I believe we did make it to the moon. But it's weird to think that we only got there through one of the most terrifying and destructive events in human history...ww2. after all I was Germanys hate at Britain for holding out against them that drove them to develope the rocket (V2). And because the allies won, german scientists were able to work on a moon mission. Germany did some terrible things. But their tech and scientific genius sent man to the moon...
@MrDeano324 We can't run the experiment both ways but it may be that without the world war, we would have had the moon mission sooner or more likely have made a machine like the shuttle sooner and did the moon after it. The US airforce with the X series aircraft were flying to space before the sockets got there.
Nah, I dont agree. The war sped up technology tenfold. In fact scientists have said if it wasnt for the tech developed during ww2. 2011 would now look like 1975. Before the war, rockets and balistic missles did not exist at all. The Germans created the first with the V2 (Vengance weapon 2) After the war, the plans for those rockets were sent back to America along with top German scientists to work on a moon mission and a rocket capable of getting them there...
@MrDeano324 Maybe if we put our money into actual research instead of just that that helps us kill people we might move forward a little quicker. The military only gets credit for advancing technology because it get all the money.
@knowledgemonger not even close....war made it all possible. War increases the need for new technology a great deal. You make it sound like we only have a limited budget to spend on war & technology....not true, war just justifies the large amounts spent upon advancing technology.
@cummingsautocare The budget is always finite. The money that was wasted on killing people and making bombs and the like is lots to the world. WW2 really didn't advance technology much. It just caused the advances to go into practice in large numbers. Technology advanced more in the 1950s than in the 1950s.
The cornercubes that the Apollo crews set up on the moon are still being used nearly every day.
"On Nov. 8, an asteroid named 2005 YU55 will pass within 0.85 lunar distances, about 203,000 miles, of the Earth."
There are interesting things going on in astronomy, far more interesting than made up nonsense about Apollo being a fake. Real facts are almost always better than the best stories that man can invent.
The Mythbusters took on some real "Well Duh" myths in this program. The shadows at angles, flag waving and slow motion claims are just way too obviously false. Anyone who has really looked around themselves in real life would know that there is just no way that any of these claims could be right. It is not like they were taking on anything but the obvious.
@knowledgemonger for the most part I was disappointed with the programme. There wasn't a lot of impressive mythbusting and they didn't choose very many good myths to bust. The only exception was this specific video. It was original, no one else has done this. The put on spacesuits, weighted them down to the proper weight and got in REAL 1/6 G and moved around and it pretty much matched on the first try because the gait we see in the apollo footage comes naturaly in that environment.
@SirMildred76 Yes, getting the gate to match the 1/6th G is out of the range of what you can do with just some wires. When you add the kicked up dust, it becomes obvious that it simply could not have been faked. There isn't a lot left of the moon myths once you get the various video things out of the way. The scientific measurements and the radio signals and the like are just way too much to explain with any sort of special effects.
@knowledgemonger On top of that I think the LRO photos have been very impressive, I don't think people realise how many times each landing site has been imaged by now.
Just now watched some footage of Colin Powell at UN making the case for invading Iraq to remind me what it really looks like when the government tries to fake something. It was incompetent, short (no 10,000 photos!), & we knew what happened within a few years, because there was a lack of consensus among those in charge.
THESE GUYS ARE JUST LIARS. WHAT HAPPENED TO MEN? THEY ARE JUST CLOWNS ON TV NOW. TRYING TO CON YOU FOR THE INTEREST OF THE GOV OR THE ZIONIST POLITICAL ROB THE WORLD AGENDA. THESE GUYS KIDS ARE ASHAMED. UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED THAT THE DOLLAR IS IMPORTANT. MORE SO THAN TRUTH. SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT...MOON MISSION FAKING..AND HE'S PERPETUATING THE CON JOB FOR MONEY. WAY TO GO DAD!! MY HERO!
No, not the moon landing, the conspiracy theorists!
Smart person: ??
Ok, because there's so much more evidence FOR landing on the moon than AGAINST (especially in these videos) the freaks know we landed on the moon, but are trying to demoralize the scientific community because they're scared of progress!
Scared conspiracy theorist: LIES!
I have just as much evidence for that theory as you have on us faking the moon landing.
@DaveisKu Several people have mistaken the antennas for wires. The easiest way to see that the things on the Apollo suits could not be wires is to draw the line from them and check the angle. If those were wires, the person would be pulled to the side.
So tell me, you honestly think those are wires, right? Why are they angled like that? Shouldn't they be perpendicular to the ground? Why are they so shiney? Why didn't they use something a little less shiney or just paint the wires black? Why can we never see the antennae and the wires at the same time? Why do the antennaes look very obviously like antennaes in the photos? Did you consider any of these questions before you claimed "busted".. or is this just more hoaxnut hubris
WHERE'S the VAN ALLEN BELT myth busted? Where's it at? Huh? Any human, with our tech. today would die immediately passing through it's deadly radiation, LET ALONE 43 years ago!!! You have to be stupid or just ignorant to BELIEVE we went to the moon! You all were probably upset, when you were told about, Santa! We'll know the truth, and grow the Phruk up!
@stephen2152002 Why would they addres the Van Allen belt in this specific video? This video has nothing to do with the Van Allen belt. If you really want that myth to be busted you just have to look around.
You seem very convinced that all the scientists are wrong about the Van Allen belt. You must have some very good information on the subject. Where did you learn about the Van Allen belt and what convinced you that humans are incapable of overcoming it?
@SirMildred76 I think that there must be a book of a web site with that little gem of misinformation on it. We see a lot of people convinced that the Van Allen belt levels of radiation are high enough to be trouble. In a large number of cases the wording is "deadly radiation". This suggests a singles source for this misinformation. In nearly 100% of the cases, the people making the statements have no numbers. Most of them don't even understand that there are units of measure to these things
@SirMildred76 Because this topics are just beating around the bush, when the real bust is radiation in space. You don't have to be an expert, this information to out there to educate everyone. WHEN did I say they were wrong? The scientists don't bring it up or avoid the topic and this stupid nonsense makes flat minded people feel confused even more, when in reality, all they have to understand is that it is impossible with all the radiation.
@stephen2152002 "The scientists don't bring it up or avoid the topic..."
Is that like when you are talking to them? Are you engaging in casual conversation with scientists who specialise in radiation? Are you reading the journals in which they publish? Thats the funny thing about scientists, they tend to like to talk about their speciality quite a bit. But if you aren't going out looking for that, you'll just dismiss it that it doesn't happen. Solipsist.
@SirMildred76 We still don't know enough about radiation, let alone 43 years ago...otherwise, we would have chernobyl cleaned up, ALONG with 3 mile island, BUT that isn't even close to reality! Heck the Russians admit that they haven't went to the moon, along with everyone else, because they know it's impossible with what we know! Like I said, this is a joke, you don't have to be a scientist to educate yourself on radiation and the van allen belt. The scientists? What scientists? lol
@stephen2152002 "Heck the Russians admit that they haven't went to the moon, along with everyone else, because they know it's impossible with what we know!"
An ironic statement to make since they DID send animals in to lunar orbit and brought them back. Oh what a surprise, the animals survived.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you about this since you are obviously an expert in this subject, unlike those so-called scientists who refuse to talk about this kinda stuff for some strange reason.
@SirMildred76 Okay smartypants...let me see that story, because I haven't heard of it. Thank you! And no I never said was an expert when one clearly doesn't have to be one. I am a jack of all trades, but a master of nothing...lol
@stephen2152002 The russian mission was called Zond-5, it launched in September of 1968 and carried live specimens, banana flies and turtle, in to lunar orbit. The biological experiments were succesful and none of the specimens died on their return trip.
The satellite also carried a recorded human voice message which gave the boys at Jodrell Bank (who monitored most lunar missions) quite a scare when they thought for a moment that cosmonauts had beaten them in to lunar orbit already!
@SirMildred76 Zond-6 was even more ambitious, it orbited the moon for three days before returning to Earth, but the landing was bungled and the animals which had survived the trip from the moon and back died when the capsule de-pressurised too early.
I hope you find this information helpful in getting to the truth of the matter.
i am no expert, just a 16 year old very interested in conspiracies. i couldnt help but notice that in part one they said the way adam's helmet and back pack moved was to "earth like". yet when they were on g-one or whatever it's called his back pack and helmet still bounced around as he ran/skipped. in my opinion they cant use that as an example because that is not a real space suit. but i would like to further understand these myths they are busting and more information why they are. any sug.?
@kookiekruncher The Mythbusters is just a TV show aimed at people with very little science background. It is expecting too much to hope that they get everything right. They did show that slowing the film doesn't make the person look like they are on the moon. That is sort of like proving that if you stand out in the rain you will get wet. Changing the speed can't make it work right because it changes both G and the reflexes of the person.
it isnt hard to replicate apollo missions, just put little effort into jumping and get the same results. physical situation of mythbusters arent the same as apollo crew aswell. its a fake proof of moon landing imo.
@Nihatcangorgun No, you can never duplicate the results of jumping on the moon by jumping on the earth. In 1/6th G, the jump looks way different. Give it a try and see.
@knowledgemonger you speak so certain about it. what if they were not on 1/6 G? what if they were on 1/2 G to prove that its the same on moon? how could we know that they're telling the truth? personally i do not believe these guys because there are lots of assumptions we have to make in order to say: "yeah moon landing can be real and here are the facts to support it" actually there's none.
@Nihatcangorgun The motion of a person jumping up and then landing again gives you a direct measure of the acceleration of gravity they are experiencing. You can work out the numbers from the physics. You can also check things like the motion of the center of mass of the person as they move. It is best to take a look at shots where they are moving at right angles to the line of sight. You can see the C of G motion and work it out.
If I'm so full of it, then please tell me that the average energy released during a solar flare isn't 27 ergs per second. Anyone wanna take a shot and convert that to radiation or rads? Damn, that a whopper of a number. There is no way in hell apollo 12 flew through 27 ergs per second. End of story. Case closed.
@Daddyo930 - Yes, you are so full of it, where again you prove that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and yet you believe you are courageous and know more than the physicists and scientists in that field. So where prey tell did you read '27 ergs per second' that you've said a few times now? And where, prey tell, was the location of the said release of energy? In otherwords, where does it say that ALL the energy released by a solar flare reaches earth. I look forward to your reply. :)
@MTMind2 From the NASA page "What is a Solar Flare". 27 ergs per second is what they say on the page, unless they're terribly mistaken. According to them, energy released by solar flares are picked up by the solar winds and make it to earth in about 2 days. The fastest time recorded for a solar flare to reach earth is 38 minutes. Is NASA somehow totally wrong? I only use peer reviewed information regarding solar flares, galactic cosmic rays and the periodic table.
@Daddyo930 - WRONG. Once again you prove how ignorant people like yourself think you're smart just because you're able to use google.
I gave you the opportunity to check your info and you STILL didn't get it.
That page CLEARLY says 10 to the POWER of 27 ergs per second (that's a '1' followed by 27 zeros!), with large flare emitting up to 10 to the POWER of 32 ergs per second!
You don't even understand basic mathematics and yet you think you know more than scientists? You are comedy gold, lol!
@MTMind2 That's a mindblowing amount of ergs per second. You figured it out! And the crowd goes wild! Thank you for showing me exactly how much energy we are dealing with. I said 27 ergs per second. I thought that was al buttload. But then you go and say 10 with 27 zeros. That's an order of magnitude greater. Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. That's how much energy is in a solar flare.
@Daddyo930 - I'm pleased I've helped you understand what 10 to the power of 27 means. :)
Now let's see what they say at the end of that same paragraph after stating the energy emitted by a flare: "...This energy is ten million times greater than the energy released from a volcanic explosion. On the other hand, it is less than one-tenth of the total energy emitted by the Sun every second".
So, before going any further, and to get things in perspective, consider the relevence of that statement!
@MTMind2 I made you tell me that number with 27 zeros. It illustrated a very important point. That many ergs per second of energy will fry every atom in your body in less than a second. They said a solar flare is equal to less than 1/10th total energy of the sun ever second. Thank you. How much energy does the sun put out every second. The answer is on the Orders of Magnitude chart on Wikipedia. You keep making my points for me. The energy we are talking about is lethal and not surviveable.
@Daddyo930 - Nice try, but you fail again :-D They said the energy emitted by a flare per second is less than 1/10th the energy emitted by the sun per second, which means for a flare's duration, the total energy emitted by the Sun increases to less than 110% of it's normal output. So tell me, do you believe ALL the energy emitted by the Sun reaches earth? No? Do you know why is doesn't ALL reach earth? If so, then you should know why only a mere fraction of a flare's emittions can reach earth.
@MTMind2 So a solar flare that last for hours or days puts out how much energy then? Do solar flares last longer than a few seconds? Yes. Have there been solar flares that last for hours or days? Yes. Do you keep helping me illustrate my point? Yes. Are you just stumbling about like a blind ogre? Yes.
@Daddyo930 - And the Sun has been around for about 4.5 billion years and will last for at least another 5 Billion years, hence will be emitting energy throughout the duration of any solar flare, so your point is? So kid, I ask again, does all the energy emitted by the Sun reach earth? Because that is what you're saying if you believe all the energy emitted by a solar flare can reach earth.
But in truth, your ignorance amuses me, keep it up. :-D
@MTMind2 I merely pointed out the if all the elements in the periodic table can be found in solar flares, it would make perfect science sense to assume that all radioactive elements with half lives >2 days will still be radioactive when the solar flare reaches earth. Solar flares never leave the sun's corona. Coronal mass ejections do. Even if the energy released were reduced by half when it gets here, that would still be enough to fry you like a hot dog in a microwave oven.
@Daddyo930 - And what I'm pointing out is that a tiny amount of that energy reaches earth. For ALL the energy to reach earth, it would have to be aimed towards us like a laser beam, and that's impossible! Instead, all that energy spreads out from the flare like a giant cone, spreading out into space, getting more diluted with distance. After 93 million miles, the amount that hits us is tiny compared to the source, but may still cause damage. As it moves further away, it becomes weaker still
@Daddyo930 - For a better idea of the energy that reaches earth, lookup 'Inverse-square law' on Wikipedia (in fact, it has a diagram there which although has nothing to do with the sun or solar flares, if you imagine 'S' is the sun & the flux lines are particles released by a flare, then it gives a good explanation of why the further away you are, the less you receive). So to recap my earlier point, what's important is how much & what type of energy reaches us, not how much energy is released.
@MTMind2 So your saying that a solar flare reduces itself to being basically harmless and not radioactive by the time it reaches the earth? Ok. Lets take solar flares off the table for a while. We'll deal with them later. Are you familiar with galactic cosmic rays? Galactic cosmic rays are detected all day every day and from every direction in space. These are stars that have exploded millions of years ago. Average energy reading from a GCR: 5 to 10 joules. Can anyone survive exposure to that?
@Daddyo930 - Which part of "but may still cause damage" did you not understand? :) I did not say they were harmless (and I think you know that already), I stated that the intensity reduces with distance (again, read up on the inverse-square law). So again, it's not about how much energy is released, it's about how much and what is received, and hence about how much entered the bodies of the astronauts.
Cosmic rays is a discussion for another time, right now let's just stick to solar flares :)
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
@ctcole77 Really son? Waterboarding is torture. Any evidence gathered from KSM is inadmissable as it is the fruit of torture which was banned by the Geneve Convention. Flight 93 debris was spread out over 3 miles. It was blown out of the air. You have no photographic and forensic evidence to demonstrate what crashed at the pentagon. Why do you post the same questions over and over again. Every time I answer them, you post the same questions. You got issues son.
@Daddyo930 I see you are also making the rubbish claims about cosmic rays here too. I will point out that there are lions in Africa. Lions are deadly. Some people in Africa get killed by lions. The tribes in Africa survive even though some are killed by these deadly lions. It goes much the same for the cells in our body. A few get killed by a cosmic ray as it passes through. The stopping distance for a cosmic ray is very long so only a tiny fraction of the energy is applied.
@knowledgemonger Then here's some more rubbish claims from NASA regarding GCR's. Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are the high-energy particles that flow into our solar system from far away in the Galaxy. the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer (CRIS) is specifically designed to look at Galactic Cosmic Rays. All of the natural elements in the periodic table are present in cosmic rays, in roughly the same proportion as they occur in the solar system. Swift has recorded 500 in 5 years. That's 1 satellite.
@Daddyo930 You still haven't understood. I suggest that you stop than think about why I have pointed out that there is a massive difference between what you claim and what you paste in here from other sources. You have tried to suggest that there is deadly radiation in space. This latest thing you put in, is a direct contradiction of your claim. You can't seem to grasp why. I have used the analogy of lions and the one of drops of water to try to show you your error.
@knowledgemonger Then point out a specific example. Stop speaking in sweeping generalities. You will have to point out a specific example of numbers or information that I have used that you find specific fault with. Your assertions are just that without evidence, assertions. Show me the exact spot I made the error and then we can discuss it like two rational individuals. Show me the specific massive differences.
@Daddyo930 "I merely pointed out the if all the elements in the periodic table can be found in solar flares..."
Is that actually the case? Are they found in any meaningful quantities? I was under the impression that only lighter elements up to iron are found in the sun. Heavier elements being created when the star goes nova. I would imagine some trace heavier elements would be found in the sun from previous solar life-death cycles.
@SirMildred76 This is from NASA. The solar wind consists mostly of protons and electrons, but it also consists of ions of almost every element in the periodic table. The solar wind emanates from the Sun in all directions. You would logically conclude from NASA's statement that solar flares that come from the sun also have every element in the periodic table. If you have a problem with that, take it up with NASA. Tell them they don't know what they are talking about. Your running in circles now.
@Daddyo930 I see you are making the same blunder here as over in the other video. Go read the very thing you just pasted in here. Check each word and notice that it contradicts the very claim that you have been making. Now I am feeling sorry for you so here is a clue:
"but it also consists of ions of almost every element in the periodic table."
mendelevium?
of ions of almost every element in the periodic table.
@SirMildred76 You are correct about the falling amounts: The curve decreases as you move towards iron and then falls like a rock beyond that point. The sun is a second generation star so it has some heavier stuff in it. There is a good reason why I pointed "mendelevium" out to Daddy0930. I was hoping he would google and read but it seems he can't take in the information. Even when he copies and pastes the very things he doesn't get it.
@Daddyo930 - And to pick up on this comment from you: "I made you tell me that number with 27 zeros".
Made me tell you? You simply didn't understand what 10 to the power of 27 meant, but now thanks to me you do. The fact that you (unlike many teenagers) doesn't understand such basic mathematics shows that you are incapable of interpreting the facts and figures you read (but of course, you are so courageous in seeking the truth and teaching the scientists about their own filed :-D).
You never addressed the quote that I posted from a scientist who is actually knowledgable on this specific subject:
"An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill."
This is Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center.
All you bums from Bad Astronomy just got your eggplants smoked. You run away from the radiation issue like it's well, radioactive! All those post attempting to discredit Einstein's E=mc2 and it's relation to the unit conversion chart. Wow! You guys are falling all over yourselves in a vain attempt to put out the fire. Too late. Radiation in space means that no astronaut can fly through a solar flare of M6 or X4 class and survive. Manned moon mission? BUSTED! TOTALLY FAKE!
Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table, run by some webmaster is based off of Einsteins E=mc2 theory. Checkmate. In order to disprove that 5 joules/gram = 500,000 rads, you would have to disprove Einstein's theory. Good luck.
@Daddyo930 Can you go in to a little more detail other than "run by some webmaster" How do you know this webmaster is right? Hardly a "checkmate". As far as the effects of radiation on astronauts, the rate of cateracts in astronauts is MUCH higher than the normal population, evidence that they have been exposed to radiation.
@SirMildred76 Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table. If you google it, it will direct you to that site of unitconversion. If the page was bogus, people would have pointed that out by now. Have you done a google search of unitconversion? They seem quite reputable and have many more free online conversion charts. Remember, unit conversion is based off of E=mc2. What exactly would be incorrect about a conversion table based on that theory because that's what it is. Am I incorrect?
@Daddyo930 Okay, it's an online calculator, I don't see any conclusions being made about the radiation received by the Apollo astronauts. Where are you getting 5 joules/gram?
@Daddyo930 I haven't found any references to "5 joules/gram" in relation to the apollo program or even any space related subject, so I'm very curious where you get your numbers from and how you are interpreting them.
It seems the worse radiation they might have gotten in the Van Allen Belts is 10-20 rads, and they shouldn't have even gotten that much because their trajectory would have taken them over the worse of it.
1/2 million rads is just not realistic on any level.
@SirMildred76 Google the "OH MY GOD" particle 1991. 50 joules/gram galactic cosmic ray. Do you know how much 50 joules/gram is in rads? Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table
50 joules/gram = 5,000,000 rads. This energy unit conversion table is based off of Einstein's E=mc2. We are bombarded with 5 to 10 joule galactic cosmic rays all day and night and from every direction. The only thing protecting us is the electromagnetic shield generated by the planet.
@Daddyo930 The wikipedia article on the Oh My God particle says that the particle is EXTREMELY rare, and that most of it's energy is kenetic.
Listing joules/gram is somewhat misleading because of course a single particle isn't going to have a mass anywhere near a gram.
The article mentions "the energy of most cosmic rays is between 10 MeV and 10 GeV" which is no where near "5 to 10 joules" Closer to .00000000005 joules
What exactly are you claiming? That they couldn't shield against this?
@SirMildred76 The sun produces cosmic rays also .During such occurrences the intensity of energetic particles in space can increase by a factor of 10^2 to 10^6 for hours to days. Such solar particle events are much more frequent during the active phase of the solar cycle. The maximum energy reached in solar particle events is typically 10 to 100 MeV, occasionally reaching 1 GeV (roughly once a year) to 10 GeV (roughly once a decade) Apollo 12 had 10 solar flares during the mission. FAKED!
@Daddyo930 "The maximum energy reached in solar particle events is typically 10 to 100 MeV, occasionally reaching 1 GeV (roughly once a year) to 10 GeV (roughly once a decade)"
Do you think that is a lot? How difficult is it to shield against those levels?
"Apollo 12 had 10 solar flares during the mission."
One minor flare was detected by detectors on the outside of the craft but inside detectors did not detect anything because of shielding. Tell us more about these flares during Apollo 12.
@SirMildred76 Can you shield against a1×10^47 Joule burst? No way. Thats the energy released in an intense gamma ray burst. That would be 10 with 47 zero's joules of power. No. Your gonna fry like a hot dog in a microwave oven. We had 12 solar flares during apollo 12. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Thats the data on the solar flares. No way anyone survived that kind of energy.
@Daddyo930 Thanks for keeping me updated, I'm looking in to it. Good original research, I like it. As far as the gamma ray burst, where are you getting that number. And as far as the energy released, what would be the energy received in Earth orbit? I would assume that it would be quite a bit less.
Also are the gamma ray bursts directional? Or evenly distributed in all directions?
@Daddyo930 As I look in to it I'm finding numbers far lower as far as estimates. A comment in an article about the particularly nasty flare in August 1972: "An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill."
@SirMildred76 Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 96. Apollo 12 launched during a four hour SXR event. That's soft X-ray. Column 5 on page 96 of the Harvard study represents duration in hours. That would mean SXR 4 hours. Do you know what soft x-ray is and how much energy is released during a solor flare? How could you launch during a solar flare and fly right through it?
@Daddyo930 Yeah I've looked at the catalogue you mentioned. Interesting reading.
"Do you know what soft x-ray is and how much energy is released during a solor flare?"
Like I asked before, how much is released isn't so important as how much gets to the earth. Not all of the energy that is being released is going to reach the Earth, is it? Inverse square law and all that? So enlighten me, how much energy is released and how much makes it to Earth? Have you calculated that?
@SirMildred76 You do know what an X class solar flare is right? How much energy is released during an X class solar flare? A solar flare is a sudden brightening observed over the Sun surface or the solar limb, which is interpreted as a large energy release of up to 6 × 10^25 joules of energy (about a sixth of the total energy output of the Sun each second). If we know that 6 joules/gram = 600,000 rads then we know the apollo 12 mission was totally faked because an X class solar flare during it.
@Daddyo930 "You do know what an X class solar flare is right? How much energy is released during an X class solar flare?"
I keep asking you to explain why it is important how much is released, as opposed to how much is received here on Earth. How come you haven't addressed this point? How much is released is irrelevant. The sun is pretty damn hot, and no human could possibly survive the heat the sun puts out. But we don't calculate how much heat is received by how much is just released.
@Daddyo930 "How could you launch during a solar flare and fly right through it?"
Looking over the catalogue it appears to me that the SXR events you are talking about happen on a VERY regular basis. Every page is filled with these events, they happen every few days it seems. Unending for years and years.
If the Apollo capsules can't be exposed to it, why can the ISS and the Space Shuttle and a myriad of other manned craft? Are they all hoaxes? Better protected? Explain it to me.
@SirMildred76 All space missions to date have been below 325 miles. Well within the electromagnetic shield that surrounds this planet. As for the data, do you doubt it's veracity? Can you see how many M6 and X4 class events are happening all the time? If you attempt to leave the protective blanket of our electromagnetic shield, you die horribly and quickly.
@Daddyo930 - Actually, gamma rays are not effected by magnetism, hence the earth's magnetic field does not protected us against gamma rays. We are protected by our atmosphere, anyone above our atmosphere, i.e. ISS and Space Shuttle as SirMildred76 said, are exposed to the same gamma ray 'risk' as Apollo astronauts. So given that astronauts have spent significantly more time in orbit than any Apollo mission, the claim that gamma rays are more of a danger beyond earth's magnetic field is false.
@MTMind2 Now you wanna ack like you aint never heard of da solar winds. What do solar winds do? Do they accelerate solar particles? How do the solar winds affect solar flares? Do solar winds slow down solar particles? I told you. The ISS, space shuttle and every other mission have been below 350 miles. Can astronauts fly through solar flares? Can you survive 150,000 miles out in space when a M6 or X4 class solar flare erupts? I ask you. Can you fly through a solar flare?
@Daddyo930 - Nice try, but stick to the point raised. Do you or do you not accept the fact that gamma rays are not deflected, reflected, slowed, accelerated or changed in any way by magnetic fields? Yes or no? Science confirms that gamma rays are not affected by magnetism, therefore they will pass through earth's magnetic field as if it wasn't there. Hence astronauts in orbit are subject to the SAME level of gamma radiation as astronauts on the moon. Those are the facts, can you accept them?
@MTMind2 The magnetic fields of the Galaxy, the solar system, and the Earth have scrambled the flight paths of these particles so much that we can no longer point back to their sources in the Galaxy. If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform. So we have to determine where cosmic rays come from by indirect means. You might wanna check with NASA before you say that solar flares and GCR and all particles in space don't bounce around.
@Daddyo930 - Nice cut and paste thanks to google, but gamma rays and cosmic rays are completely different. Cosmic rays are affected by magnetism, gamma rays are not. So I ask you again, do you or do you not accept that gamma rays are not affected by magnetism?
@MTMind2 First of all, lets get our terminology correct. Three types of radiation right? Alpha, Beta and Gamma. These three types of radiation can be found in space in vast quantities. There is no such thing as a ray persay. Ray is a technical term to describe a beam of energy composed of different particles. All the elements in the periodic table can be found in galactic cosmic rays and solar flares. All three types of radiation can be found in GCR's and solar flares. Is there something wrong?
@Daddyo930 - Why do you find that question so difficult to answer? What happens with other particles/radiation is another matter, I'm specifically discussing gamma rays/radiation here with reference to your previous posts and claims. So again, do you or do you know accept that gamma rays are not affected by magnetism? Yes or no? It's a simple question which requires a simple answer.
@MTMind2 I don't see or understand your relevence when we detect gamma radiation in space all the time. The readings of gamma radiation in space never go down to zero. What you say is true. Gamma radiation is not affected by magnetic fields. That just begs the question, where is all the gamma radiation in space coming from then? If gamma radiation travels in a straight line, how come we are detecting uniform amounts in space all the time? Now do you think astronauts can fly through solar flares?
@Daddyo930 - The point is, Alpha radiation is stopped by a piece of paper, beta radiation can pass through our skin to cause damage, but can be stopped with appropriate protective clothing, hence it's the gamma rays (and X-rays) we need to worry about because they are the most penetrating, passing straight through our bodies, and yet gamma rays and X-rays are not affected by magnetism, therefore the intensity of gamma rays and X-rays within earth orbit is the same as that on the moon.
@MTMind2 Then you wont mind if I ask you again: So then according to your logic, astronauts should be able to fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares without too much problem right?
@Daddyo930, why don't you tell us where you're getting your crap from. When you showed us your favorite conversion table, it was easy to see you had no clue how to use it. So, quote your sources and we can talk. Who told you what an M6 and S4 class solar flare is? What do you think it is? Who told you these events took place during a 1969 Apollo mission? Give your references. Quote your sources.
@LunarTuner Study done by NASA and Harvard. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 82 for directions on how to read the chart. Page 96 for the information regarding apollo 12. Apollo 12 launched November 14, 1969, during a solar flare according to this data. 23 hours of M6 and X4 class solar flare activity during apollo 12. Impossible if you ask me. Do you think astronauts can fly through solar flares?
@Daddyo930 - Not all solar flares are earth directed, in fact most are not. Hence it's the earth directed flares or CMEs that we most need to worry about, those are the ones that makes headline news, with the media reporting the possibility of charged particles causing damage to satellites & producing magnificant auroras. Additionally, solar flares vary in intensity, therefore the effect on exposed astronauts ranges from negligible to dangerous depending on direction & intensity of the flare.
@Daddyo930 - Can we survive exposure to heat? That depends on the heat, duration and level of protection. Can we survive exposure to cold? That depends on how cold it is, duration and level of protection. Can we survive exposure to X-rays? That depends on the intensity of the X-rays, duration and level of protection. Can astronauts fly through solar flares, that depends on the intensity, duration and level of protection. See a pattern?
Why do you assume ALL solar flares are equally dangerous?
@MTMind2 So do you think astronauts can fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares then? Remember, we are the third rock from the sun. That's pretty close in astrological terms. Any coronal mass ejection from the sun within 180 degrees towards our plant and we are going to feel the effects. Can astronauts fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares? I didn't see you refute the fact that apollo 12 launched during a solar flare.
@Daddyo930 - Yes we'll feel SOME effects, but not as much as earth-directed flares! 5 days ago there was an X7 class solar flare. Google 'Largest flare of solar cycle occurred today X6.9 not Earth-directed'. To quote from that article "If they’re directed at Earth, such flares and associated CMEs can create long lasting radiation storms that can harm satellites, communications systems, and even ground-based technologies...". Why don't you accept that earth-directed flares are the most dangerous?
@MTMind2 You do know that solar flares don't just last for a few seconds. They last for hours and sometimes days. Within this time because of the proximity of the earth to the sun, the astrological calculations necessary to avoid these solar flares is way beyond 1969 technology. You would have to know in advance when the solar flare was erupting and for how long. Then you would have to plan routes around each flare. Impossible, even with our current technology. Most definetly BUSTED!
@Daddyo930 - Did you know that the X7 solar flare of 5 days ago (almost twice as powerful as the X4 you keep going on about) has come and gone with negligible effects here on earth? The CME missed us, and even if we had a glancing blow, the effects would have been minor. Now if it had been earth-directed, it would have been a different story. And an increase in the intensity of aurora usually marks such events reaching earth's magnetic field. Was an increase noted at any time during Apollo 12?
@Daddyo930 - As for predicting solar flares, they are no more predictable than earthquakes, so your point is nonsense. NASA knew the risk of flares and were willing to take the risks. Today, despite all our technology, we can't predict exactly when a volcano would erput, but we still have scientists venturing right up to the mouths of active volcanoes to collect samples of freshly released rock in the form of lava. Those volcanoes can blow at any moment, but it's a risk they're willing to take!
@MTMind2 Stop trying to change the subject. I am talking specifically about solar flares during the apollo 12 mission in 1969. Some of the X class solar flares were directed toward earth. If you wish to refute this fact then I would refer you to the chart on page 87. It gives astrological coordinates of the flare. Those coordinates from the sun are pointing towards this planet. Can astronauts survive a direct hit from X4 class solar flares for an hour?
@Daddyo930 - LOL! That IS the subject. You are claiming astronauts can't be in space at the same time as an X4 solar flare. The fact is, if that solar flare was not earth-directed, then the answer is YES, and yes for the X7 solar flare that occured 5 days ago with negigible effects to earth. IF however that X4 solar flare resulted in a CME which was directed towards earth, THEN they could have been fatally injured. So where's your evidence that the X4 flare back then was earth-bound?
@MTMind2 Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 87. Column 7: Heliocentric position of LDE flare, the second line giving the heliographic longitude of the LDE flare. Apollo 12 was indeed in the direct path of some of these X4 class solar flares. Anything else before you knock your king over and concede defeat? Checkmate. Thanks for playing. Too bad you thought this was a game.
@Daddyo930 - Lol no, you're assuming Apollo 12 was in the direct path just as you assumed ALL solar flares are a danger to astronauts. I asked for evidence, not simplistic assumptions. So try again. Specify the actually flare involved with a link to evidence that it resulted in a CME producing high-speed particles that bombarded the earth. You're the one making the claims, so you provide the evidence.
@Daddyo930 "Some of the X class solar flares were directed toward earth."
Which ones specifically? How do you know this? The lat/lon information in the chart you provided seems to say otherwise as none of them was on the sun's equator. I would think to be aimed at the earth it would have to be along the equator since that is where the plane of the ecliptic is.
The two questions you keep failing to answer for me are that and how much actually reaches earth.
@SirMildred76 So the only way to be affected by X class solar flares is if your in the direct path? Is that what your saying now? Do you know what heliocentric means? Having the sun as the center. Heliographic longitude On the sun, angular distance east or west from given point on the equator of the sun. The data clearly shows that the astronauts would have had to fly through or navigate around these flares that lasted for hours. That is impossible. Saved again by cut and paste. I hate typing.
@SirMildred76 Heliocentric position is important if you want to understand the apollo's position in relation to the earth and the sun at that time. The heliographic longitude is an important astronomical data point also. The data provided clearly shows that apollo 12 would have not been able to fly in a straight line to the moon like they claim without flying through a solar flare. Do you get it now or is the data provided not correct in some way?
@Daddyo930 "The data provided clearly shows that apollo 12 would have not been able to fly in a straight line to the moon like they claim without flying through a solar flare."
Which flare specifically? What is the range in longitude would those in Earth orbit have to worry about. Certainly latitude has to be taken in to acocunt, too, right? Again, I'm a little surprised that it wouldn't have to very close to the sun's equator since that would put it close to the plane of the ecliptic.
Another issue you haven't yet addressed is your claim that it is the "electromagnetic shell" that protects us from the gamma rays, when every source I have found says otherwise, that it is the ionosphere. And of course there are plenty of manned missions above the ionosphere.
Of course if you want to keep up with your original claim, you still have to explain how the russians were able to send animals in to lunar orbit without them being fried from these flares.
@SirMildred76 Hmm. You seem to be dodging now. Is the information regarding the heliocentric and heliographic coordinates of the solar flares correct or not? We will talk about shells and russians later. Arethe coordinates of the solar flares correct or not?
@Daddyo930 - You're the one who's dodging. I asked you to specify which X-class flare resulted in a coronal mass ejection towards earth. And do note that a solar flare and CME are not the same, one can happen without the other! The main danger from a flare is radiation, which will reach earth 1-2 hours later, a CME produces a high-speed particles which could be fatal to astronauts and typically takes about 3-4 days to reach earth, providing more specular auroras but possibly damaging satellites.
@Daddyo930 - So as I demonstrated before, the only radiation of concern from a solar flare are X-rays and gamma rays, but since neither are affected by magnetism, so astronauts in earth orbit are no more protected than those on the moon. The stream of particles from a CME are a different matter, they are affected by earth's magnetic field (hence the auroras), but some can still get through to damage satellites and astronauts during spacewalks, but beyond the magn. field, there's no protection.
@MTMind2 "as I demonstrated before, the only radiation of concern from a solar flare are X-rays and gamma rays, but since neither are affected by magnetism, so astronauts in earth orbit are no more protected than those on the moon."
Notice how we are both pretty much saying the same thing, but he refuses to address this very simple point to either of us? He just keeps asking me "is the data correct? Yes or no?!?" I truly thought it was rhetorical question. I'm getting bored...
@Daddyo930 Please do not interpret my question as dodging, please interpret it as a question for I am not that knowledgeable on the subject. I would interpret the helographic lat/log as being locations on the sun. And I would think that if a flare is far enough north or south on the sun the flare would fling off radiation in a direction that would take it over or under the plane of the ecliptic, minimising the effects felt on Earth and in Earth's orbit. Is this interpretation incorrect?
@Daddyo930 "We will talk about shells and russians later."
Please note that I brought up the issue of what protects the Earth, the ionosphere of the magnetic shell, long before you brought up the heliographic latitude and longitude. Come to think of it I asked if the radiation from flares was directional, too. You haven't really answered these question over these few days. If you need more time to research, that's fine, but you should admit to not being so certain of your conclusion, then.
@SirMildred76 Is the heliocentric and heliographic longitude data in Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971 correct or not? These are simple data points. Are they correct or not? Did NASA somehow get this info wrong?
@Daddyo930 How would I know if it is correct or not? I would assume that they are correct. What does your question have to do with anything. Seriously, you accuse ME of dodging questions?
Is my interpretation of the data correct or not? Are the flares directional or not? Is the Earth protected from gamma rays by the ionosphere or the magnetic shell? Why are you so certain in your conclusions if you don't know the answer to these simply questions? Are you actually all that certain?
@SirMildred76 You assume that the data is correct? Well, if you asume that the data is correct then it shows apollo 12 in the middle of a solar flare for 12+ hours. Can astronauts fly through M3 and X5 class solar flares? Impossible with the shielding apollo 12 had.
@Daddyo930 "if you asume that the data is correct then it shows apollo 12 in the middle of a solar flare for 12+ hours. Can astronauts fly through M3 and X5 class solar flares?"
Well, that *is* the question at hand. I posted a quote from a scientist knowledgable on the subject that says yes, they *can* fly through even the worse flares, you never challenged that. You also refuse to answer some pretty basic questions that I've asked you about the directionality of flares among questions.
@Daddyo930 "Impossible with the shielding apollo 12 had." Considering it is the ionosphere that protects us from gamma rays, if it is impossible for Apollo 12, it would be impossible for the ISS, for Mir, for the Shuttle, and anything else above the ionosphere. How do you reconcile this? You either have to abandon the gamma rays as being an issue and find something else about the flares to continue believing your conclusion. Or maybe conclude that all space missions are fake?
@SirMildred76 According to NASA, apollo 12 took off and left the protection of the ionosphere in a few minutes. They would have been in deep space when the solar flare erupted and would have had no protection against the radiation. The first solar flare started on November 17, 1969 at 17:01 hours. Apollo had left the ionosphere by then. The assertion about the ionosphere makes no sense as apollo would have left it in minutes after liftoff. Is that correct?
@Daddyo930 I bring up the ionosphere because, as I've pointed out in the previous comment and many before, if you believe the Apollo would be unprotected (and you still haven't address the quote from the scientist who is actually knowedgable on the subject who says they *would* be protected*) then so would any other manned craft above the ionosphere. You either would have to believe all of those are hoaxes too, or that your conclusion is incorrect. So which is it? These are simple questions.
@SirMildred76 Then you need to show me the peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that would indicate the apollo astronauts would be protected by the ionosphere past 500 miles. Pure bad astrophysics is what your talking now. If that were the case, we would have a Walmart on the moon.
@Daddyo930 Could I ask you for the same sort of evidence? Do you have a peer reviewer paper published in a scientific journal that says they *couldn't* survive those sorts of trips in space? At least I have shown you a quote from a knowledgable scientist. You can't even provide that.
And you can't even answer any of the very simple questions I have asked time and time again.
Does the directionality of the flare matter?
Is it the ionosphere of magnetic shield protecting us from gamma rays?
@Daddyo930 "Then you need to show me the peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that would indicate the apollo astronauts would be protected by the ionosphere past 500 miles."
Wait.. you think that is what I'm claiming? I'm pretty sure you understand that the ionosphere does not extend up that high. You know the ISS and the shuttle orbit above the ionosphere. This is why your "gamma ray" arguement is pretty much bunk because it is the ionosphere that protects from gamma rays.
@Daddyo930 - To quote LunarTuner from another topic: "Search "Sickening Solar Flares". It recounts a class X7 flare, Jan 20, 2005 called "NOAA 720" (stronger than those during A-12). It generated over 100 MeV. Physicist, Dr. Francis Cucinotta calls it non-lethal".
Debunking your claim of lethal flares during A-12.
So whilst we 'armchair experts' may use our limited knowledge to argue here on youtube, what really matters are the views of the experts in the field, ie. professional physicists :)
@MTMind2 Do you remember Watergate? Has the american government ever lied to the public? Yes. Has the american government lied to it's people after Watergate? Iran-Contra, selling cocain in the inner city to fund Nicaraguan rebels and weapon sales to Iran. Yes. Why should I believe anything the american government has to say? I believe in science. Numbers don't lie. People do. I see no good reason to believe an organization that took NAZI scientist on board instead of putting them on trial.
@Daddyo930 - Ah yes, that old time classic which conspiracy believers kept in a glass front box with the words 'In case of Emergency - Break Glass' written on the front :)
It's been over 40 years since the first Apollo moon landings, and yet you believe that you have discovered something that NO physicist from any country throughout the world in over 40 years has discovered? You are right and ALL the physicists are wrong? You are so smart and ALL those physicists are so dumb? R-i-g-h-t. :-D
@MTMind2 Wrong. I have the courage to defend the truth. An old African saying "the truth may pass through the fire but it will not be burned". Will you now deny that people can't be bought? Are you saying that if someone came to you and threatened you and everyone you know with death that you would stand up and do the right thing? You would prostitute yourself just like everyone else did. Your not ready to die for the truth. I am. My soul does not have a pricetag on it. Not for sale.
@Daddyo930 - So you believe physicists from countries not friendly towards the USA, from countries that are enemies of the USA, countries who would like nothing better than to 'prove' astronauts couldn't survive on the moon under those conditions, have ALL been bought? They are ALL lying? Please. There's also a saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", referring to people like you who think they're more expert than they are. Also, those who claim to be courageous are often the reverse.
@MTMind2 Here are the facts from NASA regarding solar flares. The amount of energy released is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time. How much energy is that? Do you think you could fly a spacecraft through millions of 100 megaton bombs exploding at the same time? How fare in space would that kind of energy be capable of reaching given that it's being sped up to near the speed of light? 27 ergs per second is death and you know it. Totally BUSTED!
@Daddyo930 - The amount of energy being quoted there is from the flare on the Sun, 93 million miles away!!! After spreading out from the solar surface and travelling 93 million miles, a tiny fraction of that energy hits the earth/moon. So what matters is how much energy reaches here, not how much energy is released there! The fact that you still don't understand that is laughable, it really is. Oh but of course, everyone (including physicists) are so dumb and you are so smart and courageous. :-)
@MTMind2 Lets see...Your saying that atomic elements with half lives of more than one decade sped up to near the speed of light would lose most of their radioactivity by the time it reached here? I don't think so. Now your just making yourself look like a sophomore.
@Daddyo930 - To quote that saying again "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and you clearly have very little knowledge. I look forward to your links to professional physicists/scientists who are experts on radiation (and those who have written peer-reviewed papers btw, not some quack on a website :-)), who says that all X4 flares would have been fatal to astronauts on the moon, contradicting the scientist who said even an X7 flare wouldn't have been fatal to Apollo astronauts.
@MTMind2 You do understand that every element in the periodic table can be found in solar flares and galactic cosmic rays? Is this true? Am I just making things up now? Is every element on the periodic table to be found in our sun? Yes or no?
@Daddyo930 - Again, I look forward to your links to professional physicists/scientists who are experts on radiation (& those who have written peer-reviewed papers btw, not some quack on a website :-)), who says that all X4 flares would have been fatal to astronauts on the moon, contradicting the scientist who said even an X7 flare wouldn't have been fatal to Apollo astronauts.
Your arrogance, ignorance & inflated ego has been very entertaining, thanks, but time to get some sleep now. Goodnight.
@Daddyo930 "Your saying that atomic elements with half lives of more than one decade sped up to near the speed of light would lose most of their radioactivity by the time it reached here?"
You tell us. You obviously think you know something about this subject. But every time I ask you about the specifics you just ignore my questions. You accused me of dodging the question once but do can you honestly say you haven't had a fair chance to answer the questions I have put to you?
@Daddyo930 "Do you remember Watergate?" Oh the bungled conspiracy of maybe a dozen people that Nixon couldn't keep covered up. Yeah, in contrast to the conspiracy involving thousands of people that they have managed to keep covered up for 40 years? You really think bringing up Watergate is going to help your case?
"I believe in science. Numbers don't lie."
Still no answers on those simple questions about the ionosphere and flares being directional. You've abandoned the science.
@Daddyo930 "I see no good reason to believe an organization that took NAZI scientist on board instead of putting them on trial."
Are Nazis known for being really good at faking moon landings or something? I always thought they were known for being damn good rocket scientists. I'm sure NASA was hardly thrilled at hiring NAZIS, but maybe they did because they had something really important to offer to the project. Again, you aren't helping your case, and you aren't talking about the science.
@Daddyo930 - So the issue here is not radiation in the form of alpha, beta, gamma or X-rays, the issue is mostly high-speed charged particles blasted out during a coronal mass ejection and cosmic rays. However it's late in my part of the world and hence time for sleep. I'll return later. Good night :)
@Daddyo930 "Well within the electromagnetic shield that surrounds this planet." From what I have read it is the ionosphere that protects us from gamma rays, not the electromagnetic shield. Can you cite a source for that?
Other than the manned missions (that you do not believe happened) there have been missions with animal test subjects, russian missions. The animals survived. Did the russians fake these missions? Is there some other explanation that I'm not thinking of?
@Daddyo930 It seems that the Earth is protected from gamma-rays from the ionosphere, so anything above that would be in danger of being fried from these gamma-ray burst, not just the Apollo capsules. What is protecting the ISS or Space Shuttle from these 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Joule bursts, what is protecting the satellites in low-earth orbit and higher up? Why is only the Apollo program in question? Can't we dismiss the ISS and all orbiting satellites as a hoax too?
@SirMildred76 Did I ever say anything about the ISS or satellites in orbit? No. We are talking specifically about manned missions to the moon and radiation. Apollo 12 launched November 14 1969. On that day a solar flare erupted and lasted for four hours. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 96. SXR is soft x-ray. You had 4 hours of that heading towards this planet on November 14. No way. BUSTED! FAKE!
@yesiamawizardjonny "This "evidence" sucks." Care to explain? Is it just a strange coincidence that the footage they shot in REAL 1/6 G just happens to match exactly the footage taken on the moon (on the first try!)
That is a rubbish the way to run in low gravity ! I may not have gone to the Moon ( as anyone ? )but I use power-bock stilts which have big springs on them.
Look at this video on them running, wouldn't someone in low G look more like them ?
That is a rubbish the way to run in low gravity ! I may not have gone to the Moon ( as anyone ? ) but I use power-bock stilts which have big springs on them.
Look at this video on a bocker running, wouldn't someone in low G look more like them ?
I believe we did make it to the moon. But it's weird to think that we only got there through one of the most terrifying and destructive events in human history...ww2. after all I was Germanys hate at Britain for holding out against them that drove them to develope the rocket (V2). And because the allies won, german scientists were able to work on a moon mission. Germany did some terrible things. But their tech and scientific genius sent man to the moon...
MrDeano324 2 months ago
@MrDeano324 We can't run the experiment both ways but it may be that without the world war, we would have had the moon mission sooner or more likely have made a machine like the shuttle sooner and did the moon after it. The US airforce with the X series aircraft were flying to space before the sockets got there.
knowledgemonger 2 months ago
@knowledgemonger
Nah, I dont agree. The war sped up technology tenfold. In fact scientists have said if it wasnt for the tech developed during ww2. 2011 would now look like 1975. Before the war, rockets and balistic missles did not exist at all. The Germans created the first with the V2 (Vengance weapon 2) After the war, the plans for those rockets were sent back to America along with top German scientists to work on a moon mission and a rocket capable of getting them there...
MrDeano324 2 months ago
@MrDeano324 Maybe if we put our money into actual research instead of just that that helps us kill people we might move forward a little quicker. The military only gets credit for advancing technology because it get all the money.
Mozart1220 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger not even close....war made it all possible. War increases the need for new technology a great deal. You make it sound like we only have a limited budget to spend on war & technology....not true, war just justifies the large amounts spent upon advancing technology.
cummingsautocare 2 days ago
@cummingsautocare The budget is always finite. The money that was wasted on killing people and making bombs and the like is lots to the world. WW2 really didn't advance technology much. It just caused the advances to go into practice in large numbers. Technology advanced more in the 1950s than in the 1950s.
knowledgemonger 2 days ago
Nice
pybarra28 2 months ago
The cornercubes that the Apollo crews set up on the moon are still being used nearly every day.
"On Nov. 8, an asteroid named 2005 YU55 will pass within 0.85 lunar distances, about 203,000 miles, of the Earth."
There are interesting things going on in astronomy, far more interesting than made up nonsense about Apollo being a fake. Real facts are almost always better than the best stories that man can invent.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
The Mythbusters took on some real "Well Duh" myths in this program. The shadows at angles, flag waving and slow motion claims are just way too obviously false. Anyone who has really looked around themselves in real life would know that there is just no way that any of these claims could be right. It is not like they were taking on anything but the obvious.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger for the most part I was disappointed with the programme. There wasn't a lot of impressive mythbusting and they didn't choose very many good myths to bust. The only exception was this specific video. It was original, no one else has done this. The put on spacesuits, weighted them down to the proper weight and got in REAL 1/6 G and moved around and it pretty much matched on the first try because the gait we see in the apollo footage comes naturaly in that environment.
SirMildred76 3 months ago
@SirMildred76 Yes, getting the gate to match the 1/6th G is out of the range of what you can do with just some wires. When you add the kicked up dust, it becomes obvious that it simply could not have been faked. There isn't a lot left of the moon myths once you get the various video things out of the way. The scientific measurements and the radio signals and the like are just way too much to explain with any sort of special effects.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@knowledgemonger On top of that I think the LRO photos have been very impressive, I don't think people realise how many times each landing site has been imaged by now.
Just now watched some footage of Colin Powell at UN making the case for invading Iraq to remind me what it really looks like when the government tries to fake something. It was incompetent, short (no 10,000 photos!), & we knew what happened within a few years, because there was a lack of consensus among those in charge.
SirMildred76 3 months ago
THESE GUYS ARE JUST LIARS. WHAT HAPPENED TO MEN? THEY ARE JUST CLOWNS ON TV NOW. TRYING TO CON YOU FOR THE INTEREST OF THE GOV OR THE ZIONIST POLITICAL ROB THE WORLD AGENDA. THESE GUYS KIDS ARE ASHAMED. UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED THAT THE DOLLAR IS IMPORTANT. MORE SO THAN TRUTH. SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT...MOON MISSION FAKING..AND HE'S PERPETUATING THE CON JOB FOR MONEY. WAY TO GO DAD!! MY HERO!
sssssjjjj1 3 months ago
IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!
Smart person: Idiot.
No, not the moon landing, the conspiracy theorists!
Smart person: ??
Ok, because there's so much more evidence FOR landing on the moon than AGAINST (especially in these videos) the freaks know we landed on the moon, but are trying to demoralize the scientific community because they're scared of progress!
Scared conspiracy theorist: LIES!
I have just as much evidence for that theory as you have on us faking the moon landing.
Scared theorist: ......
vidgami46 3 months ago
3:35-3:37, You can see the wires above them flash. Boom Bitch. Myth busters just got busted.
DaveisKu 3 months ago
@DaveisKu Several people have mistaken the antennas for wires. The easiest way to see that the things on the Apollo suits could not be wires is to draw the line from them and check the angle. If those were wires, the person would be pulled to the side.
knowledgemonger 3 months ago
@DaveisKu - It has been proven by many (including myself) that those are NOT wires :)
Hence watch my video and take note of the details that you've missed, such as the two dots that flash a few seconds before the lines you call wires;
/watch?v=domtyECeabA
And here's a few more videos from others regarding those so-called wires;
/watch?v=L9mYWWHREag
/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg
MTMind2 3 months ago
@DaveisKu
So tell me, you honestly think those are wires, right? Why are they angled like that? Shouldn't they be perpendicular to the ground? Why are they so shiney? Why didn't they use something a little less shiney or just paint the wires black? Why can we never see the antennae and the wires at the same time? Why do the antennaes look very obviously like antennaes in the photos? Did you consider any of these questions before you claimed "busted".. or is this just more hoaxnut hubris
SirMildred76 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveisKu "3:35-3:37, You can see the wires above them flash. Boom Bitch. Myth busters just got busted."
Of all the footage they chose they chose that roll of film just to troll idiots like you.
Hoax Nutter just got trolled.
SirMildred76 3 months ago
That pretty much squashed the hoax theories.
smogmontser 3 months ago
arrest the pseudoastronauts
NASACrooks 3 months ago
WHERE'S the VAN ALLEN BELT myth busted? Where's it at? Huh? Any human, with our tech. today would die immediately passing through it's deadly radiation, LET ALONE 43 years ago!!! You have to be stupid or just ignorant to BELIEVE we went to the moon! You all were probably upset, when you were told about, Santa! We'll know the truth, and grow the Phruk up!
stephen2152002 4 months ago
@stephen2152002 Why would they addres the Van Allen belt in this specific video? This video has nothing to do with the Van Allen belt. If you really want that myth to be busted you just have to look around.
You seem very convinced that all the scientists are wrong about the Van Allen belt. You must have some very good information on the subject. Where did you learn about the Van Allen belt and what convinced you that humans are incapable of overcoming it?
SirMildred76 4 months ago
@SirMildred76 I think that there must be a book of a web site with that little gem of misinformation on it. We see a lot of people convinced that the Van Allen belt levels of radiation are high enough to be trouble. In a large number of cases the wording is "deadly radiation". This suggests a singles source for this misinformation. In nearly 100% of the cases, the people making the statements have no numbers. Most of them don't even understand that there are units of measure to these things
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@SirMildred76 Because this topics are just beating around the bush, when the real bust is radiation in space. You don't have to be an expert, this information to out there to educate everyone. WHEN did I say they were wrong? The scientists don't bring it up or avoid the topic and this stupid nonsense makes flat minded people feel confused even more, when in reality, all they have to understand is that it is impossible with all the radiation.
stephen2152002 4 months ago
@stephen2152002 "The scientists don't bring it up or avoid the topic..."
Is that like when you are talking to them? Are you engaging in casual conversation with scientists who specialise in radiation? Are you reading the journals in which they publish? Thats the funny thing about scientists, they tend to like to talk about their speciality quite a bit. But if you aren't going out looking for that, you'll just dismiss it that it doesn't happen. Solipsist.
SirMildred76 4 months ago
@SirMildred76 We still don't know enough about radiation, let alone 43 years ago...otherwise, we would have chernobyl cleaned up, ALONG with 3 mile island, BUT that isn't even close to reality! Heck the Russians admit that they haven't went to the moon, along with everyone else, because they know it's impossible with what we know! Like I said, this is a joke, you don't have to be a scientist to educate yourself on radiation and the van allen belt. The scientists? What scientists? lol
stephen2152002 4 months ago
@stephen2152002 "Heck the Russians admit that they haven't went to the moon, along with everyone else, because they know it's impossible with what we know!"
An ironic statement to make since they DID send animals in to lunar orbit and brought them back. Oh what a surprise, the animals survived.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you about this since you are obviously an expert in this subject, unlike those so-called scientists who refuse to talk about this kinda stuff for some strange reason.
SirMildred76 4 months ago
@SirMildred76 Okay smartypants...let me see that story, because I haven't heard of it. Thank you! And no I never said was an expert when one clearly doesn't have to be one. I am a jack of all trades, but a master of nothing...lol
stephen2152002 4 months ago
@stephen2152002 The russian mission was called Zond-5, it launched in September of 1968 and carried live specimens, banana flies and turtle, in to lunar orbit. The biological experiments were succesful and none of the specimens died on their return trip.
The satellite also carried a recorded human voice message which gave the boys at Jodrell Bank (who monitored most lunar missions) quite a scare when they thought for a moment that cosmonauts had beaten them in to lunar orbit already!
SirMildred76 4 months ago
@SirMildred76 Zond-6 was even more ambitious, it orbited the moon for three days before returning to Earth, but the landing was bungled and the animals which had survived the trip from the moon and back died when the capsule de-pressurised too early.
I hope you find this information helpful in getting to the truth of the matter.
SirMildred76 4 months ago
i am no expert, just a 16 year old very interested in conspiracies. i couldnt help but notice that in part one they said the way adam's helmet and back pack moved was to "earth like". yet when they were on g-one or whatever it's called his back pack and helmet still bounced around as he ran/skipped. in my opinion they cant use that as an example because that is not a real space suit. but i would like to further understand these myths they are busting and more information why they are. any sug.?
kookiekruncher 4 months ago in playlist More videos from MoonMythBusted
@kookiekruncher The Mythbusters is just a TV show aimed at people with very little science background. It is expecting too much to hope that they get everything right. They did show that slowing the film doesn't make the person look like they are on the moon. That is sort of like proving that if you stand out in the rain you will get wet. Changing the speed can't make it work right because it changes both G and the reflexes of the person.
knowledgemonger 4 months ago
@knowledgemonger very true. thanks! :)
kookiekruncher 4 months ago
it isnt hard to replicate apollo missions, just put little effort into jumping and get the same results. physical situation of mythbusters arent the same as apollo crew aswell. its a fake proof of moon landing imo.
Nihatcangorgun 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nihatcangorgun "physical situation of mythbusters arent the same as apollo crew aswell."
They shot in REAL 1/6 G, how much closer a physical situation can you get? They got it right on the first try too.
" its a fake proof of moon landing imo."
Yeah maybe it proves they faked the moon landing and filmed the whole moon set inside an aeroplane to replicate the 1/6 G. Anything is possible.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Nihatcangorgun No, you can never duplicate the results of jumping on the moon by jumping on the earth. In 1/6th G, the jump looks way different. Give it a try and see.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger you speak so certain about it. what if they were not on 1/6 G? what if they were on 1/2 G to prove that its the same on moon? how could we know that they're telling the truth? personally i do not believe these guys because there are lots of assumptions we have to make in order to say: "yeah moon landing can be real and here are the facts to support it" actually there's none.
Nihatcangorgun 5 months ago
@Nihatcangorgun The motion of a person jumping up and then landing again gives you a direct measure of the acceleration of gravity they are experiencing. You can work out the numbers from the physics. You can also check things like the motion of the center of mass of the person as they move. It is best to take a look at shots where they are moving at right angles to the line of sight. You can see the C of G motion and work it out.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@Nihatcangorgun wrote "you speak so certain about it. what if they were not on 1/6 G?" They WERE in 1/6 g. There is no way around it:
watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc&feature=channel_video_title
occhamite 5 months ago
If I'm so full of it, then please tell me that the average energy released during a solar flare isn't 27 ergs per second. Anyone wanna take a shot and convert that to radiation or rads? Damn, that a whopper of a number. There is no way in hell apollo 12 flew through 27 ergs per second. End of story. Case closed.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Yes, you are so full of it, where again you prove that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and yet you believe you are courageous and know more than the physicists and scientists in that field. So where prey tell did you read '27 ergs per second' that you've said a few times now? And where, prey tell, was the location of the said release of energy? In otherwords, where does it say that ALL the energy released by a solar flare reaches earth. I look forward to your reply. :)
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 From the NASA page "What is a Solar Flare". 27 ergs per second is what they say on the page, unless they're terribly mistaken. According to them, energy released by solar flares are picked up by the solar winds and make it to earth in about 2 days. The fastest time recorded for a solar flare to reach earth is 38 minutes. Is NASA somehow totally wrong? I only use peer reviewed information regarding solar flares, galactic cosmic rays and the periodic table.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - WRONG. Once again you prove how ignorant people like yourself think you're smart just because you're able to use google.
I gave you the opportunity to check your info and you STILL didn't get it.
That page CLEARLY says 10 to the POWER of 27 ergs per second (that's a '1' followed by 27 zeros!), with large flare emitting up to 10 to the POWER of 32 ergs per second!
You don't even understand basic mathematics and yet you think you know more than scientists? You are comedy gold, lol!
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 That's a mindblowing amount of ergs per second. You figured it out! And the crowd goes wild! Thank you for showing me exactly how much energy we are dealing with. I said 27 ergs per second. I thought that was al buttload. But then you go and say 10 with 27 zeros. That's an order of magnitude greater. Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. That's how much energy is in a solar flare.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - I'm pleased I've helped you understand what 10 to the power of 27 means. :)
Now let's see what they say at the end of that same paragraph after stating the energy emitted by a flare: "...This energy is ten million times greater than the energy released from a volcanic explosion. On the other hand, it is less than one-tenth of the total energy emitted by the Sun every second".
So, before going any further, and to get things in perspective, consider the relevence of that statement!
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 I made you tell me that number with 27 zeros. It illustrated a very important point. That many ergs per second of energy will fry every atom in your body in less than a second. They said a solar flare is equal to less than 1/10th total energy of the sun ever second. Thank you. How much energy does the sun put out every second. The answer is on the Orders of Magnitude chart on Wikipedia. You keep making my points for me. The energy we are talking about is lethal and not surviveable.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Nice try, but you fail again :-D They said the energy emitted by a flare per second is less than 1/10th the energy emitted by the sun per second, which means for a flare's duration, the total energy emitted by the Sun increases to less than 110% of it's normal output. So tell me, do you believe ALL the energy emitted by the Sun reaches earth? No? Do you know why is doesn't ALL reach earth? If so, then you should know why only a mere fraction of a flare's emittions can reach earth.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 So a solar flare that last for hours or days puts out how much energy then? Do solar flares last longer than a few seconds? Yes. Have there been solar flares that last for hours or days? Yes. Do you keep helping me illustrate my point? Yes. Are you just stumbling about like a blind ogre? Yes.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - And the Sun has been around for about 4.5 billion years and will last for at least another 5 Billion years, hence will be emitting energy throughout the duration of any solar flare, so your point is? So kid, I ask again, does all the energy emitted by the Sun reach earth? Because that is what you're saying if you believe all the energy emitted by a solar flare can reach earth.
But in truth, your ignorance amuses me, keep it up. :-D
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 I merely pointed out the if all the elements in the periodic table can be found in solar flares, it would make perfect science sense to assume that all radioactive elements with half lives >2 days will still be radioactive when the solar flare reaches earth. Solar flares never leave the sun's corona. Coronal mass ejections do. Even if the energy released were reduced by half when it gets here, that would still be enough to fry you like a hot dog in a microwave oven.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - And what I'm pointing out is that a tiny amount of that energy reaches earth. For ALL the energy to reach earth, it would have to be aimed towards us like a laser beam, and that's impossible! Instead, all that energy spreads out from the flare like a giant cone, spreading out into space, getting more diluted with distance. After 93 million miles, the amount that hits us is tiny compared to the source, but may still cause damage. As it moves further away, it becomes weaker still
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - For a better idea of the energy that reaches earth, lookup 'Inverse-square law' on Wikipedia (in fact, it has a diagram there which although has nothing to do with the sun or solar flares, if you imagine 'S' is the sun & the flux lines are particles released by a flare, then it gives a good explanation of why the further away you are, the less you receive). So to recap my earlier point, what's important is how much & what type of energy reaches us, not how much energy is released.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 So your saying that a solar flare reduces itself to being basically harmless and not radioactive by the time it reaches the earth? Ok. Lets take solar flares off the table for a while. We'll deal with them later. Are you familiar with galactic cosmic rays? Galactic cosmic rays are detected all day every day and from every direction in space. These are stars that have exploded millions of years ago. Average energy reading from a GCR: 5 to 10 joules. Can anyone survive exposure to that?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Which part of "but may still cause damage" did you not understand? :) I did not say they were harmless (and I think you know that already), I stated that the intensity reduces with distance (again, read up on the inverse-square law). So again, it's not about how much energy is released, it's about how much and what is received, and hence about how much entered the bodies of the astronauts.
Cosmic rays is a discussion for another time, right now let's just stick to solar flares :)
MTMind2 5 months ago
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
ctcole77 5 months ago
@ctcole77 Really son? Waterboarding is torture. Any evidence gathered from KSM is inadmissable as it is the fruit of torture which was banned by the Geneve Convention. Flight 93 debris was spread out over 3 miles. It was blown out of the air. You have no photographic and forensic evidence to demonstrate what crashed at the pentagon. Why do you post the same questions over and over again. Every time I answer them, you post the same questions. You got issues son.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
but he confessed to Al Jazeera back in 2002 before his capture
ctcole77 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I see you are also making the rubbish claims about cosmic rays here too. I will point out that there are lions in Africa. Lions are deadly. Some people in Africa get killed by lions. The tribes in Africa survive even though some are killed by these deadly lions. It goes much the same for the cells in our body. A few get killed by a cosmic ray as it passes through. The stopping distance for a cosmic ray is very long so only a tiny fraction of the energy is applied.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger Then here's some more rubbish claims from NASA regarding GCR's. Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are the high-energy particles that flow into our solar system from far away in the Galaxy. the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer (CRIS) is specifically designed to look at Galactic Cosmic Rays. All of the natural elements in the periodic table are present in cosmic rays, in roughly the same proportion as they occur in the solar system. Swift has recorded 500 in 5 years. That's 1 satellite.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 You still haven't understood. I suggest that you stop than think about why I have pointed out that there is a massive difference between what you claim and what you paste in here from other sources. You have tried to suggest that there is deadly radiation in space. This latest thing you put in, is a direct contradiction of your claim. You can't seem to grasp why. I have used the analogy of lions and the one of drops of water to try to show you your error.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@knowledgemonger Then point out a specific example. Stop speaking in sweeping generalities. You will have to point out a specific example of numbers or information that I have used that you find specific fault with. Your assertions are just that without evidence, assertions. Show me the exact spot I made the error and then we can discuss it like two rational individuals. Show me the specific massive differences.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "I merely pointed out the if all the elements in the periodic table can be found in solar flares..."
Is that actually the case? Are they found in any meaningful quantities? I was under the impression that only lighter elements up to iron are found in the sun. Heavier elements being created when the star goes nova. I would imagine some trace heavier elements would be found in the sun from previous solar life-death cycles.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 This is from NASA. The solar wind consists mostly of protons and electrons, but it also consists of ions of almost every element in the periodic table. The solar wind emanates from the Sun in all directions. You would logically conclude from NASA's statement that solar flares that come from the sun also have every element in the periodic table. If you have a problem with that, take it up with NASA. Tell them they don't know what they are talking about. Your running in circles now.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I see you are making the same blunder here as over in the other video. Go read the very thing you just pasted in here. Check each word and notice that it contradicts the very claim that you have been making. Now I am feeling sorry for you so here is a clue:
"but it also consists of ions of almost every element in the periodic table."
mendelevium?
of ions of almost every element in the periodic table.
mendelevium?
almost every element
mendelevium?
almost
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 You are correct about the falling amounts: The curve decreases as you move towards iron and then falls like a rock beyond that point. The sun is a second generation star so it has some heavier stuff in it. There is a good reason why I pointed "mendelevium" out to Daddy0930. I was hoping he would google and read but it seems he can't take in the information. Even when he copies and pastes the very things he doesn't get it.
knowledgemonger 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - And to pick up on this comment from you: "I made you tell me that number with 27 zeros".
Made me tell you? You simply didn't understand what 10 to the power of 27 meant, but now thanks to me you do. The fact that you (unlike many teenagers) doesn't understand such basic mathematics shows that you are incapable of interpreting the facts and figures you read (but of course, you are so courageous in seeking the truth and teaching the scientists about their own filed :-D).
MTMind2 5 months ago
mythbusters are soo dodgy
brettbuff 5 months ago
You never addressed the quote that I posted from a scientist who is actually knowledgable on this specific subject:
"An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill."
This is Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center.
Is he lying? Ignorant? Conspiring?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
All you bums from Bad Astronomy just got your eggplants smoked. You run away from the radiation issue like it's well, radioactive! All those post attempting to discredit Einstein's E=mc2 and it's relation to the unit conversion chart. Wow! You guys are falling all over yourselves in a vain attempt to put out the fire. Too late. Radiation in space means that no astronaut can fly through a solar flare of M6 or X4 class and survive. Manned moon mission? BUSTED! TOTALLY FAKE!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table, run by some webmaster is based off of Einsteins E=mc2 theory. Checkmate. In order to disprove that 5 joules/gram = 500,000 rads, you would have to disprove Einstein's theory. Good luck.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Can you go in to a little more detail other than "run by some webmaster" How do you know this webmaster is right? Hardly a "checkmate". As far as the effects of radiation on astronauts, the rate of cateracts in astronauts is MUCH higher than the normal population, evidence that they have been exposed to radiation.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table. If you google it, it will direct you to that site of unitconversion. If the page was bogus, people would have pointed that out by now. Have you done a google search of unitconversion? They seem quite reputable and have many more free online conversion charts. Remember, unit conversion is based off of E=mc2. What exactly would be incorrect about a conversion table based on that theory because that's what it is. Am I incorrect?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Okay, it's an online calculator, I don't see any conclusions being made about the radiation received by the Apollo astronauts. Where are you getting 5 joules/gram?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I haven't found any references to "5 joules/gram" in relation to the apollo program or even any space related subject, so I'm very curious where you get your numbers from and how you are interpreting them.
It seems the worse radiation they might have gotten in the Van Allen Belts is 10-20 rads, and they shouldn't have even gotten that much because their trajectory would have taken them over the worse of it.
1/2 million rads is just not realistic on any level.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Google the "OH MY GOD" particle 1991. 50 joules/gram galactic cosmic ray. Do you know how much 50 joules/gram is in rads? Radiation - Absorbed Dose Conversion Table
50 joules/gram = 5,000,000 rads. This energy unit conversion table is based off of Einstein's E=mc2. We are bombarded with 5 to 10 joule galactic cosmic rays all day and night and from every direction. The only thing protecting us is the electromagnetic shield generated by the planet.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 The wikipedia article on the Oh My God particle says that the particle is EXTREMELY rare, and that most of it's energy is kenetic.
Listing joules/gram is somewhat misleading because of course a single particle isn't going to have a mass anywhere near a gram.
The article mentions "the energy of most cosmic rays is between 10 MeV and 10 GeV" which is no where near "5 to 10 joules" Closer to .00000000005 joules
What exactly are you claiming? That they couldn't shield against this?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 The sun produces cosmic rays also .During such occurrences the intensity of energetic particles in space can increase by a factor of 10^2 to 10^6 for hours to days. Such solar particle events are much more frequent during the active phase of the solar cycle. The maximum energy reached in solar particle events is typically 10 to 100 MeV, occasionally reaching 1 GeV (roughly once a year) to 10 GeV (roughly once a decade) Apollo 12 had 10 solar flares during the mission. FAKED!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "The maximum energy reached in solar particle events is typically 10 to 100 MeV, occasionally reaching 1 GeV (roughly once a year) to 10 GeV (roughly once a decade)"
Do you think that is a lot? How difficult is it to shield against those levels?
"Apollo 12 had 10 solar flares during the mission."
One minor flare was detected by detectors on the outside of the craft but inside detectors did not detect anything because of shielding. Tell us more about these flares during Apollo 12.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Can you shield against a1×10^47 Joule burst? No way. Thats the energy released in an intense gamma ray burst. That would be 10 with 47 zero's joules of power. No. Your gonna fry like a hot dog in a microwave oven. We had 12 solar flares during apollo 12. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971
Thats the data on the solar flares. No way anyone survived that kind of energy.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Thanks for keeping me updated, I'm looking in to it. Good original research, I like it. As far as the gamma ray burst, where are you getting that number. And as far as the energy released, what would be the energy received in Earth orbit? I would assume that it would be quite a bit less.
Also are the gamma ray bursts directional? Or evenly distributed in all directions?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 As I look in to it I'm finding numbers far lower as far as estimates. A comment in an article about the particularly nasty flare in August 1972: "An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headache pill."
I assume you would disagree with these numbers?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 96. Apollo 12 launched during a four hour SXR event. That's soft X-ray. Column 5 on page 96 of the Harvard study represents duration in hours. That would mean SXR 4 hours. Do you know what soft x-ray is and how much energy is released during a solor flare? How could you launch during a solar flare and fly right through it?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Yeah I've looked at the catalogue you mentioned. Interesting reading.
"Do you know what soft x-ray is and how much energy is released during a solor flare?"
Like I asked before, how much is released isn't so important as how much gets to the earth. Not all of the energy that is being released is going to reach the Earth, is it? Inverse square law and all that? So enlighten me, how much energy is released and how much makes it to Earth? Have you calculated that?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 You do know what an X class solar flare is right? How much energy is released during an X class solar flare? A solar flare is a sudden brightening observed over the Sun surface or the solar limb, which is interpreted as a large energy release of up to 6 × 10^25 joules of energy (about a sixth of the total energy output of the Sun each second). If we know that 6 joules/gram = 600,000 rads then we know the apollo 12 mission was totally faked because an X class solar flare during it.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "You do know what an X class solar flare is right? How much energy is released during an X class solar flare?"
I keep asking you to explain why it is important how much is released, as opposed to how much is received here on Earth. How come you haven't addressed this point? How much is released is irrelevant. The sun is pretty damn hot, and no human could possibly survive the heat the sun puts out. But we don't calculate how much heat is received by how much is just released.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "How could you launch during a solar flare and fly right through it?"
Looking over the catalogue it appears to me that the SXR events you are talking about happen on a VERY regular basis. Every page is filled with these events, they happen every few days it seems. Unending for years and years.
If the Apollo capsules can't be exposed to it, why can the ISS and the Space Shuttle and a myriad of other manned craft? Are they all hoaxes? Better protected? Explain it to me.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 All space missions to date have been below 325 miles. Well within the electromagnetic shield that surrounds this planet. As for the data, do you doubt it's veracity? Can you see how many M6 and X4 class events are happening all the time? If you attempt to leave the protective blanket of our electromagnetic shield, you die horribly and quickly.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Actually, gamma rays are not effected by magnetism, hence the earth's magnetic field does not protected us against gamma rays. We are protected by our atmosphere, anyone above our atmosphere, i.e. ISS and Space Shuttle as SirMildred76 said, are exposed to the same gamma ray 'risk' as Apollo astronauts. So given that astronauts have spent significantly more time in orbit than any Apollo mission, the claim that gamma rays are more of a danger beyond earth's magnetic field is false.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Now you wanna ack like you aint never heard of da solar winds. What do solar winds do? Do they accelerate solar particles? How do the solar winds affect solar flares? Do solar winds slow down solar particles? I told you. The ISS, space shuttle and every other mission have been below 350 miles. Can astronauts fly through solar flares? Can you survive 150,000 miles out in space when a M6 or X4 class solar flare erupts? I ask you. Can you fly through a solar flare?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Nice try, but stick to the point raised. Do you or do you not accept the fact that gamma rays are not deflected, reflected, slowed, accelerated or changed in any way by magnetic fields? Yes or no? Science confirms that gamma rays are not affected by magnetism, therefore they will pass through earth's magnetic field as if it wasn't there. Hence astronauts in orbit are subject to the SAME level of gamma radiation as astronauts on the moon. Those are the facts, can you accept them?
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 The magnetic fields of the Galaxy, the solar system, and the Earth have scrambled the flight paths of these particles so much that we can no longer point back to their sources in the Galaxy. If you made a map of the sky with cosmic ray intensities, it would be completely uniform. So we have to determine where cosmic rays come from by indirect means. You might wanna check with NASA before you say that solar flares and GCR and all particles in space don't bounce around.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Nice cut and paste thanks to google, but gamma rays and cosmic rays are completely different. Cosmic rays are affected by magnetism, gamma rays are not. So I ask you again, do you or do you not accept that gamma rays are not affected by magnetism?
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 First of all, lets get our terminology correct. Three types of radiation right? Alpha, Beta and Gamma. These three types of radiation can be found in space in vast quantities. There is no such thing as a ray persay. Ray is a technical term to describe a beam of energy composed of different particles. All the elements in the periodic table can be found in galactic cosmic rays and solar flares. All three types of radiation can be found in GCR's and solar flares. Is there something wrong?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Why do you find that question so difficult to answer? What happens with other particles/radiation is another matter, I'm specifically discussing gamma rays/radiation here with reference to your previous posts and claims. So again, do you or do you know accept that gamma rays are not affected by magnetism? Yes or no? It's a simple question which requires a simple answer.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 I don't see or understand your relevence when we detect gamma radiation in space all the time. The readings of gamma radiation in space never go down to zero. What you say is true. Gamma radiation is not affected by magnetic fields. That just begs the question, where is all the gamma radiation in space coming from then? If gamma radiation travels in a straight line, how come we are detecting uniform amounts in space all the time? Now do you think astronauts can fly through solar flares?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - The point is, Alpha radiation is stopped by a piece of paper, beta radiation can pass through our skin to cause damage, but can be stopped with appropriate protective clothing, hence it's the gamma rays (and X-rays) we need to worry about because they are the most penetrating, passing straight through our bodies, and yet gamma rays and X-rays are not affected by magnetism, therefore the intensity of gamma rays and X-rays within earth orbit is the same as that on the moon.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 So then according to your logic, astronauts should be able to fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares without too much problem right?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - I was typing out my last reply for now as you were posting yours, therefore see my previous post. :)
MTMind2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MTMind2 Then you wont mind if I ask you again: So then according to your logic, astronauts should be able to fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares without too much problem right?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930, why don't you tell us where you're getting your crap from. When you showed us your favorite conversion table, it was easy to see you had no clue how to use it. So, quote your sources and we can talk. Who told you what an M6 and S4 class solar flare is? What do you think it is? Who told you these events took place during a 1969 Apollo mission? Give your references. Quote your sources.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Study done by NASA and Harvard. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 82 for directions on how to read the chart. Page 96 for the information regarding apollo 12. Apollo 12 launched November 14, 1969, during a solar flare according to this data. 23 hours of M6 and X4 class solar flare activity during apollo 12. Impossible if you ask me. Do you think astronauts can fly through solar flares?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Not all solar flares are earth directed, in fact most are not. Hence it's the earth directed flares or CMEs that we most need to worry about, those are the ones that makes headline news, with the media reporting the possibility of charged particles causing damage to satellites & producing magnificant auroras. Additionally, solar flares vary in intensity, therefore the effect on exposed astronauts ranges from negligible to dangerous depending on direction & intensity of the flare.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Can we survive exposure to heat? That depends on the heat, duration and level of protection. Can we survive exposure to cold? That depends on how cold it is, duration and level of protection. Can we survive exposure to X-rays? That depends on the intensity of the X-rays, duration and level of protection. Can astronauts fly through solar flares, that depends on the intensity, duration and level of protection. See a pattern?
Why do you assume ALL solar flares are equally dangerous?
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 So do you think astronauts can fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares then? Remember, we are the third rock from the sun. That's pretty close in astrological terms. Any coronal mass ejection from the sun within 180 degrees towards our plant and we are going to feel the effects. Can astronauts fly through M6 and X4 class solar flares? I didn't see you refute the fact that apollo 12 launched during a solar flare.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Yes we'll feel SOME effects, but not as much as earth-directed flares! 5 days ago there was an X7 class solar flare. Google 'Largest flare of solar cycle occurred today X6.9 not Earth-directed'. To quote from that article "If they’re directed at Earth, such flares and associated CMEs can create long lasting radiation storms that can harm satellites, communications systems, and even ground-based technologies...". Why don't you accept that earth-directed flares are the most dangerous?
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 You do know that solar flares don't just last for a few seconds. They last for hours and sometimes days. Within this time because of the proximity of the earth to the sun, the astrological calculations necessary to avoid these solar flares is way beyond 1969 technology. You would have to know in advance when the solar flare was erupting and for how long. Then you would have to plan routes around each flare. Impossible, even with our current technology. Most definetly BUSTED!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Did you know that the X7 solar flare of 5 days ago (almost twice as powerful as the X4 you keep going on about) has come and gone with negligible effects here on earth? The CME missed us, and even if we had a glancing blow, the effects would have been minor. Now if it had been earth-directed, it would have been a different story. And an increase in the intensity of aurora usually marks such events reaching earth's magnetic field. Was an increase noted at any time during Apollo 12?
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - As for predicting solar flares, they are no more predictable than earthquakes, so your point is nonsense. NASA knew the risk of flares and were willing to take the risks. Today, despite all our technology, we can't predict exactly when a volcano would erput, but we still have scientists venturing right up to the mouths of active volcanoes to collect samples of freshly released rock in the form of lava. Those volcanoes can blow at any moment, but it's a risk they're willing to take!
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Stop trying to change the subject. I am talking specifically about solar flares during the apollo 12 mission in 1969. Some of the X class solar flares were directed toward earth. If you wish to refute this fact then I would refer you to the chart on page 87. It gives astrological coordinates of the flare. Those coordinates from the sun are pointing towards this planet. Can astronauts survive a direct hit from X4 class solar flares for an hour?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - LOL! That IS the subject. You are claiming astronauts can't be in space at the same time as an X4 solar flare. The fact is, if that solar flare was not earth-directed, then the answer is YES, and yes for the X7 solar flare that occured 5 days ago with negigible effects to earth. IF however that X4 solar flare resulted in a CME which was directed towards earth, THEN they could have been fatally injured. So where's your evidence that the X4 flare back then was earth-bound?
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 87. Column 7: Heliocentric position of LDE flare, the second line giving the heliographic longitude of the LDE flare. Apollo 12 was indeed in the direct path of some of these X4 class solar flares. Anything else before you knock your king over and concede defeat? Checkmate. Thanks for playing. Too bad you thought this was a game.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Lol no, you're assuming Apollo 12 was in the direct path just as you assumed ALL solar flares are a danger to astronauts. I asked for evidence, not simplistic assumptions. So try again. Specify the actually flare involved with a link to evidence that it resulted in a CME producing high-speed particles that bombarded the earth. You're the one making the claims, so you provide the evidence.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Some of the X class solar flares were directed toward earth."
Which ones specifically? How do you know this? The lat/lon information in the chart you provided seems to say otherwise as none of them was on the sun's equator. I would think to be aimed at the earth it would have to be along the equator since that is where the plane of the ecliptic is.
The two questions you keep failing to answer for me are that and how much actually reaches earth.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 So the only way to be affected by X class solar flares is if your in the direct path? Is that what your saying now? Do you know what heliocentric means? Having the sun as the center. Heliographic longitude On the sun, angular distance east or west from given point on the equator of the sun. The data clearly shows that the astronauts would have had to fly through or navigate around these flares that lasted for hours. That is impossible. Saved again by cut and paste. I hate typing.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Heliographic longitude On the sun, angular distance east or west from given point on the equator of the sun."
I know what it means, why even bring it up if, as you claim, you'll be fried by the solar flares either way.
"So the only way to be affected by X class solar flares is if your in the direct path? Is that what your saying now?"
That's not what I'm claiming, that is what I am asking. I asked a simple question. What is the difference in intensity being in the path and not?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Heliocentric position is important if you want to understand the apollo's position in relation to the earth and the sun at that time. The heliographic longitude is an important astronomical data point also. The data provided clearly shows that apollo 12 would have not been able to fly in a straight line to the moon like they claim without flying through a solar flare. Do you get it now or is the data provided not correct in some way?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "The data provided clearly shows that apollo 12 would have not been able to fly in a straight line to the moon like they claim without flying through a solar flare."
Which flare specifically? What is the range in longitude would those in Earth orbit have to worry about. Certainly latitude has to be taken in to acocunt, too, right? Again, I'm a little surprised that it wouldn't have to very close to the sun's equator since that would put it close to the plane of the ecliptic.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
Another issue you haven't yet addressed is your claim that it is the "electromagnetic shell" that protects us from the gamma rays, when every source I have found says otherwise, that it is the ionosphere. And of course there are plenty of manned missions above the ionosphere.
Of course if you want to keep up with your original claim, you still have to explain how the russians were able to send animals in to lunar orbit without them being fried from these flares.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Hmm. You seem to be dodging now. Is the information regarding the heliocentric and heliographic coordinates of the solar flares correct or not? We will talk about shells and russians later. Arethe coordinates of the solar flares correct or not?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - You're the one who's dodging. I asked you to specify which X-class flare resulted in a coronal mass ejection towards earth. And do note that a solar flare and CME are not the same, one can happen without the other! The main danger from a flare is radiation, which will reach earth 1-2 hours later, a CME produces a high-speed particles which could be fatal to astronauts and typically takes about 3-4 days to reach earth, providing more specular auroras but possibly damaging satellites.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - So as I demonstrated before, the only radiation of concern from a solar flare are X-rays and gamma rays, but since neither are affected by magnetism, so astronauts in earth orbit are no more protected than those on the moon. The stream of particles from a CME are a different matter, they are affected by earth's magnetic field (hence the auroras), but some can still get through to damage satellites and astronauts during spacewalks, but beyond the magn. field, there's no protection.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 "as I demonstrated before, the only radiation of concern from a solar flare are X-rays and gamma rays, but since neither are affected by magnetism, so astronauts in earth orbit are no more protected than those on the moon."
Notice how we are both pretty much saying the same thing, but he refuses to address this very simple point to either of us? He just keeps asking me "is the data correct? Yes or no?!?" I truly thought it was rhetorical question. I'm getting bored...
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Please do not interpret my question as dodging, please interpret it as a question for I am not that knowledgeable on the subject. I would interpret the helographic lat/log as being locations on the sun. And I would think that if a flare is far enough north or south on the sun the flare would fling off radiation in a direction that would take it over or under the plane of the ecliptic, minimising the effects felt on Earth and in Earth's orbit. Is this interpretation incorrect?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "We will talk about shells and russians later."
Please note that I brought up the issue of what protects the Earth, the ionosphere of the magnetic shell, long before you brought up the heliographic latitude and longitude. Come to think of it I asked if the radiation from flares was directional, too. You haven't really answered these question over these few days. If you need more time to research, that's fine, but you should admit to not being so certain of your conclusion, then.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Is the heliocentric and heliographic longitude data in Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971 correct or not? These are simple data points. Are they correct or not? Did NASA somehow get this info wrong?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 How would I know if it is correct or not? I would assume that they are correct. What does your question have to do with anything. Seriously, you accuse ME of dodging questions?
Is my interpretation of the data correct or not? Are the flares directional or not? Is the Earth protected from gamma rays by the ionosphere or the magnetic shell? Why are you so certain in your conclusions if you don't know the answer to these simply questions? Are you actually all that certain?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 You assume that the data is correct? Well, if you asume that the data is correct then it shows apollo 12 in the middle of a solar flare for 12+ hours. Can astronauts fly through M3 and X5 class solar flares? Impossible with the shielding apollo 12 had.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "if you asume that the data is correct then it shows apollo 12 in the middle of a solar flare for 12+ hours. Can astronauts fly through M3 and X5 class solar flares?"
Well, that *is* the question at hand. I posted a quote from a scientist knowledgable on the subject that says yes, they *can* fly through even the worse flares, you never challenged that. You also refuse to answer some pretty basic questions that I've asked you about the directionality of flares among questions.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Impossible with the shielding apollo 12 had." Considering it is the ionosphere that protects us from gamma rays, if it is impossible for Apollo 12, it would be impossible for the ISS, for Mir, for the Shuttle, and anything else above the ionosphere. How do you reconcile this? You either have to abandon the gamma rays as being an issue and find something else about the flares to continue believing your conclusion. Or maybe conclude that all space missions are fake?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 According to NASA, apollo 12 took off and left the protection of the ionosphere in a few minutes. They would have been in deep space when the solar flare erupted and would have had no protection against the radiation. The first solar flare started on November 17, 1969 at 17:01 hours. Apollo had left the ionosphere by then. The assertion about the ionosphere makes no sense as apollo would have left it in minutes after liftoff. Is that correct?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I bring up the ionosphere because, as I've pointed out in the previous comment and many before, if you believe the Apollo would be unprotected (and you still haven't address the quote from the scientist who is actually knowedgable on the subject who says they *would* be protected*) then so would any other manned craft above the ionosphere. You either would have to believe all of those are hoaxes too, or that your conclusion is incorrect. So which is it? These are simple questions.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Then you need to show me the peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that would indicate the apollo astronauts would be protected by the ionosphere past 500 miles. Pure bad astrophysics is what your talking now. If that were the case, we would have a Walmart on the moon.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Could I ask you for the same sort of evidence? Do you have a peer reviewer paper published in a scientific journal that says they *couldn't* survive those sorts of trips in space? At least I have shown you a quote from a knowledgable scientist. You can't even provide that.
And you can't even answer any of the very simple questions I have asked time and time again.
Does the directionality of the flare matter?
Is it the ionosphere of magnetic shield protecting us from gamma rays?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Then you need to show me the peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that would indicate the apollo astronauts would be protected by the ionosphere past 500 miles."
Wait.. you think that is what I'm claiming? I'm pretty sure you understand that the ionosphere does not extend up that high. You know the ISS and the shuttle orbit above the ionosphere. This is why your "gamma ray" arguement is pretty much bunk because it is the ionosphere that protects from gamma rays.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - To quote LunarTuner from another topic: "Search "Sickening Solar Flares". It recounts a class X7 flare, Jan 20, 2005 called "NOAA 720" (stronger than those during A-12). It generated over 100 MeV. Physicist, Dr. Francis Cucinotta calls it non-lethal".
Debunking your claim of lethal flares during A-12.
So whilst we 'armchair experts' may use our limited knowledge to argue here on youtube, what really matters are the views of the experts in the field, ie. professional physicists :)
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Do you remember Watergate? Has the american government ever lied to the public? Yes. Has the american government lied to it's people after Watergate? Iran-Contra, selling cocain in the inner city to fund Nicaraguan rebels and weapon sales to Iran. Yes. Why should I believe anything the american government has to say? I believe in science. Numbers don't lie. People do. I see no good reason to believe an organization that took NAZI scientist on board instead of putting them on trial.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Ah yes, that old time classic which conspiracy believers kept in a glass front box with the words 'In case of Emergency - Break Glass' written on the front :)
It's been over 40 years since the first Apollo moon landings, and yet you believe that you have discovered something that NO physicist from any country throughout the world in over 40 years has discovered? You are right and ALL the physicists are wrong? You are so smart and ALL those physicists are so dumb? R-i-g-h-t. :-D
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Wrong. I have the courage to defend the truth. An old African saying "the truth may pass through the fire but it will not be burned". Will you now deny that people can't be bought? Are you saying that if someone came to you and threatened you and everyone you know with death that you would stand up and do the right thing? You would prostitute yourself just like everyone else did. Your not ready to die for the truth. I am. My soul does not have a pricetag on it. Not for sale.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - So you believe physicists from countries not friendly towards the USA, from countries that are enemies of the USA, countries who would like nothing better than to 'prove' astronauts couldn't survive on the moon under those conditions, have ALL been bought? They are ALL lying? Please. There's also a saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", referring to people like you who think they're more expert than they are. Also, those who claim to be courageous are often the reverse.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Here are the facts from NASA regarding solar flares. The amount of energy released is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time. How much energy is that? Do you think you could fly a spacecraft through millions of 100 megaton bombs exploding at the same time? How fare in space would that kind of energy be capable of reaching given that it's being sped up to near the speed of light? 27 ergs per second is death and you know it. Totally BUSTED!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - The amount of energy being quoted there is from the flare on the Sun, 93 million miles away!!! After spreading out from the solar surface and travelling 93 million miles, a tiny fraction of that energy hits the earth/moon. So what matters is how much energy reaches here, not how much energy is released there! The fact that you still don't understand that is laughable, it really is. Oh but of course, everyone (including physicists) are so dumb and you are so smart and courageous. :-)
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 Lets see...Your saying that atomic elements with half lives of more than one decade sped up to near the speed of light would lose most of their radioactivity by the time it reached here? I don't think so. Now your just making yourself look like a sophomore.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - To quote that saying again "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and you clearly have very little knowledge. I look forward to your links to professional physicists/scientists who are experts on radiation (and those who have written peer-reviewed papers btw, not some quack on a website :-)), who says that all X4 flares would have been fatal to astronauts on the moon, contradicting the scientist who said even an X7 flare wouldn't have been fatal to Apollo astronauts.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@MTMind2 You do understand that every element in the periodic table can be found in solar flares and galactic cosmic rays? Is this true? Am I just making things up now? Is every element on the periodic table to be found in our sun? Yes or no?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - Again, I look forward to your links to professional physicists/scientists who are experts on radiation (& those who have written peer-reviewed papers btw, not some quack on a website :-)), who says that all X4 flares would have been fatal to astronauts on the moon, contradicting the scientist who said even an X7 flare wouldn't have been fatal to Apollo astronauts.
Your arrogance, ignorance & inflated ego has been very entertaining, thanks, but time to get some sleep now. Goodnight.
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 There certainly seems to be a lot of people asking you to have your worked checked and verified.
Do you think it is because they know you are poorly educated this field, and only wish to see if anyone credible will support your claims?
Have you come to the realization yet, that no-one believes your tripe?
krisdevalle 5 months ago
@krisdevalle I noticed that too. Strange. Now is it true that every element on the periodic table can be found in solar flares? Is this correct?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 "Your saying that atomic elements with half lives of more than one decade sped up to near the speed of light would lose most of their radioactivity by the time it reached here?"
You tell us. You obviously think you know something about this subject. But every time I ask you about the specifics you just ignore my questions. You accused me of dodging the question once but do can you honestly say you haven't had a fair chance to answer the questions I have put to you?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Do you remember Watergate?" Oh the bungled conspiracy of maybe a dozen people that Nixon couldn't keep covered up. Yeah, in contrast to the conspiracy involving thousands of people that they have managed to keep covered up for 40 years? You really think bringing up Watergate is going to help your case?
"I believe in science. Numbers don't lie."
Still no answers on those simple questions about the ionosphere and flares being directional. You've abandoned the science.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "I see no good reason to believe an organization that took NAZI scientist on board instead of putting them on trial."
Are Nazis known for being really good at faking moon landings or something? I always thought they were known for being damn good rocket scientists. I'm sure NASA was hardly thrilled at hiring NAZIS, but maybe they did because they had something really important to offer to the project. Again, you aren't helping your case, and you aren't talking about the science.
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@SirMildred76 Then is it true that every element in the periodic table can be found in solar flares?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 - So the issue here is not radiation in the form of alpha, beta, gamma or X-rays, the issue is mostly high-speed charged particles blasted out during a coronal mass ejection and cosmic rays. However it's late in my part of the world and hence time for sleep. I'll return later. Good night :)
MTMind2 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Well within the electromagnetic shield that surrounds this planet." From what I have read it is the ionosphere that protects us from gamma rays, not the electromagnetic shield. Can you cite a source for that?
Other than the manned missions (that you do not believe happened) there have been missions with animal test subjects, russian missions. The animals survived. Did the russians fake these missions? Is there some other explanation that I'm not thinking of?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 It seems that the Earth is protected from gamma-rays from the ionosphere, so anything above that would be in danger of being fried from these gamma-ray burst, not just the Apollo capsules. What is protecting the ISS or Space Shuttle from these 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Joule bursts, what is protecting the satellites in low-earth orbit and higher up? Why is only the Apollo program in question? Can't we dismiss the ISS and all orbiting satellites as a hoax too?
SirMildred76 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirMildred76 Did I ever say anything about the ISS or satellites in orbit? No. We are talking specifically about manned missions to the moon and radiation. Apollo 12 launched November 14 1969. On that day a solar flare erupted and lasted for four hours. Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. Page 96. SXR is soft x-ray. You had 4 hours of that heading towards this planet on November 14. No way. BUSTED! FAKE!
Daddyo930 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 6 months ago
NIce premeditated attack, mythbusters... Tagging Jarrah... Bring up a good point. This "evidence" sucks.
yesiamawizardjonny 6 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny "This "evidence" sucks." Care to explain? Is it just a strange coincidence that the footage they shot in REAL 1/6 G just happens to match exactly the footage taken on the moon (on the first try!)
SirMildred76 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That is a rubbish the way to run in low gravity ! I may not have gone to the Moon ( as anyone ? )but I use power-bock stilts which have big springs on them.
Look at this video on them running, wouldn't someone in low G look more like them ?
SEARCH for PowerBocking Line
AndyARDK 6 months ago
That is a rubbish the way to run in low gravity ! I may not have gone to the Moon ( as anyone ? ) but I use power-bock stilts which have big springs on them.
Look at this video on a bocker running, wouldn't someone in low G look more like them ?
/watch?v=gsJ953MHtpY&feature=related
AndyARDK 6 months ago