TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Was the lunar landing fake?
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

This world needs a few more good professors for public understanding of science.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** With most history there is no way to really know - using evidence you can state facts = but facts can be contradictory.

that's bullshit and you're an idiot.

this thread is lol ffs. ******** lay off the drugs, time to grow up.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I'm not like that - If I didn't experience it then I can't say it did or didn't happen - and even what I experience I can only say what I experienced not what really happened.

So, you'd have to land on the moon yourself to accept that we really did make it there?

quote:

It is totally irrelevant to myself - if you don't beleive it do it. That is science right there repeat the experiment see if you get the same results. My lamen understanding there would still be some missing questions. For example can you inform me how they got past th van allen belt twice?

Easy...

The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[56], pp. 160�162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and a half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[67] However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.

Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax", Dr. Philip Plait, John Wiley & Sons, 2002. ISBN 0-471-40976-6. See esp. chapter 17.

W. David Woods, How Apollo Flew to the Moon, 2008, Springer, ISBN 978-0-387-71675-6, p. 109

See Ms. Irene Schneider on the November 20, 2005 episode of The Space Show

Patrick L. Barry. "Blinding Flashes". Science.nasa.gov. Retrieved on 2008-11-25.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** metals will actually make worse the effects of the belt.

Lol, stop trying to research on Wikipedia and talk about shit you don't even know about ********, the fact that you don't recognize the lunar landing ever happening makes me realize you have a neurological disorder & that* debating you would be like debating against a kid who has down syndrome or a blank wall.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** The social fact is undeniable the truth is not. I'd say if this were up to a jury in America it'd likely be seen as the truth, if it were up to a jury in Russia it may be circumspect. If it were up to me I'd say get the hell out of my courtroom you nut, I could care less, unless you cough up a few hundred million you ain't goin back any time soon.

The "social fact"? Did you just make that up?

quote:

bad answer the correct answer would be there was fiber and polyethyline shielding - metals will actually make worse the effects of the belt. Wrong again it was not on a the best trajectory, it was not on the worst trajectory though.

Great, another fake scientist in the house. You want to cite your sources or you just gonna keep making stuff up?

quote:

I have to say that part of the issue with how much rem is due to a lot of info online from various sources such as usenet: http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/sc...o/msg05469.html

USENET is not a source!

quote:

Frankly I'm not gonna spend my time researching this when I can learn about plants that I can munch on during my nature hikes.

Then please stop making ridiculous statements or take the time to do proper research before commenting PLEASE...

oh, and they had photoshop back then too right?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** go fuck yourself or yukii...

Ya ok.. You still a virgin?

quote:

I understand the issue but this isn't a moon landing thing, it is a I look at all things in life this way thing. I understand enough about physics to digest the pertinent facts. what ridiculous statements have I made?

Actually, you don't understand the issue or the physics. None of your statements were sourced or made sense, and you posted USENET as a citation. Are you kidding me?

You've made it pretty clear you are on the moon hoax side of the debate...

quote:

WIKI is relatively useful for information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fact http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/durkheim02.htm Although my own meaning basically is - something that a society beleives true - but needn't so be true or a fully informed and correct beleif - but one in which society holds as a truth. Some may say god is a social fact - others may say spirits or the existence of ra, or global warming is a social fact.. social facts are things that can be questioned and people have different opinions on. Some social facts may quickly be able to be defined within a provable context. eg. solids can be walked on.

There is a difference between social fact and SCIENTIFIC fact.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** go fuck yourself or yukii...

go fuck YOURSELF you disrespectful prick. you probably need it.

quote:

I understand the issue but this isn't a moon landing thing, it is a I look at all things in life this way thing.

no one gives a shit about how you choose to live/view your life. if you're intertwining a debate about the moon landing with how you choose to view things in life- then all your credibility has gone down the shitter.

quote:

I understand enough about physics to digest the pertinent facts.

no you don't, i really like physics and i enjoy reading about it but not even i can digest that much stuff- and i doubt a dumbass like you can tell me more than what i know..

quote:

Although my own meaning basically is - something that a society beleives true - but needn't so be true or a fully informed and correct beleif - but one in which society holds as a truth.

seriously, you sound like one of those people who believe they are one of those .5% of society that live 'differently' and see things that others don't and that don't follow the social norms or the 'crowd' and bla bla- don't believe everything you're told, i go against what's told on the news bc i know the truth.

--moon landing was fake.

give me a fucking break

yes, i am a relatively nice person but i get upset when people actually try to come up with an argument for such a stupid topic that they know nothing about past their knowledge from high school about physics--
so with that GED knowledge plus wikipedia you can now come up with a logical debate about the moon landing?

no, im not tag teaming with krypton. in fact, there's several things we don't agree on, but just because i get offended from a remark you made to him and i jump in the argument, that makes me look like an alt?

what my main point is, you only know so much about physics, yet you're making bold statements off of your beliefs which aren't backed up by much credibility, these things get me frustrated. that's all.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** As far as I am aware, yes. This always attracts females like flies.

...I'm sure all the ladies love you...

quote:

I took physics in highschool and independently studied a few topics of interest, so yah I do have a knowledge of the fundamentals of physics, how energy and atoms act, and about abstract concepts such as probability and quantum theory and quarks. Other things like string theory and spatial systems such as black holes, antimatter, blackbodies etc, cognative sciences, paranormal sciences, etc.. are all previous interest subjects for myself in the physics side of science.

Congratulations. Does that make you a NASA scientist?

quote:

desperate move. What wasn't correct, what didn't make sense to you. *yawn*

These statements makes plain you don't know what you're talking about...again, unsourced at that..

"bad answer the correct answer would be there was fiber and polyethyline shielding - metals will actually make worse the effects of the belt.

Wrong again it was not on a the best trajectory, it was not on the worst trajectory though."

quote:

I posted USENET as a reason why some confusion exists in the public mind. There is true information on USENET, I'm not saying all of it is verifiable, BUT that at times bodies such as usenets, forums or websites make claims the public takes as the truth, which goes back to the social fact issue. Much like the only a few people fully understand problem this is true for both sides and really does go to a source issue. I'm not trying to proove or disproove anything, I am mearly stating that I don't know, and that is what the real political issue is here is the concept of the social fact and its effect on public beleif, which will have social force. more so than what a select group of physisists think.

Again, USENET is not a source. Have you ever written an academic paper? USENET would not be an acceptable citation, nor wikipedia.

quote:

You've made it clear you havn't understood what I've been saying so are clearly speaking like a Jean Chretien with rhetorical nonsense - not the Jean did, he was apparently a funny man and recently received honours, but if you know anything about Jean he had the tendency to talk out of the side of his mouth. I get this impression you're taking off the gloves cause you are looking for a challenge, just be mindful that I'm not taking side A or side B I'm taking side C my own and that is, I don't know you can show me pictures or make claims but I see nothing in person - so your claims are insuffient to provide real evidence that isn't dependent on a secondary source - I work on primary sources not secondary or beyond to base my life on facts.

You're trying to make it seem like you haven't chosen a side, but from what you've been posting here, you clearly have chosen the pseudo-skeptical side.

quote:

scientific fact is a form of social fact. Science is NEVER truth - it is always theory -science does not proove things as true it prooves them as established - sociology as a soft science uses this same sort of system for establishing theories by creating interelations and repeatable events.

No sorry. A scientific fact is an objective, verifiable observation. For whatever strange reason, you limit yourself to solely to subjective speculation. There is a difference between objective and subjective observations. Please don't lump the two together.

quote:

I'd say that it is more intelligent to hold both as plausable but neither verifiable by primary investigation, and until that information becomes vital to have it as unverfiable.

English please..

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Personal questions were asked. personal responses given - so said debates with me tend to go this way from ground in which to make a point is devestated, my opponents resort to underhanded lies and personal attacks as is ever so common, this is just one example of krypton attacking the person rather than the facts, and you in tow.

I focus on your irrational logic; not surprised you interpret that as a personal attack.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** foul. First off I've probably been reading science since before you opted the left side of your mommies falopian tube. Second If only physists are allowed to comment on this - would the PhD's kindly start making comments? I am/was also a member of the Waterloo Space Society so there is the option of osmosis to awsomeness.

I believe your mother dropped you as an infant.

Waterloo Space Society -- that made me lol.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I'd say if this were up to a jury in America it'd likely be seen as the truth, if it were up to a jury in Russia it may be circumspect.

where do you get this drivel? facts are facts regardless of which courtroom you might hear them in, there are no cultural biases colouring the evidence. the very fact that the russians were keenly watching the americans land on the moon is something you clowns don't seem to appreciate.

i enjoy many of your weird posts but when you try to apply your alternative thinking methods to a subject like this one you just make yourself look like a cretin.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i enjoy many of your weird posts but when you try to apply your alternative thinking methods to a subject like this one you just make yourself look like a cretin.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Science is theory engineering is objective.

is it possible though that you can't have "objective" engineering without science? maybe even vice versa?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** what type of fucking question is that, do you work for NASA?

You took high school physics. Whoop dee fucking doo.

quote:

What have I said you don't beleive? Do your own fucking research if you doubt me.

Pretty much EVERYTHING. I did my own research, not using USENET...

quote:

Proove me wrong don't make me proove me right, I know what the fuck I'm talking about, and until new information is made available, the onus is on you to disproove me, likewise me to disproove your statements that I think are horseshit. Just saying nooo isn't disprooving anything it is just saying talk to the hand, I'm an ignorant fuckface.

I did prove you wrong, but then you pull this shit out..

"bad answer the correct answer would be there was fiber and polyethyline shielding - metals will actually make worse the effects of the belt. Wrong again it was not on a the best trajectory, it was not on the worst trajectory though."

and started talking about "social facts". Please read this and let it sink in...it means you're wrong on every count.

quote:

The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[56], pp. 160�162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and a half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[67] However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions. Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax", Dr. Philip Plait, John Wiley & Sons, 2002. ISBN 0-471-40976-6. See esp. chapter 17. W. David Woods, How Apollo Flew to the Moon, 2008, Springer, ISBN 978-0-387-71675-6, p. 109 See Ms. Irene Schneider on the November 20, 2005 episode of The Space Show Patrick L. Barry. "Blinding Flashes". Science.nasa.gov. Retrieved on 2008-11-25.

I'm not sure someone who thinks North Korea is a great place to live is really going to understand...:rollseyes:

quote:

If you read what I"ve posted and have basic knoweldge you should understand the really mean comsic ray and such particles will turn metal to a mound of death. There is a threshold of sheilding and heavier atoms are not better. Do I need to turn this into a physics lesson? Why not state why I am incorrect, how is that.

READ MY POST GOD DAMMIT. You clearly don't know jack shit about physics or the radiation belt.

quote:

Dude I wasn't making a citation - I was giving an example by referencing the existence of something. A source referance to a source I referenced is very much as valid as any other primary source reference you idiot. If I make a statement about your grocery list and source that it is very much valid, regardless of the contents of kgs of bacon in there.

No citations? Then please stop posting untrue statements as fact without a citation.

quote:

Sorry no. I havn't chosen side a or side b, there arn't always only two sides to a posit.

Yes you have chosen a side. Otherwise, you'd have stfu by now.

quote:

Science is theory engineering is objective.

FFS, another retarded sentence that makes no bloody sense. You took high school physics, but not english?

********, you're full of shit.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** As far as I am aware, yes. This always attracts females like flies.

i hope the woman you settle down with will love you a lot for who you are (i think she's the perfect one): http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...4&forumid=16&s=

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Scientists can have objectives, and these objectives can be met by experimentation - but research is not science, research uses science as a method - it is called the scientific method - it allows theories to be created based on evidence. So basically no you are grasping there is a line and science will always be theory, engineering will always be implementation of that theory. This does not mean science cannot be used to acheive an objective but science itself is not the objective.

you realize youre entire argument confuses the word "objective", right?

objectivity is the essence science. so if "engineering will always be implementation of that theory", then it is essentially an extention of that objectivity.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** lol I find it hilarious when discussions get down to aruguments over the "spirit of the word" and I can cite people but I have no fucking clue what they are saying. lol. Objective to me is when one sets out to do something. Regardless science is theory - godlike theory for most of the mondern world. but still theory, practical and accepted as fundamental truth. Fact is, it is theory dervived from testing - but the whole if it works then it works, close enough - the future is the same in the past and other undeniable truths. Fact is that is a metaphysical beleif, and not all cultures have held this to be true. None the less - you still fail to attack points. It is hard to have a discussion if you don't explain yourself well enough to be understood. Fact is, 1. 1 in 4 people in britain and russia (polled) don't beleive in the moon landing as real. 3 in 50 don't in the US. 2. Plastics such as polyurethane stopped high energy radiation - i.e. cosmic rays, and does so better than heavy metals. 3. Science is theory and fundamentally will be nothing more, even though true people see science as religion and absolute truth, rather than numbers worked out by physisists who ran many tests to calibrate algorythms to define timespace interactions. There is no real ceiling to science other than measurement - and there is even less of a cieling for reality itself. Practically of course this differs.

im srsly trying to understand you - are you saying science is incapable of empiricism?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** lol I find it hilarious when discussions get down to aruguments over the "spirit of the word" and I can cite people but I have no fucking clue what they are saying. lol. Objective to me is when one sets out to do something.

I guess that answers your question about him passing High School english. He IS Canadian though, so maybe he was in French immersion?

ANYway, I bolded the correct use of the word, as it pertains to this discussion, just to help you out with your ridiculous babbling ashley, give this a quick read and feel educated for a change.:

ob⋅jec⋅tive
  /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
Use objective in a Sentence
�noun
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Grammar.
a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.
b. a word in that case.
3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.
�adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Now put those shrooms down for a few days and let your brain recover.

Fuck.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** However I should caution this discussion is about the moon landing not about science.

the effort of putting a man on the moon, whether it was faked or not, represented at that time man's ultimate expression of experimental "theory" as you refer to it next to Einstein' theory of general relativity.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** You clearly are delusional.

this is the most ironic comment ive ever seen.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Empiricism is a dated word

"lol I find it hilarious when discussions get down to aruguments over the "spirit of the word" and I can cite people but I have no fucking clue what they are saying."

forget about it, dude

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.