Space suits... the "nail" in the coffin?

[Aldebaran]

We were pretty clever in that we put the heaviest part of the lander in a separate module which would vastly decrease return ascent thrust requirements. Once you take off, you don't need the landing gear, scientific equipment, heavy batteries, descent motor, fuel tanks for the descent motor, etc. All you need is the crew, some rocks, and enough fuel to get you back to the CM.

That's right. Not to mention that all the fuel that was needed to get the Saturn V off the earth was no longer there to weigh it down. When it lifted it off from earth, it had it's own fuel, along with the lander and its fuel to lift from earth's gravity. When the lander lifted off from the moon, there was no Saturn V rocket and it's fuel to lift, no lunar rover to bring back, and the orbiter was already in lunar orbit, along with one of the astronauts who remained on it--none of which weighed down the lander when it lifted off from the moon which has only a fraction of the gravity of earth.

But be prepared to have to repeat all of this soon. Maybe we should create an archive so we can file all of the answers to the FE assertions so we don't have to do so much typing. Just copy/paste.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm tired of doing this over and over again, but I'll give you two.

I'm tired of arguing with people who refuse to understand that there are issues that I have with the FE.

I am not going to argue these points, for the FE crowd.

Having said that..... it does not change the fact that we can see too far. Period.
Also, from a biblical standpoint.... it describes a model different than the globe.
There are pictures, many of them, from high altitudes, that show no curve.

We can argue all day about issues such as how the stars look and move. We can argue about the fact that you can see objects on large bodies of water that should be hidden.
Fact is..... something is not right with what they are telling us.

And NASA has zero to do with any of these failures. Reality, on the other hand, disagrees vehemently with the Flearth Model.

All my posts about the ridiculousness of NASA is for one reason and one reason only... NASA is not worthy of any trust... all it's information is void. It's a hoax in itself.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes I do. What doesn't add up is your comparison. You're comparing the mass of an earth-escape system in earth gravity with the LEM in lunar gravity. It's the same as saying that a since a Ford Model T can't go faster than 45 mph or so, that a Corvette cannot possibly get a speeding ticket on the highway for doing over 65mph.

The LEM would never be able to land safely in 1G, nor would the ascent stage be able to take off again. And it didn't need to, because it was a LUNAR excursion module.

If the discrepancy in the two gravitys... 1G and 1/6G was that great... they should have been able to jump off the moon. However, it is 1/6th not 1/1000th... and that lunar lander would have needed something more to slow it down on landing and something more to propel it off the moon.
I mean really, a rocket 1/6th the size of the Saturn V would still have been huge. And don't go with that old adage that the Saturn V was mostly fuel... true as it is... it would, then, conclude that the lunar lander would still need it's proportional size and weight in fuel... which, along with the rocket engines themselves... are non existent.

 

[JacksBratt]

Vacuum has no temperature.

True, however, any object, even a thermometer would have mass and thus heat up to the temperature indicated. Tricky of you though.

Vacuum has no temperature. Objects irradiated by the sun in vacuum will have a temperature. But if the object is shadowed from the sun, it will have only its internal temperature--in shade, protected from the radiation of the sun, it will not gain a single degree.

True.. however the astronauts and the lunar lander did not spend all their time in the shade. Anything in the sunlight would heat up and, in a vacuum, lose this energy much slower than in our air...

The astronauts were "shaded"--protected by cladding that reflected 90% of heating radiation--which meant the cladding itself only heated very, very slowly. Moreover, there was space--vacuum--between the cladding and the environmental suits. The environmental suits were effectively shaded.

So, if I put this material on, in 100 degree weather.... I won't heat up? Being in the sunlight on the moon would be like standing in front of a torch.. a couple of mm of material is not going to help.

I've already explained how the environmental suits "kept their cool."

You gave your view...

You realize that they had a solar gravity of only 1/16th earth's gravity to deal with, right?

I believe it is 1/6th. not 1/16th.

 

[majj27]

If the discrepancy in the two gravitys... 1G and 1/6G was that great... they should have been able to jump off the moon. However, it is 1/6th not 1/1000th... and that lunar lander would have needed something more to slow it down on landing and something more to propel it off the moon.
I mean really, a rocket 1/6th the size of the Saturn V would still have been huge. And don't go with that old adage that the Saturn V was mostly fuel... true as it is... it would, then, conclude that the lunar lander would still need it's proportional size and weight in fuel... which, along with the rocket engines themselves... are non existent.

You really need to look more closely at what you are saying.

The Saturn V was a launch vehicle designed to take it's entire weight and launch the CM/LM out of orbit and to the moon.

The LM descent engine was designed to slow down the descent of a small craft. The LM ascent engine was designed to launch an EVEN SMALLER craft to orbital altitude. Neither of them were designed to escape the gravity well of the moon.

It's like you are determined not to listen.

 

[majj27]

I'm tired of arguing with people who refuse to understand that there are issues that I have with the FE.

I am not going to argue these points, for the FE crowd.

You ask for more information, then complain how tireseome it is to be given information? What exactly DO you want?

All my posts about the ridiculousness of NASA is for one reason and one reason only... NASA is not worthy of any trust... all it's information is void. It's a hoax in itself.

PRATT and unsupported.

 

[Zoii]

Here is another concept that raised a question for me. Not for FE but for the agency that is supplying you with most of your proof for the globe.

I am enjoying the research of the people on the net, in regards to the Space agency of NASA, it's purported accomplishments, it's integrity and the way it is an integral card in the concept of the FE and the rabbit hole this takes us down.

Check this out and tell me what you think...

I watched the video - sigh - that pile of rubbish just sucked up two minutes of my life I won't get back. never underestimate how brainless some youtubes can be.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I'm tired of arguing with people who refuse to understand that there are issues that I have with the FE.

These people don't understand logic.

"You can't see the sun at night, therefore the Earth is a ball". Uhhh. You can see a lighthouse from beyond where you could if the Earth were a ball, so therefore its flat? If they understood logic, they would understand we obviously don't have the full picture on the subject, rather than taking the easy choice of siding with the liars at NASA.

 

[majj27]

These people don't understand logic.

"You can't see the sun at night, therefore the Earth is a ball". Uhhh. You can see a lighthouse from beyond where you could if the Earth were a ball, so therefore its flat? If they understood logic, they would understand we obviously don't have the full picture on the subject, rather than taking the easy choice of siding with the liars at NASA.

Well, given that we can't see the sun at night, where is it, then?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Well, given that we can't see the sun at night, where is it, then?

The same place as the Earth's curve in front of the lighthouse.

 

[majj27]

The same place as the Earth's curve in front of the lighthouse.

Explain, please.

When the sun is no longer visible from my house, where is it? Why can I not see it? It should by necessity be above the horizon if it is in a circular orbit above a flat plane.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, given that we can't see the sun at night, where is it, then?

Sorry to laugh.. but your answer explains a lot.

Try this... Go outside at night and hold a flashlight pointing straight down at your sidewalk...about a foot high.

Notice the circle of light where the flashlight illuminates the ground.

Now, keep the light at the same height and walk along the side walk.

Notice how the area of the illuminated sidewalk from before, goes dark as the light moves away, and other areas on the sidewalk are now illuminated.

 

[JacksBratt]

The idea of the sun being much closer, as is portrayed in the FE model, confuses some when they are trying to wrap their head around the concept.

Now, as a phenomenon that would perk my ears as to this concept being at least worth investigating, is the fact of corpuscular rays.

You have seen this. Many pictures display it.
The sun shining down through a layer of clouds. It's rays then splay out in a, pyramid like, array of beams.

How is this possible if the sun is 95,000,000 miles away. If that were the case, the rays of light should all be parallel. straight down, like columns, through the holes in the clouds. Not splayed out like they are which would indicate that the source of light is much closer.

This is easily tested with a pie plate with holes in it, held over some smoke air. Hold a flashlight way above and the beams of light through the holes will be parallel ( or close to it ) and straight down.
Move the light very close to the pie plate and the beams of light will splay out like you witness in the awesome display of sunlight on those special days.

 

[majj27]

Sorry to laugh.. but your answer explains a lot.

Try this... Go outside at night and hold a flashlight pointing straight down at your sidewalk...about a foot high.

Notice the circle of light where the flashlight illuminates the ground.

Now, keep the light at the same height and walk along the side walk.

Notice how the area of the illuminated sidewalk from before, goes dark as the light moves away, and other areas on the sidewalk are now illuminated.

PRATT. Also, note how if an object is not in the directly illuminated circle of the direct beam, AN OBSERVER AT THAT POINT CAN STILL SEE THE FLASHLIGHT.

Try this... go outside at night with a friend, and have them face you and shine a flashlight at the ground, say, a few feet to your right.

Is the flashlight MAGICALLY NOT THERE ANYMORE?

The entire idea fails the How Reality Works check. Flat Earth = disproven.

 

[majj27]

The idea of the sun being much closer, as is portrayed in the FE model, confuses some when they are trying to wrap their head around the concept.

Now, as a phenomenon that would perk my ears as to this concept being at least worth investigating, is the fact of corpuscular rays.

You have seen this. Many pictures display it.
The sun shining down through a layer of clouds. It's rays then splay out in a, pyramid like, array of beams.

How is this possible if the sun is 95,000,000 miles away. If that were the case, the rays of light should all be parallel. straight down, like columns, through the holes in the clouds. Not splayed out like they are which would indicate that the source of light is much closer.

This is PRATT. Your observational point is not the size of the entire earth.

(For not being a Flat Earther, you spend an awful lot of time arguing for a Flat Earth).

 

[RDKirk]

True.. however the astronauts and the lunar lander did not spend all their time in the shade. Anything in the sunlight would heat up and, in a vacuum, lose this energy much slower than in our air...

Yes, they did stay in shade. The cladding--which stands off from the environment suit--provides the shade like carrying a parasol. And it provides better shade in a vacuum than it would in air because there is no conductive material (air) between the two surfaces.

So, if I put this material on, in 100 degree weather.... I won't heat up? Being in the sunlight on the moon would be like standing in front of a torch.. a couple of mm of material is not going to help.

Have you ever welded or soldered? It's not very hot beside the torch flame--heating by radiation. Put a reflective layer around the flame and there would be practically no heating to the side. Remove the air and there would be no heating at all.

The cladding reflects 90% of radiation, which means it absorbs and is heated by 10%, but practically 0% actually penetrated to heat the astronaut's environment suit, and the astronaut's environment suit is protected from the slightly heated cladding by vacuum between them.

The astronauts were effectively in a reflective Thermos bottle.

 

[Aldebaran]

How is this possible if the sun is 95,000,000 miles away. If that were the case, the rays of light should all be parallel. straight down, like columns, through the holes in the clouds. Not splayed out like they are which would indicate that the source of light is much closer.

Evidence of the curvature of the atmosphere around the earth. The sun's light enters the atmosphere from about 100 miles above the earth where the sun's light is then scattered the way you describe.

However, I understand you will simply ignore this answer only to ask the same question at a later time.

 

[majj27]

Oh, and if anyone ever asks why scientists don't debate conspiracy theorists, this thread shows you why: it's a massive waste of time.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evidence of the curvature of the atmosphere around the earth. The sun's light enters the atmosphere from about 100 miles above the earth where the sun's light is then scattered the way you describe.

However, I understand you will simply ignore this answer only to ask the same question at a later time.

So, the sun behaves like it is only 100 miles up? Why not 200? or 300? or 3000? You must see that your "splaining" is just making you agree with one of the concepts of the FE which is their concept of the sun being very close to the earth.

You're not saying "the sun is close" you're saying " it seems like the sun is close, but it's not"

Instead of just saying "well, I never thought of that. It does seem odd that the sun would behave like it is close to the earth while it is 95,000,00 miles away."

Anyway, you and I don't see eye to eye on these things. Probably never will.

 

[JacksBratt]

Oh, and if anyone ever asks why scientists don't debate conspiracy theorists, this thread shows you why: it's a massive waste of time.

They label anyone who has concepts that contradict theirs as "conspiracy theorists". Then they condescend them as "tinfoil hatters" and "uneducated" or "crackpots".

This is all done to deflect the fact that any scientist, worth their salt and all the letters after their name, should be firm and ready to defend their numbers and views to any other concept, numbers and views.

Dismissing them as crazy conspiracy theorists... IMO... is, like the guy says... a cowardly response and shows lack of confidence in their own dogma.