|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 13:48:54 GMT -4
I will give him a chance, tofu. I try to be fair and I will give him a chance to discuss this... that is what we are here for, afterall. But like I said, we don't like to waste our time so Moon Man is going have to show some sign that he is actually comprehending what we write.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 13, 2005 13:54:28 GMT -4
I figure he should at least be given an opportunity to be constructive. Lets see...just about the 1st thing that MM did when he got here was state the "reason" for his BAUT banning. His version is (shall we say) not representative of the actual truth. Soon after that he started calling everyone Liars. I don't think that MM wants to be constructive. And there's really nothing any of us can do about that.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Nov 13, 2005 14:04:58 GMT -4
I don't know what happened at BAUT, but I will take moonman's arguments at face value.
The batteries were subject to +250° by day and -250° by night.
First, they were not on the surface at night so we can disregard the last bit.
Second, the temperature of the batteries is dependent on the radiant and conductive transfer properties of the environment. Do you have any calculations to show they were at +250°? In many cases, conspiracists have just lifted that number from the DK Encyclopedia for Kids where it describes the temperature of the lunar surface at midday.
They were not on the surface at midday, so the applicability of that value is suspect. Also, we need to know how it is that the batteries came to thermal equilibrium with the surface. In short, a number lifted from a layman science book is not particularly helpful in determining the temperatures of the batteries.
Can you show us the heat transfer calculation that leads you to conclude the batteries were indeed at that temperature?
The heat shield was at a temperature of 5000° and yet there was no steam when it splashed down.
If we ignore the connotations under which you say that, it's actually a fair question. The heat is not due to friction as some simplified explanations say, but due to compression of the air in front of it. When the chutes slow down the spacecraft, the compression stops and so the heat goes away. Also, the heat shield was ablative so the bits that heated up had burned away leaving behind cool spacecraft.
The spacecraft had nothing to decelerate it during reentry.
Erm, it most certainly did: atmospheric drag.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 14:10:30 GMT -4
Funny how the experts didn't know that moon rocks were found on earth We have known that moon rocks were found on Earth for a long time, you haven't provided new information. But the thing is, the moon rocks found on Earth are different in certain ways than the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts. I will let you research the differences. Proven wrong by who? You? Saying "I don't believe it therefore it must not be true" isn't how you prove something wrong. How do you messure the temperature of nothing, Moon Man? How does "nothing" have a temperature to begin with? It would be like me asking you what the vacuum of space tastes like. Space has no temperature because there is nothing there. Only matter can have a temperature, and different kinds of matter will have different temperatures even under the exact same conditions. Metal, for example, might have a higher temperature than wood even though they are both being exposed to the same amount of sunlight. Opinions can (and should, I hope) be based on facts. Opinions can be wrong, facts can not. But why shouldn't I believe those charts etc. without some contradictory evidence? I've never been to Europe, all I've seen are pictures and videos. Maybe those pictures and videos were faked, and Europe doesn't really exist. Anyone who tells me they have been there (or live there) could be lying... they're all in on the hoax. My point is that anyone can raise the same kind of doubts about anything... all you have to do is say "the evidence is fake". Eventually you have to trust people when they say the evidence is real. If it can be verified then it is a fact. I noticed you brought up Charles Manson at the BAUT forum too. I thought you said you weren't the one who took the thread in 20 different directions?
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 14:12:23 GMT -4
I figure he should at least be given an opportunity to be constructive. Lets see...just about the 1st thing that MM did when he got here was state the "reason" for his BAUT banning. His version is (shall we say) not representative of the actual truth. Soon after that he started calling everyone Liars. I don't think that MM wants to be constructive. And there's really nothing any of us can do about that. Go ahead and explain why I was banned 16,000 views in and over a 1000 messages later..? Go ahead and explain why I was the only non believer in the world posting there..? Because the board is a joke and bans anyone who advances an argument to prove BA claims are fantasy. I called tofu, or whatever his name is, a liar because that is what he is. I never once called anyone a liar on BA and I only called tofu a liar on here.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 14:16:39 GMT -4
Let it go. Prove everyone wrong by leaving this thread and putting some effort into presenting your argument.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 13, 2005 14:20:18 GMT -4
You claim to have proved, or to have proof, that the landings were faked. Just one piece of evidence for us to chew one would be good. If you want to recycle your BAB arguments, let's go over them again one at a time. Standing by...
Dave deja vu...
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 13, 2005 14:21:52 GMT -4
Well, one good thing about this is that it's drawn me here.
You may all bask in my radiance.
*cough* Just kidding. <.< >.> Should I make a hello thread too? I don't have much to say, though.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 13, 2005 14:23:50 GMT -4
First off, I never ignored anyone. When I didn't know the answer I admitted it.
False. You ignored multiple explanations that the CM had heat shielding on the sides. You ignored me when I pointed out my direct experience with spacecraft batteries, of the same chemistry, in a worse thermal environment, operating longer than you said than Apollo batteries could last. You kept reapeating the Sudbury training as a "secret" when many examples of NASA's own public discussions of it were given. That's just a sampling.
Funny how the experts didn't know that moon rocks were found on earth and yet claims that this was a lie continues to be spewed without consequences when the FACTS were presented.
The facts were indeed presented to you: some meteorites of lunar origin have been found on Earth. Some lunar samples have features similar to some Earth rocks. The lunar samples also have features unique to their origin and retrieval method, not shared by any rock found on Earth. You ignored these explanations.
Only I got banned.
Only you refused to acknowledge the explanations given to you.
[edit to add] BAUT and its predecessor forums are known for several long-time "against the mainstream" posters claiming stuff far wilder than a lunar landing "hoax". They remain on the board because they actually answered questions, acknowledged explanations, and engaged in constructive dialog. Hard-core "mainstream" supporters, on the other hand, have been banned their for TOS violations. Your claim to be banned for your viewpoint is quite false.
The claims about no temperture in space, ie., hot or cold, were proven to be wrong in that thread, so much for the scientific FACTS.
We spent pages trying to explain to you the difference between heat and temperature, what temperature means, the difference between convective and radiative heating and cooling, and how the optical and physical properties of objects as well as the lighting angles affect temperatures of objects. It's simple high-school physics. If you can't or don't want to understand it, well, nobody can force you to learn.
Any statement made against anyone online are opnions not FACTS. The courts have made ruling in this regard.
Whatever. I'm not really interested in your fantasy about being a lawyer, or working in the legal field, except perhaps as a high-school summer office boy. True, that is just my opinion; but it fits your posting style and lack of historical familiarity.
Not every claim can be supported by FACTS.
Some can, and have been. But you've simply ignored them.
Because NASA produces charts, information and theories on how these amazing batteries worked doesn't mean it really happened.
NASA isn't the only source of knowledge. Other spacefaring nations and organizations have used batteries extensively in space.
The other problem is that the "charts, information, and theories" are consistent with the understanding of scientists and engineers, and even of laymen who have invested a little time learning the relevant principles. But you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no understanding whatsoever of these principles. You have no basis for understanding the "charts, information, and theories", and you have no argument against them other than your own personal incredulity.
A statement of personal incredulity only has argumentive weight if you can demonstrate some competence in the appropriate field. Given your insistence that an empty region of vacuum has a temperature, etc., you do not have such a basis.
Finally, and once again, I have direct personal experience with the use of such batteries, in a worse thermal environment, for longer than you claimed such batteries could last. I've pointed this out to you multiple times here and at BAUT. I've used the batteries you claim wouldn't work.
You still have time on this board to indicate a willingness to learn something. Will you?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 13, 2005 14:25:18 GMT -4
Saying "I don't believe it therefore it must not be true" isn't how you prove something wrong. Actually that's the problem. That's exactly the way MM's mind works. He's flat out said it himself a couple of times. You can see how this will make it difficult to establish any "common ground". ...though it should be real fun to watch...
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 14:45:15 GMT -4
Only I got banned. Only you refused to acknowledge the explanations given to you. [edit to add] BAUT and its predecessor forums are known for several long-time "against the mainstream" posters claiming stuff far wilder than a lunar landing "hoax". They remain on the board because they actually answered questions, acknowledged explanations, and engaged in constructive dialog. Hard-core "mainstream" supporters, on the other hand, have been banned their for TOS violations. Your claim to be banned for your viewpoint is quite false. We spent pages trying to explain to you the difference between heat and temperature, what temperature means, the difference between convective and radiative heating and cooling, and how the optical and physical properties of objects as well as the lighting angles affect temperatures of objects. It's simple high-school physics. If you can't or don't want to understand it, well, nobody can force you to learn. NASA isn't the only source of knowledge. Other spacefaring nations and organizations have used batteries extensively in space. Finally, and once again, I have direct personal experience with the use of such batteries, in a worse thermal environment, for longer than you claimed such batteries could last. I've pointed this out to you multiple times here and at BAUT. I've used the batteries you claim wouldn't work. So I was banned because I refused to accept the members opinions on BA, eh..? Ha! As I said, the board lacks credibilty. Go ahead and post the official reason I was banned TODAY..? Go ahead and tell us where you use batteries in a worse environment than space, and 250 degrees below zero F..? This should be good. By the way, and as I said, it was proven that space is hot or cold.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 14:48:29 GMT -4
It is my suggestion that this discussion be stopped enitrely and brought up again, when appropriate in the debate thread. For now, it is only taking away from time that MoonMan could (and should) be using to post his entire argument.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 14:49:08 GMT -4
Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 13, 2005 14:49:14 GMT -4
/me points MM to the sticky thread that LunarOrbit created for him.
Stop trolling this thread. You have been summoned by a moderator to another thread. It's all yours. They've laid out a red carpet just for you. You're getting special treatment. Now let's see what you do with it.
|
|