PDA

View Full Version : Moongate



AstroMike
2002-Feb-22, 01:39 AM
http://www.conspire.com/moon.html

Gosh, I guess Mr. Brian obviously doesn't know what gravity is.

Perhaps the most ignorant claim is: "Brian wagers that the moon's atmosphere might be as dense as the earth's, and perhaps even as breathable."

Geez. Even a lot hoax believers know that the Moon has no real atmosphere.

I guess Mr. Brian better watch out, because that massive moon of his could be crashing down on him anytime.


_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-21 20:48 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Feb-22, 05:52 AM
Nobody with any knowledge of physics believes Brian's findings. Since most hoax believers don't know anything about physics, they eat it up. Brian is a mathematician, not a physicist. His computations, "too complicated to go into here," suffer from his inability to locate the so-called neutral point.

The purported 64% gravity figure would indeed make for some interesting ocean tides. And of course it doesn't seem to ring any warning bells with Brian that in order for his theory to be correct, Newton has to be entirely wrong.

I'm reminded of the story of a mother watching her son Jim march with other soldiers in a parade. She turns to the woman beside her and says, "Look, they're all out of step except for my Jim."

Brian's only unique contribution to the hoax theory is his wrong computations buried in the appendix and comprehensible to none of his readers. His "proofs" are laughable.

Apparently because astronauts didn't jump to the limit of their theoretical capability, they couldn't possibly have done it. First, I search the cuff checklists in vain for an item reading, "Jump as high as you possibly can, and make sure it's caught on camera." Second, I note that Armstrong lept to the third rung of the LM ladder (about 5 feet off the ground) at the end of his EVA. Just what Brian predicts is possible.

Huffing and puffing astronauts? Inertia, Mr. Brian. We learned about it physics. Getting 360 pounds of mass moving takes energy. Weight is largely irrelevant, and in fact reduces one's traction. Plus, the suits are restrictive.

Blowing "starched" flags? Inertia again, Mr. Brian. Wiggle the post and the flag will Newtonianly resist that wiggle. Oh, wait. Mr. Brian thinks Mr. Newton is full of crap.

Craggy peaks? Only Stanley Kubrick expected that. Scientists expected everything to be buried in dust. They were actually surprised to find hardpack. Dry riverbeds? Then why no smooth river rocks?

Atmospheric diffusion? No, just indirect lighting, Mr. Brian. Yes, the atmosphere on earth diffuses sunlight. But that's not the only way indirect sunlighting can be achieved. Any photographer worth his 18% gray reflector knows how to do it.

Blue haze around the moon? Let's see, Apollo 10. Nobody stepped outside a spacecraft on that one, so every photo has to be taken through a spacecraft window. Spacecraft windows sometimes fog over due to gasket outgassing, the same thing that occurs on new cars. Fogged-over windows scatter light, and blue light scatters best. So Brian pins his theory to the testimony of one photograph, despite the millions and millions of photographs taken of the moon by people from every country since photography was invented, that don't show a blue haze.

Neil Armstrong didn't say what color that sky was, now did he?

"The feather probably concealed a heavy object." And Brian's book probably concealed an ulterior motive: bilk the gullible.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-22, 07:21 AM
On 2002-02-21 20:39, AstroMike wrote:
http://www.conspire.com/moon.html

In this conspiracy, there was a coverup, but the hoax was committed by filming on the moon itself. What I want to know is, how'd Sean Connery get there then?

<font size=-1>[Fixed quote]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-02-22 02:23 ]</font>

The Incubus
2002-Feb-22, 12:31 PM
Apparently because astronauts didn't jump to the limit of their theoretical capability, they couldn't possibly have done it. First, I search the cuff checklists in vain for an item reading, "Jump as high as you possibly can, and make sure it's caught on camera." Second, I note that Armstrong lept to the third rung of the LM ladder (about 5 feet off the ground) at the end of his EVA. Just what Brian predicts is possible.


Also, the higher you jump, the less control you have over your landing. Since I read that the astronauts were rather worried (at first) about puncturing their space suits, it could follow that they simply chose not to jump 6 feet.

J (Have pity, this is my first post)

JayUtah
2002-Feb-22, 03:05 PM
Also, the higher you jump, the less control you have over your landing.

Armstrong speaks about this in his debriefing. He said he tried a couple of high leaps and nearly fell over backwards. The suits themselves are awfully hard to puncture. But the PLSS might have been damaged if he had landed on his back, or he might not have been able to get to his feet again without help. These possibilities scared him enough that he decided not to do that anymore. His final leap up to the LM ladder was the only other low-gravity acrobatics he attempted.

In logic this question is what's known as subverted support. The theory is based on a putative explanation for an observation. We have shown that the observation is untrue, hence needs no explanation, therefore the theory based upon the explanation has no support by this argument.

Have pity, this is my first post

No pity necessary; you are quite correct. And welcome!

PAV629
2002-Feb-22, 03:37 PM
HEY GUYS......BEEN READING THIS POST DAILY FOR MONTHS NOW........THIS IS MY FIRST POST SO GIVE ME SOME LEEWAY..........THIS CLOWN AT THIS WEBSITE STATES ALL THESE DISCREPANICES BUT DOESNT LIST HIS PROOF!!! IN REGARDS TO GRAVITY ON THE MOON ID LOVE TO SEE HIS CALCULATIONS THAT ARE "COMPLICATED TO GET INTO." I'D BET A C-NOTE THEY PROBABLY
DON'T EVEN EXIST..........I GOTTA ADMIT THOUGH/.........THIS WHOLE MEAN CONSPIRACY DEBATE REALLY MAKES U THINK THOUGH....THE GOVT HAS BEEN COVERING UP DISCOVERIES SINCE CIVILIED GOVT BEGAN.......

JayUtah
2002-Feb-22, 05:01 PM
The proof is found in Brian's book, not on the website that this individual has written to summarize it. You must buy Brian's book in order to see his computations. They are wrong because they present an incorrect physical model.

It is obvious that various governments have at times acted in secret and concealed their actions from their citizens or others. However they do not uniformly do so. Governments act overtly in some cases and covertly in others. Therefore the fact that some covert activity exists cannot be used as proof that some other activity is covert. For example, if it were suddenly proved that the U.S. government had conspired to murder President Kennedy, this would not be proof that it also conspired to falsify the moon landings.

When no presumption of overtness or covertness is tenable, each case must be individually established on its own evidentiary merits independently of each other case.

PAV629
2002-Feb-22, 05:24 PM
THATS A PRETTY GOOD POINT.......I JUST DONT LIKE THE FACT THAT FOR EXAMPLE........NASA DOENT RELEASE ALL THE DATA FROM THEIR SCIENTIFIC MISSIONS........ IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE THAN WHATS THE PROBLEM??? LISTEN I DONT BELIEVE IN THESE SO CALLED LUNAR HOAXES AND CONSPIRACIES. NASA'S POLICIES JUST TEND TO FUEL THESE CONSPIRACY MANIACS. QUESTION..........DO U GUYS THINK ANYBODY WILL LAND BACK ON THE MOON OR MARS IN MY LIFETIME (IM 26)?????

AstroMike
2002-Feb-22, 05:50 PM
On 2002-02-22 12:24, PAV629 wrote:
DO U GUYS THINK ANYBODY WILL LAND BACK ON THE MOON OR MARS IN MY LIFETIME (IM 26)?????


Buzz Aldrin certainly believes people will be walking on Mars in this century.

SeanF
2002-Feb-22, 05:56 PM
A lot of the equipment that goes up into space is partially produced and/or funded by private organizations, and those organizations are given exclusive access to the resulting data for a specified period of time. Since they're private businesses, they need to know they're going to get at least some kind of ROI.

Also, alot of the data that comes back from space probes comes back as purely digital data that needs to be processed and converted into usable forms. The Hubble Space Telescope, for example, does not produce visual images on the fly - the images need to be reconstructed from the data Hubble downlinks.

As for your other question, I'd like to think we'd get more people on another world in the next 50 years, but I wouldn't guarantee it.

[By the way, on the Internet, posting in all capital letters is considered shouting (in other words, it's rude), and it also tends to be harder to read than regular upper-lower casing. Just as a matter of courtesy, please turn off the shift-lock on your keyboard. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ]

JayUtah
2002-Feb-22, 06:11 PM
NASA is justly criticized for tending to deal with a select group of scientists, but that's more a factor of how science works than of governmental intervention or suppression. And many critics who claim NASA is withholding information are predisposed to believe that, and so innocent mistakes or inaccuracies are sometimes "spun" to suggest malfeasance. The Enterprise Mission is notorious for doing this.

As far as dealing with conspiracy theorists, NASA is in a lose-lose situation. If they remain silent, conspiracists can postulate any reason they wish for the silence and for what's being "hidden". If NASA offers refutations, the conspiracists either dismiss them as propaganda, twist them to suit their needs, or refine their conclusions ad hoc to accommodate them.

NASA's response is mostly proper. Since the hoax theorists offer only conjecture and very little in the way of proof, there is no need to provide an elaborate response to a case which has not yet been made. Conspiracists complain that NASA does not address their arguments, oblivious to the fact that NASA has indeed provided mountains upon mountains of evidence in favor of its own competing conclusion. The conspiracists provide no evidence, but want NASA to grant them credibility by acknowledging their conjecture.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-22, 07:06 PM
Getting back to the original topic of this thread, Mr. Brian is apparently another conspiracy theorist who doesn't know much about the technical fields he's talking about. Ralph Rene is obviously someone who knows nothing about science, but the average person who reads about him doesn't have the amount of knowledge to dismiss him, so he falls for him easy.

Here are two reviews of Rene's book, but the reviewers apparently believe in Rene without asking questions.
http://www.trufax.org/general/rene.shtml
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nasamoon.htm

JayUtah
2002-Feb-22, 08:40 PM
Mr. Brian is apparently another conspiracy theorist who doesn't know much about the technical fields he's talking about.

I think it's more accurate to say he knows about some technical fields and believes that this knowledge magically gives him expertise in other technical fields which he has not studied. Specifically, his expertise is in mathematics, but he believes he can also call himself an expert in physics.

But the fact that he has to very clearly contradict some extremely reliable tenets of physics in order to make his conclusion strongly indicates he is not searching for the truth but rather for some semblance of evidence which backs up the conclusion he has already decided to draw.

Ralph Rene is obviously someone who knows nothing about science

Ralph Rene bills himself as a self-taught engineer. That's like a self-taught doctor. I don't think Rene has the slightest idea what it takes to be an engineer, or what degree of qualification is required.

Before one can put the "P.E." designation after his name, he must obtain a degree from an accredited school of engineering, usually a graduate degree. Then he must apprentice under a professional engineer for a period of time. Then he can take the qualifying and licensing examination. The study guide for the FE/EIT/PE exam -- the notorious "Big Yellow Book" -- is 2.5 inches thick.

In short, the process for being certified as an engineer is not unlike being certified to practice medicine. For Rene to go around calling himself an engineer is like me calling myself a doctor because I read a book or two on medicine.

http://www.trufax.org/general/rene.shtml

Looks like a new age psueodoscience site to me. These people specifically reject mainstream science.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nasamoon.htm

Right-wing Christian with thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

Either one could be considered to have an a priori reason for rejecting NASA. And neither would have the scientific knowledge necessary to refute Rene, even if they were motivated to.

[/quote]

johnwitts
2002-Feb-22, 09:37 PM
Ever been on a trampoline? I have. It's perfectly possible for me to gain an altitude of 20 feet or so. I don't do it. Why? I'm fully aware that I could do myself some real damage if I get it wrong. Now all the Apollo astronauts, save Jack, were test pilots. Their distinguishing feature among test pilots was that they were still alive to tell the tale. You don't get to stay alive as a test pilot without being aware of when to jump as high as you can and when to tread carefully. It's probably not a coincidence that the most accident prone and 'jumpy' Moonwalker was Jack on Apollo 17. He'd probably not been in enough 'close calls' to fully realise the precariously dangerous position he was in.

PAV629
2002-Feb-23, 07:09 PM
sorry about the caps in my last posts......i posted from work and all the computers are locked in caps lock....... i also hope that mankind gets back to the moon or even mars within my lifetime.......what i have trouble with is we haven't been back to the moon since the apollo missions due to from what i hear the lack of the ability to do so!!!!! it seems that NASA over exaggarated the effectiveness and expenditures of the shuttle program.......unless there's technology available that we just havent been told about (i.e. ion drives) i dont see it happening in 50 years!!!!!

Kaptain K
2002-Feb-23, 07:24 PM
There are old test pilots and there are bold test pilots, but there are no old, bold test pilots.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-23, 08:48 PM
from what i hear the lack of the ability
to do so!

That's somewhat misleading. Not long into the Apollo program, public support for it evaporated. You can blame the government for slashing the budget. You can blame Jim Webb's lobbying tactics. You can blame the war or flower children or the fluoridation of the water. The point is that the money went away.

And you can also point to Apollo 13, which scared more people than was generally recognized, but that's sort of irrelevant to this question. The problem is that there is no public mandate to return to the moon, therefore no funding, therefore no equipment.

The skills and equipment that Apollo used were specific to the goals and procedures of the project. The people who built that equipment are mostly retired, and the skills aren't necessarily needed anymore. A few of the Apollo techniques are still applicable to air and space today, but to put it bluntly we have no lunar module and no reason to build one. So to say we can't go simply means we have no mandate to go, and therefore no reason to build the equipment necessary to go.

NottyImp
2002-Feb-25, 11:01 AM
The ion drive exists and is (sorry was - mission terminated in dec 2001) functional on the space probe Deep Space 1. A picture of it can be found here:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981026.html

_________________
Up the Imps!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: NottyImp on 2002-02-25 06:09 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Feb-25, 02:46 PM
The ion drive exists

Not only does it exist, it is no longer considered experimental. Boeing offers the ion drive option on its 701 series communication satellites. (Power windows and tinted glass optional.)

The problem with the ion drive is its extremely low thrust. It is meant to build up speed by firing continuously for weeks or months. But it has essentially no moving parts, does not involve very high temperatures, and is fuel efficient. This makes it desirable for unmanned long-term missions. But many of the manuevers involved in landing on the moon require short-order changes in velocity which can only be accomplished by a powerful engine. So for now we're stuck with going to the moon on good old-fashioned chemical rockets.

NASA has, however, spent the last ten years experimenting with some radically different forms of propulsion. We may see something yet.

Mnemonia
2002-Feb-26, 05:01 PM
On 2002-02-25 09:46, JayUtah wrote:
NASA has, however, spent the last ten years experimenting with some radically different forms of propulsion. We may see something yet.


Too bad most of it got the axe in 2000. I visited Marshall SFC shortly after the cuts on a university trip to the Computer simulation room - was sad to see designs for some really cool stuff that will not be transferred into meaningful equipment anytime soon, like scramjet engines for shuttlecraft and booster rockets.