SUNLIGHT & THINGS

[us.2u]

If it's daylight on the other side of the world then it's dark here because our world blocks the sunlight can anyone explain if astronauts travel in space where it dosen't have our spinning planet to block out the sunlight why it is dark in space? & if the moon dosen't have an atmosphere how come in the daylight hours it's not one ball of molten lava I would have thought with the vast temparture differences "day & night" & no atmosphere to protect it the moon would be no more I see no one has answered my question about the "van allen" belt pherhaps after all there isn't one if there is I would gratefully receive that logic also we're shown on video footage the astronauts leaving the moon now it's beyond me how we receieved that footage? No one has got back to me & explained about no time delay when astronauts were communincating from the moon to earth I'm no expert but just curious I don't want to get swallowed in by propaganda I'm just asking basic questions please someone out there come back with logical evidence not oh I listen to propaganda or I must be nuts just answer the relavant questions please....us.2u

[Sayonara]

If it's daylight on the other side of the world then it's dark here because our world blocks the sunlight can anyone explain if astronauts travel in space where it dosen't have our spinning planet to block out the sunlight why it is dark in space?

Both eyes and sensors pick up light either direct from the source, or reflected off objects.

 

So unless you look directly at a light source (e.g. the sun, or another star) or into reflected light (e.g. that which bounces off the moon, which you can clearly see from Earth even during the day) you won't see anything.

 

If you're an astronaut up there with a camera, there is not a lot in high orbit that will both (a) be really close to you, or failing that be really big, and (b) reflect lots of light.

 

The question is the equivalent of asking why you can't see any light in the space between the back of your monitor and the wall.

 

 

& if the moon dosen't have an atmosphere how come in the daylight hours it's not one ball of molten lava I would have thought with the vast temparture differences "day & night" & no atmosphere to protect it the moon would be no more

Clearly the temperature on the moon does not get higher than the melting or sublimation point of the rock.

 

Even if it did, this does not necessarily mean the moon would be totally destroyed, since molten rock is subject to gravitational forces just as solid rock is.

 

 

I see no one has answered my question about the "van allen" belt pherhaps after all there isn't one if there is I would gratefully receive that logic

Earth has both an inner and outer Van Allen belt. They are made up of charged particles trapped by the Earth's magnetic field.

 

The Earth belts can damage unshielded electronic equipment but they are not a significant threat to astronauts. The most energetically charged particles in the belt can penetrate only 1mm of lead.

 

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

 

 

also we're shown on video footage the astronauts leaving the moon now it's beyond me how we receieved that footage?

Remote camera I should hope.

 

 

No one has got back to me & explained about no time delay when astronauts were communincating from the moon to earth

Simply put, in terms of light the moon is not that far away.

 

You can easily work out the delay in seconds using the speed of light and the average distance between Earth and the moon. Don't forget to double the answer, as the delay should include the time taken for Earth's message to reach the moon, plus the time taken for the response to get back.

[us.2u]

Thank-you my belief in lunar landings has strenghtened but I'm not totally convinced either way I just don't know but your answers are indeed logical thanks once again for yor expertise...us.2u

[us.2u]

Those astronauts were not equiped with remote cameras just cameras strapped to themselves the shadows they cast proved to be from various light sources indicating that it looked like an expensive set up show. Well Japan apparently are sending a probe to the moon in the not too distant future so if this mission did happen their probe will find it apparently this probe in time will map the whole moon so we're know for sure eventually won't we....also in their radio contact there was no time delay oh well....

[Ophiolite]

Those astronauts were not equiped with remote cameras just cameras strapped to themselves

On those missions with lunar rovers there were cameras attached to the rovers. These were then set up to capture the launch of the astronauts back into lunar orbit.

[Sayonara]

in their radio contact there was no time delay oh well....

Let's work it out:

 

 

Ave distance to moon: 384,403 kilometers

 

Speed of light: 299,796 km/s

 

 

Speed = distance / time

 

Therefore:

 

Time = distance / speed

 

 

Let T = Average time taken for message to reach Earth from moon

 

 

T = 384403 / 299796

 

T = 1.3 seconds

 

 

 

I'm sure there probably was a delay of about 1 second, at least.

[us.2u]

At last I'm begining to make sense of this that it was proberable the lunar landing did take place but not 100% guarenteed does anyone know where these astronauts splashed down on their return & were the news cameras in exactly the right place to greet their return? Also I don't know if this is true but were'nt they clean shaven & their astro suits immaculate upon their return? Do they have their own laundry & bathrooms aboard? but if this is all true wouldn't it be likely these astronauts would be explaining their fantastic voyage to all of us or have they & I've missed it.I really hope they did visit the moon at the moment I believe it could have happened the answers are indeed coming back what doe's everyone else think.... they did.... or didn't.

[atinymonkey]

Yes. And they had shorter hair an new hats an a bag from walmart full 'o stuff and a cat that had a spot on its cheak and a whole bag full of peanuts.

 

[us.2u]

o.k. then

[Ophiolite]

At last I'm begining to make sense of this that it was proberable the lunar landing did take place but not 100% guarenteed does anyone know where these astronauts splashed down on their return & were the news cameras in exactly the right place to greet their return? Also I don't know if this is true but were'nt they clean shaven & their astro suits immaculate upon their return? Do they have their own laundry & bathrooms aboard? but if this is all true wouldn't it be likely these astronauts would be explaining their fantastic voyage to all of us or have they & I've missed it.I really hope they did visit the moon at the moment I believe it could have happened the answers are indeed coming back what doe's everyone else think.... they did.... or didn't.

Who is feeding you this garbage us.2u. Don't misunderstand me, I am not attacking you. You are asking some very pertinent questions given the nonsense some one has presented you with. It just bothers me that many people (maybe even most people) wouldn't have the sense to question it the way you are.

Here are a couple of further thoughts:

Time Delay: I was lucky enough to be alive during the moon flights and I clearly remember a short delay. In fact it added to the drama of the event.

 

Media:The news cameras were there for the landings. If I get a chance I'll check out some data for you and post it here later.

 

Hygene: They were not clean shaven and had you had your eyes closed you would still have known they were there. They stank.

 

Rest assured they landed on the moon. The double tragedy is that we turned back from the adventure and that there are idiots out there trying to tell you the adventure never even began.

[us.2u]

Thank you Ophiolite now you really make sense I certainly don't view your reply as an attack but absolutely helpful on the strength of your memoirs of the lunar landing now it seems at least in my mind now they actually went there all I had to go on was propaganda videos but there were certainly some difficult posers I love this site because there are sensible people like you that leave no stone unturned & come back with relevant logical answers.I appreciate everyones help who has helped me to understand difficult questions thank you everybody...us.2u

[Artorius]

Coincidence 2003 then 2004 was the launch dates of private spacerockets to the moon,thus ending the speculation once and for all about the moon landing...ooooops sorry you cannot go there now all flights are cancelled we just lost a few astronauts(columbia),they could have saved them people easily but they were sacrificed for the cause

[Sayonara]

Where's your evidence?

 

You might as well say that Godzilla knocked Columbia off course.

[us.2u]

I do believe now the lunar landing did take place I did watch a proaganda vid where the stars & stipes flag was secured to the lunar ground; but "flapping" to what seemed to me like a gust of wind; I don't know if this was a mock vid or geniune anybody out-there to explain this one? If geniune... could a flag flap on the moon? I don't know I would be interested in those scienetists comments because I believe you all have an understading of logic & truth all replies more than gratefully receieved...thank-you...us.2u

[Ophiolite]

Coincidence 2003 then 2004 was the launch dates of private spacerockets to the moon

Genuine question for you Artorius - what are you talking about here? I vaguely recall a plan to put a small mobile robot up there that people could pay to drive around by remote control. Was it this, or something else entirely?

 

You seem to envisage some vast conspiracy at work to this day. May I ask a second question. Are you generally 'into' conspiracies, or is is just this 'moon landing hoax to be preserved at all costs' one?

[Ophiolite]

I do believe now the lunar landing did take place I did watch a proaganda vid where the stars & stipes flag was secured to the lunar ground; but "flapping" to what seemed to me like a gust of wind

You might want to take a look at this thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7105

 

This includes a link to a 'debunking' of the flapping flag and all the other arguments against a landing.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

Here is a quote:

"Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

 

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself. "

 

Hope that helps.

[atinymonkey]

Genuine question for you Artorius - what are you talking about here? I vaguely recall a plan to put a small mobile robot up there that people could pay to drive around by remote control.

 

I think that was the Mars Rover, you could book time to move the thing around and view the pictures over the internet. I can't remember when that was, years ago tho.

[Ophiolite]

No, I don't believe so, if of nothing else because of the time delay. I definitely recall a plan for little rovers on the moon and it was a private enterprise concept. If I find it on a google I'll post.

[Artorius]

Hello ophiolite,So many questions asked from two threads which have been on this subject.I will try and answer a few here.

Am i into conspiracies? not really i tend to believe whatever scientists etc say or print in reputable media.However later under scrutiny facts which dont add up or questions answered are flawed ,i reasearch and form an opinion after digesting both sides of whatever is being debated.On this particular subject my common sense opinion is of course USA landed on the moon 40%, and 60% hey these facts just dont add up.If i was asked what disturbs me out of certain conspiracies its the moon landing and the death of princess Diana.

Regarding private firms going to the moon,the purpose of the ones that were given permission were not to land,only orbit and photograph previous landing sites to prove or disprove the controversy.One firm i recall but they were others was Trans orbital,with missions Trailblazer(to launch 2003) followed by electra 1 and 2.However after Columbia's 'accident' NASA withdrew permission?

My views on Wikepedia are that its very general and vague for a scientific source of reference.

As this threads on the moon-landing my pet annoyance is when someone (i take it for granted most here are of average intelligence)replies to a post with a tired debunk ,

Please read this carefully it may be im not putting it across right,let me know!eg The objects in shadow are lit up perfectly even though the rest of the subject remains in shadow.Reason given because of the moons high reflectivity the ground reflects some light back up from behind the shadow(this is directed at silly joe public because they look up from earth and see a shiny white moon).

And i reply to them well this is untrue because the moon is actually a very dark brown colour when your actually stood on it,its actual reflectivity is around 7% so this explanation is invalid.The replies i then recieve get personal and silly.The facts of the moons reflectivity can easily be researched by anyone who is genuinely interested.I dont offer links to varify these things because my knowledge comes from a lifetime of reading and research,if someone cannot be bothered to google so be it.Im here to only have a discussion of peoples opinions and debate them,not prove im right they are wrong.If all i want is hard info on a subject i can get the answer easily by doing a google search.

Its more stimulating when i read some science data which i think hold on i dont like that answer,i should go on a forum and see what the general ideas that are floating around are.

Ok thats it i hope that answers you ophiolite.

Some interesting facts i have found on the moon landing are this.

1..Between 1969-74 nasa already had in orbit one of the Apollo Tracking Network Test and Training Satellites, Transmitting exactly the kind of signals that would be expected from an Apollo spacecraft the TETR-C satellite.

2..The face shields on the helmets would have to have a temp tollerance of-250 to +250 degrees,no such material was or to my knowledge still hasnt been invented.

3..considering the magnitude and preciseness of the event,funny how the command module never returned within site of the recovery ships.Its not open to guess work that the module could just land anywere in a 250 mile radius so to speak.Its my opinion is that the command module was dropped from a plane.

4..while the astronauts were on the moon why didnt they make a visable signal to us here back on earth.They had the neccersary equipment to do so,and you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand the great PR of doing so,especially in light of the cold war.

5..after the deaths of crew in apollo 1 the OCSA said the first landing should be unmanned.Its my opinion the loss of crew would have been utter failure and put Russia in the fore,so they didnt risk it.They landed a robot to accumulate rocks etc and took they photo's etc here on earth,Capricorn 1 and all that.

6.. no radio hams were able to tune in to the actual capsule transmissions.

7.. after previous landings nasa had confirmation that no life existed on the moon,also established and assured that no contamination was possible.But they immediately quarantined the returned astronauts for 3 weeks,quoting it was for contamination.My opinion is they didnt want some smartass media guy asking questions that would trip the atronauts up.They took the astronauts away for a lenghty get our story straight and wait for the dust to settle.Again the PR for having US guys woohaa'ing and telling the world how fantastic it was and rubbing them commies noses in it should have been priority.

 

to finish would you not think the most famous of all astronauts N.ARMSTRONG,before he pops off to the next realm would have given an interview of how fantastic it was and the sites and awe of it all.No i dont believe he ever will because he knows in his heart,it was his and all other astronauts destiny and lifes wish,that they could do something like that and they offered there actual life to fulfill this ambition.He was robbed and knows its all a farce,whistleblow?hell no what for who would believe him before the powers that be carted him off to some hospital saying he had alziema'

[CPL.Luke]

The face shields on the helmets would have to have a temp tollerance of-250 to +250 degrees,no such material was or to my knowledge still hasnt been invented.

 

2 things wrong with this

 

1) by saying no material can withstand this then how do our sattelites do it, they are subjected to the same temperature extremes

 

(there will be an apparent contradiction between the first flaw and the second flaw, the second one is more accurate)

 

2) space is a vaccuum and thus has no temperature. temperature is a measure of kinetic energy in matter. while things in space will eventually cool to a certain temperature and never go below that temperature this is because of ambient light sources and the cosmic background etc. it takes a long time to reach that temperature, because all of the heat must be radiated off an object instead of rellying on convection. Likewise it will take a long time to heat an object in the sun's rays.

 

 

while the astronauts were on the moon why didnt they make a visable signal to us here back on earth.They had the neccersary equipment to do so,and you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand the great PR of doing so,especially in light of the cold war.

 

the moon is very far away (240,000 miles I believe) it would have taken either a very bright light source or a sign bigger than a football field. in short, assuming nasa thought of it, they would have made the decision that it would take to much time, effort and money to do what you describe

 

 

Regarding private firms going to the moon,the purpose of the ones that were given permission were not to land,only orbit and photograph previous landing sites to prove or disprove the controversy.One firm i recall but they were others was Trans orbital,with missions Trailblazer(to launch 2003) followed by electra 1 and 2.However after Columbia's 'accident' NASA withdrew permission?

 

the appollo 15 landing site has been viewed

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html

 

and common a spaceshuttle costs a couple billion dollars something tells me the government isn't that interested in covering up the moon landing hoax, now that the cold war is over it would be a big embarassment sure, but not one important enough to cover up with the waste of several tens of billions of dollars (the other 3 won't be flying anytime soon)

 

not to mention the fact that we now relly on the russians for soyuz craft to support the iss.

 

The objects in shadow are lit up perfectly even though the rest of the subject remains in shadow.Reason given because of the moons high reflectivity the ground reflects some light back up from behind the shadow(this is directed at silly joe public because they look up from earth and see a shiny white moon).

 

I don't know when I look at the images I see a darker shadow then I have ever seen in my life

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=v_Aldrin_on_moon_02,0.jpg∩=Aldrin%20on%20the%20moon.

and

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

 

go to the pictures of the evas and moon landings

those shadows are all pitch black

 

if we had never gone to the moon how did we know that it infact was brown on the surface and not white?

 

 

and as to why the astronauts never gave an interview, the odds are they were scared out of their minds. Know why? because there were hundreds of reporters on their lawns asking for interviews and hounding them where ever they went. I personnally would do the same and not say a thing until the reporters got the message and left.

 

 

and while normally I don't do this

The replies i then recieve get personal and silly

 

alright stop saying that the replies you recieve are personall and silly when

i take it for granted most here are of average intelligence

you insult the intelligence of the entire forum and pose that you are more intelligent than every one here

 

though after your last post maybe you are still at school

from here http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=110005&postcount=41

 

 

can i politely say you dont know what your talking about

etc.

 

for future reference can you please stick to the facts, because quite honestly whenever you end up saying stuff like you don't know what your talking about, because I could easilly point out many things that you clearly don't understand what your talking about. however as I am trying to avoid making myself sound like I am trying to flame you I will not do this.

[Artorius]

okay i wont offend you by stating what anyone would find obvious from my post.You replied exactly as ive been saying.What more can i say???Whats an astronauts face shield got to do with a satellite?how long without earths atmosphere would it take a solar flare to fry an egg?HAHA who mentioned astronauts should get there vanity mirrors out and signal,do actually know what equipment they had in order to signal hahha.You see dark shadows what are you talking about do you not get the fact im referring to pictures showing the subject material in shadow yet say the american flag on the side of the LM is clearly visible,yet the main of the craft is as it should be DARK?.I point out i take it for granted most here should be of average intelligence and you insinuate im offending everyone,which you have clearly taken my words out of context.I have stuck to the facts,but like your post you have chosen or fail to understand my post or enough information of the the subject then as expected launch into some character assasination.Would it be more beneficial if people dont express opinion with some added facts on any topic, and we all just sit here talking about subjects that have been proven beyond doubt,like hey thats the sun.If so why do scientists bother to experiment.You do realise they dont spend all there time validating things we already know,but sometimes look at things we dont ????

[Sayonara]

Am i into conspiracies? not really i tend to believe whatever scientists etc say or print in reputable media.However later under scrutiny facts which dont add up or questions answered are flawed ,i reasearch and form an opinion after digesting both sides of whatever is being debated.On this particular subject my common sense opinion is of course USA landed on the moon 40%, and 60% hey these facts just dont add up.If i was asked what disturbs me out of certain conspiracies its the moon landing and the death of princess Diana.

Maybe it's not that they don't add up, but that you can't add them up properly. Since you are so interested in determining the truth you have to accept this as an equally valid possibility,

 

 

Please read this carefully it may be im not putting it across right,let me know!eg The objects in shadow are lit up perfectly even though the rest of the subject remains in shadow.Reason given because of the moons high reflectivity the ground reflects some light back up from behind the shadow(this is directed at silly joe public because they look up from earth and see a shiny white moon).

The explanation you have given for objects in shadow being illuminated is - as you have said - a pretty poor one.

 

However:

 

a) Your refutation of it is equally poor (the light reflected off the moon, for example, does a pretty good job of getting back to Earth again and illuminating objects in shadow here), and

 

b) It's not the entire explanation for objects in shadow on the moon being illuminated anyway, so you are voluntarily arguing against a strawman.

 

 

The face shields on the helmets would have to have a temp tollerance of-250 to +250 degrees,no such material was or to my knowledge still hasnt been invented.

The critical words here are "to my knowledge".

 

 

considering the magnitude and preciseness of the event,funny how the command module never returned within site of the recovery ships.Its not open to guess work that the module could just land anywere in a 250 mile radius so to speak.Its my opinion is that the command module was dropped from a plane.

Does it not occur to you that the accuracy of the planned descent in such an underpowered craft as a command module is going to be strongly related to the gravitational field of the body it is landing on?

 

 

no radio hams were able to tune in to the actual capsule transmissions.

Which should come as no surprise.

 

This in itself is not evidence of anything - only the reason for it can be (e.g. because their radios were broken, because the transmissions were not there, because they all died etc).

 

 

after previous landings nasa had confirmation that no life existed on the moon,also established and assured that no contamination was possible.But they immediately quarantined the returned astronauts for 3 weeks,quoting it was for contamination.My opinion is they didnt want some smartass media guy asking questions that would trip the atronauts up.

Yes, well we've already seen that what you don't know doesn't seem to exist to you, so it comes as no surprise that were you in charge of the return operation you'd have sent them out into the population without the precautionary measure of making sure there were no hidden surprises that were previously undetectable to us.

[CPL.Luke]

Whats an astronauts face shield got to do with a satellite?

my point was that a sattelite faces the same temperatures an astronauts face shield would. and yet a sattelite survives just fine, therefore materials do exist which can handle the kind of "temperature" extremes that the astronauts faced

 

how long without earths atmosphere would it take a solar flare to fry an egg

check up on your thermodynamics, its much faster to conduct heat than it is to radiate it, without an atmosphere you can only radiate heat and thus things will heat up and cool slower.

 

HAHA who mentioned astronauts should get there vanity mirrors out and signal,do actually know what equipment they had in order to signal hahha

Im assuming that was do you actually know

 

Im guessing you don't nor do you know the constraints placed on a launch. any device capable of sending out a visible signal to the earth (not radio waves) would have either been

A) to large (limited volume capacity of appollo craft

b) to heavy (costs alot in fuel to send something to the moon)

c)to time consuming (apollo 11 astronauts only had 2 hours on the surface)

 

the images I posted, if you bothered to look at them show a near pitchblack ground (ground is in the shadow and would be illuminated by a second light source). Also if there truely were extra light sources I would expect to see multiple shadows, not just a slight illumination of objects in shadow that could be caused by starlight.

 

okay i wont offend you by stating what anyone would find obvious from my post.You replied exactly as ive been saying.What more can i say???Whats an astronauts face shield got to do with a satellite?how long without earths atmosphere would it take a solar flare to fry an egg?HAHA who mentioned astronauts should get there vanity mirrors out and signal,do actually know what equipment they had in order to signal hahha.You see dark shadows what are you talking about do you not get the fact im referring to pictures showing the subject material in shadow yet say the american flag on the side of the LM is clearly visible,yet the main of the craft is as it should be DARK?.I point out i take it for granted most here should be of average intelligence and you insinuate im offending everyone,which you have clearly taken my words out of context.I have stuck to the facts,but like your post you have chosen or fail to understand my post or enough information of the the subject then as expected launch into some character assasination.Would it be more beneficial if people dont express opinion with some added facts on any topic, and we all just sit here talking about subjects that have been proven beyond doubt,like hey thats the sun.If so why do scientists bother to experiment.You do realise they dont spend all there time validating things we already know,but sometimes look at things we dont ????

 

whos attacking whom?

 

take a look at those photos and then tell me that things are illuminated in the shadows

[Artorius]

Post 19 gentleman please,22-23 show nothing to dispute what ive stated and are flame jobs.From now on im only replying to posters on topic and that show understanding,otherwise all it will achieve ir repetative posts.

[Sayonara]

Post 19 gentleman please,22-23 show nothing to dispute what ive stated and are flame jobs.From now on im only replying to posters on topic and that show understanding,otherwise all it will achieve ir repetative posts.

Utter crap - they all pose valid questions, with no flames in sight. Sarcasm maybe, but no flaming.

 

Respond to each and every one of those posts, or your part in this thread is over.

 

You have 12 hours from the time I press "submit".