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: 42
29
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
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.


I know cheers, you don't have to explain to me, I'll think you'll find it was me that told you.
How do you know that the flux is significant enough to be a danger? You obviously havn't worked it out yet so I'd love to know how you're coming to your conclusions.
And the particle that makes up a Gamma ray is a photon not a proton.



Why cant you accept it ]



Because you are more than likely wrong like you are on everything else.



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

i will give out numbers



You crack on and do that, seeing as you will be basing your calculations on the same data as the experts and you will be using the same formulas, unless you make an error I think it's pretty obvious what the results will be...

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Agetsmith there is one per qubic cetimeter or more .
The flux is dense in protons.
The speed makes them act like a mass i told you if you where to stop time it will impact in mass.
Even with out speed you got a dense flux 1 per qubic centimiter on constant level out in space.
And protons do create gamma.
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Yes thanks you told me.
I am not sayng man never went on the moon.
I am just sayng it is posible man never went on the moon.
Maybe yes maybe no.
How ever we cant be sure.
With caracteristics like this it is ok to question the moon mision.
I my self do not know for sure if man went or the moon.
some factors indicate that yes and some not.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Agetsmith there is one per qubic cetimeter or more .
The flux is dense in protons.
The speed makes them act like a mass i told you if you where to stop time it will impact in mass.
Even with out speed you got a dense flux 1 per qubic centimiter on constant level out in space.
And protons do create gamma.
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Your link is dead and appear to have been for some time:


Sorry, but the document you requested is not available.
We have made some changes to the Imagine the Universe site in recent weeks. Some pages may have been moved, renamed, or removed. Some links and bookmarks may now be out of date. To find the page you are looking for, please try the Imagine the Universe site map, or begin at the Imagine the Universe home page.


And the reading I gave you is of the Gamma-Ray flux as recorded by the EGRET instrument. It is a measurement of the flow of photons over 100meV from the way I understand it.
How the Gamma Rays were created has nothing to do with this stage of the argument, we are trying to ascertain what the dosage would be in REM from that figure I gave you, we need to do a crash course in astrophysics to understand it first though.
While I'm not trying to discourage you from working it out and am looking into it myself, don't you think an awful lot of astrophysicists would be hooting about it if it was dangerously high? In fact the article I quoted says it was as predicted.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

this will work i think
Just put a "L" at the end
the link wont fit
html
in stead of htm

It will describe for you that a proton creates above 76 mev.
so a proton will do.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   
It doesn't but it does not matter anyway, I am aware of how they are produced. - EDIT it does doing what you said.

Look at this way - that image of the Earth was taken by EGRET, the same instrument used to take the image of the Moon you base your arguments on which as you know is too insensitive to image the Sun.
Therefore the Gamma Rays, as imaged by the satellite, are formed in the same way as the ones being emitted by the moon, only by the interaction with the atmosphere rather than the surface. (Though some gamma rays will make it down to the Earths surface).
We also know that as the satellite can image them, that they are stronger than the Sun - which doesn't actually mean much as the Sun is relatively weak when it comes to the emmission of Gamma Rays.
Therefore, in theory, these Gamma Rays are unaffected by the Earth's magnetic fields and are a 'threat' to the ISS, Shuttle and Soyuz capsules. However we know what the dosage is in these vehicles and we know it is not life threatening, even though it is a lot higher than here on Earth.
We also know that the astronauts and cosmonauts are exposed for periods of even months and not a few days like the Apollo crews.
Therefore logic should dictate that there is a high chance that the Gamma radiation being produced at the Moon in the same way is at a comparable level and therefore insignificant.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
It will describe for you that a proton creates above 76 mev.
so a proton will do.
And about the gamma on earth yes but not below atmosfere.
and not that intence of a flux.

Atmosfere will reduce gamma rays absorb them.
By proces of deviding particles.
So what you see there is not below atmosere.
See that is the difrence the atmosfere and the magnetic field.



[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I think you are confused, how the Gamma Rays are created is not an issue here, it's their flow rate which matters and we need to use that to calculate dosage in a format we can relate too.
Your getting lost in something that means nothing to our ultimate goal.

And you've missed my point, I'm talking about the dangers to the astronauts in orbit around the Earth, the magnetic field won't protect them from the Gamma Rays created by the collision of Cosmic particles and the upper atmosphere, as imaged by EGRET, and are probably at a comparable level to those being emitted by the Moon. Especially considering the huge differences in exposure times.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
And i ask you when the shutle takes off how long does it take how many seconds to reach out.
1,2,3?
Did you see astronauts loorking and spending time in the atmosfere?
When the shutle will come back re-enter
The suthle creates a burn cause of it you dont see them staing in that area for much .

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
And i ask you when the shutle takes off how long does it take how many seconds to reach out.
1,2,3?
Did you see astronauts loorking and spending time in the atmosfere?


I think you're deeply confused, they will be affected by those Gamma-Rays all the time they are in orbit.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I cant level with you.
1 the earth does not permit a very high flux it has a consistent magnetic field you said it u'r self , it depends on the flux.
2 It is not up near the the topwhere the atmosfere is thiner it is down where it gets thik on the way down.

The sun magnetic field has the power in fact to push particles all the way here to earth gamma rays included.

What i ment is when they enter the thik atmosfere it will get them couple of seconds to get out of it.
why do you think that part is triky why does the shutle burn on that stage.
It is there where the proces takes place and not above.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
You're not making much sense pepsi. The astronauts are in orbit, where the magnetic field is either very weak or nonexistant, so it won't protect them from the cosmic rays that are constantly bombarding the shuttle or the ISS. They stay on the ISS for months at a time, and come back with no burns, or no illnesses or anything.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Maybe I'm wrong then, but as the satellite was picking up the Gamma Rays I assumed they must be radiating outwards in order to be picked up and as they are actually produced when the cosmic particles interact with the upper atmosphere they would be produced well within the magnetic field.


The image portrays how the Earth is constantly bombarded by particles from space. These particles, called cosmic rays, hit our atmosphere and produce the gamma-ray light high above the Earth. The atmosphere blocks harmful cosmic rays and other high-energy radiation from reaching us on the Earth's surface.
www.nasa.gov...


It implies to me they would be generated in an area capable of affecting the ISS.

I might be wrong, any other opinons anyone?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Yes agend smith there is the main particle it impact and it creates a shower
after traveling it the atmosfere a period it will create another shower.
All the particles are secondary and not the big bad one.
If that was to enter with out being devided it would be dooms day.
The thought of it is that harp would be able to do that.
The gamma that will pass is weak why cant you understand that.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Yes agend smith there is the main particle it impact and it creates a shower
after traveling it the atmosfere a period it will create another shower.
All the particles are secondary and not the big bad one.
If that was to enter with out being devided it would be dooms day.
The thought of it is that harp would be able to do that.
The gamma that will pass is weak why cant you understand that.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]


I think your missing the point entirely, you'd better get some sleep before carrying on imo. I can't even understand what your trying to say anymore or how it's relevant.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Cosmic gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the late 1960s by the US Vela nuclear test detection satellites. The Velas were built to detect radiation emitted by nuclear weapons tests, but they picked up occasional bursts of gamma rays from unknown sources. In 1973 researchers at the US Los Alamos National Laboratory were able to use the data from the satellites to determine that the bursts came from deep space.

Gamma ray bursts can only be observed directly from space, as the atmosphere blocks gamma rays. Astronomers believed that once better gamma-ray detectors were put in orbit, they would be able to quickly pin down the locations of the GRBs. This belief was based on prior experience with X-ray sources. However, improved sensors launched in the 1970s did not have sufficient spatial resolution to pinpoint the location of the bursts for detailed study, and optical searches of the indicated regions of origin showed nothing of interest.
en.wikipedia.org...

They're not created by hitting the atmosphere. They're hitting the atmosphere AS gamma rays, which means they're hitting the ISS and shuttle AS gamma rays, which means the astronauts don't have protection from them.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Gamma from the sun is weaker the sun is quiet than the moon
if there is a solar flair you will see they wont even get on the roket .
Look you dont have to worry that my theory will put in danger apollo mision.
It is qestionable and i will tell you why.

1 the flag is not waveing cause the man is rubing it YES but it could also be waveing it.

2 the visor , do you know that visor see thru is has uv protection are you holding it in u'r hand after all nasa is saing it you dont have to belive what
nasa says all the time.

3 the pictures have a explanation but it could be the other way too it would make logic with the shados.
just with pro arguments you got contra arguments like nasa puting a monkey in space the monkey died after a week they took off
further the guy doing the investigation dies the report never shows up neither did he(he is dead)

so it could be the other way around has well.
i can simply say there is too much circumstantial evidence
too much coincidence.

it's like nasa coming at you and sayng hey are you rubing that flag
and you sayng no i'm waveing it.
So see there the moon landing will always be qestionable .
I dont know if man ever made it to the moon.
I am not sayng that he never did i am just not sure about it.













[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Look you dont have to worry that my theory will put in danger apollo mision.
It is qestionable and i will tell you why.

1 the flag is not waveing cause the man is rubing it YES but it could also be waveing it.


You could learn something - but it's not likely.
What I liked was in one of the examples I saw on Fox or a website somewhere, after the astronaut lets go and the flag stops moving once it settles, he bounces past it and then back again without so much as a twitch. You would expect it to move from the disturbance of him going past it at relative speed wouldn't you - if there was an atmosphere - but there isn't and it doesn't.



2 the visor , do you know that visor see thru is has uv protection are you holding it in u'r hand after all nasa is saing it you dont have to belive what
nasa says all the time.


I don't just believe NASA, if you bothered to read my links I produced you would have noticed a hunting website and an optician's website and a reference to a DIY store among the sources, testifying to the UV blocking properties of the polycarbonate as used in the Apollo missions.
I specially made sure of getting independant sources to please you and others, I'm disappointed you didn't notice.

Zaphod - absolutely right - but some Gamma Rays are produced when Cosmic particles interact with the atmosphere:


The image portrays how the Earth is constantly bombarded by particles from space. These particles, called cosmic rays, hit our atmosphere and produce the gamma-ray light high above the Earth. The atmosphere blocks harmful cosmic rays and other high-energy radiation from reaching us on the Earth's surface.
www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 15-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Lisen to rem agent smith "man on the moon"mabe that song will open
up u'r view.
I dont know what more can i say, about the gamma i have answerd all of it.
what i think of the hole picture is "unstable"
that means maybe yes maybe no
i told you it can be the other way as well with some facts.
I guess i will never be sure of apolo.Maybe they went to the moon or maybe not.
The funiest quote
Meantime NASA is setting us up for another huge hoax. This time it will be an alien invasion. NASA is working with Walt Disney at this moment to produce a $150 million movie about Mars that will claim it is inhabited.

Now that is ridiqules.
But the rest i dont know.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   
What about the shadows what about the crosses i am not sayng that
there is no explanation for them but it could be the other version as well.
Look take the gamma thing has a thing to put questions on u'r mind and to make you not accept things so fast.
to really think about them.
Not like nasa explained everything we went to the moon.
If you do that you may be triked from the start.
Think realy deep.
I rest my case here.
This has taken alot for me all the research that i did took me 3 weeks
I was obsest by it in building a plausible theory cause i belived in it.
Maybe some one will show up with facts destroing it.
But hei that's what the ats is about.
I didint get inof rest lately so i will take a big nap (24 hours one probaly)
i'm off to sleep
have a good day/night mates and good luck in building theoryes


[edit on 15-11-2005 by pepsi78]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join