|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:27:57 GMT -4
What is the filing date of that patent? What is the nozzle velocity of the ejected CO2? Why didn't you read the link before posting this utterly irrelevant cite? I am just proving the principle that you can accelerate solid CO2 to supersonic not designing a Moon Rock maker
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:26:31 GMT -4
Of Moon Rock Fakery? I never said I would provide that. That's odd considering you titled the thread Rodin's Moon rock fakery evidence. No I didn't
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:24:33 GMT -4
Well, the atmosphere counts for something. Life on the ISS would be a bit more exciting, though. What about the Van Allen belts also?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:23:16 GMT -4
I looked to quantify the radiation but initial searches did not offer this info. As regards the fact space also shows some CMB-type residual gamma radiation fair enough. But the Moon is showing as a bright source. Inverse square law yourself all the way to the surface and the radiation could be significant Interesting about the Sun absorbing its own gamma radiation
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:15:32 GMT -4
Evidence, rodin. Not idle speculation, EVIDENCE. No I produce evidence other aspects of Apollo were faked. You must produce evidence Moon Rocks could not be to the extent I cannot reasonably argue otherwise
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:13:32 GMT -4
Still waiting for evidence. Of Moon Rock Fakery? I never said I would provide that. I am going to make the case they COULD have been faked
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:11:30 GMT -4
Fine, but these bullets are a bit bigger than dust-sized particles, and a bit slower. And how do you accelerate a block of carbon dioxide to speeds of tens of kilometres per second without sublimating it? www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0197512.html
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:08:23 GMT -4
Now then, just so we're sure we understand each other; you haven't even attempted to provide any evidence of anything but your own delusional architecture yet. Continuing as if you have will not get anyone anywhere. Also, given that NASA engineers micrometeoroid shields with velocities of up to 10km/s (~33,000 fps) in mind, I would consider your "yahoo answers" result regarding rifle muzzle velocities to be broadly inapplicable for obvious reasons. Particle accelerator technology of some sort would be the most likely candidate Why not take the same material as the rock is made of, grind it up then fire it back on itself? no chemical signature then
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 9:05:00 GMT -4
Someone questioned whether I knew what 'cores' were. I do from my interest in mining companies. Good for you, sir. You should probably know more geology than me. I know what a drill core is, and something about geology See previous post What evidence of 1/6G formation? If 1/6 it has to be then lunar meteorite or asteroid hit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_in_AntarcticaFrom scratch? Same way as you make diamonds. Under high temperature and pressure en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamondOK
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 8:31:00 GMT -4
I forgot about the fact someone had started another thread on my behalf for me to show cold war fakery - I was responding to posts made in this thread. If possible please move all relevant posts onto that thread and I will continue posting there on that subject Now - just to make sure we understand each other - I do not have to prove every aspect of Apollo was faked. I have to prove some of it was faked and you have to show how it couldn't be. Then you provide evidence that you say proves Apollo and I have to show how it could have been faked. Those zap pits - answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081122181521AApzvPpMach 1 is around 1000 FPS I very much doubt it was beyond the capabilities of NASA or another lab to fire pellets into rock fast enough to cause the melting and shock effects of zap pits What would they use? There are a number of candidates. For a complete sublimation of the impacting material solid CO2 might fit the bill
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 8:02:31 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 7:19:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 13:49:49 GMT -4
Zap Pits crash course (for me) www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-d6h65Y-M&feature=player_embeddedI learned that micrometeor impacts can be simulated now, but not back then. No, definitely not back then. plus if something hit the rock it would leave a trace. Wait a minute - surely whatever is SUPPOSED to have made the zap pits left a trace? What trace was found in the Lunar Zap Pits? edit www.solarviews.com/eng/moonhoax.htmRight. Looks like the Lunar-looking rocks do actually exist. So the question remains - could they be faked? To be continued
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 13:30:00 GMT -4
Shows how easy it is to deceive the masses with fake science. Also puts a load of nonsense into heads Irrelevant. Show how Apollo has managed to deceive all the bona fide scientists and engineers for decades. You are a piece of work - I was making a relevance out what was a spam post on a thread I did not even ask to start Posters were joyfully discussing science fiction in my absence - was that not worthy of the accusation of 'irrelevant'?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 13:23:42 GMT -4
My question is about the return signal intensities from different sites.Then say that, instead of making up technobabble about "polarized photon counts." Thats what the detectors detect is it not?They all use similar cube arrays...Nope. >>> Similar in principle though. I understand the cube count was increased later...ergo they should all be returning a similar % of sent photons.If you had read the references I cited, you would understand how simplistic and naive the questions you just asked are. >>> OK - area of array will have to be accounted forAre they? This is a crucial questionWhy is it? Because of your ipse dico? Yes, the nature of the return signal and the many factors that affect it are central to your hoax theory. You're the one saying it could be faked or spoofed in some way, or simply lied about. Therefore it's your job to answer those questions before drawing your conclusions. So please kindly get down to answering those questions. I've given you pointers to at least a week's worth of heavy science reading, not counting whatever background remediation you'll have to do in order to understand them. So kindly stop trying to make it everyone else's job to drag you out of your ignorance. >>> No way Jose. I will elicit info in the most time effective way until someone starts paying me by the hour to pursue this.
So I will ask a legitimate question and if you won't answer I hope someone else will. Regarding the reported fall-off in signal with time due to mirrors fogging. Is there a record of this - quantifying the fall-off for each supposed individual LRRR with time?
|
|