200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

[#48Fan]

Ever researched what happens to film in extreme cold?

 

[Juristic Person]

Temperature is temperature, you don't think 400 degrees in a vacuum would still ruin film?

While I may not have spent 40 years studying radiation and the Van Allen belts, I can tell you that at the time the Apollo missions were being planned, it was the consensus amongst expert scientists that the astronots would be receiving many times the lethal dosage of radiation in flying to the moon. Only after the "successful" eight missions did scientists then say, well I saw it on TV and we made it so our radiation calculations were wrong".

And even current NASA says they don't have a solution to the radiation problem and they're still trying to figure out how to get us"back" to the moon 60 years later.

Sorry but extraordinary achievements require extraordinary evidence. A grainy horrible film footage and the stories of 20 lunatics (postechild Buzz) don't provide substantial evidence, especially when even that evidence is crude and falsifiable at best.

If I told you I jumped off a 80 story building naked with no gear and flapped my bare arms like wings and flew safely to the ground, would a black and white grainy video that looks like it was shot in my parents basement be all the evidence you needed to believe me? What if I sat at a press conference and told you I REALLY REALLY did fly and defied all known laws of physics. What if there were all sorts of problems with that footage and with my explanation? Still a believer? What if the gubbermint insisted that it was true...you know they never lie right? The gulliblity of you people is astounding. do you also believe the gubmint would never lie to its people? LOL Wake up. We got a popaganda thead 20 pages long on the Ukraine war...a minor minor war, with 20 pages of pretty strong evidence of US propaganda. Yet, for the Cold War, the US gubmint would never ever lie and make up some anti-USSR pro-America propaganda, right?

Regarding Banicle Bob's being challenged about "science" garbage: Some of the non-scientific BS are things such as "dark matter" "dark energy". There is no evidence for any of this crapola. Just "scientists" with a pre-conceived notion of the athiest origins myth that need to create these hypothetical things to explain why their model could work, if only they existed.

OUTSTANDING POST!!!

You nailed it Goldie!

 

[Juristic Person]

No matter where you go on Earth you will see "not land". It is quite evident that the Earth does not stretch indefinitely in all directions. Are we living in a cartoon?

Any easy way to find out would be to circumnavigate the Earth (by plane) over both poles.

Nobody has ever done that. Why?

 

[Juristic Person]

You're asking me to prove a negative.

Paar for this course.

Read through this entire thread to answer your question, and perhaps you might get a clue.

Unless you absolutely know the truth, then feel free to ridicule anyone elses attempt to understand, and further prove you are nothing but a troll.

He knows what he is doing...and so do I. If you look at his responses, he cherry picks the posts and responds to specific statements that lack direct substance to the argument being made. He diverts the conversation with his line item replies. I won't go so far as to call him a disinfo agent because that would be a claim I can't back with proof - but it is clear that his intent to poke holes and take the topic of conversation sideways. A lot of very valid points have been made in this thread - the most recent by Goldie - and ignores the good stuff and picks apart the rest.

Anyone who still believe the moon landing in 1969 was real is either completely ignorant or purposely supporting an obvious lie.

Nobody country on Earth has ever sent any human onto the moon. Nobody can do it now and they sure as hell couldn't do it 50 years ago.

 

[newmisty]

He knows what he is doing...and so do I. If you look at his responses, he cherry picks the posts and responds to specific statements that lack direct substance to the argument being made. He diverts the conversation with his line item replies. I won't go so far as to call him a disinfo agent because that would be a claim I can't back with proof - but it is clear that his intent to poke holes and take the topic of conversation sideways. A lot of very valid points have been made in this thread - the most recent by Goldie - and ignores the good stuff and picks apart the rest.

Anyone who still believe the moon landing in 1969 was real is either completely ignorant or purposely supporting an obvious lie.

Nobody country on Earth has ever sent any human onto the moon. Nobody can do it now and they sure as hell couldn't do it 50 years ago.

You seem to be parroting an illogical narrative that believing in a spherical Earth and the moon landing go hand-in-hand. Why can't somebody believe that the moon landing evidence is fake but also believe in a spherical Earth? You know, pragmatism.

but it is clear that his intent to poke holes and take the topic of conversation sideways. A lot of very valid points have been made in this thread - the most recent by Goldie - and ignores the good stuff and picks apart the rest.

More textbook projection. Stellar.

 

[Juristic Person]

You seem to be parroting an illogical narrative that believing in a spherical Earth and the moon landing go hand-in-hand. Why can't somebody believe that the moon landing evidence is fake but also believe in a spherical Earth? You know, pragmatism.

I absolutely am not connecting the two. I made two separate statements on two different topics.

My position is that the moon landing was staged. Men did not walk on the moon. This has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

 

[newmisty]

I absolutely am not connecting the two. I made two separate statements on two different topics.

My position is that the moon landing was staged. Men did not walk on the moon. This has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

What thread are we in?

 

[Juristic Person]

What thread are we in?

The one where you posted this:

"Well then the real question for me is how long does it take to cook fish sticks on the surface of the Moon? Do they need a special tray or have to be flipped half way through or what? Plus would they be soggy or crispy? I'm sure number 48 knows."

 

[Joe King]

Ever researched what happens to film in extreme cold?

Which is why it needed to be protected.

It was in the same environment as humans were in.

Also heat and cold doesn't work the same in a near vacuum as it does here in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here we get heating by conduction, convection, and through radiation.

In space however, radiation is the only way available.
Why do the think so much stuff in space is white?

Because white reflects more heat carrying light than any other color.
....and the more light reflected, the less heat the thing inside the insulated white container will receive.

On Earth, there are molecules crowded tightly all around all objects, and they are transferring heat directly upon contact.

For example, one way a hot cup of coffee cools off is by the conduction of heat to the surrounding air.
If there were no air, wouldn't you expect your hot coffee to take a longer to cool down?


Why is that? It's because there is no air in contact with it to conduct the heat away. So it stays in the coffee longer and must rely on radiation to dissipate its heat.

Now think about in space where the number of molecules in a cubic meter of space can be counted on our fingers and toes.

Those few molecules may in fact be hotter than the boiling point at sea level, but there is very little time in contact with objects to transfer any of that heat.

I'm explaining it this way, as you seem to think that the high temps in space are exactly the same as that temperature would be inside your kitchen oven.

It is not.

 

[Joe King]

My position is that the moon landing was staged. Men did not walk on the moon. This has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

Then with all due respect, you are in the wrong thread.

This is the, "200 proofs the Earth is not a spinning ball.", thread.

 

[#48Fan]

Which is why it needed to be protected.

It was in the same environment as humans were in.

Also heat and cold doesn't work the same in a near vacuum as it does here in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here we get heating by conduction, convection, and through radiation.

In space however, radiation is the only way available.
Why do the think so much stuff in space is white?

Because white reflects more heat carrying light than any other color.
....and the more light reflected, the less heat the thing inside the insulated white container will receive.

On Earth, there are molecules crowded tightly all around all objects, and they are transferring heat directly upon contact.

For example, one way a hot cup of coffee cools off is by the conduction of heat to the surrounding air.
If there were no air, wouldn't you expect your hot coffee to take a longer to cool down?


Why is that? It's because there is no air in contact with it to conduct the heat away. So it stays in the coffee longer and must rely on radiation to dissipate its heat.

Now think about in space where the number of molecules in a cubic meter of space can be counted on our fingers and toes.

Those few molecules may in fact be hotter than the boiling point at sea level, but there is very little time in contact with objects to transfer any of that heat.

I'm explaining it this way, as you seem to think that the high temps in space are exactly the same as that temperature would be inside your kitchen oven.

It is not.

Dude. Where shall I begin? Maybe with my question. What happens to film in extreme cold? Everything you wrote here has nothing to do with my question. And, yes, I learned all of that in grade school.

And, again, I never stated space and my oven are the same. It's just an experiment we can all do here on earth. Now, if you have access to try some stuff in actual space, please let me know and I'll up the ante.

 

[newmisty]

The one where you posted this:

"Well then the real question for me is how long does it take to cook fish sticks on the surface of the Moon? Do they need a special tray or have to be flipped half way through or what? Plus would they be soggy or crispy? I'm sure number 48 knows."

Heaven forbid somebody try to have a sense of humor in such a train wreck of a thread.

 

[Juristic Person]

Then with all due respect, you are in the wrong thread.

This is the, "200 proofs the Earth is not a spinning ball.", thread.

Perhaps...but I am only responding to that which has been posted in here. This thread is 26 pages long. Somehow it got onto the topic of the moon landing....among other things.


You seem to be enjoying yourself in this one.

 

[Juristic Person]

Heaven forbid somebody try to have a sense of humor in such a train wreck of a thread.

By all means, have at it buddy. Glad you're enjoying with the entertainment and thread derailment. Just sayin...I'm no more off topic with my posts than you are.

 

[newmisty]

By all means, have at it buddy. Glad you're enjoying with the entertainment and thread derailment. Just sayin...I'm no more off topic with my posts than you are.

You sure are doing a lot of words stuffing in other's mouths. And you seem to be enjoying yourself too kiddo. So I guess everybody's a winner except for the flat tards. Now for fun why don't you reread the thread from the beginning and see which legitimate questions of truly not been answered and have fun while you do it!

 

[Voodoo]

They obviously did, as the tech also worked with film for spy satellites.

To say that no film can withstand being in space, is simply not true.

What spy satellites used film? Lol. Did it drop a package every week to get developed. I asked how they protected the film against high energy particles that would make it useless or highly degraded. You evaded the question with a flimsy misdirect.

 

[newmisty]

What spy satellites used film? Lol. Did it drop a package every week to get developed. I asked how they protected the film against high energy particles that would make it useless or highly degraded. You evaded the question with a flimsy misdirect.

Maybe that wasn't a satellite but was a Polaroid camera that somebody shot up into orbit.

 

[newmisty]

 

[newmisty]

 

[BarnacleBob]

MOON HOAX NOW

OFFICIAL SELECTION 29th US Super 8 Film & DV Festival (NJ FF Jury) 2017 OFFICIAL SELECTION - Philadelphia Independent Film Festival 2015 PIFF Film Forum Selection…

vimeo.com

 

[Joe King]

Dude. Where shall I begin? Maybe with my question. What happens to film in extreme cold? Everything you wrote here has nothing to do with my question. And, yes, I learned all of that in grade school.

The same that happens to people in extreme cold. By that, i mean that the astronauts were in the same vehicle with the film, ie: they suffered no ill effects from cold, so why would the film have?

And, again, I never stated space and my oven are the same. It's just an experiment we can all do here on earth. Now, if you have access to try some stuff in actual space, please let me know and I'll up the ante.

If you know the two are not the same, why even use it as the basis for an experiment?

As for access to space, you do have access to a vac chamber, no? They are sold online. Heat something up, put it in the chamber and compare the difference in the time it takes to cool off, as compared to when it is in the open atmosphere


.

Perhaps...but I am only responding to that which has been posted in here. This thread is 26 pages long. Somehow it got onto the topic of the moon landing....among other things.

No prob. Post away!

You seem to be enjoying yourself in this one.

As do you, my friend! lol

thread derailment

If ya gotta have one, those are the best type of derailments to have. If you don't believe me, just ask @Casey Jones

What spy satellites used film? Lol.

The original ones did.

Did it drop a package every week to get developed.

Yes, actually they did just that.
...and they had been working on film that would be more suited for use in a space environment for years prior to the Moon missions.

I asked how they protected the film against high energy particles that would make it useless or highly degraded. You evaded the question with a flimsy misdirect.

There was in fact damage to the film, but not enough to make it useless. There's been a lot of talk about all the pics they took having been "picture perfect".

They weren't. The ones released publicly were the best, and they were all touched up and and made to look better.

The issue with radiation in space is the same as here on Earth. ie: it all comes down to duration of exposure.

 

[Casey Jones]

If ya gotta have one, those are the best type of derailments to have. If you don't believe me, just ask

Yup. They can be spectacular.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/JYEEdjzlsb280/giphy.gif

 

[Joe King]

^^^^ sure don't wanna be on that train, if ya can help it!

 

[Joe King]

....and speakin' of derailments @Casey Jones , you ever do as your namesake and suffer an actual derailment while in charge of the train?

 

[Casey Jones]

....and speakin' of derailments @Casey Jones , you ever do as your namesake and suffer an actual derailment while in charge of the train?

Couple of times. Nothing dramatic...fact is, if the roadbed is properly maintained, derailments at speed are rare.

But...first time, I was training as an engineer. Finished, in fact; I was being ride-checked by the Road Foreman. We were going through a series of switches and S-curves outside Frontier Yard in Buffalo...the switches and layout were chaotic because the track was re-aligned to bypass Union Terminal, no longer in use and not owned by the railroad at that point.

I had a 120-car train of empty coal cars. Back about halfway back, a coal car "picked a switch" - wheel flange got in the point where the transition rail on a switch meets the rail. That transition rail is supposed to slip between the wheel flange and rail contact, but if the switch is damaged or out of adjustment, a wheel will pick it.

A derailment always follows, and that's what happened here. Eight miles an hour, and cars came off, and since it was on a curve, they stringlined before the air line came apart. Meaning, an even bigger mess because the air didn't immediately dump.

The other was when I was spotting a car on a stub track, and shoved back too hard...the whole car went off the end of the rails. Yup. That got me a month's suspension.

But nothing big or dramatic. I was lucky that way. No one wants to be the center of that kind of scene.

 

[newmisty]

Couple of times. Nothing dramatic...fact is, if the roadbed is properly maintained, derailments at speed are rare.

But...first time, I was training as an engineer. Finished, in fact; I was being ride-checked by the Road Foreman. We were going through a series of switches and S-curves outside Frontier Yard in Buffalo...the switches and layout were chaotic because the track was re-aligned to bypass Union Terminal, no longer in use and not owned by the railroad at that point.

I had a 120-car train of empty coal cars. Back about halfway back, a coal car "picked a switch" - wheel flange got in the point where the transition rail on a switch meets the rail. That transition rail is supposed to slip between the wheel flange and rail contact, but if the switch is damaged or out of adjustment, a wheel will pick it.

A derailment always follows, and that's what happened here. Eight miles an hour, and cars came off, and since it was on a curve, they stringlined before the air line came apart. Meaning, an even bigger mess because the air didn't immediately dump.

The other was when I was spotting a car on a stub track, and shoved back too hard...the whole car went off the end of the rails. Yup. That got me a month's suspension.

But nothing big or dramatic. I was lucky that way. No one wants to be the center of that kind of scene.

They are rare.
But....

I love it

 

[newmisty]

 

[Voodoo]

The same that happens to people in extreme cold. By that, i mean that the astronauts were in the same vehicle with the film, ie: they suffered no ill effects from cold, so why would the film have?



If you know the two are not the same, why even use it as the basis for an experiment?

As for access to space, you do have access to a vac chamber, no? They are sold online. Heat something up, put it in the chamber and compare the difference in the time it takes to cool off, as compared to when it is in the open atmosphere


.

No prob. Post away!


As do you, my friend! lol




If ya gotta have one, those are the best type of derailments to have. If you don't believe me, just ask @Casey Jones






The original ones did.


Yes, actually they did just that.
...and they had been working on film that would be more suited for use in a space environment for years prior to the Moon missions.

There was in fact damage to the film, but not enough to make it useless. There's been a lot of talk about all the pics they took having been "picture perfect".

They weren't. The ones released publicly were the best, and they were all touched up and and made to look better.

The issue with radiation in space is the same as here on Earth. ie: it all comes down to duration of exposure.

Come on man. I stopped after your first point. The astranauts ARE not exposed to the extreme cold. Hence the whole space suit thing. People die pretty quick at neg 40 let alone on the moon.

The radiation here on Earth is Not the same. We have this thing called a magnetic field protecting us.

 

[Joe King]

Come on man. I stopped after your first point. The astranauts ARE not exposed to the extreme cold. Hence the whole space suit thing. People die pretty quick at neg 40 let alone on the moon.

On the Moon, in full Sunlight, it was heat they mostly had to deal with, not cold.

Edited to add: if they were on the far side of the Moon for that long, then yes, cold would have been a problem.

The heat is a result of the light from the Sun hitting an object.
The more reflective an object's surface is, the more light (and therefore heat) will be reflected away. Ie: not absorbed by the object.

 

[newmisty]

Come on man. I stopped after your first point.

And here we were wondering where the difficulty in understanding was.

 

[Joe King]

The radiation here on Earth is Not the same. We have this thing called a magnetic field protecting us.

I didn't say it was the exact same amount. Just that exposure to it is dealt with in space the same way.
Everything is based on duration of exposure.

For example, flying through the VAB's is different than parking your space ship inside of them. Would you not agree? If so, what's the difference? Duration of exposure.

In other words, the length of time the flim was most subject to damage from radiation, was not sufficient to cause significant damage.

 

[newmisty]

I didn't say it was the exact same amount. Just that exposure to it is dealt with in space the same way.
Everything is based on duration of exposure.

For example, flying through the VAB's is different than parking your space ship inside of them. Would you not agree? If so, what's the difference? Duration of exposure.

In other words, the length of time the flim was most subject to damage from radiation, was not sufficient to cause significant damage.

 

[newmisty]

 

[newmisty]

 

[Casey Jones]

They are rare.
But....

I love it

Here ya go.

Chaos pr0n.

Provided by YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Videos are from onboard cameras, now standard on locomotives. Voice recordings, as well. I got out of the industry just in time...

 

[Joe King]

Here ya go.

Chaos pr0n.

Provided by YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Videos are from onboard cameras, now standard on locomotives. Voice recordings, as well. I got out of the industry just in time...

That's pretty funny. Not the derailment and train wreck, but that I was thinkin' about posting that exact video.


How does just one car pop off the tracks like that? Something maybe broke on that car? If it were a track problem, why wouldn't the engines and cars in front of it have come off too?

 

[Casey Jones]

That's pretty funny. Not the derailment and train wreck, but that I was thinkin' about posting that exact video.


How does just one car pop off the tracks like that? Something maybe broke on that car? If it were a track problem, why wouldn't the engines and cars in front of it have come off too?

According to our great, all-seeing government...the hopper that derailed, suffered a fracture in an axle. They assert as fact that there were microscopic fissures in the axle steel prior to failure.

Whether that's based on scientific analysis or The Science, I don't know. But the events are pretty plain. That loaded grain hopper went over the switch at Casselton interlocking, and the axle failed (switches are a rough ride) and it tipped over.

 

[EricTheCat]

I find it amusing that this thread went from a train wreck to getting derailed into a discussion about train derailments. Might it later evolve into a dumpster fire? Only time will tell.

 

[Casey Jones]

I find it amusing that this thread went from a train wreck to getting derailed into a discussion about train derailments. Might it later evolve into a dumpster fire? Only time will tell.

I'm here to please!

 

[newmisty]

I find it amusing that this thread went from a train wreck to getting derailed into a discussion about train derailments. Might it later evolve into a dumpster fire? Only time will tell.

And yet this entire time the Earth has been rotating while simultaneously revolving for all to see and witness firsthand.