PDA

View Full Version : Vacuum



FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-16, 07:58 PM
I just have one question to Dr. Phil. Why do you insist on referring to a vacuum? What do you base space as being a vacuum upon?

Humphrey
2003-Nov-16, 08:09 PM
Well it is not technically a vacume. There are tons of microscopic things floating in it and the presence of earth tself proves that it is not a vacume.

But when speaking to the general public sometimes its good to say things they understand and then refine this later on when they understand the basics.



Also: Welcome to the board!

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Nov-16, 08:11 PM
Dang it Humphrey, I was just about to post exactly the same thing! :)

Welcome to the board, FREEDOMROX!

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-16, 08:17 PM
Thank you. I was hoping this would be one Phil would answer, but I appreciate it. If interested, I will post my computations to the relevancy of such statements.

Musashi
2003-Nov-16, 08:22 PM
I'm interested.

I was under the impresion that Phil has stated that space is not a vacuum, but can be treated as such because it is nearly a vacuum and acts as such. What would the difference be between a real vacuum and space's approximate vacuum?

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-16, 08:32 PM
First we must take into account all variables, and the fallacy of virtual, mental, and literal. Any disagreement or computational correction is welcome, as this was done on the fly. I must go now to work on a gas heater, but back later. :wink:


1. Variable mass
Photon or phonon mass L / c^2 = mph varies with frequency f
and wavelength wl, --where wl = 2*pi*nL*r1 / nA = nL*c / f.

Light is a LaGrangian L --NOT a rest energy eM = m*c^2. Rest
mass m is just not itself invariant. 'Invariant mass' is an Old
Classical PRE-particle-decay notion. Invariant was the attitude.

The Relativity FAQ: < Do Photons Have Mass? > entails this same
easy misunderstanding of the 'invariant' historical fact. There is
no 'invariant mass' anymore. 'Invariant mass' is an old relic of a
misnomer from the dim days of old.

2. some reference nomenclature
Remember volt*amp*sec energy eV is - m1*v1^2 / 2, --and
using one excludes the other, per event. NO energy state can be
both increased and decreased, at once.

Fine STRUCTURE variable (n - 1) = (mD / m1) - 1
= (mD - m1) / m1 = (mD - m1) / (do - di)*Vi
= mS / m1 = (mD - m1)*Po / (Po - Pi)*Vi*dx.
= (mD - m1)*v1^2 / eG = (vescape)^2 / 2*v1^2.

SiGNETiC mass mS = (n - 1)*m1 = mD - m1, where n = mD / m1
--and where do and di are the inside and outside densities
of evacuated shell mass m1, Vi is it's inside volume, (n - 1)*v1
is the REQUiRED velocity at radius r1 and potential gravitational
acceleration g. Cavity Volume Vi = cavity mass / cavity density.

Ambient Discharge mass mD = (n)*m1 = mS + m1.
Ambient Discharge mass mD controls the sign and magnitude of g and
v1 at r. This is AMBiENT mass discharged from the shell mass CAViTY.
The REQUiRED velocity (n - 1)*v1 varies with mD.

3. In the following reference, AVERAGE {A} is NOT amp 'A':
{A} = AVERAGE number of atomic mass units u, per mol part.
~approximate(= isotopic number = protons Zp + nutrons Nn).
{A}*u = average amount of substance per mol part, in kg
(Note: In the OLD Periodic Table of Elements, {A}*u is the
average isotopic 'atomic weight' or 'relative atomic mass'.)
NOTE: OLD {A} is an AVERAGE; {GUESSISS} iSOTOPiC Xmass is EXACT.
u = atomic mass unit (amu), ..in {GUESSISS} kilograms.

Any AMBiENT media is gradient surrounding any M1, ANYwhere,
..including ANY sample N:
Ni = ni / xi
= [(n)*{A} / xi] atomic mass units u
= [(n)*{A}*u / xi] kilograms of various amounts of the media
substance extending away from M1 (--and on into deep space),
--for which:
xi = mol fraction of component medium i
ni = amount of substance of component medium i
Ni = total amount of substance of the mixture
--and where:
(mol part) = a mol of any substance / Avagadro's number Na
= any specified AVERAGE molar particle {A}*u
= a byte of (n)*bits = a molarbyte / Na
= [(n)*{A}] amu = [(n)*{A}*u] kg
byte = any number of bits, --but is usually just eight 8.
= typical unit of information in a computer system.
molarbyte = Na*bytes = (n)*Na*bits.
bit = binary digit = byte / (n) = (mol part) / (n)
= molarbyte / (n)*Na = {1 / (n)*Na} molarbyte
= molarbit / Na = {1 / Na} molarbit
= 1 yoctomolarbit = {ISS} 1.659772169 x 10^-24 mol
= {1 / (n)} yoctomolarbyte --where (n) is currently eight 8
= {A} ..in amu = [{A}*u] kg = 1 Bodot*second = 1 baud*sec
= smallest unit of information in a computer system.
Na = Avagadro's number, which is the same for any mol of
substance = {ISS} 5.994469365 x 10^23 (mol part) / Mol.

Every Integrated Standard System {ISS} iCON character has
precise, COHERENT mathematical, numerical magnitude & definition,
in numerical, COMPLETELY COHERENT units.






4. Skypunt docking (n - 1)
Hovering is an orbital period T1 with a limit of infinity, and the
Newtonian orbital velocity constant v1^2 is equal to g*r1, where g
would be the free-falling gravitational acceleration at the orbital
radius r1. In this context, note that:
a.) If mD = m1, the shell mass m1 is hovering in the ambient
medium. If mD = 0, then the shell mass m1 in the ambient
gravitational density gradient is either orbiting at radius r1 and
velocity v1, free-falling down at - g, or at rest in a ground state.
b.) --the velocity 'required' to maintain radius r1 increases with
the signetic mass mS = eS / c^2 = mD - m1
= (n - 1)*m1 = G*M1*m1 / r1^2*g = G*M1*m1 / r1*v1^2
c.) --that g 'as measured', and its + or - sign varies with (n - 1).
The gravitational acceleration varies with the signetic mass mS,
and accordingly the bouyancy of m1.
d.) --that (n - 1) manages the sign of g, v1, and G where:
G*M1 / r1^2 = (n - 1)*g = (n - 1)*v1^2 / r1

Signetic mass mS varies with the REQUiRED (n - 1)* v1 and gives v1
and gravitational acceleration g each its required sign. Synetic mass
is the (mD - m1) 'mass difference' and can be either positive, zero,
or negative.

5. Nature abhors 'NO medium'
NOTE: The very least measured medium on earth in which light has
ever actually been measured ..had:
~10^7 times MORE atoms / m^3 than the space-shuttle test media,
~10^10 times MORE atoms / m^3 than interstellar space,
~10^19 times MORE atoms / m^3 than deep space.

a. Deep space:
[0.001 atoms per cubic meter]
[= 10^-3 atoms / m^3]
b. Interstellar space:
[1,000,000 atoms per cubic meter]
[= 10^6 atoms / m^3]
c. Space suttle:
[1,000,000,000 atoms per cubic meter]
[= 10^9 atoms / m^3]
d. Very least test medium ever achieved on earth:
[1, 000,000,000,000 atoms per cubic meter]
[= 10^12 atoms / m^3]
e. Very least light-speed test (as-measured on earth):
[10,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cubic meter]
[= 10^16 atoms / m^3]
f. Molar gas standard at STP:
[10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cubic meter]
[= 10^25 atoms per cubic meter]

6. Avagadro's Law
The ONLY vacuum WAS the only absurdity without the mediation
of anything else. BEFORE the first beginning was ONLY vacuum.
Since then, there can ONLY have been reduced media. Since then,
vacuum can ONLY have been a state of mind or mental condition.
Vacuum is only HOW-it-use-to-be BEFORE the very first FiELD.

An 'interfacial more or less localized' zone exists BETWEEN all
molar particles with absolutely nothing else between them.

7. Creation vs Vacuum
Creation destroyed the ONLY vacuum; there hasn't been one
since. DO NOT confuse 'vacuum' with 'reduced media'.
Even a single photon is a reduced medium. We can see through
interstellar space because we can't see photons side-on or at
an angle ..but only one-end-on. Photons are invisible, looking
through some cross-section of such a stream, as interstellar
space appears empty. You must look exactly up-stream to see
them at all. Of course any clear glass appears empty, too.
In this way, photons are LONGiTUDiNAlly POLARiZED.
Phonons are mathematic-ly the SAME as photons.

Since creation, VACUUM is only a mental dimension or condition.
Various vacuums can ONLY exist in swisscheese-like minds.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><>






8. Archimede's cavity filling missing
The {GUESS} negates GR-tivity and Ether, when the 'proper'
missing buoyancy factor (n - 1) is NOT left out of Newton's law.
Assume a shell mass m1, enclosing a large cavity, is sitting
submerged at the bottom of a gradient medium, and that the
cavity is filled with ambient medium at ambient temperature,
and ambient pressure & density. As per Archimede's Principle:

solid volume = total ambient displacement

An 'ADDENDUM to Archimede's Principle' is required, to account
for the displacement of the medium by ANY submerged 'cavity'
contained by the shell mass m1, as follows:

Solid volume + cavity = total ambient medium displacement
= Vm1 + Vi = Vm1 + {m1 / (do - di)} , --hovering submerged.

A submerged object with a cavity displaces a volume of ambient
equal to the volume of shell material itself, plus the displacement
of any cavity that the shell encloses. Archimede's Principle is
independent of DENSiTY for a cavity enclosed in a SUBMERGED object.
The PERiDiODiC TABLE accounts for the various densities and
displacements of all known solids, gases, and plasmas, etc, --but,
CAViTiEs or HOLEs which are contained by a stiff shell also have
densities and displacements relative to the outside AMBiENT.

Submerged shell mass m1 will hover in the media when its CAViTY
discharges a mass of ambient media equal to the shell mass m1,
..irrespective of the DENSiTY of the shell itself.
Hovering is independent of any fixed density of the actual
SHELL MASS m1 itself, --as long as m1 remains submerged with
respect to any ambient media, --but is NOT independent of the
density of its CAVITY MASS, with respect to any ambient media.

There is no obvious reason to have to SPECiFY shell strength (S)
UNLESS its REQUiRED to define a SPECiFiC material for the shell m1.
HOVERiNG can be maintained by a stiff sealed shell mass in AMBiENT
by combination of the following:
1. a difference in temperature --hot air lift
2. a difference in pressure --the reduction method
3. a difference in density --lighter medium method
--all between inside and outside of the containment shell
4. a subsequent orbital velocity (n - 1)*v1 required to maintain
an hovering radius r1 ..lift-off rocket, airplane & copter between.
NOTE: States 1, 2, & 3 are separated from state 4 by a significant
somewhat FORBiDDEN ZONE with a very un-likely probability of being
able to support either method of hovering.

Hovering.. Vi*(do - di) = shell mass m1
= (cavity volume)*(DELTA density)
= (shell volume Vs)*(shell density ds)
= Vs*ds
= Vi*(Po - Pi)*(unit density) / Po
= 4*Vi*(shell stress S)*(unit density) / Po*{(diameter / thickness) + 1}
= 4*Vi*(thickness)*(S)*(unit density) / Po*(diameter + thickness)
= {(Vi*do) - (inside mass mi)} / n
= (mD - m1) / (n - 1)
= mS / (n - 1)
= mS / {(mD / m1) - 1}
= mD / n
= mS*r1^2*g / G*M1
= mS*r1*v1^2 / G*M1
--where:
Synetic mass mS varies with the required velocity (n - 1)*v1.
mD = amount of ambient discharge mass from m1 cavity
= n*m1 = Vi*do - mi = mS + m1 , --(at hovering mD = m1).
Vi = pi*(dia)^3 / 6 = hovering spherical cavity volume
v1 = m1 velocity
do = outside ambient density
di = inside ambient density
r1 = centre to centre separation of M1 to m1 radius
g = potential gravitational acceleration at radius r1
Po = outside ambient pressure
Pi = Inside ambient pressure
dia = hovering inside diameter of m1 cavity
th = hovering shell mass m1 thickness
M1 = typically a central mass




9. the fundamental CONSTANT set
The Systeme Internationale d'Units(SI) is currently established
on the meter, the kilogram, the second, and the ampere, known
as the (MKSA) or Giorgi System, which is a SINGLE 'rationalized'
(but not a completely coherent) system.

In 1901-1903, Professor A Giorgi recommended that when the
magnetic permeability constant Uo is assigned the magnitude of
the mathematical constant 4*pi / 10^7 and the electric permittivity
constant is assigned the magnitude of 1/ Uo*c^2, a profound
mathematical coherence among the appropriate units of measure
(Meter, Kilogram, Second, and Ampere) and some of the very
most fundmental physical constants is created.

The Giorgi recommendation was accepted in the 1930's and has
been enacted into law by the British, American, and many other
national parliaments over the years.

Centimeter Gram Second(CGS) systems are inherently divided
into mutually exclusive versions, --the electrostatic esu units and
the electromagnetic emu units. CGS units are 'un-rationalized'
and have no integrated coherence.

Heaviside-Lorentz units comprise a CGS system of electrostatic
esu and the electromagnetic emu units, and is a dublet-rationalized
form of Gaussian units (which are unrationalized and have no
integrated coherence comparable to Systeme Internationale d'Units).
The dublet Heaviside-Lorentz, and the Gaussian units, are both still
used in particle physics and GR-tivity today.

The SI is a single, far MORE coherent, system of units. The loose
ends are now tied in and a new, more natural, COMPLETELY coherent,
and rationalized system translates from the work.

NEW SI --the Integrated Standard System{ISS}, is a very fundamental
fusion of simple basic mathematics, the list of CODATA fundamental
physical constants, inter-related equations, and basic measure units
--a COMPLETELY coherent numerical analysis.

We don't have a measured, least-squares-adjusted pi because we know,
exactly, mathematically, what the magnitude of pi 'ought to be'.

NOW, we also know exactly, mathematically, what the magnitudes
of all the other fundamental physical constants 'ought to be', too.

The {ISS} is a completely coherent, simple, mathematical matrix.
One 1, pi, and ''e'' form an INITIAL set of numbers (mathematical
constants).

Pi, ''e'', 10, pi + 1, and Qx(Stefan-Boltzmann radiation constant)
form a PRINCIPAL set. The principal set spits out a completely
coherent set of all of the most fundamental physical constants,
--and in completely coherent fundamental units of measure.

Subsequently, the secondary set is of all of the most fundamental
physical constants. The secondary set is the fundamental CONSTANT
set. There are no arbitrary fundamental physical constants.

NOTE:
a. Request: 'Harmonic Metrology {Integrated Standard System}'
< ISBN 0 9693164 1 0 ;< {ISS}.wpd; 55KB; legal size >
--a precise account in CORAL Word Perfect 7; 53KB.
b. Search: < {GUESS} Integrated Standard System {ISS} >
--{ISS} general structure in ACSII, acsii, e-mail script.


10a. GENERAL UNiVERSAL EQUATiON of STATE SYSTEM {GUESS} model:
a fine STRUCTURE table
n - 1 is the fine STRUCTURE variable PERIODIC TABLE icon.
n - 1 = - 1 = i^2 ..for GR-tivity; Where mD / m1 = n = 0
n - 1 = 0 ..at BUOYED weightlessness; '' mD / m1 = n = 1
n - 1 = ae ..electron PRiOR anomally; '' n = mn / mp
n - 1 = a ..the fine STRUCTURE constant; '' n = mp / u
n - 1 = + 1 = i^4 ; ..where n = 2 = ge*(a + 1)*u / mn
u = mp / (a + 1) = D_2 / (a + 2) = D_2 - mp = Hy - me
= mn / (a + 1)*(ae + 1) = 2*mn / ge*(a + 1) = mp - a*u
= ATOMiC MASS UNiT amu = the PRiOR STANDARD atom / integer
= INTEGRATED STANDARD SYSTEM {ISS} unit masss / N = 1 / N.


10b. HAMiLTONiAN ENTHALPY energy E FRAME of REFERENCE:
{GUESSISS} HAMiLTONiAN ENTHALPY energy E
= G*M1*m1 / (n - 1)*r1 + m1*v1^2 / 2 + m1^2*v1^2 / 2*M1
= m*c^2 + mph*c^2 - m1*v1^2 / 2
= m*c^2 + pL*c + pA*f1
= eM + h*f + eV
= eM + L + eV
= eM + eK
= L + eF + eK
= eG - eV + eK
= eG + L
= eG + h*f
= eG + pL*c
= eG + mph*c^2
= eG + (m1*v1^2 / 2)*{(m1 / M1) + 1}
= eG + m1*v1^2 / 2 + m1^2*v1^2 / 2*M1
= G*M1*m1 / (n - 1)*r1 + m1*v1^2 / 2 + m1^2*v1^2 / 2*M1.

NOMENCLATURE:
E = Hamiltonian Enthalpy energy.
G = universal Gravitational constant volume / {mass*(sec)^2}.
M1 = a massive typically central body.
pA = nA*hbar = eV / f1 = Angular momentum
nA = pA / hbar = eV / hbar*f1 --a dimensionless number
pL = nL*h / wavelength wl = h*f / c = Linear momentum
nL = pL* wl / h = L*wl / h*c --a dimensionless number
wl = wavelength = nL*h / pL = nL*h*c / Lagrangian L
= nL*c / f = nL*h / Linear momentum pL = 2*pi*wlbar
pL = Linear MOMENTUM = nL*h / wl
f = nL*c / wl = nA*c / 2*pi*r1 = pL*c / h = pA*c / h*r1 = FREQUENCY
h = Planck's constant = 2*pi*Dirac's constant = 2*pi*hbar
mph = h*f / c^2 = pL / c = general PHOTON mass (..NOT a REST mass m)
= L / c^2 ..photon mass is NON-RELATiViSTiC (See Er icon, below).
L = eK - eV = E - eF - eK = E - eM - eV = E - eG = h*f = pL*c
= eM - eF = mph*c^2 = {GUESS} LaGrangian photon & phonon energy.
eK = E - eM = m1^2*v1^2 / 2*M1 = {nL*h*c / wl} + {nA*hbar*f1}
= L + eV = h*f + pA*f1 = Kinetic energy
= pL*c + pA*f1 = h*f + eV = eG - eF
= mph*c^2 - m1*v1^2 / 2 = (Gibb's free energy - Helmholtz free energy).
eV = pA*f1 = -(m1*v1^2 / 2) = VOLTAGE times CHARGE -> V*A*sec
eM = REST energy = m*c^2 = E - eK = E + m1*v1^2 / 2 - mph*c^2
= E - eV - L = eF + L = eG + m1*v1^2 / 2 ..VERY COHERENTLY,
= [{G*M1*m1 / (n - 1)*r1} + m1*v1^2 / 2] = eG - eV
= NEWTON's energy for an isolated system including mass M1
with test mass m1 at velocity v1 in its vicinity reduces to THREE
ZERO-POiNT lattice vibration energy phonon quanta of h*f / 2 each.
(..fine STRUCTURE variable (n - 1) included for n = mD / m1 = 0)
= Er*sqrt[1 - (vr^2 / c^2)] = Mr*c^2*sqrt[1 - (vr^2 / c^2)]
= Sr*c^4 / 2*G = (universe mass)*c^2*sqrt[1 - (1^2 / ^2)]
--ALL these eM's are iNTRiNSiC energy EQUiVALENTs of REST mass m.
m1 = {GUESSISS} test mass in the vicinity of M1.
v1 = m1 velocity of m1 in the vicinity of M1
r1 = v1^2 / g = pA / pL = M1 to m1 (centre centre) distance.
mD = mass discharge of ambient from {ISS} test particle m1 cavity
--NOTE that mD = m1 at the point of buoyed weightlessness.
mS = (n - 1)*m1 = signetic mass = fine structure variable times m1
eF = Helmholtz Free energy = eM - L = eG - eK
eG = eM + eV = E - L = E - eK + eV = eK + eM - L
= G*M1*m1 / (n - 1)*r1 = [e]^2 / r1 = Gibb's free energy
--(can also be 2*eP or m1*v1^2 in an isolated system).
g = 4*(pi)^2*(pendulum length) / (pendulum period)^2 = v1^2 / r1
= G*M1 / (n - 1)*r1^2 = G*M1*m1 / mS*r1^2 = isolated eG / m1*r1
= 4*(pi)^2*r1 / T1^2 = G*M1*m1 / (mD - m1)*r1^2.
c = velocity of light.
Er = {GUESSISS} relativistic energy:
1. Photon mass mph = h*f / c^2 = L / c^2 is not relativistic.
2. Central mass M1 and test mass m1 at velocity v1 in its
vinicity constitute an isolated system's rest mass.
Mr = rest mass m / sqrt[1 - (vr^2 / c^2)] = relativistic mass
vr = rest mass relativistic velocity
Sr = isolated mass system's Schwarzschild GR-'radius'
= SiZE coefficient of self-shrinkage, if any, by increased mass.
mass ---> ANY magnitude with units definable in kilogram kg
---> VARIABLE Kg ---> inertia / m^2 ---> ANY joule / c^2.
(n - 1) = (mD - m1) / m1 = a fine STRUCTURE variable,
--where mD is AMBiENT Discharge mass from m1
--and where (n) = mD / m1 provides the + or - sign.




11. Nature abhors an EMPTY cavity
There is no particular ambient medium iNSiDE a container-cavity,
..by definition. Any internal 'reduced ambient media' is RELATiVE
to the typical OUTSiDE ambient media.

VACUUM is literally NON-existant by molar accounting. BUT,
for a CAViTY with a PARTiCULAR volume, it is related to a
PARTiCULAR amount of displaced SUBSTANCE (N - nd)
= MOLAR cavity DiSPLACEMENT = N*(1 - xd) mol
--where: nd = N*xd
--and: xd = nd / N = the molar fraction of the amount of
iNSiDE ambient substance nd, initially at equilibrium with the
OUTSiDE ambient, which gets DiSCHARGED from a cavity containing
a TOTAL mixed AMOUNT of substance N. (See: AMBiENT MEDiA, above.)

A practical basic STANDARD for that is the molar fraction xd which
is currently discharged at POiNT of BUOYANCY in the ambient media.
The amount of substance nd displaced, at the point of buoyancy in
the ambient media, is exactly equal to the AMOUNT of SUBSTANCE of
the container's SHELL mass m1 (..plus any LOAD, of course).

''You might as well just say--'' the amount of substance of the
container is the space-TiME-curvature, at the GR-tivity Limit,
..IN the SPACE, ON the SURFACEs, of the cavity-CONTAiNER,
..whether the cavity is EMPTY or NOT. Any inside or outside
particular ambient medium or media has its own con-CROOKED-space.
Note how space & TiME virtually implies con & CROOKED ..by analogy.

When people say ''vacuum'' they are invariably talking about
REDUCED container-cavity media. The 'reduction' of a cavity is
relative to outside ambient. A REDUCED cavity is characterized by
a relative DiFFERENCE in shell stress, and between particular iSiDE
and OUTSiDE densities (i.e. temperatures & pressures). It seems quite
easy to confuse 'reduced pressure', --or technical 'reduction', with
a VACUUM (i.e. ..the MENTAL dimension or a MENTAL condition).

NATURE abhors an EMPTY container CAViTY.

EPiLOG: Evolving physical creation
Theories are mental concepts of physical creations,
and however free we are to CREATE them in our mind,
there are no PHYSiCAL concepts or PHYSiCal theories.

We justifiably STRUCTURE some uniquely determined
concepts to help us understand as wide a range of
phenomena as possible.

Humphrey
2003-Nov-16, 08:35 PM
:o Wow. Man i wish i knew math so i could understand a 10th of that.

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-16, 08:41 PM
I admit it is a little dry and simplistic, but will post more later. BBL 8)

Musashi
2003-Nov-16, 09:15 PM
Can you please provide your citation of Dr. Plait calling space a vaccum?

swansont
2003-Nov-16, 10:16 PM
Well it is not technically a vacume. There are tons of microscopic things floating in it and the presence of earth tself proves that it is not a vacume.

But when speaking to the general public sometimes its good to say things they understand and then refine this later on when they understand the basics.


It depends on which definition you are using. When a scientist refers to a vacuum, typically the reference is to a region where the pressure is significantly below 1 atmosphere (which is one definition of vacuum).

Pinemarten
2003-Nov-16, 11:02 PM
I hope you are not plagiarizing, or is this your post as well?

http://mailgate.supereva.it/sci/sci.bio.systematics/msg01024.html

("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

Graphic by: Toe!< epastore@erols.com >

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 02:05 AM
Just got home. Very interesting day. I see the flaming has already begun.


The reference is on the Apollo page.

"Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, ""in a vacuum"", the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. ""In a vacuum"", no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle. "
To my accuser:
That is not my posting, but I placed this on a newsgroup 2 years ago known as sci.edu.
A lot of what I have learned over time comes from my study of "A New Cosmogony", and "A Perfect Vacuum", but I wrote it, yes.
Seems I may have been plaguerized.
I see the tone of this forum is not what I was led to believe. Seems I am mistaken about the demeanor of most forums I try out these days.
Sigh.
The search for reason continues.

Pinemarten
2003-Nov-17, 02:16 AM
I apologize.

I didn't realize the work was yours.
Sorry. :oops:

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 02:26 AM
If anyone has any thoughts, or if I am mistaken, please, I am here to learn. If not, then what is the point? Can a vacuum be achieved anywhere, at anytime?
Is the a quantum reality where it is possible, or one of the 11 string dimensions.
What are anyone's thought upon the emerging string theorum?
I know this is trolling, but I do not want to jump into other threads where I am at a distinct disadvantage, by not knowing the history of the poster.
The only sure thing I am absolute on, is that we are only scratching the surface of knowledge about the perceptual universe in which we reside.

Pinemarten
2003-Nov-17, 02:41 AM
I agree.
Man has yet to experience vacuum.
I believe string theorum will put science on its ear.



The only sure thing I am absolute on, is that we are only scratching the surface of knowledge about the perceptual universe in which we reside.

......and I agree 100% with this statement.

Musashi
2003-Nov-17, 02:42 AM
I'm not sure where the flaming you are speaking of is...


If anyone has any thoughts

What is that supposed to mean?

I don't see why it is such a big deal if Phil refers to space, or the space on the lunar surface as a vacuum. That quote doesn't exactly have him defining space as a pure vacuum. Mountains out of molehills?

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 02:51 AM
Sorry, it was the only one I could find on such short notice, as I explained I just walked in the door. I have followed his postings on other forums as well.

An thoughts? Well, that is the whole point of the Perceptual Univers now isn't it? I think therefore I am. Nothing is absolute. If so, please give me an example. Death? Not really, when was the last time you died?
Taxes? Not if you are not a 14th Amendment citizen residing under the Constitution OF the United States.

So what else do we have left, but thoughts? Do you function, or do we prgress without them?

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 02:52 AM
Hmmm, why am I losing character feeds on this forum?

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 03:02 AM
Seems I have stepped into an ambient medium when I stepped onto the face of this forum. :-?

Pinemarten
2003-Nov-17, 03:09 AM
I am still with you. I am a character, and I do feed.
I also would like to welcome you to the board.
=D>

I have 'whined' about the speed of light not being accurate, gravity being a lot slower, not enough evidence to support either law..........etc

I have been spanked and sent to bed without dinner on this board; but I still consider it as one of the best sites for scientific truth anywhere.
We may be picky about OT, but if a point is good, we will discuss it.

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 03:28 AM
I should have put in character sets. Missing letters. Possibly my browser settings, I do not know.
Ok, Pinemartin.
Let's define gravity then, shall we?
Is it magnetism, as I believe, or is the mysterious generated force that the Unfied Theory keep attempting to discover a fifth, (hidden) force to explain?

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 03:30 AM
Yeesh, now it's whole words. <insert>Unified Theory's researchers' attempting to find.
This is annoying.

DataCable
2003-Nov-17, 03:39 AM
Is a perfect vacuum possible? Yes. In the sense that there is, somewhere (certainly a great many somewheres), a given volume of space, however small, which contains absolutely no matter.

You will doubtlessly find references stating that deep space contains x hydrogen atoms per cubic meter/kilometer/whatever. Within such a volume, the space between the two nearest particles, at that moment, is indeed a "perfect" vacuum. However, trying to identify a given volume of space as such is impractical, given unpredictable nature of the system.

Pinemarten
2003-Nov-17, 03:40 AM
I have studied magnetism, it is another ruse.
Gravity has yet to be proven or defined to my satisfaction in any scientific group.

I feel it is a lot 'slower' than most people believe.
I can't prove anything, but neither can they.
If it is near escape velocity, then science will have to change a theory or two.
If it is close to SOL, then it is still only 'close'.

We cannot define it until we understand the 'particles' that cause its properties.

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 04:08 AM
Good answer Data Cable. But is there a void, or is it merely a space. Is it existent, or non-existent? Is that a definition of a vacuum? Voided space?

Pine.

"We cannot define it until we understand the 'particles' that cause its properties."

Very good point, but how is magnetism a ruse, as it is clearly a component, if not THE gluing component, and possibly showing that gravity is the fantasy?

Thank you, for now my mental juices are flowing.

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 04:24 AM
It is often a misconception that space is a vacuum or simply empty. Space is a nearly perfect vacuum, even better than the best ones made in labs on earth, but it is not devoid of everything. The fact is that space is filled with tiny particles called cosmic dust and elements like hydrogen and helium. This applies for interstellar space also and all the previously mentioned particles make up what is known as the interstellar medium.

The interstellar medium is mainly made of lone hydrogen atoms. They do not even exist as pairs as they do on earth. I mentioned before that space is filled with hydrogen atoms. The actual density of hydrogen as it exist in interstellar space is on the average of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. In the extremes, as low as 0.1 atom per cubic centimeter has been found in the space between the spiral arms and as high as 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter are known to exist near the galactic core.

The interstellar medium also contains cosmic dust. These particles are much bigger than hydrogen atoms. However, there are far fewer particles of cosmic dust than there are hydrogen atoms in the same volume of space. It is estimated that cosmic dust is 1000 times less common than hydrogen atoms in the interstellar medium.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

So, what is postulated in-between? What defines the void, and the space where particles are separated?

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 04:30 AM
Put another way, in a flux of energetic particles, what are the spaces in between defined or realized as?

Pinemarten
2003-Nov-17, 07:15 AM
I suggest you correct your ways.

http://www.kuhmann.com/starstuff/Dust.htm

carolyn
2003-Nov-17, 07:42 AM
Maybe a true vacuum only exists between the branes, ref string theory?

Kaptain K
2003-Nov-17, 09:08 AM
FREEDOMROX,
You are arguing semantics. Neither Dr. Plait nor anyone else has said that space is an absolute vacuum. Space is a relative vacuum compared to conditions found on Earth.

Emspak
2003-Nov-17, 03:56 PM
Um, I may not be understanding the thoughts expressed here well, but what do you guys mean when you call gravity a "fantasy" or believe it is connected to magnetism?

As I remember, the four fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces -- do unify at high enough energies. So in that sense I suppose gravity and magnetism are connected.

If you are speaking of gravity having no explanation -- for instance, nobody has directly observed gravitons yet, whereas photons that carry the magnetic force are easy to see -- that's interesting, but I'd not call it a fantasy, I guess. I mean, the act is that gravity behaves about the way Einstein's theories and even Newton's expect it to.

There's a lot of work yet to be done, of course, on questions such as why gravity is such a weak force, why it is always attractive and is it scale-invariant -- that is, does the force work the same way on all scales? (Thus far it seems like it does, but it is an open question still).

I'm just trying to tease out what FREEEDOMROX is asking.

If he is talking about the definition of vacuum, there are a few depending on what you want to know. It can be the lowest-energy state of empty space (if you are a particle physicist), the absence of an atmosphere and a low-density environment with little in it (most astronomers and the planetologists) or the empty space between matter (philosophers).

If we assume the first definition, then the issue is the lowest-energy state. OK, that means there is "nothing" there except the quantum frothing that brings virtual particles in and out of existence. So there is "something" there but it isn't "real" in the same way atoms are.

If you are speaking philosophically, then there are a stack of Greek thinkers and later ones who argued endlessly about whether the "void" exists. The consensus of the greeks was that it does because otherwise nothing could move. (This idea has had a coupe of thousand years of refinement since).

If you are asking about working definitions then it's sort of moot - that is why they are called working definitions. For most purposes defining the interstellar medium as a vacuum works fine.

ToSeek
2003-Nov-17, 05:47 PM
Put another way, in a flux of energetic particles, what are the spaces in between defined or realized as?

Quantum foam? (http://www.concentric.net/~bbortin/QuantumFoam/QuantumFoam.html)

sts60
2003-Nov-17, 06:23 PM
Freedomrox,

I'm also unclear on what you mean by your original post. Are you saying, in the context of the Apollo thread quote, that it's wrong to call the space above the lunar surface a vacuum? Not really, not in the context of rocket exhaust expansion. It's a valid approximation, and calling it a "vacuum" is a perfectly good shorthand way of saying "for purposes of our calculations, that which may be treated as a perfect vacuum".

Of course, at finer levels of detail, there's no space that's void of all matter and energy; the just-mentioned "quantum foam" flows everywhere. But then, calculating the Caisimir effect is quite different than calculating dynamic pressures from a lunar module descent engine!

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-17, 10:15 PM
I have taken all I need from this BBS. So far, I have found none among you that truly thinks about what is, and what isn't. I would dearly love to stick around here, and look at all the unoriginal thought processes, but I do have work to do, so it is bon' voyage.
I admit this was a fun exposition, but not one so far has used any more grey matter other than that which is rote.
This is why no true discoveries are ever postulated beyond semantics, and philosophy. Not one of you have posited anything beyond normalistics of existentials, and the amount of you that have carried out experiments on their own, must be near zero, as no true theorums are presented anywhere upon exploraion of this BBS. I find this, pretty close, to everywhere I go.
The bondage teachings have accomplished their mission, as a tool to impede progress, and to cement in structured minds the immutable laws which keep most in a constant state of denial. Nothing is immutable, as Fermi made clear so long ago, and Eistein readily admitted.
This is what keeps scientists in check, not questioning simplistics, such as why Sol is in such an energetic expulsion phase three years beyond Solar Max, nor what the underlying causes are, nor equating energy states with massive dust storms being fed into it, nor the abnormal positioning of the poles in sucking this extranneous mass.
It is also this bondage teaching, that keeps the scientific community quite as to why the dark spot appeared on Jupiter almost a month to the day from Galileo's fatal plunge. No, I am not one whom believes it will ignite Jupiter into a secondary sun, but it is the height of irresponsibility to slough off the intentional desecration of another of our sister planets, when we understand so very little about her.
It is exactly this kind of thinking that allowed Nozomi to be programmed for a collision course with Mars, superior in our own arrogance and technology, that is as faulty as the bondage teachings themselves, which threaten to contaminate another of our sister worlds, and then to slough it off again, as if not a disaster of major proportions. Not even the rudimentary decontamination procedures were followed, although, the very bad decision to plot a collision course was made as early as 1996.
Once again, mankind's arrogance will cause even more damage to a world we know next to nothing of.
How many of you have actually looked at the raw logs, some bound in antiquity now, of the spectrographical analysis of Mars, (our God of War), and notice they were tampered with to posit the red atmospheric lensing effect of red skies on our closest doppleganger in space, nor the intentional resolution settings being narrowed to the extreme?
Who among you have questioned the physics of such a flawed notion? How many have run the mathematical computations of the existence of the polar ice caps upon the atmosphere, even of only 400 million cubic kilotonnes were in existence? How many of you question why this mathematical scenario posits a greenish-blue sky, and not red, by this interaction?
How many of you care that this orbital sattelite will forever poison this uncharted neighbor with earthly microbes? How many know of this precise plan proposed in 1988, to intentionally introduce earthly microbial life into a dead planet, of which, it is becoming clearer every year that Mars is not so dead, after all?
Considering that this view of Mars is changing daily, then who is to say we are not committing genocide of other less evolved microbial lifeforms, which common sense tells us, is indigenous to said planet? Who knows, in all likelihood, taking into account the atmospheric content of gases, that such life is abundant on this verdant world?
Why ask why, right? NASA is God, as they have been fond of playing of late, with no regards to dangers, nor harm, inflicted? The Japanese would naturally not care, since one of their leading scientists proposed this seeding scenario to begin with? Maybe, you should throw some of your outdated bondage teachings off, and look at the macrocosm in an entirely different light, while taking into account the microcosm? Maybe, you should not be so comfortable, nor superior, in your scientific acumen?

This is what bothers me about Phil. He subjects others to his bondage teachings, then brow beats others of like mind to his viewpoint, while ridiculing others with original thought content? Sure, some are way out there, but, if you think at all, then all possibilities must be taken into account, or true understanding and progress will never take place.
One of the main problems I, personally, have with Phil is his Apollo explanations, which fall under the category of Bad Astronomy.
So far, he cannot explain how a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 can withstand recorded temp. extremes of -180F/+200F, when even taking into account the thin protective plates, could not, and would not, adequately shield the film emulsion, as Hassleblad has admitted it could not do.
He fallaciously claims that a 7% reflectivity rate would cause the shadow anomalies, which is easy to disprove, when noticing that pictures of rocks closest to the supposed source of reflectivity, (lunar surface), have pure black shadows. Once again common sense is overlooked. Nor does it accout for the rise in light source as Aldrin exits the Lunar lander, nor can he explain the impossibility of a man in full suit and gear being able to exit thru a 28" airlock, that the door opens inward on, as evidenced by measurements taken of the LEM just recently, and the confirmation of the inward opening door. Not plausible in the least.
Most importantly, no one to date can explain how during the most explosive solar flare period during one of the so-called missions, does not adversely affect the astronauts, nor even show protonic resonance, or even electron flux, nor any distortions on the film emulsion, when we still take note of these anomalies on SOHO/LASCO to this day. Nor the simple fact of how astronauts could survive the hard radiation of the Van Allen Belts, (of which two new ones were created by Project: Starfish, and others, prior to first launch), in little more than the equivalent of a tin can with no ill effects recorded upon either, nor addressing such an impossiblility.
No satisfactory explanation of the 14' rooster tails hitting what appears to be atmosphere from the Lunar Rover which is airless, (no atmosphere), and at 1/6th gravity than Earth, then falling back to the surface at a rate of 32 ft/s2 or 9.8 m/s2 (meters per second per second).
Think, people, if the mass of the Moon is 1/6 of the mass of the Earth, what is the approximate acceleration of gravity on the Moon? 32 ft/s2 divided by 6, and you will see the descrepancies become obvious.
Possibly, my consternation is increased with the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin that shows the LEM, Neil Armstrong and landing site in the reflection of his visor. One of the strange things with this picture is that the reticule that is supposed to be in the middle of the picture actually shows up at the bottom of Aldrins right leg? How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest? A fact that is easily verifiable by the reflection of the cameraman in the visor. Many people have speculated that the pictures have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts. But this cannot be applied to the Apollo 11 photographs because a duplicate copy of the original Armstrong film has been analyzed and shows that the pictures are all on one continuous roll of film that contains over 100 images. Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight. The only way the reticule could appear in the bottom of the leg is if the picture had been copied and reframed. I'm sure this light source was the same 7% of reflectivity, again? LOL. This does not compute either.
I will state that if Mankind truly went to the Luna, then the NASA films and photos are not the real McCoy's, so to speak, so it poses many other questions, which, so far, none have answered with anything other than the official NASA, (Never A Straight Answer), line of faulty reasoning, and obfuscation.
In closing, I now see why this place is called Bad Astronomy, as none of you seem to question that which your supposed betters relate to you in such officious overtones of authority, as to squelch any real line of questioning, and dissent from the ranks of the bondage teachings.
I will take my leave from you Borg-like entities, to march lock-step in rhythm to the beat of the Powers that Be, and keep engaging in some truly, very Bad Astronomy.
Good Day. [-(

SeanF
2003-Nov-17, 10:47 PM
Wow!

Speaking of unoriginal, I think we've heard all that before.
:o

TriangleMan
2003-Nov-17, 10:55 PM
Ummm, what was this thread all about? Hmmmm, Borg-like entities? That does sound familiar . . . :-?

(edited to add: found it, freedomrox shares some similarities with bradguth (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=119052&highlight=#119052))

Musashi
2003-Nov-18, 12:53 AM
I wish I had the willpower to read that huge whiny rant, but I don't. So, you come in here, accuse Phil of something, fail to back it up , and then whine that no one uses any brain power. That is a very interesting process you go through.

Several of us asked you to clarify, but you couldn't do that. We posited other explanaitions, but you refused to comment. Basically, I stand by my comment that you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. If you think that is supposed to inspire people to think about things, then there may be something wrong with you. Just when we almost got some calrification from you, you went off on some weird metaphysical rant... but I guess that is probably par for the course for you. Thanks for playing, come back when you learn how to answer questions... or don't.

Pinemarten
2003-Nov-18, 12:56 AM
I think I shall stop "feeding the trolls".

Musashi
2003-Nov-18, 12:57 AM
He is much too coherent to be Bradguth, but in the end, FREEDOMROX is just another hoax believer, unwilling to apply any scientific processes to his hypothesis. Oh well.

Donnie B.
2003-Nov-18, 01:33 AM
I have taken all I need from this BBS.
Take, take, take... all you ever do is take. :P


Considering that this view of Mars is changing daily, then who is to say we are not committing genocide of other less evolved microbial lifeforms, which common sense tells us, is indigenous to said planet? Who knows, in all likelihood, taking into account the atmospheric content of gases, that such life is abundant on this verdant world?
So, next time you come down with pneumonia or meningitis, you'll be refusing antibiotics. You wouldn't want to harm any poor little microbes, now, would you? :lol: #-o

OK, so I'm being sarcastic. But where did this whole line of thought come from? It doesn't seem to have much to do with the characteristics of vacuum or the Moon landings. Anyhow, just to lay the issue to rest: the Vikings and other Mars landers were [space probe voice]STER-IL-IZED[/space probe voice]. To the best of our ability, anyhow.


This is what bothers me about Phil. He subjects others to his bondage teachings...
Why, Phil, you sly devil! I never knew! So, do you prefer silk scarves or padded handcuffs? 8-[


No satisfactory explanation of the 14' rooster tails hitting what appears to be atmosphere from the Lunar Rover which is airless, (no atmosphere), and at 1/6th gravity than Earth, then falling back to the surface at a rate of 32 ft/s2 or 9.8 m/s2 (meters per second per second).
Think, people, if the mass of the Moon is 1/6 of the mass of the Earth, what is the approximate acceleration of gravity on the Moon? 32 ft/s2 divided by 6, and you will see the descrepancies become obvious.
Why, oh why, do we not have an emoticon that's rolling on the floor holding its sides trying not to bust a gut from laughing so hard? Oh, dude, did you sleep through every physics class, or just the ones on Newtonian gravity? Reminder: velocity is the derivative of acceleration, and position is the second derivative. You really need to apply something a bit more sophisticated than arithmetic.


In closing, I now see why this place is called Bad Astronomy, as none of you seem to question that which your supposed betters relate to you in such officious overtones of authority, as to squelch any real line of questioning, and dissent from the ranks of the bondage teachings.
I will take my leave from you Borg-like entities, to march lock-step in rhythm to the beat of the Powers that Be, and keep engaging in some truly, very Bad Astronomy.
Good Day. [-(
Yeah, right. The entire educational system has been twisted so that all the answers come out wrong, and nobody's noticed. And all to cover up the fake Moon landings! Boy, have I ever been blind. Thanks, man, you've opened my eyes... :o

FREEDOMROX
2003-Nov-18, 01:50 AM
It was all explained at the beginning. I wanted Dr. Phil, not his mindless minions. He chose to ignore for 2 straight days. Clarify? If you cannot understand to begin with, what good would an explanation do?
It was not incoherent, and very simple to understand. If you could not, then that is your failing, not my own. Smugness without the proper tools to rate such behavior qualifies as arrogance. I have never been one to applaud such.
If you want to know me, know my site, set up for researchers, not easy answers, at: http://freedomrox.org/
I am a political activist, and proud of it, but that is not my only talent.
[-X

I do truly mean that this is my last post here, as Phil will not respond. If he wants an intellectual discussion in private, then contact me at: dndirty1@myway.com

as I have many other simplistic questions to ask, and maybe even to answer.
I would love to see a response to my last posting in my inbox, but, of course, no one has a responsibility to do so. I believe most see BA for what it really is. Not a scientific think tank, but more of a 'Hail Mary', 'Atta Boy', mutual admiration society.
Enjoy your Tyranny! :evil:

Musashi
2003-Nov-18, 02:08 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... I could go on... but why bother.

Thanks for making my week. :roll:

DataCable
2003-Nov-18, 07:24 AM
Oh lordy... #-o All the conspiracy-nut talk went and made me forget which forum this was. Reply moved over to Lunar Conspiracies (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9434)

[Edited to correct temporary cerebral flatulence]

pteranodon
2003-Nov-18, 11:20 AM
FREEDOMROX, I think the void is the space not occupied by particles in a atom, for instance.

pteranodon
2003-Nov-18, 11:26 AM
FREEDOMROX is a woo woo who says water vapor is visible and resorts to personal attacks:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?page=2&topic=3&message=214999&mpage=&s howweek=

AstroMike
2003-Nov-18, 11:54 AM
FREEDOMROX, did you get your Apollo arguments from this site (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html)?

AstroMike
2003-Nov-18, 12:51 PM
Also go look at these threads:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1626
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6236

sts60
2003-Nov-18, 02:37 PM
Freedomrox,

calling people "mindless minions", etc. does not constitute a useful argument. If you want to argue the Apollo landings, (a) you should continue in the appropriate forum (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9434), and (b) you should review the discussions (using the search facility) before making previously-debunked claims.

Also, don't expect the regulars on this board to be swayed by insults or bullying. Among the BABB regulars, there is a great deal of experience in topics directly relevant to the Apollo program. You need to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

JayUtah
2003-Nov-18, 05:29 PM
One of the main problems I, personally, have with Phil is his Apollo explanations, which fall under the category of Bad Astronomy.

Yawn. Same old long-debunked arguments taken from Bennett and Percy and the people they copied from. You accuse us of being spoon-fed information, yet that's exactly what these authors are doing to you. A little bit of research quickly exposes their deception. You accuse us of failing to experiment, yet most of your charges below are empirically falsifiable. Your authors didn't do the experiments and neither did you.

So far, he cannot explain how a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 can withstand recorded temp. extremes of -180F/+200F

Go learn about heat transfer and thermodynamics. Then try again. Why would the temperature of lunar surface material have anything to do with film in a camera?

He fallaciously claims that a 7% reflectivity rate would cause the shadow anomalies...

7% of sunlight is equivalent to a hundred-watt bulb spaced every meter on the surface. We did the math; your author didn't. He didn't know how -- we asked him.

which is easy to disprove, when noticing that pictures of rocks closest to the supposed source of reflectivity, (lunar surface), have pure black shadows.

No. Only the photos you were spoon-fed are like that. There are hundreds of others that aren't like that.

Once again common sense is overlooked.

No. Once again common sense is put in its place. If common sense was actually worth anything, we wouldn't have to hire expensive doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other people do to work that requires special expertise. We could just hire some guy off the street, as long as he had "common sense".

Nor does it accout for the rise in light source as Aldrin exits the Lunar lander

Armstrong's suit accounts for that.

...nor can he explain the impossibility of a man in full suit and gear being able to exit thru a 28" airlock

Never tested by your authors.

...evidenced by measurements taken of the LEM just recently

Except your authors didn't measure a LEM. They measured a scale model of a LEM built by some third party.

The LEM door was 32x36 inches. The PLSS was 19 inches wide. You do the math.

Most importantly, no one to date can explain how during the most explosive solar flare period during one of the so-called missions, does not adversely affect the astronauts

Why is it that conspiracy theorists never give actual data? Hint: David Wozney is not a radiation expert.

There are oodles of independent data sources on solar flares for the period 1969-1972. During that time there were only three flares above 10 rem (not even enough to make you sick) and only one above 100 rem (enough to make you sick, but not much). The supposed solar max had peaked prior to 1969, and the missions were all conducted during the decline into the solar minimum.

The actual data is quite different from the "predictions" of the uneducated conspiracy theorists.

when we still take note of these anomalies on SOHO/LASCO to this day.

Their equipment is hundreds of times more sensitive, and unshielded. (Shielding would eliminate its effectiveness.)

Nor the simple fact of how astronauts could survive the hard radiation of the Van Allen Belts

The simple fact of the Van Allen belts not being as dangerous as uneducated and ignorant conspiracy theorists claim.

of which two new ones were created by Project: Starfish

... and dissipated long before the missions.

No satisfactory explanation of the 14' rooster tails hitting what appears to be atmosphere from the Lunar Rover which is airless

Selective evidence. The conspiracists can't say why air supposedly affects the plume in the horizontal direction but not in the vertical.

then falling back to the surface at a rate of 32 ft/s2 or 9.8 m/s2

Dust doesn't even fall that fast on earth.

Think, people, if the mass of the Moon is 1/6 of the mass of the Earth, what is the approximate acceleration of gravity on the Moon? 32 ft/s2 divided by 6...

... and differences in fall time are the square root of 6, or about two and half. That corresponds to what we see in the videos.

How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest?

What about that makes the camera unmovable? Have you seen an actual camera and space suit assembly? I have.

...because a duplicate copy of the original Armstrong film has been analyzed and shows that the pictures are all on one continuous roll of film that contains over 100 images.

Except that the "analysis" was pure guesswork, and the reader is never shown the actual evidence so he can decide for himself.

David Percy claims the fiducial grid was moved for just that frame. He measured the distance between the center fiducial and the top and bottom of the frame, respectively, and found that these distances were unequal. He therefore concluded that the fiducial grid was altered for this frame.

He neglected to see whether the center fiducials on all the frames in the roll were evenly spaced. They are.

He neglected to see whether the distance from the center fiducial to the bottom border was the same in this photo as in all the others. It is.

In fact, Percy neglects to mention that he is just guessing where the top of the frame is in the photo. No wonder he "concludes" that the reseau grid is disproportional. He just made up the key bit of evidence. If he had looked closer, he would have seen that Aldrin's PLSS is actually partially cut off by the top of the frame. If this demarcation is used as the top of the frame, instead of Percy's estimate, the frame is proportional.

That's why we don't get to see Arnold's one-off copy. It would show that Percy gave Aldrin way too much headroom.

Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.

Lundberg is not an expert in lighting. Bennett and Percy ask him many questions that are outside his expertise, and he gets many historical details wrong. The authors rely on only one expert, where we rely on dozens of equal stature as Lundberg.

The "spotlight" effect is easy to reproduce on earth. I've done it myself many times.

The only way the reticule could appear in the bottom of the leg is if the picture had been copied and reframed.

And it was, in the version that Percy spoon-fed you.

I'm sure this light source was the same 7% of reflectivity, again? LOL. This does not compute either.

Interesting choice of words, since the conspiracists decline to provide any computation for their photometry assertions.

none have answered with anything other than the official NASA, (Never A Straight Answer), line of faulty reasoning, and obfuscation.

You are adept at poking fun, but you haven't yet shown that any of these explanations are wrong. Whether they constitute some "party line" is irrelevant. They are either right or wrong, and if you argue they are wrong then it is up to you to prove they're wrong. Since many of them are empirically verified, that's a tall order.

Glom
2003-Nov-18, 05:39 PM
Welcome back to GA, Jay.

FREEDOMROX, take this to Lunar Conspiracies.

When you do, don't just virtually copy Cosmic Dave's site verbatim.

Celestial Mechanic
2003-Nov-18, 06:34 PM
I have taken all I need from this BBS. So far, I have found none among you that truly thinks about what is, and what isn't. I would dearly love to stick around here, and look at all the unoriginal thought processes, but I do have work to do, so it is bon' voyage.
I admit this was a fun exposition, but not one so far has used any more grey matter other than that which is rote.
This is why no true discoveries are ever postulated beyond semantics, and philosophy. Not one of you have posited anything beyond normalistics of existentials, ... [Snip!]
"Not one of you have posited anything beyond normalistics of existentials" Normalistics of existentials? I have this picture in my mind of Monty Python's Grand Inquisitor (played by Michael Palin) torturing someone with the comfy chair and the soft cushions and declaring, "This one is made of sterner stuff. Fetch me ... THE NORMALISTICS OF EXISTENTIALS!!!!"

I'm sorry, Dr. Plait, this is one of the funniest bits of word salad I've seen since I saw the following in my e-mail:

Effective immediately, [Division X] will now operate as part of the [Y Group], creating manufacturing and transportation synergies between these two ... businesses.

Sorry to see you leave, FREEDOMROX, don't let the screen door bruise your buttocks! :D

Kaptain K
2003-Nov-18, 06:37 PM
Just out of curiosity.

400 million cubic kilotonnes
What is a cubic kilotonne and how many are there in a cubic hectare? :lol:

sts60
2003-Nov-18, 08:03 PM
It's just too darn hard to impress people on this board with big words and a superior attitude. :)

Lycus
2003-Nov-18, 08:40 PM
This is what bothers me about Phil. He subjects others to his bondage teachings...
Why, Phil, you sly devil! I never knew! So, do you prefer silk scarves or padded handcuffs? 8-[

That's why they call him the Bad Astronomer. :P

Avatar28
2003-Nov-18, 09:26 PM
Just out of curiosity.

400 million cubic kilotonnes
What is a cubic kilotonne and how many are there in a cubic hectare? :lol:

I was kind of wondering what the conversion factor would be to convert a cubic kilotonne into a cubic buttload.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Nov-19, 12:06 AM
FREEDOMROX, several points:

1) The problems with your posting (words/characters disappearing) is probably due to the use of special code in this BB software. Some characters are reserved for coding. It's in the FAQ, linked at the top of every page in the BABB.

2) You said:


I have taken all I need from this BBS. So far, I have found none among you that truly thinks about what is, and what isn't. I would dearly love to stick around here, and look at all the unoriginal thought processes, but I do have work to do, so it is bon' voyage.

Your attitude is baffling. After looking at the thread, I see a lot of thoughtful replies to you, which you treat with disrespect. Then you launch into an extremely tired and long-debunked treatise about the Moon hoax. JayUtah already ripped apart those statements, so I won't bother.

3) Now, to answer your original question: my use of the word "vacuum" is a colloquialism meant to represent the conditions of space, where the amount of matter per cc is so small compared to normal atmospheric pressure on Earth that using the number 0 for the density is accurate enough. Of course the lunar surface is not a perfect vacuum, any more than orbits are perfect circles or ellipses. It's just a shorthand word used that is understood to mean "very much reduced in pressure". As I posted in GLP, I think you are overinterpreting the word.

4) And as to why it took a few days for me to post, I don't reply to every thread right away. Sometimes I am busy, sometimes I'd rather just let it sit for a day, sometimes I'm simply not in the mood. After reading your posts here and on GLP, I am not sure why I am bothering to reply now, to be honest. I think your mind is already made up about me and about mainstream science. But I might be wrong, which is why I am replying.

If you want to continue this discussion, then by all means feel free to post. Seriously. But please lose the attitude; arrogance begets dismissal on this board.

BlueAnodizeAl
2003-Nov-19, 04:04 AM
Good answer Data Cable. But is there a void, or is it merely a space. Is it existent, or non-existent? Is that a definition of a vacuum? Voided space?


This is a purely philosophical view.

It is not necessary to achieve perfect vacuum to treat the vastness of space as such, close is in many physical cases good enough. Take satellite orbits for instance, now some people will spout out the diameter of the Earth to 8 decimals; the problem arises, however when consideration is given to large mountain ranges that can alter that radius by several miles. The case being that the radius of the Earth cannot be known to a sufficiently accurate value to satisfy the exactness that physicists and mathematicians (no offense to any of you) generally require to solve their complex theories of nature. Engineers on the other hand will round the same value to within +/- 10% because close will keep a satellite in orbit for hundreds of years (Explorer 1). I choose this example to point out that one of the more advanced technologies we as a species have developed is still nothing more than an approximation. The density of space, even the high atmosphere of Earth can be approximated by saying vacuum. All this approximation means, is that if the analysis or research involves a particle/fluid type flow, continuum aerodynamics does not apply and the behavior of individual molecules becomes the issue.

I'm not saying it's not important to find the EXACT laws that govern our universe, by all means continue your research; give the engineers new theories they can approximate.

BlueAnodizeAl
2003-Nov-19, 04:11 AM
Man, seems I'm always behind the eight ball.

Sammy
2003-Nov-19, 06:18 AM
These postings from Freedomrox are among his milder and saner rantings. You ought to see the stuff he routinely writes on GLP, where is a central figure of the paranoid anti-government nutcases. The whole Black Helicopter, Constitution has been subverted, taxes are illegal, courts have no jurisdiction, etc., etc., crowd hangs out there.

Oh yes, the evil government watches everything we say and do on the net, monitoring all BBs, fora, etc. People who debunk the more zany stuff posted there are immediately accused of being paid government agents. If the government was doing everything they say, there would not be enough people in the entire country to carry out surveillance they assume is going on!

pteranodon
2003-Nov-21, 12:57 PM
FREEDOMROX also states that smoking does not cause cancer. :evil:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?message=218554&mpage=1&topic=3&showwee k=11/17/2003

Shame on you, FREEDOMROX!!

Laser Jock
2003-Nov-21, 04:34 PM
FREEDOMROX also states that smoking does not cause cancer. :evil:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?message=218554&mpage=1&topic=3&showwee k=11/17/2003

Shame on you, FREEDOMROX!!

That is just terrible. :evil:

It is also really sad that so many on GLP believed him. :roll: