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: 149
29
<< 146  147  148    150  151  152 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   


This is a graph showing the abundance of various GCR nuclei (versus protons)

Protons are the heavy atoms nucley.
helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) come from outside the solar system but generally from within our Milky Way galaxy. GCRs are atomic nuclei from which all of the surrounding electrons have been stripped away during their high-speed passage through the galaxy.

You are mixing things up again.


at various geomagnetic regions, shown in colors, versus the cosmic abundance, shown as open symbols. As you can plainly see, heavier nuclei are much more abundant in the geomagnetic regions



than they are in cosmic abundance. The ISS, as I previously mentioned, goes through the southern atlantic anomaly and encounters some of these particles.

Yes the remaining particle flux, in other words only what passed.



The astronauts stay up there for months at a time, passing through the region again and again, soaking up these GCRs and yet they're still alive.

Yes they stay up there not where reactions hapen over north pole.



Apollo missions lasted for a matter of days, we're talking about twenty times the amount of time spent in space, and multiple passes through the SAA over the course of several consecutive orbits. How much flux are we talking about in the SAA?

The astronauts happened to walk near where reactions where present, meaning near their feet.

1 The ISS crew do not operate in the atmosfere but above it.
2 The ISS crew are exposed only to particles that passe not to the whole flux that is out side the magnetic field.





"The South Atlantic Anomaly boundary is for 100 MeV protons with flux greater than 100 particles/cm2-sec" -

If you sustain such claims then you are in trouble with your arguments, because that means there is a biger flux outside the magnetosphere.
Why don't I take this value of yours and aply it on the moon ehhh?




There's your big flux, it's bigger in the magnetosphere than it is beyond it, as I showed in the previous graph. ISS hits the SAA on about 50% of its orbits and spends 5-10 mintues within it in each of those orbits.

That is none sence, you have a biger flux over north pole, and second of all astronauts are not present where reaction hapen, that is why airlines avoid flying over north pole because an airplane is closer to the event.






Say you spend half a year on the space station, not uncommon. About 183 days. 7.5 minutes of half your orbits are spent in the SAA. It's about a 90 minute orbit. That's 12% of half your orbits then. Therefore, you spent 11 days inside the SAA. So apparently, spending one hour every day at those levels for half a year is not dangerous if you're in an aluminum can.


Yesin your in an aluminium can where particles can't penetrate, happy?
Difrent story on the moon where the aluminium can would of been ussles simply because the particles would react right near the craft, and any way this is irelevant, thge astronauts were most of the time outside.

None of this dispove the hoax.
What it does show is that astronauts are protected in an aluminium can where there are no reaction of particles, contrary to the moon where it does not aplly.

Further more I did not say the particles hitting directly is a major factor, but the generation of EM because aluminium offers no protection from gamma.

If you look across my posts my major argument is gamma radiation, I did not insist on particles hitting the craft penetrating and causing problems.
What I did say is that particles that hit the moon would of caused problems for astronauts because they were right there where the proccess took place, unlikein our orbit where such events do not ocur.



[edit on 20-2-2008 by pepsi78]




posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I'm not mixing things up, you are. Protons are not heavy nuclei, they are part of heavy nuclei. You really should study up on basic principles of physics. Protons, individual protons were being compared to the amount of heavy nuclei present. The graph even stated so, you're arguing against a peer reviewed scientific paper, not just me. You're totally wrong in every conceivable way.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   


Yes the remaining particle flux, in other words only what passed

Wrong. The southern atlantic anomaly is part of the van allen belt, it's not what's passed, it's what's trapped BY the magnetosphere. It's more intense than the areas beyond the magnetosphere for that very reason.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   


"The South Atlantic Anomaly boundary is for 100 MeV protons with flux greater than 100 particles/cm2-sec" -

If you sustain such claims then you are in trouble with your arguments, because that means there is a biger flux outside the magnetosphere.
Why don't I take this value of yours and aply it on the moon ehhh?


Dude, do you have any clue as to what a minimum boundary is??? 100MeV protons with a flux GREATER THAN 100 particles/cm2-sec is the MINIMUM present in the SAA, not the MAXIMUM. That's just what defines the beginning of the SAA, the maximum can vary over time. In any case, I haven't seen you provide the first lick of evidence for the flux present outside the magnetosphere. All you've done is sit there pretending to attack my arguments without a shred of supporting evidence. I'm growing quite tired of destroying your arguments with proof only to have you come back to the same argument without any proof.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   




Say you spend half a year on the space station, not uncommon. About 183 days. 7.5 minutes of half your orbits are spent in the SAA. It's about a 90 minute orbit. That's 12% of half your orbits then. Therefore, you spent 11 days inside the SAA. So apparently, spending one hour every day at those levels for half a year is not dangerous if you're in an aluminum can.



Yesin your in an aluminium can where particles can't penetrate, happy?
Difrent story on the moon where the aluminium can would of been ussles simply because the particles would react right near the craft, and any way this is irelevant, thge astronauts were most of the time outside.

The biggest load of contradicting lies I've seen from you yet. You just said a few posts ago that aluminum is a "terrible shielding material" and that particles would react with it generating "huge amounts of gamma rays." Now you're saying that these laws of physics only apply on the moon???? That's nonsense. GCR particles will react precisely the same way. They do penetrate, they do cause vision flashes to the crew of the ISS, they've reported as much. They'll react with the hull the same way as they will near the moon. Fortunately, that means only a little gamma ray backscatter because of aluminum's low atomic number. But the point is, they aren't lethal, even after spending that length of time in a low hanging part of the van allen belt.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   


Further more I did not say the particles hitting directly is a major factor, but the generation of EM because aluminium offers no protection from gamma.

Get clear on this right now, there CAN NOT BE any singificant gamma ray generation without elements with a high atomic number to hit! That is why aluminum is a good shielding material, it doesn't allow there to be any significant gamma rays in the first place!



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   


If you look across my posts my major argument is gamma radiation, I did not insist on particles hitting the craft penetrating and causing problems.
What I did say is that particles that hit the moon would of caused problems for astronauts because they were right there where the proccess took place, unlikein our orbit where such events do not ocur.

Actually, looking across your randomly jumping posts talking about various particles and gamma rays, you rarely ever specified the source of the gamma rays. If your only argument is that the surface has too much gamma production, then you just admitted that every apollo mission through 10 was possible and real. But your argument is false. I already provided data on the gamma ray counts for the surface of entire regions for the moon, and it's less than 1 photon per 32 seconds at higher energies. Lower energies border on being no more dangerous than x-rays, and you've already made it clear you don't consider that to be a danger. What you fail to acknowledge is the fact that high energy gamma ray production on the moon's surface occurs well below the surface before the particles manage to interact with a heavy element, allowing the gamma rays to be scattered by surface material before they finally emerge. That's why gamma ray spectroscopy of the moon is useful for determing what minerals might be hiding just under the surface for future astronauts to use in longer duration missions. I also showed you a picture showing how relatively infrequent solar particle hits are on the surface, generating x-rays. GCR hits are several orders of magnitude less frequent. The moon only faintly glows at gamma wavelengths, the sun doesn't shine at all there except during a storm, so why should it be expected to be a problem if the moon is brighter at gamma wavelengths than a blank sun?



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I recently took interest again in this subject and John Lears images. I finally sat down and ran the image through a few filters and actually found a few objects including what look to be UFO's in this photo:




I also have a photoshop version of the file which has all the filters and such that I used when looking at this photo. This way you can start off where I left off if you'd like and highlight even more stuff. I spent hours on this and simply was too tired to continue looking. There is so much on there I'm sure I've missed a ton.

Here is the photoshop file: Download Photoshop Image

You may have to click save as in order to download it, but I urge you to take a look at what I've highlighted in the photo, very interesting indeed!



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter


Yes the remaining particle flux, in other words only what passed

Wrong. The southern atlantic anomaly is part of the van allen belt, it's not what's passed, it's what's trapped BY the magnetosphere. It's more intense than the areas beyond the magnetosphere for that very reason.

The ISS does not go in to that, the gemeny went for a ride , or atempted if I remember corectly.
What has the van alen belts have to do with our disscusion any way? I do not see the point, those are traped particles.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by xion329alpha
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You show me how they faked 1969 footage with people nearly 40 years older. And yes you can call it a documentary because it is not a movie.


Show me where it was debunked, and do not give me an ATS tread link because I am not reading a thread full of posts by people like you.


Sorry, xion,

I had to pull your full post so I could understand your question...perhaps there was a misunderstanding?

I do not remember talking about faked 1969 footage, sorry!

Could you please refresh my memory, I will be happy to continue on, and perhaps figure out where we lost communication.

Thanks



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   


Dude, do you have any clue as to what a minimum boundary is??? 100MeV protons with a flux GREATER THAN 100 particles/cm2-sec is the MINIMUM present in the SAA, not the MAXIMUM. That's just what defines the beginning of the SAA, the maximum can vary over time. In any case, I haven't seen you provide the first lick of evidence for the flux present outside the magnetosphere. All you've done is sit there pretending to attack my arguments without a shred of supporting evidence. I'm growing quite tired of destroying your arguments with proof only to have you come back to the same argument without any proof.


I am telling you the flux inside the magnetosphere is not biger than outside.
I can give you alot of reasons for this.
1 the moon blocks part of the particles heading to earth.
2 some of the particles get traped in the van alen belts.
3 the magnetic field also is responsible for pushing particles away.

This with look at the north pole or look at the anomaly in the van alen belt is just plain sily.
I was not even talking about particles in the van alen belt, and about the north pole you got a biger flux because you got a hole in the magnetosphere at north pole it's where it comes real close to earth, so the flux from outside is very close to earth, in some parts of the north pole there is no magnetic field, so that explains it.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:53 AM
link   


Get clear on this right now, there CAN NOT BE any singificant gamma ray generation without elements with a high atomic number to hit! That is why aluminum is a good shielding material, it doesn't allow there to be any significant gamma rays in the first place!

And I think I told you a million times this is irelevant if the lem was siting on the moon.
Want me to tell you again a milion times why?



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Pepsi78,

Not meaning to butt in, but if I understood your reply to ngchunter correctly, are trying to say that you believe that Gemini 'went for a ride' in the VA Belts?

Gemini never left NEO.

Please correct me if I misunderstood...it happens sometimes on these boards....

edit to add....I was typing, and you said, up above, the Moon blocks some of the particles heading to the Earth? You said that, right?? Well, I guess in a VERY minor sense, that is correct....but do you know how large the Moon's 'footprint' (shadow....call it the umbra) actually is?!? It is negligible compared to the surface area of our planet....

[edit on 21-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   


Actually, looking across your randomly jumping posts talking about various particles and gamma rays, you rarely ever specified the source of the gamma rays. If your only argument is that the surface has too much gamma production, then you just admitted that every apollo mission through 10 was possible and real. But your argument is false. I already provided data on the gamma ray counts for the surface of entire regions for the moon, and it's less than 1 photon per 32 seconds at higher

From who from nasa? does that picture look to you like the mejurments you provided? you know the one where the moon looks like a nuclear reactor, you know I can't even look at it it;s so bright and red it will hurt my eyes.
Get real.
You get an aurora show here on earth from particles colideing over north pole, imagine the moon.




energies. Lower energies border on being no more dangerous than x-rays, and you've already made it clear you don't consider that to be a danger.

I do not consider it because electrons make up 1 procent of GCRS.



What you fail to acknowledge is the fact that high energy gamma ray production on the moon's surface occurs well below the surface before the particles manage to interact with a heavy element, allowing the gamma rays to be scattered by surface material before they finally emerge.

hit what, like what air? how about a non existant atmosfere?

mean while here is the official explenation.
Here.
spacecraftkits.com...


When cosmic rays collide with atoms in the crust, they violently dislodge neutrons and other subatomic particles, such as gamma rays. Some of the neutrons escape directly to space, as hot or "fast" neutrons. Other neutrons shoot off into the crust, where they collide with other atoms, bouncing around like pinballs. If they only run into heavy atoms, they do not lose very much energy in the collisions, and are still traveling at close to their original speed when they finally bounce off into outer space. They are still "warm" when they reach Lunar Prospector.

There is radiation bouncing all over the place, hitting the astronauts, pour astronauts or should I say astro-NOTS


[edit on 21-2-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


pepsi....about Aurora....

they are harmless.

Somewhere, not sure if it was this thread, I saw a post about why airplanes do not fly over the North Pole....nonsense!!

What about the South Pole, if you want to talk about poles...guess that's another idea for a new thread, let's bring Antarctica into it, and explain why penguins wear tuxedos...must be the magnetosphere...

OK, that was a joke...I realize that the atmosphere...the Earth's atmosphere, that when compared to thickness of the skin of an apple, and considering the relative sizes, would be about right...THAT atmosphere, combined with our incredibly strong magnetic field...I know my car, made out of steel, is always being pulled in hard to control ways, I can barely stay on the road....OK, another joke.

It is a simple fact that the expression, by some, of the completely fatal radiation that exists outside our magnetosphere is slightly over-stated.

There is, indeed, concern regarding long-term exposures...months and years. This is a difficult fact to overcome in long-term space-faring plans, without the benefit of Star Trek shields (which, BTW, are being postulated...plasma shields, actually).

Back to current reality...not only do bases on the poles of the Moon and Mars make sense, because the 'climate' would be more conducive to finding water ice, the risk of long-term exposure to the Solar Wind is obviously diminished.

A mining colony on the Moon, if based at a Pole, would be able to spend about 14 days on mining operations, during the Lunar 'night', protected from the Sun by the mass of the Moon.

Mars will present more of a challenge...underground is an option, but equipment to accomplish this, well....how do we get it there? Interim requirements, at the Mars poles, would be a start, using knowledge we haqve already learned...water ice, and very little Solar radiation...of course, that also means less heat, but Mars rarely gets very warm anyway......except at the Equator....



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Hello, pepsi78,

Was reading from one of your finds, from a nasa weblink, regarding "GCR" nuclei, and 'stripped' electrons....

Interesting, as it pertains to the nuclei. Didn't mention, though, how massive those nuclei were.

We know that the most prominent element in the Universe is Hydrogen...one proton, one neutron, one electron....am I wrong?

He....two protons, two neutrons, two electrons...

electrons are the 'lightest' of the 'particles'....as they are so far understood, correct? (electrons are not well understood, but neither is a lot of Particle Physics...I mean, experiments conducted, provide results...but then String Theory gets put into the discussion, and we're off to the races!) (and let's not get into the Eleven dimensions.....whew!)

I think, you can educate me, protons and neutrons are about the same mass....to us, so small as to be insignificant. Point is: most of these 'lighter' nuclei can pass without much damage left behind. It is the heavier elements, and THEIR nuclei, (Uranium, etc) that cause damage. AND, of course, as you have pointed out, the more energetic frequencies, X-Rays and Gammas, for example.

But these EM frequencies don't occur in Nature as much as you seem to wish they would....don't you think the X-Ray machine at a Hospital is designed to focus, and concentrate, the X-Rays for a specific purpose? Not Nature....Man built those machines.

It has been said, that a little knowledge, when mis-used, or misunderstood, can be dangerous. I am not making any claims here, and I don't hold that quote to any accuracy, I am just suggesting an alternative...

....sidebar.....[I have been involved in ATS for a relatively short time, but have found the level of discourse to be, mostly, above 'the rest'. For Pepsi78, I am not a scientist, I will never claim to be one...I am just an airline pilot... BUT, I can read and see documentaries, and I think I have a brain that I can use to intrepret what I see and watch. Since I know what sounds real, and what smells fake, I can hear actual NASA live feeds, on my Satellite TV, and hear the truth. This, of course, applies only today to STS missons to the ISS....but, I can also listen to the archived audio from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo...and I would smell a rat, if one was there.....]



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   


I think, you can educate me, protons and neutrons are about the same mass....to us, so small as to be insignificant. Point is: most of these 'lighter' nuclei can pass without much damage left behind. It is the heavier elements, and THEIR nuclei, (Uranium, etc) that cause damage. AND, of course, as you have pointed out, the more energetic frequencies, X-Rays and Gammas, for example.


I am not insisting to energy damage known as LET , and you are wrong any way.Prtotons for example unlike photons interact with matter, but photons can interact with prtotons there are particles that woud interact with mass in general and some that won't.
If you were to get hit by a bunch of protons , let's say 100 prtotons at 100 mev in the same part of your body per gram over an extended period of time, how about an hour, you would sufer DNA damage and thishue modification.

Any way this is irelevant as I did not bring this subject up, as I told your good old friend of yours that is on the same side with you.We are debating the effect of protons generating em radiation types.


But these EM frequencies don't occur in Nature as much as you seem to wish they would....don't you think the X-Ray machine at a Hospital is designed to focus, and concentrate, the X-Rays for a specific purpose?

I have to inform you that x-rays are generated by low level electorons with the value around of 5 MEV, with lower speed also.That meaning in general less radiation.Don't compare 5 MEV electrons with 100 mev protons. Not only that the value is higher and also 1 MEV for a an electron would be inferior to 1 MEV for a proton.

Electrons produce X-rays, Prtotons produce Gamma rays that do not compare to x-rays really.
To show you it's no walk in the park

A good shielding for 1 Mev gamma is 1.5 inches lead , 12 inches concrete, water 24 inches. 100 Mev gamma ray would penetrate with out probles the hull of the space craft , and the astronaut's costume.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by ngchunter


Yes the remaining particle flux, in other words only what passed

Wrong. The southern atlantic anomaly is part of the van allen belt, it's not what's passed, it's what's trapped BY the magnetosphere. It's more intense than the areas beyond the magnetosphere for that very reason.

The ISS does not go in to that, the gemeny went for a ride , or atempted if I remember corectly.
What has the van alen belts have to do with our disscusion any way? I do not see the point, those are traped particles.

The ISS goes into the SAA an average of an hour a day. You're wrong again, as usual.

You're the one arguing that no GCRs make it through the magnetosphere anyway (which is also wrong), therefore the magnetosphere is a treasure trove of particle radiation, including trapped GCR particles. It's an area of particle density because that's what it does, it traps particles. The SAA is a low hanging part of it and the ISS passes through it constantly, proving that GCRs are not lethal to the crew, either through interactions with the aluminum hull producing EM radiation, or through direct interactions.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Actually, looking across your randomly jumping posts talking about various particles and gamma rays, you rarely ever specified the source of the gamma rays. If your only argument is that the surface has too much gamma production, then you just admitted that every apollo mission through 10 was possible and real. But your argument is false. I already provided data on the gamma ray counts for the surface of entire regions for the moon, and it's less than 1 photon per 32 seconds at higher

From who from nasa? does that picture look to you like the mejurments you provided? you know the one where the moon looks like a nuclear reactor, you know I can't even look at it it;s so bright and red it will hurt my eyes.
Get real.
You get an aurora show here on earth from particles colideing over north pole, imagine the moon.




energies. Lower energies border on being no more dangerous than x-rays, and you've already made it clear you don't consider that to be a danger.

I do not consider it because electrons make up 1 procent of GCRS.



What you fail to acknowledge is the fact that high energy gamma ray production on the moon's surface occurs well below the surface before the particles manage to interact with a heavy element, allowing the gamma rays to be scattered by surface material before they finally emerge.

hit what, like what air? how about a non existant atmosfere?

mean while here is the official explenation.
Here.
spacecraftkits.com...

Where did I say air? STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I know you love to pretend that I'm "contradicting" myself, but it's you who are intentionally confusing what I'm saying. I said that the gamma rays are scattered by other surface material, the initial hit occurs under the surface, which is why it's useful for scanning minerals close to, but not on, the surface.




When cosmic rays collide with atoms in the crust, they violently dislodge neutrons and other subatomic particles, such as gamma rays. Some of the neutrons escape directly to space, as hot or "fast" neutrons. Other neutrons shoot off into the crust, where they collide with other atoms, bouncing around like pinballs. If they only run into heavy atoms, they do not lose very much energy in the collisions, and are still traveling at close to their original speed when they finally bounce off into outer space. They are still "warm" when they reach Lunar Prospector.

There is radiation bouncing all over the place, hitting the astronauts, pour astronauts or should I say astro-NOTS


[edit on 21-2-2008 by pepsi78]

You have utterly failed to quantify how much. I already did, and I showed that it's not lethal, so your explaining to me what I already know and already explained to you isn't doing you any good. The lunar prospector data shows that there isn't a ton of gamma radiation coming off the moon's surface.

Your image is irrelevant since you didn't quantify it. So it's white, big deal, I can take any gamma ray image of the moon and make it look "white" without doing anything unethical to the image. It's a false color image, do you know what that means? It means those colors were chosen arbitrarily to represent something. What does white represent? Did they stretch the data to fit a certain shape they wanted in their histogram? It could represent a few photons over a long time, you failed to define what it means, your assumption that it's at some "lethal" level is completely unsubstantiated. Whereas I provide graphs and real hard data, you give us anecdotal worthless images without any means of quantification.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by ngchunter]

[edit on 21-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Get clear on this right now, there CAN NOT BE any singificant gamma ray generation without elements with a high atomic number to hit! That is why aluminum is a good shielding material, it doesn't allow there to be any significant gamma rays in the first place!

And I think I told you a million times this is irelevant if the lem was siting on the moon.
Want me to tell you again a milion times why?


That's a separate issue, you didn't start off by specifying what gamma rays you're talking about. Being intentionally vague and then changing the subject to shift your argument is a weak tactic. That doesn't certainly give you justification to attack me for covering all the bases. Had I not mentioned this I'm sure you would have made the point that they should have been killed by gamma radiation before reaching the moon. In fact, some of your statements seemed to infer that very thing. The LEM sitting on the moon is a different subject, one I already covered thoroughly.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 146  147  148    150  151  152 >>

log in

join