Nasa Faked Moon Landing

The moon is tidally locked to the earth, true, but that doesn't mean the earth should always be "fixed' in the moon's sky

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already answered that question on this thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=948988

Please don't double post, Anomalous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually its more like quintuple posting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually it's " i ain't got any thing to do "

 

SO what are U up to ?

 

What several posters have been trying to get at is that, in one sense, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (because of virtual particles); in another sense there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (because of the odd molecule and atom 'floating' around); so, all in all, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Perhaps you could offer your definition of a perfect vacuum so we could proceed from there. [While you are at it could you remind us of how this relates to the purported faking of the moon landing (sic).]

 

Since when did the moon had a sky?...must be them folks from NASA exhausting gases from probe enough to create an atmosphere on moon...impressive...moon's got some gravity then

 

A sky is different from an atmosphere, dragon. The sky is the bit you see when you look from the surface of a planet, moon, or planetoid, that is not ground.

On snake river rufus's original point why would it not mean the Earth is always fixed in the sky, rufus?

 

correct me if i am wrong people
the earth would not remain fixed in the moons sky
it would move in a figure eight pattern

 

Well once again they have not found a perfect vacuum. Besides space is a very vast thing. How can you state that there is not a perfect vacuum? It's not possible to prove correct or incorrect at this given time. So while you try to prove me wrong with something that can't be proven right. I will simply say I am reffering to perfect vacuums.


I don't really know. Why don't you read through this and find out for yourself? It was a long time ago. but something to do with heat transfer for the film on the moon. Which I had already drawn back my statement long before any of this started. Simply because i discovered that they had been using a film canister to protect the film from the temperature. Regardless if it was being transfered or not.

 

Still waiting your definition of a perfect vacuum.
While you are at a definition of this 'they' you keep referring to might be helpful.

 

ricky
the moon landings are a reality, they happened

if you apply a little thought to the matter i think you will agree

 

Perfect vacuum - coimpletely void of matter or radiation.

Or from wikipedia.com

A vacuum is a volume of space that is empty of matter and radiation, including air, so that gaseous pressure is much less than standard atmospheric pressure. The root of the word vacuum is the Latin word vacuus (pl. vacua) which means "empty," but space can never be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept with no physical reality; see sections below on Vacuum in Space and The Quantum Mechanical Vacuum.

 

Beleive me Leopold99 I beleive they happened. I was only confused at the beggining of this how the film was able to survive at the temperatures of the moon. But I looked into it further and was even pointed out in here that it was held in a container.

Besides the only reason any of this was brought out was because of people like Ophiolite who think everything must be 100% stated. Then must argue it until they relize that there whole arguement was pointless then ridicule you for saying it.

 

Text deleted /srr

 

Ricky you are posting on a science forum. That, and the content of your posts, suggests you have an interest in science.
Now, science is a marvellous, awe inspiring field of human endeavour. The understanding that has emerged from science; the technology that has been impemented based upon science; the achievements that have been attained through science, have transformed the world we live in and the way we live in it.
These successes have been based, above all else, on the application of certain principles: the scientific method. Proper application of this method is appropriate whether one is a thirteen year old high school student, or director of research at CERN. One would expect it to be more rigorously and consistently applied in the latter case than the former, but it should be applied. And deviations from it should be pinpointed and corrected.
That is why people like Ophiolite will continue to nipick and castigate when we see examples of sloppy thinking or writing. You say I have ridiculed you - I rather think not, but if I have I apologise. I have certainly ridiculed the way you have gone about putting your argument forward. I trust you now understand more clearly the purpose of that ridicule.
You now have a few choices. You can ignore totally what I am saying, putting it down to the ramblings of a senile old fart; you can attempt to engage in a battle of words, in order to establish your prowess, or status, or macho credentials, or however you think of them; or, you could say, "actually the rude bastard actually has a point. Perhaps, I should try to be a little more definitive in what I write."

The choice is entirely yours, but rest assured if you continue without change then people like Ophiolite will continue to hound, not you, but the character of your posts.

Have a nice day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do you honestly think I don't know what science is?

Do you think I need to hear any of this from you?

Well according to you I must lack all knowledge. After all I'm only 17 and in my states top college with a major of physics. But hey I have no clue what science is. It's no big deal though. Thank you for your very strong and wise words of knowledge of what science is.

Do I really have to go about a scientific method when speaking about a perfect vacuum? I was simply trying to get a simple point across. But I suppose it no longer matters. I give up. I have grown tired of this. I don't even think I will be making posts here anymore. It's sad that you cannot make an error and it be acceptable. After all were human. I mean that alone should make us flawless. :bugeye:

 

You gave that impression.

You need to hear it from someone. It might as well be a remote, anonymous figure to whom you can take a dislike, while quietly being influenced by what they have said.

You aren't reading a ****ing thing I am writing, are you. Where have I stated you lacked all knowledge? I made a minor critique of your the way you presented your arguments, and you chose to turn it into a drama lesson.

Again, you apparently don't, or you would not be arguing the toss over a self evident point: structured argument is crucial. Precision is vital. If you cannot understand these oints and apply them, you are not going to graduate from your state's top college with a major in physics. You may wind up with a liberal arts degree.

Yes, you do, if you wish to be considered a scientist. And you weren't getting it across as effectively as you might. You seem to want to be mediocre. Strange choice.

So you are going to be driven off because a self professed grumpy old scoundrel gives you a hard time over the proper application of scientific principle. If you run away so readily you are going to get eaten alive in the real world.

First acknowledgement from you that you were perhaps in error. Thank you. Now that wasn't so difficult was it?

I trust you will stick around. Really, if you get driven away by a little heat, it does not auger wells for your future. But I do urge you to follow a structured pattern. If you get into that habit it will make your course work easier by an order of magnitude.

 

No, I didn't. You got that impression.

Influenced by what? I don't need your words of encouragement.

My perception from this is that you doubted i had any knowledge of what science is. Perhaps you should reread it yourself maybe you will notice it to.

Writing in a forums is different from being in a classroom. I felt no need to write every single detail. I assumed people could comprehend what I was saying. But obviously not.

It's not a choice. It's me being simple. I sometimes am lazy, while other times I am not.

Are you actually basing my personality off of a forum? I wonder how you could make such assumptions. Well regardles if the world eats me alive then you are right. But I doubt it. I have problems with dealing with people like you. So I simply walk away from what could turn into an issue.

I don't see how anything is difficult. Is it difficult for you to let things go? Do you have problems dropping things? I'm going to make a personal analysis of you. I think you may have some issues with making a single error. I think you want to be flawless. Then you want to correct other peoples flaws to make yourself seem more flawless. But I can't really say for sure can I?

I have very little problems in my coursework. I have an almost perfect GPA. I don't see how what your saying ven applies to me. I think your projecting your problems onto me. But I will say honestly I will no longer be responding to your posts. This has turned into a flame war. I see no point in making it worse. I have no real problem with you. I just prefer not to deal with problems you seem to always bring up.