. Which leads me to believe you are paid shills in order to sustain said fraud.

You, yourself can’t be credible if you demand they be an engineer, then in another post claim all “scientists” are hiding the truth. 

Sorry you can’t handle the Warped Perception guy has more knowledge about mechanical things, more skill, more honesty, better able to document his experiments, and puts more effort in than the hack experiments of flat earth hacks. 

I think it’s more about how easy it is to destroy the myths and mythology held in unquestioning faith by flat earther’s for lack of a better terminology. 

Oooh, "touche". Well, you'd have a case for saying so if writing was about making profit. But if we're talking about published books I've written about seven books that can be bought, and others that can be read online.

Mune Shinri
Aiken no Michi
Bonds and Boundaries
New Gaia
Oracle of Tao
Town of Winter
Aiken Abridged Bible

https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&bbn=283155&rh=p_27%3ASamantha+Rinne+Hooker&s=relevancerank&dc&qid=1673529816&rnid=2470954011&text=Samantha+Rinne+Hooker&ref=is_r_p_85_1&ds=v1%3AF0xUu3iOmweiX%2FIn2quTe9rhehG8%2F6IeyLcB85iAwms

You listed a bunch of obscure self-puplished books that no one reads. How do we know you wrote them? You just listed some books. Anyone could do that. You're just as much a writer as that You Tube guy is an engineer. At least we can see the guy, see what he builds and results. All you've shown is a list and claimed you are the author. Literally anyone could make your claim...

I've written four books that can be bought, and others that can be read online.
Dust
Wool
Sand
Shift

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Hugh+Howey&i=audible&ref=dp_byline_sr_audible_1

Believe me? See why your claim about the engineer is just plain stupid.

If this engineer is a real engineer, he should make me a submarine to explore Antarctica. But no, he crawls back into the woodwork when it's time to do that.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you ask him to build you a submarine and he said no? Are you ok, off your meds again?

Meanwhile, my books stay published.

So do mine. Believe me?

Ohh and uhh has this engineeer any response for this?



How do rockets keep from being blasted by radiation that nukes their passengers and fries their guidance systems?

Oh god, not this again. You really are way behind the times when it comes to FE arguments. This one has been kicking around forever. Search around, you'll find ancient posts on this. A million things on the web. In short, yes, we need to solve for the Van Allen Belts for an entirely new spacecraft. Very different tech, materials, trajectory, more knowledge about the dangers, etc., than 50+ years ago.

Do you think time just stops and new things don't come up that need to be solved in better, newr ways?

Yes, Apollo Flew Through the Van Allen Belts Going to the Moon

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 05:39:37 AM

How do rockets keep from being blasted by radiation that nukes their passengers and fries their guidance systems?

What radiation are we talking about?  And at what strength?  For what length of time?

Ever hear of the radiation cookie analogy?

I don't care about your cookies.

You suffer from a terminal inability to follow along and pay attention. Which is funny because I'm supposed to be the one with ADD. The Van Allen belt radiation. The same radiation that the moon landing should have put astronauts in Apollo in direct contact with for hours or days as they explored the moon. The same suits have no radiation protection, yet these people are fine. They don't have growths the size of turnips, they are talking about how "we didn't know about the Van Allen belt."

 And they certainly didn't know that outer space according to NASA's own models either approaches absolute zero or is over 4000 degrees.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/what-is-the-temperature-of-space.html



The moon has no atmosphere. So either they should be nuked by radiation and burn like unjust sinners in some bad religious film, or be shivering horribly as they freeze to a block of ice. My late grandpa helped make those suits. He was an engineer (a real engineer). I remember him talking about fabric of spacesuits, but as much as an engineer as he was, I am fully aware that he likely didn't design fabric able to keep people warm near absolute zero. And he definitely didn't design one so fire retardant that it would manage under temperatures of over 1000 degrees.

I loved my grandpa, and I know he was an intelligent man, but that just isn't possible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_proximity_suit

Even the entry suit to a fire zone only allows 2000 degrees for a short period. And this radiation is about 4000 degrees. They should cook in their suits.

As for extreme cold, most cold weather gear is jackets not armor. They maybe insulate up to temperatures of -50 but nowhere near -440 or so. This space suit would be well beyond my grandpa's ability to make it.

They were on a set. My grandfather was fooled like everyone else or maybe he kept his mouth shut.

You accuse me of changing the subject.

But you won't address the question I asked.

There are lots of things asked of you that you will not answer…

By the way….

How does this work again…

Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.


Simple elegant proof the earth is spherical.

Anyway..

You say that these asteroids don't all gravitate towards us because of their orbit.

If they are in a stable orbit around the sun like the planets. 

I ask what orbit, and you accuse me of changing the subject.

Like always.  You post a link to some flat earther crap with no clear explanation what it’s referenced for.

Sorry but I think I kept the subject.

You runaway from any serious question by trying to throw increasing amounts of mud at the wall to see what sticks. While others go point by point debunking your BS.

These are not, as you appear to think, asteroids close enough to circle around like Saturn's ring.

Quote what I actually posted.

These are just sitting there at a midpoint where it's fairly clear a planet used to be. They don't orbit Mars, they don't orbit Earth.

Quote where I posted such a thing. 

But that doesn’t mean earth only has one “moon”..

Earth has two extra, hidden 'moons'
First spied in the 1960s, the huge dust clouds have now been confirmed—and may affect plans for future space exploration.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-earth-moon-dust-clouds-satellites-planets-space

Crazy.  The solar system and galaxy are bigger than what you try to box and trap your god into.

So again I ask, what are they orbiting? The sun?

There is an asteroid belt.  Sorry.  I was off.  It’s between Mars and Jupiter.

The asteroid belt is a torus-shaped region in the Solar System, located roughly between the orbits of the planets Jupiter and Mars. It contains a great many solid, irregularly shaped bodies, of many sizes, but much smaller than planets, called asteroids or minor planets. This asteroid belt is also called the main asteroid belt or main belt to distinguish it from other asteroid populations in the Solar System such as near-Earth asteroids and trojan asteroids.[1]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt



InnerSolarSystem-en.png ‎(600 × 600 pixels, file size: 346 KB, MIME type: image/png)

Then we are talking a series of unnamed rock planets. It's not Mars or Earth, they are a distance from either of them.

Ok?

You can't handle the truth. So you bait me to change the subject.

How about you actually look up something published by the “engineers” you all the sudden hypocritically want to turn to.  Then provide actual evidence one way or another?

I don't think that asteroid field goes anywhere. Which means that it is an obstacle in the supposed orbit through space.

There is everything from dust to planets in our solar system.  Don’t know what to tell you. 

Like planes usually fly around undamaged, but bird strikes are a real danger.

I never posted space debris like micrometeorites are not a danger.

In other words, if the Earth moves, why do we have to have comets and meteors hit us?

They could.  Like one comet hit Jupiter.  Or look at the scares on the moon.  But after billions of years, most things have established orbits like the planets. 

Can't we just crash into them?

Yeap.  We could if orbits get crossed.  Some rouge object forces something out of its orbit.  Or statistically over time earth’s orbit crosses the orbit of an object that shifts with time.

But this has never been discussed this way.

A space object hitting the earth is a very real and big underfunded concern.

But the earth could be taken out by a gamma ray bust.

Should You Be Worried about Gamma-ray Bursts?

By John P. Millis, Ph.D
Updated on January 10, 2020

https://www.thoughtco.com/gamma-ray-burst-destroy-life-earth-3072521

Cited article with some person with a PHD, should make you happy.

They always tell that it is objects that come plowing into us.

Who is they?  And when did “they” claim an object was going to plow into us as a life changing event.

Various space agencies monitor and report on objects when they are near and give the statistics on how likely a collision might occur.

Even though it is far more difficult to hit a moving object than a still one.

And after billions of years things shaking out into stable orbits.

But let us assume the Earth is in orbit and circling around the galaxy.

It’s one of the games you play.  Creating a lie instead of citing what is actually documented.

The earth is in a solar system orbiting our sun.  The sun as the center of our solar system is orbiting the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.  The Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the space that is our expanding universe.

Why is the galaxy expanding.  That’s being figured out.  But maybe it’s your god trying to get away from you.  Who knows.

That we can slam into asteroids (which aren't pulled along in orbit to the sun because they are orbiting something else).

Or even rouge planets drifting through space.

You'll have to explain why during this big orbit, Earth hasn't flown into a star or black hole.

We might.  But one hasn’t come close enough for that to happen.  How many bullets are fired everyday on earth.  So you should have been shot by now.  Your logic is ignorant

Billions of years.

So in the instance people have been on earth on the time line of the galaxy we haven’t hit a star or a black hole?  Ok.  Yea us.

Potential to end all life.

People commit suicide, are murdered, or die in accidents everyday.  But you’re around to post.  Oh the odds. 

Hasn't happened.

Again.  Yea us. 

This is basically like rolling the dice and every second getting lucky.

Why do you think life on earth is such a miracle?  And might be the exception than the rule.

If you’re religious, aren’t we cursed anyway?

Or wouldn't it be easier to understand that the Earth is not a moving target?

How do you know we aren’t?  Because people have been around in what amounts as a blink of an eye in the time line of the universe?

That these asteroids are static? That only small shards head toward Earth?

Wonder why life developed on earth after billions of years after it was created?  In a period of established and less chaotic orbits?  Funny how that worked.  Huh?

This is indeed what heliocentric theory teaches. It's just suddenly news to you, so you call it an artistic depiction.

Funny.  You just used false authority because I won’t answer you.  Then you completely ignored what I posted?


It’s no different than dropping a ball in a car going at a constant speed. To the person or persons in the car, the ball appears to go straight down.  To a person outside the car standing still relative to the car, the view is the balling dropping down and also moving in the direction the car is traveling while it drops.


Added.  So in your mind a mechanically geared wrist watch wouldn’t work going down the highway?  What’s your point?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 02:45:45 AM

1. These big tanks? They leave them behind when they go into space. I always thought this was wasteful and short-sighted.

Like a whole industry to drill and mine to supply your car with gas it consumes?

Have a better way?  With fuel that has the power density required?

No, I don't.

Because I am not ashamed of the ICE car design.

I am very ashamed at the enormous waste involved in EVs though. A giant battery weighing tons that takes hours (all of that is inefficient energy from a power plant). It also creates a great deal of environmental waste in production and disposal of these batteries, in whatever the power plant uses to charge electrically, and in mining. This is an unsustainable mess and everyone knows it.

Our car fills up in about 10 gallons. It can go 400 miles before filling again, and when filling, takes only minutes to refill. Further, mufflers have gotten substantially cleaner.

If a car blew out flames like a rocket, not only would they be pulled over by a cop and asked to get their car repaired but you can be damned sure that there are all kinds of industrial products released in the air.  But hey, free pass if you're an astronaut. And if you dump giant tanks into the ocean, no big deal! It's not like any sea life is bothered by this!

Cars are efficient. Rockets are not.

False.  The fuel and the oxidizer was consumed faster than normal.  I’m guessing the electric igniter was sized too large for the motor, and caused the motor to burn up faster by adding too much energy.

We all watched the same video. Prior to his slow-mo replay you could only see flames by slowmoing it yourself. You are so blatantly dishonest that you deny the results of a video that you yourself submitted.

If you’re religious, aren’t we cursed anyway?

No, we're not.

Read the book of Genesis carefully. There was no curse, we thought there was.
1. Adam is created in the Garden and God creates the Tree in the center. Perhaps you could tell me how often it is that you walk towards the center of a garden? I would say fairly often, particularly if there is a large object as a focal point.
2. This object is not in any way guarded.
3. Its fruit isn't even out of reach.
4. Recall that if God really didn't want us to have it, he could simply have not created it.
5. God creates a woman who is tempted by the offer of a talking snake
6. God also creates a talking snake.
7. God outright lies to them about dying from the fruit (except from old age and such)

But because people THOUGHT they were under a curse, Jesus bore that curse, negating its power. He was raised up just as Moses lifted the serpent, to be something that people afraid of sin could look at.

Why do you think life on earth is such a miracle?

Why do atheists think it's not? Should your mother have aborted you? Don't you realize what an amazing thing life is?

Against all odds, Earth is not a barren wasteland. Against all odds, Earth is not filled with lava either. It's not a mass of gas like Venus or Jupiter. It's not raining down diamonds. It's not flooded with water. We have a mix of conditions that allows the sun to grow crops and the water to nourish them. We have seasonable weather. We have tides. And your mom's womb was able to bear something like you as a child. 

Someone crunched the numbers and the probability of life on Earth (this was assuming alot of RE things that I don't assume), was astronomically low. There are about 322 parameters for life even to exist on a planet. To have all of them, and for life to last, the probability is less than 1 chance in 10²⁸².  Yet we have hundreds of millions of lifeforms on Earth. This is different life forms, not counting some life forms that are massively populated.

You don't have any sense of wonder for the life you have been given.

I loved my grandpa, and I know he was an intelligent man, but that just isn't possible.

My grandfather was fooled like everyone else or maybe he kept his mouth shut.

Macro question: Why do you trust a random YT video from a guy who obviously has the graphics talent of, at best, a 6 year old...



When all he says is, "It's too hot..."

Yet you don't believe your own grandfather nor any, say, University physics professor who has made his life's work studying, experimenting, measuring, calculating, publishing such things?

What makes your handyman video guy more of an authority on the subject than anyone else? Why do you hitch your wagon to the likes of Chris Wrock?

The same guy who just recently published this 8 second masterpiece...

Because I am not ashamed of the ICE car design.

What the hell does your post have to do with this thread?  Or the comment you can’t back / clarify made on page 7 of this thread. 


How does this work again…

Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.


Simple elegant proof the earth is spherical.

Anyway..  I’m back in the camp your a troll.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 12, 2023, 06:17:42 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 05:39:37 AM

How do rockets keep from being blasted by radiation that nukes their passengers and fries their guidance systems?

What radiation are we talking about?  And at what strength?  For what length of time?

Ever hear of the radiation cookie analogy?

I don't care about your cookies.

You suffer from a terminal inability to follow along and pay attention. Which is funny because I'm supposed to be the one with ADD. The Van Allen belt radiation. The same radiation that the moon landing should have put astronauts in Apollo in direct contact with for hours or days as they explored the moon. The same suits have no radiation protection, yet these people are fine. They don't have growths the size of turnips, they are talking about how "we didn't know about the Van Allen belt."

 And they certainly didn't know that outer space according to NASA's own models either approaches absolute zero or is over 4000 degrees.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/what-is-the-temperature-of-space.html



The moon has no atmosphere. So either they should be nuked by radiation and burn like unjust sinners in some bad religious film, or be shivering horribly as they freeze to a block of ice. My late grandpa helped make those suits. He was an engineer (a real engineer). I remember him talking about fabric of spacesuits, but as much as an engineer as he was, I am fully aware that he likely didn't design fabric able to keep people warm near absolute zero. And he definitely didn't design one so fire retardant that it would manage under temperatures of over 1000 degrees.

I loved my grandpa, and I know he was an intelligent man, but that just isn't possible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_proximity_suit

Even the entry suit to a fire zone only allows 2000 degrees for a short period. And this radiation is about 4000 degrees. They should cook in their suits.

As for extreme cold, most cold weather gear is jackets not armor. They maybe insulate up to temperatures of -50 but nowhere near -440 or so. This space suit would be well beyond my grandpa's ability to make it.

They were on a set. My grandfather was fooled like everyone else or maybe he kept his mouth shut.

Ok?  You just bitched about me not answering you.

I asked, “What radiation are we talking about?  And at what strength?  For what length of time?”

Then I post something that outlines the health risks of radiation in easy to understand terms.  Something to base a rational discussion around. 

Then instead of trying to engaged in a logical discussion based on the actual health risk of radiation for what the astronauts were exposed to, you rant.

You didn’t attempt to address anything I asked.  You are ignoring the Apollo missions used shielding when possible, and navigated through the radiation belts where they could minimize their time and strength.  And that the mission astronauts had radiation badges, their exposure published.  And if you would do some research, their is published studies on how much radiation has effected their health and lifespans.

Then you changed the subject to temperature where JackBlack had already addressed the issue.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 09, 2023, 06:55:13 PM

The temperature in outer space

Is pretty much irrelevant.
Due to having basically no matter, there is no significant thermal mass near the craft to cool it down.

If you would like a simple example of this then just consider water vs air.
If you were to put your hand in a bucket of ice water at 0 C, it would feel very cold, very quickly, potentially to the point of being painful after a short period.
Yet you can put your hand into a -20 C freezer with it just feeling a bit cold, and you can leave it there for a considerable time with no serious detrimental effects.
Likewise, you can put your hand in an oven at 200 C and it just feels a bit warm. But if you put it in boiling water at 100 C you get severe burns almost instantly.

This is because water has a quite large thermal mass, the heat capacity of water is ~4.2 J/g/K, and with a density of roughly 1000 kg/m^3, that works out to be ~4200 kJ/m^3/K.
Conversely, air (at STP) has a heat capacity of roughly 0.7 J/g/K, and a density of roughly 1.2 kg/m^3
This gives ~0.84 kJ/m^3/K.
So the same amount of energy required to change the temperature of 1 m^3 of water by 1 K, would change that same volume of air by 5000 K.

And in space, there is even less air.

So the temperature of space doesn't matter at all.
What matters is how much energy you absorb from the sun, how much energy is converted to heat on the craft, and how much energy is radiating away.

Why do you post things repeatedly after you ben debunked / or a better explanation has been provided?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 07:13:50 AM

I loved my grandpa, and I know he was an intelligent man, but that just isn't possible.

My grandfather was fooled like everyone else or maybe he kept his mouth shut.

Macro question: Why do you trust a random YT video from a guy who obviously has the graphics talent of, at best, a 6 year old...



When all he says is, "It's too hot..."

Yet you don't believe your own grandfather nor any, say, University physics professor who has made his life's work studying, experimenting, measuring, calculating, publishing such things?

Unlike you guys, who I trust not at all, my grandfather didn't try to proselytize me. Nor did any scientist that I actually grew up through college. You have been indoctrinated. But you don't get to tell me what to think. Especially since some of you continue to not know the difference between your and you're as you tell me "Your an idiot."

What makes your handyman video guy more of an authority on the subject than anyone else? Why do you hitch your wagon to the likes of Chris Wrock?

It has to do with the fact that I already came to most of these conclusions on my own. And BECAUSE he has the graphics talent of a six year old. Were he a talented digital artist, I would immediately suspect any doctored videos.  But his videos just include simple recordings of what people are on record saying or showing. For example, it was "real proof" that your "engineer" was for real because he strapped a rocket to his car?

And you don't think that maybe he would immediately be pulled over by the cops? "It's the cops!"




Simple things have the tendency toward being true. Crafty things tend to be artificial.

Also, that's a sizable bit of snobbery there. There are dumb doctors. There are extremely smart people whose
Recall that Einstein worked in the patent office.




The same guy who just recently published this 8 second masterpiece...

Actually, no. Chris is dead (cancer on his back). His relatives are using his channel.



Also, Minecraft.

You have been indoctrinated.

Really?  From the person that posts crap like this?

Because the moon has no other side,

How does a statement like that have any credibility?  What credibility is a person to take away from a statement like that?

Quote from: Stash on January 12, 2023, 08:44:49 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 07:13:50 AM

I loved my grandpa, and I know he was an intelligent man, but that just isn't possible.

My grandfather was fooled like everyone else or maybe he kept his mouth shut.

Macro question: Why do you trust a random YT video from a guy who obviously has the graphics talent of, at best, a 6 year old...



When all he says is, "It's too hot..."

Yet you don't believe your own grandfather nor any, say, University physics professor who has made his life's work studying, experimenting, measuring, calculating, publishing such things?

Unlike you guys, who I trust not at all, my grandfather didn't try to proselytize me. Nor did any scientist that I actually grew up through college. You have been indoctrinated. But you don't get to tell me what to think. Especially since some of you continue to not know the difference between your and you're as you tell me "Your an idiot."

Why is it that you think that scientists talking about science are automatically proselytizing? Why do you think scientists talking about science are automatically indoctrinating?

There's a lot of things people say or do or teach that I disagree with that I don't equate to proselytizing or indoctrinating.

If you get pulled over for speeding and cop says you were doing 55 in a 45, and you disagree, do you automatically default to the cop is trying to proselytize & indoctrinate you into believing that his radar technology is accurate and true?

And you believe your grandfather worked on fake things and didn't know it or he was paid to lie and keep his mouth shut because he knew it was a lie?

Basically you're saying your grandfather was an idiot or stooge liar. How does that sit with your family? Didn't you say that he was an engineer who never did any calculations, just built stuff? You never mentioned he had NASA ties. Interesting.

Quote from: Stash on January 12, 2023, 08:44:49 AM

What makes your handyman video guy more of an authority on the subject than anyone else? Why do you hitch your wagon to the likes of Chris Wrock?

It has to do with the fact that I already came to most of these conclusions on my own. And BECAUSE he has the graphics talent of a six year old. Were he a talented digital artist, I would immediately suspect any doctored videos.  But his videos just include simple recordings of what people are on record saying or showing. For example, it was "real proof" that your "engineer" was for real because he strapped a rocket to his car?

Is it real proof that you are a novelist by just listing some random book titles from amazon?

Simple things have the tendency toward being true. Crafty things tend to be artificial.

How do you make the determination something is "crafty"? Some things in the world are complex, some are not. Do you default to anything that is complex is automatically crafty and therefore fake?

Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe in?

Also, that's a sizable bit of snobbery there. There are dumb doctors. There are extremely smart people whose
Recall that Einstein worked in the patent office.

No more snobbery than you think you know more than people who design and engineer things.

Your video guy basically only says, in the span of a minute, "It's fake because it's too hot". That doesn't really garner any sort of einsteinian intelligence.

Actually, no. Chris is dead (cancer on his back). His relatives are using his channel.

Eesh, that sucks.

Also, Minecraft.

I don't know what this means.

Then I post something that outlines the health risks of radiation in easy to understand terms.  Something to base a rational discussion around. 

You didn’t attempt to address anything I asked.  You are ignoring the Apollo missions used shielding when possible, and navigated through the radiation belts where they could minimize their time and strength.  And that the mission astronauts had radiation badges, their exposure published.  And if you would do some research, their is published studies on how much radiation has effected their health and lifespans.

So you talked about generic radiation like the typical cancer screening commercial, ignoring that space travel has a very powerful radiation field surrounding it.

The Van Allen radiation belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Did they? Did they really know about this?

Because they asked the people involved and he's like "I guess we weren't near it."  They would have flown right through it, yet during the Orion one, some guy says "we must solve these challenges (Van Allen) before we send people through space," they supposedly went through there in Apollo with no problems.



This radiation can pass through space suits and the walls of the space station.

But they literally say they didn't know about it at the time. Unless they DIDN'T go through Van Allen belt?

Because the moon has no other side,

How does a statement like that have any credibility?  What credibility is a person to take away from a statement like that?

The moon has only one visible side. No matter where you stand on Earth. From that, we have zero evidence there is any other side.





None of us here are over 100, right? How do we know that a large projector wasn't built centuries ago to project the 2D image of the moon. The moon is 2D, and we cannot see more than one side of it. Ergo, it has no other side. It is not a 3D object but a projection.

So you talked about generic radiation

I cited an article about the four types of radiation.  Alpha, beta, neutron, and gamma.

An article that shows alpha and beta are easily shielded against.  That neutron radiation is very bad, not easily shielded against. And gamma radiation is bad, not easy to shield against, but they move fast enough it may limit how it interacts with your body.

Is there a type of radiation the article missed?  Another type you think the astronauts were exposed to?

Did you answer what type of radiation you think the astronauts should be exposed to?  And to what strengths?

like the typical cancer screening commercial,

What. Commercial.  Please quote, cite, and link to.

ignoring that space travel has a very powerful radiation field surrounding it.

You’re the one not naming the specific type of radiation, and at what concentrations.

The Van Allen radiation belt.

Are you saying that is a type of radiation like alpha, beta, gamma, neutron?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Another link with no quote, no explanation.

Did they? Did they really know about this?

Probably more than you!  The mission team seemed to know the risk of radiation was based on what type, if it can be shielded, how much shielding attenuates the radiation, the strength of the radiation field, and the duration of the exposure. 

How NASA Worked Around Earth’s Radiation Belts to Land Apollo 11 on the Moon

https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/amp/

When NASA commenced its lunar spaceflight program, its scientists already knew about the belts and their spatial and energy distribution. Apropos the energies: electrons below about 1 MeV were unlikely to be dangerous, as were protons below 10 MeV. For example, a proton with an energy of 3 MeV could penetrate about 6 mm of aluminium (a typical spacecraft material) whereas one of 100 MeV could penetrate up to 40 mm. So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls.

They literally didn't know about it at the time. Unless they DIDN'T go through Van Allen belt?

What are you babbling about?  Your making false claims again. 


https://flatearth.ws/van-allen

The moon has only one visible side.

How does a 3D object in reality have one side?

No matter where you stand on Earth. From that, we have zero evidence there is any other side.

That’s not reality.  That’s an unrealistic flat earth myth and delusion.

The moon is a solid object as known by several factors.

It blocks sunlight for a solar eclipse

Is has mass and causes tidal effects on earth

It showed solid by ground based radar surveys of the moon.

Earth-based 12.6-cm wavelength radar mapping of the Moon: New views of impact melt distribution and mare physical properties

https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/9855/201051.pdf




Fig. 1. S-band same-sense circular (SC) polarization radar image of Copernicus crater (93 km diameter, 9.7°N, 20.0°W) and northeastern portion of its distal ejecta deposits. Note the strong radar returns from the crater floor, attributed to very rugged deposits of fractured impact melt. Image representative of PDS-deliverable products, with pointing errors corrected, beam pattern changes in brightness minimized, and edges truncated at the 22 dB point of the net Arecibo–GBT beam pattern.

None of us here are over 100, right?

You’re ignoring reality, and using delusional myth based on zero evidence.

My own pictures show the moon is a solid 3D object

How do we know that a large projector wasn't built centuries ago to project the 2D image of the moon.

You have proof?  And better explanations for tidal waves, radar surveys that show the moon is solid, and the fact it blocks light and radiation from the sun during a solar eclipse?

Solar eclipse 2017: How much did the temperature change during the eclipse?

https://www.al.com/news/2017/08/solar_eclipse_2017_how_much_di.html

The National Weather Service Center in Huntsville reported a 10 degree temperature drop during the peak of the eclipse in North Alabama. NWS equipment at the University of Alabama in Huntsville also picked up a drop - and sudden rebound - in both dewpoints and solar radiation during the eclipse.

The moon is 2D, and we cannot see more than one side of it.

It’s a 3D sphere.

Just look at the shadows from my own photo from my own telescope…



We see the same features of the moon due to the fact a tidal looked moon orbits a spherical earth.



If the earth is flat, why do people see the same features of the moon in different orientations throughout the world?

However, its orientation is different when observed from the various locations across the globe. The reason is that the Earth is a sphere: the different observers are not on the same plane and have the different orientations themselves.
https://flatearth.ws/moon-orientation