Landing on Moon: was that true?????? (947)
Abyss31: See I told you he would give a specific location.
The Earth still doesn't rotate at all at the poles.The POINT of my post was pointing out YOUR sloppy argument. A useless number floating around.
The Earth still doesn't rotate at all at the poles.The POINT of my post was pointing out YOUR sloppy argument. A useless number floating around.
Is it you or the dog writng these ???
------ This thread is Archived ------
Enjoy !!
------ This thread is Archived ------
So since NASA is about to admit to the lie... presumably what they say about the radiation belt is either wrong... or about to be changed. Another lie they will have to admit to soon I guess.
"According to a NASA report called Biomedical Results of Apollo , the highest average radiation dose of the Apollo crew members occurred during Apollo 14. It was 1.14 rads, which is equal to 0.0114 Gy (100 rads = 1 Gy). This would be equivalent to roughly 0.02 Sv. That is the average equivalent dose for the whole mission, not just the time spent flying through the Van Allen belts. For comparison, a CT scan of your abdomen imparts an equivalent dose of about 0.01 Sv . This might have very slightly increased the crews’ risk of getting cancer later in life, but that would be nearly impossible to distinguish from the risks of other radiation exposures we all commonly encounter. It was nowhere near enough to kill them or even make them noticeably sick in the short term."
"According to a NASA report called Biomedical Results of Apollo , the highest average radiation dose of the Apollo crew members occurred during Apollo 14. It was 1.14 rads, which is equal to 0.0114 Gy (100 rads = 1 Gy). This would be equivalent to roughly 0.02 Sv. That is the average equivalent dose for the whole mission, not just the time spent flying through the Van Allen belts. For comparison, a CT scan of your abdomen imparts an equivalent dose of about 0.01 Sv . This might have very slightly increased the crews’ risk of getting cancer later in life, but that would be nearly impossible to distinguish from the risks of other radiation exposures we all commonly encounter. It was nowhere near enough to kill them or even make them noticeably sick in the short term."
------ This thread is Archived ------
tallman51: http://www.universetoday.com/48322/speed-of-earths-rotation/
Enjoy !!
Enjoy !!
It's always fun when people suck at this.
From YOUR reference
"The speed of Earth’s rotation is 1,674.4 km/h or 1,040.4 miles per hour at the equator. "
You continue to miss my point.
Your original claim was simply 1000 miles per hour.
NOT 1000 miles per hour AT THE EQUATOR.
I then explained what you did wrong.
I NEVER said it didn't go 1000 miles per hour.
I DID say that that was a sloppy use of a number.
------ This thread is Archived ------
A GREAT quotation from the site you referenced...
"The United States has launched dozens of missions into space. Most people can only recall two with ease: Apollo 11 because it landed on the moon"
The site you reference claims we landed on the moon.
How exactly do you decide which of their claims are true and which are false?
"The United States has launched dozens of missions into space. Most people can only recall two with ease: Apollo 11 because it landed on the moon"
The site you reference claims we landed on the moon.
How exactly do you decide which of their claims are true and which are false?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Abyss31: A GREAT quotation from the site you referenced...
"The United States has launched dozens of missions into space. Most people can only recall two with ease: Apollo 11 because it landed on the moon"
The site you reference claims we landed on the moon.
How exactly do you decide which of their claims are true and which are false?
"The United States has launched dozens of missions into space. Most people can only recall two with ease: Apollo 11 because it landed on the moon"
The site you reference claims we landed on the moon.
How exactly do you decide which of their claims are true and which are false?
I bet he uses the "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" method.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Your referenced site also shoots down the hoax ideas... So once again you are left with the conundrum of having to explain that a site you reference to support your claim (not that it was necessary anyway since you missed the point in the first place) also says things that you disagree with...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Abyss31: A GREAT quotation from the site you referenced...
"The United States has launched dozens of missions into space. Most people can only recall two with ease: Apollo 11 because it landed on the moon"
The site you reference claims we landed on the moon.
How exactly do you decide which of their claims are true and which are false?
"The United States has launched dozens of missions into space. Most people can only recall two with ease: Apollo 11 because it landed on the moon"
The site you reference claims we landed on the moon.
How exactly do you decide which of their claims are true and which are false?
If you wish to believe nasa's lie's then that's you're business.
------ This thread is Archived ------
The fact remains that man cou;d not have landed on the moon.
Maybe some day they will. It would be a great achievement.
The Chinese and Japanese are the only ones at the moment anywhere near such an achievement.
Maybe some day they will. It would be a great achievement.
The Chinese and Japanese are the only ones at the moment anywhere near such an achievement.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Abyss31: Hey YOU provided the reference.
Not my problem that you are contradicting yourself.
Not my problem that you are contradicting yourself.
You asked for a reference about the earth's rotation and I gave it too you.
What people put on their websites has nothing to do with me.
TC
------ This thread is Archived ------
Oh NOW it's true because you say "the fact remains"
See it's that type of weak "argument" that too many people can fall for.
Unfortunately for you... I've been dealing with arguments and debates (specifically in sciences) for years. And I try not to miss much.
You just keep throwing out statements and claims with no basis to support them.
See it's that type of weak "argument" that too many people can fall for.
Unfortunately for you... I've been dealing with arguments and debates (specifically in sciences) for years. And I try not to miss much.
You just keep throwing out statements and claims with no basis to support them.
------ This thread is Archived ------
tallman51: You asked for a reference about the earth's rotation and I gave it too you.
What people put on their websites has nothing to do with me.
TC
What people put on their websites has nothing to do with me.
TC
i didn't ask for a reference for the Earth's speed of rotation.
I explained that giving a SPEED of rotation is not sufficient as the speed varies depending on the latitude.
The current issue is that you are asking people to accept a claim on a website that ALSO claims the exact opposite of what you say about the moon landings.
So in effect you are telling people that the site you referenced is CORRECT when you need it to be and INCORRECT when you don't want it to be,
And you have failed to allow us to distinguish WHICH parts of the site are true and which or not.
Other than taking YOUR word for it.
Which is simply circular reasoning.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Abyss31: Oh NOW it's true because you say "the fact remains"
See it's that type of weak "argument" that too many people can fall for.
Unfortunately for you... I've been dealing with arguments and debates (specifically in sciences) for years. And I try not to miss much.
You just keep throwing out statements and claims with no basis to support them.
See it's that type of weak "argument" that too many people can fall for.
Unfortunately for you... I've been dealing with arguments and debates (specifically in sciences) for years. And I try not to miss much.
You just keep throwing out statements and claims with no basis to support them.
and unfortunately for you I have been flying aircraft and teaching aviation for nearly 30 years and am privvy to info that I have already said that I cannot just talk about on here.
I am all on for space exploration etc. but not major hoax's.
This is a huge subject and one that I would only love to chat to you about. Unfortuneately that is not possible on here.
My name is Thomas M Cronin.
------ This thread is Archived ------
tallman51: and unfortunately for you I have been flying aircraft and teaching aviation for nearly 30 years and am privvy to info that I have already said that I cannot just talk about on here.
I am all on for space exploration etc. but not major hoax's.
This is a huge subject and one that I would only love to chat to you about. Unfortuneately that is not possible on here.
My name is Thomas M Cronin.
I am all on for space exploration etc. but not major hoax's.
This is a huge subject and one that I would only love to chat to you about. Unfortuneately that is not possible on here.
My name is Thomas M Cronin.
Whether you are or not is irrelevant really.
Argument from authority.
Doesn't mean your claims are legit.
I might as well say the world is going to end soon and that I know this to be true but can't say why on here.
------ This thread is Archived ------
The six Apollo Missions were all totally FAKED
------ This thread is Archived ------
Gee it's on youtube it must be real.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Abyss31: So since NASA is about to admit to the lie... presumably what they say about the radiation belt is either wrong... or about to be changed. Another lie they will have to admit to soon I guess.
"According to a NASA report called Biomedical Results of Apollo , the highest average radiation dose of the Apollo crew members occurred during Apollo 14. It was 1.14 rads, which is equal to 0.0114 Gy (100 rads = 1 Gy). This would be equivalent to roughly 0.02 Sv. That is the average equivalent dose for the whole mission, not just the time spent flying through the Van Allen belts. For comparison, a CT scan of your abdomen imparts an equivalent dose of about 0.01 Sv . This might have very slightly increased the crews’ risk of getting cancer later in life, but that would be nearly impossible to distinguish from the risks of other radiation exposures we all commonly encounter. It was nowhere near enough to kill them or even make them noticeably sick in the short term."
"According to a NASA report called Biomedical Results of Apollo , the highest average radiation dose of the Apollo crew members occurred during Apollo 14. It was 1.14 rads, which is equal to 0.0114 Gy (100 rads = 1 Gy). This would be equivalent to roughly 0.02 Sv. That is the average equivalent dose for the whole mission, not just the time spent flying through the Van Allen belts. For comparison, a CT scan of your abdomen imparts an equivalent dose of about 0.01 Sv . This might have very slightly increased the crews’ risk of getting cancer later in life, but that would be nearly impossible to distinguish from the risks of other radiation exposures we all commonly encounter. It was nowhere near enough to kill them or even make them noticeably sick in the short term."
Thank u abyss for the exact figures... I was making educated guesses as to the actual radiation units of exposure. Are we done with the radiation exposure argument yet?
------ This thread is Archived ------
virgogreg: The six Apollo Missions were all totally FAKED
No they weren't.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
rarotonga
Heavy Bass In The PM
Nature
What I Lack In Vocabulary
1830's Music
How far is too far?
Reality Check
Salami, Salami, Baloney
What's going on
Icebergs Still Around
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Sigh.
I did not say that the radiation starts at 100 miles but the VA belt does.
Its effects can be felt at 400 miles and even 300 miles above the earth.
The space stationle's protection has been penetrated at those heights.
Again google it !!