Who believes they landed on the moon? - Page 5 - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

Who believes they landed on the moon?


chenrp

Recommended Posts

If this is a ridiculous discussion then do not participate in it.

1. Yes, they know what shielding the spaceship has and say it requires a very wide shield of lead. And in any case, astronauts do not have a suit with such shields.

2.Myth Busters worked with a representative from NASA! Really proof ...

Astronomers died of accidents unrelated to their work! They died of a train accident and all sorts of mysterious accidents.

According to the traces they left, and according to the sand that the astronauts are flying, you can tell which route this area is and that it is supposed to be a pit. And there should be sand on the legs of the carrier and it should not be clean! that's for sure!

How should this show? There is 5 / 1 gravity and not half! You'll learn about it.

Everything you say is ridiculous and shows little knowledge of the subject.

Are you serious?! The computer is not the issue here at all. There was a report of why 500 pages You will not be able to do this even in 10 years! Processing power is not related at all. You have to do a lot of technological things to solve the problems.

aluminum?! Really does not protect against radiation there. Lead required.

The frequency and intensity of the radiation that exists in this area is really not stopped by aluminum.

I was not talking about processing power, I was talking about complexity!

Please explain to Didi the chatterbox why lead is what that "frequency" is and what its power is and why exactly it is not braked by aluminum (do not worry, I know the answer)

Just a pointer to stop fidgeting - the Van Allen belt has no "frequency" : kopfpatsch: It is not a wave but consists of particles

Link to content
Share on other sites

  • תגובות 142
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

aluminum?! Really does not protect against radiation there. Lead required.

The frequency and intensity of the radiation that exists in this area is really not stopped by aluminum.

aluminum. Yes.

Guess what? Every flight or launch beyond the LEO orbit exits the protected area, so satellites that are forced to pass through the Van Allen belt into their orbit are protected just like that - 3mm of aluminum. All the electronics there are sensitive to particle radiation and electromagnetic radiation, if this protection was not good enough then for communication satellites would not be applicable, but they are, so apparently this business works without shielding at a meter thickness of lead.

Link to content
Share on other sites

: kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch: : kopfpatsch:

Are you serious?!

Take a look at your computer that you use to run games. It's much more complicated and its cost is a few thousand shekels and it sits in your house!

Do not forget that it was 40 years ago ... the processing power of the entire spacecraft was something like today's simple pocket calculator. And yes, it's amazing and unbelievable to me that they managed to do it and come back.

Even doing it today is really not trivial for me.

Link to content
Share on other sites

aluminum. Yes.

Guess what? Every flight or launch beyond the LEO orbit exits the protected area, so satellites that are forced to pass through the Van Allen belt into their orbit are protected just like that - 3mm of aluminum. All the electronics there are sensitive to particle radiation and electromagnetic radiation, if this protection was not good enough then for communication satellites would not be applicable, but they are, so apparently this business works without shielding at a meter thickness of lead.

Too bad the effort is alive in the comics for him any kind of radiation makes it all a particularly long session of Stalker if you do not have a rubber-ore suit and 5 meters of fucking safe : kopfpatsch:

Do not forget that it was 40 years ago ... the processing power of the entire spacecraft was something like today's simple pocket calculator. And yes, it's amazing and unbelievable to me that they managed to do it and come back.

Even doing it today is really not trivial for me.

Do not forget that it was 40 years ago ... the processing power of the entire spacecraft was something like today's simple pocket calculator. And yes, it's amazing and unbelievable to me that they managed to do it and come back.

Even doing it today is really not trivial for me.

Not to mention processing power, very complex mathematical calculations were also before the electronic computer.

I talked about engineering complexity.

Link to content
Share on other sites

They were very lucky that the landing and takeoff were successful without any mishap.

Even today they do not dare to make this landing again. Too complicated, too expensive, and the awareness of the dangers too great. Just look at how big the hysteria has been around the whole show since the disaster with Ramon. [It turned out that in every look insulation tiles fall like flies]

Link to content
Share on other sites

Mr. Chenrp,

You're just a liar. Let's go back a minute to what you said was directly related to you:

"My lecturers of modern physics, nuclear, quantum ... at the Technion" - first mention that these subjects have nothing to do with the question of landing on the moon. Second, someone here corrected you and said that there are no such courses at the Technion because everything is incorporated in "Physics 3". You jumped up and said "I learned physics from 1, Physics from 2, Physics from 3" - only very unfortunate that there is no Technion course "physics from 3". There are 3, 3 and 3 in.

In short, you seem to be a pathological liar that the facts do not interest, and it's a pity people waste energy arguing with you.

A. You did not understand what I wrote at all.

B. I have not studied such courses at the Technion.

third. I have not taken courses with such a name at all! I just said I took courses where you learn this stuff!

D. I studied physics 3 m

God. I very much hope they will give you a warning / exclusion for the curses you give here in the forum.

and. The facts interest me very much. And it's a shame you're wasting my time. Not good for you so go then.

G.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Are you not the guy who wanted to rent an apartment in Be'er Sheva / Eilat with a few other friends and buy the furniture himself? (Who was 15 at the time if I'm not mistaken?)

And even if you did these "courses" (and I doubt it) it just shows that you did not take any knowledge out of them ...

All the nonsense you said about the radiation, the shadow, the ignorance and the fact that Armstrong's urine cannot be seen from Earth is supposed to come from someone with no physicist knowledge at all and not from someone like you (or whatever you claim to be)

Link to content
Share on other sites

Friend,

I did Physics 1m, Physics 2m, and Physics 3m. What is the connection?

I asked lecturers and heads of physics departments At the Technion And more.

::)

Nice that you have no problem lying about your sources to give them a second validity, instead of admitting that you take your information from conspiracy sites and YouTube videos.

Link to content
Share on other sites

A. Really unrelated to Be'er Sheva.

B. I asked the heads of departments of the Technion.

Girlfriend, stick to the main thing.

And I learned a lot from these courses.

ק ש ק שן

And now you're trying to divert the fact that you're caught lying.

EpicFail.jpg

a question,

If I buy a good telescope will I see a flag or a mirror on the moon?

You will need a lot of money for such a telescope.

But you have the Mitzpe Barkat which is in Modiin ALT they have a telescope strong enough to see the landing bases and the moon vehicles abandoned behind

Link to content
Share on other sites

^

indeed.

And that mirror (or rather, angular reflector) will not shine in the sun, so it will be very difficult to locate it. It's meant to return my signal , No glitter visible.

For people who ask -

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Everything is there, to this day :)

A bit about retarded conspiracy theories-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories

American Show - quoted from the link above)

Apollo 12 succeeded, on November 19, 1969, in making a pin-point landing, within walking distance (less than 200 meters) of the Surveyor 3 probe, which had landed on the Moon in April 1967.

Server 3, for those who are wondering what it is-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

And as for "the astronauts who died in these and other strange accidents" - most of them were killed by the launch in fires and / or explosions as a result of these and other birth pangs of space vehicles, not in some mysterious accidents.

It amazes me how conspirators are unable to present a single argument that is backed up in a way that cannot be refuted in 3 seconds.

It is indeed a complex process, so they succeeded in actually landing on the moon only after 11 missions in which each stage advanced another stage, but the conspirators face a more complex problem that they do not bother to address, for some reason-

1- Prove that all the photographs of the Earth casting Saturn V are fakes.

2- People got into the missile, the missile was launched, and those people came back alive. Where have they been all along in the middle?

3- A claim that Apollo 11 landing is a lie is basically a claim that all subsequent missions are a lie, including the drama that took place on Apollo 13. For some reason conspiracy theories choose to ignore this.

chenrp-

As for the mythbusters, they conducted 6 different demonstrations / experiments, and only in one of them did they enlist the help of a NASA representative, because there is nothing to do, a safe and operational large-volume vacuum chamber is a little beyond their construction capability (and the safety clearances they can get, even Lexan shields as they use them there will not really help in case of failure)

Link to content
Share on other sites

ק ש ק שן

And now you're trying to divert the fact that you're caught lying.

Hear a man,

I have already explained to you. Some of my lecturers are lecturers at the Technion and heads of departments at the Technion.

You act like a little kid. Too bad there are no managers to throw you out of here.

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site