@Schumart HEY MR.BRAINS are you so GULLIBLE and unable to discern SARCASM that YOU CANNOT SEE I WAS MAKING FUN OF MOON CONSPIRACISTS ??? WOW ....BY THE WAY THIS IS youtube,YOU ARE NOT ON "BAD GIRLS" NOW,PROFANITY ACTUALLY IS NOT A SIGN OF WIT ! IT IS INDICATIVE of ILLITERATES WITH A 2nd GRADE READING COMPREHENSION LEVEL. BOOB.
@melissacarl2002 The space suit can radiate heat. They can if needed vent a small amount of gas and get some very serious cooling from that. Very simply, go learn the facts before you embarrass your self in public with such statements.
There is no telescope on Earth powerful enough to see something the size of the lunar landers as far away as the moon.
Even Hubble, the space telescope, doesn't have the resolution to see them.
Independent verification of the Apollo landings comes from matching 3-D renderings of multiple surface mapping images from lunar surveyor satellites with the pictures of the surface taken from the surface.
@ButteryAssAbel Yeah, whoops. I heard that somewhere, but then I actually researched it and found out that you can't. Well, that's one more for the conspiracy theorists.
haha funny video! btw, there is in fact final proof that the landings were real. aside from the moon rocks they brought back, the apollo astronauts left mirrors on the moon (google: lunar laser ranging retroreflector), they have been used by scientists on earth to measure the exact distance between earth and moon as well as to check einstein's general theory of relativity.
@Ilsimeone Have you been watching the news about the experiments that indicate that there may be a loophole in general relativity? There is a lot of real interesting science going on these days.
We know the speed of light to enough figures that the distance to the moon etc is not in question. The loophole is only a small one.
@knowledgemonger yes, scientists at CERN measured that neutrinos can outspeed light by some 60 nanoseconds, which contradicts Einstein's special theory of relativity, not his general theory. It certainly is an amazing discovery, but I agree with you that the loophole is only a minor one. It doesn't mean that his theory is wrong, but that is incomplete and has to be amended.
@Ilsimeone -- Hey. That's interesting. Well ... it's as interesting as any of the multitude of details of subatomic physics is to me these days anyway. I remember back 40 years ago they were considering the idea of measuring faster-than-light-speed particles.
@prosperomage I used to feed Schrodinger's cat when he went away on vacation. The wave function for me would be in the superposition of I had fed the cat and I hadn't fed the cat until he came home and saw the cat was alive and well, but I never noticed.
I have long maintained that a Quantum physics experiment is not over until the information gets back to the experimenter. As a result the faster than C may be an illusion and no information went faster than C in the whole thing.
Looks like E=mc2 wins again. Science over illogical, blind faith. The truth hurts, I know it does. I'm afraid the apollo china set won't be worth what it would have been had we actually went to the moon. Sorry.
@Daddyo930 Yup, E=mc² means the Moon landings were real. Thanks to the understanding of facts and not old superstitions humans are capable of great achievements.
.
Did you figure out yet that the percentage of the solar constant that is ionizing is only 1.5 to 10 keV ?
Oh well there's always gamma ray bursts in other galaxies over 7.5 billion light yrs. away!!
I'm sorry man, but gawd you're pathetic.
You haven't presented one fact that will substantiate that same old ad nauseam.
To be honest, I hardly smile or laugh, but since watching this Footage, i can now experience the happy side of humanity! Just can't stop laughing! Hehehehe!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>...............
Well you've done it my friend. Congratulations! No doubt you will receive a medal for uncovering this outrageous hoax. The medal will be awarded at a special ceremony at Chuck E. Cheese where you and your hoaxer comrades can hoist your mugs and say "huzzah!" Congratulations indeed.
and the 'fake' set get sooo much bigger with the Luna rover carreering over the landscape and bouncing and the Luna dust just falling as if there was no atmosphere.
None of the NASA retirees have written about the hoax in there memoirs... Why?
@ozweblogs The dust doesn't merely fall as if there was a vacuum, it also falls as per 1/6th G. This means that for the "we never went" crowd to be right, NASA would need not just a vacuum chamber the size of a stadium but also some antigravity machines too.
Last time I called ACME Nonexistent machines about an antigravity device, they said that they didn't have any in stock because they were literally flying off the shelves.
@Daddyo930 Apollo was for real. Get over it. You have attempted to disprove it several times but every claim you have made has been shown to be nonsense. You commented on radiation when it was obvious you didn't understand the subject. You didn't know how to convert between units of measure. You failed at basic physics. It is time for you to learn something from this and change your mind to agree with the facts instead of trying to change the facts to agree with your mind.
@Daddyo930 For what size target did you do that math? What weird sort of animal is long enough to be the stopping distance and yet weight that little?
@knowledgemonger 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV. Google it. It's a standard unit. You don't even understand the basics of unit conversion. Why do you even bother?
@prosperomage Not all radiation is subject to the inverse square law. An example of that would be Gamma Ray Bursts. Their energy and distribution are both isotropic. is that correct or do I have to copy and paste from NASA and Wikipedia again?
@knowledgemonger Really? Then show me a peer reviewed scientific paper which says that Gamma Ray Bursts are subject to the inverse square law. Here's a quote from NASA regarding GRB's: For the brightest bursts, if the intrinsic emission is isotropic the total energy in gamma-rays must be 1053 to 1054 ergs, which is at least as great as that produced in supernovae. That's from Models of Gamma Ray Bursts. Pay particular attention to the word "ISOTROPIC".
@prosperomage It seems that Daddyo930 is not able to learn. This was all explained to him months ago. From what he quotes in hopes of proving his point, I am starting to think that he can't parse statements with too many clauses. He also seems not to be able to select the right meaning for a word based on context. He mixes up isotropic radiation with isotropic intensity and the like. Perhaps we can help him to understand by being very careful with the wording.
@knowledgemonger -- I agree. And that is why I broke what I said down into multiple simple statements and numbered them. I think sometimes if someone had a 20 minute face to face chat with a blackboard available, some of these people might actually understand.
@Daddyo930 I have already directed you to the source and what to read. You were unable to understand it. Your request is very like someone asking for a peer reviewed math paper that proves that 1+1=2. That all electromagnetic radiation is subject to inverse square is part of the ABCs of the subject.
In the very quote you pasted, it says "if the intrinsic emission is isotropic". Notice the word "emission". It means a very important thing. Look up what it means. Study and learn.
@Daddyo930 "gamma ray burst" continues to be only a BIG SCARY WORD from your cut and paste machine. You have no idea what they are or what they do, but thought "Ill use this big word and they'll think I'm smart! huh huh huh huh." You only brought it up after being raked over the coals on every other newb radiation point you brought up. Now you're just cut and pasting old posts to avoid admitting how stupid you were to get backed into this corner. ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse Fine. We'll put gamma ray bursts back in the toy box for now. How about you telling me what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation?
@Daddyo930 Are you asking cause you think you know? Fact is all the big 3 (alpha, beta, gamma) can ionize, but what horrendously ignorant conclusion are you getting ready to jump to? Neither alpha nor beta can penetrate a space capsule, and they're 88% of whats out there.
@SpreadingtheMuse I'm asking because none of you "I know more than you" people will answer the question. It's quite simple. Just give me a number like 0, .1, .01, .001, .0001. We do all know that a percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. There's no denying that, unlike Tweekerhead who insist that 0 percent of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. The question is what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation.
@Daddyo930 As I pointed out else where, Tweekerhead is right if you round off to the nearest full percentage. The vast majority of the energy from the sun follows the black body curve for an object at about 5700K. The little bit of charged particle radiation from it doesn't really matter to the discussion of Apollo. You have gotten so many things wrong that even if Tweekerhead had gotten the one point about radiation wrong, his record is far better than yours.
@knowledgemonger Then what number are we talking about because it's important. Is it 0? No. We know it's not zero. How about you posting a number? There are ways to express a number less than zero you know.
@Daddyo930 No, this number is not important. You are asking how big an ant walking on the side of mountain is because you think that the ant will cause the mountain to fall down. We have already shown that it is only an ant. It doesn't matter to the question about Apollo whether it is a red ant or a black ant on the side of the mountain. It is only an ant. The amount of radiation under discussion is not a health risk for Apollo. Someone has already shown you the numbers.
@Daddyo930 Well I answered. All of the big 3 can ionize. So the ball is in your court with a "so the fuck what?" Do you have a point? Its exactly this stalling that justifies every bit of our "I know more than you." Cause all you do is cut and paste a gotcha question thats a pathetically transparent "If I use this big word, they'll all think I'M SMART!" Zero knowledge, zero context, zero point. That is exactly who you are.
@Tweekerhead FINALLY! First of all, watch your mouth old man. Name calling is the last resort of the lame. Second, you ever check your channel? No activity since 2006. Now since you say that 0.1 percent of the solar constant is ionizing radiation, that would be 4184 rads per minute. Is that correct?
@knowledgemonger But.....But......Your man Stupidhead said that it was closer to .1%. This is what he wrote: I said it is subjective, it was closer to 0.1% than 1%. I would have accepted .0001 percent. Any number would have been fine. Just supply a number. Stupidhead said .1 percent. Fine. At .1 percent if you converted the solar constant to rads, you would get 4184 rads per minute. I'll ask you the same thing, is this correct?
@Daddyo930 Hey Dildo, anyone who's a genius like you should know what percentage of the solar constant is "radioactive". Why are you asking us Apollo believers what the number is, why not just make one up? That never stopped you before.
The formula is 1 rad = 62.4 x 100³ MeV per gram..... PER GRAM....PER GRAM
You have it backwards Dildo390!!
.
It means you have to shove 62,400,000 MeV in a gram of living tissue to give the dosage of 1 RAD !
@Tweekerhead I'm not gonna make one up. You should already know the number. Just tell me what it is. You can also admit that you can convert mass to energy and energy to mass with E=mc2.
@Tweekerhead Yes, this ignoring the fact that it is the mass of the victim of the dose is the current problem with Daddyo's calculations. He also has the problem that the victim must absorb the radiation. Any that bounces off or goes right through doesn't count. In another spot he made this error too. I expect he will make it here as well.
@knowledgemonger The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. The LNT model therefore predicts higher risks than either the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are negligible. NASA uses this now.
@knowledgemonger According to the linear no-threshold model used by NASA, IAEA and many other institutions, the energy of the exposure is the important figure, not the mass of the thing being exposed. directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. Does that mean anything to you? Mass of the thing being exposed does not matter anymore spaceman.
The coversion is 1 rad = 62.4 x 100³ MeV per gram..... PER GRAM....PER GRAM
P E R G R A M
How much does an astronaut weigh genius, 75kilograms we'll say, that's 7,500 grams. GRAMS as in PER GRAM. So the astronaut weighing would have to be exposed to 486,000,000,000 MeV in order to have 1 RAD.
@Daddyo930 Have you understood yet that the mass of the thing still does matter. That the "linear no-threshold model used by NASA, IAEA and many other institutions" makes no change to this.
An elephant ate 1 peanut
An elephant ate 1 peanut
The elephant has eaten 2 peanuts but it still hungry
A mouse ate 1 peanut
A mouse ate 1 peanut
The mouse has eaten 2 peanuts and is now fed.
Just because the doses added it didn't make the elephant fed.
@knowledgemonger If the elephant and the mouse were exposed to 100 rads per minute for 10 minutes, it wouldn't matter that the elephant had significantly more mass than the mouse. Exposure would be the same for both. By the same token, a cockroach could survive that kind of exposure whereas the elephant and the mouse are going to die.
@Daddyo930 The conversion is 1rad=62.4x10^6MeV per gram, not 106MeV.
It wouldn't take much MeV for a mouse to have 100 rads of exposure, however for the elephant to have 100 rads it would take quite a bit more MeV because of the greater mass.
Gawd you're dense, or just stubborn. Your premise is BUSTED ..Admit it, move on you're starting to be a tumorous bore.
Look at Monger's peanut analogy, he's making it simple so you can understand it.
@Tweekerhead The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. The LNT model therefore predicts higher risks than either the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are negligible. NASA uses this now.
@Tweekerhead You made one small error. The radiation must be absorbed to count. If it flies right through, it doesn't add to the dose. For a very high energy level, the radiation won't stop. This happened to some of the very high energy particles that hit the Apollo crews while on their way to the moon or on the moon.
@Daddyo930 If an elephant and a mouse are both exposed to that same number of RADs, the amount of radiation for the elephant would have to be more. RADs is a unit of radiation energy per unit of mass of the subject. Go read the definitions of the units of measure and you will see.
@knowledgemonger The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. Size does not matter.
@Tweekerhead In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. Do you understand now? E=mc2. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Electrons and photons have weight. Radiation, composed of electrons and photons has weight.
Why do you ask stupid questions you pretend to know the answer to?
Where's the mass–energy equivalence in the conversion 1rad=62.4x100³MeV ? You have no idea because you don't need E=mc² to convert rads to MeV per gram of tissue exposed.
Again you are very wrong in your assumption, photons do NOT have weight, that's why they are able to travel the speed of light.
Again photons do not have weight, I suggest you go back and study much more than you have.
@Daddyo930 Quit waving E=mc² around like you know what it means, you've clearly demonstrated without a doubt and unarguably that you haven't the slightest idea what it means.
So stop waving it around before you hurt yourself.
@Tweekerhead Actually it is an interesting question whether we should say a photon has mass or not. Obviously it has not resting mass which is what is commonly meant by mass. On the other hand, it does carry a finite value of momentum. There is a very old question in calculus about whether there is such a thing as an infinitesimal value.
@Tweekerhead If you include UVC as part of the ionizing radiation, you are still at a low enough fraction of the total that your statements on the subject are basically correct. The number is closer to 0.1% than 1% and will round off to zero if whole percentages are taken. It also means that the majority of the sun's ionizing radiation can be blocked by a thin layer of metal. The windows of the command module would have let a little more through than the metal sides but very little.
@knowledgemonger Are you too saying that E=mc2 cannot be used to convert mass to energy and energy to mass. That's what Stupidhead thinks too. Maybe some of your personalities need to go back to school because you don't understand what E=mc2 can be used for?
@Daddyo930 I am pointing out that you are not using the correct mass in your calculations. If you believe that the mass from E=MC^2 is the mass you should use for the conversion, I suggest you do the following:
Where you are sitting you just got hit by a 1.46 KeV gamma ray from a K40 decay. I know you did because we all do every day. Now go ahead and work out the mass from the gamma rays energy and then the RAD level you think you were just exposed to. When you are done, reconsider.
@knowledgemonger I suggest you re-examine the mass equivalency formula. I just asked you whether or not you could convert mass to energy and energy to mass using E=mc2. It's very simple. Either a yes or a no will suffice.
Just so you don't go and ask the same question over & over, realize that there is no MeV equivalent for Rad or Gy, OK?..
MeV is a measure of energy, while Rad and Gy are both measures of energy per unit mass, and that's why you put the "per gram" on the end of it, OK Junior?
@Tweekerhead Yes, and if Daddyo does the math, we can expect him to run away in horror. He will discover that one hit from a K40 decay will give the same number of RADs as all the energy the sun will ever emit in its entire life. Since he insists that the mass to use in the RADs is the one you get from E=MC^2, no matter how much radiation the number comes out to be a constant. RADs is after all an E/M unit leaving just the C^2 which doesn't change.
@knowledgemonger He'll never get that far in his ...for the lack of a better word, critical analysis.
I don't care what he believes or proselytizes, I won't let some Y-Tube idiot twist facts & science to prove some idiotic conspiracy, especially when it insinuates all of the folks at NASA, be it engineers or astronauts are murderers, liars & thieves. I'm startin' to get salty with these scientific illiterates, sorry.
@Daddyo930 The stupidhead around is you, dilweed. You don't need mass-energy equivalence equation to convert 1RAD=62.4x10^6MeV per gram, it's simple cut & dry how many eV's per gram of matter i.e. living tissue.
@Tweekerhead The unit of absorbed dose is the rad (62.4 x 106 MeV/g or the gray (1 J/kg). DOSE EQUIVALENT. Until you can get the notation right, we're done fool.
@knowledgemonger Yes, but all of your personalities keep getting the notation wrong. 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV. That is a standard unit, not 62.4 x 100^3 or anything else.
@Daddyo930 "All of your personalities" ?? Paranoid?
1 RAD = 62.4x10^6 per gram you idiot, ...I mean "deadjesus100 aka. AndyHarglais aka. Chev260
See how public forums work, insinuating that we Apollo believers are all the same person trying to "get " you is not working as an evasion tactic, deal with it ArcAngelMyke...or whatever your real name is tard.
@Daddyo930 BTW.. MeV aren't measure by anything multiplied by 106, it takes the equivalent energy of about 620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb.
@knowledgemonger Yes, it is a standard unit but you are totally wrong about its definition. What definition would you give to 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV /g?
@Daddyo930 You love conversions, matter a fact you're pretty much a genius at em'..Here's another conversion for Nimrod, 1 Gy = 100 Rad = 1 Joule per Kg = 6.2415 × 10¹² MeV per Kg
.
Oh my Gawd..What's that little bitty 12 up there for next that 10?? What kinda' fuzzy math is that ya'll...We don't do math like that in the Ozarks....uuughh uughhh
@knowledgemonger Why should I bother? You never answer my questions. As for the per gram at the end of 62.4 x 106 MeV, whatever. The point of the matter is that your other persona's keep getting it wrong. It's either 62.4 x 10^6 MeV or 62.4 x 100^3 MeV. Totally idiotic.
Not only was your assumption of the environment of cislunar space but you totally botched the Rad-MeV per GRAM conversion. And YES you have to put the"per gram" in there, that's what the conversion is about.
You wonder why we talk down to you, could it be your propensity for twisting facts, YOU're totally idiot.
@knowledgemonger We can't get to the "/g" part until you get the notation right. We'll discuss the "/g" and it's importance when you get the notation right. 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV. Is that correct?
@Daddyo930 Get the notation correct, the freekin thing is 1RAD = 62.4x100³ MeV or 1 RAD = 62.4x 10^6 MeV or 1 RAD = 62.4 x 1,000,000 MeV per GRAM you idiot, stop acting dumb. If you like this one maybe you can configure it to fit with your idiot premise 1 Gy = 100 Rad = 1 Joule per Kg = 6.2415 × 10¹² MeV per Kg
.
If I see you type E=mc² one more time, I'm gonna' crap out a candy-bar from 8th grade from laughing so hard.
@knowledgemonger I know that /g is per gram. The reason we are here talking about this for so long is because your other man, Stupidhead thinks you can't convert MeV to rads and rads to MeV with E=mc2. It was akin to pulling teeth to even get him to admit that 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 or 10^6 MeV. Regardless of the notation, he wouldn't even admit that it was possible. Maybe you should tell him that you can convert MeV to rad with E=mc2.
@Daddyo930 That's funny..."Stupidhead" lol.. I've schooled & wet-nursed you thru' flares, GRB's, GCR's, SPE's,gamma ray rad' coming from the Sun, pretty much everything related to the environment of space, given you simple equations any practicing radiologist knows the first day of school, now you try to save face by waving E=mc² around again?
Stick to the issue Jughead' it's 10^6 or 100³ or 1,000,000 MeV per gram.
@Tweekerhead At least now, he has the "^" between the "10" and the "6" and has admitted that there is a "/g" on the end. I don't know if he has yet grasped that the "^" means super script and that the "/g" means "per gram". If he finally admits that at least there will be some progress. I hope then to try to get him to do the math for how he proposes to do the RAD conversion on two example cases. This is like pulling teeth but he is very slowly giving ground on his latest silly claim.
@knowledgemonger He waves E=mc² around around like he actually knows what it means, that's what kills me.
That formula is the poster-child, of formulas for guys like him. I wonder if he picks up chics' with it ever?
Now just to show him you that we're talking about a mass-dosage and not a mass-energy conversion here, then we'll see the little light-bulb turn on above his heads, it's only a 15 watt bulb, but it's a light all the same.
@Tweekerhead If he works out the math I suggested, he should see the problem. He will discover that the C^2 part of things ends up as the value he gets no matter what energy the photon has. With luck he will then accept that he was wrong. I'm not making any bets however.
@knowledgemonger There's no way he'll get that far, I think you've overestimated Doodlyo.
I know because I did at first, I thought he was actually in search of the truth. Well, all betts are off the table with me, I read one of his idiotic posts from a month or so ago, he expressed a certainty that Neil Armstrong will burn in hell some day. He obviously hasn't the capacity to understand the mind-set of a man like Armstrong.
Doodlyo must have a small set of balls, that's gotta' be his problem.
@knowledgemonger So, how would you convert rads to MeV? How wold you convert electricity to radiation? Can you explain how E=mc2 is not involved in the conversion of matter to energy or the conversion of rads to MeV's?
@knowledgemonger I can see that your trying not to answer the question. Take your time and try again. What formula would you use to convert rads to MeV's?
@Daddyo930 Why don't you ask the guys on physforum? I'm sure if you ask nicely they will help you out, instead of suspending you because you roll in and say a whole bunch of shit you can't prove.
@Daddyo930 Stupid!! Unbelievable, my 11 yr. old could see this.
You want a formula to convert RADs into MeV's??
That's like converting my sun-burn back into sunlight.
I'm going to stick my hand in a light socket a shock my hand.
How can I convert the electrical burn back to electricity so I can shoot thunder-bolts out of my hand?
You are seriously getting more trite more banal by the day, I think you've peaked, ran out of gas, no where left to turn, sorry if I had anything to do with that..
@knowledgemonger Looks to me like your going to be using E=mc2 because that formula Energy = Mass x RADS / Constant RADS = Energy x Mass x Constant does not work. Try plugging some numbers into your equation and try converting 1000 MeV to rads. How many rads would you get?
@knowledgemonger Holy crap! You did know that you can convert MPH to inches right? Where did you go to school? Everything has mass, including light which is why the speed of light squared is the constant used to convert rads to Mev's. You should just admit your wrong on this one and move one. What you said was incredibly stupid.
@knowledgemonger 1 mph = 1056 inches per minute. You get stupider and stupider. I asked you, what formula would you use then to convert rads to MeV's? Last chance before I ignore you for being too stupid.
@Tweekerhead I have learned to expect insults and attempts at blurring or changing the subject when they know that they are in the wrong.
"When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, call the other guy names."
@Tweekerhead I am also utterly amazed that this to and fro about conversion was originally from Daddyo's assertion that space is all, super-radiation-deadly, an observation unsupported by a single physicist or even grad student who knows their shit.
He's been banned or suspended from two online physics forums, for basically either being a dick, or being unable to prove his crap. And now he's just floundering trying to score points.
@Tweekerhead Also note the "your" vs "you're" problem in his statement. When insulting someone making errors really makes the person doing the insult look like an idiot.
@Daddyo930 You can ignore all you want, when I see you perverting science to fit your premise, I'll bust your balls to the best of my knowledge, and that's a lot more than you'll ever have when it comes to astronomy related subjects.
And to think all my friends made fun of me when I was young for my love of astronomy, now I'm kickin ass and taken names... ;-))
@knowledgemonger That looks suspiciously like E=mc2. The problem with your equation is that you should be multiplying by the speed of light squared. If you attempt to divide by the constant, you get a negative number. For your equation, try 100 rads. You get a negative number. Why don't you just admit now that you don't know what your talking about with your silly equations. HAHAHAHAHAH!
@knowledgemonger HAHAHA! the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s. Now what other "constant" were you going to use in your stupid equation of Energy = Mass x RADS / Constant or RADS = Energy x Mass x Constant? What specific constant were you going to use? This get more amusing as we continue........your "constant" sir?
@knowledgemonger That's so funny!!! Are you serious? Where are you getting your garbage from? Give a source, ie, scientific institution or science book that you got RADS = Energy x Mass x Constant or Energy = Mass x RADS / Constant from. Your so busted!
@Daddyo930 Did you ever figure out how to convert RADs back to the MeV's that caused the exposure?
If yes, then you must've figured out how to convert a simple sun-burn back to sun-light.
Good luck with that chum...I mean champ.
.
BTW..Too too funny watching you pretending to understand simple math equations and insulting monger', he's forgot more than you'll ever learn with that emotionally cripple biased mind of yours ;-)
@Tweekerhead If he really said "radioactive" and not "ionizing radiation" when he asked the question the first time then even your 0.1% number is way too high, but yes it would certainly be closer to 0.1% than to 1% because it is below both. Radioactive usually means it decays and produces radiation.
@Tweekerhead If you consider every thing over UVC, you get well under 0.5%. It you include UVC, you get about 0.5%. This make the majority of the ionizing radiation also stoppable with a thin layer of metal. Pick the right doping agent for the glass in the windows and the crew is quite safe from it.
I would like to see a source of information. I think this is cut out of a comedy program or something like that.
firesword1125 5 days ago
Why is there.no craters on the moon from the rims
kylerogers19 1 week ago
This is the proof I've been looking for!
Darkwolverine06 2 weeks ago
Dude this video was made as a joke
Been there
Seen that
NEXT STUPID HOAX THEORY PLEASE
ThatsMRBenyamin2u 3 weeks ago
Where is this video from? How do I know it is authentic?
L6FT 3 weeks ago
the cake is a lie
blablupp77 4 weeks ago 5
Apollo was for real. The cornercubes prove it. We have LRO pictures showing it. Get over it.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
haaaaahaaaaaaaaaa are u fukkkn seeeerrriioouss mannn haaaahahahahahahahahaaaaa
clawz1000 1 month ago
theres so much proof it was fake. just do your research and make your own decision.
ItsTheTrickAttack 1 month ago
@Schumart HEY MR.BRAINS are you so GULLIBLE and unable to discern SARCASM that YOU CANNOT SEE I WAS MAKING FUN OF MOON CONSPIRACISTS ??? WOW ....BY THE WAY THIS IS youtube,YOU ARE NOT ON "BAD GIRLS" NOW,PROFANITY ACTUALLY IS NOT A SIGN OF WIT ! IT IS INDICATIVE of ILLITERATES WITH A 2nd GRADE READING COMPREHENSION LEVEL. BOOB.
leibstandarte1000 2 months ago
the biggest proof of a hoax is they never contacted the mooninites that live on the moon
PrunVeIes 2 months ago
Comment removed
melissacarl2002 2 months ago
@melissacarl2002 The space suit can radiate heat. They can if needed vent a small amount of gas and get some very serious cooling from that. Very simply, go learn the facts before you embarrass your self in public with such statements.
knowledgemonger 2 months ago
Comment removed
melissacarl2002 2 months ago
If we never went to the moon, then why can you look up with any good quality stargazing telescope and see the landing modules still sitting there?
CyFiM 2 months ago
@CyFiM -- You can't.
There is no telescope on Earth powerful enough to see something the size of the lunar landers as far away as the moon.
Even Hubble, the space telescope, doesn't have the resolution to see them.
Independent verification of the Apollo landings comes from matching 3-D renderings of multiple surface mapping images from lunar surveyor satellites with the pictures of the surface taken from the surface.
prosperomage 2 months ago 2
@CyFiM really you can?...fail.
ButteryAssAbel 2 months ago
@ButteryAssAbel Yeah, whoops. I heard that somewhere, but then I actually researched it and found out that you can't. Well, that's one more for the conspiracy theorists.
CyFiM 2 months ago
lmao
Hypohair 2 months ago
hahahaha
sikguygloom 2 months ago
haha funny video! btw, there is in fact final proof that the landings were real. aside from the moon rocks they brought back, the apollo astronauts left mirrors on the moon (google: lunar laser ranging retroreflector), they have been used by scientists on earth to measure the exact distance between earth and moon as well as to check einstein's general theory of relativity.
Ilsimeone 3 months ago
@Ilsimeone Have you been watching the news about the experiments that indicate that there may be a loophole in general relativity? There is a lot of real interesting science going on these days.
We know the speed of light to enough figures that the distance to the moon etc is not in question. The loophole is only a small one.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger yes, scientists at CERN measured that neutrinos can outspeed light by some 60 nanoseconds, which contradicts Einstein's special theory of relativity, not his general theory. It certainly is an amazing discovery, but I agree with you that the loophole is only a minor one. It doesn't mean that his theory is wrong, but that is incomplete and has to be amended.
Ilsimeone 3 months ago
@Ilsimeone -- Hey. That's interesting. Well ... it's as interesting as any of the multitude of details of subatomic physics is to me these days anyway. I remember back 40 years ago they were considering the idea of measuring faster-than-light-speed particles.
prosperomage 3 months ago
@prosperomage I used to feed Schrodinger's cat when he went away on vacation. The wave function for me would be in the superposition of I had fed the cat and I hadn't fed the cat until he came home and saw the cat was alive and well, but I never noticed.
I have long maintained that a Quantum physics experiment is not over until the information gets back to the experimenter. As a result the faster than C may be an illusion and no information went faster than C in the whole thing.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
LMAO! (silly)
dan91709 3 months ago
lol
AlgebraProject 3 months ago
These single youtube commentary thread is the pinnacle of the stupidity in the Internet.
Really, I'm astonished.
I feel ashamed that I read so much of it...
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to write such a useless comment, but I couldn't help myself.
andreasemc 3 months ago
Looks like E=mc2 wins again. Science over illogical, blind faith. The truth hurts, I know it does. I'm afraid the apollo china set won't be worth what it would have been had we actually went to the moon. Sorry.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Yup, E=mc² means the Moon landings were real. Thanks to the understanding of facts and not old superstitions humans are capable of great achievements.
.
Did you figure out yet that the percentage of the solar constant that is ionizing is only 1.5 to 10 keV ?
Oh well there's always gamma ray bursts in other galaxies over 7.5 billion light yrs. away!!
I'm sorry man, but gawd you're pathetic.
You haven't presented one fact that will substantiate that same old ad nauseam.
.
Sorry....
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
That was so dumb. were is this even from?
rogeliozim456 3 months ago
the hoax film is a hoax
MrStrongarms 3 months ago
its a fake. everybody knows the moon is made of cheese...............dickcheese....
jaxjax6969 3 months ago
hey guys! this comment isn't a replay to another comment!!!!
2ez3ar 3 months ago
LOL!
4817Indian 4 months ago
To be honest, I hardly smile or laugh, but since watching this Footage, i can now experience the happy side of humanity! Just can't stop laughing! Hehehehe!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>...............
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
Lol
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
Well you've done it my friend. Congratulations! No doubt you will receive a medal for uncovering this outrageous hoax. The medal will be awarded at a special ceremony at Chuck E. Cheese where you and your hoaxer comrades can hoist your mugs and say "huzzah!" Congratulations indeed.
charliegoodboy 4 months ago
There have been six manned moon landings -
Apollo 11 landed 20 July 1969
Apollo 12 landed 19 November 1969
Apollo 14 landed 5 February 1971
Apollo 15 landed 30 July 1971
Apollo 16 landed 20 April 1972
Apollo 17 landed 11 December 1972
and the 'fake' set get sooo much bigger with the Luna rover carreering over the landscape and bouncing and the Luna dust just falling as if there was no atmosphere.
None of the NASA retirees have written about the hoax in there memoirs... Why?
ozweblogs 4 months ago 2
@ozweblogs The dust doesn't merely fall as if there was a vacuum, it also falls as per 1/6th G. This means that for the "we never went" crowd to be right, NASA would need not just a vacuum chamber the size of a stadium but also some antigravity machines too.
Last time I called ACME Nonexistent machines about an antigravity device, they said that they didn't have any in stock because they were literally flying off the shelves.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago 2
lol, in THIS video I see tons of inconsistencies, but I never see them in real moon landing footage.
Laurelindo 4 months ago
When the truth comes out, you fools who defend NASA are gonna have to do some soul searching. If you still have one.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
The truth has been in the public domain for decades. The fact that the Moon landings were real was acknowledged by credentialed people.
People unlike you.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Apollo was for real. Get over it. You have attempted to disprove it several times but every claim you have made has been shown to be nonsense. You commented on radiation when it was obvious you didn't understand the subject. You didn't know how to convert between units of measure. You failed at basic physics. It is time for you to learn something from this and change your mind to agree with the facts instead of trying to change the facts to agree with your mind.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger Your still not trying to answer the question are you? Does 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV's?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 For what size target did you do that math? What weird sort of animal is long enough to be the stopping distance and yet weight that little?
Apollo was for real. Get over it.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowledgemonger 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV. Google it. It's a standard unit. You don't even understand the basics of unit conversion. Why do you even bother?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 -- Did you ever figure out at radiation is always subject to the inverse square law?
Even your own quotes where you were trying to prove that it is not were saying that it is.
prosperomage 4 months ago
@prosperomage Not all radiation is subject to the inverse square law. An example of that would be Gamma Ray Bursts. Their energy and distribution are both isotropic. is that correct or do I have to copy and paste from NASA and Wikipedia again?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger Really? Then show me a peer reviewed scientific paper which says that Gamma Ray Bursts are subject to the inverse square law. Here's a quote from NASA regarding GRB's: For the brightest bursts, if the intrinsic emission is isotropic the total energy in gamma-rays must be 1053 to 1054 ergs, which is at least as great as that produced in supernovae. That's from Models of Gamma Ray Bursts. Pay particular attention to the word "ISOTROPIC".
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 -- If an explosion is isotropic, then its energy distribution follows the inverse square law.
prosperomage 4 months ago
@prosperomage It seems that Daddyo930 is not able to learn. This was all explained to him months ago. From what he quotes in hopes of proving his point, I am starting to think that he can't parse statements with too many clauses. He also seems not to be able to select the right meaning for a word based on context. He mixes up isotropic radiation with isotropic intensity and the like. Perhaps we can help him to understand by being very careful with the wording.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger -- I agree. And that is why I broke what I said down into multiple simple statements and numbered them. I think sometimes if someone had a 20 minute face to face chat with a blackboard available, some of these people might actually understand.
prosperomage 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 I have already directed you to the source and what to read. You were unable to understand it. Your request is very like someone asking for a peer reviewed math paper that proves that 1+1=2. That all electromagnetic radiation is subject to inverse square is part of the ABCs of the subject.
In the very quote you pasted, it says "if the intrinsic emission is isotropic". Notice the word "emission". It means a very important thing. Look up what it means. Study and learn.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 "gamma ray burst" continues to be only a BIG SCARY WORD from your cut and paste machine. You have no idea what they are or what they do, but thought "Ill use this big word and they'll think I'm smart! huh huh huh huh." You only brought it up after being raked over the coals on every other newb radiation point you brought up. Now you're just cut and pasting old posts to avoid admitting how stupid you were to get backed into this corner. ;)
Inverse Square kills your argument.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Fine. We'll put gamma ray bursts back in the toy box for now. How about you telling me what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Are you asking cause you think you know? Fact is all the big 3 (alpha, beta, gamma) can ionize, but what horrendously ignorant conclusion are you getting ready to jump to? Neither alpha nor beta can penetrate a space capsule, and they're 88% of whats out there.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I'm asking because none of you "I know more than you" people will answer the question. It's quite simple. Just give me a number like 0, .1, .01, .001, .0001. We do all know that a percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. There's no denying that, unlike Tweekerhead who insist that 0 percent of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. The question is what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 As I pointed out else where, Tweekerhead is right if you round off to the nearest full percentage. The vast majority of the energy from the sun follows the black body curve for an object at about 5700K. The little bit of charged particle radiation from it doesn't really matter to the discussion of Apollo. You have gotten so many things wrong that even if Tweekerhead had gotten the one point about radiation wrong, his record is far better than yours.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger Then what number are we talking about because it's important. Is it 0? No. We know it's not zero. How about you posting a number? There are ways to express a number less than zero you know.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 No, this number is not important. You are asking how big an ant walking on the side of mountain is because you think that the ant will cause the mountain to fall down. We have already shown that it is only an ant. It doesn't matter to the question about Apollo whether it is a red ant or a black ant on the side of the mountain. It is only an ant. The amount of radiation under discussion is not a health risk for Apollo. Someone has already shown you the numbers.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Well I answered. All of the big 3 can ionize. So the ball is in your court with a "so the fuck what?" Do you have a point? Its exactly this stalling that justifies every bit of our "I know more than you." Cause all you do is cut and paste a gotcha question thats a pathetically transparent "If I use this big word, they'll all think I'M SMART!" Zero knowledge, zero context, zero point. That is exactly who you are.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 No Dildo I didn't "insist" the percentage of the solar constant that is ionizing, or "radioactive" as you put is "0".
Another "strawman" argument from you Dildo? Bullshit, you're full of it, up to your eyes in bull-shit.
I said it is subjective, it was closer to 0.1% than 1%
.
You can't win one argument with me because I quote the facts, I don't make them up like you.
I don't have to misrepresent your position in all this like you have mine,because your claims are just plain stupid.
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
@Tweekerhead FINALLY! First of all, watch your mouth old man. Name calling is the last resort of the lame. Second, you ever check your channel? No activity since 2006. Now since you say that 0.1 percent of the solar constant is ionizing radiation, that would be 4184 rads per minute. Is that correct?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 No Dildo, you watch your mouth, you started the name calling, not me. Sorry get your panties all wrinkled up.
.
You're an idiot right? mathematically illiterate, I didn't say the percentage is 0.1... That represents 10% dumbass.
I said it was .1% That means on the calculator 0.001
0.1=10%
0.01 = 1%
0.001 = .1%
Flunk 6th grade math didya'?
Gawd you're a stupid kid.
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger But.....But......Your man Stupidhead said that it was closer to .1%. This is what he wrote: I said it is subjective, it was closer to 0.1% than 1%. I would have accepted .0001 percent. Any number would have been fine. Just supply a number. Stupidhead said .1 percent. Fine. At .1 percent if you converted the solar constant to rads, you would get 4184 rads per minute. I'll ask you the same thing, is this correct?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Hey Dildo, anyone who's a genius like you should know what percentage of the solar constant is "radioactive". Why are you asking us Apollo believers what the number is, why not just make one up? That never stopped you before.
The formula is 1 rad = 62.4 x 100³ MeV per gram..... PER GRAM....PER GRAM
You have it backwards Dildo390!!
.
It means you have to shove 62,400,000 MeV in a gram of living tissue to give the dosage of 1 RAD !
You have the critical analysis of a salad-bar.
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
@Tweekerhead I'm not gonna make one up. You should already know the number. Just tell me what it is. You can also admit that you can convert mass to energy and energy to mass with E=mc2.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Yes, this ignoring the fact that it is the mass of the victim of the dose is the current problem with Daddyo's calculations. He also has the problem that the victim must absorb the radiation. Any that bounces off or goes right through doesn't count. In another spot he made this error too. I expect he will make it here as well.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. The LNT model therefore predicts higher risks than either the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are negligible. NASA uses this now.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger According to the linear no-threshold model used by NASA, IAEA and many other institutions, the energy of the exposure is the important figure, not the mass of the thing being exposed. directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. Does that mean anything to you? Mass of the thing being exposed does not matter anymore spaceman.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Clic & paste time for Dildo390.
The coversion is 1 rad = 62.4 x 100³ MeV per gram..... PER GRAM....PER GRAM
P E R G R A M
How much does an astronaut weigh genius, 75kilograms we'll say, that's 7,500 grams. GRAMS as in PER GRAM. So the astronaut weighing would have to be exposed to 486,000,000,000 MeV in order to have 1 RAD.
Ok junior, I mean Dildo.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Have you understood yet that the mass of the thing still does matter. That the "linear no-threshold model used by NASA, IAEA and many other institutions" makes no change to this.
An elephant ate 1 peanut
An elephant ate 1 peanut
The elephant has eaten 2 peanuts but it still hungry
A mouse ate 1 peanut
A mouse ate 1 peanut
The mouse has eaten 2 peanuts and is now fed.
Just because the doses added it didn't make the elephant fed.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger If the elephant and the mouse were exposed to 100 rads per minute for 10 minutes, it wouldn't matter that the elephant had significantly more mass than the mouse. Exposure would be the same for both. By the same token, a cockroach could survive that kind of exposure whereas the elephant and the mouse are going to die.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 The conversion is 1rad=62.4x10^6MeV per gram, not 106MeV.
It wouldn't take much MeV for a mouse to have 100 rads of exposure, however for the elephant to have 100 rads it would take quite a bit more MeV because of the greater mass.
Gawd you're dense, or just stubborn. Your premise is BUSTED ..Admit it, move on you're starting to be a tumorous bore.
Look at Monger's peanut analogy, he's making it simple so you can understand it.
.
Hey Monger'...hahaha peanuts!! Awesome!
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. The LNT model therefore predicts higher risks than either the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are negligible. NASA uses this now.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Yaeh, I know and read this.
Do you actually take the time to read what you're pasting carefully?
The conversion is 1rad=62.4x100³MeV/g ....That's per gram, as in per gram of matter the MeV's are penetrating, as in per gram of living tissue.
You've assumed it was the other way, you got it totally backwards.
You don't feel a little stupid or insecure about your capacity for critical analysis?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead You made one small error. The radiation must be absorbed to count. If it flies right through, it doesn't add to the dose. For a very high energy level, the radiation won't stop. This happened to some of the very high energy particles that hit the Apollo crews while on their way to the moon or on the moon.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 If an elephant and a mouse are both exposed to that same number of RADs, the amount of radiation for the elephant would have to be more. RADs is a unit of radiation energy per unit of mass of the subject. Go read the definitions of the units of measure and you will see.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowledgemonger The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. Size does not matter.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I'm waiting for your daily dose of adulterated science.
When are you going to answer one simple question?
You said: "Using E=mc2, you are able to convert rads to MeV. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?"
Ok, How does E=mc² relate to the conversion of RADS form MeV 's,
Energy=massXspeed of light²
Where is the MASS in your conversion, I just see rads-exposure & MeV-energy, where's the mass?
You were just waving that formula around to try and impress us were you?
LOL
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant. Do you understand now? E=mc2. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Electrons and photons have weight. Radiation, composed of electrons and photons has weight.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I understand mass, you do not.
Why do you ask stupid questions you pretend to know the answer to?
Where's the mass–energy equivalence in the conversion 1rad=62.4x100³MeV ? You have no idea because you don't need E=mc² to convert rads to MeV per gram of tissue exposed.
Again you are very wrong in your assumption, photons do NOT have weight, that's why they are able to travel the speed of light.
Again photons do not have weight, I suggest you go back and study much more than you have.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Quit waving E=mc² around like you know what it means, you've clearly demonstrated without a doubt and unarguably that you haven't the slightest idea what it means.
So stop waving it around before you hurt yourself.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Do photons and electrons have mass?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You claim to have studied astrophysics,yet you've missed the most fundamental things relating?
Photons don't have mass,they're waves of light.
Electrons have mass they're particles,photons are NOT particles.
You really need a primer in particle physics,you waving around E=mc² in relation with rad/MeV conversion is just stupid,sorry.
Mr. Armstrong walked on the freekin Moon in July of 69'.
I know that is a fact, I could tell you why I know but you wouldn't believe me or understand why.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Does light have mass?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Actually it is an interesting question whether we should say a photon has mass or not. Obviously it has not resting mass which is what is commonly meant by mass. On the other hand, it does carry a finite value of momentum. There is a very old question in calculus about whether there is such a thing as an infinitesimal value.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger I would guess anything above the frequency of UVC rays it would have a little bump, after a sunburn how could you not say it doesn't?
Don't tell Daddyo I messed up, he thinks I'm a genius!! Haha
Too tired now, talk at ya' en la mañana.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead If you include UVC as part of the ionizing radiation, you are still at a low enough fraction of the total that your statements on the subject are basically correct. The number is closer to 0.1% than 1% and will round off to zero if whole percentages are taken. It also means that the majority of the sun's ionizing radiation can be blocked by a thin layer of metal. The windows of the command module would have let a little more through than the metal sides but very little.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger It's good to have friends smarter than me'..
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Are you too saying that E=mc2 cannot be used to convert mass to energy and energy to mass. That's what Stupidhead thinks too. Maybe some of your personalities need to go back to school because you don't understand what E=mc2 can be used for?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I am pointing out that you are not using the correct mass in your calculations. If you believe that the mass from E=MC^2 is the mass you should use for the conversion, I suggest you do the following:
Where you are sitting you just got hit by a 1.46 KeV gamma ray from a K40 decay. I know you did because we all do every day. Now go ahead and work out the mass from the gamma rays energy and then the RAD level you think you were just exposed to. When you are done, reconsider.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger I suggest you re-examine the mass equivalency formula. I just asked you whether or not you could convert mass to energy and energy to mass using E=mc2. It's very simple. Either a yes or a no will suffice.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 You like to spam Dil?
Just so you don't go and ask the same question over & over, realize that there is no MeV equivalent for Rad or Gy, OK?..
MeV is a measure of energy, while Rad and Gy are both measures of energy per unit mass, and that's why you put the "per gram" on the end of it, OK Junior?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger K40 !! You make me want to quit eatin' bananas monger..
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Yes, and if Daddyo does the math, we can expect him to run away in horror. He will discover that one hit from a K40 decay will give the same number of RADs as all the energy the sun will ever emit in its entire life. Since he insists that the mass to use in the RADs is the one you get from E=MC^2, no matter how much radiation the number comes out to be a constant. RADs is after all an E/M unit leaving just the C^2 which doesn't change.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger He'll never get that far in his ...for the lack of a better word, critical analysis.
I don't care what he believes or proselytizes, I won't let some Y-Tube idiot twist facts & science to prove some idiotic conspiracy, especially when it insinuates all of the folks at NASA, be it engineers or astronauts are murderers, liars & thieves. I'm startin' to get salty with these scientific illiterates, sorry.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 The stupidhead around is you, dilweed. You don't need mass-energy equivalence equation to convert 1RAD=62.4x10^6MeV per gram, it's simple cut & dry how many eV's per gram of matter i.e. living tissue.
Startin' to get it now dim-bulb?
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead The unit of absorbed dose is the rad (62.4 x 106 MeV/g or the gray (1 J/kg). DOSE EQUIVALENT. Until you can get the notation right, we're done fool.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Do any of your personalities use google? Try typing 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV. It's called a standard unit. Get to know it.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Yes, but all of your personalities keep getting the notation wrong. 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV. That is a standard unit, not 62.4 x 100^3 or anything else.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 "All of your personalities" ?? Paranoid?
1 RAD = 62.4x10^6 per gram you idiot, ...I mean "deadjesus100 aka. AndyHarglais aka. Chev260
See how public forums work, insinuating that we Apollo believers are all the same person trying to "get " you is not working as an evasion tactic, deal with it ArcAngelMyke...or whatever your real name is tard.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead WHERE ARE YOU SOURCING THAT FROM!? Give the reference.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 BTW.. MeV aren't measure by anything multiplied by 106, it takes the equivalent energy of about 620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb.
You gettin' the picture yet Einstein.
Now say please...
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Yes, it is a standard unit but you are totally wrong about its definition. What definition would you give to 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV /g?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You love conversions, matter a fact you're pretty much a genius at em'..Here's another conversion for Nimrod, 1 Gy = 100 Rad = 1 Joule per Kg = 6.2415 × 10¹² MeV per Kg
.
Oh my Gawd..What's that little bitty 12 up there for next that 10?? What kinda' fuzzy math is that ya'll...We don't do math like that in the Ozarks....uuughh uughhh
.
Here genius: 3w's iem-inc*com/toolcnvr*h t m l
And: ht tp ://3w's*uottawa*ca/services/ehss/ionizconversion*htm
.
Replace * with a . imbecile ;-)
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Why should I bother? You never answer my questions. As for the per gram at the end of 62.4 x 106 MeV, whatever. The point of the matter is that your other persona's keep getting it wrong. It's either 62.4 x 10^6 MeV or 62.4 x 100^3 MeV. Totally idiotic.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Look at the link below for the conformation of your inadequate analysis.
.
ht tp ://3w's*uottawa*ca/services/ehss/ionizconversion*htm
.
Not only was your assumption of the environment of cislunar space but you totally botched the Rad-MeV per GRAM conversion. And YES you have to put the"per gram" in there, that's what the conversion is about.
You wonder why we talk down to you, could it be your propensity for twisting facts, YOU're totally idiot.
Go to link I posted & look stupid.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger We can't get to the "/g" part until you get the notation right. We'll discuss the "/g" and it's importance when you get the notation right. 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV. Is that correct?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Get the notation correct, the freekin thing is 1RAD = 62.4x100³ MeV or 1 RAD = 62.4x 10^6 MeV or 1 RAD = 62.4 x 1,000,000 MeV per GRAM you idiot, stop acting dumb. If you like this one maybe you can configure it to fit with your idiot premise 1 Gy = 100 Rad = 1 Joule per Kg = 6.2415 × 10¹² MeV per Kg
.
If I see you type E=mc² one more time, I'm gonna' crap out a candy-bar from 8th grade from laughing so hard.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger I know that /g is per gram. The reason we are here talking about this for so long is because your other man, Stupidhead thinks you can't convert MeV to rads and rads to MeV with E=mc2. It was akin to pulling teeth to even get him to admit that 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 or 10^6 MeV. Regardless of the notation, he wouldn't even admit that it was possible. Maybe you should tell him that you can convert MeV to rad with E=mc2.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 That's funny..."Stupidhead" lol.. I've schooled & wet-nursed you thru' flares, GRB's, GCR's, SPE's,gamma ray rad' coming from the Sun, pretty much everything related to the environment of space, given you simple equations any practicing radiologist knows the first day of school, now you try to save face by waving E=mc² around again?
Stick to the issue Jughead' it's 10^6 or 100³ or 1,000,000 MeV per gram.
You simply blew it again....
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead At least now, he has the "^" between the "10" and the "6" and has admitted that there is a "/g" on the end. I don't know if he has yet grasped that the "^" means super script and that the "/g" means "per gram". If he finally admits that at least there will be some progress. I hope then to try to get him to do the math for how he proposes to do the RAD conversion on two example cases. This is like pulling teeth but he is very slowly giving ground on his latest silly claim.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger He waves E=mc² around around like he actually knows what it means, that's what kills me.
That formula is the poster-child, of formulas for guys like him. I wonder if he picks up chics' with it ever?
Now just to show him you that we're talking about a mass-dosage and not a mass-energy conversion here, then we'll see the little light-bulb turn on above his heads, it's only a 15 watt bulb, but it's a light all the same.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead If he works out the math I suggested, he should see the problem. He will discover that the C^2 part of things ends up as the value he gets no matter what energy the photon has. With luck he will then accept that he was wrong. I'm not making any bets however.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger There's no way he'll get that far, I think you've overestimated Doodlyo.
I know because I did at first, I thought he was actually in search of the truth. Well, all betts are off the table with me, I read one of his idiotic posts from a month or so ago, he expressed a certainty that Neil Armstrong will burn in hell some day. He obviously hasn't the capacity to understand the mind-set of a man like Armstrong.
Doodlyo must have a small set of balls, that's gotta' be his problem.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger So, how would you convert rads to MeV? How wold you convert electricity to radiation? Can you explain how E=mc2 is not involved in the conversion of matter to energy or the conversion of rads to MeV's?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger I can see that your trying not to answer the question. Take your time and try again. What formula would you use to convert rads to MeV's?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Why don't you ask the guys on physforum? I'm sure if you ask nicely they will help you out, instead of suspending you because you roll in and say a whole bunch of shit you can't prove.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Stupid!! Unbelievable, my 11 yr. old could see this.
You want a formula to convert RADs into MeV's??
That's like converting my sun-burn back into sunlight.
I'm going to stick my hand in a light socket a shock my hand.
How can I convert the electrical burn back to electricity so I can shoot thunder-bolts out of my hand?
You are seriously getting more trite more banal by the day, I think you've peaked, ran out of gas, no where left to turn, sorry if I had anything to do with that..
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Looks to me like your going to be using E=mc2 because that formula Energy = Mass x RADS / Constant RADS = Energy x Mass x Constant does not work. Try plugging some numbers into your equation and try converting 1000 MeV to rads. How many rads would you get?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Holy crap! You did know that you can convert MPH to inches right? Where did you go to school? Everything has mass, including light which is why the speed of light squared is the constant used to convert rads to Mev's. You should just admit your wrong on this one and move one. What you said was incredibly stupid.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger 1 mph = 1056 inches per minute. You get stupider and stupider. I asked you, what formula would you use then to convert rads to MeV's? Last chance before I ignore you for being too stupid.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Damn tard' ..Monger's tryin to help you out of the dark ages and all you got is insults?
You're an ass.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead I have learned to expect insults and attempts at blurring or changing the subject when they know that they are in the wrong.
"When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, call the other guy names."
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Daddyo just replied to me on another video page with this:
"Oh, no no no. Your out of your intellectual league"
How can I be out of my league? Oh man, I'm rollin' here..
I think this is what Oxycontin does to people. ;-(
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead I am also utterly amazed that this to and fro about conversion was originally from Daddyo's assertion that space is all, super-radiation-deadly, an observation unsupported by a single physicist or even grad student who knows their shit.
He's been banned or suspended from two online physics forums, for basically either being a dick, or being unable to prove his crap. And now he's just floundering trying to score points.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle Doodlyo is a character alright. You below what I told monger'?
"Your out of your intellectual league" ..How can I be out of "my" intellectual league?
That made my night, and it made all the arguing worth more after hearing that one, I'm still rollin' on the floor over that one.
Well he be back in a few, can't wait to see what he has next!!
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Also note the "your" vs "you're" problem in his statement. When insulting someone making errors really makes the person doing the insult look like an idiot.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You can ignore all you want, when I see you perverting science to fit your premise, I'll bust your balls to the best of my knowledge, and that's a lot more than you'll ever have when it comes to astronomy related subjects.
And to think all my friends made fun of me when I was young for my love of astronomy, now I'm kickin ass and taken names... ;-))
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Nah. Either do them again or get lost.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger That looks suspiciously like E=mc2. The problem with your equation is that you should be multiplying by the speed of light squared. If you attempt to divide by the constant, you get a negative number. For your equation, try 100 rads. You get a negative number. Why don't you just admit now that you don't know what your talking about with your silly equations. HAHAHAHAHAH!
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger HAHAHA! the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s. Now what other "constant" were you going to use in your stupid equation of Energy = Mass x RADS / Constant or RADS = Energy x Mass x Constant? What specific constant were you going to use? This get more amusing as we continue........your "constant" sir?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger That's so funny!!! Are you serious? Where are you getting your garbage from? Give a source, ie, scientific institution or science book that you got RADS = Energy x Mass x Constant or Energy = Mass x RADS / Constant from. Your so busted!
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger How about you source your garbage equations or get lost idiot. What book or publication did you get that equation from?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
Comment removed
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger Fine with me. BTW, who removed all your comments?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 Did you ever figure out how to convert RADs back to the MeV's that caused the exposure?
If yes, then you must've figured out how to convert a simple sun-burn back to sun-light.
Good luck with that chum...I mean champ.
.
BTW..Too too funny watching you pretending to understand simple math equations and insulting monger', he's forgot more than you'll ever learn with that emotionally cripple biased mind of yours ;-)
E=mc² =Moon landings were real ;-)) LOL
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 How do you convert MPH to inches using the mass-energy equivalence theory( E=mc²) ?
I really wanna' know.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead If he really said "radioactive" and not "ionizing radiation" when he asked the question the first time then even your 0.1% number is way too high, but yes it would certainly be closer to 0.1% than to 1% because it is below both. Radioactive usually means it decays and produces radiation.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger That what he asked a couple of weeks ago, "how much of the sol.con. was radioactive?
I corrected him and told him he'd look stupid if he spams that question like all the rest of his questions.
I know the number's real low, and resembles a black-body as far as the spectrum, but I really don't know the exact %age'.
I love our Sun I wouldn't trade it for any other, Doodlyo would I think in order to affirm his superior genius.......hehe
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
@Tweekerhead If you consider every thing over UVC, you get well under 0.5%. It you include UVC, you get about 0.5%. This make the majority of the ionizing radiation also stoppable with a thin layer of metal. Pick the right doping agent for the glass in the windows and the crew is quite safe from it.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger The debate over UV rays and the demarcation of ionizing & non-ionizing is personal with me, especia