StringJunky

I found a wikipedia source that lists the third-party evidence that the Apollo moon missions happened; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged -Dichotomy What you are asking is impossible...nobody else was physically up there except Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong. Not even the Russian Scientists could give you that definitive proof...the best they would have was the position of the American spacecraft and not the individual astronauts.. You'll have to live with you 90% certainty amd I'll be content with my 99.999999999999999999999999% The only things that are 100% certain are death and taxes. :

Sorry IA, here's the link: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Luna.html The point I was trying to make was that the Russians had a presence and awareness of what was going on, on the moon, at the same time as the Americans i.e it would have been extremely difficult for the US to make up their achievement when the Russians had their communication and monitoring systems concentrated on that area. After all, this was a space race between the two countries and either side would have monitored the other to ensure fair play! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged America won in the end, but if they had failed in their mission the Russians would have won by bringing back the first moon samples. I think the loss of confidence that the US would have experienced in the propaganda war that was going on between them at that time (they were politically and militarily at a very heated stage in their relationship} would have been significant on the international stage.

The Russians had an mission called Luna !5 going on at the same time, which landed 800km away from the Apollo mission.The American's when they found out about this, up until then secret Russian mission, they were very worried that the Luna spacecraft orbit would interfere with the Apollo mission . The Russians some hours later confirmed that their mission would not interfere with that of Apollo. Here's an extract from an article I found: Luna 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24 Automated lunar sample-return craft, three of which were successful. Luna 15 entered lunar orbit two days ahead of Apollo 11, and on the day Apollo 11 began circling the Moon lowered its own orbit to 9 by 203 km. At this point there was concern in the United States that the Russian probe would somehow interfere with the manned mission. However, assurances were quickly given by the Soviets that this would not be the case. On Jul. 20, just hours before Apollo 11's scheduled landing, Luna 15 carried out another maneuver to put it in a 16- by 110-km orbit. The next day, while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface, the little probe made its last retrorocket burn and began to descend to what was supposed to be a soft landing. Unfortunately, it made contact instead at 480 km/h in the Sea of Crises. Almost twenty years would pass before the Soviets officially admitted that Luna 15 was a failed sample-return attempt. Whether, if all had gone well, it could have beaten Apollo 11 is unclear. Even if its landing attempt had succeeded, it would not have returned to Earth until the day after Apollo 11 splashed down. On the other hand, Lunar 15 did spend one day longer in lunar orbit than was typical of later sample missions. If the probe had made it down in three days instead of four, or if Apollo 11 had failed to return samples, the Soviets might just have pulled off an outrageous coup. The Russians were up there with the Americans.via their unmanned spacecraft..I don't think I've ever read anywhere that the Kremlin ever denied the NASA acheivement.

Dichotomy: I see your point about absolutely solid evidence, it's not possible unless you were actually there, but surely the subsequent moon missions confirm the authenticity of the first? You can't honestly believe NASA faked it SIX times (Apollo !!, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17)? It's a no brainer. that Apollo 11 happened. I find it difficult to believe that anyone, these days. would want to dishonour these pioneering astronauts, and their team on the ground, by denying it ever happened. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnybody that tries to start a thread again on this subject in the future should have it shut down immediately by a moderator.

It has not been observed (by any means) that life exists anywhere other than as a property of atoms and molecules. Have you seen life anywhere other than as a property of certain groups of atoms? Life is a force or an energy but it's inextricably bound as a property or effect of atoms and not distinct from them Your problem of accepting this is similar to the problem some people have of the 'mind' which is just the sum total of all the biochemical/neural l processes that occur within the brain...nothing more. I don't see how we can discuss what life is in any other way, other than in a metaphysical sense, which is not science. What observations have you made that determines that there has to be something other than molecules that make life? Think about it, what else exists in the universe besides molecules that life could be a property of....nothing. Yes, life is just a bunch of atoms. And don't say but...but....we'll only end up going in circles. I will now enter into a state of intransigence and unresponsiveness unless you can come up with good factual evidence to the contrary

Following on from the original post, isn't it amazing to think that everything that has ever happened in the universe has been recorded via the interference patterns in the photons that are now on their fantastically long journey through space...like one giant 13.7 billion year long 3D video?!

The sceptisism amongst some members of the general public towards the authenticity of the moonlanding is indicative of their general scientific illiteracy and unwillingness (for whatever reason) to corroborate the facts. I think some of these people probably have a paranoid complex that the U.S. government had a hidden agenda at that time e.g, they invented some good news ( the moonlanding) to obscure or hide some bad news (The US bombed Cambodia for fourteen months without the knowledge of Congress or the American public, in 1969, for example) to such an extent that they can't accept what they see before their eyes, whatever the evidence.

I.A.: So what you are saying is that you can't induce a change in one photon to change the state of the other one some distance away. As an approximate, simple, example of what I mean, think of a morse coder...induce 3 down spins, then 3 up spins and then 3 down spins (to represent an S.O.S signal) in one photon, this would induce the opposite in the other entangled photon would it not? My knowledge of physics is rudimentary -I would be happy for you to enlighten me as to why this would not be information transfer or have I just got it totally wrong altogether?

If you want to keep the top on, try half-filling the bottle (dry the screw-top and bottle-neck so you can undo it later) to allow plenty of room for expansion and the air pressure increase and then freeze it upright. If the bottom has not bubbled out you can then top it up with water from your water jug as and when you go out....this method should give you a bit-free chilled drink. If you think the solid residues floating in the water from your disposable bottles is plastic in origin, it makes you wonder how much plastic residue we have all consumed in our lives from eating and drinking foodstuffs that has been frozen in unsuitable containers?

Would it be possible to entangle and capture two photons, somehow integrate them into separate telecommunications devices i.e cameras, and exploit their ability to communicate across vast distances instantaneously? Is it practically possible now to manipulate a property in one of them so that it caused a change in the other x distance away...say it's spin ( or some other property) in one direction could equal 0 and the spin in the other could equal 1 to create a digital signal. I have a hazy memory that scientists were speculating to do something like this somewhere some years ago but the temperatures required were prohibitively low to be practical. This would give FLT communication would it not?.

You might find this link useful: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=author:%22Gombrich%22+intitle:%22Art+and+illusion:+A+study+in+the+psychology+of+pictorial+...%22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr It's a list from the National Library Board which you download as a .pdf . It seems to have titles for books that you may be interested in. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe branch of science that may give you some answers regarding the way the physiology of our brains governs the way we think and perceive the world is Biopsychology.

Would you conclude that the problem of the 'bits' lies with the material used in the bottles that you recycled? With the metal bottle (if you have another one) leave the top off when you freeze it. It may still happen again, but when water freezes it expands, the pressure will rise, and the bottom of the bottle is where it wiill 'give', making it round. Leaving the top off allows the air to be displaced to accommodate the new volume of the ice without any extra pressure on the container wall. That's my theory!. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWater volume increases by 9% when frozen, If you can't freeze the metal bottles standing up and have to have the tops on, try filling them only 3/4 full. They are cheap enough to experiment with aren't they?.

Yes indirectly, if I want to download some software or some such (like Open Office) that is free..because you have to give an email address to qualify. This usually results in some periodic advertising mail from them..nothing aggressive. Not technically spam.is it? I can block it if I want to with Gmail I've only ever had Google's Gmail and don't understand other peoples problem with spam! I've got hundred's of emails in my archive and I think I've only received one bit of spam in 9 months using it. You also get 7gb storage space so you can keep everything without any periodic deletion to make space for new mail. It's a no brainer for me I

I've just had the same problem trying to access page 2 of Today's Posts. I can access page 3 and 1. I've restarted firefox and tried again to access page 2 with the same fatal error.

I use googlemail for my email and have NEVER had spam that I did not request.

Dr432: I have read around enough and extrapolated from this information, as has Inow and Bascule, that serious problems for the human population will probably start manifesting in the latter half of this century. Its not a case of if it's when. Inow: Your view of the future and assessment of the human race, with it's collective intransigence globally, is not dissimilar to mine Bearing in mind what you've just said Inow, I don't think anything will be done seriously until we reach an official State of Emergency worldwide You are right, this is the fundamental problem with us, we can't collectively behave responsibly because we are still bound by our most primal urges, as you have just so elegantly demonstrated with your example! "Case in point: (short term) Ooh! Yummy! Hot dog with chili and a Twinkie on the side! (long term) My arteries are clogged, and I just suffered a massive heart attack."

have read tIhat article you linked to Mokele, thanks...It does support my hunch and explains a few other things like accounting for low oxygen levels at depth due to decomposition. IA: The depth of my lake averages 12ft and, apparently, thermoclines do not occur at this depth or less: surface water temperatures generally don't go over 21oC in summer- measured at night. http://www.lakeforktexas.com/Pages/therm.html Is the depth of my lake shallow enough for atmospheric oxygen diffusion to occur down to the bottom of the lake without mechanical agitation from wind and rain? In periods of low pressure, even during calm weather, fishing and fish (carp) activity on the bottom is usually brisk. Oxygen levels, on average ( I suspect), should be lower and penetrate less to the depths during these periods than those of high pressure and brisk weather activity, water temperature staying the same. The presence of aquatic weed is low in the lake. Any thoughts or links that might explain this apparent anomaly would be appreciated. Sometimes, I find it difficult to think of the right keywords to Google to answer my own questions!

Post back your findings with the new bottles.

If my memory of Lovelock's book serves me correctly, mitigation is the only option that we have...prevention, according to him, is not an option because the time it would take to reverse the process is much too long and we have already passed certain tipping points. He is of the belief, I read somewhere recently, that we should not try to fix the weather system with technology, as and when it becomes available. This would mean we would have to take control of the weather for all time thereafter when Nature has handled it very well for all of Earth's history 'til now. He advocates leaving it alone to sort itself out. This leaves us to mitigate it's present and future effects on the population, so his attitude is in line with your thoughts. Despite the negative tone of my previous post I do not promote the idea of sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Climate change and the growth of the human population are mankind's biggest challenges that I hope we can rise to. Inow: I think the toll on the human population, at some indeterminate time in the future, will run into the billions eventually as resources and habitable landmass dwindles. The size and distribution of the global population will probably change out of all recognition in the next century or so, as the heat rises from the equator pushing us north and south.

I think if more lay people (especially climate change deniers) were made to read James Lovelock's "The Revenge of Gaia" they would take climate change and its consequences much more seriously. I am a layman on this subject myself but I found his illustrations of the various Earth mechanisms, how they interact and where they are heading (which seems to be borne out by the news reports now) to be so lucid as to seem like commonsense. Various friends who I have lent this book to have remarked that everybody should read it. The problem of spreading the idea of anthropogenic climate change is one of communication....there aren't enough people, like Lovelock. than can understand the science AND communicate it to the Average Joe, like me, without losing him in technical jargon and apparently obscure science. Scientists often don't/can't speak in the language of the listener. . It is not the facts that Lovelock uses that convinces me...it's the logical path he takes me through that does it. The time frame for certain climate related events, he predicts to occur, does not matter...they will happen eventually...because more and more people are coming into existence all the time, draining the Earth's resources and producing their share of the increasing pollution. I think the continued growth of the human population will continually negate any positive moves that concerned countries make towards reversing the projected atmospheric trends. Human population growth is the real problem behind climate change....the social, moral and political implications of putting together a strategy to contain it are so complex and difficult I don't think anybody of any intellectual or political stature will contemplate it publically....ever. Ultimately, I think, The Earth System will sort it/us out one way or the other. I have no optimism in this subject or our ability, collectively, to do anything about it significantly.

The contrast ratio that can be recorded by photographic film (especially the slide film used on the moon) is very limited compared to the actual scene's contrast ratio. Colour negative film. for example, can record a contrast of about 100:1 but a sunlit snow scene has a contrast ratio of up to a 1000:1. This means that the photographer has to make a decision, based on his readings, which parts of the scene before him are to be recorded because all of it will not fit in. The contrast ratio ( the difference in light levels between two extremes) of the light coming off the lunar surface and the surrounding sky exceeds that which can be fully recorded by the film.

Thanks for your response IA So you don't think it's down to a shift (somehow) in the concentration difference between the o2 in the atmosphere and that o2 already dissolved in the water when the pressure changes...I suppose like a concentration gradient.? Your answer does make sense...I didn't think of it being a purely mechanical process, the wind and rain acting as a mixer!! Going fishing now for two days ...will pick up on any more responses when I get back. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Nearly missed sight of your post Mokele! Thanks Will chew on it when I get back. Cheers

The diarrhoea is probably caused by drinking too much water. The body is unable to absorb all the excess water ( that people are no doubt drinking VERY enthusiastically...More is better! ) when the waterlogged food is in the large intestine, where it would normally be fully absorbed, and excreted via the bladder. If this is happening to your son, advise him to restrict his intake to just a couple of glasses. Emphasise to him that it's ONLY ordinary water....nothing more. Water, like any other substance, is a poison when taken to excess....it can actually kill you! I http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-water-poisoning.htm What bits I've read about Kangen, and other companies like it, I think they are quite ruthless and commercially evil. Are you going to tell your friend of these findings?

Why does low atmospheric pressure cause the oxygen leels in a body of water, like a lake, to rise....or so I am lead to believe? I am an avid angler and it is a commonly held belief that, during low pressure, the oxygen levels rise and push the thermocline down causing fish to seek the bottom of the lake. Does anybody understand the physics or chemistry of this phenomenon. My instinct says that oxygen levels should rise with rising pressure since the atmosphere is 'pushing' more on the water's surface,.but apparently not

The changes you have made to your life will have real benefits long-term for you. Avoid looking for short term solutions like that water ionizer and other 'life enhancing' technologies and substances. There are no short cuts to a better healthier life that you can buy. The best medicine is a) A positive attitude b) A healthy diet c) A good bike ride! d) Keep asking questions here and you'll get FACTS!