It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 124
29
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   


By the way, It's irrelevant how much something weighs. A 1 kilo steel ball here on Earth will fall at the same rate as a 1000 kilo steel ball on Earth. If both balls dropped at the same time and from the same height, then they will both hit the ground at the same time.

are you serios, the lighter an object is the less speed it will have while falling, it's called kinetic energy, biger the mass more speed.


Try jumping with an extra 600 kilos weight on your back up and down and then do it with out it and see how far can you jump vericaly and in front of you, my 2 cents that you won't jump even a meeter.




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
doble post removed

[edit on 6-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
removed because of errors

[edit on 6-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This is really simple an stronaut weight on the moon was about 20 kilos .
A kid here on earth that has a weight of 20 kilos can not jump that way up and down.

You have argued that there is less gravity on the moon, I have already told you I already substracted the weight and calculated to the moon's gravity.

What I have said is that: 6 kilograms would act as 1 kilogram on the moon, that 1 kilogram on the moon would act as another object from earth that has 1 kilogram.


You have mentioned that acceleration is reduced , yes it's reduced from 6 kilograms to the behavior of how 1 kilogram in mass would act.
Take 2 rockets 1 50 kilos in weight and the other 10 kilos in weight
and give them the same propulsion sistem and see how far they go, I don't even know if the rocket that is 50 kilos in weight will even get of the ground.
Same with the astronauts they way they jumped up and down is unreal for 20 kilograms, you would argue that the weight of the astronauts is reduced due to gravity, but I already told you I substracted that and made them act like 20 kilograms.
SO what is your point soilent?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I'm not speaking as a FSME, but as just a member. I want to make that clear. This is just my own personal viewpoint.

I'm exercising the ignore button on what is in my opinion simply stupidity amplified. This thread has went to great lengths to accomodate differring opinions, but when we reach the point where it is ludicrous, then there is no recourse but to ignore the distractions.

Each of you chose how to best deal with this, but I for one refuse to further converse with those unwilling or unable to understand basics cience, and choose instead to push complete absurdity as fact.

Enough.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   


That man close to that fake Lunar Lander is Armstrong.

But, hey, there is not even one video that shows Armstrong flying

suspended from this crane.

Why?

BECAUSE THAT USELESS PIECE OF METAL IS NOT ABLE TO FLY.

Kennedy said Americans had to go to the Moon to get supremacy above

Russians. But they were not able to develop that incredible technology

required to go there and faked all the story.


I also could say: I want two wings to fly.

But no one can give me them.


Your technology is poor. How is that you have hit a comet that runs fastest

in the deep universe but you haven't hit Saddam Palace with the first shot?

Haven't you got intelligent bombs?








[edit on 6-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra-2


That man close to that fake Lunar Lander is Armstrong.

But, hey, there is not even one video that shows Armstrong flying

suspended from this crane.

Why?

BECAUSE THAT USELESS PIECE OF METAL IS NOT ABLE TO FLY.

WHO ARE YOU? I am serious here...what kind of useless nonsense can you be allowed to post?

OK....[deep breath....]

Well....as I said before, just to be PC, ANYONE can post his/her opinions, and that is understood. However, we would kindly ask that the posts be somewhat coherent. Please.

By the way...I used some Caps, and if I run afoul of the T&C, sorry...but I do try to refrain from using all Caps, unlike some posters who shall remain nameless.....

Kennedy said Americans had to go to the Moon to get supremacy above

Russians. But they were not able to develop that incredible technology

required to go there and faked all the story.


I also could say: I want two wings to fly.

But no one can give me them.


Your technology is poor. How is that you have hit a comet that runs fastest

in the deep universe but you haven't hit Saddam Palace with the first shot?

Haven't you got intelligent bombs?








[edit on 6-12-2007 by jra-2]


Hmmmm....somehow MY post was hijacked, if that's the correct word to use. I'm here in the 'edit' page and I can see that what I wrote didn't make it out to the forum....hmmmmmm.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78



By the way, It's irrelevant how much something weighs. A 1 kilo steel ball here on Earth will fall at the same rate as a 1000 kilo steel ball on Earth. If both balls dropped at the same time and from the same height, then they will both hit the ground at the same time.

are you serios, the lighter an object is the less speed it will have while falling, it's called kinetic energy, biger the mass more speed.

Try jumping with an extra 600 kilos weight on your back up and down and then do it with out it and see how far can you jump vericaly and in front of you, my 2 cents that you won't jump even a meeter.


No offense intended, but to tell you the truth, I'm surprised you think a heavy object falls faster than a lighter one. The concept that weight has nothing to do with the speed at which something falls is usually taught in basic science classes in school. It has nothing to do with me being able to jump with 600 kilos on my back, and everything to do with the physics of falling objects.

Galileo (so the legend goes), and Giambattista Benedetti before him, each performed classic and legendary experiments that showed objects with different weights dropped from the same height will fall at the same speed. This is sometimes called the 'Equity of Fall Rates', or the 'Universality of Free Fall', and is also part of the Newtonian Rules of motion.

While Galieo, Benedeitti were the first to proves this by experimentaion, and Newton was the one who mathmatically proved this, the idea was first argued by the Philosopher John Philiponus in the 6th century CE in his Theory of Impetus.

So it has been proven if I drop a 1 kilo ball and a 1000 kilo ball from the same height and at the same time, they will both hit the ground at the same time...i.e. heavier objects don NOT fall faster than light objects.

As I said before, I don't mean to offend, but this is a basic and universally accepted concept in physics. There really is nobody arguing against this concept...

But here is an interesting side note...

While this 'Universality of Free Fall' concept is true on a the "visible scale" with which we experience the universe, it may not be true on the quantum scale. Quantum physicists think that possibly the acceleration of gravity does depend on the material composition of the object in a very subtle way on the quantum level -- although this is not at all noticable by us, nor can it be calculated using Newtonian Physics.

For all intents and purposes -- and from what we can measure and calculate in the non-quantum world -- Galileo, Newton and the entire 'Universality of Free Fall' concept is accurate and true.

Here's a link regarding Galileo's Theory and quantum physics:
Was Galileo Wrong?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
This is really simple an stronaut weight on the moon was about 20 kilos .
A kid here on earth that has a weight of 20 kilos can not jump that way up and down.

You have argued that there is less gravity on the moon, I have already told you I already substracted the weight and calculated to the moon's gravity.

What I have said is that: 6 kilograms would act as 1 kilogram on the moon, that 1 kilogram on the moon would act as another object from earth that has 1 kilogram.

You have mentioned that acceleration is reduced , yes it's reduced from 6 kilograms to the behavior of how 1 kilogram in mass would act.
Take 2 rockets 1 50 kilos in weight and the other 10 kilos in weight
and give them the same propulsion sistem and see how far they go, I don't even know if the rocket that is 50 kilos in weight will even get of the ground.
Same with the astronauts they way they jumped up and down is unreal for 20 kilograms, you would argue that the weight of the astronauts is reduced due to gravity, but I already told you I substracted that and made them act like 20 kilograms.
SO what is your point soilent?


This is not really a question about the weight of an object (besides an object's 'weight' is only a function of how gravity acts on that object's mass -- but I digress)....

As I said in my post above, an object's mass (or weight) has no bearing on how fast an object will fall. ALL objects on Earth fall at 9.8 m/s/s. ALL objects on the Moon fall at 1.6 m/s/s. If I went to an asteroid with 1/100 the gravity of the Earth, an object (whether it weighs 1 kilo on Earth or 100,000 Kilos on Earth) will fall very slowly -- about 1/100 the speed that it would fall on Earth. If I were in Deep space -- away from anything that may have a gravitational pull so that gravity was basically zero -- then that object would not fall at all.

One more...If I went to a supermassive planet with 100 times the gravity as the Earth, objects would fall much, much faster there than here on Earth (but, again ALL objects on that planet will fall at that same rate, regardless of how much they weigh.)


The speed at which something falls has everything to do with "gravity" and the related "acceleration due to gravity" and nothing whatsoever to do with that object's weight or mass.


[edit on 12/6/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   



No offense intended, but to tell you the truth, I'm surprised you think a heavy object falls faster than a lighter one.

No, an object biger in size travels faster because of it's kinetic energy times equal mass, there is no falling in 0 gravity , get my point?
gravity does not infuence speed movement only what go's up




The concept that weight has nothing to do with the speed at which something falls is usually taught in basic science classes in school.

What I was refering to they way astronauts jump up and down, they can't do that mejuring 20 kilos in weight? can you undesrstand that?


Going up.
Your view on acceleration in gravity is slowed down is invalid, only what go's up can have a decrese in speed, and because of that the astronauts jumping up on the moon can't preform what they did.



Going down.
Also the astronauts should come down like on earth, I don't think you understand me, it's the slow motion, there is no such thing, even in 0 gravity objects would move regular, they go down in slow motion, they should go down normaly, but they don't do they.



It has nothing to do with me being able to jump with 600 kilos on my back, and everything to do with the physics of falling objects.

If you can't undesrstand that jumping up with more weight is harder then you are not very receptive.



Galileo (so the legend goes), and Giambattista Benedetti before him, each performed classic and legendary experiments that showed objects with different weights dropped from the same height will fall at the same speed.

It's not about falling, maybe I expresed my self wrong, it's about movement, and kinetic energy.

I'm sorry for my bad english, not my first languege.


Soilent you are contradicting your self, first you mention that an object falling regardles of it's weight will fall the same because gravity has no effect on it, then you go saying that because of gravity an object's speed will be reduced in lower gravity which in my personal opinion is absurd.

In other words the astronauts movment should be like on earth, regarding weight to be more on spot, they can't go "up" the way they are doing it because gravity 1/6 would stop them and make them behave like a 20 kilogram object .
Weight does have a factor when going up, that you can be sure about, the more heavy you are the more dificult is to go up.


[edit on 6-12-2007 by pepsi78]


jra

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
JRA also said they jumped 4 to 5 feet...

Surely one of you has the links to these videos?


I surely do.


from:Apollo 11

MPEG Clip ( 1 min 15 sec; 7.7 Mb )

109:42:28 Armstrong: You've got three more steps and then a long one.

109:42:42 Aldrin: Okay. I'm going to leave that one foot up there and both hands down to about the fourth rung up.

[Neil's photo AS11-40-5868 shows Buzz with one foot on the bottom rung and, as he says, his hands at the fourth rung.]

[Buzz jumps down to the footpad.]

109:42:50 Armstrong: There you go.

109:42:53 Aldrin: Okay. Now I think I'll do the same (garbled) (Pause)

[Buzz tries to jump up to the bottom rung and doesn't quite make it on the first try.]

109:43:01 Armstrong: A little more. About another inch. (Pause)

[Buzz jumps up to the bottom rung.]

109:43:06 Armstrong: There, you've got it.

109:43:08 Aldrin: That's a good (last) step.

109:43:10 Armstrong: Yeah. About a 3-footer. (Pause)

[Buzz jumps back down to the footpad.]




from: Apollo 16 EVA 3 closeout

RealVideo Clip (3 min 38 sec)

170:21:44 Young: We were gonna do a bunch of exercises that we had made up as the Lunar Olympics to show you what a guy could do on the Moon with a backpack on, but...

170:21:57 England: For a 380-pound guy, that's pretty good.

170:22:01 Young: They threw that out. Yeah, I jump flat-footed straight in the air, 300...

[In his book, Moonwalker, Duke said that, after John did a flat-footed jump, getting about four feet off the surface. "I decided to join in and made a big push off the moon, getting about four feet high. 'Wow!', I exclaimed. But as I straightened up, the weight of my backpack pulled me over backward. Now I was coming down on my back. I tried to correct myself but couldn't, and as my heart filled with fear I fell the four feet, hitting hard - right on my backpack. Panic! The thought that I'd die raced across my mind. It was the only time in our whole lunar stay that I had a real moment of panic and thought I had killed myself. The suit and backpack weren't designed to support a four-foot fall. Had the backpack broken or the suit split open, I would have lost my air. A rapid decompression, or as one friend calls it, a high-altitude hiss-out, and I would have been dead instantly. Fortunately, everything held together."]

170:22:08 Duke: About 4 feet. Wow!

170:22:14 Young: Charlie!

170:22:15 Duke: That ain't any fun, is it?

170:22:17 Young: That ain't very smart.

170:22:18 Duke: That ain't very smart. Well, I'm sorry about that.

170:22:23 Young: Right. Now we do have some work to do. (Pause)



Lunar Gaits

Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I would say that balance (while walking) was not difficult; however, I did some fairly high jumps and found that there was a tendency to tip over backwards on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that."

...

On Apollo 16, Charlie Duke tried to jump as high as he possibly could and, as Neil almost did, tipped over backwards and landed on his PLSS. In his 1990 book, "Moonwalker", written with his wife Dotty, he said that, as he fell, he was genuinely afraid that he was about to die but, fortunately, neither his PLSS nor his suit was damaged and the only damage to himself was an acute case of embarrassment.


[edit on 6-12-2007 by jra]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Going up.
Your view on acceleration in gravity is slowed down is invalid, only what go's up can have a decrese in speed, and because of that the astronauts jumping up on the moon can't preform what they did.

Going down.
Also the astronauts should come down like on earth, I don't think you understand me, it's the slow motion, there is no such thing, even in 0 gravity objects would move regular, they go down in slow motion, they should go down normaly, but they don't do they.


I did not mean an objects speed would decrease as it fell on the Moon. What I said was that an object would take longer to fall on the Moon than it would on Earth. Objects on the Moon, Earth and everywhere will actually SPEED UP as they fall. This is "Acceleration Due to Gravity", or commonly "a" in physics. Objects on the Moon WILL accelerate (go faster and faster) as they fall, but they will accelerate at a lesser rate than they would on Earth.

Along with objects being lighter on the moon, objects ACTUALLY DO FALL IN "SLOW MOTION" on the Moon when compared to the Earth. They fall at a lesser speed, and accelerate at a lesser rate (however, as I said in the paragraph above, they DO accelerate as they fall.)

So, a 120 kg earth object weighs 20 kg on the Moon. BUT it also falls at a slower rate on the Moon than would a different 20 kg object would fall on the Earth. As weird as that may seem, it is a fact.

Acceleration due to gravity or "a":

"a" on Earth = 9.8 m/s/s -- a simplified definition of this is that an object on Earth will be falling at 9.8 m/s after it has been falling for one second.

"a" on the Moon = 1.6 m/s/s -- this means that something on the Moon will be moving at 1.6 m/s after falling for one second.

This "a" is actually telling us how much the object accelerates while falling. For example, on Earth an object will be moving 9.8 m/s after the first second, but will speed up to 19.6 m/s after the next second (9.8 x 2), and so on.

The weight of an object and "acceleration due to gravity" are closely related concepts. So the fact that something weighs 1/6 as much on the Moon as on Earth is closely related to the fact that it also falls in "slow motion" when compared to on Earth.


Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Soylent Green is People
It has nothing to do with me being able to jump with 600 kilos on my back, and everything to do with the physics of falling objects.

If you can't undesrstand that jumping up with more weight is harder then you are not very receptive.

In other words the astronauts movment should be like on earth, regarding weight to be more on spot, they can't go "up" the way they are doing it because gravity 1/6 would stop them and make them behave like a 20 kilogram object .
Weight does have a factor when going up, that you can be sure about, the more heavy you are the more dificult is to go up.


This is sort of a different argument than the one about acceleration above. but...

Say an astronaut with his equipment weighs 120 kilos on the Earth. He has the muscle structure in his legs that allows him to jump 30 cm on Earth. That same astronaut on the Moon would weigh 20 kilos, but he still has the SAME AMOUNT OF MUSCLES in his legs that allowed him to jump 30 cm on Earth. Using those same muscles, he should be able to jump much higher on the moon, since his muscles are only pushing 1/6 of the weight into the air.

This is no different than using my arm muscles to throw something in the air. Earth, I might be able to throw a 3 kilo ball 2 meters into the air, but on the Moon, a that same ball would weigh only 0.5 kilos, and thus I can throw that ball much higher, because I'm still using the same muscles I had on Earth, but I am throwing a much lighter ball.

...and, by the way, because of the lesser rate of acceleration due to gravity, he would come down in "slow motion" as compared to the Earth. The astronaut is lighter because of the lower gravity, and he falls in slow motion because of the lesser acceleration due to gravity. Like I said, think of these as two separate but closely related concepts.




[edit on 12/6/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


hey pepsi. I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence that a US launched probe came back with Big Muley. You conveniently ignored that request. I would imagine you ignore it because it is tangible physical proof that man has been on the moon, and you can't make it go away with argument semantics.

You have asked for independently verified evidence, and I have provided it.

I ask you to provide independently verified evidence of a US based prober that was big enough to bring back big muley

I eagerly await your response

maybe this will refresh your memory;



The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense. Evidence that the Apollo program really happened is compelling: A dozen astronauts (laden with cameras) walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Nine of them are still alive and can testify to their experience. They didn't return from the Moon empty-handed, either. Just as Columbus carried a few hundred natives back to Spain as evidence of his trip to the New World, Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rock home to Earth.
"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.

"For example," explains Dr. Marc Norman, a lunar geologist at the University of Tasmania, "lunar samples have almost no water trapped in their crystal structure, and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are totally absent in Moon rocks."

"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon!"

"Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts," explains McKay. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere... like the Moon.

Meteoroids are nearly-microscopic specks of comet dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph -- ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch, but they're also extremely fragile. Meteoroids that strike Earth's atmosphere disintegrate in the rarefied air above our stratosphere. (Every now and then on a dark night you can see one -- they're called meteors.) But the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to protect it. The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.

"There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon," says McKay. "You can see the little meteoroid craters for yourself."

Right: Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits." Below right: A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock.
 






Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.

Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.

And therein lies an original idea: Did NASA go to the Moon to collect props for a staged Moon landing? It's an interesting twist on the conspiracy theory that TV producers might consider for their next episode of the Moon Hoax.

"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."



pepsi, you can make history. Faced with overwhelming physical evidence you can go to the smithsonian yourself and see, you can admit you were wrong. You would earn my respect and the respect of many others. I know you can do it.



[edit on 6-12-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Tell me are you doing this with intention, leaving out material for me to post?
Because in your post I can find material that as strange as you would find it would indicate that man never went on the moon.
Let's start shal we.

So we have big muley, ok


Right: Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits." Below right: A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock.

So this is the description of the rock.

You know this will open an old book.



Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.

You know what a particle acelerator is right?
You know that some particle accelerators are used for x-ray machines right? and that a xray machine even if does not produce gamma radiation and it produces radiation from x=rays it is still very dangeros for human being to come in contact withn it, that is why we put 1 meter of led shield
to protect us before taking an x-ray, I wonder what would hapen if you took an x-ray with out the llead shielding , but wait there is more to it, it states in your post that those particles are even more chareged up and can't be reproduce by our particle accelerators, and they produce gamma radiation, not good because gamma radiation stays around, since they are higly charged particles I wonder what a particle generator here on earth would produce as in radiation score, since x-ray machines produce enough
radiation to damage you with out 1 meter shielding, it's clear that accelerators prducing gamma radiation would be even worse, not to talk about that those particles hiting the moon are nothing compared to our own here on earth.
You know I've been arguing over this and tryed to bing evidence that particles hiting the moon are higher than anything here on earth that would produce that efect, so I've argued and argued here on ATS, and now you just did it for me, well you just proved everyone that the moon is highly radioactive

I can only imagine what would hapen to a human coming in direct contact with such material on the moon, not to mention what would hapen to him on the moon in general.

Since no one can remake the particle hit it's clear the rock is from the moon, it also indicates that man could not come in direct contact with the rock, since it won't even come coser to our own particle generators that are high in radiation.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
What is more disturbing when I look at the rock is the density, it look like paticles hit one near the other, even worst.
I've been arguing I told you over this issue, I know it was true, never thought of the rocks, I don;t know how I missed this.
Remember not compared no anything here on earth as in high energy, and just look at the holes, they are one near the other, what are the chances of that hapening, it seems the moon is higly radio active.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


OK, you can't show me the probes (because they don't exist) so you want to attack the rocks.

OK

one point at a time.




"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.

"For example," explains Dr. Marc Norman, a lunar geologist at the University of Tasmania, "lunar samples have almost no water trapped in their crystal structure, and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are totally absent in Moon rocks."

"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon!"



please enlighten me on how these scientist are wrong, and you are right

[edit on 7-12-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
point #2



"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."


please provide your explanation for why no scientist who has examined the rocks doubts their origin



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Since no one can remake the particle hit it's clear the rock is from the moon, it also indicates that man could not come in direct contact with the rock, since it won't even come coser to our own particle generators that are high in radiation.



no, it indicates the rocks were on the moon for 3 billion years, and they took a lot of hits, while the apollo astronuats were there for a few days, and took a few less hits



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by pepsi78
 


you are referring to the particle accelerators circa 1970 ?



Red this.


Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies

atomic nuclei is a particle that generates gamma radiation, on impact with the moon it will splash and cause gamma radiation spray, in other words a small nuclear reaction, Atomic nuclei are know as phonons abundant in our solar sistem., you can see the carving on the rocks for density, since the article says that people can't reproduce photons on that level then it must be highly charged meaning when it crashes it will prodce radiation level higher than in a particle generator here on earth that is used to accelerate them to crash particles to produce the diesire radiation.

Photon particle accelerators are higher in radiation .than electron acelerators, an electron will produce X-rays , x-rays are on a lower spectrum level than gamma meaning that a photon accelerator would pruduce higer level of radiation(gamma)
Since the particles we are talking about(photons) are noting compared no anything on earth they must have very high radiation levels, when they do crash like in the accelerators here on earth they will just spill radiation all over the place.
What I have laked before was the level of emission and density, but since you did bring it up then ti's all clear, it is very dense looking at the rocks, and as they say the emission levels are higher than any particle here on earth can produce.
All of this because NASA avoided giving information on this matter, it's hard to come by, guess the rocks did it.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   



no, it indicates the rocks were on the moon for 3 billion years, and they took a lot of hits, while the apollo astronuats were there for a few days, and took a few less hits

Those holes that you see are on microscopic level, it means even if such a long time have passed it does not matter because there is a very big density, the distance could be less than a milimiter, real close from what I see, for a particle to hit that close to another compared to the moon's size I would say there is an infinite prediction that it will not hit that close unless there is a very big density.
It would be madness to calculate how many quorter of milimiters there is on the moon.

Further more astronauts are do not have to take hits from the particles falling, because the terain is already radioactive, today's cernobal , if you drink water from the area because there is a lake there I beilive you would be afected by radiation, and that incident was a long time ago.

Gamma radiation simply won't go away, since the moon is on constant suply from the particles, the radiation charts are a joke, they contain charts such as 1 rad , 2rads per mission, this are charts from nasa's view.

I think I responded to your thread fair enough, you insisted on it, so this is my reply.







[edit on 7-12-2007 by pepsi78]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join