Jump to content

Moon landings


peter
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

Not forgetting his shoe size 😂

 

 

 

 

 

You can verify his shoe size when you arrive as a space tourist on the moon. He left them on the surface. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-apollo-boots-idUSL1N2PH26C

 

You will also find his camera lying somewhere near the boots, along with a bunch of other stuff https://www.space.com/weird-stuff-apollo-astronauts-left-moon.html - - https://worldoftravelphotography.com/know-12-hasselblad-cameras-moon/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

You can verify his shoe size when you arrive as a space tourist on the moon. He left them on the surface. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-apollo-boots-idUSL1N2PH26C

 

You will also find his camera lying somewhere near the boots, along with a bunch of other stuff https://www.space.com/weird-stuff-apollo-astronauts-left-moon.html - - https://worldoftravelphotography.com/know-12-hasselblad-cameras-moon/

I'm curious here. How do you, personally, differentiate between stories and facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

You can verify his shoe size when you arrive as a space tourist on the moon.

 

I suppose there would be imprints from where the Apollo Junk 00 landed too😁 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:

I'm curious here. How do you, personally, differentiate between stories and facts?

 

Well, either I will look stupid when you guys go up there and find an empty Moon with no items on it as claimed, or you guys will look stupid when I go up there and find everything exactly where it should be. Won't be long now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DarianF said:

 

Well, either I will look stupid when you guys go up there and find an empty Moon with no items on it as claimed, or you guys will look stupid when I go up there and find everything exactly where it should be. Won't be long now.

I meant that more generally. How do you, personally, differentiate between stories and facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/13/2022 at 6:51 AM, endfreemasonscum said:

'm curious here. How do you, personally, differentiate between stories and facts?

The same could be asked about you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

@peter May I borrow your brain a second?

How can a vacuum negate what we call the weak force? Regardless of naming it gravity or anything else, how does that occur to you? 

If indeed the week force actually exists,it's sphere of influence is relegated to subatomic distances at the quantum level . The week force is also believed to be involved with radio active decay and the propagation of nuclear fission eg uranium 235( an isotope of uranium 238) has a critical mass of 110 lb, I can't be sure as I said it's been a while but I wouldn't expect a vacuum to negate the reaction once critical mass has been reached, therefore under those circumstances I don't think a vacuum would have any effect on the week force, weather there are other circumstances where it dose,I'm sorry I just don't know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, peter said:

If indeed the week force actually exists,it's sphere of influence is relegated to subatomic distances at the quantum level . The week force is also believed to be involved with radio active decay and the propagation of nuclear fission eg uranium 235( an isotope of uranium 238) has a critical mass of 110 lb, I can't be sure as I said it's been a while but I wouldn't expect a vacuum to negate the reaction once critical mass has been reached, therefore under those circumstances I don't think a vacuum would have any effect on the week force, weather there are other circumstances where it dose,I'm sorry I just don't know


I am slightly stumped myself. Appreciate the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

am slightly stumped myself. Appreciate the answer. 

 

 

 

I have been thinking about this question on and off for a good part of the day, I was trying to leave the house early this morning hence my answer was rather ambiguous.

First off we would have to understand the questioner's  perception of a vacuum.

1 are they talking about the vacuum of space

2 are they referring to the literal scientific term for a vacuum where every single  molecule and therefore all energy is removed from a container

3 As I said if the weak force does indeed exist ( quite frankly I'm just over 50% against) and  has it's influence relegated only to the quantum level with regards to distance, one could be referring to the space between sub atomic particles and the perceived vacuum that must be created

1 First the vacuum of space for all intents and purposes is not a vacuum therefore wouldn't have any influence on the week force

2 It is impossible to create a perfect vacuum that is void of all molecules and energy for two reasons as I see it, if you could remove all say the air molecules you would still have a certain amount of overlap if you will between the vacuum and the inner walls of the container and you would still have the container full with an infinite amount energy (information ) via the Planck density field,therefore the vacuum is not strictly a vacuum per say and so once again the weak force would undoubtedly not be affected

3 Once again we have the space full of infinite energy and the subatomic particles moving in and out of existence at a high frequency rate,therefore the strict idea of a vacuum is a mute point,so the conclusion  as to weather a vacuum negates the weak force if it does exist,would have to be no in my opinion 

 

One question ,if sub atomic particles are moving in and out of existence at a high frequency rate via the Planck Density Field that would mean that atoms are doing the same since they are made from sub atomic particles since we are made of atoms we must be doing the same thing ,so what are we when we don't exist and are all the particles in uniform or is there existence random .

I have asked this question a few times but no one seems to want to tackle it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, peter said:

 

 

 

I have been thinking about this question on and off for a good part of the day, I was trying to leave the house early this morning hence my answer was rather ambiguous.

First off we would have to understand the questioner's  perception of a vacuum.

1 are they talking about the vacuum of space

2 are they referring to the literal scientific term for a vacuum where every single  molecule and therefore all energy is removed from a container

3 As I said if the weak force does indeed exist ( quite frankly I'm just over 50% against) and  has it's influence relegated only to the quantum level with regards to distance, one could be referring to the space between sub atomic particles and the perceived vacuum that must be created

1 First the vacuum of space for all intents and purposes is not a vacuum therefore wouldn't have any influence on the week force

2 It is impossible to create a perfect vacuum that is void of all molecules and energy for two reasons as I see it, if you could remove all say the air molecules you would still have a certain amount of overlap if you will between the vacuum and the inner walls of the container and you would still have the container full with an infinite amount energy (information ) via the Planck density field,therefore the vacuum is not strictly a vacuum per say and so once again the weak force would undoubtedly not be affected

3 Once again we have the space full of infinite energy and the subatomic particles moving in and out of existence at a high frequency rate,therefore the strict idea of a vacuum is a mute point,so the conclusion  as to weather a vacuum negates the weak force if it does exist,would have to be no in my opinion 

 

One question ,if sub atomic particles are moving in and out of existence at a high frequency rate via the Planck Density Field that would mean that atoms are doing the same since they are made from sub atomic particles since we are made of atoms we must be doing the same thing ,so what are we when we don't exist and are all the particles in uniform or is there existence random .

I have asked this question a few times but no one seems to want to tackle it


I will think on your other points further.

"so what are we when we don't exist and are all the particles in uniform or is there existence random ."

I don't believe anything to be random, as the laws of nature Govern. Quantum would call it Quantum Field Theory and suggest it is waves of probability. So you can quite literally calculate where a subatomic particle will be, or will most likely be at any given time. Which raises the question, if its predictable then something is governing its movement or whereabouts which is or has been back engineered and I believe that is understanding field theory and wave propagation within that field. As attempting to understand matter in terms of matter doesn't seem to work, but understanding it as waves does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

I don't believe anything to be random,

No either do I

 

When I said random,I didn't explain myself very well,there are different types of sub atomic particles electron, proton, hadron,neutron, neutrino etc

I would expect all these to have their very own frequency rate ,charge and weight and all move in and out of  existence in respective unison with regards to which particular particle they are, or do all the different types of sub atomic particles move in and out of existence as a complete package so to speak

PS to my understanding you can't calculate the exact position of an electron, the best you can achieve is an educated approximation ,I'm not sure about the others though

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, peter said:

PS to my understanding you can't calculate the exact position of an electron, the best you can achieve is an educated approximation ,I'm not sure about the others though


Interestingly Tesla said there is no particle known as the electron, he described it as a singular unit of dielectric induction. When I first heard that I was a little confused but he was not the only great of electrical theory that said the same polarising thing. If a charge carrying particle is how we receive power how does wireless induction work where no particles are being exchanged? The charge is embedded within that carrier wave and it gets inducted to other like things in the case of the wireless charger.
 

35 minutes ago, peter said:

When I said random,I didn't explain myself very well,there are different types of sub atomic particles electron, proton, hadron,neutron, neutrino etc

I would expect all these to have their very own frequency rate ,charge and weight and all move in and out of  existence in respective unison with regards to which particular particle they are, or do all the different types of sub atomic particles move in and out of existence as a complete package so to speak


Everything has its own frequency as far as I am aware so not sure why subatomic particles would behave the same or in unison, but if they ride or appear on or in a sea of something then that can be calculated and predicted I guess? In that example, they wouldn't necessarily behave the same but they sure would be as predictable.

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

Interestingly Tesla said there is no particle known as the electron, he described it as a singular unit of dielectric induction. When I first heard that I was a little confused but he was not the only great of electrical theory that said the same polarising thing. If a charge carrying particle is how we receive power how does wireless induction work where no particles are being exchanged? The charge is embedded within that carrier wave and it gets inducted to other like things in the case of the wireless charger.
 

Personally I can't say weather an electron exists or it doesn't,however it has been known for a very long time that a collapsing magnetic field across a coil (usually copper with an iron core )  will cause an induced EMF and this is simply achieved with an AC supply on the primary coil, the output of the secondary coil is governed by the number of windings and the cross section of those windings and the distance between the coils eg either a step up or step down transformer , with regards to the charging of mobile phones and electric toothbrushes the principle is still the same but on a much smaller scale the secondary voltage it then run through a rectifier (usually a bridge type) to convert the voltage to DC and charge the battery

Given this fact I don't see the need for some sort of carrier wave or transfer of particles as the collapsing magnetic field from the primary winding is exciting the electrons in the secondary winding causing a potential difference and therefore electrons to flow. Think of it this way ,if you have a two liter plastic container of water and hit the side of the bottle with your hand, there is no direct contact between you  and the water but your hand certainly has had an effect.

 If indeed there is no such thing as an electron, that's got me buggered

 

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, peter said:

Personally I can't say weather an electron exists or it doesn't,however it has been known for a very long time that a collapsing magnetic field across a coil (usually copper with an iron core )  will cause an induced EMF and this is simply achieved with an AC supply on the primary coil, the output of the secondary coil is governed by the number of windings and the cross section of those windings and the distance between the coils eg either a step up or step down transformer , with regards to the charging of mobile phones and electric toothbrushes the principle is still the same but on a much smaller scale the secondary voltage it then run through a rectifier (usually a bridge type) to convert the voltage to DC and charge the battery

Given this fact I don't see the need for some sort of carrier wave or transfer of particles as the collapsing magnetic field from the primary winding is exciting the electrons in the secondary winding causing a potential difference and therefore electrons to flow. Think of it this way ,if you have a two liter plastic container of water and hit the side of the bottle with your hand, there is no direct contact between you  and the water but your hand certainly has had an effect.

 If indeed there is no such thing as an electron, that's got me buggered

 


Did you not just use different language to describe induction? Have a look in to JJ Thompson the discoverer of the electron, he describes it in a similar way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


Did you not just use different language to describe induction? Have a look in to JJ Thompson the discoverer of the electron, he describes it in a similar way. 

No that's just electrical theory 101

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

the output of the secondary coil is governed by the number of windings and the cross section of those windings and the distance between the coils eg either a step up or step down transformer


Transformers are everywhere. Many gaps exist along the network of cables in our power grid, the power we receive to our homes whether stepping up or down its still induction in multiple places along that path.

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, TheConsultant said:


Transformers are everywhere. Many gaps exist along the network of cables in our power grid, the power we receive to our homes whether stepping up or down its still induction in multiple places along that path.

Yes I would agree with that, however the use of induction through transformers  is costly with regards to power distribution and only the bare minimum is used, eg on a smaller scale the ballast (inductor) in a fluro light is not only part of the starting circuit it is also part of the run circuit, it produces a spike voltage to fire the tube it then acts like a resistor to lower the voltage to approx 110V from 240v to run the tube this is extremely inefficient and that is why you will see a capacitor across active and neutral for the sole purpose of power factor correction,which in turn reduces the cost of distribution.

Therefore the more induction you have in your electrical distribution the more apparent resistance and the more power needed to achieve the same outcome

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...