It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 41
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:03 PM
Thats why we are here, i am here to talk about anything out of the usual
and if some questions can be answerd for me by others than judgeing on
my decisions if i think the are relevant i will dismiss them, if not they lead to a cospiracy, take a look about what this site is.
A grate thread you got there going howard you forgot to answer my last post

Agentsmith yes i already said that they offerd protection.
I put the question simply cause i was not aware that the second visor
offerd such protection since it is transparent.
I only know of dark color shielding against ultraviolets.
So you put on some links from nasa that explains that it did offer protection
and i agree with you.
Maybe they went to the moon but the gamma ray/cosmic ray issue is still relevant for me.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:26 PM
Right on then keep 'em comming.

what are the issues that still stick with you?

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:34 PM
I dont want to go off subject again going in the lab here.

You argued that gamma is on earth too.
I argued that the atmosfere blocks the gamma ray coming from the sun
reducing them and i argued that the moon has no atmosefre so it's
free to produce gamma raysand that the gamma rays are not weak but high energy gamma because the cosmic rays.
You argued that the particle ray does not produce hi energy gamma
and i argued they do and i compared them to the acelerator here out on earth and i gave a link that has nothing to do with the hoax showing that such particles are capabile of delivering high energy gamma.
So it still remains a factor for me.

The flag theory i gave up fast on it.
The protection visor i gave up on it because i am not a expert in ultraviolet visors and their rules it was just a question.
How ever in the area that i know i wont give up.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:47 PM
I don't think that there is much contention that High speed Gamma rays exist on the moon and in space, or that the astronauts would have been exposed to them.
Now you espouse, or guess that the Gamma radiation whould have killed or caused the astronauts pain, vomiting or skin burns.
What I guess we need to know is.

a. The amount of gamma radiation they would have been exposed to, total or hourly. (this is what I think is the most importaint) You must provide a reliable source that is would have been a deadly amount. There was no flare.

b. The amount of gamma radiation it would take to cause that kind of damage, as it relates to hourly exposure. I think the numbers have been posted. I would except 100+ rems/hour or 1+ Sv/hour to cause nausia.


c. the numbers posted by NASA are wrong or impossible due to the answer to # 1, the numbers are as follows;

Edit 1 rad = 1 rem

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Halfofone]

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Halfofone]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:09 PM
What i am worryed about are not the gamma rays coming from the sun
but the ones that come from the moon.

Exept for when the sun is not quiet the moon generates brighter gamma rays than the sun i am not wooryed about the ones coming from the sun.

More why do you think planes dont fly at the north pole at high altitudes?

I am insinueting that the report is a big lie YES.
I will have to get numbers YES.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:36 PM
Sure fine, Get back when(if) you find thouse numbers...

I don't think that the gamma rays from the moon are deadly in the short term.
Also for the short time spent accually on the moon would not have been enough tiime to damage them greatly. It all depends on the numbers. I guess we'll have to wait until the 2008 mapping/ radiation testing mission, that started this thread.
Which brings me to an other question, what will you say if they map the moon to a 1/2 meter resolution, and it shows the landers ect.?

here is and example of half meter resolution.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by pepsi78
More why do you think planes dont fly at the north pole at high altitudes?

Because the significant increase in radiation exposure over a period of years while in service would be considered a health risk (not hair falling out and mutated death very, very serious health risk - just increased risks of cancer in the long term for instance).
The lunar missions were over a period of days.

With reference to the EGRET image of the moon which you use as a basis for your argument, it was a composite of 8 exposures taken over 4 years (info taken from here: )

The answer to the intensity of the Gamma Rays is here, but you need to be an astro-physicist to know what it means, I've tried looking and now I have a headache, any takers?

The Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory has detected gamma rays from the Moon as it passed through the instrument field of view several times between 1991 and 1994. The average flux, (4.7 \pm 0.7) \times 10^-7 ph(>100 MeV)/cm^2s, and the energy spectrum of the lunar gamma radiation are consistent with a model of gamma ray production by cosmic ray interactions with the lunar surface, and the flux varies as expected with the solar cycle. Although the same processes may occur on the Sun, EGRET does not detect the quiet Sun. The upper limit, 3.0 \times 10^-7 ph(>100 MeV)/cm^2s, does not contradict calculations of the expected solar gamma-ray flux. Thus, in high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun.

I am insinueting that the report is a big lie YES.
I will have to get numbers YES.

Well as most, if not all, your arguments are so easily disproven, don't you feel just a little bit angry at those woo-woos that fed you all that rubbish?

[edit on 14-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:43 PM
Agentsmith thanks for the link provided i will try to deal with the numbers provided, i dont know how you found them i've been searching for them
like a loon and i didint find them.

I will look at fisics and try to get some conversion i alone can not so i will help my self with articles from scientifical sites and see if thei can be converted in to more explainable figures.

This got my atention so much that i am wiling to ask a profesor so i can get some answers.

The site it's self is insinuateing that the gamma rays are consistant
and depends with the solar cicle(not solar storm)solar cicle is something difrent and it just hapens that the sun was at his peak reaching maximum
in the 60's that means maximum output , this is a fact i know it, dont forget do not to asociate solar storm with solar cicle.
Never the less you will say show me the numbers, i will get them.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:07 PM
this is my first post! YAY!

but pepsi78 how old are you? i joined so i could ask... you seem really immature and unable to grasp the basic concepts that everyone try and help you understand. your grasp of the english langauge isn't that good either. it's physics, not fisics. is english your primary language?

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:25 PM
No english is not my first languege.
I dont see what english has to do with this debate.
I think i write english pretty good for a guy that writes and speaks other languege and thinking of the fact that i dont live in a country with people that speak's and write's english.
The fact people will pick on that when they don't have arguments, i dont say there arent contrary opinions but not from people like you who fails to provide them, so that's why you find some weak reason.

welcome to the club jack may you bring better arguments.
u'r post got you a 7 points that is strange but that's what we deal here with strange.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:27 PM
i was just curious, i didn't mean to offend.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:31 PM
What you will say will back fire since you have joined here for me (i'm flaterd) how is it that you got 7 points on u'r first post?

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:18 PM
agent smith 100 mev = a hundred milion electron volts.
cm and flux has to do with the density of the gamma.
I dont want to jump to conclusions maybe 100 mev per 2 centimiters.
What i am sure of is 100 mev = a hundred milion electron volts.
If that is the case i dont know what can create such energy.
High level gamma is related to very high energy range.
I may be incorect but i am sure that 100 mev=a hundred milion.
I will have to look further in to it.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by hotdogsandsoup
you seem really immature and unable to grasp the basic concepts that everyone try and help you understand.

I don't think we are here to insult people and label them immature. We're just here to put our points forward, and let those points speak for themselves. At least that's how I see it. As for the visor issue, Agent Smith you did an excellent job researching that one. It really stumped me.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:35 PM
"Solar flares produce huge amounts of radiation. One source says 3,000,000 REM for a one-year continuous exposure. Another source puts it at 100 REM per hour. NASA web sites say the radiation approaches 10 million electron volts!"

This and other questions are answered here.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:45 PM
What i want to convert are the mevs in to rem or rad.
To see how mutch 100 mev equals or what will give out 100 mevs.

And gamma rays from the sun are difrent from the moon's.
The sun has a very big magnetic field so it has the power to push
the cosmic particles verry deep out in space reaching our planet.
Gamma from the moon will not go very far.
Gamma rays turn in to gamma radiation and will just stick there.
The moon is beeing suplied with cosmic rays constantly so that will generate constant gamma on the moon.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:05 AM
The answer to the question that you posted Steve is quite significant, Pepsi as you will note from this source that 10,000,000 electron volts is not actually a lot:

Is ten million electron volts a high energy level? The reader isn't told. It sounds like a big number. Put a nine-volt battery on your tongue and you'll get an unpleasant but harmless jolt. You see sparks from a 12-volt battery when you jump-start a car. We take great pains to shield ourselves from the 110-volt current in our houses because we know it can kill us. So ten million electron volts must be an enourmous amount of unquestionably fatal energy. Right?

Well, no. The "electron volt" (eV) is not equivalent to the common "volt" that measures household electricity. Instead it's the amount of energy picked up by a single electron as it passes through an electrical potential of one volt. We realize that's not a very helpful definition to the layman, but it takes the equivalent energy of about 620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb. The figure is obviously cited because it's a big scary number, but it's like saying an automobile weighs 2.3 billion milligrams. A large number, but a small unit. The very large figure given for the light bulb is explained by knowing that each individual electron that participates in the operation of a light bulb has a fairly small energy level, but there are billions and billions of electrons involved. In radiation terms this is called a high "flux". In space the individual electrons can have very high energy levels, but there aren't as many of them. The flux is much smaller.

But solar events do in fact produce dangerous radiation. They have been known to knock out communications satellites and even disrupt terrestrial communications. But in order to correlate the conspiracists' numbers with the likely threat, we have to know what kind of particle the number refers to. A 10 MeV electron is relatively harmless, while a 10 MeV proton might be a cause for concern. But again, the energy level is only half the story. You also have to know the particle flux.

The dosage figures, which take into account both energy and flux, are likely to be fairly accurate. But the conspiracists make the fundamental error of multiplying these worst-case exposure characteristics by the 15-per-day figure, or 1,400 total figure, representing the number of merely detectable events, thereby arriving at what they believe to be the exposure level of a typical mission to the moon. If we stick with the earthquake analogy, it would be like counting the dozens of microquakes that occur on a daily basis and multiplying that number by the 7.0 or 8.0 Richter magnitudes for a single major earthquake, and then presuming that massive devastation must have taken place during those microquakes.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:48 AM
Agent smith i have been researching the mev.
You are rong here.
100 mev will cut thru you like a hot nife thru chease.
x-ray machines run at 5 mev maximum can you imagine a 100?
even the acelerated particles machines do not run at a hundred milion they run at 10 milion , i was right about that the particles here made on earth dont come close to the ones in space .
and the x-ray machine is far lamer than the original cosmic ray particle
that generates gamma
here are all the facts none of them come close to 100.,Process,Sources

Shows some penetration levels in mev
The biger the mev is the harder it will cut.
at 100 it will just burn a hole in you.

And gamma rays dont come from electrons they come from protons.
electrons will generate only x-rays.
It says there in what you wrote
10 mev proton is a concern.

there are types of cosmik rays
electrons are in quantity of 1%
protons make out the majority.

the flux of the rays are dense simply cause of the density of proton particle ray there is one per centimiter or something like that.
plus traveling near speed of light it creates mass it is snaping u'r finger and having another one in it's place.

The only reason we dont get fried is the atmosere such particles have a proces in the atmosfere they are divided split apart then other particles form that are weaker and inconsistent.

And i am saing this for the sake of space exploration nasa will have to come up with something, the problem are not the particles they can be blocked with shielding, the problem is once they turn in to gamma ray.
So if they want to go there or to mars they have to think of a flyng bunker.

I hope this will make it clear or i dont know what will

The shielding tenth value thickness for 1 Mev gamma of: lead is 1.5 inches, concrete is 12 inches, and water is 24 inches.

The shielding half value thickness for 6 Mev gamma of: lead is 0.7 inches, steel/iron is 1.3 inches, concrete is 8 inches, and water is 16 inches.

The shielding tenth value thickness for 6 Mev gamma of: lead is 2 inches, steel/iron is 4 inches, concrete is 24 inches, and water is 48 inches.

For lines and equipment containing reactor water, or primary steam with hold-up times of less than five minutes, you would use 6 Mev gamma 1/10 shielding ( lead 2", water 48")

imagine a 100

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:01 AM
As the shielding is inadequate for any real protection at any level from the gamma radiation, the density of a material it can penetrate is virtually irrelevent.
You need to calculate the radiation dose from the flux, I don't know how you do it from that formula though. You need to find out.

You have fallen for the trap that because it is a large number it is dangerous, read the quote from clauvius. All you have proven is that you would need more shielding to be protected. But if the dose is low, which it apparantly is, then that is irrelevant.

You see, the photon's charge is used in calculating the dose from what I can make out, but if there is only 10 photons/hour/cm2 then it's not going to make any difference is it?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:14 AM
No the dose is not low agentsmith at a hundred and linked with a dense flux it will equal a high rem value.

You see alot of them dont even make it in to atmosfere cause the magnetic field from earth will just scramble particles away.
So of course you dont got a dense flux near earth.

I was searching like a idiot to see 1 mev = how many rads
but it is not calculated like this it has a equation depending on the flux,
the problem is that the flux on the moon is dense with no relevand magnetic shield to block them and no atmosfere to process them.
so it is not 1 mev =some rems
it depends on the speed on the flux and on the mev
and they are all present in high quantities.

Why cant you accept it ]

i will prove how dense the cosmic rays are in outher space

i will give out numbers

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]

top topics

<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in