@prosperomage Exactly, but they are used to throw objects here on Earth they did that there for the first time so they should have spin out much faster and then they should have adjusted to the new conditions
@scaloi -- The main differences between the Earth and the moon are: (1) the moon has no atmosphere and (2) the gravity on the moon is 1/6 of the gravity on Earth.
Neither one of these particularly affects how fast things spin.
Gravity only affects how quickly things fall, not how they spin.
And the atmosphere only offers a very tiny amount of resistance to things spinning on Earth, so the difference in the speed they spin would not be much.
@prosperomage Regarding atmosphere it will make a big difference if you consider the shape of the object flat or bulkier objects they should spin faster than on earth.
The Uni Verse follows a fractal pattern of a double torus. The double torus is the result of two opposing forces reaching equilibrium thereby forming a recursive feedback loop. Discuss.
@Psy0psAgent likes to sound all cool and esoteric but often doesn't have a clue what he's talking about or even what he himself has said and tries to cover up his lies by silly little juvenile accusations.
Discuss.
hahaha ...
.
(BTW -- the occult stuff on your profile is really not all that impressive and certainly not intimidating as you claim. If you actually understood the elegant simplicity of the Tao, you wouldn't feel the need to attempt to lord it over others ) ... hahaha
@prosperomage ROFL. So basically you cant prove anything wrong on my page. You obviously dont get the pi hidden in the english language. you have no idea of the research going on. you know nothing of truthiracy3 or santos bonacci, you have no idea the facts that have been discovered that will affect the entire world in a profound way. either that or its ww3. did you look at the bkgrnd pic. i did not draw it. i have nothing to do with it. you attempt to mock me but u cant explain it
@Psy0psAgent oh and btw do you have anything to say about the universe being a dual torus? by discuss i meant for the peasant class reading this to discuss. not to get back to me about the fact that the uni verse is a dual torus. I was also trying to give an example of what i sometimes do. i post a fact. and losers freak out on me. The world is round or oval. Fact. WTF does it have to do with me? Nothing. Your reactions teach me and show those in the know many deeper things.
No matter. Either way with all the distractions. The temperature of the InterPlanetary Medium is 100,000 Kelvin. Thats all for anyone watching. Do your own due diligence and watch out for paid trolls that want to argue, particularily when they draw the subject away from the arguement and onto the man. Thats a nasty girly tactic. Also beware the appeal to authority scam. They try to talk down to you like a flying monkey metermaid cop or a drunk pedo santa.
Oh god, which I dont believe in, Im dealing with a nutcase stalker who has according to chat records been trolling this video for more than 3 months. I have screenshots of the initial conversations. The chat record on the video seems to show the conversation picking up half way. No matter. I was toying with this loser. Sometimes I post one liners & shill dickwads take the bait. It happens. It took 3 days for this sick bitch to give an answer to any viewers instead of demanding ppl give it to him
@centurion180ad -- Oh, good god. Why should there be stars visible?
There aren't stars visible in ANY photographs of the Earth from above the atmosphere, either.
And MANY of THOSE photos aren't even taken by NASA. They're taken by individual, private citizens all over the world. Yes, for only $500, you yourself could send a camera up above 98% of the atmosphere and see if you see stars in your pictures if the camera exposure is set to photograph the ground at the same time in daylight.
@prosperomage There are a very few videos such as Russian (not NASA) Soyuz video, that have not blocked out the stars.
Stars, planets and the Milky Way are bright and are SUPPOSED to be visible, and they would be on the film or in the videos if the shots were actually performed on the moon rather than on a film set.
@centurion180ad -- No. On the contrary, ordinary private citizens such as yourself can, for only about $500, send a camera up above 99% of the atmosphere. This is high enough that, as far as atmospheric interference with light is concerned, it is effectively in "space."
It has been done many times by many people not associated with NASA at all.
ALL such pictures show that, with the camera exposure set to photograph the brightly lit ground, stars do not appear in the views of space.
@centurion180ad Have You ever handled a professional camera? Then You wouldn't have made those ignorant remarks about "stars would be visible" on the moon pictures.
@YDDES I have seen video & still photography where stars are visible along with everything else that ought to meet the eyes. That means that it is perfectly doable with available equipment.
IT also menas that astronauts are liars, when they say they never saw or never remember seeing any stars. They didn't see any frigg'in stars for the moonlanding because they were not in Lunar orbit, they were on a moviemaker's soundstage.
@centurion180ad OK, that means You haven't studied the subject. I don't know what kind of pictures You have seen, and don't take my words for it. Just ask any professional photographer. The astronauts saw stars in space on the way to and from Moon. They even used sextants to get the right angle on the CSM before firing it's engine to adjust the course.
Do an experiment: Take a picture of a landscape a clear, sunny daywith a camera with manual settings. Cont...
@centurion180ad ...cont: Then go out a clear night and take a picture of the starry sky with exactly the same camera-settings. Then we can go on with this discussion before You continue to accuse thousands of people of being liars because of ignorance.
In a non-condescending way I say this - its funny watching us suddenly revert to caveman-like status, picking things up and throwing them to see what they'll do. Kind of humbling. Funny either way. But such basic things had to be re-tried for the first time. Very cool.
Still waiting for which one of the states, c c or r doesnt count in space, and how. A full grown up explanation would be nice. That is all. Thrown out generally. Not to anyone specifically. EL 0 EL. Just tell me how, so everyone here can read it. Total shill. Enjoy.
@Psy0psAgent why oh why isnt this intellectual god over at wikipedia immediately demanding they correct THEIR mistake. Instead he chooses to attack here. I do not see the logic. If he is such a master of thermodynamics, would he not be upset that wikipedia is displaying its mistake to a larger audience than here. Why has super saviour not kicked in to save the day at wiki and help me out? They made a mistake. I corrected it. They changed it back to the wrong answer and this guy hates me lol
@Psy0psAgent How would a vehicle immersed in a medium of temperature of 99,727°C NOT be affected by that temperature? Would like to see this explained rationally.
Addendum to my statement that "space is not a medium":
Space, per se, is not a medium for any type of energy transfer except for electromagnetic radiation.
Other types of energy transfer: Convection, conduction, transfer or conversion of kinetic energy (which is what "convection" really is), chemical energy generation, etc, all require physical contact between particles of matter and not just "space."
Plasma, which is the subject of discussion, is not electromagnetic radiation.
@LifePsyop -- So ... did you figure out why "a vehicle immersed in a [plasma] of temperature of 99,727°C" would NOT necessarily heat up to that temperature?
Or are you not interested in anything outside of your own fantasy world?
I'll give you another hint if you want it: The answer has to do with the fact that is more than one kind of heat energy transfer.
(I'm really curious why some people just disappear when faced with a series of actual facts and a challenge to try to understand them.)
@prosperomage Here, let me explain only how what you do is sinister. Thats all. Look at my user name. I am an avatar. I am here to watch videos and educate myself and others. When I type, I am playing a character who I named Psy0psAgent. Do you grasp this concept? Why do I do this? Because I can walk below other men. Although competant appear incompetant. Sun Tzu. When you walk below others, you can force them to bring out their egos and true nature. You would kick a sick dog. Teach ppl not me.
@Psy0psAgent Did you get that part. Teach people and not me. Your psyche would crack at my background pic and my playlists. You think you're going to explain anything to me. I made you talk like the primate you really are. I brought out your nature. If you have something you know more than anyone, you either walk away or you teach/share. To stand over them glorifying yourself in your secret and tell them they are stupid etc blah blah, it shows what you are. When was the last time you hit a woman
@LifePsyop yea, thats what i simply posted on simple statement for. The temperature of the interplanetary medium is blah blah blah and it sets people off, I type one freakin line and they flip out, demanding this, insults that. Same crap. Different Week.
@Psy0psAgent, Your original post indicated that a "high temperature" in space of 100,000 degrees Kelvin should "heat things up."
Your statement is objectively WRONG.
And the completely wrong nature of it has to do with the way objective nature works and NOT with any statement by NASA or the world's conspiratorial scientists or any other bullshit you might imagine.
You just post made-up crap from your imagination.
It doesn't matter if it's a conscious "lie" or not. It's still made-up crap.
@prosperomage Ok look, now you sound like a shily boy, a lying little shill boy. I never said any such thing. I posted one sentence and one sentence only. I do that. and im known for it. Did it last night, 4 words and it got ppl going on for 30 messages. I posted simply - The temperature of interplanetary space is 99,727°C. THATS IT. That was my first post. A sentence. Whatever happened after that, you brought it with your presumptions. So yea, dirty fuckin liars.
@Psy0psAgent -- Nope. You might want to look up your own posts. You posted:
"Did you know that the interplanetary medium ... has a temperature of about 99,727°C ... Makes me wonder about air conditioning systems in tiny capsules & the like."
.
So to claim that you "posted simply - The temperature of interplanetary space is 99,727°C. THATS IT."
... is either (1) ignorance of your own words or (2) a lie.
@Psy0psAgent, So YOU brought up the subject NOT ONLY of the "temperature of the interplanetary medium" but of heat transferance when YOU posted: "...Makes me wonder about air conditioning systems in tiny capsules & the like."
The MAIN thing I did after that was to question your knowledge of heat transferance.
I am curious now:
When you posted your statement about 30 minutes ago ...
Were you ignorant of your own words? Or were you lying?
Or is there some other explanation for your statement?
@Psy0psAgent -- A reasonable person would only "wonder about air conditioners" and such things if they were concerned about HEAT and heat transferance into an object (which is what "heating it up" is) and NOT merely about the outside temperature.
So, which is it ...?
Ignorance? Ignorance of your own words? Ignorance of objective nature?
Or are you a liar?
(No. I am not calling you a liar here. It is merely one of the options)
@prosperomage Nice of you to veil politeness. Lets see. I have more important things todo. This is a youtube account. If it aint on my page or you dont hear it from me in the flesh, stick it & relook at my name. Fact. I posted ONE sentence, commonly as I do, & watch for reactions. Do not take my quotes out of context. You accused me of being a disinfo agent. You have abandoned arguement right off the bat by attacking me when I posted one sentence. Anything after that was me bedazzling & teasin u
@Psy0psAgent it took 3 days (pretty much) for you to give the answer you demanded be given to you. You played the Im an intellectual coffee house loser authority figure card and again, look at my name. Oh and btw, I dont care anymore. wondering is teasing you to check your presumptions AFTER you had already accused me of being an agent, insults, whatever, etc. I dont care if I said your mommas a whore after you called mine one first. Have a nice day. My page has more than u can handle anyway
@Psy0psAgent AND nothing on my page has anything to do with this page, topic, whatever, unless its just plain science or verifiable fact. Ya know, just yesterday, I watched a video and its contents inspired me to post 7 words. 7 simple words. Thats it. 3 words first sentence. 4 words second sentence. Guess what. 5 pages of messages followed it. So what. I did it here as a fluke. Get over it.
@prosperomage LoL nope and I can prove it. Posted one sentence. You are disqualified from a grown up conversation since I the chat record is right here but you know that most ppl will only see the first comment page. You are dirty and intellectually dishonest. How much you wanna bet and what will it take for your mouthy little stalking ass to look at my background pic. You cannot refute one single thing on my page and that is where you fail. Do not tell me what I do or what I did.
@prosperomage To do what you are doing is the most vile thing any monkey pretending to be a man could do. Do not ever speak to me again. Go away or bet me everything you own under full commercial liability. Get Lost.
@Psy0psAgent says "Do not ever speak to me again. Go away or bet me everything you own under full commercial liability."
Wow ...
What is it? ... You can't stand a little discussion on YouTube with someone who calls you out on your silly elementary errors? You complain about ad hominem statements, but then you spend a page worth of posts doing it yourself.
@Psy0psAgent -- OK. So the "temperature of the interplanetary medium is 100,000 degrees Kelvin."
Nobody is disputing that. THAT statement of yours is correct.
And if you are claiming that people are just going around disputing it, then your claim about their dispute is just another piece of your made-up bullshit.
And, likewise, if you claim that taking three days to respond indicates a lack of credibility, then YOU just flushed YOUR credibility down the toilet by taking over a week.
@Psy0psAgent, The problem (as I already explained and as you don't care to understand) seems to be that you don't know the difference between "temperature" and "heat."
A very, very high "temperature" does NOT necessarilly mean that there is a lot of "heat" that can be transfered from one thing to another.
Do you understand this?
"Yes" or "no" please. It's real simple.
It has NOTHING to do with some esoteric, conspiratorial hidden agenda by the world's scientists. It's just a fact of nature.
@Psy0psAgent -- First of all, you accused me of saying that you didn't post facts. WRONG. I didn't say that you didn't post facts. So you're flat on your ass with that accusation.
What I said is that you didn't post a REFERENCE to a source for facts. Wikipedia is not a valid source. It can be edited by anyone.
So first off, either you're in the habit of twisting peoples words around (basically lying) or else you can't read. So now that we've established that, I guess we can move on ...
@prosperomage 9 different sources and not one of them wiki, get lost asshat, the whole thing was to imply the comment below this one, thats all. all childish distraction bullshit and arguing tactics. took at least 3 days for you to answer the question. i dont lie and dirt bags that resort to such tactics lose credibility, you cant attack SFA on my page or the simple fact, ONE SENTENCE, sets losers like u off all the time. This is the process. Intellectual bullshit baffles brains
@Psy0psAgent, But to understand what I said, you really need to understand the difference between "heat" and "temperature."
Hint: The word "hot" has to do with temperature and NOT with total heat content per se.
Go look up those words and we can continue, IF you're up to actually learning something.
(You don't even have to take my word for any of this. I don't care if you "believe" me or not. What I post are all basic facts of thermodynamics that you can look up pretty much anywhere)
@Psy0psAgent, So ... did you figure out why "a vehicle immersed in a [plasma] of temperature of 99,727°C" would NOT necessarily heat up to that temperature?
Or are you not interested in anything outside of your own fantasy world?
I'll give you another hint if you want it: The answer has to do with the fact that is more than one kind of heat energy transfer.
(I'm really curious why some people just disappear when faced with a series of actual facts and a challenge to try to understand them.)
@prosperomage Oh i did not disappear and you still havent explained to the world here, not me, im an avatar, how its 99,727 on the outside and those monkey astronauts were nice and cozy in their 1960's capsule in suits that wouldnt protect them from any solar or cosmic radiation for that matter. you do not teach by TELLING people how it is without explaining how its done. I can tell what kind of half man you are by the way you reply. The average civilian cant see it, they just fall in line.
@Psy0psAgent -- You say that you're a total shill, trolling the moon landing videos? That figures.
Are you a disinformation agent for the government, trying to make the hoax-theory believers sound stupid or something?
If that's not it, then why such absolute refusal to consider actual reality when we first started talking about "temperature" of "plasma" and its effect on a space ship in interplanetary space?
Dismissal of reality doesn't do the truth any good, no matter what "side" you're on.
@prosperomage Oh yea and btw. fuck you hints. quit acting like a smart mouth kid with a secret and explain it like a man. ffs you think you could act like that in a meeting with real scientists. talk sense or get lost. i just had to listen to some clown telling me how physics worked, he thinks when you drop things they PUSH other things down, get what i mean or no? he was telling me i dont know shit but he couldnt explain it himself, just talked like you.
@prosperomage not necessarily is NOT A FREAKING SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR THE CIVILIAN CLASS PEASENTS READING THIS. Figure that out yet? What the &%*$&! Do you people watch that much tv? Is this how a decade of watching the simpsons has taught you all to talk?
@Psy0psAgent heres what you are doing. you see, its dark outside right, and its cold, so it looks like its dark in space with all those stars at night so it must be cold too. i can interview thousands upon thousands of people that were taught in school that space was an empty cold vacuum between everything in school. now why would that be taught to the peasant class when different knowledge was with the governments and nasa. any thoughts on that? so i want facts, not generalizations & opinions.
@prosperomage Since you're the expert, why don't you clearly and rationally explain the exact effects on the Apollo vehicles and why they were able to withstand the effects, instead of using terms like "tiny amount of matter - tiny amount of heat" What does that even mean? Relative to what?
@LifePsyop -- Why is it that people don't like to think for themselves?
You've looked up a single fact, the "temperature" of the interplanetary medium, and you've based your entire conclusion (heating of an object in space) on that one single fact, without regard for other types of energy transfer or density of the "medium" or even the meaning of the word "temperature."
I told you: A high temperature does NOT necessarilly mean "a lot of heat."
@LifePsyop -- In interplanetary space, the density of your "plasma" is less than 10 particles per cubic centimeter. How much actual heat can that contain? How would it compare to the same temperature in Earth's atmosphere?
@prosperomage How are these sparse particles able to radiate at 99,727 C. But not affect an object moving through them? If their amount of heat is so insignificant, why hasn't it already dissipated by the time it reaches anywhere near Earth or the Moon? What energy force is maintaining their temperature, and why isn't this same force acting on a vehicle occupying the same space?
@LifePsyop -- I think a large part of the confusion is in mixing up the terms "heat" and "temperature." (I said this almost from the beginning.)
Temperature is a measure of magnitude.
Heat is a measure of total amount. It requires both temperature and mass. And the transfer of heat is what is required in order for an object of a particular mass to become "warm."
@LifePsyop -- The relationship between temperature & heat & mass is similar to the relationship between velocity & total kinetic energy & mass. In fact, "heat" in an object IS the kinetic energy of its vibrating particles.
In this relationship, temperature is related to velocity. So think of it this way:
You can have something very small going very fast (like a single bullet going 500 miles per hour). This is a high velocity (like a high "temperature" in a plasma.) But when it hits a large object, what happens to the total energy of the large object? Not much. Very little energy is transfered because the bullet is small and it doesn't move the large object.
( Less than 1 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 of air.) Individual particles can have a relatively high energy (or velocity) compared to the average energy of particles that you might find somewhere else.
But if there aren't enough of them to contain much total energy, then there just isn't very much total energy to transfer to another object.
Thus, as I said, other forms of energy transfer far outweigh the transfer of energy from the plasma.
@prosperomage Ok, I get what you're trying to say about heat transference. So what energy force is causing the particles in space to maintain their velocity, temperature, heat, kinetic energy, etc. ?
@LifePsyop -- If an individual particle goes flying off into space with a certain amount of energy, it's "energy" is a product of its velocity and its mass. (Specifically, it is ½ mv² See the definition of kinetic energy.) Unless it runs into something, the energy of that particle does not ever change because there is nothing to change it.
@LifePsyop -- The particle's velocity & mass is the only energy the thing has (unless some nuclear reaction releases energy, which only happens with the decay of relatively large and rare radioactive atoms).
And, frankly, I don't know why they (whoever "they" is) express basically the velocity of the things in terms of "temperature" but that's really what it is. The total "heat" is the combined energy of all the particles, which, as I showed, is very small for any given volume of space.
@prosperomage -- addendum to my statement about "them" expressing things in terms of "temperature" because my sentence may not be clear:
When I said "that's really what it is" the "IT" that I'm refering to is the VELOCITY of the particles.
When "they" express things in terms of "temperature" it must really be the velocity of the particles that they are refering to because, like I said, their velocity & mass are the only "energy" they have.
@prosperomage But these free electrons do amass in the Earth's magnetic fields and become much more dense, don't they? What happens to the figure of 99,729 C. degrees then? Do they lose velocity subsequently cool down?
@LifePsyop -- Outside of Earth's magnetic field in the "interplanetary medium" which was the subject of the original discussion, basically nothing happens to them until they hit something.
In the vicinity of Earth, a number of things happen to them. In the very thin upper atomosphere, some of them collide with other particles and define the "temperature" of what is called the "thermosphere." Some get trapped in the various bands of the Van Allen belts.
If their "temperature" is 100,000 degrees Kelvin and their density is less than 10 particles per square centimeter, then their actual HEAT is the equivalent of the same amount of air heated to:
@LifePsyop, Oh, one other thing to keep in mind because I've been talking in terms of individual particles:
The term "plasma" refers to ions, which are atoms in which the electrons & nuclei (combinations of protons & neutrons) have been separated. The ionization process, breaking the atoms apart, occurs in the sun. They go flying off into space as individual pieces of atoms
So, it's not like an object which has been "heated up" as we normally think of it. The energy is in their velocity & mass
Answer: Earth's atmosphere contains about 25,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter.
So take the temperature of your "hot plasma" and DIVIDE it by 2,500,000,000,000,000,000
and that's the HEAT available from the interplanetary plasma to warm up your space craft as compared to the heat that would be available from the same volume of air.
.
1 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is a VERY SMALL number. Almost NO heat will transfer from your "hot plasma" to an object in space.
Now: An object in space that contains any heat at all will be radiating that heat out into space (look up "blackbody radiation.")
So with almost NO heat being transfered INTO the object from your plasma, and with the heat that the object contains being radiated AWAY from the object, the object will get very, very cold
... unless it absorbs heat from EM radiation (which is NOT your "plasma.")
Most EM radiation in the solar system is near the visible light spectrum and can be reflected away.
@DrPepperFlayvaSilly "and evil felt how awful goodness was" Got him to speak his answer, now didn't I? teach the peasants, dont bitch and besides, you aint qualified in the slightest, personal attacks are a slimeball tactic and automatically disqualify you from discussion. It also means you cant attack the method to my 'madness' EL 0 EL. I bait shills for a hobby. He and probably you will not look at my page, I have a nice background pic & a cool selection of playlists. Its faaar out man.
@DBZparodier Look at the torque he gave on that pole object at :51 and it is spinning very slow.
Furthermore, how do you know what these materials are made of? Anything in these videos could easily have been faked. Look at the Hammer and Feather hoax.
@LifePsyop Oh hi. Just wandering thru. Did you know that the interplanetary medium. That space between the planets has a temperature of about 99,727°C. I found that interesting. Of course that temperature may range wildly but when I gets to thinkin bout it - seems to me that awfully hot. Makes me wonder about air conditioning systems in tiny capsules & the like. Git my drift.
@Psy0psAgent Thanks. That is interesting. I'm sure there is an answer for that in the ever growing official "NASA: Oh Crap, How do we explain this one? Manual"
@LifePsyop LoL. Wanna see a mistake or possible disinfo. I went to wikipedia, looked up interplanetary medium, kept getting set to interstellar medium. Not the same. Months ago the article was different. said around 1,500 degrees. Now it says 100K (kelvin) which is NOT correct. I edited it. They changed it back. At the top corner of the 100K is a reference link (1) if you click it, it takes you to an article saying 99,727 or 100,000K not 100K. So Im thinking of emailing wiki hmm.
@prosperomage awww muffin. who is this punk from nowhere to speak in such a tone. is your ego attempting to scare me. why dont u be a good primate and give me the equations if you know them instead of attempting to sound smart by talking down to someone random. you dont know jack about me. quit watching tv you talk like bart simpson.
@Psy0psAgent -- No, I'm not "attempting to scare" you.
There is nothing to fear about text on the internet. All I did was to make a statement of fact and a recommendation.
And you're wrong about another thing: I do know something about you. You're silly enough to bring the idea of fear into a statement about thermodynamics.
@prosperomage I know something about you. You talk and thats all. You're a bullshitter. You attack me & not an arguement. You have no class to resort to such a tactic. Wanna sound smart for the world? Then bone up on the unforms, the ship, metals & temperatures. No fear in that and no need to mention such a thing. You are attempting to sound like some authority with SFA to back it up. You just talk. Show me formulas. Show it. I stated a fact. You are the only one that took the bait. Why is that
@Psy0psAgent here we go again with the typical either shill or mouthy programmed civvie. Same crap. Never an equation. Blah blah blah. Show me the math. Yappity yap yap yap. Nuthin. Talk talk talk.
@prosperomage Oh plz. Where did you get the bunk science opinion? Where does this statement come from? The fantasies in your head. Your PRESUMPTION which you presume is fact? You state "A high "temperature" in space does NOT mean that an object there will heat up to that temperature" Excuse me, but are you fucking kidding me? You are no authority on SFA.
@prosperomage The temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C.
"references for facts that are just as good as your references - none.
You demand "formulas." But you don't offer any such things & yet you expect people to just believe you." BLAH BLAH BLAH. I typed a fact from a link on wikipedia & universetoday, nasa, etc & you say i typed no facts. Thats the first thing I posted a fact 8 or so comments down LMAO. YOU ARE A LIAR> nailed. Show me plans to this infinite heat shield
@Psy0psAgent The temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C. Now watch him go. Its like those freaks that snap when I post a simple line like my dog tags wont melt when a plane crashes and they flip out all shill like and call me names and talk talk talk in a condescending tone using any of the 25 tactics of truth suppression but never acting like a man and gettin down to business. Always degrading and derogatory. I typed a fact. He flipped out. Throws the cards in the air.
@prosperomage Well if you could why not tell me. I know how to prove the earth is round. If I says its round and you flip out like a dark age peasant with cognitive dissonance and you say you can prove its not, then do so. Proof of claim is on you. Not to demand SFA from me. Not to say I can tell you which one wont work. WELL IT AINT ABOUT ME SWEETCHEEKS. Im showing you up to the world. Describe in a coherent MAN for the audience, your position of Have a nice day.
@prosperomage Wow, did you see my background pic,.or watch my pharmacratic inquisition playlist. I bet you think they tell you everything cause ur special right? Thats only the start. You should catch up with Dean Clifford, Santos Bonacci, Truthiracy3 and Dennis Fetcho. Lemme guess, your a civilian with a ultra james bond cosmic top secret clearance right? You work for nasa? High school science? .
@Psy0psAgent You have such a dull grey. And I dont mean the greys. Such a dull grey shill moon hoax account. I see thats what you do, troll and freak out using tactics 1 to 5. Gugulanna is a word. Gugulanna it at 666 hotep. EL 0 EL
@Psy0psAgent They lied to us as kids. They told us space was a cold vacuum. Turns out its supposedly mostly a hot plasma. So obviuosly I got some serious questions when I find that out. Dont talk to me like you think ur a cop or santa claus. produce counter facts i have nothing to do with this. I posted a fact to which most people DO NOT KNOW. anything else is your problem. are you trying to distract from that?
@prosperomage nice attemt to distract and bring it back to attack me. you still ignore fact and havent given shit for an explanation. just saying you dont know whatever and walk away is the most cowardly thing to do. I told you junior this aint about me, space is plasma dick, im talking to ppl that read this and so should you. Teach us oh mighty one or fuck off fake messiah.
@Psy0psAgent -- Space is NOT "mostly a hot plasma."
Space is mostly empty space.
Space CONTAINS a "hot plasma" but the plasma is so thin (that means there is almost nothing in it, just in case you don't understand what the word "thin" means, because it's a really really important word in this context) that the plasma is not a major source for heat for large objects in space.
Thermal radiation from the sun (plasma is not thermal radiation) is the main source for heat in space.
@prosperomage The temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C. Now explain your side without talking to me or about me or this avatar and the character it plays loser. Tell any readers how in 1969 the process you spoke of worked. Do Not say anything else but. Explain, tell us about ccr, tell us something except whining, that aint true that aint true, you dont know ha, you dont know, Grow up.
@prosperomage At least we agree that the temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C and that You are not paying attention. You cannot explain anything on my page and youre here spitting pee and vinegar cause I said the temperature. Now why such an emotional attachment do you have. Does 99,727 scare you? U got sunscreen right? Im on holidays, dont bore me out of my celebrations. China went in space, until I seen the bubbles come from the suit.
@LifePsyop -- Interesting response. Do you understand what such a thing as a "question" is?
I was not asserting that this video proves that they are on the moon. Hell, I'm not even asserting that Apollo even went to the moon. All I'm doing is questioning your idiotic assertions.
YOU asserted that you could determine something about the "torque" applied to an object.
Now, can you answer my question?
Or are you admitting that your assertion was bullshit?
I've been watching couple of these videos from the Moon, and this far i have seen astronauts playing golf, kicking rocks, and throwing stuff around?.. Seems littlebit a waste of money and time.
@spurgujukka they worked like dogs actually,enduring extreme risk factors,and yes they were cut a bit of slack for brief periods not only for thier own well being,but for our general curiosity and sometimes amusement,to think they were solely just kicking rocks and and golfing is quite silly to propose
@spurgujukka -- Yes. And what videos on YouTube prove is that when there are several dozen hours of video of a subject, the only thing that gets posted on YouTube are the humorous parts.
The going around and setting up experiments and walking up to the top of that next crater ridge to take more various geological samples is the part that actually gets results but is really really boring to sit and watch.
@prosperomage Not for me, Moon rocks are more expensive than any earth rock. Every one they grab, to me at least, is like watching the recession end. If we went up there again and grabbed 100 pounds, the U.S could make a lot of money selling it off. Moon rocks can also be used to make oxygen and water, which will be kinda important when we start making spaceflight a common occurence(theyll probably find a better way, cheaper way though)
@NasaCriminals "Why did nasa give a fake one to the dutch government in 1969 made of petrified wood?" Because moon rocks are worth millions of dollars, and NASA is a corrupt government institution. And no, these rocks have been verified as authentic by scientists all over the globe, and they were sold to every country that would buy as a gesture of goodwill. Theyre even on the black market.
The Dutch museum has since admitted that they found the item in the personal effects of the deceased politician and mistakenly labeled it as a moon rock before storing it. This has been known for over a year.
Small objects including dust falls back down easily, but men have to wear weighted shoes and bounce around like they're about to float off. Why cant everyone see that this is fake.
@BufirdMauhaney you are too stupid we really went there you can shoot a laser at the moon and it will bounce back at you because astronauts put a retro reflector on the moon if you have 100,00 dollars you can prove that we been to the moon. If you cant believe it you are just too stupid to breath air
@BufirdMauhaney The moon's gravitational pull is 1/6 that of the earth. Now, take a deep breath, let it out slowly and think a little ........ think....... think...... If you weighed 200lbs here on earth and how that same weight would feel on the moon and how very different your earthy movements would be. Simple arithmetic. Maybe you need a calculator? { HINT: divide 200 by 6 } Maybe then the weighted shoes might have some meaning for you.
The only people who "see that this is fake" are idiots who see what they want to see. There is nothing wrong with the way the astronauts are moving or which the objects fall, it is consistant with what 1/6 gravity would look like. You are a stupid fuck shit.
@BufirdMauhaney anybody with a fucking brain in thier head knows man went to the moon 6 times,any scientist who is a real scientist will tell u that,hell even a 6 year old would know reality from a fake,its a basic human knoledge of reality. its comments like yours that possibly angers people,because its gross stupidity at its most highest
ALL objects in ALL videos, whether its the dust or tools or sample bags or the astronauts as they run and jump or a feather that gets dropped .... ALL objects follow the same parabolic trajectory and show the same exact acceleration due to gravity.
ALL objects in ALL videos, whether its the dust or tools or sample bags or the astronauts as they run and jump or a feather that gets dropped ... ALL objects follow the same parabolic trajectory and show the same exact acceleration due to gravity.
@sillysausage0 Well, I am not sure about it being done on the earth or on the moon myself. I do believe it was all produced into slow motion whether on the moon or on the earth. If it were I jumping on the moon, it would look fast on the ascent because quick reflection yet slow on the descent due to the 1/6 gravity. I see this slow motion jumping action being presented in all these videos. Look at basketball players or even yourself jumping, and it's fast on the ascent. I have reasonable doubt!
@yahokobbenyah it was not produced in slow motion. Find some parabolic flight videos and see how slowed down every motion looks in low gravity. Your doubt is far from being reasonable because it is only based on your experience with earth's gravity.
@yahokobbenyah I do get what your saying, but falling objects on earth are slower largly due to air resistance. On the moon, there isn't any air resistance, so they can fall faster. And would they ascend quickly? Even on earth, objects lose momentum and slow down fast. Also, are you sure that these clips are slow, or just really big throws? Remember that gravity is weaker there so you can throw a lot further than you could on earth.
Please don't believe the hoaxtards. That way madness lies.
@sillysausage0 watch?v=wFT-5sy0Rik&feature=related Watch this video several times and notice how it looks windy on the moon. There are lots of videos of the "lunar landings" and some have been sped up to twice the speed and looks like regular jumping on bungee chords. I have my doubts they landed on the moon after watching lots of videos of them playing around wherever they were.
@yahokobbenyah -- No. There are no videos at all in which it looks "windy."
Certainly it does not look "windy" in the watch?v=wFT-5sy0Rik video that you referenced. In fact, in that video, after the astronaut twists the pole, the flag swings back and forth and back and forth so many times that it is pretty obvious that there is no air.
First time on the moon and we already throwing garbage. Wonder what the moon would look like in next 500 years.
tubejangki 1 hour ago
It would be sweet if you could just whip it out and take a piss.
nuggz503 22 hours ago
people will litter anywhere : /.......wa wa wa waaaaaa.
badheart30 2 days ago
hahaha, it just looks like they are fucking around
beer94 3 days ago
Why the objects rotate so slow?
scaloi 6 days ago
@scaloi ... because when they threw them, they didn't put much spin on them.
When you throw something, you don't have to spin it at all, if you don't want to.
prosperomage 4 days ago
@prosperomage Exactly, but they are used to throw objects here on Earth they did that there for the first time so they should have spin out much faster and then they should have adjusted to the new conditions
scaloi 4 days ago
@scaloi -- The main differences between the Earth and the moon are: (1) the moon has no atmosphere and (2) the gravity on the moon is 1/6 of the gravity on Earth.
Neither one of these particularly affects how fast things spin.
Gravity only affects how quickly things fall, not how they spin.
And the atmosphere only offers a very tiny amount of resistance to things spinning on Earth, so the difference in the speed they spin would not be much.
prosperomage 4 days ago
@prosperomage Regarding atmosphere it will make a big difference if you consider the shape of the object flat or bulkier objects they should spin faster than on earth.
scaloi 4 days ago
@scaloi The "spinning speed" totally depends on the force the astronaut puts in the spinning. That's impossible to determine by this video.
YDDES 1 day ago
@prosperomage and some objects appear to float, I wander on what? If you look at the flat panel.
scaloi 4 days ago
@scaloi -- Track the trajectory of their center of gravity.
I think you'll find that they go in a perfect parabola.
Of course they "appear to float." They should go much further forward for ever amount of distance that they fall than they would on Earth.
prosperomage 4 days ago
The Uni Verse follows a fractal pattern of a double torus. The double torus is the result of two opposing forces reaching equilibrium thereby forming a recursive feedback loop. Discuss.
LMAO.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent likes to sound all cool and esoteric but often doesn't have a clue what he's talking about or even what he himself has said and tries to cover up his lies by silly little juvenile accusations.
Discuss.
hahaha ...
.
(BTW -- the occult stuff on your profile is really not all that impressive and certainly not intimidating as you claim. If you actually understood the elegant simplicity of the Tao, you wouldn't feel the need to attempt to lord it over others ) ... hahaha
prosperomage 1 week ago
@prosperomage ROFL. So basically you cant prove anything wrong on my page. You obviously dont get the pi hidden in the english language. you have no idea of the research going on. you know nothing of truthiracy3 or santos bonacci, you have no idea the facts that have been discovered that will affect the entire world in a profound way. either that or its ww3. did you look at the bkgrnd pic. i did not draw it. i have nothing to do with it. you attempt to mock me but u cant explain it
Psy0psAgent 5 days ago
@Psy0psAgent oh and btw do you have anything to say about the universe being a dual torus? by discuss i meant for the peasant class reading this to discuss. not to get back to me about the fact that the uni verse is a dual torus. I was also trying to give an example of what i sometimes do. i post a fact. and losers freak out on me. The world is round or oval. Fact. WTF does it have to do with me? Nothing. Your reactions teach me and show those in the know many deeper things.
Psy0psAgent 5 days ago
@Psy0psAgent, My interaction with you my and opinion of your understanding of things can be summed up in one simple set of facts:
(1) You CLAIMED that you "only posted ONE sentence" (that sentence limited to the mention of temperature in the interplanetary medium.)
(2) You IN FACT had posted THREE sentences, the third of which related not just to temperature but also to heat.
THEREFORE: You make claims about your own posts which are, as a matter of your own record, FALSE.
prosperomage 4 days ago
No matter. Either way with all the distractions. The temperature of the InterPlanetary Medium is 100,000 Kelvin. Thats all for anyone watching. Do your own due diligence and watch out for paid trolls that want to argue, particularily when they draw the subject away from the arguement and onto the man. Thats a nasty girly tactic. Also beware the appeal to authority scam. They try to talk down to you like a flying monkey metermaid cop or a drunk pedo santa.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
Oh god, which I dont believe in, Im dealing with a nutcase stalker who has according to chat records been trolling this video for more than 3 months. I have screenshots of the initial conversations. The chat record on the video seems to show the conversation picking up half way. No matter. I was toying with this loser. Sometimes I post one liners & shill dickwads take the bait. It happens. It took 3 days for this sick bitch to give an answer to any viewers instead of demanding ppl give it to him
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
There are NEVER any stars, planets or the Milky Way visible on any Apollo TV video.
NASA astronauts never went to the moon.
centurion180ad 1 week ago
@centurion180ad -- Oh, good god. Why should there be stars visible?
There aren't stars visible in ANY photographs of the Earth from above the atmosphere, either.
And MANY of THOSE photos aren't even taken by NASA. They're taken by individual, private citizens all over the world. Yes, for only $500, you yourself could send a camera up above 98% of the atmosphere and see if you see stars in your pictures if the camera exposure is set to photograph the ground at the same time in daylight.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@prosperomage There are a very few videos such as Russian (not NASA) Soyuz video, that have not blocked out the stars.
Stars, planets and the Milky Way are bright and are SUPPOSED to be visible, and they would be on the film or in the videos if the shots were actually performed on the moon rather than on a film set.
centurion180ad 1 week ago
@centurion180ad -- No. On the contrary, ordinary private citizens such as yourself can, for only about $500, send a camera up above 99% of the atmosphere. This is high enough that, as far as atmospheric interference with light is concerned, it is effectively in "space."
It has been done many times by many people not associated with NASA at all.
ALL such pictures show that, with the camera exposure set to photograph the brightly lit ground, stars do not appear in the views of space.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@centurion180ad Have You ever handled a professional camera? Then You wouldn't have made those ignorant remarks about "stars would be visible" on the moon pictures.
An advice: Check the subject a little more!
YDDES 1 day ago
@YDDES I have seen video & still photography where stars are visible along with everything else that ought to meet the eyes. That means that it is perfectly doable with available equipment.
IT also menas that astronauts are liars, when they say they never saw or never remember seeing any stars. They didn't see any frigg'in stars for the moonlanding because they were not in Lunar orbit, they were on a moviemaker's soundstage.
centurion180ad 19 hours ago
@centurion180ad OK, that means You haven't studied the subject. I don't know what kind of pictures You have seen, and don't take my words for it. Just ask any professional photographer. The astronauts saw stars in space on the way to and from Moon. They even used sextants to get the right angle on the CSM before firing it's engine to adjust the course.
Do an experiment: Take a picture of a landscape a clear, sunny daywith a camera with manual settings. Cont...
YDDES 17 hours ago
@centurion180ad ...cont: Then go out a clear night and take a picture of the starry sky with exactly the same camera-settings. Then we can go on with this discussion before You continue to accuse thousands of people of being liars because of ignorance.
YDDES 17 hours ago
That was five not six
andyyudiche 1 week ago
Slow motion video.
Aeronauticalexplorer 3 weeks ago
In a non-condescending way I say this - its funny watching us suddenly revert to caveman-like status, picking things up and throwing them to see what they'll do. Kind of humbling. Funny either way. But such basic things had to be re-tried for the first time. Very cool.
KRRands 3 weeks ago
the cameras don't have much good quality then the later Apollo missions so i think its like Apollo 12 or 14
theLEGOPOKEMAINIAC 3 weeks ago
Still waiting for which one of the states, c c or r doesnt count in space, and how. A full grown up explanation would be nice. That is all. Thrown out generally. Not to anyone specifically. EL 0 EL. Just tell me how, so everyone here can read it. Total shill. Enjoy.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent why oh why isnt this intellectual god over at wikipedia immediately demanding they correct THEIR mistake. Instead he chooses to attack here. I do not see the logic. If he is such a master of thermodynamics, would he not be upset that wikipedia is displaying its mistake to a larger audience than here. Why has super saviour not kicked in to save the day at wiki and help me out? They made a mistake. I corrected it. They changed it back to the wrong answer and this guy hates me lol
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent How would a vehicle immersed in a medium of temperature of 99,727°C NOT be affected by that temperature? Would like to see this explained rationally.
LifePsyop 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- "How would a vehicle immersed in a medium ... etc."
hahahaha
Space is not a "medium."
And space is not a "plasma."
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
Addendum to my statement that "space is not a medium":
Space, per se, is not a medium for any type of energy transfer except for electromagnetic radiation.
Other types of energy transfer: Convection, conduction, transfer or conversion of kinetic energy (which is what "convection" really is), chemical energy generation, etc, all require physical contact between particles of matter and not just "space."
Plasma, which is the subject of discussion, is not electromagnetic radiation.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- So ... did you figure out why "a vehicle immersed in a [plasma] of temperature of 99,727°C" would NOT necessarily heat up to that temperature?
Or are you not interested in anything outside of your own fantasy world?
I'll give you another hint if you want it: The answer has to do with the fact that is more than one kind of heat energy transfer.
(I'm really curious why some people just disappear when faced with a series of actual facts and a challenge to try to understand them.)
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage Here, let me explain only how what you do is sinister. Thats all. Look at my user name. I am an avatar. I am here to watch videos and educate myself and others. When I type, I am playing a character who I named Psy0psAgent. Do you grasp this concept? Why do I do this? Because I can walk below other men. Although competant appear incompetant. Sun Tzu. When you walk below others, you can force them to bring out their egos and true nature. You would kick a sick dog. Teach ppl not me.
Psy0psAgent 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent Did you get that part. Teach people and not me. Your psyche would crack at my background pic and my playlists. You think you're going to explain anything to me. I made you talk like the primate you really are. I brought out your nature. If you have something you know more than anyone, you either walk away or you teach/share. To stand over them glorifying yourself in your secret and tell them they are stupid etc blah blah, it shows what you are. When was the last time you hit a woman
Psy0psAgent 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- Wow. You sure think you're important.
You're an "avatar"? And you're here to teach people?
Oh my goodness. Let me know when you get people bowing down to you and worshiping your vast wisdom. I'll come and have another good laugh.
Are you trying to impress me with Sun Tzu? (The Art of War) and your occult babblings on your profile?
Hahaha ... OK, fine. Have fun with that.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop yea, thats what i simply posted on simple statement for. The temperature of the interplanetary medium is blah blah blah and it sets people off, I type one freakin line and they flip out, demanding this, insults that. Same crap. Different Week.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent, Your original post indicated that a "high temperature" in space of 100,000 degrees Kelvin should "heat things up."
Your statement is objectively WRONG.
And the completely wrong nature of it has to do with the way objective nature works and NOT with any statement by NASA or the world's conspiratorial scientists or any other bullshit you might imagine.
You just post made-up crap from your imagination.
It doesn't matter if it's a conscious "lie" or not. It's still made-up crap.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@prosperomage Ok look, now you sound like a shily boy, a lying little shill boy. I never said any such thing. I posted one sentence and one sentence only. I do that. and im known for it. Did it last night, 4 words and it got ppl going on for 30 messages. I posted simply - The temperature of interplanetary space is 99,727°C. THATS IT. That was my first post. A sentence. Whatever happened after that, you brought it with your presumptions. So yea, dirty fuckin liars.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent -- Nope. You might want to look up your own posts. You posted:
"Did you know that the interplanetary medium ... has a temperature of about 99,727°C ... Makes me wonder about air conditioning systems in tiny capsules & the like."
.
So to claim that you "posted simply - The temperature of interplanetary space is 99,727°C. THATS IT."
... is either (1) ignorance of your own words or (2) a lie.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent, So YOU brought up the subject NOT ONLY of the "temperature of the interplanetary medium" but of heat transferance when YOU posted: "...Makes me wonder about air conditioning systems in tiny capsules & the like."
The MAIN thing I did after that was to question your knowledge of heat transferance.
I am curious now:
When you posted your statement about 30 minutes ago ...
Were you ignorant of your own words? Or were you lying?
Or is there some other explanation for your statement?
prosperomage 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent -- A reasonable person would only "wonder about air conditioners" and such things if they were concerned about HEAT and heat transferance into an object (which is what "heating it up" is) and NOT merely about the outside temperature.
So, which is it ...?
Ignorance? Ignorance of your own words? Ignorance of objective nature?
Or are you a liar?
(No. I am not calling you a liar here. It is merely one of the options)
prosperomage 1 week ago
@prosperomage Nice of you to veil politeness. Lets see. I have more important things todo. This is a youtube account. If it aint on my page or you dont hear it from me in the flesh, stick it & relook at my name. Fact. I posted ONE sentence, commonly as I do, & watch for reactions. Do not take my quotes out of context. You accused me of being a disinfo agent. You have abandoned arguement right off the bat by attacking me when I posted one sentence. Anything after that was me bedazzling & teasin u
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent it took 3 days (pretty much) for you to give the answer you demanded be given to you. You played the Im an intellectual coffee house loser authority figure card and again, look at my name. Oh and btw, I dont care anymore. wondering is teasing you to check your presumptions AFTER you had already accused me of being an agent, insults, whatever, etc. I dont care if I said your mommas a whore after you called mine one first. Have a nice day. My page has more than u can handle anyway
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent AND nothing on my page has anything to do with this page, topic, whatever, unless its just plain science or verifiable fact. Ya know, just yesterday, I watched a video and its contents inspired me to post 7 words. 7 simple words. Thats it. 3 words first sentence. 4 words second sentence. Guess what. 5 pages of messages followed it. So what. I did it here as a fluke. Get over it.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent
FACT: You continue to CLAIM that you originally posted "ONE sentence."
FACT: You originally posted TWO sentences on the subject. One was relevant to temperature; the other was relevant to heat.
FACT: I already quoted your multiple sentences to remind you of them so you have no excuse for continuing to claim that you posted "one sentence."
FACT: YOU LIE.
(You can go and cover up your lie by deleting your first post if you want to, but you and I both know you've been caught)
prosperomage 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent -- Your TWO sentences in which YOU brought up both temperature and heat were BOTH in your FIRST post.
We're NOT talking about "anything after that" as you claim
Again: YOU LIE.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@prosperomage LoL nope and I can prove it. Posted one sentence. You are disqualified from a grown up conversation since I the chat record is right here but you know that most ppl will only see the first comment page. You are dirty and intellectually dishonest. How much you wanna bet and what will it take for your mouthy little stalking ass to look at my background pic. You cannot refute one single thing on my page and that is where you fail. Do not tell me what I do or what I did.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Psy0psAgent said: "nope and I can prove it. Posted one sentence."
WRONG ... and I already proved it. But I'll prove it again:
Your post (2 weeks ago):
Sentence #1: "That space between the planets has a temperature of about 99,727°C."
Sentence #2: "... seems to me that awfully hot."
Sentence #3: "Makes me wonder about air conditioning systems in tiny capsules & the like."
You posted THREE sentences. Especially #3 makes my point. You were NOT just talking about temperature.
You LIE.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@prosperomage To do what you are doing is the most vile thing any monkey pretending to be a man could do. Do not ever speak to me again. Go away or bet me everything you own under full commercial liability. Get Lost.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oooh ... I missed this one. THIS is a jewel.
@Psy0psAgent says "Do not ever speak to me again. Go away or bet me everything you own under full commercial liability."
Wow ...
What is it? ... You can't stand a little discussion on YouTube with someone who calls you out on your silly elementary errors? You complain about ad hominem statements, but then you spend a page worth of posts doing it yourself.
Is that arrogance? or merely juvenile hypocrisy?
prosperomage 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent -- OK. So the "temperature of the interplanetary medium is 100,000 degrees Kelvin."
Nobody is disputing that. THAT statement of yours is correct.
And if you are claiming that people are just going around disputing it, then your claim about their dispute is just another piece of your made-up bullshit.
And, likewise, if you claim that taking three days to respond indicates a lack of credibility, then YOU just flushed YOUR credibility down the toilet by taking over a week.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent, The problem (as I already explained and as you don't care to understand) seems to be that you don't know the difference between "temperature" and "heat."
A very, very high "temperature" does NOT necessarilly mean that there is a lot of "heat" that can be transfered from one thing to another.
Do you understand this?
"Yes" or "no" please. It's real simple.
It has NOTHING to do with some esoteric, conspiratorial hidden agenda by the world's scientists. It's just a fact of nature.
prosperomage 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent -- First of all, you accused me of saying that you didn't post facts. WRONG. I didn't say that you didn't post facts. So you're flat on your ass with that accusation.
What I said is that you didn't post a REFERENCE to a source for facts. Wikipedia is not a valid source. It can be edited by anyone.
So first off, either you're in the habit of twisting peoples words around (basically lying) or else you can't read. So now that we've established that, I guess we can move on ...
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage 9 different sources and not one of them wiki, get lost asshat, the whole thing was to imply the comment below this one, thats all. all childish distraction bullshit and arguing tactics. took at least 3 days for you to answer the question. i dont lie and dirt bags that resort to such tactics lose credibility, you cant attack SFA on my page or the simple fact, ONE SENTENCE, sets losers like u off all the time. This is the process. Intellectual bullshit baffles brains
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent -- Why am I playing a game with you instead of editing Wikipedia? Because it's fun to annoy trolls like you. It's entertainment.
And there you go with the emo shit again. Why do you assume that I "hate" you? That's silly (again). I don't "hate" you. I think you're humorous.
You go and post facts without references;
And I go and post facts without reference;
And you get all emo about it and start in with silly accusations. See? It's funny.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent, But to understand what I said, you really need to understand the difference between "heat" and "temperature."
Hint: The word "hot" has to do with temperature and NOT with total heat content per se.
Go look up those words and we can continue, IF you're up to actually learning something.
(You don't even have to take my word for any of this. I don't care if you "believe" me or not. What I post are all basic facts of thermodynamics that you can look up pretty much anywhere)
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent, So ... did you figure out why "a vehicle immersed in a [plasma] of temperature of 99,727°C" would NOT necessarily heat up to that temperature?
Or are you not interested in anything outside of your own fantasy world?
I'll give you another hint if you want it: The answer has to do with the fact that is more than one kind of heat energy transfer.
(I'm really curious why some people just disappear when faced with a series of actual facts and a challenge to try to understand them.)
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage Oh i did not disappear and you still havent explained to the world here, not me, im an avatar, how its 99,727 on the outside and those monkey astronauts were nice and cozy in their 1960's capsule in suits that wouldnt protect them from any solar or cosmic radiation for that matter. you do not teach by TELLING people how it is without explaining how its done. I can tell what kind of half man you are by the way you reply. The average civilian cant see it, they just fall in line.
Psy0psAgent 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- You say that you're a total shill, trolling the moon landing videos? That figures.
Are you a disinformation agent for the government, trying to make the hoax-theory believers sound stupid or something?
If that's not it, then why such absolute refusal to consider actual reality when we first started talking about "temperature" of "plasma" and its effect on a space ship in interplanetary space?
Dismissal of reality doesn't do the truth any good, no matter what "side" you're on.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage Oh yea and btw. fuck you hints. quit acting like a smart mouth kid with a secret and explain it like a man. ffs you think you could act like that in a meeting with real scientists. talk sense or get lost. i just had to listen to some clown telling me how physics worked, he thinks when you drop things they PUSH other things down, get what i mean or no? he was telling me i dont know shit but he couldnt explain it himself, just talked like you.
Psy0psAgent 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage not necessarily is NOT A FREAKING SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR THE CIVILIAN CLASS PEASENTS READING THIS. Figure that out yet? What the &%*$&! Do you people watch that much tv? Is this how a decade of watching the simpsons has taught you all to talk?
Psy0psAgent 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent heres what you are doing. you see, its dark outside right, and its cold, so it looks like its dark in space with all those stars at night so it must be cold too. i can interview thousands upon thousands of people that were taught in school that space was an empty cold vacuum between everything in school. now why would that be taught to the peasant class when different knowledge was with the governments and nasa. any thoughts on that? so i want facts, not generalizations & opinions.
Psy0psAgent 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- All I wanted to know is if you are up to figuring out why you were wrong in your first posts.
Do you ever question your own conclusions?
Why would an object the size of a space ship heat up to the temperature of the "plasma" of space, if there is almost NO matter in that plasma?
Where would the heat come from?
Do you understand that a tiny tiny amount of matter heated up to a high temperature still has a very TINY amount of heat?
Suggestion: Learn before you try to teach.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage Since you're the expert, why don't you clearly and rationally explain the exact effects on the Apollo vehicles and why they were able to withstand the effects, instead of using terms like "tiny amount of matter - tiny amount of heat" What does that even mean? Relative to what?
LifePsyop 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- Why is it that people don't like to think for themselves?
You've looked up a single fact, the "temperature" of the interplanetary medium, and you've based your entire conclusion (heating of an object in space) on that one single fact, without regard for other types of energy transfer or density of the "medium" or even the meaning of the word "temperature."
I told you: A high temperature does NOT necessarilly mean "a lot of heat."
Heat requires both temperature AND mass.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- In interplanetary space, the density of your "plasma" is less than 10 particles per cubic centimeter. How much actual heat can that contain? How would it compare to the same temperature in Earth's atmosphere?
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage How are these sparse particles able to radiate at 99,727 C. But not affect an object moving through them? If their amount of heat is so insignificant, why hasn't it already dissipated by the time it reaches anywhere near Earth or the Moon? What energy force is maintaining their temperature, and why isn't this same force acting on a vehicle occupying the same space?
LifePsyop 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- I think a large part of the confusion is in mixing up the terms "heat" and "temperature." (I said this almost from the beginning.)
Temperature is a measure of magnitude.
Heat is a measure of total amount. It requires both temperature and mass. And the transfer of heat is what is required in order for an object of a particular mass to become "warm."
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- The relationship between temperature & heat & mass is similar to the relationship between velocity & total kinetic energy & mass. In fact, "heat" in an object IS the kinetic energy of its vibrating particles.
In this relationship, temperature is related to velocity. So think of it this way:
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
You can have something very small going very fast (like a single bullet going 500 miles per hour). This is a high velocity (like a high "temperature" in a plasma.) But when it hits a large object, what happens to the total energy of the large object? Not much. Very little energy is transfered because the bullet is small and it doesn't move the large object.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
Same thing with a plasma of very little density.
( Less than 1 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 of air.) Individual particles can have a relatively high energy (or velocity) compared to the average energy of particles that you might find somewhere else.
But if there aren't enough of them to contain much total energy, then there just isn't very much total energy to transfer to another object.
Thus, as I said, other forms of energy transfer far outweigh the transfer of energy from the plasma.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage Ok, I get what you're trying to say about heat transference. So what energy force is causing the particles in space to maintain their velocity, temperature, heat, kinetic energy, etc. ?
If I
LifePsyop 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop If I throw something heated into space, is it going to maintain that heat?
LifePsyop 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- If an individual particle goes flying off into space with a certain amount of energy, it's "energy" is a product of its velocity and its mass. (Specifically, it is ½ mv² See the definition of kinetic energy.) Unless it runs into something, the energy of that particle does not ever change because there is nothing to change it.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- The particle's velocity & mass is the only energy the thing has (unless some nuclear reaction releases energy, which only happens with the decay of relatively large and rare radioactive atoms).
And, frankly, I don't know why they (whoever "they" is) express basically the velocity of the things in terms of "temperature" but that's really what it is. The total "heat" is the combined energy of all the particles, which, as I showed, is very small for any given volume of space.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage -- addendum to my statement about "them" expressing things in terms of "temperature" because my sentence may not be clear:
When I said "that's really what it is" the "IT" that I'm refering to is the VELOCITY of the particles.
When "they" express things in terms of "temperature" it must really be the velocity of the particles that they are refering to because, like I said, their velocity & mass are the only "energy" they have.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@prosperomage But these free electrons do amass in the Earth's magnetic fields and become much more dense, don't they? What happens to the figure of 99,729 C. degrees then? Do they lose velocity subsequently cool down?
LifePsyop 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- Outside of Earth's magnetic field in the "interplanetary medium" which was the subject of the original discussion, basically nothing happens to them until they hit something.
In the vicinity of Earth, a number of things happen to them. In the very thin upper atomosphere, some of them collide with other particles and define the "temperature" of what is called the "thermosphere." Some get trapped in the various bands of the Van Allen belts.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- But what of it?
If their "temperature" is 100,000 degrees Kelvin and their density is less than 10 particles per square centimeter, then their actual HEAT is the equivalent of the same amount of air heated to:
1 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 X 100,000
or about 0.00000000000004 degrees.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@LifePsyop, Oh, one other thing to keep in mind because I've been talking in terms of individual particles:
The term "plasma" refers to ions, which are atoms in which the electrons & nuclei (combinations of protons & neutrons) have been separated. The ionization process, breaking the atoms apart, occurs in the sun. They go flying off into space as individual pieces of atoms
So, it's not like an object which has been "heated up" as we normally think of it. The energy is in their velocity & mass
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
Answer: Earth's atmosphere contains about 25,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter.
So take the temperature of your "hot plasma" and DIVIDE it by 2,500,000,000,000,000,000
and that's the HEAT available from the interplanetary plasma to warm up your space craft as compared to the heat that would be available from the same volume of air.
.
1 / 2,500,000,000,000,000,000 is a VERY SMALL number. Almost NO heat will transfer from your "hot plasma" to an object in space.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
Now: An object in space that contains any heat at all will be radiating that heat out into space (look up "blackbody radiation.")
So with almost NO heat being transfered INTO the object from your plasma, and with the heat that the object contains being radiated AWAY from the object, the object will get very, very cold
... unless it absorbs heat from EM radiation (which is NOT your "plasma.")
Most EM radiation in the solar system is near the visible light spectrum and can be reflected away.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent - SOCIOPATH.
DrPepperFlayvaSilly 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrPepperFlayvaSilly "and evil felt how awful goodness was" Got him to speak his answer, now didn't I? teach the peasants, dont bitch and besides, you aint qualified in the slightest, personal attacks are a slimeball tactic and automatically disqualify you from discussion. It also means you cant attack the method to my 'madness' EL 0 EL. I bait shills for a hobby. He and probably you will not look at my page, I have a nice background pic & a cool selection of playlists. Its faaar out man.
Psy0psAgent 1 week ago
@Psy0psAgent -- Looking back through your random babblings:
You said: "Show me plans to this infinite heat shield."
There are no "plans." It's called space. Empty space is the best insulator there is for every kind of heat transfer except radiation.
And you said: "Still waiting for which one of the states, c c or r doesnt count in space"
Do you mean conduction, convection, & radiation? If so, you may be smarter than you look. Except you called them "states" but they are really methods.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
Thanks for showing that the astronauts left there garbage behind like we do on earth
topgunexcel 1 month ago
physics.
if you throw something spinny on the moon, it spins like on earth but falls slower.
if you throw something spinny on earth but slow down the video, it falls slower AND spins slower
if you kick a ball 150 feet on earth and slow down the video, it still goes 150 feet but slow
if you kick like that on the moon, it goes slow but travels a lot farther
some things you cannot fake. this is one of them.
DBZparodier 1 month ago
@DBZparodier Look at the torque he gave on that pole object at :51 and it is spinning very slow.
Furthermore, how do you know what these materials are made of? Anything in these videos could easily have been faked. Look at the Hammer and Feather hoax.
LifePsyop 4 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- How can you "look at" torque?
Either:
(1) Tell me how you personally were able to measure the pressure of his hand against the pole as he twisted it when he threw it; OR
(2) Admit that you just make up any old crap that you think sounds like it might support your imaginary argument.
(Failure to answer or avoiding the question constitutes admitting to #2 by default)
prosperomage 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage Getting all skeptical now? Okay.
(1) Show me the proof that they are on the moon.
And sorry, talking about the behavior of "spinny" objects doesn't quite cut it.
It's okay to just say you believe they're on the moon. I have no problem with that. But don't tell me there is "proof" for it anywhere in this video.
LifePsyop 4 weeks ago
@LifePsyop Oh hi. Just wandering thru. Did you know that the interplanetary medium. That space between the planets has a temperature of about 99,727°C. I found that interesting. Of course that temperature may range wildly but when I gets to thinkin bout it - seems to me that awfully hot. Makes me wonder about air conditioning systems in tiny capsules & the like. Git my drift.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent Thanks. That is interesting. I'm sure there is an answer for that in the ever growing official "NASA: Oh Crap, How do we explain this one? Manual"
LifePsyop 4 weeks ago
@LifePsyop LoL. Wanna see a mistake or possible disinfo. I went to wikipedia, looked up interplanetary medium, kept getting set to interstellar medium. Not the same. Months ago the article was different. said around 1,500 degrees. Now it says 100K (kelvin) which is NOT correct. I edited it. They changed it back. At the top corner of the 100K is a reference link (1) if you click it, it takes you to an article saying 99,727 or 100,000K not 100K. So Im thinking of emailing wiki hmm.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- A high "temperature" in space does NOT mean that an object there will heat up to that temperature.
Learn some basics about thermodynamics if you want to draw any conclusions about heat and temperature in space.
prosperomage 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage awww muffin. who is this punk from nowhere to speak in such a tone. is your ego attempting to scare me. why dont u be a good primate and give me the equations if you know them instead of attempting to sound smart by talking down to someone random. you dont know jack about me. quit watching tv you talk like bart simpson.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- No, I'm not "attempting to scare" you.
There is nothing to fear about text on the internet. All I did was to make a statement of fact and a recommendation.
And you're wrong about another thing: I do know something about you. You're silly enough to bring the idea of fear into a statement about thermodynamics.
prosperomage 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage I know something about you. You talk and thats all. You're a bullshitter. You attack me & not an arguement. You have no class to resort to such a tactic. Wanna sound smart for the world? Then bone up on the unforms, the ship, metals & temperatures. No fear in that and no need to mention such a thing. You are attempting to sound like some authority with SFA to back it up. You just talk. Show me formulas. Show it. I stated a fact. You are the only one that took the bait. Why is that
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent here we go again with the typical either shill or mouthy programmed civvie. Same crap. Never an equation. Blah blah blah. Show me the math. Yappity yap yap yap. Nuthin. Talk talk talk.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent How about he helps fix the error on wikipedia.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage Oh plz. Where did you get the bunk science opinion? Where does this statement come from? The fantasies in your head. Your PRESUMPTION which you presume is fact? You state "A high "temperature" in space does NOT mean that an object there will heat up to that temperature" Excuse me, but are you fucking kidding me? You are no authority on SFA.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent, No I am not "fucking kidding [you]." And so far, I have given references for facts that are just as good as your references -- none.
You demand "formulas." But you don't offer any such things and yet you expect people to just believe you.
Tell me this: Name 3 methods of heat transferrance.
And tell which of those ways won't even work in space.
(That's right. No matter how "hot" something is, if the heat can't get to another object, there's no way it will heat the thing up.)
prosperomage 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage The temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C.
"references for facts that are just as good as your references - none.
You demand "formulas." But you don't offer any such things & yet you expect people to just believe you." BLAH BLAH BLAH. I typed a fact from a link on wikipedia & universetoday, nasa, etc & you say i typed no facts. Thats the first thing I posted a fact 8 or so comments down LMAO. YOU ARE A LIAR> nailed. Show me plans to this infinite heat shield
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Psy0psAgent The temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C. Now watch him go. Its like those freaks that snap when I post a simple line like my dog tags wont melt when a plane crashes and they flip out all shill like and call me names and talk talk talk in a condescending tone using any of the 25 tactics of truth suppression but never acting like a man and gettin down to business. Always degrading and derogatory. I typed a fact. He flipped out. Throws the cards in the air.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage Well if you could why not tell me. I know how to prove the earth is round. If I says its round and you flip out like a dark age peasant with cognitive dissonance and you say you can prove its not, then do so. Proof of claim is on you. Not to demand SFA from me. Not to say I can tell you which one wont work. WELL IT AINT ABOUT ME SWEETCHEEKS. Im showing you up to the world. Describe in a coherent MAN for the audience, your position of Have a nice day.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- You're babbling.
prosperomage 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage Wow, did you see my background pic,.or watch my pharmacratic inquisition playlist. I bet you think they tell you everything cause ur special right? Thats only the start. You should catch up with Dean Clifford, Santos Bonacci, Truthiracy3 and Dennis Fetcho. Lemme guess, your a civilian with a ultra james bond cosmic top secret clearance right? You work for nasa? High school science? .
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent You have such a dull grey. And I dont mean the greys. Such a dull grey shill moon hoax account. I see thats what you do, troll and freak out using tactics 1 to 5. Gugulanna is a word. Gugulanna it at 666 hotep. EL 0 EL
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent They lied to us as kids. They told us space was a cold vacuum. Turns out its supposedly mostly a hot plasma. So obviuosly I got some serious questions when I find that out. Dont talk to me like you think ur a cop or santa claus. produce counter facts i have nothing to do with this. I posted a fact to which most people DO NOT KNOW. anything else is your problem. are you trying to distract from that?
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- Space is "mostly a hot plasma"?
hahahaha
I'll bet you probably don't even know the difference between heat and temperature.
prosperomage 4 weeks ago
@prosperomage nice attemt to distract and bring it back to attack me. you still ignore fact and havent given shit for an explanation. just saying you dont know whatever and walk away is the most cowardly thing to do. I told you junior this aint about me, space is plasma dick, im talking to ppl that read this and so should you. Teach us oh mighty one or fuck off fake messiah.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@Psy0psAgent -- Space is NOT "mostly a hot plasma."
Space is mostly empty space.
Space CONTAINS a "hot plasma" but the plasma is so thin (that means there is almost nothing in it, just in case you don't understand what the word "thin" means, because it's a really really important word in this context) that the plasma is not a major source for heat for large objects in space.
Thermal radiation from the sun (plasma is not thermal radiation) is the main source for heat in space.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prosperomage The temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C. Now explain your side without talking to me or about me or this avatar and the character it plays loser. Tell any readers how in 1969 the process you spoke of worked. Do Not say anything else but. Explain, tell us about ccr, tell us something except whining, that aint true that aint true, you dont know ha, you dont know, Grow up.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prosperomage At least we agree that the temperature of the interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C and that You are not paying attention. You cannot explain anything on my page and youre here spitting pee and vinegar cause I said the temperature. Now why such an emotional attachment do you have. Does 99,727 scare you? U got sunscreen right? Im on holidays, dont bore me out of my celebrations. China went in space, until I seen the bubbles come from the suit.
Psy0psAgent 4 weeks ago
@LifePsyop -- Interesting response. Do you understand what such a thing as a "question" is?
I was not asserting that this video proves that they are on the moon. Hell, I'm not even asserting that Apollo even went to the moon. All I'm doing is questioning your idiotic assertions.
YOU asserted that you could determine something about the "torque" applied to an object.
Now, can you answer my question?
Or are you admitting that your assertion was bullshit?
prosperomage 4 weeks ago
NASA = FAKE
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
IF ITS FAKE
ITS NASA
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
The lunar surface's first landfill.
sking0369 1 month ago
Wow, I was specifically looking for clips of people throwing objects on the Moon and found this. Thanks, man!
WispierTetrahedrons 1 month ago
They cut camera just before Alien Overlords came over and told them to pick their shit up.
entropytango 1 month ago
@entropytango lol apollo bullshit :)
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
what they went to the moon to litter
shebabear1 2 months ago
I've been watching couple of these videos from the Moon, and this far i have seen astronauts playing golf, kicking rocks, and throwing stuff around?.. Seems littlebit a waste of money and time.
spurgujukka 2 months ago
@spurgujukka they worked like dogs actually,enduring extreme risk factors,and yes they were cut a bit of slack for brief periods not only for thier own well being,but for our general curiosity and sometimes amusement,to think they were solely just kicking rocks and and golfing is quite silly to propose
guitarnashelter 2 months ago
@spurgujukka -- Yes. And what videos on YouTube prove is that when there are several dozen hours of video of a subject, the only thing that gets posted on YouTube are the humorous parts.
The going around and setting up experiments and walking up to the top of that next crater ridge to take more various geological samples is the part that actually gets results but is really really boring to sit and watch.
prosperomage 2 months ago
@prosperomage Not for me, Moon rocks are more expensive than any earth rock. Every one they grab, to me at least, is like watching the recession end. If we went up there again and grabbed 100 pounds, the U.S could make a lot of money selling it off. Moon rocks can also be used to make oxygen and water, which will be kinda important when we start making spaceflight a common occurence(theyll probably find a better way, cheaper way though)
GDuff123 1 month ago
@GDuff123
Moon rocks are a Hoax
\Why did nasa give a fake one to the dutch government in 1969 made of petrified wood?
They could have given them a meteorite fragment from antartica
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NasaCriminals "Why did nasa give a fake one to the dutch government in 1969 made of petrified wood?" Because moon rocks are worth millions of dollars, and NASA is a corrupt government institution. And no, these rocks have been verified as authentic by scientists all over the globe, and they were sold to every country that would buy as a gesture of goodwill. Theyre even on the black market.
GDuff123 1 month ago
@NasaCriminals
The Dutch museum has since admitted that they found the item in the personal effects of the deceased politician and mistakenly labeled it as a moon rock before storing it. This has been known for over a year.
Where have you been?
Blahblobify 1 month ago
@Blahblobify the TROLL
You are such a dirty liar, you should be in prison
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All these moon vids are so crummily produced. They should have planned their sets and lighting better.
snaredrum110 2 months ago
I THINK IT WOULD BE QUITE EMBARRASSING IF, WITH THE TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE, WE DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE MOON.
MrCHINBAG 2 months ago
Small objects including dust falls back down easily, but men have to wear weighted shoes and bounce around like they're about to float off. Why cant everyone see that this is fake.
BufirdMauhaney 2 months ago
@BufirdMauhaney i pity you
GoodFriendsForever 2 months ago
@GoodFriendsForever I pity you, you've been poisoned by chem-trails.
BufirdMauhaney 2 months ago
@BufirdMauhaney you are too stupid we really went there you can shoot a laser at the moon and it will bounce back at you because astronauts put a retro reflector on the moon if you have 100,00 dollars you can prove that we been to the moon. If you cant believe it you are just too stupid to breath air
GoodFriendsForever 2 months ago
@BufirdMauhaney The moon's gravitational pull is 1/6 that of the earth. Now, take a deep breath, let it out slowly and think a little ........ think....... think...... If you weighed 200lbs here on earth and how that same weight would feel on the moon and how very different your earthy movements would be. Simple arithmetic. Maybe you need a calculator? { HINT: divide 200 by 6 } Maybe then the weighted shoes might have some meaning for you.
LordSauceness 2 months ago
@BufirdMauhaney
The only people who "see that this is fake" are idiots who see what they want to see. There is nothing wrong with the way the astronauts are moving or which the objects fall, it is consistant with what 1/6 gravity would look like. You are a stupid fuck shit.
Blahblobify 2 months ago
@Blahblobify You mad bro? Wow, why does my opinion make you so mad. The only people that believe this have been brainwashed.
BufirdMauhaney 2 months ago
@BufirdMauhaney Because your opinion is full of shit, and as a scientist myself, it offends me. Go back into your hole, troll.
randomite88 2 months ago
@BufirdMauhaney anybody with a fucking brain in thier head knows man went to the moon 6 times,any scientist who is a real scientist will tell u that,hell even a 6 year old would know reality from a fake,its a basic human knoledge of reality. its comments like yours that possibly angers people,because its gross stupidity at its most highest
guitarnashelter 2 months ago
@BufirdMauhaney -- hahaha ... No.
ALL objects in ALL videos, whether its the dust or tools or sample bags or the astronauts as they run and jump or a feather that gets dropped .... ALL objects follow the same parabolic trajectory and show the same exact acceleration due to gravity.
prosperomage 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BufirdMauhaney -- hahaha ... No.
ALL objects in ALL videos, whether its the dust or tools or sample bags or the astronauts as they run and jump or a feather that gets dropped ... ALL objects follow the same parabolic trajectory and show the same exact acceleration due to gravity.
prosperomage 2 months ago
I think the astronauts should all do community service for their part in this.
Honestly, Littering on the Moon?
knshnhmr 2 months ago
@knshnhmr Nobody gives a crap what they throw out in the desert.
snaredrum110 2 months ago
inb4moonlandingwasafake
ThatTrafficCone 2 months ago
0:52 is that a bong?
voikuvoics 2 months ago
People who think that moon landing is a hoax - you didn't believe the moon landing, but you believe the hoax?
brelockUK 2 months ago
Wow they had soo much space in the rocket they could just throw around equipment and bring a dune buggy
keflar5 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NASA
H
O
A
X
APOLLO
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's only 5 clips :|
runlarryrun77 2 months ago
JUST GOT A BRILLAINT IDEA, NEXT TIME BRING FIREWORKS THERE ????
THANX FOR THE ATTENTION, CAPS LOCK REALLY HELPS :D
iSlayedYouLol 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FAKE MOONLANDINGS
Disney always entertains
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
Looks like this was done on earth in slow motion!
yahokobbenyah 2 months ago
@yahokobbenyah you know it wasn't though, right?
sillysausage0 2 months ago
@sillysausage0 Well, I am not sure about it being done on the earth or on the moon myself. I do believe it was all produced into slow motion whether on the moon or on the earth. If it were I jumping on the moon, it would look fast on the ascent because quick reflection yet slow on the descent due to the 1/6 gravity. I see this slow motion jumping action being presented in all these videos. Look at basketball players or even yourself jumping, and it's fast on the ascent. I have reasonable doubt!
yahokobbenyah 2 months ago
@yahokobbenyah it was not produced in slow motion. Find some parabolic flight videos and see how slowed down every motion looks in low gravity. Your doubt is far from being reasonable because it is only based on your experience with earth's gravity.
MrGruenerKaktus 2 months ago
@yahokobbenyah I do get what your saying, but falling objects on earth are slower largly due to air resistance. On the moon, there isn't any air resistance, so they can fall faster. And would they ascend quickly? Even on earth, objects lose momentum and slow down fast. Also, are you sure that these clips are slow, or just really big throws? Remember that gravity is weaker there so you can throw a lot further than you could on earth.
Please don't believe the hoaxtards. That way madness lies.
sillysausage0 2 months ago
@sillysausage0 I do believe the moon landing videos are all in slow motion. I am not sure about whether they were actually on the moon or not.
yahokobbenyah 2 months ago
@yahokobbenyah But why would NASA put all their moon landing footage into slow motion? What's the point?
sillysausage0 2 months ago
@sillysausage0 watch?v=wFT-5sy0Rik&feature=related Watch this video several times and notice how it looks windy on the moon. There are lots of videos of the "lunar landings" and some have been sped up to twice the speed and looks like regular jumping on bungee chords. I have my doubts they landed on the moon after watching lots of videos of them playing around wherever they were.
yahokobbenyah 2 months ago
@yahokobbenyah -- No. There are no videos at all in which it looks "windy."
Certainly it does not look "windy" in the watch?v=wFT-5sy0Rik video that you referenced. In fact, in that video, after the astronaut twists the pole, the flag swings back and forth and back and forth so many times that it is pretty obvious that there is no air.
If there was any air,