Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 106

Thread: How many years, until...

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    I have no issues answering your questions, even though in a CT forum that obligation is recommended but not required. So before I do, why do you not answer my questions?
    I didn't really understand your questions. Maybe you missed the plural when I wrote "boundaries". There are any number of working definitions of where space begins, depending on what function the definition has, and even what vehicle is involved and what latitude and season of the year it is--the Apollo program used two that I'm aware of, and they were applied in quick succession within a few minutes of each other. But all these definitions (as far as I'm aware), follow von Kármán's realization that there's a boundary at which aerodynamic forces cease to be dominant over orbital mechanics, and that's the important location.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    I believe in the universal truths of science. Obviously, the Karman line would not be universally true. However, the statement, "where atmosphere ends, space begins", would be universally true. Do you believe in universal truths?
    Not particularly. I do believe in misdirection, however.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    ...However, the statement, "where atmosphere ends, space begins", would be universally true...
    And what is you definition of "where atmosphere ends"? I am pretty sure that is what people are asking for here - are you including the thermosphere? Exosphere?

    Can you please also lay out, simply and without the rhetoric, which claims you would like to put forwards and what your basis for them is? Because if your thread is simply about the semantics of where space begins then perhaps this is the wrong section for it. Whereas if you have arguments (beyond your incredulity) against the evidence for the lunar missions then clearly setting them out would help the debate.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    Grant, all caps may not make it more relevant but it does add humor. For me, and others like me.

    I have no issues answering your questions, even though in a CT forum that obligation is recommended but not required. So before I do, why do you not answer my questions?

    I believe in the universal truths of science. Obviously, the Karman line would not be universally true. However, the statement, "where atmosphere ends, space begins", would be universally true. Do you believe in universal truths?
    Answering questions in a thread you started is in fact, required. Chech the CT rules if you don't believe that.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I didn't really understand your questions. Maybe you missed the plural when I wrote "boundaries". There are any number of working definitions of where space begins, depending on what function the definition has, and even what vehicle is involved and what latitude and season of the year it is--the Apollo program used two that I'm aware of, and they were applied in quick succession within a few minutes of each other. But all these definitions (as far as I'm aware), follow von Kármán's realization that there's a boundary at which aerodynamic forces cease to be dominant over orbital mechanics, and that's the important location.

    Not particularly. I do believe in misdirection, however.

    Grant Hutchison
    There is no doubt, and I explained that previously. The Karman line is a delineation of aerodynamic and orbital mechanics. Point previously conceded. Misdirection is pointing a finger, when three point back towards you.

    I'll ask again; which delineation do you agree with in the context of this discussion
    A; NASA (80km)
    B; International/Karman Line (100km)
    C; FAA, (80 km with astronautic function)
    D; Other (as low as 18 miles)

    Please note, since this is the CT forum, I will answer almost anyone's question, but I will ignore yours when you ignore mine. Quid pro quo...
    Last edited by Ely; 2021-Aug-01 at 08:39 PM. Reason: Added context

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    Grant, all caps may not make it more relevant but it does add humor. For me, and others like me.

    I have no issues answering your questions, even though in a CT forum that obligation is recommended but not required. So before I do, why do you not answer my questions?

    I believe in the universal truths of science. Obviously, the Karman line would not be universally true. However, the statement, "where atmosphere ends, space begins", would be universally true. Do you believe in universal truths?
    I bristle at those phrases, science is about failing to falsify, never setting up “universal truths” . When enough tests have been passed we have theories, not universal truths. I am, however, curious as to where you are going with this. Is this a lead up to some challenge of , for example, the Apollo landings.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    And what is you definition of "where atmosphere ends"? I am pretty sure that is what people are asking for here - are you including the thermosphere? Exosphere?

    Can you please also lay out, simply and without the rhetoric, which claims you would like to put forwards and what your basis for them is? Because if your thread is simply about the semantics of where space begins then perhaps this is the wrong section for it. Whereas if you have arguments (beyond your incredulity) against the evidence for the lunar missions then clearly setting them out would help the debate.
    That is the question currently under discussion with, Grant Hutchison.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    There is no doubt, and I explained that previously. The Karman line is a delineation of aerodynamic and orbital mechanics. Point previously conceded. Misdirection is pointing a finger, when three point back towards you.

    I'll ask again; which delineation do you agree with in the context of this discussion
    A; NASA (80km)
    B; International/Karman Line (100km)
    C; FAA, (80 km with astronautic function)
    D; Other (as low as 18 miles)

    Please note, since this is the CT forum, I will answer almost anyone's question, but I will ignore yours when you ignore mine. Quid pro quo...
    You've already had my answer. I'll simply note at this point that no-one in their right mind would sign up to an open-ended category called "Other". "Other" is there for a respondent who has another specific category in mind, not for a questioner who wants to leave their options open.

    I'd also draw your attention to Rule 13B, which reads in part, "You must defend your arguments and directly answer pertinent questions in a timely manner. Honestly answering "I don't know" is acceptable. Evasiveness will not be tolerated."

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Aug-01 at 09:51 PM. Reason: Link and quote
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You've already had my answer. I'll simply note at this point that no-one in their right mind would sign up to an open-ended category called "Other". "Other" is there for a respondent who has another specific category in mind, not for a questioner who wants to leave their options open.

    I'd also draw your attention to Rule 13B, which reads in part, "You must defend your arguments and directly answer pertinent questions in a timely manner. Honestly answering "I don't know" is acceptable. Evasiveness will not be tolerated."

    Grant Hutchison
    To all: I cannot answer any further questions until there is a moderator ruling.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    <snip>
    I have no issues answering your questions, even though in a CT forum that obligation is recommended but not required. So before I do, why do you not answer my questions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    <snip>
    Please note, since this is the CT forum, I will answer almost anyone's question, but I will ignore yours when you ignore mine. Quid pro quo...
    Since you seem to have trouble understanding when a moderator is posting as a moderator - I am posting as a moderator.

    Since you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory it is completely your obligation to answer questions put to you. And you will answer all such questions, unless a MODERATOR (not you) has determined that the question is unreasonable. And I am telling you now that all the questions put to you so far are reasonable and you will answer ALL of them. If you are concerned that a question is unreasonable, you should Report the post and a moderator will make a determination. However, since you seem to love gaming the system, if you start Reporting all or most of the questions put to you, you will be suspended.

    No one else is obligated to answer any of your questions, it is their prerogative to do so or not.

    You have been given informal warnings by several moderators so far, but you still seem to have trouble following our rules. This time you will earn an infraction. Keep it up and you will earn a suspension.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    I am asking for "timely manner" exemption and at moderators discretion, suspension of this thread, until I have received clarification of "advice" and "seriously suggested" posted under forum rules.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    I am asking for "timely manner" exemption and at moderators discretion, suspension of this thread, until I have received clarification of "advice" and "seriously suggested" posted under forum rules.
    I've explained to you already in this thread and by several PMs. You will answer questions. It is the Rule. There are things that are "seriously suggested" but answering all the questions put to you is not one of them; it is your obligation.

    Stop playing parliamentarian.

    If you do not do so in your very next post, and if that post doesn't come in a "timely manner" (defined by me as to what 'timely' is) you will be seriously infracted.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    I believe, the Karman Line, FAA interpretation and NASA's static, demarcation of "space" is arbitrary and, please prove me wrong, used only for the awarding of astronaut/space wings and international treaty purposes.

    I wholeheartedly agree with, NASA, on the definition and extent of earth's atmosphere. Below is NASA's interpretation, which can be substantiated by innumerable journals in accredited, peer reviewed publications.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2919/e...-layered-cake/

    If anyone has a citation refuting the above definition of Atmosphere, feel free to post it.
    Last edited by Ely; 2021-Aug-01 at 11:09 PM. Reason: Typo

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Ely, two questions for you. The first question is much more important.

    Do you believe the Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon?

    What does the discussion about where the atmosphere ends have to do with that?
    I am posting as a non-moderator, but I would still like an answer, particularly to my first question.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    It is impossible to prove that which does not exist, does not exist. I can only offer a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, that which did not happen, did not happen.

    No human has ever set foot on the moon and no one alive today will ever see, purportedly, another human on the moon. Now that other nations have deep space networks, and the advancement of consumer electronics, it would be almost impossible to repeat the moon landing hoax.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    It is impossible to prove that which does not exist, does not exist. I can only offer a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, that which did not happen, did not happen.

    No human has ever set foot on the moon and no one alive today will ever see, purportedly, another human on the moon. Now that other nations have deep space networks, and the advancement of consumer electronics, it would be almost impossible to repeat the moon landing hoax.
    Thank you for a clear answer.

    One other question, but for this one I waive any obligation to answer it; I'm just curious.

    Is there anything that would convince you that the moon landings were real?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Thank you for a clear answer.

    One other question, but for this one I waive any obligation to answer it; I'm just curious.

    Is there anything that would convince you that the moon landings were real?
    Definitive evidence from Russia or China. even if it's just a photo. Definitely not one of those photos from Japan or the lunar orbiter where you cannot discern if it's the lunar rover or a spec of dust on your lcd. If you have to draw a circle and arrow to point it out, you put the wrong camera on your billion dollar satellite.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2919/e...-layered-cake/

    If anyone has a citation refuting the above definition of Atmosphere, feel free to post it.
    There seems to be no reason to refute it, since it says what everyone here has been saying:
    While there’s really no clear boundary between where Earth’s atmosphere ends and outer space begins, most scientists use a delineation known as the Karman line, located 100 kilometers (62 miles) above Earth’s surface, to denote the transition point, since 99.99997 percent of Earth’s atmosphere lies beneath this point. A February 2019 study using data from the NASA/European Space Agency Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft suggests, however, that the farthest reaches of Earth’s atmosphere — a cloud of hydrogen atoms called the geocorona — may actually extend nearly 391,000 miles (629,300 kilometers) into space, far beyond the orbit of the Moon.
    In other words, the atmosphere extends into space, which means atmospheric drag occurs in space.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    For those confused by, grant's post, please see paragraph one of the original post, which he/she chose to cut from his/her post.
    Rather disingenuous.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    It is impossible to prove that which does not exist, does not exist. I can only offer a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, that which did not happen, did not happen.

    No human has ever set foot on the moon and no one alive today will ever see, purportedly, another human on the moon. Now that other nations have deep space networks, and the advancement of consumer electronics, it would be almost impossible to repeat the moon landing hoax.
    Considering the overwhelming evidence for the moon landings, that strikes me as an odd position to take. Also, I expect more humans on the moon within, conservatively, fifteen years.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    For those confused by, grant's post, please see paragraph one of the original post, which he/she chose to cut from his/her post.
    Rather disingenuous.
    Eh? I don’t see anything confusing about Grant’s post.

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

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Considering the overwhelming evidence for the moon landings, that strikes me as an odd position to take. Also, I expect more humans on the moon within, conservatively, fifteen years.
    OVER HALF A CENTURY AND COUNTING.....
    until that trend ends, my postulation is entirely correct. Let me know when it is proven wrong...

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    11,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    It is impossible to prove that which does not exist, does not exist. I can only offer a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, that which did not happen, did not happen.

    No human has ever set foot on the moon and no one alive today will ever see, purportedly, another human on the moon. Now that other nations have deep space networks, and the advancement of consumer electronics, it would be almost impossible to repeat the moon landing hoax.
    This reads to me like you don't just think it wasn't done (6 times), but that it can't be done.

    If that's correct, please let me know your #1 technical/scientific reason why you think this.
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    Definitive evidence from Russia or China. even if it's just a photo. Definitely not one of those photos from Japan or the lunar orbiter where you cannot discern if it's the lunar rover or a spec of dust on your lcd. If you have to draw a circle and arrow to point it out, you put the wrong camera on your billion dollar satellite.
    Neither Russia nor China has ever disputed any evidence of the Apollo Moon landings. Even during the Cold War when the Soviet Union had every reason to want to discredit the accomplishments of the US, they never tried to make people believe that the Moon landings were anything but an indisputable success. Surely if they had some way to show otherwise they would have trumpeted to the world that it was All A Big Hoax.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    This reads to me like you don't just think it wasn't done (6 times), but that it can't be done.

    If that's correct, please let me know your #1 technical/scientific reason why you think this.
    I would include Apollo 8 and 13, make it a crazy 8.

    Number one reason, the rocket equation. I doubt combustion engines, for now and the foreseeable future, will ever be able to safely send humans to the lunar surface. The shielding required is far too heavy. The only way the ruse could be successfully perpetrated is, a unified effort of the USA, its allies and Russia and China. Artemis will fail. Bank it.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Neither Russia nor China has ever disputed any evidence of the Apollo Moon landings. Even during the Cold War when the Soviet Union had every reason to want to discredit the accomplishments of the US, they never tried to make people believe that the Moon landings were anything but an indisputable success. Surely if they had some way to show otherwise they would have trumpeted to the world that it was All A Big Hoax.
    Russia never disputed the moon landings? Seriously?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ally-happened/

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    For those confused by, grant's post, please see paragraph one of the original post, which he/she chose to cut from his/her post.
    Rather disingenuous.
    I quote the part I'm responding to. In the interests of compactness, I don't quote the part I'm not responding to. It's a common enough convention, because some forum software automatically truncates the displayed amount of quoted material, relegating the rest to a drop-down section. And that definitely can lead to confusion, because someone who careless quotes an entire post ends up with their response visually disconnected from the text they were responding to.
    It's just about clarity.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    Russia never disputed the moon landings? Seriously?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ally-happened/
    Read the article again (and ignore the headline; that writer goofed).The suggested investigation is about missing video and some of the samples, not the event itself. My bold.

    In an op-ed published by Russian newspaper Izvestia on Tuesday, Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, argued that such an investigation could reveal new insights into the historical space journeys.

    According to a translation by the Moscow Times, Markin would support an inquiry into the disappearance of original footage from the first moon landing in 1969 and the whereabouts of lunar rock, which was brought back to earth during several missions.

    "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened," Markin wrote, according to the Moscow Times translation.
    The article goes on to strongly suggest that the investigation request was politically motivated and a tit-for-tat response surrounding a completely unrelated issue with FIFA.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    That is called, 'diplomacy". First, find out how NASA lost the Apollo telemetry tapes. Step two, one step farther than step one. Wash, rinse repeat until proven fake

    How many articles do you want, within reason? What year would you like articles from? The availability if Russia disputing the moon landings is countless;

    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-t...ing/a-46441264
    Last edited by Ely; 2021-Aug-02 at 01:45 AM. Reason: Sentence 1

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    That is called, 'diplomacy". First, find out how NASA lost the Apollo telemetry tapes. Step two, one step farther than step one. Wash, rinse repeat until proven fake

    How many articles do you want, within reason? What year would you like articles from? The availability if Russia disputing the moon landings is countless;

    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-wants-t...ing/a-46441264
    What you contend is not what is stated. From the article you linked:

    Russia's space agency chief says a planned mission to the moon will verify if a 1969 US moon landing really took place. But his tongue seemed firmly in his cheek.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    ok, you win, Russia never disputed the moon landings. Duly conceded...

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
  •