|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 17, 2005 20:23:34 GMT -4
Thanks for your answers once again, everyone.
Fred, I cannot wait to wrap up this Apollo debate and join the 911 one. I believe there were explosives in the towers and I can prove with other arguments that this was an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 17, 2005 20:24:45 GMT -4
Moon Man, A thought for you. In creating your arguments (first the batteries, now the spacesuit) you have a tendency to include a number of sub-statements/arguments. This leads to a swamp of posts as each item is picked apart. In the suit debate, you raised issues with the zippers, the oxygen supply, scuba equipment and several others (and you're apparently not finisged yet). Each of these will raise responses. And you will be swamped. You raise very many issues with your initial posts, and some of your responses (the mask/oxygen tank on the Moon thing for one) will also start the thread in new and strange directions.
There is so much you don't understand about many things, and your lack of knowledge leads your argument in strange and amusing directions. Amusing, but kinda in a sick way. I am sorry for you. You don't even realize that after all these many pages, you have yet to make an argument that "sticks". Dave
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 17, 2005 20:27:28 GMT -4
Thanks for your answers once again, everyone. Fred, I cannot wait to wrap up this Apollo debate and join the 911 one. I believe there were explosives in the towers and I can prove with other arguments that this was an inside job. Whoa, pardner...you have yet to "prove" anything on this board ....no rush to embarass yourself over there... Where's the proof you spoke of at the beginning of this mess? Dave
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 17, 2005 20:43:26 GMT -4
Now I know you are joking. Man you haven't even got a base hit.
|
|
|
Post by neanderthal on Nov 17, 2005 21:00:24 GMT -4
To the forum: Will you please accept my apology for confusing the "space is cold" issue? My statement about previous "space is not cold" posts being incorrect was a case of me overstepping, severely, because I had not yet clearly explained what I was referring to in the word "cold". I don't want to drag that topic into this thread; I am simply addressing what has already been brought up. I'd rather not go down in forum history as "the guy who sided with Moon Man" on this issue, because I was doing precisely otherwise.
The confusion comes from different (equally valid) operative definitions of "heat" and "cold", and my attempt to give insight into a very technical defintion set failed, miserably.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 17, 2005 21:15:53 GMT -4
He said precisely what the rest of us have tried to explained to you except he applied a different definition of "cold". It is purely semantics. Do you believe the the space around, say, Pluto is not cold..? Why the need for a space suit when it's not sunny out on the moon..? Since there is no sun to bake you why not just wear an oxygen tank and mask..? Others have already answered the space suit question so I wouldn't repeat it. However your question about the space around Pluto seems to have been directed at me, so I will answer. I believe that the word "cold" is a subjective term meaning "a low temperature". Thus, something having no temperature is neither cold nor hot. Since a vacuum has no temperature I would not describe it as being cold. However, any matter in Pluto's vicinity would reach an equilibrium temperature that is quite low, hence cold. That being said, I really don't want to say any more on this issue because I believe that dead horse has been beaten enough already. Edited to add: I'm not saying neanderthal's definition of cold is incorrect. It is just not the definition I and many other people commonly use.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 17, 2005 21:25:01 GMT -4
To the forum: Will you please accept my apology for confusing the "space is cold" issue? No apology necessary as far as I'm concerned. You obviously know what you're talking about and if you were in the company of adults, we could have come to an understanding about the hot/cold thing. Unfortunately, MM is not an adult, at least not in regards to his metal facilities. I appreciate your clarification and sympathize with your desire to not be "the guy who sided with MM" but you have to know by now that he is going to forever refer to you as someone who agreed with him. You could retract your statement a million times. It wont get through to him. But don't worry, everybody else who reads these threads understands that he has a serious issues with reality.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 17, 2005 21:26:59 GMT -4
Just because someone is a scientist, doesn't mean they are talking a load of utter gonk. The media does this all the time- they find, oh, let's say a Nutritionist, with mad hair, and crazy waving arms... every time a boffin is required, wheel out the nutritionist. Solar flares- get out the boffin. germ warfare= same guy. Lunar landing ditto.... anyone remember DR Magnus Pike? Get James Burke on here- he'll kick your ass ;D -- and he's an ex- science correspondent- BUT he was there, in the studio when the Apollo stuff was happening, and he knows what he was talking about. (sorry Dr Pike ) curse the ] key- I keep hitting } grr! - hence my many, many edits!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 17, 2005 21:29:14 GMT -4
To the forum: Will you please accept my apology for confusing the "space is cold" issue? No apology necessary. I actually thought your post was very good. Unfortunately it just happened to contain a phrase that was just what Moon Man needed to say, "hey look, somebody agrees with me." The rest of us knew otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by neanderthal on Nov 17, 2005 21:35:23 GMT -4
The word "cold" is commonly used in reference to temperature. It is also used as an indication of lack of heat - the word carries multiple applications. In an environment without an atmosphere, ambient temperature does not apply, hence my choice to approach the issue from a non-temperature point of view. This was an intuitive step for me, as most of my work deals with heat-load management which doesn't actually deal with temperatures at the "raw" level; it works with heat, not temperature, in terms of how much heat is generated and how much heat needs to be removed. It did not occur to me to consider that this step would not also be intuitive for those reading my posts. This post will be my last statement on that subject. Thanks all for your understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Van Rijn on Nov 17, 2005 21:47:19 GMT -4
Ultimately, it makes no difference. Until Moon Man is willing to actually think about and study the subject, nothing will change. He has a position and he doesn't care about the actual physics. He'll use any tiny crumb, no matter how inappropriate, to support his misconception.
Back on BAUT, I asked him to give a brief description of heat transfer between objects in a vacuum. He said he didn't have a clue. Obviously, he still doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 17, 2005 21:56:59 GMT -4
Here is the problem, the way I see it.
1. Moon Man, you don't really know anything about the subjects, so:
2. saying that you ae going to prove any of this stuff is a bit of a stretch,
3. It would be better if you just said, "I have some questions about these things," but instead
4. You have reached a conclusion before researching the subject. Also,
5. You bring up too many points at once and then you complain that you do not have time to follow up. Instead you should pick one thing, say thermodynamics, and study it for, at least, a few days. If you ignored everything else (the zippers, the batteries, the LM, etc.) and just spent that time trying to grasp thermodynamics, you should be able to come to a rudimentary understanding.
5a. You should try to understand the three methods of heat transfer (conductive, radiative, convective.).
5b. You should understand that vacuum (or near vacuum) severly limits or precludes conductive and convective heat transfer.
6. Stop cherrypicking. For example, you keep saying neandertal's post supports your "theory" (which, by the way, isn't). Neandertal himself has said that neither his post nor his understanding supports your argument, but you keep citing him as support. Stop.
If you can take it one thing at a time and really devote some energy to understanding that one thing, you might be amazed at how quickly you can understand that one thing. So, that is really the most important thing. Focus. Admit when you do not know. Admit when you are wrong. Listen and learn and appreciate the effor tthat people are exerting to help you.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 17, 2005 22:14:06 GMT -4
Hi MoonMan= You brought up the idea of a basketball on the moon before.. well, in dealing with the spacesuit idea, it helps to remember that the pressure difference in the Apollo suits, or even the craft was much less than the difference found on earth in a basketball, car tyre, balloon or aerosol can. So ther really isn't anything special about the sealing required. my 2 fractions of currency..
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 17, 2005 22:19:24 GMT -4
Will you please accept my apology for confusing the "space is cold" issue? None necessary. The question now is whether MM will retract his claim that you agree with him or persists in his usual habit of ignoring the obvious when it contradicts his assertions. I have enjoyed this discussion on heat, although I ‘v e just about made it to the point where I cant read MM misinformed posts any more.
|
|
|
Post by neanderthal on Nov 17, 2005 22:31:06 GMT -4
Here I go again, asking for it...
In all fairness, Moon Man is separating points into threads and discussing one topic at a time, more or less, as agreed, and it is often our own musings that drag the conversation around. He did ask the forum administrators for permission to assemble his post completely before replies began (I don't recall if the administrators agreed to that or not - I'll have to look). And he has been generally polite and respectful.
He has also been frustrating, deeply frustrating, and I agree that it seems part of his "misunderstanding" must be willful ignorance or simple refusal to accept the meaning of a very clear, well-supported argument. This doesn't make "You're an idiot!" into a scientific argument, though.
Due to his hardware limitations, was it agreed he would have time to formulate his argument prior to replies being posted? If the forum administrator feels he is only trolling, then he should be banned; if not, why not give him the rope and let him make a noose?
(edit: He is separating topic areas into threads, ie. Batteries, Space Suits... do y'all want him to instead separate each sub-point into a separate thread?)
|
|