Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 95 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
july cold snap next week
by paul
0 seconds ago
Mars CO2 atmosphere = COLD
by paul
Today at 09:48 AM
Incentives don't always work
by Amaranth Rose II
07/26/14 11:10 PM
ZOMBIE SPREAD WORLDWIDE EPIDEMIC?
by paul
07/26/14 01:33 PM
Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,
by Revlgking
07/24/14 01:35 PM
KEROSENE - a Universal Healer
by Revlgking
07/18/14 10:28 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 64
Orac 33
Bill S. 23
Revlgking 23
Bill 19
Page 14 of 16 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 16 >
Topic Options
#39378 - 08/08/11 10:25 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
Nice find TFF

the article states that the exposure time was too short to capture the light of the stars that would have been visible through the glare of the light reflecting off of the moon.

so it was both a combination of the light reflection and the camera.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Of Interest?
#39471 - 08/13/11 11:18 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
I fully agree that mythbusters was a fraud FatFreddy.

when the astronaut twist the flag pole the flag is given momentum , and the flag is not made of a rigid material so the flags momentum is slowly transfered from the top of the flag to the bottom of the flag.

the flag is not weightless , and since the flags weight is being pulled downwards by the moons gravity the flag appears to wave in the wind.

all that is happening is the flag is given momentum , the flag reacts to that momentum , the flag pendulums , then it comes to a stop because the moons gravity has pulled the flag down as far as it can.

this video shows no proof that the moon landings were faked , it only shows that mythbusting by mythbusters is a myth.

just like the compressed air powered boat , that mythbusters said wouldnt work , even though they installed the nozzle above the bottom of the boat so that it would fail as soon as the boat started moving.

and the boat quickly moved because the air escaping the nozzle was pushing against the water , then the boat just stopped because the nozzle was lifted above the water due to the forward motion of the quickly moving boat that lifted the boat and thus lifted the nozzle out of the water , removing the resistive force supplied by the water , the air just escaped the nozzle and had nothing but air to push against.

anyone who has ever ridden in a boat probably knows that if you look at the the back of a quickly moving boat you can see the water is not touching the back of the boat and the mythbusters placed the nozzle on the back of the boat.

mythbusters was a farce and should be recognized as such and should not be relied on as a source of information.

this is a air vs air reaction by mythbusters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejEJGNLTo84

the above clyinder would have probably reached over 100 mph if it would not have struck the walls.

but it shows how forcefull a air vs water reaction would be.

fishing boats sit in your yard , and could be compressing air using solar power all week long waiting for you to go fishing in your boat that never needs gassing up.

then while your fishing it is also re-compressing the air
in the cylinders.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39473 - 08/13/11 03:35 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

Top
#39474 - 08/13/11 04:08 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
TFF

I was commenting on your link below
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...058_600x450.jpg

the comments I made about mythbusters was from FatFreddys video link.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39475 - 08/13/11 04:18 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
I suppose you are refering to the flag moving more when the flag was twisted in the vacuum.

did you notice that they didnt twist the atmospheric example much at all?

1:35 into the video
apx 30 degrees. !!

but they twisted the vacuum example apx 120 degrees.

2:04 into the video.

maybe if they would have used a mechanical device to move the flag both times the same distance and at the same speed they would have proven something.

LOL

but this test proves nothing.
except that mythbusters knew how to stack the deck.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39481 - 08/14/11 01:27 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: paul]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/07/07
Posts: 1474
Loc: Australia
Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing? I think it was one of the high-lights of my life to see the possibilities that were opening up--- now gone forever.

What would be the motivation for using so much time, effort and bad feeling to denigrate such a great achievement? Sometimes when I am on-line I think I am the only one who thinks humans really did achieve such an amazing thing.

Aah well!! Back to shopping and "reality" TV like our overlords want us to!

Top
#39482 - 08/14/11 02:54 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Ellis]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1811
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing?...What would be the motivation for using so much time, effort and bad feeling to denigrate such a great achievement?

Plausible reasons here:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/06/the_psychology_of_crankery.php
_________________________
Redshift: - the faster you drive toward a green light, the more likely it is to turn red - Murphy

Top
#39488 - 08/14/11 09:22 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Ellis]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2896
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing?


It's fun?

Actually, conspiricy theory fulfills a psychological need, arising from a youthful need to kick against the establishment. Some people never grow out of it.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39491 - 08/14/11 10:24 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
Quote:
Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing?


I actually think that there was several moon landings.

Im not one of the believers of the conspiracy.

other conspiracies yes , but not this one.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39494 - 08/14/11 11:52 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Yesterday I took pictures of a honey bee nest, wild grapes hanging down in bunches, poke weeds filled with fruits (no poke salad for me thanks), Paw Paw likewise fruiting up, and many other interesting things. Last night on Hulu.com, I watched Jose Ferrer play Cyrano de Bergerac. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty darn presentation of one of my favorite plays. (I'm also fond of Steve Martin's update of the character in the movie Roxanne.) I also added a post to my blog at http://thefalliblefiend.blogspot.com/ .

The day before that I went to work and solved a programming problem I had been stressing over for two days. I went for a long walk with a friend during lunch and pointed out hickory trees, Virginia pines, Eastern White Pines, Carolina Hemlocks, and many others.

Today, I ate my oatmeal on the deck, put up the umbrella and made a pot of coffee. I just started "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks." I talked for a little while to both of my daughters. I did NOT get yelled at by my wife, even though I broke the couch. Eventually I'll download pics from the last few days onto the computer. I've already figured out the identities of some other plants, most notably the Southern Magnolia that someone planted outside the wildlife refuge.

Most of today I will spend learning a new programming language called Python. It's not "new" at all, actually, but it's new to me. I installed it yesterday and have been playing with it. Previously I had written VBA to control processing massive amounts of data via ArcGIS libraries, but the newer versions of ArcGIS will support Python over VBA.

I stayed up late the last two nights to see the Perseids, but I think the light pollution is too much around here and it was a bit cloudy last night.

In the back of my mind I'm thinking of a problem over at projecteuler.net . I should know how to do this sort of problem, but I've forgotten so much over the years. It's okay. I'll eventually figure it out. So far I've solved 16 problems in the week and a half since I started. They are getting harder and more interesting.

I'll probably call my mom and dad later and talk about some stuff I've been thinking about. My step-dad (whom I cannot help but think of as my real dad) is native American and I think he will be interested that I noticed a crapload of hemp dogsbane near where I work. Indians used to make cordage from it and I found a YT video on how to do that.

I hope to spend at least an hour planning for activities for the coming school year. My colleagues and I put on a science fair and a math night every year for the local kids. We also supply science and math tutors for them. We get other groups to help us like NIH and NASA, NAS, etc. It's a lot more work than most people think.

I also need to plan for my professional development. My employer will pay for classes in proportion to their relevance to my job - probably 100% for any programming or hard science classes. I've been meaning to do a review of thermodynamics and to augment it with a class on statistical mechanics. We'll see.

My youngest just came onto the deck to talk to me for a while. She's making a blueberry pie and wants to know if I'll make dinner tonight. Her boyfriend might be coming. She left and then my wife told me that we have potatoes if I want to make them with the steaks.

I'm modifying my reading list. The top item for now is a translation of Mendel's pea paper which is available online. I'm thinking the next will be Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils say and why it Matters" which I'll read concurrently with Henrietta Lacks.

My youngest came and asked me if I could make baked potatoes instead of mashed potatoes and also a salad. She leaves for college in less than a week. My wife told her she should be the one making dinner instead of daddy since it's her handsome boyfriend who's coming to dinner. OTOH, I like the kid and this is a small thing. And they're going to spend the afternoon at the Smithsonian's natural history museum. (Such a cool date!) I can have dinner ready by the time they get back.

My oldest just got back from a week at the beach today. She returns to college (the same school) a week after her sister. She's majoring in Chem and minoring in Mandarin. It's going to be her toughest semester ever taking both advanced p-chem and advanced organic along with her honor's thesis. But on the good side, she's finished her Chinese requirements, so that will give her some free time to work on the other stuff. Then she'll have an internship at a company that's been courting her and then probably grad school.

I've barely covered a third of what I have going on. I've got plenty of worthwhile stuff to keep me occupied without wasting time on stupid crap. Conspiracy "theories" are a distraction from doing things that take patience, effort, and practice.

My last advice to both girls before going off to college was and is this: avoid drama. Some people thrive on it, create it ex nihilo when it's in short supply, nurse it, command it, apply it relentlessly to their friends and enemies alike. Avoid those people. Be friendly with them as you are friendly to everyone, but do not acquire them as friends. They will drag you down, waste your time, and give you nothing but gossip and confusion in return.


Edited by TheFallibleFiend (08/14/11 12:01 PM)

Top
#39500 - 08/14/11 04:39 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2896
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: TFF
Conspiracy "theories" are a distraction from doing things that take patience, effort, and practice.


TFF, you seem to have a satisfyingly full life. Before I retired I fondly imagined that, once retired, I would have time to do lots of things that work prevented me from doing. Strangely, I seem to have even less free time for those things now, so I guess I am fortunate enough to have a full life, as well.

Perhaps there are less fortunate people who need things like conspiracy theories to fill voids.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39503 - 08/14/11 07:11 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
what will you do with the other half of your day?

you dont want to get slack you know , sedentary lifestyles can lead to heart / arterial problems.

I love to examine conspiracy theories to see if I can figure out where the conspiracy is wrong or lacks evidence.

but its not something I spend alot of time on , like I did the 911 stuff.

It really seemed as though the conspirators were right , until I began to study the reasons they used to prove that 911 was a inside job.

little by little each of the pieces fell out of the
conspiracy picture.

and soon to me the conspiracy became nothing but a lack of understanding on the part of the conspirators logic.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39635 - 08/20/11 09:45 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: ]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
at the end of the video the girl says
so the conspiracy theorist were correct.
then one of the men says
so nasa 0 conspiracy theorist 2

but on the mythbusters series they say

so the conspiracy theorist werent correct.
then one of the men says
conspiracy theorist 0 nasa 2


a little sound editing.

still mythbusters was a fraud , even in this case when they stacked the deck by changing the distance and speed of the flag waving.

who ever made the above video just edited the words (zero and two) and changed them around.

look at the guys mouth when he is saying two , it moves alot more than it should , like he is pronouncing a two syllable word - ZERO.








_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39706 - 08/23/11 07:34 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2896
Loc: Essex, UK
Now we have conspiracy theorists identifying conspiracies in the work of other conspiricy theorists.....where will it all end?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39710 - 08/23/11 08:48 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3445
I know , and we have anti conspiracy theorist who are conspiring to conspire that we have conspiracy theorists identifying conspiracies in the work of other conspiricy theorists.....where will it all end?



Im not sure it can ever end.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39966 - 09/06/11 09:33 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: paul]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 91
I have a new conspiracy theory. It doesn't involve the moon landings but does involve NASA. This isn't about Nibiru, so don't get side tracked. I'll keep it short.

NASA X-Ray Image of G1.9

Link
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/08-062.html


NASA...Cover-up?
"They then show an absurd picture that has been bouncing around the Internet for several years as a photo of "Nibiru". This picture of a blue ball surrounded by orange flames is obviously not of any astronomical object. It is not even a clever fake."
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=14046


Strange! NASA fakes pictures?


Edited by Max (09/06/11 09:37 PM)
Edit Reason: spelling

Top
#39969 - 09/07/11 12:22 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Google "supernova remnant" and you'll find plenty of similar pictures.

Why are people so consistently fooled by anything roughly circular with a bright edge in the top-left of the picture? Maybe it's too much exposure to computers where that same optical illusion is used to make buttons look like solid objects - and people somehow forget they're still only flat pictures on the screen.

In space the sun isn't shining down on everything from above.

Turn it upside down and see if it still looks like an object.



Edited by kallog (09/07/11 12:24 AM)

Top
#39970 - 09/07/11 12:44 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: kallog]
Max Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/07
Posts: 91
You missed the point. It is a NASA x-ray image of G1.9. In the next paragraph, a NASA scientist who is talking about G1.9 calls the NASA photo a bad fake. Shouldn't a NASA scientist who is talking about G1.9 be aware of the NASA pictures of G1.9? He described it very well so he has obviously seen the picture. Why is he claiming that it is a bad fake? Why is that website setup to "debunk" a NASA photo?

No one is fooled here, Kallog. Try to focus. This isn't about seeing circular with a bright edge in the top-left of the picture. Nice misdirection, but uncalled for.

Top
#39981 - 09/07/11 09:25 AM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Max]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1348
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Here we go! A conspiracy theorist (CT) takes a NASA statement and misquotes it out of context and claims that it shows that NASA is faking things again. He even gave a link to the actual NASA statement, then claims that the statement says that NASA is faking it. Where the NASA statement says that a picture is a fake it is clear that it is talking about something other than the real G1.9 picture. And if the CTs are using a real picture they are definitely completely misusing it to represent something in our solar system rather than near the center of the galaxy.

Max, try reading the statement you linked to.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39985 - 09/07/11 02:31 PM Re: fake moon landing [Re: Bill]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Photos are often copied about the web with modifications, but I think this one actually does probably refer to a non-modified version of the original. The original picture does have an artificial quality about it. It's possible the critic is talking about a different picture, but probably he's mistaken. If it were me, I would just send him an email to ask. (I might even copy D. Green, the study lead.)

In a sense all such "photos" are faked, because they are all manipulated to some extent. Let's look at the credits.

Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3. Image Credit: X-ray (NASA/CXC/NCSU/S. Reynolds et al.); Radio (NSF/NRAO/VLA/Cambridge/D. Green et al.); Infrared (2MASS/UMass/IPAC-Caltech/NASA/NSF/CfA/E. Bressert)

This is clearly a composite image from 3 sources: X-ray, radio, and infrared. (Nothing wrong with that, btw.) Also, any of these sources aren't like photographic images - or, they are like photographic images where the colors have been shifted around ... because, people can't actually SEE x-ray, radio, or infrared. Again, nothing wrong with that.

I don't do a lot of work with images, but I can imagine there's a bit of artistic license in putting things like this together. How could there not be?

The "blue ball" is not really a ball. It could be the front of some wave or it could be just a bit of haze that accidentally resembles a sphere to our human brains. It's translucent and you can see something (stars? flecks of gas?) through the other side and it's concentrated near the upper part of the image. Our brain just fills in the "sphere."

I wrote all this before hand, but now I clicked the image and find it here, confirming some of what I had inferred:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2008/g19/

The critic was right that real objects in the sky don't look like this. There are probably a lot of crazy things percolating about this image - that it's a planet or star in our solar system or some other silly crap.

Top
Page 14 of 16 < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 16 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
robynlodge, verissimofera, GCervantes, Kam_D_Resta, nicha
692 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.