|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Dec 30, 2005 8:32:50 GMT -4
men went 200.000plus miles back and forth in three days in 69while we havn't gone no further than 500m out since then in the shuttles This one always makes me laugh out loud. My Grandparents visited my uncle in New Zealand once, 20 years ago (I have seen the pictures that they took while they were there). Since then they have never left the UK. Does that mean they never went the first time, and faked the pictures? Totally pointless argument, without any merit whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 1, 2006 6:22:42 GMT -4
Ivan said:
I'll bet you're not a geologist, or you wouldn't say that so easily. Now a couple of others have asked you how to fake Moon rocks, but as you're in Cancun, you probably won't respond. However, there are probably a couple of lurkers out there who may be wondering about this, so I thought I'd add a little comment.
Geologists from around the world have looked at the Apollo rocks. This includes geologists from countries which are hostile to the USA. In fact, the USA and the USSR exchanged samples, as the Soviets got a small amount of material (less than 400 grams) from three robot sample return missions. Now before you start suggesting that the Americans got their rocks the same way, please note that the Apollo rocks total about 380 kilograms - about 1000 times as much as the Soviets gathered.
When geologists looked at the Apollo rocks, they noticed a couple of things which marked them out as unusual when compared with rocks from the Earth. The first thing was that they were completely dry. Earth rocks contain water, chemically bound into the minerals which the rocks are made of. Now the Apollo rocks weren't simply Earth rocks heated up until the water evaporated. It doesn't work this way. The only way to expel the water would be to heat the rocks to the melting point of the minerals which make up the rock. At this point, you'd be left with slag, not rock. There's no way to remove water from these rocks while still leaving them otherwise the way they were.
Secondly, some of the Apollo rocks were similar to Earth rocks called basalt. That is, they were lava which cooled and solidified. Now some of you may have learned about convection currents in science at school - heat one side of a container of water, add some Condie's crystals (potassium permanganate) and watch the water heat, rise up, travel along, cool, descend, and so on. Well, lava does the same thing when it's a liquid. The interesting thing is that geologists can track the convection patterns in solidified lava, and it's even possible to determine (I imagine somewhat roughly) the strength of gravity controlling the convection. And yes, the convection patterns in lunar basalt are different from the convection patterns in terrestrial basalt, in that they show the gravity was less.
Therefore, when geologists look at Apollo rocks, they know they're looking at rocks which didn't come from the Earth. It doesn't say specifically that the rocks came from the Moon, but if they didn't come from the Earth, where else did they come from? Mars? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 1, 2006 7:04:13 GMT -4
There is a great book that Ivan can read if he is really interested. It's almost a seminal work on Luna geology, the Apollo missions and what they found there.
To a Rocky Moon: A Geologist's History of Lunar Exploration By Don E. Wilhelms
• Paperback (January 1994) • Publisher: University of Arizona Press • Language: English • ISBN: 0816514437
Ivan seems to have gone to ground. Just when you fancy a bit of sport the prey disappears.
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 4, 2006 14:33:04 GMT -4
Ivan said: I'll bet you're not a geologist, or you wouldn't say that so easily. Now a couple of others have asked you how to fake Moon rocks, but as you're in Cancun, you probably won't respond. However, there are probably a couple of lurkers out there who may be wondering about this, so I thought I'd add a little comment. Geologists from around the world have looked at the Apollo rocks. This includes geologists from countries which are hostile to the USA. In fact, the USA and the USSR exchanged samples, as the Soviets got a small amount of material (less than 400 grams) from three robot sample return missions. Now before you start suggesting that the Americans got their rocks the same way, please note that the Apollo rocks total about 380 kilograms - about 1000 times as much as the Soviets gathered. When geologists looked at the Apollo rocks, they noticed a couple of things which marked them out as unusual when compared with rocks from the Earth. The first thing was that they were completely dry. Earth rocks contain water, chemically bound into the minerals which the rocks are made of. Now the Apollo rocks weren't simply Earth rocks heated up until the water evaporated. It doesn't work this way. The only way to expel the water would be to heat the rocks to the melting point of the minerals which make up the rock. At this point, you'd be left with slag, not rock. There's no way to remove water from these rocks while still leaving them otherwise the way they were. Secondly, some of the Apollo rocks were similar to Earth rocks called basalt. That is, they were lava which cooled and solidified. Now some of you may have learned about convection currents in science at school - heat one side of a container of water, add some Condie's crystals (potassium permanganate) and watch the water heat, rise up, travel along, cool, descend, and so on. Well, lava does the same thing when it's a liquid. The interesting thing is that geologists can track the convection patterns in solidified lava, and it's even possible to determine (I imagine somewhat roughly) the strength of gravity controlling the convection. And yes, the convection patterns in lunar basalt are different from the convection patterns in terrestrial basalt, in that they show the gravity was less. Therefore, when geologists look at Apollo rocks, they know they're looking at rocks which didn't come from the Earth. It doesn't say specifically that the rocks came from the Moon, but if they didn't come from the Earth, where else did they come from? Mars? ;-) hi guys ,iam back ,you wouldn't beleive who i met in Cancun,Elvis yes 70 year old elvis was lying next to me at the beach,he said he has been hiding out all these years,hes a great guy,please don't tell no one,,,,,,,now back to your so called moon walk and rocks www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370 these type of rocks can be fabricated,again you will die waiting for your next landing,didn't president bush last year seem so excited about going back soon but nasa plans for the next attempt to be in around 15-20 years,talking about they need a much larger craft then the apollo,they just will keep up procrastinating,you beleivers are suckers and can't prove they ever went and i don't have enough proof to convince you they didn't,but I know they didn't ,,,,Elvis said to ask you guys when will they return to sender man to the moon?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 4, 2006 14:43:01 GMT -4
I have a simple question for you, Ivan. What is it you hope to accomplish by posting to this forum?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 4, 2006 15:08:04 GMT -4
I was wondering the same thing...
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 4, 2006 15:27:07 GMT -4
keep forgeting this topic is on the apollo,just want to know when they will go back to the moon,so i can email Elvis back,I won't post on this one no more promise
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 4, 2006 16:03:02 GMT -4
just want to know when they will go back to the moon,so i can email Elvis back I have no idea when we'll go back. It is a function of political and taxpayer will and, unfortunately, politicians and taxpayers generally are not very pro-space. I hope it will be within the next couple decades as laid out in the current plans, but I'm not holding my breath. I wouldn't be surprised to see those plans cancelled when the next administration takes office. But seriously, what is it you wish to accomplish by your presence here? You've made it abundantly clear you don't believe man will be returning to the moon during this lifetime, thus your answer to my question is clearly not an honest one. Please provide an honest answer. By the way, please give my regard to Elvis.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 4, 2006 18:43:51 GMT -4
Be fair, Ivan didn’t say he met Elvis Presley. It could have been Elvis Jerkovski for all we know. Ivan is yanking our chain again.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jan 5, 2006 1:11:57 GMT -4
Be fair, Ivan didn’t say he met Elvis Presley. It could have been Elvis Jerkovski for all we know. Ivan is yanking our chain again. He's talking about Elvis Presley, but he's lying. Elvis is not in Cancun, he's here with me, and he says Ivan is some annoying loser who stalks him and talks rot all the time...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 5, 2006 10:09:32 GMT -4
Ivan, I suggest you read that page yu linked to again, and take notes. Look at that size of the Lunite found. It's about 45mm in length. Apollo returned core samples that were over 2 metres in length as well as many huge rocks. They point out that there have only been about 30 lunites ever found. Apollo returned 380 pounds of virgin rock materials. The first Lunite was found in 1979, ten years after Apollo 11, and the first one to be identified wasn't until 1982 because of it's similarities with the Apollo and Soviet return samples. Here's a page on Lunites, read and learn. If you read it carefully you should be able to tell me the difference between a Lunite and the Apollo Samples and why the Apollo samples aren't Lunites.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 5, 2006 11:36:22 GMT -4
PW’s link to Lunites says that most of the Apollo samples we “KREEPS” (“because, in addition to K, they have high concentrations of other elements that geochemists call "incompatible elements" such as the Rare-Earth Elements (REE, like lanthanum and cerium) and phosphorous (P).“). It goes on to say that, “Only one lunar meteorite, Sayh al Uhaymir 169 with a whopping 33 ppm Th, is a "KREEPy"”.
This really does suggest that meteorites have not been faked to resemble Luna material.
Ivan really should do a bit more reading. Either that or get our more and chase squirrels.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 5, 2006 13:02:51 GMT -4
Here's a page on Lunites, read and learn. If you read it carefully you should be able to tell me the difference between a Lunite and the Apollo Samples and why the Apollo samples aren't Lunites. Nice site you've found there, PhantomWolf ...and a good paragraph on one of the linked pages on the impossibility of faking moon rocks.
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 5, 2006 17:24:13 GMT -4
Be fair, Ivan didn’t say he met Elvis Presley. It could have been Elvis Jerkovski for all we know. Ivan is yanking our chain again. He's talking about Elvis Presley, but he's lying. Elvis is not in Cancun, he's here with me, and he says Ivan is some annoying loser who stalks him and talks rot all the time... all wrong ,the king invited me to his birthday party this Sunday at his beach house in Cancun,i'll try to make it back,he said to tell all you moon landing beleivers to prepare to be all shook up when the lie is exposed, and you all think you are high class but thats just a lie,,,i broke my promise on not posting on this forum again,but i just had to,maybe robotic missions brought those rocks just maybe,but not humans,scientists argue much deeper drilling cores are needed for proper analysis of the moons origins,something nasa should be doing by now,i had heard no soil samples were taken back but not sure on that one
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 5, 2006 18:22:32 GMT -4
Since you're back, how about answering my question?
|
|