If you were in a vacume with just a thin glass between you and CERTAIN death, would you be doing this kind of shit? Would you be running around and doing these kinds of push-ups with your face almost hitting the ground?
@itsanameisntit It's not thin glass, it's pretty tough polycarbonate actually. Do you really think they'd make spacesuit helmets out of glass that could shatter?
@olimadify He actually thinks that rockets won't work in space.
It is pretty awesomely stupid. Every time he gets close to thinking about how Newton's Third Law works, his brain snaps and he goes back to ragey homophobia.
LOL can't believe the conspiracy junkies are still kicking LOL what about the mirrors they left on the moon to reflect a light beam from earth so we can measure the distance, we can still shine a beam on them today and it does return how do you explain that? Let me guess the moon is made of glass??
They have the "right stuff"....they train for years...they are the best among the best...the are the few chosen ones...They fall and they can't get up! ha ha ha..cheers!
KRISDEVALLE, are you saying they would throw me out for questioning the very tenets of science, as so many have done before and been proven right or are you saying you have been there and have absolute proof regarding the dust layers on the moon/
@thecubanism No, I'm saying that you expecting the dust layer to be exactly the same level over a million square km of lunar surface is fucking retarded.
@Chev4206 Well the return of the Hayabusa sample mission is good proof. As is the course corrections made by Mars probes. Or perhaps the shuttle flip manuever.
/watch?v=0hj5crITslQ
Or station-keeping performed by geostationary satellites.
@Chev4206 Why not? It pushes thrust out one way, the craft moves in the opposite direction. Just as two people freefloating in a space station, one pushes the other, and they both move apart.
Seems simple to me. And it's done in outer space.
As to your questions, my example defined - two people pushing each other, one is the craft, the other is 'thrust' then they both move, this is the fundamental theory I have been trying to get at.
@Chev4206 1. The continued exploration by deep space probes operated by NASA; performing course corrections and attitude shifts to orient the camera at different objects.
2. It happened in July 20, 1969.
There you go. If you think either of these answers are wrong, then prove it. Maybe in all caps. You seem to like that.
@krisdevalle If you choose to believe in Nosa's bullshit and indeed all the other so-called international space missions its your choice for being a stupid gullible fuckwit.
1) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
2) Prove that rocket propulsion in outer space is possible. PROVE.
3) Prove ANY other space exploration has taken place. PROVE.
@krisdevalle The word is 'dissatisfied' you fucking ignoramus.
Your fixation with that old mucker Newton proves you're stumped. He didn't have access to space so his physics cannot apply, it simply doesn't add up so search some other avenue of physics then get back to me.
When will the first manned landing with REAL astronauts in a REAL ship happen on the REAL Moon?
Prove that rocket propulsion away from Earth's atmospheric influence is possible.
Where is it written that to have an opinion or theory or fact one has to be an expert in engineering or physics? Or anything?
Dumb schmucks like you are easily led by the tail feathers, influenced by anything written by experts BECAUSE THEY SAY SO and are incapable of offering original opinions and facts due to the indoctrination received in sub-standard educational institutions.
Fuck me pal, you're one of the dumbest trolls around.
@krisdevalle Name me one so-called 'learned' person who says I'm wrong !!
I can understand your stubbornness but have you ever thought for one fleeting moment that I just may be right? How do you know you're right and I'm wrong? All you have to go along with is Nosa bogus physics, and science as explained for the benefit of the proles.
Oh, try this. Put a lit candle in a vessel and evacuate the air. It goes out. So would a rocket flame: therefore no thrust in a vacuum.
@Chev4206 Well no, not really. Physicists from many universities explain in simple terms how rockets work in space.
I also looked up rocket technology. They carry a propellant, and an oxidiser. This means they carry their own oxygen, or 'air'. These two are mixed in the combustion chamber and expelled through the narrow nozzle to create the thrust.
So your example is once again wrong. This is why I know you are wrong - you don't even know how rockets do work.
@krisdevalle Rocket thrust in a vacuum is impossible, just ask Nosa. Ask why ApoNNo 13 was allowed to continue around the moon then back to Nevada? Why couldn't they have simply stopped the craft and turned it around? After all rocket thrust in Nosa's bogus world is possible!!
Continue to believe all the fairy tales you want. It's your loss.
@Chev4206 Simple orbital mechanics, and efficiency. The craft would had to expend an incredible amount of energy to arrest the course; then plot a course home. Much smarter to use the swing around the moon and then perform small course corrections.
After all, we can see the Space shuttle performing the roll manuever in orbit around Earth, using the RCS system. So we know that works.
@krisdevalle Simple orbital mechanics and efficiency, eh? Small course corrections?
What about all the piss and shit they weren't allowed to jettison? Would that have affected their calculations? Imagine that crap sloshing around while they were calculating their 'course' using their million dollar pens on the back of the ApoNNo log book. Fucking pathetic and you know it.
When will the first manned landing with REAL astronauts in a REAL ship happen on the REAL Moon?
@Chev4206 Still not certain how my sexual proclivities relate to Newton's Third Law.
I might gobble cocks all day long, but it's not going to stop a rifle from having recoil.
You ever think about that? You shoot a gun and it kicks back? That's how rockets work, champ! Same thing. Whaddya think the recoil is from? Pushing on AIR?
@Chev4206 Because the reaction is taking place solely on the mass of the object.
So many examples of this can be outlined.
A rifle's recoil.
Two ice-skaters pushing on each other.
Two people in a space station, one pushes, they both move apart.
Two skydivers - again - one pushes on the other, they both move apart.
You are in an office chair on a smooth floor, and you throw a medicine ball, you move backwards. Do the same action just with your hands - no movement.
@Chev4206 Have you heard of the momentum law before?
It says that the total momentum of objects remains the same before and after affecting each other, because anything else would mean that you suddenly got some extra momentum out of nowhere.
If two ice skaters stand still next to each other then their momentum is 0 - and it will remain 0 after they've pushed on each other, if you leave out friction etc.
You can read more if you search for "momentum" on Wikipedia.
@Chev420 Momentum is the amount of mass that moves at a certain speed, and if it was 0 in the beginning it will remain 0 after things start moving.
For example, a gun has a recoil because the bullet's momentum forces it backwards (negative momentum), and those two momentums are equal - for example, if the bullet weighs 0,1 kg and flies in 500 m/s, and the gun weighs 0,5 kg, then the recoil will have the "speed" 100 m/s - since the recoil was negative, the total momentum will remain 0.
@Chev4206 You can actually have use for the momentum laws in real life in some situations, like if you want to know at which speed something will travel after it's hit by a certain object etc.
I would actually recommend you to study physics if you don't do that already, it might seem overwhelming in the beginning but it's actually very fun once you get into it, and it gives you an improved understanding for a lot of things.
@Laurelindo Lets establish a couple of facts. You don't know me and are probably younger than I so keep your patronising arrogance in check. I still have no idea what you're saying and why.
Don't bother to reply, get a life and a boyfriend.
@Chev4206 Ha ha Chev, another person tries to reasonably explain how rockets work in space and all you are capable of is firstly replying 'I don't understand' then resort to insults.
It's like you have a barrier to understanding in your brain. It's amazing.
@krisdevalle Me smarter than a rocket scientist? All the time son.
Instead of wasting my productive life on fruitless and futile rubbish enriching some bogus scientific company my preference is to enrich myself. Which I do quite successfully and comfortably.
So I am smarter.
As for a demonstration you show me how rocket propulsion in outer space is possible, because it isn't. Show don't tell to make it more believable, if that were possible.
@krisdevalle The correct Queens English is 'orientate' or 're-orientate'. Orient is East, they cant 're-east' themselves, or anything else for that matter.
@Chev4206 No, I believe you that rockets don't work in space. Newton was a chump.
But I am still wondering how deep-space probes turn to face different planets or moons to take pictures. As you are smarter than me, could you explain it?
@Chev4206 I just told you buddy, I believe you that it doesn't work. You said you were smarter than the rest and figured it out. So you're the man. So it should be easy for you to tell me how probes orientate themselves to point in different directions. Help me out here.
@Chev4206 I just told you buddy, I believe you that it doesn't work. You said you were smarter than the rest and figured it out. So you're the man. So it should be easy for you to tell me how probes orientate themselves to point in different directions. Help me out here.
@Chev4206 I just told you bro, I believe you that rockets don't work in space. You're the smart one here, you just said. So you're the man. Hence it should be easy for you to tell me how unmanned probes can turn in space to photograph planets and moons.
@krisdevalle Is this your pathetic attempt at subterfuge, moon hoax or poofterfuge?
You're trying so hard for a response its laughable!! Surely there are plenty of homosexual contacts outside of alleged hoax sites? You're trawling in the wrong place, Google the place you're really looking for. You won't find it here shirtlifter!!
Oh before I forget, because you're such a clever dick explain how rocket propulsion in outer space is even remotely possible.
I already told you. I admit your intellect is greater than mine. You've said it so many times that it must be true. So you say rocket propulsion in outer space is impossible! That's incredible. So say the Galileo probe that imaged Jupiter, its moons and some asteroids - how does this re-align itself for new targets? It's all a bit mysterious. Could you tell me?
Panicking are we, desperate and desolate? I bet all your poofter shill mates and trolls are quaking in their scrotums realising that after all these years something so simple would shatter their ApoNNo fantasy.
How come this prick gets his probe so deep when the official explanation for no LEM blast crater is due to a thin layer of dust on the lunar surface, and if that is so, how did they plant the flag? come on boys, it's one or the other, and I'm siding with the other.
@Daddyo930 For someone that claims to have studied astrophysics you sure have screwed up most of the data. Being wrong about so many assumptions,don't you lose confidence in your epistemology? 1.Gamma goes thru' ionizing radiation. 2.Not all H-alpha's are SPEs 3.Sun is ionizing not 'radioactive' 4.1RAD=62.4x10^6MeV 5.You've no hope of ever understanding 6.GRB's give off 10^54 erg.at the location 7.Mészáros claims only 0.5MeV is detected from GRB's 8.GRB's are subject to I~1/d² Dufus
Don't think Peter Mészáros would appreciate having his data twisted and misrepresented.
Especially by some conspiracy-clown on Y-Tube.
Somehow in GRB's the flow avoids degrading photons.
The fireball doesn't reach across the heavens and hit this solar system, it's at times over 10 bill. light years away. The fireball is estimated to have 10^54 ergs.
.
Again Doodlyo, your interpretation is way off, and you've made yet another blunder by posting yet another gross assumption that is laughable.
@Tweekerhead At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of 10^54 erg, if the emission is ISOTROPIC. "the inverse square law applies to all radiation but somehow in a GRB the photons avoid degrading from the flux" DUH! That implies isotropy fool. We're done. You just admitted the isotropy of gamma ray bursts.
You said a few months ago you had us "crusaders" on the run and that it was to bad for us that you studied astrophysics. Not long after that it was S"science wins out E=mc² proves men never walked on the Moon"...
Whata' bunch of horse shit that was...
If they gave you an enema you could ware the clothes you wore in 4th grade.
@Tweekerhead Show me the peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. Here is a peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law:Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. M´esz´aros Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics
GRB were isotropically distributed in the sky, with no
significant dipole or quadrupole moments. At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes energies of ∼< 1054 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Page 3,4.
What's there to admit? The truth is the truth, data is there for all of us to read.
You're DELUSIONAL, you act as if the science & information is all yours to leverage with at will.
You look right past the obvious, the hard cold facts & see what you want to see to fit your silly-ass premise.
You haven't got exclusive rights to the data of science, your epistemology doesn't function logically enough even to comprehend what your eyes are seeing.
@Tweekerhead You can admit that gamma ray bursts emissions are isotropic and their distribution is also isotropic and they also are not subject to the inverse square law. Until then, blow smoke buddy.
@Daddyo930 I read that paper, and said nothing about your made-up claims. You are either a liar or just an ignorant fool, which is it?
.
Mészáros claims the release of 10^54ergs. that's at the LOCATION of the event stupid-ass, he also claims that only 0.5MeV is detected here in this solar system, and GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d².
Making a big deal outta of 0.5MeV ..
You're that obtuse that I look like a fool to you?
@Tweekerhead Whoa! " and GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d²." Did you just say that gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law? HAHHAHAHAHA! What a fool you have turned out to be. I told you that long time ago and FINALLY, you say it. Guess what? YOU LOSE! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
@Tweekerhead I told you, we're done until you present the peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. Goodbye.
@Daddyo930 Wait moron,2 weeks ago you assumed that GRB's were NOT subject to I~1/d².
Now you've realized you were wrong & you're trying to mask the fact that you made yet another blunder by pretending to claim all along that GRB's ARE subject to I~1/d².
When does the blatant idiocy end with you?
You won't find a paper that will say GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d²
So don't try & pass Mészáros' paper off as saying so,it doesn't I read it.Have you?
@Tweekerhead Sorry, you already admitted that gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law. Took you long enough. Now I'm tired of talking to someone with multiple personality disorder.
@Daddyo930 No I did Not admit any such thing that stupid. If you had read my subsequent post you would've read my correction.My wife came in and interrupted me.
GRB's ARE subject to inverse² law. Just as Mészáros' paper states.
Mészáros' paper also says only 0.5MeV has been detected in this solar system.
Did you get that far in the paper, or did you conveniently skip that part?
The reason given for no blast crater under the lunar landing is that the moon's surface only has a thin layer of dust over the rock, that looks like a mighty deep thin layer to me.
Fake. Fake. Fake. We never went anywhere. Physicists were trying to tell the fat morons at NASA that radiation in space would certainly kill the astronuts. The fools at NASA then proceeded to contract out deals that would make corporations millions of dollars for doing nothing. They couldn't even shield against the solar constant once past 250 miles so they never left low earth orbit. The truth hurts? So does a meaningless ten year war. Vietnam, then Iraq and Afghanistan. Wake up fools.
@Daddyo930 Connecting Viet Nam, Iraq to Apollo is the biggest non-sequitur I've seen from the hoax camp. Par for the course I'd say, amazing investigative research, top-notch....
.
When you say NASA couldn't shield against the solar constant, you're saying they(NASA) couldn't shield against α and ß radiation of only 1.5 keV and UV rays?
You can shield against the solar constant with a thin piece of aluminum, why would you ignorantly say that?
@Tweekerhead I'm not even going to entertain that stupid statement with an answer. How about you just telling me what percentage, which as far as you know is less than zero, of ionizing radiation is the solar constant. Just pick a number. Is it .01, .001, .0001, .00001? Just pick a number seeing as how you know so much. If you can't do that then go look up how much of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. Until then........
"They couldn't even shield against the solar constant once past 250 miles so they never left low earth orbit. The truth hurts? So does a meaningless ten year war. Vietnam, then Iraq and Afghanistan.?
Now that's a stupid statement, and it's yours.
.
Well for the constant, I told you solar winds are at 1.5keV in α & ß radiation, that leaves the UV rays. About .005%
Your interpretation is way off, you won't get the ridiculous number you came up with.
@Daddyo930 No, probably not, but you are wrong with your conclusions.
I mean shit dude, no-one else is saying what you are saying. NOBODY. No professional, not even the guys on the physics forums.
You think you just might be incorrect? This is why I keep asking you to talk to someone. It's pretty easy to look up a faculty email list at your local college and fire off some polite inquiries. Why not do that? Why won't you do that?
@Daddyo930 And I say 'polite' because I saw how you waltzed into the physics forums with your fucking dick swinging like you knew everything. The you got booted for being a shithead.
So maybe if you ever get the balls to run your ridiculous shit by someone who is educated in the field, try asking proper, polite questions instead of shooting your damn fool mouth like you do every day.
@krisdevalle I'd be willing to be that if we met face to face, you wouldn't be saying what your saying now. Now, if your willing to talk about the facts we can have that conversation. If not then be gone.
I would be willing to bet good money you never get off your sorry opinionated ass and inquire amongst academia about your useless idiot conclusions, because you know, right now, what they are going to tell you.
Which is you cock about here on youtube trying to score points instead of letting yourself be beat down by people who are smarter than you. I got your score, buddy. You're a joke.
@krisdevalle One more time. I don't need a scientist to verify established numbers. That's like asking a math professor if 2 + 2 = 4. Established science is what I have copied and pasted. I don't need anyone to verify that it's correct. As for my proposition that we never went to the moon, I would not ask a professional to risk their livelihood and tell the truth. Now go away.
@Daddyo930 Fine then, ask the people on the physics forums to check your work.
Here's how to frame your question, since you have no idea;
'I have read some articles regarding the solar constant and the amount of ionizing radiation, and believe, from my reading, this would prohibit space travel. I will list my sources, and the variables involved (time, flux, hull materials, etc). Would the forum please now check my work for errors or misjudged assumptions...etc'
@Daddyo930 Do that and I might stop swearing at you, you fucking lame amateur. Or maybe leave you alone even!
But if you continue to jizz your idiot opinion around here, polluting the fucking channels with your unsupported bumpkin fuckeyed ideas, I'm going to call you on them.
@Daddyo930 You're so confident you're right, then I don't see why you can't do it.
The fact you continuously and reliably show you are too scared to have your work checked is the most obvious sign that you know you are going to get fucking well owned.
I see however you wish to concentrate on the content of my comments, instead of addressing you utter and abject failure to find a single person to back your claims.
You are a lone weirdo, hooting in the wilderness.
You are worse than those kooks who say they've invented cold fusion then refuse to let anyone look at their experiment.. because as soon as someone does, they will get busted.
@Daddyo930 I have less respect for you than I do a dog turd, because you maintain that despite 4 decades of research, and a million academics worldwide studying the very same thing, that you think you are the unlikely genius to have to put two and two together, made five, and somehow invalidated a historical happening.
And you don't even see how utterly ludicrous this is.
@krisdevalle You have no respect for yourself if you feel you need to demean others in order to make yourself feel superior. If you are not up to the task of discussing numbers without a professional holding your hand then we can continue. If not, begone and go in peace.
@krisdevalle There is no need to discuss facts with a "professional". Every scientist know that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. Every scientist knows the solar constant is 1.36 kw/m2. No need to verify that. It's called established science. My contentions remain my own, unverified, not unsubstantiated.
@Daddyo930 If every scientist knows this then why is there no scientist, living or dead, retired or new, fired or disgraced or changed career, that says space travel is impossible?
@krisdevalle Simple. Fear. Now would you like to discuss established facts or just insist that only a professional can tell us what the facts that anyone can look up are?
@Daddyo930 What does a retired or disgraced scientist have to fear? What does a dying scientist have to fear?
How do you even have the utter affront to claim that every single scientist, alive or dead, ever in the world, are cowards? Fuck you, you idiot. Seriously. What a fucking ridiculous claim.
You know what fear is? You, cocking about and never getting your work checked by a pro. That's fear. You are the coward and the fraud.
@Daddyo930 You tried it on once already, amongst a panel of anonymous physicists.
You didn't see any of them backing your idiot claims. Not a single one of them; they could have anonimized their IPs, written under a pseudonym, yet not a single one agreed with you.
You clown. You coward. You lurk on these comments pages because you're afraid to take your shit anywhere else, because it stinks.
@Daddyo930 I'll do as I wish until you get someone to back your claim, you fucking coward.
Every time you bleat your idiot shit here I will feel free to put it down until you get someone, anyone, to prove your interpretation is free from error.
You're a righteous prick, claiming that every single person ever to have studied science is too yellow to speak out. It is far more likely you've just got the whole thing ass-backwards because you're a bumpkin who pretends he understands.
@Daddyo930 You can guarantee, shitbrains, that every time you jizz all over youtube with your fucking 'WAAAH space travel didn't happen because solar constant is in megawatts and stuff MAAAAN' shit, that I will call you out in. You can ask, and tell, and plead with me to stop it, tell me to go away, whine about language, and I'm never going to stop until you GET YOUR WORK CHECKED.
All swearing, name-calling, and bold assertions that you are just another Dunning-Kruger fuckup will cease, as soon as you grow some fucking balls and ask a real physicist.
@krisdevalle My kids think your very lonely. They don't like your foul mouth and I don't either. This conversation is over until you learn to speak like a civilized person who respects themselves enough to treat others the way they themselves would wish to be treated.
@Daddyo930 You're clinging to the gamma ray bursts thing eh'.
The facts are the facts,you've tried to twist them to suit your needs,& that need is to appear smart.And you don't think we Apollo believers don't see that fact?
.
If there was as much gamma ray rad' out there as you think, Earth's atmosphere would heat up, expand and drag many satellites down out of their orbits,then eventually the UVC rays would get thru' and fry Earth,rendering it sterile.
@Tweekerhead Last chance. Either show me the paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away.Or you can admit that in fact, gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law and we can move on.
@Daddyo930 Your reading skills aren't that good obviously.
R E A D S L O W E R .
I think it's possible they may not be subject to the inverse² law since they're from a synchrotron emitter. And they were detected by very sensitive military satellites, very sensitive....getting the picture?
S'moot anyway, to far away to have any bearing, gamma ray doesn't work like that, no dipole or quadrupole moments, ....So that pretty proves they have no harmful energy left in em'.
@Tweekerhead "I think it's possible they may not be subject to the inverse² law since they're from a synchrotron emitter. And they were detected by very sensitive military satellites, very sensitive....getting the picture?"
No. I don't get the picture and don't care what you think. Either show me a peer reviewed paper that backs up your theory or go away. You won't find it so why don't you admit you were wrong and we can move on?
@memetoto In your years of brain rummaging have you ever tried to stick a pole in a box of sugar/salt then repeat the process with something thinner called a toothpick? See what goes in faster your brain down the toilet or lsd to it?
I see thin wires peace to you
Louderwhisper 22 hours ago
Science put man on the moon. religion will never top that
HannoverFisk 2 weeks ago 2
What the fail
TheJamesSanderThomas 2 weeks ago
If you were in a vacume with just a thin glass between you and CERTAIN death, would you be doing this kind of shit? Would you be running around and doing these kinds of push-ups with your face almost hitting the ground?
itsanameisntit 2 weeks ago
@itsanameisntit Yes, need to have some fun.
RollerBoller4 2 weeks ago
@itsanameisntit It's not thin glass, it's pretty tough polycarbonate actually. Do you really think they'd make spacesuit helmets out of glass that could shatter?
krisdevalle 2 weeks ago
Imagine the dance moves you could pull off on the moon.
cirkelrak 4 weeks ago
@Chev4206 So you think that America never sent a man on the moon? Wow.. didnt tought that some people were actually that dumb to still believe that!
olimadify 1 month ago
@olimadify He actually thinks that rockets won't work in space.
It is pretty awesomely stupid. Every time he gets close to thinking about how Newton's Third Law works, his brain snaps and he goes back to ragey homophobia.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL can't believe the conspiracy junkies are still kicking LOL what about the mirrors they left on the moon to reflect a light beam from earth so we can measure the distance, we can still shine a beam on them today and it does return how do you explain that? Let me guess the moon is made of glass??
INMATE2468 1 month ago
Embarrassing
solarpits 1 month ago
They have the "right stuff"....they train for years...they are the best among the best...the are the few chosen ones...They fall and they can't get up! ha ha ha..cheers!
AZAZEL8867 1 month ago
@AZAZEL8867 Actornauts/AstroNots/Nosanauts/NosaNots/Space Cowboys!!
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 ha ha ha !
AZAZEL8867 1 month ago
A cretin doesn't know he's exposing himself, does he dooooooooood!!
Nosa cock-sucking prick.
Poofter.
Chev4206 2 months ago
IT IS SO OBVIOUS THIS IS DONE WITH FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION!
tenthousandyearsgoon 2 months ago
@tenthousandyearsgoon No, it's done on the moon with the sun shining. Duh.
Laurelindo 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Yeh well said its the devalue that's the kook!
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
KRISDEVALLE, are you saying they would throw me out for questioning the very tenets of science, as so many have done before and been proven right or are you saying you have been there and have absolute proof regarding the dust layers on the moon/
thecubanism 2 months ago
@thecubanism No, I'm saying that you expecting the dust layer to be exactly the same level over a million square km of lunar surface is fucking retarded.
That's all.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Answer my fucking questions prick.
1) Prove rocket propulsion in outer space is possible ( I doubt it!! ).
2 When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
I am following you and will continue to ask these tricky posers, queer boy!!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Prove it's not.
It does seem that this belief is unsupported by anyone except a few nutty kooks on the internet.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Fuck you prick.
Where, be careful here, is 'this belief unsupported by anyone except a few nutty kooks on the internet'?
A lot of 'kooks' are out there waiting for you.......
Tread carefully mien fraudstershaffmeister.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I could care less about your threats. Maybe.
Here you go, kook.
curious. astro. cornell. edu/question. php?number=100
Maybe you could contact Cornell University and tell them how they have it all wrong.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle No threats merely statements. My word you are stupid.
Fuck you and Cornhole university and all of the bullshit Nosa/ApoNNo crap you believe.
1) Prove that rocket propulsion in outer space is possible.
2) WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Well the return of the Hayabusa sample mission is good proof. As is the course corrections made by Mars probes. Or perhaps the shuttle flip manuever.
/watch?v=0hj5crITslQ
Or station-keeping performed by geostationary satellites.
Do you have an explanation for all this?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Hayabusa's alleged landing did not (couldn't) use rocket thrust, you know this just as you know it landed on a comet, dickhead!!
What course corrections? Doesn't Nosa know how to point them in the right direction?
Correct me if I'm wrong but you havn't answered the questions, avoiding the issue it might be called....
1) Prove that rocket thrust in OUTER SPACE is possible.
2) WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Why not? It pushes thrust out one way, the craft moves in the opposite direction. Just as two people freefloating in a space station, one pushes the other, and they both move apart.
Seems simple to me. And it's done in outer space.
As to your questions, my example defined - two people pushing each other, one is the craft, the other is 'thrust' then they both move, this is the fundamental theory I have been trying to get at.
Once you address this, we can move on.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle This may confuse you,
1) WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
2) PROVE THAT ROCKET PROPULSION IN outer space IS POSSIBLE. PROVE.
Try them this way.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I give you these examples to help you understand.
I can't help it if you don't understand.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Don't patronise me twat.
1) PROVE THAT ROCKET PROPULSION AWAY FROM OUR ATMOSPHERE IS POSSIBLE i.e. OUTER OR DEEP SPACE.
2 WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS TAKE PLACE?
All you idiots are stranded because you cannot answer two basic questions.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 1. The continued exploration by deep space probes operated by NASA; performing course corrections and attitude shifts to orient the camera at different objects.
2. It happened in July 20, 1969.
There you go. If you think either of these answers are wrong, then prove it. Maybe in all caps. You seem to like that.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle OK stupid but the questions still stand.
1) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts take place?
2) Prove that rocket propulsion in outer space is possible.
There you go, upper and lower case letters for your comprehension.
....course corrections, attitude shifts? WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about?
What are you........
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Oh you know how like the Cassini probe regularly turned itself to point instruments at different parts of Saturn and it's moons.
How do you think it did that?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle If you choose to believe in Nosa's bullshit and indeed all the other so-called international space missions its your choice for being a stupid gullible fuckwit.
1) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
2) Prove that rocket propulsion in outer space is possible. PROVE.
3) Prove ANY other space exploration has taken place. PROVE.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I tend to believe in physics. Especially Newton's Third Law.
I also believe the agreement of everyone who has studied physics ever.
I do not believe idiots online who make claims in opposition of centuries of observed physics.
Where DID you get this idea that rockets don't work in space?
I am interested. Let me know. Simple question. Feel up to answering? Let's start from there.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Three questions remain unanswered
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 As does your single one. I keep answering, you appear to be unsatisfied with mine.
So why not answer mine? Where did you get the idea that rockets did not work in space? Was it in school?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle The word is 'dissatisfied' you fucking ignoramus.
Your fixation with that old mucker Newton proves you're stumped. He didn't have access to space so his physics cannot apply, it simply doesn't add up so search some other avenue of physics then get back to me.
When will the first manned landing with REAL astronauts in a REAL ship happen on the REAL Moon?
Prove that rocket propulsion away from Earth's atmospheric influence is possible.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 You seem to be very scared to answer my question.
Where did you get the idea that rockets did not work in space?
Did someone teach you this? Or did you come up with the idea yourself?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle There is plenty of debate on this all over the 'net. The general consensus is that rocket propulsion in outer space is not possible.
Sorry son, what was your question?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 The general consensus amongst whom?
Are any of the people discussing this trained in engineering or physics? Are they qualified in any field?
The theory of Newton's Third Law is a given on wikipedia. Rocket theory has been explained by university professors.
So who is making this 'general consensus'? What kind of people are they?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle You are a fucking stupid idiot.
Where is it written that to have an opinion or theory or fact one has to be an expert in engineering or physics? Or anything?
Dumb schmucks like you are easily led by the tail feathers, influenced by anything written by experts BECAUSE THEY SAY SO and are incapable of offering original opinions and facts due to the indoctrination received in sub-standard educational institutions.
Fuck me pal, you're one of the dumbest trolls around.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Very well.
How did you figure out that you were right, in spite of all the learned people who say you are wrong?
And which educational institutions would you consider above standard?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Name me one so-called 'learned' person who says I'm wrong !!
I can understand your stubbornness but have you ever thought for one fleeting moment that I just may be right? How do you know you're right and I'm wrong? All you have to go along with is Nosa bogus physics, and science as explained for the benefit of the proles.
Oh, try this. Put a lit candle in a vessel and evacuate the air. It goes out. So would a rocket flame: therefore no thrust in a vacuum.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Well no, not really. Physicists from many universities explain in simple terms how rockets work in space.
I also looked up rocket technology. They carry a propellant, and an oxidiser. This means they carry their own oxygen, or 'air'. These two are mixed in the combustion chamber and expelled through the narrow nozzle to create the thrust.
So your example is once again wrong. This is why I know you are wrong - you don't even know how rockets do work.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Rocket thrust in a vacuum is impossible, just ask Nosa. Ask why ApoNNo 13 was allowed to continue around the moon then back to Nevada? Why couldn't they have simply stopped the craft and turned it around? After all rocket thrust in Nosa's bogus world is possible!!
Continue to believe all the fairy tales you want. It's your loss.
Who are these physicists from many universities?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Simple orbital mechanics, and efficiency. The craft would had to expend an incredible amount of energy to arrest the course; then plot a course home. Much smarter to use the swing around the moon and then perform small course corrections.
After all, we can see the Space shuttle performing the roll manuever in orbit around Earth, using the RCS system. So we know that works.
Here's some physicists:
curious. astro. cornell. edu/aboutus. php#35
Ask them!
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Simple orbital mechanics and efficiency, eh? Small course corrections?
What about all the piss and shit they weren't allowed to jettison? Would that have affected their calculations? Imagine that crap sloshing around while they were calculating their 'course' using their million dollar pens on the back of the ApoNNo log book. Fucking pathetic and you know it.
When will the first manned landing with REAL astronauts in a REAL ship happen on the REAL Moon?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Give me some details on this, about the stuff they weren't allowed to jettison. Sounds interesting.
Seriously. Send me a link. I'd like to read about it. Do me that favor?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle I meant to ask you a question but answered it myself......
You ARE a fucking POOFTER.
Yeugh, creatures like you sicken me.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Still not certain how my sexual proclivities relate to Newton's Third Law.
I might gobble cocks all day long, but it's not going to stop a rifle from having recoil.
You ever think about that? You shoot a gun and it kicks back? That's how rockets work, champ! Same thing. Whaddya think the recoil is from? Pushing on AIR?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle A vacuum contains NOTHING, so how for fuck's sake can an equal and opposing reaction take place?
No son, you're wrong. I told you that when I construct my vacuum chamber I'll post the results here. Then you'll know what your own shit tastes like.
Yuck. Puff......
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Because the reaction is taking place solely on the mass of the object.
So many examples of this can be outlined.
A rifle's recoil.
Two ice-skaters pushing on each other.
Two people in a space station, one pushes, they both move apart.
Two skydivers - again - one pushes on the other, they both move apart.
You are in an office chair on a smooth floor, and you throw a medicine ball, you move backwards. Do the same action just with your hands - no movement.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Have you heard of the momentum law before?
It says that the total momentum of objects remains the same before and after affecting each other, because anything else would mean that you suddenly got some extra momentum out of nowhere.
If two ice skaters stand still next to each other then their momentum is 0 - and it will remain 0 after they've pushed on each other, if you leave out friction etc.
You can read more if you search for "momentum" on Wikipedia.
Laurelindo 2 months ago
@Laurelindo I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying. Explain please.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev420 Momentum is the amount of mass that moves at a certain speed, and if it was 0 in the beginning it will remain 0 after things start moving.
For example, a gun has a recoil because the bullet's momentum forces it backwards (negative momentum), and those two momentums are equal - for example, if the bullet weighs 0,1 kg and flies in 500 m/s, and the gun weighs 0,5 kg, then the recoil will have the "speed" 100 m/s - since the recoil was negative, the total momentum will remain 0.
Laurelindo 2 months ago
@Laurelindo I do not know what you are saying.
Excuse me but I'm due back on planet Earth.......
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 You can actually have use for the momentum laws in real life in some situations, like if you want to know at which speed something will travel after it's hit by a certain object etc.
I would actually recommend you to study physics if you don't do that already, it might seem overwhelming in the beginning but it's actually very fun once you get into it, and it gives you an improved understanding for a lot of things.
Laurelindo 2 months ago
@Laurelindo Lets establish a couple of facts. You don't know me and are probably younger than I so keep your patronising arrogance in check. I still have no idea what you're saying and why.
Don't bother to reply, get a life and a boyfriend.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 No I didn't say I knew you either, I said that I recommend physics since it's fun. <_<
I believe YOU are the unfriendly-acting one here, tbqh.
Laurelindo 2 months ago
@Laurelindo Physics is fun?
I don't think so.....
Watching someone walk into a wall, that's fun?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Ha ha Chev, another person tries to reasonably explain how rockets work in space and all you are capable of is firstly replying 'I don't understand' then resort to insults.
It's like you have a barrier to understanding in your brain. It's amazing.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle To amaze you doesn't take much.
As for 'understanding' I don't need proles and plebs to offer me advice.
You get me poofter boy?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I do get you. You seem to think you're smarter than rocket scientists.
Haven't seen much of a demonstration.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Me smarter than a rocket scientist? All the time son.
Instead of wasting my productive life on fruitless and futile rubbish enriching some bogus scientific company my preference is to enrich myself. Which I do quite successfully and comfortably.
So I am smarter.
As for a demonstration you show me how rocket propulsion in outer space is possible, because it isn't. Show don't tell to make it more believable, if that were possible.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I was just wondering how you think deep space probes re-orient themselves to take images of different planets or moons.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle The correct Queens English is 'orientate' or 're-orientate'. Orient is East, they cant 're-east' themselves, or anything else for that matter.
Answer the fucking question!
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 No, I believe you that rockets don't work in space. Newton was a chump.
But I am still wondering how deep-space probes turn to face different planets or moons to take pictures. As you are smarter than me, could you explain it?
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle OK so tell me why rocket propulsion does work in outer space. Not LEO where there's thin atmosphere and friction.
I am careful to correctly word my questions and answers. Try it.
Newton didn't have access to space, did he?
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 I just told you buddy, I believe you that it doesn't work. You said you were smarter than the rest and figured it out. So you're the man. So it should be easy for you to tell me how probes orientate themselves to point in different directions. Help me out here.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chev4206 I just told you buddy, I believe you that it doesn't work. You said you were smarter than the rest and figured it out. So you're the man. So it should be easy for you to tell me how probes orientate themselves to point in different directions. Help me out here.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@Chev4206 I just told you bro, I believe you that rockets don't work in space. You're the smart one here, you just said. So you're the man. Hence it should be easy for you to tell me how unmanned probes can turn in space to photograph planets and moons.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle Go fuck yourself Aussie shit-stabber.
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 What a thoughtful reply. I guess we're no closer to solving any mysteries with your intellect, towering though it may be!
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle Is this your pathetic attempt at subterfuge, moon hoax or poofterfuge?
You're trying so hard for a response its laughable!! Surely there are plenty of homosexual contacts outside of alleged hoax sites? You're trawling in the wrong place, Google the place you're really looking for. You won't find it here shirtlifter!!
Oh before I forget, because you're such a clever dick explain how rocket propulsion in outer space is even remotely possible.
It isn't...........
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 Nah bro, I just find you amusing.
I already told you. I admit your intellect is greater than mine. You've said it so many times that it must be true. So you say rocket propulsion in outer space is impossible! That's incredible. So say the Galileo probe that imaged Jupiter, its moons and some asteroids - how does this re-align itself for new targets? It's all a bit mysterious. Could you tell me?
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle Try re-aligning your head with your boyfriend's Galileo probe.
Some asteroids might then image Jupiter.
It isn't mysterious at all is it?
As for rocket propulsion go polish yours
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 Maybe I should google for the answer if you lack the ability.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle Been away for a while but I'm back for some more serious put-downs of the Nosa shills, trolls and poofters like you.
Google all you want......
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 That's nice.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle Appendix, appendixes.......
Contact your fellow shills and accomplices and ApoNNo believers and poofters for the latest nevada Moon landing FACT.
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 Okay then.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@krisdevalle Come on son, what's the delay?
Panicking are we, desperate and desolate? I bet all your poofter shill mates and trolls are quaking in their scrotums realising that after all these years something so simple would shatter their ApoNNo fantasy.
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 You bet.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
How come this prick gets his probe so deep when the official explanation for no LEM blast crater is due to a thin layer of dust on the lunar surface, and if that is so, how did they plant the flag? come on boys, it's one or the other, and I'm siding with the other.
thecubanism 2 months ago
@thecubanism I like how you expect the dust layer to be exactly the same depth over millions of square kilometres.
Don't ever study geology, bro. They'd throw you out.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
Imagine if his helmet cracked
SmilingBasses 2 months ago
I can see people like to fight I usually see them fight on Getto videos but I see that smart people fight like them too., greetings from mexico
pinkhayato1 2 months ago
Can someone please explain to this fool Tweekerhead that gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law. HELP ANYONE?
Daddyo930 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Quoting facts from credentialed scientist makes me a fool in your little world?
Let's see.
1.You said the ionosphere blocks gamma.Wrong!
2.You said all H-alpha flares are SPE's.Wrong!
3.You said the Sun is radioactive.Wrong!
4.You said 1RAD=62.4x106 MeV, 106MeV? Wrong!
5.You claim to understand E=mc².Obviously Wrong!
6. You claim GRB's give off 1054erg.Wrong!
7. Claim 1054erg.is detected from GRB's in this solar system. Wrong!
8.Claim GRB's aren't subject to I~1/d² Wrong!
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 Maybe you should contact a real physicist, I'm sure they will back you up.
What's the matter, dude? Reluctant? I'm sure they would be happy to help you.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Good to see you cleaned up the language.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 Fuckballs I did.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Your mother would be ashamed. I'm done.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
Don't think Peter Mészáros would appreciate having his data twisted and misrepresented.
Especially by some conspiracy-clown on Y-Tube.
Somehow in GRB's the flow avoids degrading photons.
The fireball doesn't reach across the heavens and hit this solar system, it's at times over 10 bill. light years away. The fireball is estimated to have 10^54 ergs.
.
Again Doodlyo, your interpretation is way off, and you've made yet another blunder by posting yet another gross assumption that is laughable.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of 10^54 erg, if the emission is ISOTROPIC. "the inverse square law applies to all radiation but somehow in a GRB the photons avoid degrading from the flux" DUH! That implies isotropy fool. We're done. You just admitted the isotropy of gamma ray bursts.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Another cowardly hoaxtard goes down whining.
You said a few months ago you had us "crusaders" on the run and that it was to bad for us that you studied astrophysics. Not long after that it was S"science wins out E=mc² proves men never walked on the Moon"...
Whata' bunch of horse shit that was...
If they gave you an enema you could ware the clothes you wore in 4th grade.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Now you..How about just answering ONE question..Just one, for a change.
How'd the crew of the Shuttle survive those GRB's out from the protective layer of the ozone.
I'll bet $1000.00 you won't answer that one.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Funny I called an idiot for quoting actual facts.
Having studied this stuff before this conspiracy-clown was born, being called an idiot by no-nothing idiot rolls of my back like water off a duck.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead question?..........
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You don't understand astrophysics,you've the deductive reasoning of a salad-bar.
GRB's are probably for the lack of a better word,beamed,since you don't know what isotopic,anisotropic,synchrotron or collimated means.
That would explain there brightness,if isotropic,then they would giving off more energy than our Sun in 10 bill.yrs.
They're subject to I~1/d² as is all rad'
Do you know what would happen if a GRB went of 600 light years away in this quadrant of the galaxy?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Show me the peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. Here is a peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law:Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. M´esz´aros Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics
GRB were isotropically distributed in the sky, with no
significant dipole or quadrupole moments. At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes energies of ∼< 1054 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Page 3,4.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You probably won't find a paper that substantiates I~1/d², because it is a given that all radiation follows the laws of physics.
No where in that paper by Peter Mészáros does it say the GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d², NO WHERE.
It does say however that the spectral energies detected in this solar system are 0.5MeV.
The intrinsic energy is approx.10^54 ergs. That's at the location of the event,NOT in cislunar space.
Do you even know what isotropic is yet?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Ya' sure are awfully quiet there Doodlyo, what happened to your creative response?
Shall we move on to supernovae?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Admit GRB's are isotropic??
What's there to admit? The truth is the truth, data is there for all of us to read.
You're DELUSIONAL, you act as if the science & information is all yours to leverage with at will.
You look right past the obvious, the hard cold facts & see what you want to see to fit your silly-ass premise.
You haven't got exclusive rights to the data of science, your epistemology doesn't function logically enough even to comprehend what your eyes are seeing.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead You can admit that gamma ray bursts emissions are isotropic and their distribution is also isotropic and they also are not subject to the inverse square law. Until then, blow smoke buddy.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I read that paper, and said nothing about your made-up claims. You are either a liar or just an ignorant fool, which is it?
.
Mészáros claims the release of 10^54ergs. that's at the LOCATION of the event stupid-ass, he also claims that only 0.5MeV is detected here in this solar system, and GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d².
Making a big deal outta of 0.5MeV ..
You're that obtuse that I look like a fool to you?
You blundered again..Whata' surprise!!
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Shit...My wife...
GRB's ARE subject to I~1/d²./ inverse square law.....As all radiation is.
That's a big ARE
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Whoa! " and GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d²." Did you just say that gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law? HAHHAHAHAHA! What a fool you have turned out to be. I told you that long time ago and FINALLY, you say it. Guess what? YOU LOSE! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 GRB's ARE subject to I~1/d² yes.
You asked me what I thought about this, I said I didn't know.
But every paper I've read about GRB's says they are subject to inverse square law.
You won't a paper that says otherwise.
Mészáros' paper never said that GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d². I don't know where you got that from, outta' your ass maybe?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead I told you, we're done until you present the peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. Goodbye.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 Wait moron,2 weeks ago you assumed that GRB's were NOT subject to I~1/d².
Now you've realized you were wrong & you're trying to mask the fact that you made yet another blunder by pretending to claim all along that GRB's ARE subject to I~1/d².
When does the blatant idiocy end with you?
You won't find a paper that will say GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d²
So don't try & pass Mészáros' paper off as saying so,it doesn't I read it.Have you?
You're amazingly dense.
.5MeV's ;-)
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Sorry, you already admitted that gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law. Took you long enough. Now I'm tired of talking to someone with multiple personality disorder.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 No I did Not admit any such thing that stupid. If you had read my subsequent post you would've read my correction.My wife came in and interrupted me.
GRB's ARE subject to inverse² law. Just as Mészáros' paper states.
Mészáros' paper also says only 0.5MeV has been detected in this solar system.
Did you get that far in the paper, or did you conveniently skip that part?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
The reason given for no blast crater under the lunar landing is that the moon's surface only has a thin layer of dust over the rock, that looks like a mighty deep thin layer to me.
thecubanism 3 months ago
Deary me, such language.
thecubanism 3 months ago
BTW, the total amount of GRB's or Cosmic rays that hit the Earth in one year is less than 100 REM, that's one YEAR.
Good luck with that dead horse of yours.....
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
what's he doing with a metal detector? There's no way there's any buried treasure.
MrGlennatat 3 months ago
The Apollo 11 was followed by radio antennas from all over the world on it's way to the moon. So yes, they were there.
I'm so tired of hoax proclamers, EVEN if I'm a Soviet fan.
JustWickedSwede 3 months ago
Fake. Fake. Fake. We never went anywhere. Physicists were trying to tell the fat morons at NASA that radiation in space would certainly kill the astronuts. The fools at NASA then proceeded to contract out deals that would make corporations millions of dollars for doing nothing. They couldn't even shield against the solar constant once past 250 miles so they never left low earth orbit. The truth hurts? So does a meaningless ten year war. Vietnam, then Iraq and Afghanistan. Wake up fools.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Connecting Viet Nam, Iraq to Apollo is the biggest non-sequitur I've seen from the hoax camp. Par for the course I'd say, amazing investigative research, top-notch....
.
When you say NASA couldn't shield against the solar constant, you're saying they(NASA) couldn't shield against α and ß radiation of only 1.5 keV and UV rays?
You can shield against the solar constant with a thin piece of aluminum, why would you ignorantly say that?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead I'm not even going to entertain that stupid statement with an answer. How about you just telling me what percentage, which as far as you know is less than zero, of ionizing radiation is the solar constant. Just pick a number. Is it .01, .001, .0001, .00001? Just pick a number seeing as how you know so much. If you can't do that then go look up how much of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. Until then........
Daddyo930 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 This is a stupid statement:
"They couldn't even shield against the solar constant once past 250 miles so they never left low earth orbit. The truth hurts? So does a meaningless ten year war. Vietnam, then Iraq and Afghanistan.?
Now that's a stupid statement, and it's yours.
.
Well for the constant, I told you solar winds are at 1.5keV in α & ß radiation, that leaves the UV rays. About .005%
Your interpretation is way off, you won't get the ridiculous number you came up with.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Ask a fucking physicist whether you're right, coward. You're afraid of the answer.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle Watch your language fool. Secondly, I just copy and pasted what they said. Are they wrong now too with regard to cosmic phenomena?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 No, probably not, but you are wrong with your conclusions.
I mean shit dude, no-one else is saying what you are saying. NOBODY. No professional, not even the guys on the physics forums.
You think you just might be incorrect? This is why I keep asking you to talk to someone. It's pretty easy to look up a faculty email list at your local college and fire off some polite inquiries. Why not do that? Why won't you do that?
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 And I say 'polite' because I saw how you waltzed into the physics forums with your fucking dick swinging like you knew everything. The you got booted for being a shithead.
So maybe if you ever get the balls to run your ridiculous shit by someone who is educated in the field, try asking proper, polite questions instead of shooting your damn fool mouth like you do every day.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle I'd be willing to be that if we met face to face, you wouldn't be saying what your saying now. Now, if your willing to talk about the facts we can have that conversation. If not then be gone.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 No. Ask a fucking expert you pretender.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle Then begone you foulmouth malcontent.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Eat a bowl of dicks, you clown.
I would be willing to bet good money you never get off your sorry opinionated ass and inquire amongst academia about your useless idiot conclusions, because you know, right now, what they are going to tell you.
Which is you cock about here on youtube trying to score points instead of letting yourself be beat down by people who are smarter than you. I got your score, buddy. You're a joke.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle One more time. I don't need a scientist to verify established numbers. That's like asking a math professor if 2 + 2 = 4. Established science is what I have copied and pasted. I don't need anyone to verify that it's correct. As for my proposition that we never went to the moon, I would not ask a professional to risk their livelihood and tell the truth. Now go away.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Fine then, ask the people on the physics forums to check your work.
Here's how to frame your question, since you have no idea;
'I have read some articles regarding the solar constant and the amount of ionizing radiation, and believe, from my reading, this would prohibit space travel. I will list my sources, and the variables involved (time, flux, hull materials, etc). Would the forum please now check my work for errors or misjudged assumptions...etc'
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Do that and I might stop swearing at you, you fucking lame amateur. Or maybe leave you alone even!
But if you continue to jizz your idiot opinion around here, polluting the fucking channels with your unsupported bumpkin fuckeyed ideas, I'm going to call you on them.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You're so confident you're right, then I don't see why you can't do it.
The fact you continuously and reliably show you are too scared to have your work checked is the most obvious sign that you know you are going to get fucking well owned.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle What's up with all the cursing? Surely you can make your point without it?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 It certainly makes you notice.
I see however you wish to concentrate on the content of my comments, instead of addressing you utter and abject failure to find a single person to back your claims.
You are a lone weirdo, hooting in the wilderness.
You are worse than those kooks who say they've invented cold fusion then refuse to let anyone look at their experiment.. because as soon as someone does, they will get busted.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I have less respect for you than I do a dog turd, because you maintain that despite 4 decades of research, and a million academics worldwide studying the very same thing, that you think you are the unlikely genius to have to put two and two together, made five, and somehow invalidated a historical happening.
And you don't even see how utterly ludicrous this is.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle You have no respect for yourself if you feel you need to demean others in order to make yourself feel superior. If you are not up to the task of discussing numbers without a professional holding your hand then we can continue. If not, begone and go in peace.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 That's the very thing. You need to discuss these numbers with a professional.
Your views invalidate an accepted historical fact worldwide, that is not in dispute by any nation, spacefaring or otherwise.
Logically, it is then pretty obvious that you are wrong, and have failed in your interpretation of the data.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle There is no need to discuss facts with a "professional". Every scientist know that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. Every scientist knows the solar constant is 1.36 kw/m2. No need to verify that. It's called established science. My contentions remain my own, unverified, not unsubstantiated.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 If every scientist knows this then why is there no scientist, living or dead, retired or new, fired or disgraced or changed career, that says space travel is impossible?
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle Simple. Fear. Now would you like to discuss established facts or just insist that only a professional can tell us what the facts that anyone can look up are?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 What does a retired or disgraced scientist have to fear? What does a dying scientist have to fear?
How do you even have the utter affront to claim that every single scientist, alive or dead, ever in the world, are cowards? Fuck you, you idiot. Seriously. What a fucking ridiculous claim.
You know what fear is? You, cocking about and never getting your work checked by a pro. That's fear. You are the coward and the fraud.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You tried it on once already, amongst a panel of anonymous physicists.
You didn't see any of them backing your idiot claims. Not a single one of them; they could have anonimized their IPs, written under a pseudonym, yet not a single one agreed with you.
You clown. You coward. You lurk on these comments pages because you're afraid to take your shit anywhere else, because it stinks.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle The facts are what they are. So are my assertions. Stop with the name calling. It advances nothing, especially not your cause.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I'll do as I wish until you get someone to back your claim, you fucking coward.
Every time you bleat your idiot shit here I will feel free to put it down until you get someone, anyone, to prove your interpretation is free from error.
You're a righteous prick, claiming that every single person ever to have studied science is too yellow to speak out. It is far more likely you've just got the whole thing ass-backwards because you're a bumpkin who pretends he understands.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You can guarantee, shitbrains, that every time you jizz all over youtube with your fucking 'WAAAH space travel didn't happen because solar constant is in megawatts and stuff MAAAAN' shit, that I will call you out in. You can ask, and tell, and plead with me to stop it, tell me to go away, whine about language, and I'm never going to stop until you GET YOUR WORK CHECKED.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Those are my conditions, woman.
All swearing, name-calling, and bold assertions that you are just another Dunning-Kruger fuckup will cease, as soon as you grow some fucking balls and ask a real physicist.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle My kids think your very lonely. They don't like your foul mouth and I don't either. This conversation is over until you learn to speak like a civilized person who respects themselves enough to treat others the way they themselves would wish to be treated.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 So I guess you're not going to take me up on the offer?
All you gotta do is get someone knowledgeable to check you work, and all the swearing, the confrontation, the shit-stirring, it all goes away.
Sounds pretty easy, but you can't do it, can you?
Because if you do it, you're gonna get your ass handed to you, you amateur.
I fucking love it.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You're clinging to the gamma ray bursts thing eh'.
The facts are the facts,you've tried to twist them to suit your needs,& that need is to appear smart.And you don't think we Apollo believers don't see that fact?
.
If there was as much gamma ray rad' out there as you think, Earth's atmosphere would heat up, expand and drag many satellites down out of their orbits,then eventually the UVC rays would get thru' and fry Earth,rendering it sterile.
facts R facts,get em right.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Last chance. Either show me the paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away.Or you can admit that in fact, gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law and we can move on.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Your reading skills aren't that good obviously.
R E A D S L O W E R .
I think it's possible they may not be subject to the inverse² law since they're from a synchrotron emitter. And they were detected by very sensitive military satellites, very sensitive....getting the picture?
S'moot anyway, to far away to have any bearing, gamma ray doesn't work like that, no dipole or quadrupole moments, ....So that pretty proves they have no harmful energy left in em'.
Moron? yeeeeaah
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead "I think it's possible they may not be subject to the inverse² law since they're from a synchrotron emitter. And they were detected by very sensitive military satellites, very sensitive....getting the picture?"
No. I don't get the picture and don't care what you think. Either show me a peer reviewed paper that backs up your theory or go away. You won't find it so why don't you admit you were wrong and we can move on?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 When are you going to post some "readings" from those satellites?
You said you would about 4 months ago. What happened you didn't get the numbers you hoping for?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Seeing as how you can't answer a question. Goodbye idiot.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 How did the Shuttle crew survive all those gamma ray bursts 600km above Earth out of the protective layer of the ozone?
.
Can't answer one question eh' coward.
Your hypothesis fell flat on it's face before it even got legs.
How do you expect to set the science world on fire when you can't even get passed a musician on Y-Tube, pretty weak I'd say.
You're a coward.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead question?.......
Daddyo930 3 months ago
wow what can i say. it is not me who documented the video it was nasa lol
they needed a sleg hammer to put the flag in the ground but buddy sticks a pole in with ease. nice. lol nice fall down get up move. lol
memetoto 4 months ago
@memetoto In your years of brain rummaging have you ever tried to stick a pole in a box of sugar/salt then repeat the process with something thinner called a toothpick? See what goes in faster your brain down the toilet or lsd to it?
aserta 3 months ago