Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
17-07-2019, 15:04   #16
Dohnjoe
Registered User
 
Dohnjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfa1509 View Post
I think the burden of explanation is on you.
Actually, the burden would be on yourself in this situation

The widely accepted theory (one that is overwhelmingly accepted as historical fact) is that man landed on the moon. If you have an alternative sequence of events then you must present that with credible evidence

Failing that, then you put anyone else in a hard position as you are simply maintaining a denialist position. A denialist position is a fallacy in itself because it results in you demanding proof/evidence from everyone else for something that you can subjectively reject. As much as you want, or all of it if you want.

E.g. taking a denialist position, no matter how much evidence everyone presents I could endlessly deny the Holocaust figures, it's relatively simple

In my experience that's often what these debates descend into - but that said, yeah, as I mentioned I still enjoy the moon landing debate, so create a new thread if you want. Even in a denialist position I think it's next to impossible for anyone to rationally/logically argue that man didn't land on the moon
Dohnjoe is offline  
Advertisement
17-07-2019, 15:19   #17
M5
Registered User
 
M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,045
Shifting the burden of proof, yet another goto strategy

Mate you must be a sanitation "engineer" given the complete rubbish you have put forward in this thread. "that's impossible" with no further discussion.

Clear lack of understanding of optics, atmospheric science, geology, vacuum, planetary science, lasers, reflectors, trigonometry, gravity, yet "engineering background",simply dosent add up

Last edited by M5; 17-07-2019 at 15:23.
M5 is offline  
17-07-2019, 15:30   #18
M5
Registered User
 
M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06 View Post
The Russians would have blown the whistle.
Nah, they put aside their cold War diffences in order to pull the wool over our eyes with NASA for reasons unknown.

Makes complete sense!
M5 is offline  
17-07-2019, 15:34   #19
facehugger99
Registered User
 
facehugger99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfa1509 View Post
I have an engineering background,
Not a terribly good one I'd imagine.
facehugger99 is offline  
17-07-2019, 15:58   #20
M5
Registered User
 
M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,045

So if iss isn't real, then satellite TV is a hoax also? Not to mention GPS, weather satellites, transatlantic sat links? Again all visible with limited technology and favourable lighting conditions

Aligning a satellite dish involves pointing the dish at a target the size of a smart car at distances of minimum 2000 but up to 20,000 km over the equator, yet seeing an object the size of a football field at 400km is completely impossible?
M5 is offline  
Advertisement
17-07-2019, 16:55   #21
M5
Registered User
 
M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfa1509 View Post
I think the burden of explanation is on you. What if I said I found the cure for cancer and I want you to explain how I didnt?

Let's take the pinging moon example, it took all of two minutes to find that it is a lot more involved than you say it is and I highly doubt your friend had the means to do it:

https://space.stackexchange.com/ques...heory-possible

And as for seeing the ISS using a 50euro scope, that could be anything like a satellite or a plane. But I'm sure an online NASA tracker told you otherwise?
My friend used the equipment here to complete the experiment as part of an astrophysics masters. Personally I'll take the word of someone who can get permission to use kit like this. Hope it meets your requirements?

Attached Images
File Type: jpg observatory-upper-provence-15109_w300.jpg (9.5 KB, 987 views)
M5 is offline  
17-07-2019, 20:40   #22
bfa1509
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 393
I always find it intriguing how upset people get when I throw any form of question mark over the moon landings. If what I'm saying is so far-fetched then why are you all so offended? Why not entertain the possibility if you are so comfortable with your own beliefs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
I don't think you understand what vacuum means...
What did I say about vacuums that is incorrect? If you have 1 ATM of pressure inside a space suit and near absolute zero outside, then you get a huge pressure gradient that, if it doesn't tear the material to shreds, will render it so incredibly rigid that no man could maneuver it. Unless he is superman of course. (I'm sure NASA will tell you that astronauts have super human strength from their prestigious training programs)
bfa1509 is offline  
Thanks from:
17-07-2019, 20:47   #23
M5
Registered User
 
M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,045
You effectively said that I can't possibly see the iss. I have done, it's incredibly easy to do. Theres literally nothing to entertain.
M5 is offline  
17-07-2019, 20:48   #24
Cork Boy 53
Registered User
 
Cork Boy 53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfa1509 View Post

What did I say about vacuums that is incorrect? If you have 1 ATM of pressure inside a space suit and near absolute zero outside, then you get a huge pressure gradient that, if it doesn't tear the material to shreds, will render it so incredibly rigid that no man could maneuver it. Unless he is superman of course. (I'm sure NASA will tell you that astronauts have super human strength from their prestigious training programs)
I hope you have plenty of spare tinfoil hats handy. You seem to be going through them at a fair rate of knots.
Cork Boy 53 is offline  
Advertisement
17-07-2019, 22:46   #25
King Mob
Registered User
 
King Mob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfa1509 View Post
I always find it intriguing how upset people get when I throw any form of question mark over the moon landings. If what I'm saying is so far-fetched then why are you all so offended? Why not entertain the possibility if you are so comfortable with your own beliefs?
)
We are entertaining it. We made several direct points to you all of which you've avoided and seem to be unable to address.
Address them first, then maybe we can move into you very silly point about the gloves.
King Mob is offline  
Thanks from:
17-07-2019, 23:06   #26
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 44,176
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfa1509 View Post
I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.
As a Mechanical Engineer I do happen to know a thing or three about Thermodynamics and Physics, even had a helluva time for one term project researching the heat sinks on EVA suits. Fascinating stuff which relies on sublimating water to space to reject heat.

Earth and space-habitation atmosphere is 14.7 psia or 101.3 kPa. A can of soda @ 20 deg C sports about 250 kPa. So in actuality there is more pressure difference between the inside of a coke can and your living room than there is between an EVA suit and space, and the EVA suit is also made of many materials including those which give it strength and stiffness. Submarines work in the inverse way and are not physically impossible either. Also: submarines leak, and are designed to leak. They become more watertight as their are subjected to higher pressure at lower depths (similarly the SR-71 leaked fuel on the tarmac because it needed to be designed for the temperatures the frame experiences during supersonic flight).

The EVA gloves are no doubt the most dexterous part of the EVA suit and they are indeed designed to contain the 1 atmosphere pressure differential we're talking about here.

https://www.space.com/34263-what-its...-in-space.html aside from the fact the narrator is a literal muppet theres a good video in there too

I've split these comments into a new thread so feel free to discuss. I'm not sure what laws you think are being violated - kinematic, thermodynamic, or otherwise, so please feel free to go in to as much detail as you want to argue your point.

Last edited by Overheal; 17-07-2019 at 23:45.
Overheal is offline  
17-07-2019, 23:24   #27
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 44,176
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfa1509 View Post
This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.
This is the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, and you can use that term to go research as much detail about it as you want.

In short: your suspicions are accurate - but your conclusions are not. Indeed, the reflector is designed to reflect light parallel back. However, as commercial airline pilots know all too well, lasers don't stay tightly confined over distances. Professional athletes know it too, from jerkoff fans, heck I know it from some whackadoodle shining a beam from a local hotel at cars on the highway.



By the time the laser signal gets to the moon, the aperture radius is about 6km wide. A very tiny amount of photons are picked up by the reflector at this distance as you can imagine, and sent back. And the design of the lenses on the reflectors send them straight back with an aperture that is 10 miles wide by the time it returns to Earth. So LOTS of the laser energy is lost in the experiment. But the working principle is detecting just some of these monochromatic signals from the ruby laser, which are pulsed in a particular way such that equipment can be designed to detect it.

Quote:
"Accurately timed pulses of light from a ruby laser are directed through a telescope which is aimed at the LRRR deployed on the Moon. The laser light striking the LRRR is reflected back on a path parallel to the incident beam. The reflected light is collected by the telescope and detected by special receiving equipment.

The time required for a pulse of light to reach the LRRR and be returned is used to establish the Earth-Moon distance at that time.

The telescope decreases the divergence of the laser beam by an amount equal to the ratio of the telescope aperture size to the diameter of the laser beam. A
telescope aperture of 100 inches is needed to reduce the divergence of a laser
beam so that its spot on the Moon is a little more than one mile in diameter.
Further reduction is prevented by the turbulence of the Earth's atmosphere.
The laser beam reflected by one of the retro-reflectors in the array on the
Moon is almost ten miles in diameter when it reaches the Earth. "
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/ALSEP...evA_050171.pdf
Overheal is offline  
17-07-2019, 23:32   #28
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 44,176
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
Quote:
So you are telling me that you personally saw the ISS, which is supposedly 400 km above the earth's surface travelling at 28,000 km/hr? An equivalent example would be for you to use this scope to see the London Eye from Dublin, do you think this is possible?
This is indeed, totally possible. Telescope can be routinely trained to its orbital path, which is public knowledge. More powerful scopes, better view, but that's just light and optics again.



The speed is the inconsequential part. Yes, it's going bloody fast, but it's also doing so bloody far away. You can similarly burn rubber on a motorway and still comfortably few scenery on the horizon without trouble.

This can also be independently verified.
Overheal is offline  
17-07-2019, 23:35   #29
Guy:Incognito
Registered User
 
Guy:Incognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 33,829
NASA should offer free one way trips to anyone who wants them and demands proof of space travel. I'm sure theres enough spare weight carrying capacity on any launches to take a couple of people up. Jettison them in space and let them float away to contemplate how wrong they are.
Guy:Incognito is online now  
Thanks from:
17-07-2019, 23:43   #30
Overheal
Covfefe Connoisseur
 
Overheal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 44,176
Send a message via ICQ to Overheal Send a message via Skype™ to Overheal
Let's try and have a conversation focusing on the merits.
Overheal is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet