|
Post by bruce on Jun 9, 2007 14:55:27 GMT -4
On the other hand it seems to be very rude to say people have psychological problems judged by their behavior on a forum. I think they would prefer that to being ignored. There can't be many places like this one where people will actually listen to these guys.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 9, 2007 15:29:35 GMT -4
There might be data that can only be obtain by sending satellites and probes into space. Only governments have access to that. This may have been true once, but it is not any longer. The first non-government satellite was launched in 1961 and there have been non-government organisations launching satellites into orbit since 1979. Satellites these days are built and flown by commercial companies, universities and radio amateur groups in countries all over the world. They all have to know the correct radiation levels in space in order to design their satellites, and many of them, particularly the universities, make their own radiation measurements. Your idea of two sets of radiation data, the true data only being available to those with US security clearance, is totally at odds with reality.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 9, 2007 15:53:39 GMT -4
and now children let's relax with a little: {Quote} If we suspect data are bogus, what's the point of doing any measurements? We can't do anything anyway; only a government can launch satellites that measure radiation.{/Quote}
and if those satellites happen to be private funded projects, thinking especially about communications systems here, it would be inconceivable to believe that essentially every semiconductor can be used as a device to measure charge, in fact they would need to know that info. Electronics Magnetism and EM Communications sort of go hand in hand with the Electromagnetic nature of the belts, who launches them is irrelevant, any EM transponder placed within the belts would be subject to its effects. every piece of material would be subject to effects, Field effect transistors and ICs would all become detectors, and even if not built specifically for measuring the VAB would in fact be transmitting the Data,
Another Gem: {Quote}They rely on data all right. The question is whether the data they use came from Apollo, or from satellites and probes. {/Quote}
where the data originated is irrelevant, it would not change the physical nature of the VAB.. but it continues...
<It's quite possible that the people who build the spacecraft are using the secret set of data when they design their spacecraft. How are we supposed to know whether they use the data that we can read in libraries, or some top secret data that is not consistent with Apollo?>
of course there are only a few people required to build a probe or satellite, the electronics circuit designers required for basic satellite design, specialists that design the circuitry to be sufficiently hardened, all the QA staff, Review etc. are all in it as well as the component manufacturers, accountants.
Quote: No. "Every space scientist and spacecraft engineer and satellite operator in the world is lying" is not a plausible explanation, especially in light of your absolute failure to provide any evidence to back up your claims.
(reply) never said every scientist in the world is lying. I only alleged that only people with high security clearances could see the real data. That doesn't mean that every scientist in the world is lying. (/reply)
But every single tech involved in the design or for the design review and QA would have to have ACCURATE data for performance prediction, which would indicate that they all have access, also you seem to have run into a brick wall in relation to ThROW (The Rest of the world) are all of these foreign nationals and agencies also using secret data, and have they signed an agreement that all of them will use there own data and keep a secret set as well?
<<Look at some of the forbidden examples at the beginning of this thread of government scientists who lie. >>> Yada yada yadaa what not an attempt at misdirection surely..
I lied about my age to get alcohol when I was 14 does that mean that all info after that point is false. sometimes scientists lie, and then when reviewed their reputation sinks lower than whale sh*t, and the scientific community laughs at them and they tend not to be taken seriously again.
Some might make early observations or observations via a flawed method, these theories can then be amended retested to see if the hypothesis holds (your GM tube in the first radiological measurement is a good example) GM tubes are set for a specific range by applying a high voltage with the tube, after a certain amount of ionization has occurred the tube fires (a Count) and the ionisation starts again, I can saturate a GM tube by cranking up the Bias and point it at a CRT, however by correcting the voltage I can tune the device to a useful range, the same settings used to do a beta count from a low source is effectively useless for a high radiation source and vice versa, correct settings for the window of determined results is necessary, would you use a medical thermometer to measure the temperature of LOX or Hot Cooking oil and determine that it is safe to stick your hand in given the reading... of course not.,
now for a fun a non space agency related counter.
imagine if you will A researching physicist in university has access to various data tables, lets just take for example, basic particle constants (Mass Charge densities etc) Geo magnetic data, he also has access to some research time on a cyclotron (a nice big Magnetic particle accelerator)
would it not be plausible to suggest that they could not also calculate theoretic particle behavior reasonably accurately on interaction of magnetic fields on Protons Electrons Ions and nuclei in a vacuum. without direct observation/measurement, and then observe/measure the accuracy of predictions based on lab experiments with the cyclotron.
after deriving a set of theoretical mass charge boundaries for a proposed belt of trapped radiation around the earth, they then proceed to check if the densities and probable energy level are correct, they determine that one method to do this would be to a measurement of wave propagation similar to the method used for propagating radio waves in the charged upper atmosphere (ionosphere) as a result ELF-VLF radio waves are chosen so as to not be too affected by the upper atmosphere, and lo and behold wave reflection occurs at the lower point of the belts, by sliding down the frequencies the upper boundary of a belt is found, lowering the frequencies further, boundaries of the outer belt are found.
using these detected reflection boundaries a simple radar system can be set up so that pulses measured across a time base will give dimension, these dimensions can then be compared with results from earlier lab controlled observations this can derive required particle density required to fit that geometry. taking the particle density in a given area and applying the Magnetic field strength at that area would give the energy level of the trapped particles.
now using this model, not only can the dimensions of the belt be determined by an earth bound observer, but also anomalies and activity, they could also use this to monitor compression of the solar facing belt during a solar event to determine magnitude, now to achieve this it would require ACCURATE info, any errors in Mass Charge Magnetic field strength would have resulted in a null or data anomaly event, which would lead to further investigation and a chance for the up and coming physicist to make a name for himself.
granted I haven't done all the maths and some of the physics is wayyyyy beyond my self, but given the fact that VLF radio astronomy is Orders of magnitude cheaper than space exploration, it is not surprising that VLF and ELF Radio astronomy is widespread and in a lot of cases sufficient to not warrant further Probes, also given the amount of data extracted by test toroidal plasma reactors and supercollidors Cyclotrons and the like,
So as well as anyone in the space industry we now have to include Radio Astronomers Professional and amateur, any physicist working in fusion, plasma, Colliders, cyclotrons, essentially any physicist with a knowledge of electromagnetism, the suppression of education world wide into the fundamentals of Electromagnetism and Fundamental particles, probably all theoretical mathematicians as well, gosh this CT isn't just huge it is all encompassing, now seeing that US Govt NASA Pixies at the bottom of the garden, are going to have to Permanently eradicate suppress mask this secret VAB Knowledge which is independently researchable without access to a rocket for the rest of time, surely it would have just been simpler and cheaper to go to the moon a couple of times huh.
Short version Strength Dimension Intensity Current of the belt can be determine by earth based observations and calculations, with this data then groundbased measurements research in to ex magnetosphere radiation levels can proceed giving theoretical values based on absorbtion with the belts, propagation and measurement on the earths surface and upper atmosphere can provide incident radiation data (balloons Hi alt rockets aircraft mountains) this allows whole fields of research that have nothing to do with space travel to have access to independently gathered data for their required discipline,
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 9, 2007 16:28:31 GMT -4
Why do you keep saying this. The issue is people in space--not machines. then explain the shuttle, ISS, and Gemini missions that went and go through parts of the Van Allen belts. Or how about Zond 5, the Russian mission that sent living animals around the Moon with no ill effect? When will you admit you don't know what you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 9, 2007 16:31:02 GMT -4
Then why have you not shown any? There is no proof that Apollo was faked. There is only handwaving and conjecture which you have proven is all you have to bring to the table.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 9, 2007 16:39:05 GMT -4
Makes me wonder _what_ data about the rocks is "bogus."
Assume geology is a subject that takes more than one lecture to grasp (a pretty good assumption!)
That means there are geology students out there who are good enough to know what a Moon Rock should look like, but haven't reached the lofty heights of their profession yet where they are inducted into the "official lies we geologists support."
So one has to assume there is a data set consistent with described Lunar conditions. Tell a geologist a rock was formed in the caldera of Mona Loa and she'll tell you what to expect in the structure and chemistry. Tell a geologist a rock was formed 4 bya and has spent most of it's life in a dessicated vacuum, she'll tell you what she expects.
So where is this data bogus? If it describes a plausible geology is it bogus? If it describes an impossible geology aren't the students a bit concerned?
Oh, perhaps the data is consistent internally and with outside observation. It is just that it is a made-up data set that fits expectations. Trouble is, it also fits rocks. Rocks that are available for study.
So the "data" can't be bogus. The rocks, perhaps (ah, but there are practical problems there).
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 9, 2007 16:53:51 GMT -4
All I'm saying is that it's impossible to know which version is true and the best thing to do is wait until we get some data we know is from a reliable source when it comes to radiation.
That would work if you actually made an effort to find a reliable source. But that would involve (a) more work than Googling conspiracist sites and (b) brushing up against reality.
If you do not provide quantitative estimates for the radiation environments that you claim differ from NASA's (and that of the Russian Space Agency, and the Chinese, and the Japanese, and the Indians, etc.), I will consider it proof you literally do not know what you're talking about. Very simplistic--read my above posts.
That will suffice for your final answer. You cannot provide any quantitative estimates for backing up any of your claims.
If we suspect data are bogus, what's the point of doing any measurements? We can't do anything anyway; only a government can launch satallites that measure radiation.
Factually incorrect. Many, many research organizations can and have investigated the SAA with ground-based and balloon-borne instruments as well as sounding rockets. I have already explained this in reasonable detail, and I consider the above adequate evidence of deliberate misrepresentation on your part.
They rely on data all right. The question is whether the data they use came from Apollo, or from satellites and probes.
Another misrepresentation, which I consider deliberate. It has been explained to you in detail that such data has been gathered and made available by mulitple sources, not just the U.S. government, before, during, and after Apollo, and that such data is gathered and analyzed to this day. The published Apollo data is consistent with the rest of the data, which, once again, is gathered by many groups, not just governments.
It's quite possible that the people who build the spacecraft are using the secret set of data when they design their spacecraft. How are we supposed to know whether they use the data that we can read in libraries, or some top secret data that is not consistent with Apollo?
I have actually participated in the design, construction, and operation of spacecraft. I also have a security clearance. And I work for a mid-sized company which makes spacecraft. I speak from direct personal experience: your claim is absolutely ludicrous.
I never said every scientist in the world is lying. I only alleged that only people with high security clearances could see the real data. That doesn't mean that every scientist in the world is lying. Look at some of the forbidden examples at the beginning of this thread of government scientists who lie.
Attempted diversionary tactic and deliberate misrepresentation - I said every space scientist - noted, and both rejected.
This is as far as I can go for now. I'll continue later.
Don't bother on my account. You have now officially failed every single challenge detailed in posts 46, 56, and followups, and as discussed there I make the following observations:
You have failed to answer any of these questions with evidence and without handwaving, and without appealing to general notions of conspiracy, and in fact with a direct assertion that I am lying about my own experiences. I consider this proof you are unable to discuss this topic intelligently.
You have failed to provide quantitative estimates for the radiation environments that you claim differ from NASA's (and that of the Russian Space Agency, and the Chinese, and the Japanese, and the Indians, etc.), as well as by numerous international scientific groups discussed above. I consider this proof you literally do not know what you're talking about.
You have continued to claim that spacecraft are not susceptible to radiation, that humans do not transit the Van Allen belts to some extent, and have failed to retract your claim that "six feet of lead" are supposedly required to go to the Moon, after clear refutations of these errors of fact have been provided to you, and have continued to assert that no good evidence has been supplied to you. You have made numerous additional misrepresentations in pretending to reply to my explanations. I consider this proof that you are a liar.
You have responded with more unsupported claims that I am some sort of government agent, that I am lying, that he, she, it, and they "could by lying" or "could have faked it". I consider this credible evidence that you are actually some sort of hacked-up piece of ELIZA software.
I could be wrong on the last one. You may really be an actual, determinedly ignorant, paranoid, lazy, True Believer.
But, really, I don't care. I'm done with you, troll.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 9, 2007 19:25:37 GMT -4
Why do you keep saying this. The issue is people in space--not machines. Electronic devices are also sensitive to radiation damage, and they do not have the benefit of an effective self-repair system. The fact that you even ask that question underlines your total ignorance about the subject nicely, thank you. However, the point that you missed oh-so-spectacularly yet again is that the Russians developed lunar vehicles for circumlunar and landing flights, and sent some of them round the Moon with biological samples in them, and they were not designed with the level of shielding you insist is necessary. But you haven't shown it to be fake in the first place, and in any case it does not necessarily follow that if Apollo was faked all data from Apollo was also faked. Rubbish. No, but it might just prompt him to go and find out what the maximum value that could be recorded by the instrument was. Not you. No, you just see the surprise that it was higher than expected and jump all over that as if it proves your point. Well it doesn't. And what we are trying to get through your thick cranium is that electronic devices are as asusceptible to radiation as humans are, perhaps even more so the more sensitive they get. Bull. That's EXACTLY what you do with conspiracy theorists. You have not verified any of their claims for yourself, nor have you conducted any experiments we have suggested so that you don't actually have to take outr word for things. Rubbish. Go out and buy a bag of play sand for a child's sandpit. It won't set you back much. Wash it, filter it, do whatever you like to it. Then try and make it stay dust free. So, in other words, a lame excuse for not even trying the experiments that might have a chance of showing you to be wrong. And yet that is EXACTLY what you do all the time. You even INVENT whole scenarios to fit your opinion. The fact that you find it easier to invent a whole new scenario involving magic sand laid only in specific locations for certain shots rather than contemplate that your own understanding might be flawed in the first place is the saddest thing I have ever come across on these forums. What about the data made public by other governments, or private industry? And how long will we have to beat you round the head until you understand that common sense is NOT adequate. If it was there would be no need for scientists and engineers. Do you take your car to a mechanic when it breaks of rely on common sense? Do you go to a doctor or rely on common sense? Do you employ an electrician to deal with wiring faults in your house or a plumber to fix your pipes or assume that you common sense is sufficient? You wouldn't understand how to interpret that evidence anyway, judging from your posts so far. But there is a VAST pile of evidence. You just have to look beyond the web and try educating yourself a bit. Sadly, your unwillingness to learn is going to be a serious impediment. Bull. You've been swayed by personal opinions and the loud voices of con artists trying to convince you they know more about how the world works than actual scientists and engineers. You've asked this before, and I'll give the same reply. Tell us what you would consider sitable proof. We will not jump through your hoops and pile loads of evidence on the table for you to ignorantly dismiss. We demand you set specific requirements first. However, you either won't do that, or else you will set requirements that are unmeetable anyway, either because your ignorance makes you set them wrong or deliberately so you can still appear to have had the last word on the subject. There is some other explanation: you don't understand enough about how the universe works to interpret what you are looking at in a meaningful way. Very well, what would you consider a reliable source? How are they supposed to know in advance that the publicly available data is actually bogus and make a deal to get the real data in the first place? Your scenario simply does not add up.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 9, 2007 19:26:28 GMT -4
You have responded with more unsupported claims that I am some sort of government agent, that I am lying, that he, she, it, and they "could by lying" or "could have faked it". I consider this credible evidence that you are actually some sort of hacked-up piece of ELIZA software.He still hasn't passed the "ELIZA challenge" I laid down several days ago. I think your theory may have merit.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 9, 2007 20:46:45 GMT -4
If the satellite builders use the secret data to build their satellites, then they know that the "public data" is fake. Thus, they are then in on the hoax, and have proof of it. Why don't they then make millions exposing the hoax?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 9, 2007 21:48:11 GMT -4
Rocky, governmernt, regardless of how all powerful you see them, cannot change the laws of physics. Is EVERY scientist in the world who does not speak out against Apollo (like, all of them) in on the hoax, blackmailed...paid off? You are not well...you need help.
edit...BYTW, do you have a clue how sensitive some electronics/microcircuits are to radiation? Much more than humans in some cases.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 9, 2007 22:28:18 GMT -4
Depends on the circuit, and the type of radiation.....but as a point of reference, remember the much talked-about "EMP burst?" Set off a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere, electronics go dead, communications lost, parts of the power grid goes down, everyone in that hemisphere dies.....oh, wait, the last part isn't true. Why not? Could it be electronics are more sensitive to some effects?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 10, 2007 0:58:45 GMT -4
What is your source that space radiation is impassibly fatal to humans? What is your source that there even is any radiation in space?My argument is that we have to take anything that the government says with a grain of salt as it lies habitually. You are assiduously avoiding a very simple question: What is your source that there is any radiation in space at all, much less a level dangerous or fatal to humans? If I told you that a rain gauge I set up in my backyard overflowed it's capacity after less than 10 minutes of rainfall, would it be reasonable to conclude that there must have been a particularly heavy downpour during that period?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 10, 2007 8:07:36 GMT -4
Folks, continue if you wish, but this is a waste of time. It's been established pretty clearly that rocky is either simply some ELIZA-type software somewhere, or simply incapable of considering anything that threatens his worldview. His defensive mechanisms include refusing to perform any of the experiments suggested to him, reflexive assertions that all of the millions upon millions of space scientists, engineers, and satellite operators of the past five decades are lying, denials of established physics, willfully maintaining an absolute ignorance of all things related to the subject, selectively ignoring various challenges, diversionary tactics such as his infantile loyalty test, and, worst of all, mendacity in deliberately misrepresenting direct challenges in his replies.
You can go ten thousand pages if you like, but rocky will never learn, and never vary from his robotic routine of denial, diversion, deception, and evasion. Whatever personal problems make him that way, he is, functionally speaking, a classic troll, which is why I've stopped wasting my time attempting to educate him.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Jun 10, 2007 10:49:13 GMT -4
I think that the clearest evidence that rocky is an out and out troll is the fact that he repeatedly responds to explanations by saying that the answer is insufficiently detailed so could we please go into it at length. If anyone does, he then just does what sts60 mentions above.
I have talked before about the sort of HB poster who is just here to get a feeling of power from causing a bunch of educated, successful people to run around at his bidding. It's the same motivation that drives some people to make hoax phone calls to the emergency services, so they can get a kick out of knowing they were responsible for creating a fuss.
If rocky is this sort of troll, then the only way to deal with him is to put him on a starvation diet. The urge to once again refute all the same tired old arguments must be suppressed until he gets frustrated and either goes away, or lets off a few firecrackers that get him banned.
|
|