DO U REMAMBER STAR WARS ?! THE GRAVITY IS SAME EVERYWARE IN THIS MOVIE !!! THIS IS SO UNREAL AND IS JUST STUPPID TO ASSUME : EVERY PLANET HAVE THE SAME GRAVITY FIELD AS EARTH....
@HardGravy Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dalla meravigliosa PADANIA e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
@walviolao foi provado ? e onde você viu isso ? nos meios de comunicação mais falsos que existe? ou será que isso que falaram que foi provado que era falso é uma falsa prova? o que você realmente sabe ? ah me poupe
@nameofthepen Hey I will let you get back to your paranoid schizophrenia, you seem busy doing nothing. You truthers twist anything to fit your delusions. Such as the Statue of Liberty some of you think that it is Lucifer (The Devil) when in reality it meant light bringer as the designers intended. Oh wait did I say too much, Is the Illuminati going to kill me? No because they don't exist. Their ideology lived on but the group it self died off a long time ago.
@MegaTom1423 - ha ha, your sarcasm is, as usual, a footbullet. How embarrassing for you.
Statue of Liberty was never intended to depict Lucifer. I'll let you do your own research to find out who, if fact, it actually does symbolize.
Meanwhile, I admire the audacity of our masters, erecting that statue of old George Washington, the Freemason, having him dressed in only a towel, and sitting in the classic pose of Baphomet. :D
@nameofthepen In Latin, from which the English word is derived, Lucifer (as a noun) means "light-bearer". So The Statue of Liberty it does not bear light? The Statue of Liberty does not hold a torch? I do understand that the statue has multiple meanings but it is a Lucifer non the less.
@nameofthepen myth busters tested this and proved that this is real so marvel at the technical achievement that the moon landing was and get over your self.
@nameofthepen Yeah, Unless ALIENS did it (which could be one of your theories, but I am not going to say that you believe in it at this point) then I don't know how they faked it then. /watch?v=NOv_zvM-oJQ
Thanks for the link. Been a while since I saw it. A question: Do you know what a "strawman" is?
Well, that's MB's forte - setting up strawmen, and then knocking them down. Fake "logic", fake "proof".
So, in your vid, 1) where are the wires? And, 2) where, on the moon, is the so-called "dust" held in a tin pan, which compresses the contents, thus shoring up the "bootprint", preventing collapse?
@nameofthepen I think you missed the part where they were comparing the movements of the people hooked up to the wires which simulated the moons gravity to the real footage. I will answer you "impossible questions" 1) be more specific 2) Regolith nearly covers The Moons surface, it holds it shape due to its rough edges, it is not smooth because there is not enough water on the moon to erode it. /watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI&feature=related Go ahead and live in your bubble, I need my sleep.
@nameofthepen Btw I was saying sarcastically that aliens faked the moon landing which should have been implied due to the nature of the conversation. You can watch /watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI&feature=related which blows your theory that the jumps were faked by wires especially at 6:12 which shows the same comparison of the test to the original footage (it is not the jumping but it is moon movement). The only way it was replicated was via a plane descending to match the moons gravity.
I've been bustin' this guy for the last few months,first it was solar flares that made Apollo impossible,then it was cosmic rays, then solar constant of 1,360watts/m² of 1.5keV, soft xrays,UV-rays that makes space travel prohibitive.
Now he thinks Gamma Ray Bursts from other galaxies over 7.5 billion light years away make landing on the Moon impossible. I did mention I studied astronomy as a kid right? LOL
Dildyoo ..Don't you ever get tired of the abuse that you receive every time you make a wacky unsubstantiated claim. Which is all you've done here on Y-Tube.
@Tweekerhead 1 First admit that NASA uses Carrington for everything and did not use Stonyhurst in the catalog.
2. That why they came up with the standard unit fool. 1 rad = 62.4 x 10^6 MeV. It uses E=mc2. Mass energy equivalency. Even rads have weight dunce.
3. Gamma ray burst are isotropic in their distribution and emission. First you tell me whether or not you think how the inverse square law applies to gamma ray burst. I'm tired of your ducking.
2. I was the one that corrected your interpretation of that formula from 1rad=62.4x106MeV to 10^6MeV. Remember? Funny you call me dunce!! LOL 106MeV!! Hahaha Only an idiot...
3. Do you know dipole means?
There is NO dipole with the frequencies gamma rays associated with GRB's in galaxies over 7.5 billion light years away. Are you kidding? Only an idiot.....
Read up on dipole & quadrupole of the electromagnetic spectrum...'dunce'
@Tweekerhead 2 Gamma-ray burst phenomenology: the fireball shock scenario. Look it up. Everything you say regarding gamma ray bursts you can't reference.
@Daddyo930 I skimmed the article you posted,I'll finish it later.Thanks for the link.
First thing I read after the intro' was this:
BATSE's earliest & most dramatic result was that it showed that GRB were essentially isotropically distributed in the sky,with no significant dipole or quadrupole moments,suggesting a cosmological distribution.
See?
You muffed the MeV-RAD conversion formula so it's understandable why you would think GRB's would make space travel impossible.
@Tweekerhead with no significant dipole or quadrupole moments,suggesting a cosmological distribution. Yes. You also forgot to mention that not only are gamma ray burst emissions are isotropic, their distribution is isotropic. The emission being isotropic is in defiance of the laws of physics which is why they are still being studied. That's why know-nothings like yourself insist that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. the paper though. It was peer reviewed
@Tweekerhead Then what is your theory regarding gamma ray bursts. Scientist say that the emissions and distribution of gamma ray bursts are isotropic. The whole dipole and quadrupole moment not being an issue, what is your theory as to why gamma ray bursts defy the laws of physics?
@Daddyo930 If the emission is isotropic,then it would look like a sphere,therefore the emission would be subject to the inverse square law.
The distribution is isotropic since they come from other galaxies in the universe,from every direction.
I think the emission is anisotropic & the reason we see them from such great distances is because they're accelerated by some kind of phenomenal synchrotron engine, like from a collapsing neutron star's axis.
@Tweekerhead HHAHAHA! Show me ANY peer reviewed paper in which they contend gamma ray bursts emissions are anisotropic. What a fool! HAHAHAHA! I'll just sit here and wait for that peer reviewed paper......
@Daddyo930 You've searched & searched for the most prohibitive aspect of astrophysics that would prove Apollo was faked.
You think you've found the 'holy grail' in GRB's....Wrong.
What has completely went over your head,among so many other things related is the fact that I'm agreement with you on this matter,that GRB's are anisotropic,they're not like a shell,but more like a shot-gun blast of gamma ray radiation.
Anisotropic means they're not subject to the inverse square law.
@Tweekerhead "Anisotropic means they're not subject to the inverse square law." HAHAHAHAHAHA! Show me the peer reviewed paper that says that or go away sophomore. You bore me with your willful ignorance.
@Tweekerhead Why do you consistently never answer questions? Find me a peer reviewed paper saying that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away. Finally got you.
@Daddyo930 You'd do anything to feel right about something I see.
Your reading comprehension lacks, go back and read what I posted, I agree that GRB's may not be subject to the inverse² law, cuz' they're anisotropic, so no, you don't have me, sorry.
Besides the whole GRB-GCR thing is moot because the Earth only receives about 100rem a year equivalency in galactic cosmic rays.That's based on cislunar space & derived from models for the GCR energy spectrum.
Isotropic means the emission is subject to the inverse² law.
Anisotropic implies the opposite.
I've seen this kind of discussion from you where you just seem to look past all of the facts that have been discussed.
I don't feel like schooling you right now, why not go back a read a bit more on the subject before you claim to be an expert in the field of astrophysics. (giggle giggle)
@Daddyo930 Again...GRB-GCR thing is moot because the Earth only receives about 100rem a year equivalency in galactic cosmic rays.That's based on cislunar space & derived from models for the GCR energy spectrum.
.
That issue is a dead-end for you hoax-believers, nice try tho'....
@Tweekerhead Listen very carefully. I am not interested in your conjecture. Either show me a paper, peer reviewed, in which it states that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away. Do you know what that sound is? The cacophony of your nonsense. Show me the paper or get lost. I'm way tired of you.
@Daddyo930 Hold up Dillydo, I told you I thought GRB's are anisotropic, which actually means they may not be subject to the inverse² law. Your reading comp' isn't that good is it?
Besides, the issue is moot,GRB's have no dipole,so no massive chare like you assume, and on average the YEARLY dose equivalent the Earth receives from ALL cosmic rays, including GRB's is under 100REM, that's in a year.
Forget the flare bit, your beloved X5 flare has a peak X-ray intensity of 5e-4 W/m².
@Daddyo930 Go back a read my post, you're so jaded that you can't reason.
I said that it is possible that GRB's may NOT be subject, that's MAY NOT be subject to inverse square law. MAY NOT BE subjected. NOT!
Clear now?
.
Two things are moot here anyway Dildyo, the fact that less than 100 REM per year hits Earth from Galactic Cosmic rays and GRB's are over 7.5x10¹º light years away......and your ability to understand comprehensively anything to do with astrophysics.
@Tweekerhead "I said that it is possible that GRB's may NOT be subject, that's MAY NOT be subject to inverse square law. MAY NOT BE subjected. NOT!
Clear now?"
The scientific community says gamma ray bursts are NOT, repeat not, subject to the inverse square law. Your "theory" is not accepted anywhere except in your limited mind. Now, either show me a peer reviewed paper saying that or just say that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law and we can move on.
@Daddyo930 Honestly, last month you claimed GRB's are NOT subject to inverse² law, you wanted a paper that says GRB's are subject to inverse square law to prove you wrong, now you want to see a paper that says GRB's are NOT subject to inverse square law.
You're confused to the point where you don't know which way to go to be 'right' about something.
Like I said, the issue of GRB's is absolutely irrelevant to space travel.
@Tweekerhead I never said gamma ray bursts were subject to the inverse square law. The energy in them would suggest otherwise. That's why it's still a science mystery. Now either you show me a peer reviewed paper in which some know-nothing asserts that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away. Seriously, I'm tired of wasting my time with someone who can't ever admit to being wrong.
@Tweekerhead "I simply don't know, nor does anyone on Earth know this for sure." Wrong. NASA, Cornell University, Hawaii University and many other universities have published peer reviewed papers saying that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. Now either admit it or go away. Passing peer review means that your theory is generally accepted in the scientific community until it is disproven.
@Daddyo930 The fact is regardless of what you assume, is the closest GRB recorded was 7.5 billion fucking light away, and the truth is it's theory. So no, we don't don't know exactly what is the engine of these GRB's. I don't know, and you sure as hell haven't a clue.
The reason I'm not wrong on any of this stuff is because I don't make shit up like you do. Everything you've posted is assumption on your part.
Keep posting your assumptions,I'll prove you wrong every time you are wrong.
@Tweekerhead Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. M´esz´aros Dept. of Astronomy & astrophysics: Page 3. BATSE’s earliest and most dramatic result was that
it showed that GRB were essentially isotropically distributed in the sky, with no
significant dipole or quadrupole moments. Page 4.At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of greater than or equal to 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Watch your language.
@Daddyo930 BTW, I appreciate the link you posted, even tho' it wasn't for pure intentions on your part.That paper will take a few days to read to fully understand.
Don't forget that paper on gamma ray burst phenomenon is reviewed from a theoretical point of view, so it's not proof of anything but the model it describes is as good as any out there.
To assert that GRB's as impassable barrier to space flight in our solar system is laughable.
@Tweekerhead That paper says what every other astrophysicist says about gamma ray bursts. Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. Now, either you show me a peer reviewed paper that say otherwise or just admit that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law and we can move on. I'm waiting....
@Tweekerhead Hey. Get it through your skull. You can't ever admit anything so we might as well quit this conversation. Either that or show me the peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. I'm being serious on this point because it goes to prove something. Answer the question or go away.
@Daddyo930 I'm tired of your ducking. I asked you to contact a physicist - anyone, anywhere, and get their independent verification of your claim that GHBs prohibit space travel, especially to the moon.
real men celebrate the moon landings,weak little runts of the litter think its fake,they know they would poop their pants if faced with a mighty saturn at 9 in the mornin,its funny reading actually,i like it that there are so many dummys,makes me feel more godlike
The solar constant. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. Totally faked from beginning to end. We never left low earth orbit for the same reason NASA admits they can't go to the moon now. Radiation. Do the conversion yourself. Anyone can put up numbers and claim they are accurate.
@Daddyo930 its a load of head fuck,stop tryin to be a scientist your a crackpot whos knoledge of space would not fit on the back of a stamp,go back to ur pit and get a blow job of your dog
@guitarnashelter Name calling? That's all you have? Do you have some numbers you would like to discuss regarding the solar constant? I guess if a reputable scientific prostitute says it, it's true regardless of the facts. I pose this question to all those who think they know something about astrophysics. What percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? Or you could just continue with the name calling.
You think the solar constant of 1,360watts/m², particles of 15eV -1.5 keV at 1A.U. contains approximately 1-10 protons per centimeter³ moving from the Sun at velocities of 350 -700 km per second, which creates a positive ion flux of 108 to 109 ions per centimeter² per second,and a constant that has <0.05% UV radiation, which is more than any other ionizing radiation such as gamma, Xray in the solar constant and came up with 4184000 rads.?
@Tweekerhead 4184000 rads. That's the number it would be if the solar constant were totally ionizing radiation. We had this conversation before remember? You refused to answer then so why are you talking now? go away because you don't know jack.
@Daddyo930 But it's not(the s.constant) 100% ionizing. So why are you creating this crazy figures and passing them off for facts?
You have never answered one question because you don't know anything about astrophysics. Your attitude is commendable to a degree because you're willing to learn, just as I see you've corrected your 62.4x106MeV with the proper 10^6 blunder.
And who showed you that?
I did, yet you say I don't know "jack"...??
Are you really this obtuse or just trying to put on a show?
@Daddyo930 Oh Daddyo. Weeks have gone by and you are still rattling this old stick.
Maybe you ought to take a step back and have a bit of a wonder why there's no-one in the field of physics, cosmic/solar radiation, medicine or astrophysics who is also asking this question. No first-year students or retired scientists... just you.
You're trying to make a point based on research you've done with wikipedia. It's not really very orthodox.
@krisdevalle Not only wikipedia. University astrophysics: Elements of Astrophysics by Nick Kaiser University of Hawaii. NASA too. Your memory is simply wrong. I have used many sources and they all say the same thing with regard to the energies of cosmic phenomena. For example, the inverse square law does not apply to gamma ray bursts. Remember that conversation? You said the inverse square law applies to gamma ray bursts. I asked for references, you changed the subject. Remember?
@krisdevalle I reference him for substantiation of facts that I present. I do not need him to offer an opinion as to whether or not we went to the moon. His opinion scientifically speaking is irrelevant. When I say that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law, his lecture on elements of astrophysics verifies that. When I say that 1 rad = 62.4 x 10^6 MeV, his lecture verifies that. You get the point? He is a peer reviewed reference dunce.
You need someone recognized as an expert to review your claims and evaluate them.
Your track record is rather poor. Booted from two online physics forums, and having gained no ground whatsoever here on youtube, some expert recognition would drag your assertions out of the dungpile they currently reside.
Grow some fucking balls, seriously, and have your claims properly reviewed.
@krisdevalle Read these words very carefully. Everything I have referenced about cosmic phenomena has come from professional sources. I have made some notational and math errors sometimes. I don't need a professional to review my claims. I'm stating what they wrote down. You just can't accept that. Have a good life trolling.
@krisdevalle At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of < 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations. Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts: P. Meszaros
Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory,
Pennsylvania State University
Meszaros at Penn State says that. Would you like more "professional" verification that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law? Or is this too much for you to understand? Maybe.
@krisdevalle At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of < 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations. Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. Meszaros
Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
Meszaros at Penn State says that. Would you like more "professional" verification that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law? Or is this too much for you to understand? Maybe.
@krisdevalle At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations. Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. Meszaros
Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
Meszaros at Penn State says that. Would you like more "professional" verification that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law? Or is this too much for you to understand? Maybe.
@Daddyo930 1.If you're that insecure about your knowledge of the subject then why not show how to use & calculate with the Carrington coordinates system?
Go ahead & demonstrate for us the algorithm.
2. Show how you use the mass-energy conversion formula to change a unit of dosage back to MeV's.
Show us instead of babbling about it.
3.This issue is moot because GRB's happen in galaxies over 7.5billion light yrs.away.
@Tweekerhead About once a day, something remarkable happens: the sky is lit up by a brilliant flash of energy. For a fleeting few seconds, this mysterious burst - coming from a seemingly random direction, different every time - ranks among the brightest objects in the sky. Scientist assume that the distribution and emission of GRB's to be isotropic. Energies in the range of 10^53 ergs per second. Where did I copy and paste that from?
@Tweekerhead Then answer try and answer the three question you seem to run away from.
1. Does the Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971 use Carrington or Stonyhurst?
2. Can you use E=mc2 to convert rads to MeV's?
3. Are gamma ray bursts subject to the inverse square law?
@Tweekerhead 1. Where in the catalog does it reference Stonyhurst usage because every other catalog put out by NASA astrophysics data systems uses Carrington.
2. Then if you won't see the logic of using E=mc2 to convert rads to MeV, how would you do it?
3. Point out the peer reviewed scientific paper which says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law.
@Daddyo930 1. Show me where it says the catalog from Czechoslovakia uses Carrinton.
2.Show you can convert a unit of dosage to eV using E=mc²
3. Point out a peer reviewed paper by a credentialed scientist that says GRB's are not subject to the inverse square law.
.
If you want's some respect respond to these questions, but I predict you won't answer one of those questions, you have never answered one why should you start now....
@staIkervisions 1. Your the one who acknowledged that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. The only reference to Stonyhurst in the catalog is to the Stonyhurst observatory at Stonyhurst college.
2. the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. The conversion factor being the speed of light squared.
3. Elements of Astrophysics, Nick Kaiser, Hawaii Unversity.
@Tweekerhead 1. Your the one who acknowledged that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. The only reference to Stonyhurst in the catalog is to the Stonyhurst observatory at Stonyhurst college.
2. the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. The conversion factor being the speed of light squared.
3. Elements of Astrophysics, Nick Kaiser, Hawaii Unversity.
@Daddyo930 1. No I didn't acknowledge anything like that.
2. I know what the rest mass energy is, so how do you apply the mass-energy conversion to get eVs from a dosage? You have to say more than just apply E=mc² to it. You're not even close.
3.Can't find the usable link,but the issue is moot since gamma ray bursts happen in galaxies over 7.5billion LIGHT YEARS AWAY!
There is absolutely no dipole or quadrupole associated with those gamma ray frequencies detected here in this solar system.Fact.
How can you get 4184000 rads from a solar constant of 1,360watts/m², particles of 15eV -1.5 keV at 1A.U. contains approximately 1-10 protons per centimeter³ moving from the Sun at velocities of 350 -700 km per second, which creates a positive ion flux of 108 to 109 ions per centimeter² per second, with the electromagnetic radiation flux of <.005% with mostly UV rays and get such a high number??
You're forgetting it is a vacuum. Things accelerate to ground at the same rate in a vacuum. While it would be slower than a vacuum on Earth, it is still much faster than in air.
@xKalphax The moon itself only appears to be glowing from a certain angle. if they were to match the angle you see it from earth, then it will glow because it reflects light from the sun.
Watch MythBusters, or even Fact or Faked. In fact , why don't you people go and speak to an astronomer your selves? People can be so dumb these days...
@KoochiiMonstrr something might be able to float if they weighed an ounce and gravity was reduced. Of
course they slow some of the videos down. It looks like they had little segments in front of the camera. It's like they weren't doing shit. But what got me was there was no horizon. On earth you might see for.ten miles. But it looked like the horizon was only about 100' Just so many things that don't make sense.
"These pictures show how wonderfully stable the space station is," says Pettit. "When the camera is mounted to the window, the ISS itself serves as a tripod. Any movement would cause streaks in the star images." But the station's Control Moment Gyros maintain attitude with rock-solid precision. "I don't believe that the ISS was designed for astronomy," adds Pettit, "but it functions very well as a platform for astrophotography."
@Coffinman8 "NO PHOTOS OF STARS TAKEN ON THE MOON".
You're mixing two different things:
One can take photographs of stars from the ISS, providing you are not trying to capture any other illumunated object at the same time. If you are, your exposure for the illuminated object (Earth, Moon, or another part of the station) will be insufficient tocapture stars at the same time.
There's really no excuse for not understanding this as any photo of a spacecraft in daylight shows no stars.
studio stuff i can actually do better....with one leg and a black rope holding my ass... just like world trade centre two towers scrambling down in a control motion ...they expect us to believe we so stupid.... WTC7 that was actually a controlled demolition and i dont give a "wet ballz" what you lots think!
@AroundSun was there and ding dong button to get your bitch ass mouth talking? did i actually ask for your opinion ? keep yapping your bitch ass mouth on the net as you too much of a fucktard to face anyone face to face. fucking morron
@AroundSun ok I was gonna be proper raw to you punk! but since its in the net i guess I'll just be the same as you "a retarded" so since am not like you "a retarded" let me teach your prick ass a lil lesson as you got no one to do so since your birth.
I got no idea what year you born on but either way you still a moron to think am not interested in science but hey you got an opinion on the net so "free speech for retarded are allowed".
@Princewmk maybe you are interested in science, but you make one hell of an autistic researcher. especially for someone interested in the truth. you dopey conspiracy kooks couldn't teach a kindergarten lesson who are you kidding???
@Princewmk ummm...is that all you have? mom jokes?
people, look at the mindset and mental instability of these truthers. they resort to name calling and 'your mamma' jokes. I guess I win by default. Have a nice day is loserdom shit for brains!!!
@AroundSun so was you looking for a battle? on the net?ok i tell you what you win!!! now take your retarded narrow minded, ur win and your mama somewhere you can actually celebrate. since you never won anything in real life. knob
@Princewmk Yea, well, you still lose base on your lack of evidence to support your dopey braindead theory. You were the one who started spewing nonsense on the net, and I called you out on it. You lose!!
@AroundSun yh i lost since i got no business talking to a retarded who's looking to chat with someone on the net coz he's got no friends in real life..... now if you say something else you been touched when you were a child lol so shut you punk ass
@Princewmk Excuse me? I didn't understand any of your incoherent babbling. Do you have proof this was done in a studio? Do you have any evidence to counter the fact that Apollo 11 landed on the moon? If not, why are you still talking? YOU LOSE!!!
P.S. You have some pretty sick fantasies that will most likely get you arrested. All I see is molestation and mamma jokes. Not really reading it. But, more importantly,
DO U REMAMBER STAR WARS ?! THE GRAVITY IS SAME EVERYWARE IN THIS MOVIE !!! THIS IS SO UNREAL AND IS JUST STUPPID TO ASSUME : EVERY PLANET HAVE THE SAME GRAVITY FIELD AS EARTH....
MrVander78alex 1 week ago
@MrVander78alex There's also lightsabers and aliens and the force but of course that's all really believable.
xDanimothx 1 week ago
@MrVander78alex Yup cuz midicolorians are real too.. And I can control them: NOW CHOKE YOU SOB!
HardGravy 1 week ago
@HardGravy fuck u
MrVander78alex 6 days ago
@MrVander78alex ''No fuck yourself'' (these aren't the droids you're looking for)
HardGravy 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HardGravy Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dalla meravigliosa PADANIA e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
Ettore
ettoremazza7 1 day ago
lol i love how childish they are
caper900 1 week ago
Laurelindo, Why does it look as it should? how do you know how it should look, didn't sneak on board with the rest of the fakers did you?
thecubanism 2 weeks ago
@walviolao foi provado ? e onde você viu isso ? nos meios de comunicação mais falsos que existe? ou será que isso que falaram que foi provado que era falso é uma falsa prova? o que você realmente sabe ? ah me poupe
henriquelaham 3 weeks ago
I've watched moon footage like 3 times a week for several years now, and I still haven't even found a hint of it being a hoax.
Everything looks exactly as it should.
Laurelindo 3 weeks ago
Uh oh!!! /watch?v=xLanUT5ldrQ
nameofthepen 3 weeks ago
@nameofthepen Hey I will let you get back to your paranoid schizophrenia, you seem busy doing nothing. You truthers twist anything to fit your delusions. Such as the Statue of Liberty some of you think that it is Lucifer (The Devil) when in reality it meant light bringer as the designers intended. Oh wait did I say too much, Is the Illuminati going to kill me? No because they don't exist. Their ideology lived on but the group it self died off a long time ago.
MegaTom1423 3 weeks ago
@MegaTom1423 - ha ha, your sarcasm is, as usual, a footbullet. How embarrassing for you.
Statue of Liberty was never intended to depict Lucifer. I'll let you do your own research to find out who, if fact, it actually does symbolize.
Meanwhile, I admire the audacity of our masters, erecting that statue of old George Washington, the Freemason, having him dressed in only a towel, and sitting in the classic pose of Baphomet. :D
nameofthepen 3 weeks ago
@nameofthepen In Latin, from which the English word is derived, Lucifer (as a noun) means "light-bearer". So The Statue of Liberty it does not bear light? The Statue of Liberty does not hold a torch? I do understand that the statue has multiple meanings but it is a Lucifer non the less.
MegaTom1423 3 weeks ago
@MegaTom1423 - I squirm with embarrassment for you.
nameofthepen 3 weeks ago
LOL - I would love to see Hoax Blusters tackle this: /watch?v=smCodB4P2_M
nameofthepen 3 weeks ago
bunny hopping ON THE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!
Sn1p3rsh0t2012 4 weeks ago
Fakety-fakety hop hop hop! Gimme a break. :-/
nameofthepen 1 month ago
@nameofthepen myth busters tested this and proved that this is real so marvel at the technical achievement that the moon landing was and get over your self.
MegaTom1423 3 weeks ago
@MegaTom1423 - Sewiously, Tom. You're kidding, right? Myth busters? :D
nameofthepen 3 weeks ago
@nameofthepen Yeah, Unless ALIENS did it (which could be one of your theories, but I am not going to say that you believe in it at this point) then I don't know how they faked it then. /watch?v=NOv_zvM-oJQ
MegaTom1423 3 weeks ago
@MegaTom1423 - Unless aliens did what?
Thanks for the link. Been a while since I saw it. A question: Do you know what a "strawman" is?
Well, that's MB's forte - setting up strawmen, and then knocking them down. Fake "logic", fake "proof".
So, in your vid, 1) where are the wires? And, 2) where, on the moon, is the so-called "dust" held in a tin pan, which compresses the contents, thus shoring up the "bootprint", preventing collapse?
This is for you: /watch?v=wdMvQTNLaU
nameofthepen 3 weeks ago
@nameofthepen I think you missed the part where they were comparing the movements of the people hooked up to the wires which simulated the moons gravity to the real footage. I will answer you "impossible questions" 1) be more specific 2) Regolith nearly covers The Moons surface, it holds it shape due to its rough edges, it is not smooth because there is not enough water on the moon to erode it. /watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI&feature=related Go ahead and live in your bubble, I need my sleep.
MegaTom1423 3 weeks ago
@nameofthepen Btw I was saying sarcastically that aliens faked the moon landing which should have been implied due to the nature of the conversation. You can watch /watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI&feature=related which blows your theory that the jumps were faked by wires especially at 6:12 which shows the same comparison of the test to the original footage (it is not the jumping but it is moon movement). The only way it was replicated was via a plane descending to match the moons gravity.
MegaTom1423 3 weeks ago
@MegaTom1423 - Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. I was not.
Believe whatever is comfortable for you. Nice talking to ya.
nameofthepen 3 weeks ago
@MarkGronan1988 Quake > the universe
:3
TheOtherLioyd 1 month ago
And Counter Strike Souce was invented.... oh wait... wrong video. :3
acephantom903 1 month ago
Dude really has a hard on for "peer-reviewed" don't he? Dang...
KCElstun 1 month ago
@KCElstun Haha.Welcome to hoaxtard world!!
I've been bustin' this guy for the last few months,first it was solar flares that made Apollo impossible,then it was cosmic rays, then solar constant of 1,360watts/m² of 1.5keV, soft xrays,UV-rays that makes space travel prohibitive.
Now he thinks Gamma Ray Bursts from other galaxies over 7.5 billion light years away make landing on the Moon impossible. I did mention I studied astronomy as a kid right? LOL
So...How've been? LOL
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Dildyoo ..Don't you ever get tired of the abuse that you receive every time you make a wacky unsubstantiated claim. Which is all you've done here on Y-Tube.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Three things Dildyo will not show.
1. How to calculate the direction of a flare from Nov.69' the Carrington.
2.Show how to use E=mc² to cnvert a unit of dosage back to MeV's...
(Sorry that one always makes me laugh....!!)
3. Show that he actually understands what dipole means in relation to gamma ray bursts.
.
1rad=62.4 x 106MeV??? 106 ? LOL hahaha ...106 !!
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead 1 First admit that NASA uses Carrington for everything and did not use Stonyhurst in the catalog.
2. That why they came up with the standard unit fool. 1 rad = 62.4 x 10^6 MeV. It uses E=mc2. Mass energy equivalency. Even rads have weight dunce.
3. Gamma ray burst are isotropic in their distribution and emission. First you tell me whether or not you think how the inverse square law applies to gamma ray burst. I'm tired of your ducking.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Show the Carrington Algorithm.
2. I was the one that corrected your interpretation of that formula from 1rad=62.4x106MeV to 10^6MeV. Remember? Funny you call me dunce!! LOL 106MeV!! Hahaha Only an idiot...
3. Do you know dipole means?
There is NO dipole with the frequencies gamma rays associated with GRB's in galaxies over 7.5 billion light years away. Are you kidding? Only an idiot.....
Read up on dipole & quadrupole of the electromagnetic spectrum...'dunce'
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead 2 Gamma-ray burst phenomenology: the fireball shock scenario. Look it up. Everything you say regarding gamma ray bursts you can't reference.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 You haven't read that the closest GRB was recorded at 7.5 bill. light years away??
You haven't read up on dipole yet I see....Don't know what it means do ya'...LOL
I thought you studied astrophysics? Hahaha
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 1rad=62.4x 106MeV??? 106MeV?? 106? Hahha
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 I'll look it up, looks like good reading, thanks. GRB's are no way a prohibitive issue as far as Apollo Moon landings are concerned.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 I skimmed the article you posted,I'll finish it later.Thanks for the link.
First thing I read after the intro' was this:
BATSE's earliest & most dramatic result was that it showed that GRB were essentially isotropically distributed in the sky,with no significant dipole or quadrupole moments,suggesting a cosmological distribution.
See?
You muffed the MeV-RAD conversion formula so it's understandable why you would think GRB's would make space travel impossible.
You need to study more.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead with no significant dipole or quadrupole moments,suggesting a cosmological distribution. Yes. You also forgot to mention that not only are gamma ray burst emissions are isotropic, their distribution is isotropic. The emission being isotropic is in defiance of the laws of physics which is why they are still being studied. That's why know-nothings like yourself insist that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. the paper though. It was peer reviewed
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 You call me a"know nothings"after I've schooled you on every single issue we've discussed.
I've studied astronomy before you were born, are you so obtuse that you can't see when someone has more knowledge than you about a subject?
You're that unintuitive?
Feel a little stupid about being wrong with RAD-MeV conversion of 106MeV instead of 10^6MeV?
Just a little stupid?
This is a paper, it doesn't prove GRB's are collimated or synchrotron emissions.
BTW, you're the "know nothing"here;-)
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Then what is your theory regarding gamma ray bursts. Scientist say that the emissions and distribution of gamma ray bursts are isotropic. The whole dipole and quadrupole moment not being an issue, what is your theory as to why gamma ray bursts defy the laws of physics?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 If the emission is isotropic,then it would look like a sphere,therefore the emission would be subject to the inverse square law.
The distribution is isotropic since they come from other galaxies in the universe,from every direction.
I think the emission is anisotropic & the reason we see them from such great distances is because they're accelerated by some kind of phenomenal synchrotron engine, like from a collapsing neutron star's axis.
GRB's don't prohibit space flight.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead HHAHAHA! Show me ANY peer reviewed paper in which they contend gamma ray bursts emissions are anisotropic. What a fool! HAHAHAHA! I'll just sit here and wait for that peer reviewed paper......
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 You've searched & searched for the most prohibitive aspect of astrophysics that would prove Apollo was faked.
You think you've found the 'holy grail' in GRB's....Wrong.
What has completely went over your head,among so many other things related is the fact that I'm agreement with you on this matter,that GRB's are anisotropic,they're not like a shell,but more like a shot-gun blast of gamma ray radiation.
Anisotropic means they're not subject to the inverse square law.
Stupid?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead "Anisotropic means they're not subject to the inverse square law." HAHAHAHAHAHA! Show me the peer reviewed paper that says that or go away sophomore. You bore me with your willful ignorance.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Why do you consistently make a fool out of yourself on these matters, time after time.
Is it because you're new to this kinda' stuff?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Why do you consistently never answer questions? Find me a peer reviewed paper saying that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away. Finally got you.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 You'd do anything to feel right about something I see.
Your reading comprehension lacks, go back and read what I posted, I agree that GRB's may not be subject to the inverse² law, cuz' they're anisotropic, so no, you don't have me, sorry.
Besides the whole GRB-GCR thing is moot because the Earth only receives about 100rem a year equivalency in galactic cosmic rays.That's based on cislunar space & derived from models for the GCR energy spectrum.
Go back& read my post slowly
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Where in any peer reviewed paper did you read that gamma ray bursts are anisotropic?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 I thought you were the astrophysicist?
Isotropic means the emission is subject to the inverse² law.
Anisotropic implies the opposite.
I've seen this kind of discussion from you where you just seem to look past all of the facts that have been discussed.
I don't feel like schooling you right now, why not go back a read a bit more on the subject before you claim to be an expert in the field of astrophysics. (giggle giggle)
106MeV ? 106?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Again...GRB-GCR thing is moot because the Earth only receives about 100rem a year equivalency in galactic cosmic rays.That's based on cislunar space & derived from models for the GCR energy spectrum.
.
That issue is a dead-end for you hoax-believers, nice try tho'....
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Listen very carefully. I am not interested in your conjecture. Either show me a paper, peer reviewed, in which it states that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away. Do you know what that sound is? The cacophony of your nonsense. Show me the paper or get lost. I'm way tired of you.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Hold up Dillydo, I told you I thought GRB's are anisotropic, which actually means they may not be subject to the inverse² law. Your reading comp' isn't that good is it?
Besides, the issue is moot,GRB's have no dipole,so no massive chare like you assume, and on average the YEARLY dose equivalent the Earth receives from ALL cosmic rays, including GRB's is under 100REM, that's in a year.
Forget the flare bit, your beloved X5 flare has a peak X-ray intensity of 5e-4 W/m².
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Here ya' go...
www2.astro.psu.edu/users/nnp/araa_pm.pdf
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Page number and paragraph?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Go back a read my post, you're so jaded that you can't reason.
I said that it is possible that GRB's may NOT be subject, that's MAY NOT be subject to inverse square law. MAY NOT BE subjected. NOT!
Clear now?
.
Two things are moot here anyway Dildyo, the fact that less than 100 REM per year hits Earth from Galactic Cosmic rays and GRB's are over 7.5x10¹º light years away......and your ability to understand comprehensively anything to do with astrophysics.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead "I said that it is possible that GRB's may NOT be subject, that's MAY NOT be subject to inverse square law. MAY NOT BE subjected. NOT!
Clear now?"
The scientific community says gamma ray bursts are NOT, repeat not, subject to the inverse square law. Your "theory" is not accepted anywhere except in your limited mind. Now, either show me a peer reviewed paper saying that or just say that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law and we can move on.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Honestly, last month you claimed GRB's are NOT subject to inverse² law, you wanted a paper that says GRB's are subject to inverse square law to prove you wrong, now you want to see a paper that says GRB's are NOT subject to inverse square law.
You're confused to the point where you don't know which way to go to be 'right' about something.
Like I said, the issue of GRB's is absolutely irrelevant to space travel.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead I never said gamma ray bursts were subject to the inverse square law. The energy in them would suggest otherwise. That's why it's still a science mystery. Now either you show me a peer reviewed paper in which some know-nothing asserts that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law or go away. Seriously, I'm tired of wasting my time with someone who can't ever admit to being wrong.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 As far as GRB's being subject to inverse square law, I have never said either way if they are or are not.
Again I've never said they were or were not.Clear?
I simply don't know, nor does anyone on Earth know this for sure.
GRB's are new to the science world having only been discovered in the late 60's.
So have it your way, let's say the inverse² law doesn't apply to GRB's...... So?
No dipole moment associated with GRB's. Issue's moot.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead "I simply don't know, nor does anyone on Earth know this for sure." Wrong. NASA, Cornell University, Hawaii University and many other universities have published peer reviewed papers saying that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. Now either admit it or go away. Passing peer review means that your theory is generally accepted in the scientific community until it is disproven.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 The fact is regardless of what you assume, is the closest GRB recorded was 7.5 billion fucking light away, and the truth is it's theory. So no, we don't don't know exactly what is the engine of these GRB's. I don't know, and you sure as hell haven't a clue.
The reason I'm not wrong on any of this stuff is because I don't make shit up like you do. Everything you've posted is assumption on your part.
Keep posting your assumptions,I'll prove you wrong every time you are wrong.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. M´esz´aros Dept. of Astronomy & astrophysics: Page 3. BATSE’s earliest and most dramatic result was that
it showed that GRB were essentially isotropically distributed in the sky, with no
significant dipole or quadrupole moments. Page 4.At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of greater than or equal to 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Watch your language.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 NASA, Cornell University, Hawaii University ??
Awesome ..even as a kid I thought GRB's weren't subject to the inverse square law.
Thanks.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 BTW, I appreciate the link you posted, even tho' it wasn't for pure intentions on your part.That paper will take a few days to read to fully understand.
Don't forget that paper on gamma ray burst phenomenon is reviewed from a theoretical point of view, so it's not proof of anything but the model it describes is as good as any out there.
To assert that GRB's as impassable barrier to space flight in our solar system is laughable.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead That paper says what every other astrophysicist says about gamma ray bursts. Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. Now, either you show me a peer reviewed paper that say otherwise or just admit that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law and we can move on. I'm waiting....
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 The inverse square law applies to all radiation.
Show what you think the energies are from GRB's in this solar system.
You are very confused.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Hey. Get it through your skull. You can't ever admit anything so we might as well quit this conversation. Either that or show me the peer reviewed paper that says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. I'm being serious on this point because it goes to prove something. Answer the question or go away.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 I'm tired of your ducking. I asked you to contact a physicist - anyone, anywhere, and get their independent verification of your claim that GHBs prohibit space travel, especially to the moon.
And you do not do it. Coward.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
Good quote doodlyOO..
"Anyone can put up numbers and claim they are accurate."
Even you...lol
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
real men celebrate the moon landings,weak little runts of the litter think its fake,they know they would poop their pants if faced with a mighty saturn at 9 in the mornin,its funny reading actually,i like it that there are so many dummys,makes me feel more godlike
guitarnashelter 2 months ago
HOW CAN U FAKE THAT NEWBZ!?
Daniel0889 2 months ago
im not here to read your hoax comments. im here to watch some guy hop on the moon.
XxmothershipzetaxX 3 months ago 7
Anybody remember the movie Superman II? Those criminal kryptonians flew on the moon, attacked an astronaut. Looks very real doesnt it?
2020Haidar 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid americans, you are all so full of shit.
nyamcz 3 months ago
CHEATER, STOP WITH THESE EXPLOITS!!!
ixonixas 3 months ago 2
The solar constant. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. Totally faked from beginning to end. We never left low earth orbit for the same reason NASA admits they can't go to the moon now. Radiation. Do the conversion yourself. Anyone can put up numbers and claim they are accurate.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 its a load of head fuck,stop tryin to be a scientist your a crackpot whos knoledge of space would not fit on the back of a stamp,go back to ur pit and get a blow job of your dog
guitarnashelter 2 months ago
@guitarnashelter Name calling? That's all you have? Do you have some numbers you would like to discuss regarding the solar constant? I guess if a reputable scientific prostitute says it, it's true regardless of the facts. I pose this question to all those who think they know something about astrophysics. What percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? Or you could just continue with the name calling.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 4184000 rads.??
You think the solar constant of 1,360watts/m², particles of 15eV -1.5 keV at 1A.U. contains approximately 1-10 protons per centimeter³ moving from the Sun at velocities of 350 -700 km per second, which creates a positive ion flux of 108 to 109 ions per centimeter² per second,and a constant that has <0.05% UV radiation, which is more than any other ionizing radiation such as gamma, Xray in the solar constant and came up with 4184000 rads.?
4184000 rads.?Really?
Wrong!
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead 4184000 rads. That's the number it would be if the solar constant were totally ionizing radiation. We had this conversation before remember? You refused to answer then so why are you talking now? go away because you don't know jack.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 But it's not(the s.constant) 100% ionizing. So why are you creating this crazy figures and passing them off for facts?
You have never answered one question because you don't know anything about astrophysics. Your attitude is commendable to a degree because you're willing to learn, just as I see you've corrected your 62.4x106MeV with the proper 10^6 blunder.
And who showed you that?
I did, yet you say I don't know "jack"...??
Are you really this obtuse or just trying to put on a show?
staIkervisions 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 Oh Daddyo. Weeks have gone by and you are still rattling this old stick.
Maybe you ought to take a step back and have a bit of a wonder why there's no-one in the field of physics, cosmic/solar radiation, medicine or astrophysics who is also asking this question. No first-year students or retired scientists... just you.
You're trying to make a point based on research you've done with wikipedia. It's not really very orthodox.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Not only wikipedia. University astrophysics: Elements of Astrophysics by Nick Kaiser University of Hawaii. NASA too. Your memory is simply wrong. I have used many sources and they all say the same thing with regard to the energies of cosmic phenomena. For example, the inverse square law does not apply to gamma ray bursts. Remember that conversation? You said the inverse square law applies to gamma ray bursts. I asked for references, you changed the subject. Remember?
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 I see Nick Kaiser has a web page, and email address. Have you contacted him?
I imagine he will set you straight.
Get to it, chump. I am forecasting you simply don't have the balls.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle I reference him for substantiation of facts that I present. I do not need him to offer an opinion as to whether or not we went to the moon. His opinion scientifically speaking is irrelevant. When I say that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law, his lecture on elements of astrophysics verifies that. When I say that 1 rad = 62.4 x 10^6 MeV, his lecture verifies that. You get the point? He is a peer reviewed reference dunce.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 You say his (Kaiser) opinion scientifically speaking is irrelevant, yet you posted a reference to his paper to back up your claim?
When will you become sane?
Honestly, you have become fodder for us Apollo believers.
I mean the solar constant, the GRB's, the G.Cosmic rays, the flares, it's become a script with you.
Like a bad st-com.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 No dipole or quadrupole associated with GRB's.
Do you know what that means?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 You do need him.
You need someone recognized as an expert to review your claims and evaluate them.
Your track record is rather poor. Booted from two online physics forums, and having gained no ground whatsoever here on youtube, some expert recognition would drag your assertions out of the dungpile they currently reside.
Grow some fucking balls, seriously, and have your claims properly reviewed.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Read these words very carefully. Everything I have referenced about cosmic phenomena has come from professional sources. I have made some notational and math errors sometimes. I don't need a professional to review my claims. I'm stating what they wrote down. You just can't accept that. Have a good life trolling.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 I don't have a lot of faith in how you've interpreted anything you've read. You admit you're prone to error.
You seem to be the only person around maintaining the line that the solar constant has too much radiation for space travel.
The only person.
Had you considered you might be wrong about that, being in a field of one?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 Kris has no faith in your interpretations? Imagine that!
I can't believe you still have faith in your own as well.
I see you finally admitted the formula for rad-MeV conversion,
You sure it's not 1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV, instead of 10^6 or 100³ or 1,000,000 maybe?
Hahaha too too f@ckin funny man. Quit posing.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Still waiting............
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 1rad =62.4 x 106 MeV ??? 106MeV??
What are ya' waiting for, for science to change around what you say it should be?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Daddyo don't need no independent verification 'cause damn independent verification gonna bust his ass.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
Comment removed
staIkervisions 2 months ago
@krisdevalle At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of < 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations. Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts: P. Meszaros
Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory,
Pennsylvania State University
Meszaros at Penn State says that. Would you like more "professional" verification that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law? Or is this too much for you to understand? Maybe.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krisdevalle At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of < 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations. Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. Meszaros
Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
Meszaros at Penn State says that. Would you like more "professional" verification that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law? Or is this too much for you to understand? Maybe.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krisdevalle At cosmological distances the observed GRB fluxes imply energies of 10^54 erg, if the emission is isotropic. Isotropy is uniformity in all orientations. Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts P. Meszaros
Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
Meszaros at Penn State says that. Would you like more "professional" verification that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law? Or is this too much for you to understand? Maybe.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead THREE QUESTIONS STUPIDHEAD RUNS AWAY FROM:
1. NASA uses Carrington coordinates for everything else. Why would they use Stonyhurst in one specific catalog?
2. How would you convert rads to Mev's without using E=mc2?
3. If the energy of a gamma ray burst emission is isotropic, how can they be subject to the inverse square law?
Expect to see a lot of this until you answer.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 1.If you're that insecure about your knowledge of the subject then why not show how to use & calculate with the Carrington coordinates system?
Go ahead & demonstrate for us the algorithm.
2. Show how you use the mass-energy conversion formula to change a unit of dosage back to MeV's.
Show us instead of babbling about it.
3.This issue is moot because GRB's happen in galaxies over 7.5billion light yrs.away.
NO dipole or quadrupole associated with GRB's.
Do you know what that means?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead About once a day, something remarkable happens: the sky is lit up by a brilliant flash of energy. For a fleeting few seconds, this mysterious burst - coming from a seemingly random direction, different every time - ranks among the brightest objects in the sky. Scientist assume that the distribution and emission of GRB's to be isotropic. Energies in the range of 10^53 ergs per second. Where did I copy and paste that from?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 And you forgot to mention that the closest GRB happened in a galaxy over 7.5 billion LIGHT YEARS away.
Do you even know what a light year is??
Have you figured out what dipole & quadrupole is yet?
Again...isotropic means they're distribution is isotropic all over the Universe. 'Distribution'.
When you do and if you comprehend what it is comprehensively, you won't be claiming GRB's as a prohibitive issue for Apollo.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Looks like you have me confused with other 'sockpuppets'.
You're spewin' the same ol crap, you've forgotten who the hell?
.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Then answer try and answer the three question you seem to run away from.
1. Does the Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971 use Carrington or Stonyhurst?
2. Can you use E=mc2 to convert rads to MeV's?
3. Are gamma ray bursts subject to the inverse square law?
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 1.Stoneyhurst
2. How? You want to convert a unit of dosage back to the energy that caused the dosage?
That's light using E=mc² to convert a sunburn back to sunlight.
3. Yes, all radiation is subject to inverse square law, even synchrotron emissions from neutron star collisions(theoretical).
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead 1. Where in the catalog does it reference Stonyhurst usage because every other catalog put out by NASA astrophysics data systems uses Carrington.
2. Then if you won't see the logic of using E=mc2 to convert rads to MeV, how would you do it?
3. Point out the peer reviewed scientific paper which says gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 1. Show me where it says the catalog from Czechoslovakia uses Carrinton.
2.Show you can convert a unit of dosage to eV using E=mc²
3. Point out a peer reviewed paper by a credentialed scientist that says GRB's are not subject to the inverse square law.
.
If you want's some respect respond to these questions, but I predict you won't answer one of those questions, you have never answered one why should you start now....
staIkervisions 2 months ago
@staIkervisions 1. Your the one who acknowledged that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. The only reference to Stonyhurst in the catalog is to the Stonyhurst observatory at Stonyhurst college.
2. the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. The conversion factor being the speed of light squared.
3. Elements of Astrophysics, Nick Kaiser, Hawaii Unversity.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 I was just gonna say the same thing..Mm
Looks like you made lottsa' friends here on Y-Tubey...
.
Well...Answer the questions, we're watching & waiting..
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead 1. Your the one who acknowledged that NASA uses Carrington for everything else. The only reference to Stonyhurst in the catalog is to the Stonyhurst observatory at Stonyhurst college.
2. the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. The conversion factor being the speed of light squared.
3. Elements of Astrophysics, Nick Kaiser, Hawaii Unversity.
Daddyo930 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 1. No I didn't acknowledge anything like that.
2. I know what the rest mass energy is, so how do you apply the mass-energy conversion to get eVs from a dosage? You have to say more than just apply E=mc² to it. You're not even close.
3.Can't find the usable link,but the issue is moot since gamma ray bursts happen in galaxies over 7.5billion LIGHT YEARS AWAY!
There is absolutely no dipole or quadrupole associated with those gamma ray frequencies detected here in this solar system.Fact.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Now you..
How can you get 4184000 rads from a solar constant of 1,360watts/m², particles of 15eV -1.5 keV at 1A.U. contains approximately 1-10 protons per centimeter³ moving from the Sun at velocities of 350 -700 km per second, which creates a positive ion flux of 108 to 109 ions per centimeter² per second, with the electromagnetic radiation flux of <.005% with mostly UV rays and get such a high number??
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@brianator145: yea i friggin love hotsteeze
inda5club53 3 months ago
why is all the footage in space so bad, nasa should just buy a ton of gopros and design a case for use in space. HD all the way
bilbodickbaggins 3 months ago
@ZacBlack1337 oh already knew that i was just making an idiotic comment lol
xKalphax 3 months ago
i suppose he covered ground like a kangaroo.
ThePeacekeeper09 3 months ago
7 people thought that there was an actual bunny
FloridaBoy421 3 months ago
7 people thought that there was an actually bunny
FloridaBoy421 3 months ago
I thought the moon glows at nigh...... hmm I guess it doesn't
xKalphax 3 months ago
@xKalphax
The moon doesnt glow because it is a fake moon landing. The dust should float slowly down, not drop fast like in earth gravity.
2020Haidar 3 months ago
@2020Haidar
You're forgetting it is a vacuum. Things accelerate to ground at the same rate in a vacuum. While it would be slower than a vacuum on Earth, it is still much faster than in air.
loperspest 3 months ago
@xKalphax
The moon doesnt glow because it is a fake moon landing. The dust should float slowly down, not drop fast like in earth gravity.
2020Haidar 3 months ago
@xKalphax The moon itself only appears to be glowing from a certain angle. if they were to match the angle you see it from earth, then it will glow because it reflects light from the sun.
ZacBlack1337 3 months ago
@terminater3: yea hotsteeze is awesome i use it all the time to find new tricks
brianator145 3 months ago
i wonder how big the moon is?
please could anwser thae question
SuperTalaal 4 months ago
@SuperTalaal Equatorial radius: 1,738.14 km (0,273 earths)
aigg 4 months ago
@SuperTalaal my dick
1Nekit1 3 months ago
I thought it was a real bunny :-)
kathykisslight1 4 months ago
imagine being high on the moon......
machicniii 4 months ago
LIKE A BOSS
machicniii 4 months ago
Watch MythBusters, or even Fact or Faked. In fact , why don't you people go and speak to an astronomer your selves? People can be so dumb these days...
kkawecki89 4 months ago
Moon-landing-is-a-hoax.The-one-thing-that-says-this-is-the-fact-these-guys-weighing-thirty-pounds-on-the-moon-are-jumping-in-the-air-and-floating-like-they-weigh-one-gram.Does-1/6th-the-gravity-mean-you-float-like-a-feather?Plus-why-do-they-keep-jumping-around?Why-won't-they-walk-normal?They-keep-jumping-around-like-children.
tubeyou9878 4 months ago
@tubeyou9878 Because they still have the muscle to sustain their normal weight therefore they are super strong there along with extremely light.
There is also no wind resistance to keep them from moving about.
KoochiiMonstrr 4 months ago
@KoochiiMonstrr something might be able to float if they weighed an ounce and gravity was reduced. Of
course they slow some of the videos down. It looks like they had little segments in front of the camera. It's like they weren't doing shit. But what got me was there was no horizon. On earth you might see for.ten miles. But it looked like the horizon was only about 100' Just so many things that don't make sense.
tubeyou9878 4 months ago
Nice studio!
valttu94 4 months ago
ASTRONOTS FULLY VISIBLE DESCENDING LADDER IN FULL SHADOW OF LANDER = ADDITIONAL STUDIO LIGHTING.
ALL US AND NASA SYMBOLS BRIGHTLY LIT AT ALL TIMES.
Coffinman8 4 months ago
@Coffinman8 Ever tried typing without having caps lock on, you dumbass?
Irpalla 4 months ago
FAMOUS "EAGLE" LANDING:
NO ROCKET NOISE INSIDE LANDER??????
Coffinman8 4 months ago
MOON ROVER MOUNTED AT SIDE OF LANDER, BUT ONLY ONE CENTRAL ROCKET. HOW DID IT STAY UPRIGHT?
Coffinman8 4 months ago
GREATER WEIGHT TAKEN IN LATER MISSIONS WITH NO EXTRA FUEL????
Coffinman8 4 months ago
"ROOSTER TAILS" FROM MOON ROVER SHOW THE DIRT HITTING AIR AND LOOSING HORISONTAL MOTION!!!!!!
THIS CANNOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM (OR VERY THIN ATMOSPHERE).
Coffinman8 4 months ago
NO BLAST CRATER UNDER ANY LUNAR LANDER, NO DUST ON LANDER FEET.
Coffinman8 4 months ago
NOT ONE SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH OF A STAR TAKEN FROM THE SURFACE OF THE MOON!
Coffinman8 4 months ago
@Coffinman8 And I guess pictures of the ISS in space with no stars were fake as well?
SixTailedNaruto64 4 months ago
@SixTailedNaruto64
"These pictures show how wonderfully stable the space station is," says Pettit. "When the camera is mounted to the window, the ISS itself serves as a tripod. Any movement would cause streaks in the star images." But the station's Control Moment Gyros maintain attitude with rock-solid precision. "I don't believe that the ISS was designed for astronomy," adds Pettit, "but it functions very well as a platform for astrophotography."
NO PHOTOS OF STARS TAKEN ON THE MOON.
Coffinman8 4 months ago
@Coffinman8 "NO PHOTOS OF STARS TAKEN ON THE MOON".
You're mixing two different things:
One can take photographs of stars from the ISS, providing you are not trying to capture any other illumunated object at the same time. If you are, your exposure for the illuminated object (Earth, Moon, or another part of the station) will be insufficient tocapture stars at the same time.
There's really no excuse for not understanding this as any photo of a spacecraft in daylight shows no stars.
eventcone 4 months ago
@eventcone
One could take photographs of stars from the Moon, providing you were not trying to capture any other illumunated object at the same time.
There are various types of lenses to provide different angles of capture.
Coffinman8 4 months ago
Anyone can PM me and ask for a link to some excellent evidence about the Apollo hoax.
Or the 911 scam.
Or the 7/7 fraud.
Or you could just find my web.
"Coffinman".
"The deprogramming complex"
Go armed with Firefox + Flashblock to avoid lock-ups.
Coffinman8 4 months ago
On wires.
Fake.
Coffinman8 4 months ago
@Coffinman8 And where are these wires connected to since they're in a big open space?
SixTailedNaruto64 4 months ago
@SixTailedNaruto64
It looks like a big open space.
They can create this effect in a studio, that's how they make fillms.
Crappy video quality helps them hide the illusion.
Did you think they would show the gantry?
What temperature is it in the sun on the surface of the Moon?
Universe today" says 107oC.
So we have baked astronots (not).
Get my point?
Coffinman8 4 months ago
Years and Years of physical and mental training to become a pioneer and fly to the moon...
...i'm so glad we now know that the two footed hop is the best way to travel on the moon.
wigzisonfire 4 months ago
OK PEOPLE, WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU THINK IF ITS REAL OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK, AND THIS IS WHAT WE THINK SO SHUT UP AND ENJOY THE VID!!
skotkim0129 4 months ago
NICE BHOP ;D
WeAreLetsPlay2000 4 months ago
@WeAreLetsPlay2000 Those guys were total trolls... :S
1Nekit1 4 months ago
boing
aquamichellle 4 months ago
he jumps like a kangaroo!
heartberry1 4 months ago
studio stuff i can actually do better....with one leg and a black rope holding my ass... just like world trade centre two towers scrambling down in a control motion ...they expect us to believe we so stupid.... WTC7 that was actually a controlled demolition and i dont give a "wet ballz" what you lots think!
Princewmk 4 months ago
@Princewmk "and i dont give a "wet ballz" what you lots think!"
this is a good reason why nobody takes you truther douchebags seriously. along with many other things
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun was there and ding dong button to get your bitch ass mouth talking? did i actually ask for your opinion ? keep yapping your bitch ass mouth on the net as you too much of a fucktard to face anyone face to face. fucking morron
Princewmk 4 months ago
@Princewmk i can see you are not only scientifically challenged but are also an illiterate. this is the future of our country. yikes!
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun ok I was gonna be proper raw to you punk! but since its in the net i guess I'll just be the same as you "a retarded" so since am not like you "a retarded" let me teach your prick ass a lil lesson as you got no one to do so since your birth.
I got no idea what year you born on but either way you still a moron to think am not interested in science but hey you got an opinion on the net so "free speech for retarded are allowed".
Princewmk 4 months ago
@Princewmk maybe you are interested in science, but you make one hell of an autistic researcher. especially for someone interested in the truth. you dopey conspiracy kooks couldn't teach a kindergarten lesson who are you kidding???
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun i can teach your mama a lesson or 2... she'll defo look good in my bed and dont matter how old she is eheheh moron
Princewmk 4 months ago
@Princewmk ummm...is that all you have? mom jokes?
people, look at the mindset and mental instability of these truthers. they resort to name calling and 'your mamma' jokes. I guess I win by default. Have a nice day is loserdom shit for brains!!!
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun so was you looking for a battle? on the net?ok i tell you what you win!!! now take your retarded narrow minded, ur win and your mama somewhere you can actually celebrate. since you never won anything in real life. knob
Princewmk 4 months ago
@Princewmk Yea, well, you still lose base on your lack of evidence to support your dopey braindead theory. You were the one who started spewing nonsense on the net, and I called you out on it. You lose!!
AroundSun 4 months ago
@AroundSun yh i lost since i got no business talking to a retarded who's looking to chat with someone on the net coz he's got no friends in real life..... now if you say something else you been touched when you were a child lol so shut you punk ass
Princewmk 4 months ago
@Princewmk Excuse me? I didn't understand any of your incoherent babbling. Do you have proof this was done in a studio? Do you have any evidence to counter the fact that Apollo 11 landed on the moon? If not, why are you still talking? YOU LOSE!!!
P.S. You have some pretty sick fantasies that will most likely get you arrested. All I see is molestation and mamma jokes. Not really reading it. But, more importantly,
YOU LOSE!!
AroundSun 4 months ago