Man I hate the people who are like "this is fake water is h2o and there isn't and oxygen on the moon" k well 1. we have oxygen but the earth doesn't generate water 2. At some point earth didn't have oxygen so how did water get here 3. Just cause you don't believe something is real doesn't mean it's fake. 4. There are fuckin ice planets comets and shit in our solar system. 5. The sun seems to be burning pretty god damn well
Leave it alone! You might be able to use water from the earth, but it evaporates, then rains.. if you use water on the moon, it's not going to evaporate and or rain.. the fuckin' government thinks they own everything, pisses me off
They maintain it into pressurized cabins. Its not like theyre going t use the water to create a natural pool. The iss for example hosts 24 people and recycles all its water and doesnt need a frequent shuttle or id rather say soyuz rocket to refuel the station with water. Same happens with bases on the moon. Only in probably year 300 we might have terraformed it enough to maintain liquid water their in a natural form on the surface. Thats a lil bit to fictional for anno 2010.
4those who like to b in the know...probably extracting ice or water on the moon...Surely doing SOMETHINGS on the moon...Unexplainable, but caught on camera! Humans-humanoids-aliens? search video
i would live on moon but not on mars because i hate mars idk why lol maybe because its red and too close to the sun and it will be eated when the sun dies
ok this is slightly off the subject but what really blows my mind is that the empire could tell there was no life forms on an escaping pod but they couldn't tell there was three humans and a wookie right under the floor on a ship they had in the holding bay.
Hmm yeees and in a while cells where found on mars and yeees more sightings suddenly and yeees this is the time for the ignorant obsolete stupid mashes to realize they are not alooone in this vaaaast universe.......Fuck nasa and fuck all those who give the people doses of truth. now if you are to weak or stupid to understand what these people try to control then you really are obsolete .
jimgauth....it took us millions of years to learn to use our first stone tools so taking 40 years to gain the technology to go into space and find water really isn't that bad....And your right!..Nasa just found a huge lava tube in/on the Moon...front page of Google today...
guess you are a NASA - man on the moon believer... and you got triggered when i told you believing the brainwash media is stupid...
guess you spend to much time playing computer games... instead of taking a good look at how a bunch of psychopaths tell you their lies where you have to believe in...
It took "scientists" 40 years to figure out that there is water on the moon? I suppose it will take another 40 years to figure out that the moon has caves and because it is less dense than Earth it is easy to tunnel.
videos like these do offer even myself, a non-academic, plenty of fuel for inspiration :D I cannot wait to read of the explorations of future astronauts who will reach much further than our closet orbiting satellite.
why are the moon rock samples the Apollo crew gave out on there tour , being tested and showing that the samples are actually petrified wood ? how did wood get on the moon ? was there an atmosphere there at 1 time ?
If you want to go where the 'greater evidence of water' is, there's far better choices, like the gas giants or their moons.
The moon has been chosen for proximity, it's a stepping stone. We do, after all, need to haul a ton of equipment there. And every ton shot into space is costly.
What isn't possible? We are perfectly able to detect water in 'clouds'. We've had this ability for hundreds of years if memory serves. It's nothing special.
Building on the moon isn't that complicated either, especially when you find the materials you need the most of: things humans eat and drink.
You may have wondered why survival kits rarely contain water. It's because the many liters of it take too much space. Hence you need it on-site.
What a completely useless video. It should be the 0:03 seconds in the middle. None of the telescopes saw anything. NASA is going over data. Time will tell.
Due to the water in our atmosphere, these Earth-bound telescopes would be utterly useless anyway, I'm assuming they're using spectography to search for the water in the resulting dust/vapor cloud though.
If we could launch things from the moon, we'd be set to start exploring even further.
The moon's gravity will make launching things off of it require a LOT less fuel than here on Earth, so launching things into space (From the moon) would be a lot easier and cheaper.
problem is we need to get the things we launch from the moon, onto the moon in the first place. there are very little usable resources on the moon, other than possible small ammounts of water. i was lucky enough to go to a lecture by the current leader of the current moon program (i can't for the life of me remember what the program is called), and he said that it would be too inefficient to launch things from the earth to the moon, then from the moon on, instead of just from the earth.
The now deceased aerospace engineer G. Harry Stine proposed (back in the 80s) basing exploration from high Earth orbit , perhaps the Earth/sun or moon/Earth trojan points, rather than the moon per se. However, a mining colony on the moon could much more easily feed raw construction materials (including water, now) to such a location. The best approach is to work with what each location has going for it and build on the combination of them rather than competing one against the other.
First of all, most of the minerals on the moon are essentially gray. They may be colorful at the grain level, but on average, like a gray sand beach, it all tends toward grays, with some possible pale cast of brown, green or red, but that effect is very faint.
Secondly, unlike Earth where our senses evolved, on the moon there is much higher contrast because of the single light source. On Earth, sunlight is reflected and refracted to supply light from many directions all the time.
That huge contrast difference always has our eyes (and our cameras) switching back and forth. Adjusted to see meaningfully in shadows, any surface in the sun is blindingly white; adjusted to see contrast in the ligh, the shadows become inky dark. The stars in the night sky are many colors in reality, but the contrast difference forces them to be sensed as white on black. Even the obvious color in the flag and the space suits is washed out by the "harsh" lighting.
That's because, when viewed from the Earth, the Moon - you know - actually is totally black and white. (Atmospheric interference) Not to mention that thing is filled with rusted elements that have a grayish hue.
White light is a whole spectrum of light, this is why it's not considered a color, since colors are specific frequencies of light, and not the whole bandwidth of visible light.
Black is the absence of light, so it's not a color either.
They do. Go to wikipedia and look up "far side of the moon". Use google. The pix are out there. For video presentation for the average person, though. the familiar mare moonscape says "moon" without having to label or speak the word. If they showed pix of the far side, they'd have to label it to avoid confusion with some other planet, meteor or moon in the solar system.
The Moon was like, "I've been providing the earth with light during night time and controlling the tides for billions of years. Earth repays me by sticking a rocket up my ass. Earth is not getting a present at the next winter solstice party."
Interesting that the narrator chose to use the Fahrenheit scale when all the measurements are done using Kelvin or in for nearer everyday temperatures using degrees Celsius.
It's best understood mathematically. A certain temperature F, minus 32, divided by nine, multiplied by five, gives you that temperature C. So if you have a certain temperature C and you want to know that temperature F (which could be a pretty big if), then divide by five, multiply by nine, and add 32.
We should all be using the metric system.You'd think NASA crashing a 20 million dollar space probe into Mars because someone forgot to convert imperial to metric would be enough to convince them to change, but the Americans always have to do things their own way. Like a petulant child who refuses to do what he knows is the best course of action, simply because someone else did it before him or suggested it ti him.
But even American taxpayers are educated in Celsius / Kelvin - the agreed international scientific standard taught in science classrooms / laboratories since the 1960s at least when the SI system was agreed. What I was surprised at perhaps was only a mention of Fahrenheit no mention of the universally agreed scales. In science terms I have no image of minus 365 Fahrenheit. I have to convert it to Celsius and it is minus 220 - the melting point of Oxygen.
Yes, you're right, in theory. However, one tends to think in the system that they are exposed to the most, and for Americans that is Fahrenheit by far. As an engineer, I do know the rough conversions, but I *know* viscerally what 40, 50, 60 degrees outside means in terms of required clothing. Back in the 80s there was this metrification program, but instead of being a rational thing, it was politicized, then ridiculed to death, as many things are. Ignorance quite often becomes a source of pride.
Of course there is no excuse for this except the "us versus them" sort of silliness that tends to make any kind of reform a contest of wills. The attitudes in this subthread below would seem to be a good example, at least for the metric side.
@puncheex - I know as a Briton brought up with the SI units in school and everyone else in what in Britain is called the Imperial system. The result is that I think of summer temperatures in Fahrenheit - "It is 80 degrees today" where as cold temperatures are Celsius - "it was below zero last night" - I think of heights in feet and inches but weight in kilos. But all science is metric to me and as the scientist did in the first part talked about a xxx kg school bus - you can mix and match.
They just like to have it their own way. That's why they invented Indy Car. Heaven forbid they might want to compete in a world arena like Formula 1. They have a World Series for Grid-iron and baseball, yet only allow Americans to compete. lol That should tell you why they're stuck on Fahrenheit.
I remember all the NWO-koolade drinkers were complaining about "those maniacs are trying to blow up the moon" in some demented plot to ruin life on Earth. I lol'd.
I have , it is nonsense , anyways science has a peer reviewed process to decide the truth,the guy who came up with this stupid theory should publish or shut up .
Everything starts with observation, there is no proof for gravity and it is a theory, a well accepted theory, because of the observable evidence which hints to its existence. The alternative to expanding earth theory is Pangaea; Pangaea does not sit well with the theory for planet formation because of its asymmetry, expanding earth does. You dont need to be bigoted and imbed your disdain towards me because I view expanding earth theory as more credible than Pangaea or simple plate tectonics.
Really?? Did you ever drop anything? Please do and then tell us what happened!
"The alternative to expanding earth theory is Pangaea"
Admittedly, it's not easy, but you succeed in making yourself look even more stupid by continuing to refer to the theory of plate tectonics as "the theory of Pangaea"...
Reread what I typed after that. OF course gravity is a fact, but as much so as evolution, and evolution is a theory, one of which I accept as fact. Hey retard if you accept plate tectonics then you sequentially accept Pangaea. They go hand in hand, plate tectonics also works with expanding earth theory but in a slightly different way.
By the way, note that while I said I felt embarrassed for you, I'm not saying you are stupid or foolish or asking you to shut up. I spend a great deal of time here on youtube debating (and sometimes berating) and I'm curious why you are so adamantly opposed to the idea of Pangaea.
"Hey retard if you accept plate tectonics then you sequentially accept Pangaea."
I do accept Pangaea, but that doesn't make it the theory o Pangaea, just like you can't simply rename the theory of gravity "The theory of falling things" without looking silly...
And there is an important difference between plate-tectonics and what you mistakenly call "the expanding earth theory". The former involves actual science...
Observe the sea bed and see how there is stretching. This theory is as solid as evolution. Im sorry to tell you this but the earth isnt flat either, nor is it resting on turtles. The expanding earth fact will be accepted in the future because we will observe it elsewhere and then finally we will admit we were wrong, scientists egos often outdo themselves in the worst possible ways. Its interesting how in history the most opposed theories often turned out to be the most accurate and factual.
"Observe the sea bed and see how there is stretching."
It's funny how you noticed the stretching at some areas, yet fail to notice that in other places the seabed is actually moving in onto itself, resulting in a crumbling of said seabed...
SquirrelGott ,plate tectonics and continental drift is a scientific theory supported by a mountain of scientific PEER REVIEWED ! articles full of collaborating evidence , if this nut job has evidence to the contrary then he needs to publish in a scientific journal ,end off ,not get a you tube channel for Gods sake !
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That makes sense because the moon is growing just like the earth... water is released from inside the moon or planet... which is how it grows. Expanding earth theory is solid, and this just adds to the evidence for it. All celestial bodies grow.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Because the truth is too disappointing for so many in the science community that were taught the Pangaea theory and plate tectonics not all science is correct. One day the expanding earth theory will be accepted like evolution. Look up Neal Adams. The theory of growing earth also fits in perfectly with the theory of how planets form. It then is apparent how silly the idea of one big island of mass Pangaea is. Growing earth theory is so beautifully simple and fits everything so nicely together.
@SquirrelGott you have no idea about the scientific method ,also you do not know what constitutes a scientific theory , what Neal Adams is postulating is scientific conjecture it is not a scientific theory .
Everything starts with observation, there is no proof for gravity and it is a theory, a well accepted theory, because of the observable evidence which hints to its existence. The alternative to expanding earth theory is Pangaea; Pangaea does not sit well with the theory for planet formation because of its asymmetry, expanding earth does. You dont need to be bigoted and imbed your disdain towards me because I view expanding earth theory as more credible than Pangaea or simple plate tectonics.
Observe the sea bed and see how there is stretching. This theory is as solid as evolution. Im sorry to tell you this but the earth isnt flat either, nor is it resting on turtles. The expanding earth fact will be accepted in the future because we will observe it elsewhere and then finally we will admit we were wrong, scientists egos often outdo themselves in the worst possible ways. Its interesting how in history the most opposed theories often turned out to be the most accurate and factual.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying and maybe you can help me. Are you saying that scientists; the people who investigate reality and except whatever the evidence shows, are willing to let what you perceive as a disappointment about their favoured theory prevent them from accepting what you say is the better theory?
I thought science was about accepting whatever the data pointed towards? Why in this instance would scientists throw away the very method they champion?
How can this be? Scientists have so many things right in physics, cosmology, biology, etc, yet in this one instance they're going to cover up the truth or ignore it? For you to be correct, there must be a global conspiracy of scientists to cover up the truth.
I will read Neal Adams as you suggest, but I'm very skeptical of this claim.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No need to be so condescending, look up expanding earth theory and learn the truth for yourself. Its perfect in explaining so many aspects of so many things. Look up Neal Adams. The theory is incredible, Pangaea is ridiculous. Dont smirk at me either, seriously look it up and see for yourself. It is as solid as evolution.
Different places, the earths core is pressurized and expands. I dont understand why people have a hard time understanding this. Its so obvious to me now. You dont question that plants grow, yet they do.
Biologists have been able to present EVIDENCE of their claim that plants grow... You, however, have yet to present any evidence whatsoever, that the earth is growing...
The earth is pressurized in space, the density of the earths core slowly releases gases and other elements out which make it expand. The matter was always there. If you can accept the theory of the big bang and a singularity, then this theory of expanding earth is only an extension of that similar principal. Matter clumps together in space, and with time as more and more aciculate it begins to heat up and pressurize.
@SquirrelGott My hypothesis is that matter had more mass in the past but that it has been "leaking" since the dawn of time, mass leaking into space which leads to the expansion of space (matter and energy would in reality be clumped up spacetime). So while the earth had more mass in the past the gravity was stronger ergo it was pressurized into a more dense sphere, when mass was released over time gravity got weaker and the molten material under pressure expanded making the earth grow.
@Jokker88 This could potentially explain dark matter, since while the observed spiral galaxies don't seem to work without more mass (which we explain with dark matter) The fact that our observations are millions of years old due to the speed of light, it could be possible that matter had more mass back then and that would mean that the galaxies we observe now would already be torn apart due to the loss of mass and expansion of space but wouldn't be observed on here on earth for millions of years
It is only a matter of time until the science for this is figured out and organized in such a manner that it wiIl be accepted as fact. The same could be asked about the sun, our sun is constantly spewing its matter off out into space, as the sun starts to die it will expand into a red giant. Where does the extra matter come from to make the star our sun bigger? Super hot density expands as it cools this applies to all celestial bodies.
"The same could be asked about the sun, our sun is constantly spewing its matter off out into space, as the sun starts to die it will expand into a red giant."
The answer to that relatively simple question is additional heat, caused by the heavier elements in the star's core make the star expand...
Where does that additional heat inside our earth come from, which, as you might know, is NOT a nuclear facility like our sun is...
Modern scientific evidence does not support this idea, rather plate tectonics is almost universally accepted as correct.
Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years could have taken place and therefore earth expansion is untenable.
@SquirrelGott Shut up, or read up on some real science before you make a comment at a science video! Don't forget to put on your tin-foil hat now, by the way! Hehe! : )
How very scientific of you: "Shut up because I know more than you." Yeah I hope I can be as scientific as you one day, then I'll be able to tell other people with opposing theories to shut up and ostracize them as crazies because they oppose popular idea, just because Pangaea is popular does not make it a fact. May I remind you that the scientific philosophy is to strive for truth no matter how much we may want to interpret it a certain way; truth is indifferent to how we think we should find it
if you were aware of how the scientific process works with regard to peer review you would know that if your buddy and his silly postulations made any sense they would be published in journals.
you wallow around in your foolishness wondering why people are getting annoyed, not realizing it's b/c you sound like a total fool. man' if you find someone spouting off about something and every other respected scientist is rolling their eyes. that means you DON"T listen to them... yes?
It all starts with observation; Pangaea is ridiculous in comparison to the expanding earth theory. Or you could simply say god did it, but then theism is retarded.
I actually have looked it up. I've spoken in comments with Neal Adams. Apparently, there is a physical process explaining his theory but he can't share it with me without me paying 20 dollars. Guess that's how science functions. I realize I'm using an Ad Hominem, but you do realize he's a professional comic book illustrator with no science background?
Though, for the sake of conversation, maybe you could delve a bit into why Pangaea is ridiculous. PM's are fine if you want to go in depth.
Wait, this Neal Adams guy isn't a scientist? Yet he says he understands geophysics better than trained geophysicists? My skepticism of what Squirrel is saying just shot up about 200%. And it was already fairly high to begin with.
SquirrelGott if the expanding earth "theory" is as solid as evolution why isn't it taught in science class? Is it a conspiracy? Are Geologists so fearful of the established plate tectonics theory being overthrown that they actively work to suppress the truth? SO I look up Neal Adams and what do I see? A comic book illustrator who has latched on to a fringe hypothesis totally uncorroborated by any serious scientific observations. Sorry, I'm not impressed.
go look up young earth creation! you'll fund just as much half witted "evidence" incapable of standing up to peer review.
these idiots are "scientists" too, but they get laughed off the stage when they present their stupidity to their peers so they don't bother. knowing full well that they can get a group of dim wits to believe them simply b/c they can be reffered to as a scientist.
"Evolution of the entire solar system"... LOL LOL LOL
thechessstick 2 months ago
BS.
thechessstick 2 months ago
It always surprises me when I read comments on YouTube to see how so many people are that much stupid.....
ricois3 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch my featured video.
New discovery Moon could have as much water as Earth
OVERLOADInformation 9 months ago
ohhh i am going to the moon!
TheMuserock3 10 months ago
Man I hate the people who are like "this is fake water is h2o and there isn't and oxygen on the moon" k well 1. we have oxygen but the earth doesn't generate water 2. At some point earth didn't have oxygen so how did water get here 3. Just cause you don't believe something is real doesn't mean it's fake. 4. There are fuckin ice planets comets and shit in our solar system. 5. The sun seems to be burning pretty god damn well
Without oxygen 6. Go die in a hole mf
10Bonk16 1 year ago
Leave it alone! You might be able to use water from the earth, but it evaporates, then rains.. if you use water on the moon, it's not going to evaporate and or rain.. the fuckin' government thinks they own everything, pisses me off
LichtorWright 1 year ago
@LichtorWright
They maintain it into pressurized cabins. Its not like theyre going t use the water to create a natural pool. The iss for example hosts 24 people and recycles all its water and doesnt need a frequent shuttle or id rather say soyuz rocket to refuel the station with water. Same happens with bases on the moon. Only in probably year 300 we might have terraformed it enough to maintain liquid water their in a natural form on the surface. Thats a lil bit to fictional for anno 2010.
Armigo91 1 year ago
1.51 WHATs THAT? Hmmm.
Great comment Arvika...
4those who like to b in the know...probably extracting ice or water on the moon...Surely doing SOMETHINGS on the moon...Unexplainable, but caught on camera! Humans-humanoids-aliens? search video
MOON LIGHTS & LIES whoa!
BadBalenax 1 year ago
everyone will die if the sun dies anyway, so no point choosing a planet :)
unless u dug down to the earths core for heat.
PcGamingRig 2 years ago
i would live on moon but not on mars because i hate mars idk why lol maybe because its red and too close to the sun and it will be eated when the sun dies
next base: europa,jupiter
selearemus 2 years ago
ok this is slightly off the subject but what really blows my mind is that the empire could tell there was no life forms on an escaping pod but they couldn't tell there was three humans and a wookie right under the floor on a ship they had in the holding bay.
macaroni8cheese 2 years ago
If the man was on the moon 6 times, they drive mooncars over there and they didn t discover WATER.Nasa thinks im monkey
arvikaljuste 2 years ago
@arvikaljuste
You ARE a monkey.
Krumbz2003 2 years ago
you are a monkey or you were hahaha
selearemus 2 years ago
Hmm yeees and in a while cells where found on mars and yeees more sightings suddenly and yeees this is the time for the ignorant obsolete stupid mashes to realize they are not alooone in this vaaaast universe.......Fuck nasa and fuck all those who give the people doses of truth. now if you are to weak or stupid to understand what these people try to control then you really are obsolete .
SA3LLARX 2 years ago
jimgauth....it took us millions of years to learn to use our first stone tools so taking 40 years to gain the technology to go into space and find water really isn't that bad....And your right!..Nasa just found a huge lava tube in/on the Moon...front page of Google today...
Hipster420 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NASA is the biggest fraudulent en criminal organisation you know, they faked the MOONLANDING and killed a lot of "astronauts"...
jackp6 2 years ago
I think all those tin-foil hats must be damaging your brain...
Ikaroos 2 years ago 3
I can't see anymore what i wrote.... hmmm ???
guess you are a NASA - man on the moon believer... and you got triggered when i told you believing the brainwash media is stupid...
guess you spend to much time playing computer games... instead of taking a good look at how a bunch of psychopaths tell you their lies where you have to believe in...
jackp6 2 years ago
@jackp6
Your comment was painful to read.
Krumbz2003 2 years ago
it's known that water came from comets, some video.
ajajtapa 2 years ago
now we can make some coffee
lostintimeBC 2 years ago 2
@Ashlydenara
go away you disgusting whore...
Zentz29 2 years ago
It took "scientists" 40 years to figure out that there is water on the moon? I suppose it will take another 40 years to figure out that the moon has caves and because it is less dense than Earth it is easy to tunnel.
jimgauth 2 years ago
@jimgauth
:)
Just NASA
szlamx 2 years ago
nunmiau piep wer hat mich lieb , bin so einsam heute , jmand lust zu chilln
Suzannescful 2 years ago
Thanks for this, mate, nice to keep updated =D
ulthea 2 years ago
videos like these do offer even myself, a non-academic, plenty of fuel for inspiration :D I cannot wait to read of the explorations of future astronauts who will reach much further than our closet orbiting satellite.
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago 7
why are the moon rock samples the Apollo crew gave out on there tour , being tested and showing that the samples are actually petrified wood ? how did wood get on the moon ? was there an atmosphere there at 1 time ?
KungFatty 2 years ago
You've misinterpreted that story, the moon rocks on display in a Dutch museum turned out to be petrified wood from Earth.
DistinctiveBlend 2 years ago
those are not the only samples that have turned out to be wood , but yes those are among the many ,
KungFatty 2 years ago
Petrified wood: fossil wood where all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals.
So even if what you're saying is true, all they have is still only an imprint, and not actually anything 'woody'.
That said, there are ways for wood to get from the Earth to the moon. For instance, we already know that rocks make it through volcanic eruptions.
Nerusai 2 years ago
Go USA!!!
geodesicks 2 years ago
they have already found water on mars
nix2312 2 years ago 3
Water SO isn't the gold of outer space. There's tons of water (or its constituents), it's just not always conveniently located.
I'd wager that gold will be space's gold, and heavier elements of course :P
Nerusai 2 years ago
wouldn't searching mars be better to look for water
psp785 2 years ago
@psp785 The moon is the jumping off point to Mars
GardenJames 2 years ago
The moon is a lot closer.
Tenebrous76 2 years ago
ye but mars has greater evidence of water
psp785 2 years ago
If you want to go where the 'greater evidence of water' is, there's far better choices, like the gas giants or their moons.
The moon has been chosen for proximity, it's a stepping stone. We do, after all, need to haul a ton of equipment there. And every ton shot into space is costly.
Nerusai 2 years ago
we both know thats not possible with our technology but its true europia and saturn moon titan has a great possablites too
I really doubt the presence of water on the moon though
psp785 2 years ago
What isn't possible? We are perfectly able to detect water in 'clouds'. We've had this ability for hundreds of years if memory serves. It's nothing special.
Building on the moon isn't that complicated either, especially when you find the materials you need the most of: things humans eat and drink.
You may have wondered why survival kits rarely contain water. It's because the many liters of it take too much space. Hence you need it on-site.
PS. "LCROSS Impact Data Indicates Water on Moon"
Nerusai 2 years ago
I did'nt mean we can't detect water I ment actually going to further moons I seen scientist detect water using equipment on satellites
psp785 2 years ago
We have already gone much farther than the moon, there's a few satellites in interstellar space right now!
Putting humans there is just as easy, recovering them would be harder :P
It's not that it's not possible, it's just not worth the expense involved. Humans are eating machines, very space-inefficient.
Nerusai 2 years ago
Is BestofScience connected with FFreeThinker?
tebinthehouse 2 years ago
@tebinthehouse
That's preposterous! It'd be BBestofScience then!
Nerusai 2 years ago
Wow, thanks for this video.
WATER GOOD. HULK SMASH.
What a completely useless video. It should be the 0:03 seconds in the middle. None of the telescopes saw anything. NASA is going over data. Time will tell.
sifterjoe 2 years ago
@sifterjoe
Wasn't it already confirmed? Pretty sure, but cba to search the NASA homepage.
Nerusai 2 years ago
Due to the water in our atmosphere, these Earth-bound telescopes would be utterly useless anyway, I'm assuming they're using spectography to search for the water in the resulting dust/vapor cloud though.
Nerusai 2 years ago
mmmm water.and fake outerspace pictures.but water good.good water.!!^uug*!!
sirnicholson 2 years ago
If we could launch things from the moon, we'd be set to start exploring even further.
The moon's gravity will make launching things off of it require a LOT less fuel than here on Earth, so launching things into space (From the moon) would be a lot easier and cheaper.
Vehementi 2 years ago
problem is we need to get the things we launch from the moon, onto the moon in the first place. there are very little usable resources on the moon, other than possible small ammounts of water. i was lucky enough to go to a lecture by the current leader of the current moon program (i can't for the life of me remember what the program is called), and he said that it would be too inefficient to launch things from the earth to the moon, then from the moon on, instead of just from the earth.
natman48 2 years ago
The now deceased aerospace engineer G. Harry Stine proposed (back in the 80s) basing exploration from high Earth orbit , perhaps the Earth/sun or moon/Earth trojan points, rather than the moon per se. However, a mining colony on the moon could much more easily feed raw construction materials (including water, now) to such a location. The best approach is to work with what each location has going for it and build on the combination of them rather than competing one against the other.
puncheex 2 years ago
Nonsense, the Moon is chucked full of useful materials.
I mean seriously, if I had an easy way of accessing the moon, I'd be fucking rich right now. It's like a dollar sign floating over my head every day.
I'd stripmine the moon so badly we'd need a new one.
There'd be no moon left at all, that's how profitable it'd be :P
(Aluminum, Iron, Helium, Nickel, Gold, you name it, the moon has or should have it)
You're giving me moon fever (shivers).
Nerusai 2 years ago
The MOON is NOT BLACK AND WHITE. WHY THEY ALWAYS SHOW THE MOON IN BLACK AND WHITE COLORS ???
ShaCRaM 2 years ago
Comment removed
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There was orange or red soil found on the moon.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
First of all, most of the minerals on the moon are essentially gray. They may be colorful at the grain level, but on average, like a gray sand beach, it all tends toward grays, with some possible pale cast of brown, green or red, but that effect is very faint.
Secondly, unlike Earth where our senses evolved, on the moon there is much higher contrast because of the single light source. On Earth, sunlight is reflected and refracted to supply light from many directions all the time.
puncheex 2 years ago 2
That huge contrast difference always has our eyes (and our cameras) switching back and forth. Adjusted to see meaningfully in shadows, any surface in the sun is blindingly white; adjusted to see contrast in the ligh, the shadows become inky dark. The stars in the night sky are many colors in reality, but the contrast difference forces them to be sensed as white on black. Even the obvious color in the flag and the space suits is washed out by the "harsh" lighting.
puncheex 2 years ago
Yeah well, you know.
That's because, when viewed from the Earth, the Moon - you know - actually is totally black and white. (Atmospheric interference) Not to mention that thing is filled with rusted elements that have a grayish hue.
PS. Black and white are not considered colors.
Nerusai 2 years ago
ofc they are take some art lessons LOL
selearemus 2 years ago
White light is a whole spectrum of light, this is why it's not considered a color, since colors are specific frequencies of light, and not the whole bandwidth of visible light.
Black is the absence of light, so it's not a color either.
I hope you understand this better now.
Nerusai 2 years ago
why wont they show us what the other side of the moon really looks like ?
KungFatty 2 years ago
They do. Go to wikipedia and look up "far side of the moon". Use google. The pix are out there. For video presentation for the average person, though. the familiar mare moonscape says "moon" without having to label or speak the word. If they showed pix of the far side, they'd have to label it to avoid confusion with some other planet, meteor or moon in the solar system.
puncheex 2 years ago
there used to be trees on the moon until it was nuked a long time ago
KungFatty 2 years ago
LOVE this channel. Its very diverse =)
wallofjustin 2 years ago
The Moon was like, "I've been providing the earth with light during night time and controlling the tides for billions of years. Earth repays me by sticking a rocket up my ass. Earth is not getting a present at the next winter solstice party."
CutieBabe25 2 years ago
Better a spent rocket than an H-bomb, which for a while was the gold standard here.
puncheex 2 years ago
Anyone -including this channel- who's interested in some recent Moon facts, should take a look at this documentary, Moor Rising:
/watch?v=UYFm3omV3nA&feature=related
Watch all parts and be amazed by the facts.
Water on the Moon was no secrete since 1994, and many more things.
Jink5 2 years ago
Interesting that the narrator chose to use the Fahrenheit scale when all the measurements are done using Kelvin or in for nearer everyday temperatures using degrees Celsius.
johncrwarner 2 years ago
I don't understand Fahrenheit, it's like acres and fathoms, all sounds weird to me.
DefaultPosition 2 years ago
It's best understood mathematically. A certain temperature F, minus 32, divided by nine, multiplied by five, gives you that temperature C. So if you have a certain temperature C and you want to know that temperature F (which could be a pretty big if), then divide by five, multiply by nine, and add 32.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
°F = 1.8(°C) + 32
or
°C = (°F - 32)/1.8
to put it more succinctly. And if you want Kelvin just add 273.15 to the °C temp.
Textra1 2 years ago
We should all be using the metric system.You'd think NASA crashing a 20 million dollar space probe into Mars because someone forgot to convert imperial to metric would be enough to convince them to change, but the Americans always have to do things their own way. Like a petulant child who refuses to do what he knows is the best course of action, simply because someone else did it before him or suggested it ti him.
Textra1 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
americans can't seem to "get" it.lol j/k
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Sounds like the process my Dad uses for working out his opinion on complex social issues.
DefaultPosition 2 years ago
In the end, it's just a unit of measurement people agree over, so yeah: why can't we just agree on one unified unit.
It's stupid there's still so many around. And this doesn't go for just spacial units...
Nerusai 2 years ago
@johncrwarner: I would suppose that it was only because this video is aimed primarily at the American taxpayer. They're used to Fahrenheit.
puncheex 2 years ago
But even American taxpayers are educated in Celsius / Kelvin - the agreed international scientific standard taught in science classrooms / laboratories since the 1960s at least when the SI system was agreed. What I was surprised at perhaps was only a mention of Fahrenheit no mention of the universally agreed scales. In science terms I have no image of minus 365 Fahrenheit. I have to convert it to Celsius and it is minus 220 - the melting point of Oxygen.
johncrwarner 2 years ago 2
Yes, you're right, in theory. However, one tends to think in the system that they are exposed to the most, and for Americans that is Fahrenheit by far. As an engineer, I do know the rough conversions, but I *know* viscerally what 40, 50, 60 degrees outside means in terms of required clothing. Back in the 80s there was this metrification program, but instead of being a rational thing, it was politicized, then ridiculed to death, as many things are. Ignorance quite often becomes a source of pride.
puncheex 2 years ago
Of course there is no excuse for this except the "us versus them" sort of silliness that tends to make any kind of reform a contest of wills. The attitudes in this subthread below would seem to be a good example, at least for the metric side.
puncheex 2 years ago
@puncheex - I know as a Briton brought up with the SI units in school and everyone else in what in Britain is called the Imperial system. The result is that I think of summer temperatures in Fahrenheit - "It is 80 degrees today" where as cold temperatures are Celsius - "it was below zero last night" - I think of heights in feet and inches but weight in kilos. But all science is metric to me and as the scientist did in the first part talked about a xxx kg school bus - you can mix and match.
johncrwarner 2 years ago
USA Liberia and Burma are the only countries that use Fahrenheit
I don't think it was aimed at Burmese coverage
Maybe a few in Liberia saw it
I guess it was aimed at the USA
Why not just change the word Fahrenheit into US-temp or USF or just American
It was hot today, 80 Americans in the shade
Water boils at 212 Americans
It doesn't freeze till minus 32 Americans
Maybe they like such extremes?
Choowbz 2 years ago
They just like to have it their own way. That's why they invented Indy Car. Heaven forbid they might want to compete in a world arena like Formula 1. They have a World Series for Grid-iron and baseball, yet only allow Americans to compete. lol That should tell you why they're stuck on Fahrenheit.
Textra1 2 years ago
It freezes at + 32 Americans on your renamed scale.
johncrwarner 2 years ago 2
This is an incredible discovery! I'll be looking to hear more about this mission! ^___^
gir908922 2 years ago 3
Gotta get me a glass of that fresh moon water....
nemo3590 2 years ago
this is fascinating and wonderful. i am all for humans living on the moon
BespokeGroupUK 2 years ago 2
A lunar space station. Was a wonderful possibility. Go, science!
AmyLynn7783 2 years ago 2
what*
AmyLynn7783 2 years ago
I remember all the NWO-koolade drinkers were complaining about "those maniacs are trying to blow up the moon" in some demented plot to ruin life on Earth. I lol'd.
TinyCoconut 2 years ago
my all time favorite YT channel!!!!
Thank You and please never stop!
defect530 2 years ago 6
i think were all thinking the same thing.....noah's ark really happened on the moon
:P
haha
godlessmessiah 2 years ago 4
Don't laugh too soon. You can bet that's what the creationists are going to say happened to the water from Noah's Flood.
Textra1 2 years ago 4
I think it was Nephilimfree who claimed that the lunar craters were caused by water from the flood hurtling at the moon.
DooMDrat 2 years ago
Sounds like something he would say. He's 'mad as a shit-house rat' as they say where I'm from.
Textra1 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so what? god must have put the excess water from the flood on the moon.
illbetilbake 2 years ago
Cool!
Bear5177 2 years ago
Woah
TheAntiEquinox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The water came from inside the moon, the core is full of it. In the form of heat and magma.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
NASA doesn't know this but you do? Give them a ring. I'm sure they'll be very grateful for your knowledge.
Textra1 2 years ago 10
Prove it SquirrelGott...
MrNDSteinbach 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Look up Neal Adams...
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
I have , it is nonsense , anyways science has a peer reviewed process to decide the truth,the guy who came up with this stupid theory should publish or shut up .
sausage4mash 2 years ago 2
Everything starts with observation, there is no proof for gravity and it is a theory, a well accepted theory, because of the observable evidence which hints to its existence. The alternative to expanding earth theory is Pangaea; Pangaea does not sit well with the theory for planet formation because of its asymmetry, expanding earth does. You dont need to be bigoted and imbed your disdain towards me because I view expanding earth theory as more credible than Pangaea or simple plate tectonics.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
"there is no proof for gravity"
Really?? Did you ever drop anything? Please do and then tell us what happened!
"The alternative to expanding earth theory is Pangaea"
Admittedly, it's not easy, but you succeed in making yourself look even more stupid by continuing to refer to the theory of plate tectonics as "the theory of Pangaea"...
Joddit 2 years ago
Reread what I typed after that. OF course gravity is a fact, but as much so as evolution, and evolution is a theory, one of which I accept as fact. Hey retard if you accept plate tectonics then you sequentially accept Pangaea. They go hand in hand, plate tectonics also works with expanding earth theory but in a slightly different way.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
By the way, note that while I said I felt embarrassed for you, I'm not saying you are stupid or foolish or asking you to shut up. I spend a great deal of time here on youtube debating (and sometimes berating) and I'm curious why you are so adamantly opposed to the idea of Pangaea.
NoAntecessor 2 years ago 2
"Hey retard if you accept plate tectonics then you sequentially accept Pangaea."
I do accept Pangaea, but that doesn't make it the theory o Pangaea, just like you can't simply rename the theory of gravity "The theory of falling things" without looking silly...
And there is an important difference between plate-tectonics and what you mistakenly call "the expanding earth theory". The former involves actual science...
Joddit 2 years ago 2
Observe the sea bed and see how there is stretching. This theory is as solid as evolution. Im sorry to tell you this but the earth isnt flat either, nor is it resting on turtles. The expanding earth fact will be accepted in the future because we will observe it elsewhere and then finally we will admit we were wrong, scientists egos often outdo themselves in the worst possible ways. Its interesting how in history the most opposed theories often turned out to be the most accurate and factual.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
"Observe the sea bed and see how there is stretching."
It's funny how you noticed the stretching at some areas, yet fail to notice that in other places the seabed is actually moving in onto itself, resulting in a crumbling of said seabed...
Joddit 2 years ago 3
SquirrelGott ,plate tectonics and continental drift is a scientific theory supported by a mountain of scientific PEER REVIEWED ! articles full of collaborating evidence , if this nut job has evidence to the contrary then he needs to publish in a scientific journal ,end off ,not get a you tube channel for Gods sake !
sausage4mash 2 years ago 4
where do you suppose it came from?
MissComi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That makes sense because the moon is growing just like the earth... water is released from inside the moon or planet... which is how it grows. Expanding earth theory is solid, and this just adds to the evidence for it. All celestial bodies grow.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
So why don't they teach the growing Earth 'theory' in Geo-physics at universities?
Textra1 2 years ago
Comment removed
sausage4mash 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
look up expanding earth theory, its the most sensible theory out there.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Because the truth is too disappointing for so many in the science community that were taught the Pangaea theory and plate tectonics not all science is correct. One day the expanding earth theory will be accepted like evolution. Look up Neal Adams. The theory of growing earth also fits in perfectly with the theory of how planets form. It then is apparent how silly the idea of one big island of mass Pangaea is. Growing earth theory is so beautifully simple and fits everything so nicely together.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
@SquirrelGott you have no idea about the scientific method ,also you do not know what constitutes a scientific theory , what Neal Adams is postulating is scientific conjecture it is not a scientific theory .
learn more !
sausage4mash 2 years ago
Everything starts with observation, there is no proof for gravity and it is a theory, a well accepted theory, because of the observable evidence which hints to its existence. The alternative to expanding earth theory is Pangaea; Pangaea does not sit well with the theory for planet formation because of its asymmetry, expanding earth does. You dont need to be bigoted and imbed your disdain towards me because I view expanding earth theory as more credible than Pangaea or simple plate tectonics.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
Observe the sea bed and see how there is stretching. This theory is as solid as evolution. Im sorry to tell you this but the earth isnt flat either, nor is it resting on turtles. The expanding earth fact will be accepted in the future because we will observe it elsewhere and then finally we will admit we were wrong, scientists egos often outdo themselves in the worst possible ways. Its interesting how in history the most opposed theories often turned out to be the most accurate and factual.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying and maybe you can help me. Are you saying that scientists; the people who investigate reality and except whatever the evidence shows, are willing to let what you perceive as a disappointment about their favoured theory prevent them from accepting what you say is the better theory?
I thought science was about accepting whatever the data pointed towards? Why in this instance would scientists throw away the very method they champion?
Textra1 2 years ago
correction - "...accept whatever..."
Textra1 2 years ago
How can this be? Scientists have so many things right in physics, cosmology, biology, etc, yet in this one instance they're going to cover up the truth or ignore it? For you to be correct, there must be a global conspiracy of scientists to cover up the truth.
I will read Neal Adams as you suggest, but I'm very skeptical of this claim.
Textra1 2 years ago
I'm embarrassed for you, SquirrelGott.
NoAntecessor 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No need to be so condescending, look up expanding earth theory and learn the truth for yourself. Its perfect in explaining so many aspects of so many things. Look up Neal Adams. The theory is incredible, Pangaea is ridiculous. Dont smirk at me either, seriously look it up and see for yourself. It is as solid as evolution.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
Right, then please explain to me where the additional matter with which the earth grew came from...
Joddit 2 years ago
Different places, the earths core is pressurized and expands. I dont understand why people have a hard time understanding this. Its so obvious to me now. You dont question that plants grow, yet they do.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
Important difference:
Biologists have been able to present EVIDENCE of their claim that plants grow... You, however, have yet to present any evidence whatsoever, that the earth is growing...
Good luck on that one...
Joddit 2 years ago 2
The earth is pressurized in space, the density of the earths core slowly releases gases and other elements out which make it expand. The matter was always there. If you can accept the theory of the big bang and a singularity, then this theory of expanding earth is only an extension of that similar principal. Matter clumps together in space, and with time as more and more aciculate it begins to heat up and pressurize.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
@SquirrelGott My hypothesis is that matter had more mass in the past but that it has been "leaking" since the dawn of time, mass leaking into space which leads to the expansion of space (matter and energy would in reality be clumped up spacetime). So while the earth had more mass in the past the gravity was stronger ergo it was pressurized into a more dense sphere, when mass was released over time gravity got weaker and the molten material under pressure expanded making the earth grow.
Jokker88 2 years ago
@Jokker88 This could potentially explain dark matter, since while the observed spiral galaxies don't seem to work without more mass (which we explain with dark matter) The fact that our observations are millions of years old due to the speed of light, it could be possible that matter had more mass back then and that would mean that the galaxies we observe now would already be torn apart due to the loss of mass and expansion of space but wouldn't be observed on here on earth for millions of years
Jokker88 2 years ago
It is only a matter of time until the science for this is figured out and organized in such a manner that it wiIl be accepted as fact. The same could be asked about the sun, our sun is constantly spewing its matter off out into space, as the sun starts to die it will expand into a red giant. Where does the extra matter come from to make the star our sun bigger? Super hot density expands as it cools this applies to all celestial bodies.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
"The same could be asked about the sun, our sun is constantly spewing its matter off out into space, as the sun starts to die it will expand into a red giant."
The answer to that relatively simple question is additional heat, caused by the heavier elements in the star's core make the star expand...
Where does that additional heat inside our earth come from, which, as you might know, is NOT a nuclear facility like our sun is...
Joddit 2 years ago
Okay I'll look it up. From Wikipedia:
Modern scientific evidence does not support this idea, rather plate tectonics is almost universally accepted as correct.
Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years could have taken place and therefore earth expansion is untenable.
JPO1618 2 years ago 2
look up expanding earth on youtube
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
@SquirrelGott Shut up, or read up on some real science before you make a comment at a science video! Don't forget to put on your tin-foil hat now, by the way! Hehe! : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
How very scientific of you: "Shut up because I know more than you." Yeah I hope I can be as scientific as you one day, then I'll be able to tell other people with opposing theories to shut up and ostracize them as crazies because they oppose popular idea, just because Pangaea is popular does not make it a fact. May I remind you that the scientific philosophy is to strive for truth no matter how much we may want to interpret it a certain way; truth is indifferent to how we think we should find it
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
if you were aware of how the scientific process works with regard to peer review you would know that if your buddy and his silly postulations made any sense they would be published in journals.
you wallow around in your foolishness wondering why people are getting annoyed, not realizing it's b/c you sound like a total fool. man' if you find someone spouting off about something and every other respected scientist is rolling their eyes. that means you DON"T listen to them... yes?
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
It all starts with observation; Pangaea is ridiculous in comparison to the expanding earth theory. Or you could simply say god did it, but then theism is retarded.
SquirrelGott 2 years ago
I actually have looked it up. I've spoken in comments with Neal Adams. Apparently, there is a physical process explaining his theory but he can't share it with me without me paying 20 dollars. Guess that's how science functions. I realize I'm using an Ad Hominem, but you do realize he's a professional comic book illustrator with no science background?
Though, for the sake of conversation, maybe you could delve a bit into why Pangaea is ridiculous. PM's are fine if you want to go in depth.
NoAntecessor 2 years ago 3
Wait, this Neal Adams guy isn't a scientist? Yet he says he understands geophysics better than trained geophysicists? My skepticism of what Squirrel is saying just shot up about 200%. And it was already fairly high to begin with.
Textra1 2 years ago
SquirrelGott if the expanding earth "theory" is as solid as evolution why isn't it taught in science class? Is it a conspiracy? Are Geologists so fearful of the established plate tectonics theory being overthrown that they actively work to suppress the truth? SO I look up Neal Adams and what do I see? A comic book illustrator who has latched on to a fringe hypothesis totally uncorroborated by any serious scientific observations. Sorry, I'm not impressed.
Ansonidak 2 years ago
go look up young earth creation! you'll fund just as much half witted "evidence" incapable of standing up to peer review.
these idiots are "scientists" too, but they get laughed off the stage when they present their stupidity to their peers so they don't bother. knowing full well that they can get a group of dim wits to believe them simply b/c they can be reffered to as a scientist.
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Just checking; there is water on the moon right?
anenjib 2 years ago
Yes.
nemo3590 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the water came from the lord!
:)
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Yeah! All the water from noah's flood had to go *somewhere*!
teenspirit1 2 years ago 6
lmao
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Which one?
twothlesswonder 2 years ago 2
either one doesn't matter.lol
they gotta piss somewhere
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
Ah! great minds think alike! I was soooo close to posting something similar to that....
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
btw i don't believe the "lord" put the water there. it was a joke. i am "lordless"
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago 3
"i am "lordless" "
We all are. It's just that some people haven't figured out that there is no sky daddy.
Tenebrous76 2 years ago
yes they live in delusion.
but santa? thats another story. he's for REAL!
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago 6
Naturally. We get proof every Christmas. ;-)
Tenebrous76 2 years ago
26 gallons of ice?! That's incredible!
HaleyMary 2 years ago
LOL! i think she needs some zeros on that amount...
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago
yep,I didn't know it was that much ,incredible!
sausage4mash 2 years ago
Jackpot is right! A lunar space station would be great.
wawa2 2 years ago
I'm thinking I'll be dead and gone by the time they build it
sausage4mash 2 years ago 2