Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast
Results 481 to 510 of 545

Thread: Does anyone still believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon after Chang'E-4

  1. #481
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Read this. It explains the meaning of eccentricity, and how that is a completely independent orbital parameter from inclination.

    Here are my outstanding questions:
    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    You've (still) got a bunch of other stuff pending, too.

    Grant Hutchison
    I abandoned that academic exercise because with out corresponding information from 1969 it could be asserted that is was apples and oranges and unrelated so why bother?

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I abandoned that academic exercise because with out corresponding information from 1969 it could be asserted that is was apples and oranges and unrelated so why bother?
    That's not an "academic exercise"; it was the entire crux of your argument before you Gish galloped over to the VAB.
    Last edited by VQkr; 2021-Apr-21 at 08:18 PM. Reason: capitalize Gish

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Perspective! an ellipse is a straight line when viewed in a 2d side perspective.
    When viewed in the same plane as the orbit, yes it is represented by a straight line assuming no other forces act on the orbit to change its plane. However, when viewed perpendicular to that plane the orbit represents and ellipse again assuming no other forces act on it. You really have problems with 3-D geometry. I suggest you pick up a high school geometry text book and read up on the subject.

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    Well no, the experts unanimously agree the historical Apollo record is substantially accurate.



    No they don't. You do realize GCR is predominantly protons too, right?



    Ya think.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section

    An orbit around a single point mass will be an ellipse. It will only appear as a straight line if viewed from the plane in which the ellipse resides. For example, a view orthogonal to the VABs will not be looking at the Apollo orbits edge-on.

    But it is more complicated than that. The VAB also are not stationary. They are approximately toroidal, with axial symmetry around earth's magnetic poles. They rotate with the earth around earth's geographical poles (imagine a spinning, wobbling plate). So any static 2-D view will be an approximation, or will hold the VAB in a stationary reference frame and distort the orbital ellipse of the spacecraft into a more complex 3-D curve that will not be flat when viewed from any angle.

    Inclination alone is not enough information to know an object's path through the VAB because these planes intersect at a pair of rotating nodes. You need to take longitude of the ascending node and timing into account as well. Then consider the eccentricity and semimajor axis to determine residence time within the belt.

    To restate another way: a given pass of an elliptical orbit inclined 45į to the equator could either go right through the heart of the belt or completely miss it, depending on its longitude.
    The earth is both rotating on its own axis and orbiting around the sun and it is also hurtling through space at some fantastic speed and all of that has no impact on the perspective in the short time frame we are considering. It is true that the longitude and latitude determine the entry point into the VAB but is is the inclination from that point that establishes the plane that the Apollo travels. From a 2d perspective of that plane it would be a straight line. Now if your contention is that a 2d perspective of the VAB is not at a 90 degree angle to the plane of the ellipse of the orbit then I point out the fact that the lunar plane is and to intercept the moon and orbit it that a holzmann transfer places them on the same plane.

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    That's not an "academic exercise"; it was the entire crux of your argument before you Gish galloped over to the VAB.
    No, my contention was NASA was surprised to find the Moon was a source of radiation.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I abandoned that academic exercise because with out corresponding information from 1969 it could be asserted that is was apples and oranges and unrelated so why bother?
    The point is to support your claims with evidence. Are you now admitting you canít support your claims about the lunar radiation environment? Weíve been asking you questions on these points throughout the thread, and youíve repeatedly avoided answering them.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Gravity is a vector acting in opposition to the rocket thrust and motion. It is not a force acting to change the plane of travel.
    I remember some dude that proclaimed on YT that gravity wasn't a force, was that you? Regardless, you should stay out of YT if you want to learn. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature, plain and simple and you are WRONG.

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The earth is both rotating on its own axis and orbiting around the sun and it is also hurtling through space at some fantastic speed and all of that has no impact on the perspective in the short time frame we are considering. It is true that the longitude and latitude determine the entry point into the VAB but is is the inclination from that point that establishes the plane that the Apollo travels.
    Distraction. The sun's motion through the galaxy, earth's orbit around the sun, etc are not relevant to our discussion; for our purposes we are discussing the portion of the Apollo trajectory where only earth and the spacecraft need be considered. The rotation of the earth is of critical importance to understanding the trajectory through the belt.

    From a 2d perspective of that plane it would be a straight line.
    No, from some 2D perspectives an ellipse appears as a straight line.

    Now if your contention is that a 2d perspective of the VAB is not at a 90 degree angle to the plane of the ellipse of the orbit then I point out the fact that the lunar plane is
    Huh?

    and to intercept the moon and orbit it that a holzmann transfer places them on the same plane.
    Apollo did not use HTOs. This has already been pointed out to you.

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No, my contention was NASA was surprised to find the Moon was a source of radiation.
    Ah, so are you now saying you didnít make a claim that an astronaut would receive a higher radiation dose on or near the Moon than in cislunar space? Are you now saying you didnít make claims about lunar materials being so radioactive astronauts would have needed to use special procedures to handle them? If so, that kills your claims about the total radiation dose being too high to match the Apollo 11 radiation record.

    If youíre just claiming NASA was surprised about something, what was the point of the thread?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No, my contention was NASA was surprised to find the Moon was a source of radiation.
    You contention is trivially easy to falsify, here is a link to a 1970 paper on neutron activation products in lunar samples.

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/507

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    The point is to support your claims with evidence. Are you now admitting you can’t support your claims about the lunar radiation environment? We’ve been asking you questions on these points throughout the thread, and you’ve repeatedly avoided answering them.
    The evidence can be found between the quotes from the NASA scientist. If you feel he is incorrect then your argument is with him and not me. The burden of my proof was satisfied when I showed you where he said it.

  12. #492
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No, my contention was NASA was surprised to find the Moon was a source of radiation.
    So why would that mean the Moon landings were fake? Your logic makes no sense.

    If the NASA didn't know the Moon was a source of radiation (and I'll assume that you mean an unacceptably high source of radiation), then they wouldn't know not to send astronauts there. They would have sent astronauts there on Apollo 11, found out "oh my gosh, we've irradiated these poor brave men" and not sent anyone else (or decided to send them anyway, test pilots are brave that way). But none of that would have prevented at least the first moon landing.

    Or is your contention that we never went to the Moon, that all the data supposedly from the Moon landings were fake - and this is a lot more than just some radiation measurements, but hundreds of kilos of moon rocks and soil samples, photos, film, UV photos of the stars, the laser reflectors they set up on the Moon, seismometers that were set up on the Moon. And all of that fake data fooled the thousands of people from all over the world who have examined all of this stuff, but the only thing that foiled NASA's plot was that their fake radiation measurements didn't agree with the Chang'e-4 data?

    I would be interested to know which of these is your contention (or do you have an alternative hypothesis), because neither of these makes any sense to me.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    Distraction. The sun's motion through the galaxy, earth's orbit around the sun, etc are not relevant to our discussion; for our purposes we are discussing the portion of the Apollo trajectory where only earth and the spacecraft need be considered. The rotation of the earth is of critical importance to understanding the trajectory through the belt.



    No, from some 2D perspectives an ellipse appears as a straight line.



    Huh?



    Apollo did not use HTOs. This has already been pointed out to you.
    I will acknowledge that if the ellipse was a plane that was not at a right angle to the VAB it might show curvature depending on the length of the ellipse but it would appear as two lines separated as a function of degree it deviates from the perpendicular. In no instance should the line curve as in the illustration unless the center of the ellipes of the orbit is not earth but some distance point.

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    So why would that mean the Moon landings were fake? Your logic makes no sense.

    If the NASA didn't know the Moon was a source of radiation (and I'll assume that you mean an unacceptably high source of radiation), then they wouldn't know not to send astronauts there. They would have sent astronauts there on Apollo 11, found out "oh my gosh, we've irradiated these poor brave men" and not sent anyone else (or decided to send them anyway, test pilots are brave that way). But none of that would have prevented at least the first moon landing.

    Or is your contention that we never went to the Moon, that all the data supposedly from the Moon landings were fake - and this is a lot more than just some radiation measurements, but hundreds of kilos of moon rocks and soil samples, photos, film, UV photos of the stars, the laser reflectors they set up on the Moon, seismometers that were set up on the Moon. And all of that fake data fooled the thousands of people from all over the world who have examined all of this stuff, but the only thing that foiled NASA's plot was that their fake radiation measurements didn't agree with the Chang'e-4 data?

    I would be interested to know which of these is your contention (or do you have an alternative hypothesis), because neither of these makes any sense to me.
    At this point I am afraid to respond to your questions but here we go.
    According to NASA they suspected that GCR radiation might irradiate the surface. Under normal circumstances you would think they would have sent probes to determine the extent of the problem. The fact that NASA claims that they measured for neutrons while Apollo 11 was on lunar surface and found no measurable amount is interesting. I could understand being surprised if you had not actually been to the moon and had not sent numerous probes.

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    You contention is trivially easy to falsify, here is a link to a 1970 paper on neutron activation products in lunar samples.

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/507
    I showed you the quote. I did not make it up.

  16. #496
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    I remember some dude that proclaimed on YT that gravity wasn't a force, was that you? Regardless, you should stay out of YT if you want to learn. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature, plain and simple and you are WRONG.
    I never said gravity was not a force. I said it is a vector. I am not sure if you understand what a vector is but a force is a vector.

  17. #497
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The evidence can be found between the quotes from the NASA scientist. If you feel he is incorrect then your argument is with him and not me. The burden of my proof was satisfied when I showed you where he said it.
    Another typical non-answer. Evidence for what can be found from what NASA scientist? As usual, you donít answer the questions asked.

    I donít recall anything in this thread supporting your claims about lunar radiation. I do recall the article discussed here:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...77#post2535477

    that directly showed your claim about the lunar radiation environment was flat wrong. I note you have steadfastly ignored this article and you have refused to answer questions regarding it.

    Really, what is your reason for being here? Your claims have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, and you constantly evade questions. The only thing youíve demonstrated is that you arenít interested in serious engagement.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #498
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I am not sure my personal business is an appropriate subject of discussion for this forum. Let's just say I am an information analyst.
    Well, concerning the Apollo missions to the moon (10 thru 17) there's tons of information to analyze proving it wasn't faked. I can see a nation faking 1 mission to the moon to gain some futile glory (it would easily be disproven on later missions) but trying to fake many of them over several years? One tree does not a forest make.

  19. #499
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Another typical non-answer. Evidence for what can be found from what NASA scientist? As usual, you don’t answer the questions asked.

    I don’t recall anything in this thread supporting your claims about lunar radiation. I do recall the article discussed here:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...77#post2535477

    that directly showed your claim about the lunar radiation environment was flat wrong. I note you have steadfastly ignored this article and you have refused to answer questions regarding it.

    Really, what is your reason for being here? Your claims have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, and you constantly evade questions. The only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you aren’t interested in serious engagement.
    "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34470642#.WuYJ14gvyUm

  20. #500
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I abandoned that academic exercise because with out corresponding information from 1969 it could be asserted that is was apples and oranges and unrelated so why bother?
    Nope, not getting away with that.
    I've pointed out repeatedly that you can't compare 1969 data to 2019 data.
    What I want from you is some 2019 data to support your claims about 2019 data.

    Here are my outstanding questions:
    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    You've (still) got a bunch of other stuff pending, too.

    Grant Hutchison

  21. #501
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Well, concerning the Apollo missions to the moon (10 thru 17) there's tons of information to analyze proving it wasn't faked. I can see a nation faking 1 mission to the moon to gain some futile glory (it would easily be disproven on later missions) but trying to fake many of them over several years? One tree does not a forest make.
    I can see a nation faking 1
    Just because you don't know how a magic trick is done does not mean it is not a magic trick.

  22. #502
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Nope, not getting away with that.
    I've pointed out repeatedly that you can't compare 1969 data to 2019 data.
    What I want from you is some 2019 data to support your claims about 2019 data.

    Here are my outstanding questions:
    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    You've (still) got a bunch of other stuff pending, too.

    Grant Hutchison
    My claim does not entail faked 2019 data. If you want research done unrelated to my claim then you are on your own.

  23. #503
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    At this point I am afraid to respond to your questions but here we go.
    Just so it is clear. If I post in purple, it is official business as a moderator. This is true for all moderators, though there are some personal differences in color choice. Their choice will be indicated in their signature.

    If I am posting in black, I am just like any other user (this is also true for other moderators). You should be no more afraid of those questions than you are of any other.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  24. #504
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The earth is both rotating on its own axis and orbiting around the sun and it is also hurtling through space at some fantastic speed and all of that has no impact on the perspective in the short time frame we are considering. It is true that the longitude and latitude determine the entry point into the VAB but is is the inclination from that point that establishes the plane that the Apollo travels. From a 2d perspective of that plane it would be a straight line. Now if your contention is that a 2d perspective of the VAB is not at a 90 degree angle to the plane of the ellipse of the orbit then I point out the fact that the lunar plane is and to intercept the moon and orbit it that a holzmann transfer places them on the same plane.
    1) There's no such thing as a "holzmann transfer".
    2) The Apollo TLI trajectory was not a Hohmann transfer orbit.
    3) The Apollo lunar transfer orbit was not in the same plane as the moon's orbit.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-21 at 09:42 PM.

  25. #505
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    That would be several "magic tricks".

  26. #506
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Gravity is a vector acting in opposition to the rocket thrust and motion. It is not a force acting to change the plane of travel.
    This is the claim you made. I don't need a lesson about vectors. What stikes me is your second sentence, gravity very definatley s used to change planes of ttavel. Study the flight path of Voyager 1.

  27. #507
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    My claim does not entail faked 2019 data. If you want research done unrelated to my claim then you are on your own.
    Nope. Not getting away with it. Your claim is pure handwavium if you can't answer my specific questions.

    Where is the contemporaneous cis-lunar free-space dose measurement that led you to conclude the moon is more radioactive than free space?
    In what way is the moon "30% or 40% more radioactive" than expected? What measure of radioactivity has increased? Who expected this not to be the case, why, and when?

    Grant Hutchison

  28. #508
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Just because you don't know how a magic trick is done does not mean it is not a magic trick.
    That analogy makes no sense.

    We know EXACTLY how the Apollo missions were done. The documentation is overwhelming and comes from multiple, verifiable sources.

    The analogy to your "magic trick(s)" would be faked mission(s). But there is NO evidence of a vast conspiracy to fake the moon landings, a conspiracy that would have involved thousands of people and would have been kept secret by all of them for 50 years. It is inconceivable (and yes, I know exactly what that word means ) that such a conspiracy could have been kept secret for so long.

    Even if somehow you could demonstrate that there was something wrong with the radiation values reported by NASA for the Apollo missions (something I do not concede), I would conclude that there was something done incorrectly with that measurement back in 1969, rather than the moon landings were faked, given the overwhelming evidence showing the landings occurred.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #509
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post

    "The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34470642#.WuYJ14gvyUm
    Yes, we’ve discussed this out of context quote from a NBC popular article about something that a Boston University researcher found to be a bit unexpected.

    So what? If your only claim is someone found something that wasn’t quite what they expected, what’s the point of this thread?

    Also, since we’ve discussed it so many times, I’m sure you know that Harlan Spence was lead author on the peer reviewed article that showed you claim about the lunar radiation environment was flat wrong. I just referred to it again in my post you just responded to. Here again is a link to my post with the quote from the article that devastates your claim:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...77#post2535477

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #510
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    This is the claim you made. I don't need a lesson about vectors. What stikes me is your second sentence, gravity very definatley s used to change planes of ttavel. Study the flight path of Voyager 1.
    Never mind, you wouldn't understand.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •