Proof enough for me they landed on the moon - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 07:50:25 am
content: No mention of Apollo 11 surprisingly enough, but here the Russian news agency TASS acknowledges Apollo 17 going to the moon. If anyone wanted to discredit the moon landings it would be the Russians because they were beaten to the punch, but as far as they are concerned it was a fact.https://tass.com/science/979611

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 08:26:18 am
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experimentThe lunar missions that placed the various reflector arrays flew. Any well equipped observatory can confirm the presence of the reflectors at the lunar landing sites of the missions that carried them.

author: Yellofriend
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 09:18:22 am
content: Just wondering, why would that question even come up here, in a forum with mainly technical oriented people? I know this topic is hotly discussed in the flat earth, 911 truth, anti-vax communities, where it fits perfectly.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 09:23:31 am
content: QuoteWell, you get all kinds. The guy who invented the Magnetic Resonance Scanning Machine was a young earth creationist (people who believe that the Earth is ~6000 years old). Being good at one area of science/engineering does not necessarily mean being good at all sciences. I freely admit that my knowledge of lots of other areas is very limited or even close to non-existent.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 11:56:04 am
content: Quote from: Yellofriend on July 19, 2019, 09:18:22 amWhy indeed. Most bizarre of all are those who think being technically minded makes a difference. Flat-Earthers and lunar landing skeptics are best ignored. Their beliefs only become relevant when they have someone to argue with.All the emoticons fromBanging Headonwards are there to deal withtechnical people.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 12:05:40 pm
content: If the Moon landing discussions were about proof it wouldn't be discussions in the first place.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 12:39:40 pm
content: Part of my reason for posting is not to argue back and forth about it here, but to provide a line of reasoning that can be presented to someone that doesn't believe it happened. Whether they are a reasonable person of course is entirely another matter.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 12:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on July 19, 2019, 12:39:40 pmYou are attempting to reason with the unreasonable?There is no question of their unreasonableness; the sheer fact that anyone would deny historical facts is proof enough. Flat Earth, Moon Landings, Holocausts... It's all the same psychology, to increasing degrees of malevolence.When I grew up on the Internet, I learned to ignore trolls. I hope that I can pass along that as a suggestion to readers here. It issorelyneeded advice, on the modern internet.Tim

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 12:56:01 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on July 19, 2019, 12:39:40 pmAgain, if it were a matter of reasoning it wouldn't be a person not believing it happened.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 01:45:55 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on July 19, 2019, 07:50:25 amThe russians were very clearly winning the space race, until the moment their Von Braun died (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev) in January 1966. Everybody knows who would have won if Korolev had not had an untimely death.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 04:38:42 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 19, 2019, 01:45:55 pmWell, they were still doing good in the race after that. Maybe they didn't win the moon race, but MIR was the first space station. And Russia is still an important partner in space collaborations such as the ISS.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 04:52:24 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 19, 2019, 04:38:42 pmRussia can fly its own people to space. It's not a race if you don't show up.

author: guenthert
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 05:14:24 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 19, 2019, 04:38:42 pmNot by a long shot. That would have been the Soviet's Salyut in the early seventies. And then there was unlucky US Skylab in between.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 10:02:38 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on July 19, 2019, 07:50:25 amBecause Russians too are on that conspiracyIf they wanted to discredit America, they would start with stating the obvious: Earth is flat and all space missions are fakes made for cold war propaganda and brainwashing.But then they would discredit themselves, for it was actually them who came up with that idea of "space flights" first.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 10:17:54 pm
content: The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter can actually image the landing sites to enough resolution that you can see the Apollo hardware.Of course, the idiots can just claim the LRO photos are fakes too.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 11:09:12 pm
content: Quote from: guenthert on July 19, 2019, 05:14:24 pmI consider MIR the first really successful and long-lived station, but fair enough for the Salyut project. That gives additional weight to the point I was making, which was that they were still NOT really losing the space race at all in my opinion during AND after US' Apollo missions. They were just pursuing different goals.We could even say that not following through to get men on the moon allowed them to focus their time, energy and budget on projects that proved more pragmatic and were actually preparing the future of manned space missions for decades to come.Just a thought to elaborate a bit on GeorgeOfTheJungle's remark. For sure the USSR lost, but not necessarily the "space race" per se IMO. Not that it really matters.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 12:10:42 am
content: Apollo 15 to 17 all seem to have parked the rover/buggy 100+ meters away, seems quite a walk back after a hard day collecting rocks.19 hours to the first landing's 50th.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 03:50:52 am
content: If they wanted the instruments on theLRVto survive undamaged they had to finally (before takeoff) park it out of the ascent stage's rocket blast. There was also a need for distance to get a good view of takeoff for the videocam. I'd bet they parked it a *LOT* closer all the other times they returned to the LM.

author: @rt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 01:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: Ian.M on July 19, 2019, 08:26:18 amA French made retroreflector was placed on the moon by an unmanned craft.I’m a believer, but don’t see how the corner reflectors are relevant.

author: @rt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 01:17:00 pm
content: Same with the images. You didn’t take them yourself. That’s the argument I’d expect.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 01:50:52 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on July 19, 2019, 08:10:34 amActually, manyarestupid enough to do just that.I have a distant cousin of my age that I see maybe once a year. He has a Russian wife, and his step mother worked with a certain V. Putin for quite a while. Clearly the wife and step mother are not stupid in the conventional sense.Both the wife and step mother are adamant that the US could not have landed on the moon, and Apollo 11 is no more than propaganda. I doubt they are alone.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 03:26:18 pm
content: The only stupid people at this point are those who in 2019 still think that there will ever be a global consensus on anything, that education can be imposed on unwashed masses and make them think like you do or that truth will ever be valued above politics. The contrary is actually the case, you can think about pursuing the truth when you have politics sorted out and people are getting really bored with nothing better to argue about than the circumference of an electron or whatever.

author: guenthert
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 05:10:36 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 20, 2019, 01:50:52 pmI'm curious about the reasons why they would think that. Undoubtedly the US had developed nuclear weapons more than twenty years earlier. And considering the critical timing, such a bomb is quite an engineering feat (regardless of what else one might think of them). With hindsight even borderline unbelievable that such could be realized in the forties (have you seen oscilloscopes of the forties?). Surely the Apollo program was an immense undertaking with a staggering budget, but so was the Manhattan project.Do they doubt the scientific, engineering or logistics capabilities of the US (at that time)? Or is it just purely brainwashed minds -- the Soviets didn't go there, so it must be impossible?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 05:28:28 pm
content: Quote from: guenthert on July 20, 2019, 05:10:36 pmI haven't met them, and haven't potentially spoiled family gatherings by asking - so I don't know the reason.My guess would be a mixture of raw propaganda plus it being in their personal interest to disbelieve it.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 05:35:03 pm
content: I think people need to look at some old precision mechanical and hydraulic components and actually think alot about how more knowledge can change these parts.Once you hold a high tolerance gas fitting or something you really start to think 'how the fuck can this be improved'. It's hard because these components are pretty perfect by all standards.and they need to build some control systems to see that all you get with modern electronics is a smaller brain and switchesI honestly think this has to do with the fact that the external engineering is almost 'artful' but in reality the interior just relies on having stiffness and center of mass to function properly (for a rocket), there is a serious incongruency when you look at the pumps/tanks/feedlines of a rocket vs the 'prefection' of something like a turbine rotor or rocket body. I think people think that it ALL has to look like that for the device to function.like in mechanical engineering recently i think there is a trend because of 3d printers to have fitted parts which make internal mechanisms 'beautiful but not necessarily more functional (in some cases they can take a severe shock load better I suppose).organs are not pretty. It really stands out for me when I look at rocket body cutaways. I think that's why there is so much contention about space. You think 'no fucking way' because its not symmetrical enough compared to the exterior. Kind of like how people hate antennas because they stick out of objects and they go to extreme lengths to hide them. I wonder if people that are more 'industrial' are more believing of the space programs efforts for this reason (i.e. something with a wire service loopBUT THERE IS 12 NANOHENRIES OF EXTRA INDUCTANCE ON A RELAY WITH 12 mH impedance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 05:39:08 pm
content: The following link is my current favorite reply to the fake moon landing folks.https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2486935711371000&set=a.575852629145994&type=3&eid=ARD5DrS1fQ7ExRWl_fj5bF7dfl7ZAvAp7xcv5ayIsoAlIQDkfloORqYS_siuFvZsDY970Zy8rytTYL1l

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 07:41:49 pm
content: Quote from: guenthert on July 20, 2019, 05:10:36 pmNeither.Nobody knows how much effort actually goes into designing a working nuclear weapon or how it relates to building a Saturn V.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 11:09:41 pm
content: In a rocket engine how do they keep liquid fuel flowing from the tanks and not just vapour when g is not in the best direction?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 11:12:06 pm
content: I did my own original research and found new proof:

author: Dundarave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2019, 11:29:26 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 20, 2019, 11:09:41 pmGoogle “Ullage Motor”...

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2019, 12:06:49 am
content: they should have taken a shit on the moon so in the future they can look at the DNA in the turd and prove it was buzz

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2019, 01:22:15 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on July 21, 2019, 12:06:49 amhttps://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/nasa-buzz-aldrin-moon-faeces-a8853406.html

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2019, 09:16:09 am
content: Does anyone know what brand of dunny paper they used,how many ply, white or patterned etcMust be good stuff, and prestigious to have in the can, especially when snob guests pop in for a visit and sneer

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2019, 07:51:36 pm
content: Saw a good one on FaceBook the other day:The moon landings were faked. By Stanley Kubrick. Who was such a perfectionists, he insisted it be filmed on location.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2019, 08:42:35 pm
content: It is a real homage to Stanley Kubrick, the director of photography Geoffrey Unsworth and special effects director Douglas Trumbull, that the film was and still remains so visually convincing.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2019, 08:47:54 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on July 22, 2019, 08:42:35 pm... and all therealexperts they consulted.

author: Yellofriend
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 02:12:57 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on July 20, 2019, 05:35:03 pmYeah, but the problem is that many look at screwed sources that question original material, but then people don't question 'hoaxevidence'. The conspiracy theorists come up with the same old things again, again and again. But if it was fake, you just need one single evidence.Anyway, if people come up with that BS, this is a good debunking the debunkers source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 03:42:39 am
content: Quote from: @rt on July 20, 2019, 01:15:43 pmIf you hit a bathroom mirror with a laser pointer, besides need to find the mirror and hit it, you also need to find where the reflected dot is to catch the reflection. Imagine the mirror being 1/4 million mile away and it is moving and changing its orientation continuously (orbiting)...The "corner reflectors" doesn't mean they sit in the corner. "Corner reflectors" (aka retro-reflector arrays) are important because the reflection come back in the same direction as the source.Regardless of the angle you hit the mirror array at, the reflection come back to you. In physics jargon, taking the array as a unit, the angle of incident (angle of arriving light beam to array surface) will always equal to the the angle of reflection (angle of reflected light beam leaving the array surface).Initially, onlyone of the fivemirrors was a corner mirror.Two corner mirrors were addedlater, one by Apollo 14 and one by Apollo 15. TheRussians actually placed not ONE but TWOFrench made corner mirrors.I once said "anyone with a laser can do it" and Dave (of EEVBlog) gave me a hard time. He was right, not anyone can do it. I was merely assuming that high skill requirement of "anyone" would be inferred by readers, but hitting one those mirrors is very hard but with the right equipment and patience...The mirror part was actually thelongest lasting part of the Apollo programwas on-going until 2009-ish at U of Texas Austin McDonald Observatory where they regularly and on schedule measure the distance to the moon. They have experience, they know well where the mirrors are, and it typically took themabout 4 hours to locatethe mirror. (Sorry, no reference/link for that. I saw it on a documentary long ago and I can't recall the name of the show if my life depended on it...)Just finding the mirror takes about 4 hours. If you have to hit it at a particular angle and/or finding the reflected dot would be very very very difficult. So the corner reflector makes measurement a bit more practical.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 03:49:58 am
content: Has any amateur successfully bounced a laser beam off one of the reflectors on the moon? (I know many have managed to bounce radio waves off the moon itself.)

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 06:24:49 am
content: They do that in an episode of The Big Bang Theory.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 12:06:22 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 23, 2019, 06:24:49 amIs that proof enough they landed on the moon then?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 12:12:20 pm
content: Sure!

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 12:54:59 pm
content: The mirror I saw them placing on the moon in a recent TV moon program was about 50cm by 35cm and an array of about 12 by 9 mirrors. Imagine how accurate the angles must be, how did they test them.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 11:23:13 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 23, 2019, 12:54:59 pmHow much would the beam have spread out by the time it reached the moon? The more it spread out the less accurate the aiming would need to be, but of course the weaker the beam intensity would be as a result.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 12:16:58 am
content: Quote from: guenthert on July 20, 2019, 05:10:36 pmIt's like any conspiracy theory, it's a religious belief of sorts. I don't mean religious in the supernatural sense, but in that it's a deeply rooted and purely emotional belief not based on any sort of logic or reason. People who believe will actively engage in confirmation bias, tuning out the mountains of evidence showing they are wrong and clinging to the tiny scraps they can find that support their existing position.There's really no other explanation for people who deny it, it's completely irrational to do so. Millions if not billions of people watched it happen, people of other nations ranging from high level government agencies down to individual ham radio hobbyists received the signals and listened to them live. Today we can still bounce a laser off the reflectors left there, an unmanned probe has photographed the landing sites.Frankly I would be *way* more impressed with someone pulling off a successful fake of such colossal magnitude because it seems way more difficult and risky than just going to the moon. People wonder why we haven't gone back but I think it's obvious, going there was extremely expensive, we did it a handful of times until it almost became routine and then there was little reason to continue going back. If we had kept going to the moon it would have continued to burn a tremendous amount of money and sooner or later a mission would have failed resulting in deaths, all for little gain at that point. On top of that anybody who today thinks the whole thing was faked would insist that any new moon landing was faked too so what's the point?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 01:56:46 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 24, 2019, 12:16:58 amThey did go back after Apollo 11, 6 times, landing 5 times. For a total of 9 mission the moon. To believe this was all faked in an extreme level of delusion.Along with the mountains of existing direct evidence, even I was able to found brand new original evidence, it's not that hard, posted again:

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 02:57:13 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 20, 2019, 12:10:42 amThey had to because of the remote control camera on the rover that was to take ascent footage (pan/til controlled form the ground).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 03:00:09 am
content: Quote from: Yellofriend on July 19, 2019, 09:18:22 amEven among my audience the number of conspiracy comments on my various apollo videos has been staggering, it's a surprisingly huge percentage. I don't know whyA few are joking and that's usually obvious, but the vast majority are deadly serious that it's all hoax.I notice that many are the same people that love and comment on my debunking videos, so they are critical of all that stuff, but put their minds into delusion mode when it comes to the moon landing.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 03:22:20 am
content: Quote from: Yellofriend on July 23, 2019, 02:12:57 amA classic is "Una Ronald" who supposedly lived in Perth Western Australia, & saw a "coke bottle" on the coverage of the Luna activity.She purportedly "stayed up late" to see the coverage.One major problem ---- the landing occurred during the late morning WAST!Mary Bennett & David Percy, who published this drek, when challenged said."Aha! but there was no broadband link between the Eastern States where the video was downloaded & Perth, so videotape had to be flown over so the coverage would be delayed."Unfortunately for them, the occasion was considered so historic that a special "ad hoc" satellite link was set up, which connected to the existing broadband coaxial cable link from Carnarvon to provide direct coverage to Perth, & hence those parts of regional WA which had local TV transmissions.Even if they had been right, by 1969 airlines were using pure jets, so the trip would have been, maybe, 5 or so hours, & it would have been shown as soon as it arrived at the studio, probably in time for the evening news------ there would certainly have been no need to "stay up late"!They even had a video on their site saying in effect,"Look at this nice lady, would she lie to you?"I submit that the "nice lady" had never lived in Perth, nor knew anything about that city, & that the story was "made from whole cloth" by Bennett & Percy.To many Brits, Western Australia, in 1969 was so far away that "nobody knew anything about it", so they felt free to make up bullshit of "Munchausenesque" proportions.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 02:14:01 pm
content: Along with the Kennedy assassination, the Moon landings were among the first conspiracy theories that achieved a widespread following..... this of course, in the pre-internet age.My opinion why this happened, is the 1960s were a low water mark in the disappointment of the general population with the US government. For several valid reasons.Someone else may have a different observation.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 09:57:31 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on July 24, 2019, 02:14:01 pmDon’t forget Woodstock. That didn’t happen either. It was rent-a-crowd on an industrial scale.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 10:55:27 pm
content: I just missed a chance to see a talk by Harrison Schmidt. I'm in Denver CO on business and last weekend I went to a local air and space museum, darn it if earlier in the week they had some special ticketed events scheduled, one of which was a talk by Schmidt.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 04:26:21 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on July 24, 2019, 03:22:20 amsounds like she was up late to snort some moon dust

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 07:56:30 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on July 25, 2019, 04:26:21 amGreat portal conductor tho.https://youtu.be/HKQMu8NCOIY?t=585Tim

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 11:35:40 am
content: I've always believed the conspiracy theorists to be realtively harmless nutjobs but I found out last week that someone I know, the headteacher of a school in West Yorkshire, is a moon landing denier.The utter insanity of having someone who's so incapable of critical thought and reasoning being in charge of the education of school children scares me.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 12:06:37 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on July 25, 2019, 11:35:40 amDepend on what they teach the kid.OTOH, far too many primary school teachers think 1+2*3=9. Including some teaching arithmetic

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 01:36:38 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 25, 2019, 12:06:37 pmThat's what most CASIOs would say (I'm afraid)... Who was it that likes CASIOs very much?

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 01:41:23 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2019, 01:36:38 pmI'm partial to a Casio calc but I was always taught that the output of any calculator (or, by extension, any computer) should never be regarded as valid unless you know what a sensible result looks like and that means you have to know how the maths works.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 03:49:42 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on July 24, 2019, 10:55:27 pmHe's a climate change denier, which really lowers my opinion of him and I think it tends to tarnish his scientific reputation.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 04:07:06 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on July 24, 2019, 09:57:31 pmIf you remember Woodstock, you weren't there.That's why it is so difficult to prove it.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 05:34:30 pm
content: If I type 1+2*3 in the Android calculator it gives me... 7.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 05:36:03 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 25, 2019, 04:07:06 pmMany trips there!

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 05:42:08 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on July 25, 2019, 03:49:42 pmAnthropogenicclimate change denier you surely mean?

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 06:53:37 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2019, 05:42:08 pmHis views on the issue are batshit crazy in some ways. He blames it partially on the fall of communism and contends that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't lead to warming.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 08:36:04 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2019, 05:34:30 pmSo?Hint: BEDMAS.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 07:55:58 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 25, 2019, 12:06:37 pmDepends where you put the brackets!(1+2) times 3 does equal 9, whereas 1+ (2 times 3) equals 7.Of course, if the "*" doesn't mean "times", but rather, "to the power of" the possibilities are 27 & 9!

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 08:34:21 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on July 26, 2019, 07:55:58 amNo, it doesn't. The laws of arithmetic are explicit.The English mnemonic is BEDMAS: brackets, exponents, division, multiplication, addition, subtraction.QuoteIndeed, but those are different arithmetic expressions, not the question I asked. The more clued up teachers asked where the brackets were, and I answered that "there aren't any, just the normal laws of arithmetic".QuoteIf you want to change things, then consider that one computer language gives these results:1 + 2 * 393 * 2 + 1272 * 3 + 116777 - 707 - 7 - 777 - 7 - 7 - 70https://tryapl.org/

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 11:43:35 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on July 26, 2019, 07:55:58 amTHAT'S why I used to love good-old 'RPN', (Reverse Polish Notation) when programming in 'FORTH'years ago. EVERYTHING relied on STACK manipulation, and the ORDER numbers were placed on it.There were NO parenthesis around number groups, and the calculations were done in Stack order.(L.I.F.O. stack. Last In First Out. Operators on the stack too).The interpreter would 1st pull off the top operator, and use it on the next two numbers underneath.Calculate the result, remove those last two numbers & operator from the stack, & result back on the stack.For example......(1+2)x3  Would be entered as 3,x,1,2,+1+(2x3)  Would be entered as 1,+,2,3,xIt became second nature, (including variables) when you understood the Stack !!

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 02:38:44 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on July 26, 2019, 11:43:35 amIsn't that backwards? On a hp that would be 1 enter 2 + 3 x and 2 enter 3 x 1 +. Or 3 enter 2 enter 1 + x and 1 enter 2 enter 3 x +.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 02:46:24 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 26, 2019, 02:38:44 pmYes. Looks like the second nature has long gone (although he specifically talked about Forth, which we may not understand fully.)

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 03:17:10 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on July 26, 2019, 11:43:35 amEr, no.1+2*3 would becorrectlycalculated by "1 enter 2 enter 3 * +".

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 04:21:20 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on July 25, 2019, 11:35:40 amThe same could be said of nearly any religious person and there are a LOT more of those. Virtually any religious belief falls apart when critical thought and reasoning are applied but billions of people, many of whom are otherwise intelligent do believe all kinds of stuff.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 05:18:47 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 26, 2019, 04:21:20 pmAgree, and that's another thing that baffles me, I simply cannot understand how people who are otherwise able to apply critical thought, logical reasoning etc. can believe in religion, it makes no sense to me at all

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 05:20:29 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 26, 2019, 04:21:20 pmYep.There's some weird paradox though when it comes to categorizing "deniers", so we should always be cautious, and avoid creating some kind of new category to just put them all in the same basket and move on. That wouldn't even be sane, and I don't like this "conspiracy theorists" coined term that's now used everywhere and actually tends to make nutcases pass as victims in their followers' eyes, and conversely tends to make any doubters look fishy whatever the topic is. It also sort of implies that conspiracies do not exist, whereas history is full of them. Definitely a very unfortunate expression IMO.Some deniers just question things. They should probably be called doubters in that case, as denying is a strong position. That can still be classified as critical thought, as long as the reasoning makes sense. Which is sometimes the case. That ceases to be criticial thought when the doubt becomes a new truth in itself despite the fact it can't be proven, and is already borderline crazy when the evidences for the fact are more solid than the potential evidences for denying it.But there's an essential difference between: "I'm not sure something happened" and "I'm sure it didn't happen". This probably sounds obvious to many, but I'm under the impression it becomes very fuzzy in today's media.Religions do not encourage critical thought IMO, because they are usually a one-way street. So I agree that full deniers (not just the doubters) have a behavior similar to a religious one. In some cases, I think it even replaces religion for some, or augments it for others, such as for the flat-earth believers.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2019, 11:28:43 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on July 26, 2019, 05:18:47 pmIt is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method (according to Wikipedia).Essays, Of AtheismI don't want to start a discussion about religion here, because that's not the place, but this line of thought expressed by Bacon can give us a hint as to why some people exhibit critical thinking and still maintain religious beliefs.Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 26, 2019, 05:20:29 pmVery accurate analysis. It's very frustrating to cast doubts on the official narrative about the moon landings and be immediately labeled a delusional moon-landing denier.This kind of accusation is the same that led Socrates to death. He questioned the oracle and they found him guilty of denying the deity.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2019, 04:17:16 pm
content: Our brains aren't built to be logical. It's a mess of shortcuts and hacks that serve us well in the here and now but trip us up when it comes to the bigger picture. Even the scientists most devoted to the system will have their preconceived notions and convictions as will any of us. We can aspire to be as logic driven as possible, but have to accept we can never fully be.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2019, 04:53:33 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 27, 2019, 04:17:16 pmThat's quite right.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2019, 06:18:48 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on July 26, 2019, 05:18:47 pmIt's just the way the human brain works, some things are hard wired. I don't think it is related to how intelligent a person is, and in a way I think we all have beliefs of one sort or another that are not based on information we personally have gathered through direct observation. Some people base a lot more on these beliefs, and are less inclined to test what they believe and less flexible to other ideas.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2019, 07:18:31 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 27, 2019, 06:18:48 pmYes. Those are all kinds of shortcuts for our brain. If we didn't function like that, we would pretty much have to start from scratch on all topics, it would take ages for someone to just be able to form an useful thought.Even most of our own rational knowledge, we've gathered it this way. Thinking otherwise is kinda delusional.Sure we're able to analyze some of our knowledge in a scientific way when needed, at least those of us who have learned how to, but most of the time, we just don't.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 10:53:48 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 26, 2019, 02:46:24 pmOops... MY BAD !!You 'can' mix operators within the stack entries, but not in the above examples.(I'm getting old, and it was late & not thinking straight, and was a long time ago !)So, R.P.N. on the Stack, withno parenthesiswould be....(1+2)x3 Would be entered as3 1 2 + *1+(2x3) Would be entered as1 2 3 * +I just found some interesting Sites. The 1st, is an in-browser interpreter, & basics in Forth...https://skilldrick.github.io/easyforth/Here is a Site showing a lot of contemporary uses/applications!!...https://www.forth.com/resources/forth-apps/#more_forth

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 03:09:34 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 26, 2019, 05:20:29 pmBelief in an organised religion is pretty easy to explain, it's an emotional and fear thing, with a bonus easy social construct with which to get around that. People don't want to die, and they don't want to think it's all over when they do die, and that they can see their dead loved ones etc.If religion didn't offer the afterlife it'd just be a bunch of fictional books gathering dust in the library.The "spiritual" religions offer a similar emotional fulfillment, but for those that have a problem with or see through the delusion of organised religion.Belief in "conspiracy theory" stuff can very likely be explained with a similar deep emotional desire of some description. It's just tapping into another part of our emotional creature brain. It ticks some similar boxes, like you have attained this secret knowledge and can see a truth others can't, that's gotta be quite fulfilling emotionally. Then that seed gives the brain something to continually search for and analyse etc.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 03:36:30 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2019, 03:09:34 pmYes, but not just that IMO. There is one thing I think you haven't mentioned, and that would also be common with religions: the need for humans to feel part of a group. That's even kinda what the "religion" word is all about... That's a very deep and basic need. We can fulfill it in various ways...Of course the feeling of knowing some deep secret and/or having a common belief system that people outside the group don't share helps cementing a given group of individuals. Works very well, and has always worked.That's also why I think the bulk of people, especially on online social networks, that are attracted to weird theories are followers, not leaders. Heck - we can even go as far as saying that the bulk of people active on social networks are followers generally speaking... (something to think about.)Followers can't have critical thought - when you do, you become your own leader. Likewise, I do think many people who stick to perfectly rational and scientific theories are also just followers. They happen to be on the more "sane" side of things, sometimes out of sheer luck, but they are often fundamentally no different, and a fraction of them can easily switch from one side to the other.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 03:10:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2019, 03:09:34 pmAgreed.One of the things that I find astonishing is the recent embrace the religious types in the USA have with knowingly lying to support a political cause or religious belief. They are so open about there knowing dishonesty that you have to wonder how they process information to permit that level of duplicity. This often takes the form of support for flat-earth and anti-evolution but it extends to broader areas of politics where they're views are in stark contrast to the very teachings they suggest to promote. These are strange times for sure. In the past election religious leaders supported a Republican running for office in Nevada that happened to also be the owner of several brothels. They knew he was, essentially, a pimp, but supported him over any Democrat. BTW, I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.Brian

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 03:19:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2019, 03:09:34 pmThat's assuming of course that any given religion actually subscribes to the precepts and ideas of whatever book they claim to follow. Case in point - The Bible says that when you are dead you are dead. Nothing. Zero. Kaput. Totally at odds with so-called christian teaching and any afterlife nonsense.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 08:00:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2019, 03:09:34 pmI reckon so, gut feeling tells me that there's a fairly high coincidence of conspiracy theorists who are religious and believe in literal heavens, hells etc.It's a shame they can be so ingenious in devising experiments and theories but then get it so wrong.Watching Behind the Curve was enlightening, when the flat earthers saw their experiments to 'prove' flat earth actually proved globe earth, instead of thinking they may be wrong, they began searching for flaws in methodology and justifications as to why the equipment was faulty, why it wasn't giving them the results they thought it should, I don't think any of them came to (or admitted they had) the conclusion that perhaps the earth might not be flat so it's pretty easy to see the similarities between and understand the adherence to religion and their conspiracies.As one of the scientists commented, it's heartening to see people experimenting and theorising.It's depressing to see them so ignorant as to the conclusions they should reach from their experiments.

author: CiscERsang
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 09:10:28 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on July 19, 2019, 07:50:25 amI think that was a wisdom political decision to confirm the fact (not having serious own proof) in order to stop that senseless space race, since they had other more important immmediate national projects. Remember, less two decades passed after WW2 and country still was in troubles, hell, entire Europe was in troubles, unlike US which never knew totally ruined regions and cities, burned villages, giant losses of population.As a side note: Sergey Korolev (head of russian space program) died in 1966, Verner von Braun died (head of US space program) in 1977. That makes sense.https://www.amazon.com/Korolev-Masterminded-Soviet-Drive-America/dp/0471327212/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sergei+korolev&qid=1564479763&s=gateway&sr=8-1We will learn from chinese soon, I think, how tough deep space. Is the moon in deep space, right? And whymodern technologiesstill don't allow humans to go deeper.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 11:22:10 am
content: Quote from: CiscERsang on July 30, 2019, 09:10:28 amhttp://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33085.html

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 12:27:38 pm
content: By most definitions the Moon isn't deep space. Some say it's beyond our own Earth-Moon system, others say it's beyond our solar system.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 12:47:01 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2019, 03:09:34 pmAll I know NOW... is that if 'I' dared to mention anything even remotely to do with 'religion' (deliberate lowercase 'r')not discounting the 1/2 dozen 'followups', you (dave) would have INSTANTLY locked the conversation.But being the 'boss', you can choose what you want, and hate what you want, with impunity. I 'once' dared tosay something, that 'dave' IMMEDIATELY decided was 'Philosophy??' related.... and so was immediately Locked.Uumm... sorry dave, you got it wrong. Then.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 12:59:23 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on July 30, 2019, 12:47:01 pmIt might help your chances if you bothered to explain why.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 02:10:29 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 30, 2019, 12:59:23 pm"Help my chances"... for what??The beginning of my Statement says/explains it all. No further digression needed. Nite nite... xx

author: CiscERsang
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 03:05:45 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 30, 2019, 12:27:38 pmAgree, however,I have a strong feeling that formodern technologiesin respect of biological life, so-calleddeep spacebegins somewhere between outher border of earth atmosphere and inner border of so-called Van Allien belt.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 03:42:43 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on July 30, 2019, 02:10:29 pmThe chances of your posts being viewed as worthwhile discussion, rather than simply causing a ruckus. Having a monologue about how life's unfair and then saying Dave is wrong, but not how or why he's wrong you simply seem to be fishing for a moderator intervention which you could then claim proves your point. I don't see clearly explained what Dave was supposedly wrong about, so unfortunately digression does seem needed. Or maybe it's just the erratic writing style that obscures the point being made, that's possible too.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 03:51:05 pm
content: Quote from: CiscERsang on July 30, 2019, 03:05:45 pmVan Allen belt, I presume?I wouldn't call MEO or GEO orbits deep space, as they are obviously heavily influence by Earth and visited and used on a highly regular basis. One could argue the interlunar space could be called such, but I wouldn't call anything within the Moon orbit "deep space". It'd have to be either interplanetary or interstellar space and considering the vast amounts of matter and energy present in interplanetary space compared to the rest of it interstellar space seems the most fitting candidate.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 10:22:14 pm
content: Quote from: CiscERsang on July 30, 2019, 03:05:45 pmYour proposed definition shows how little you understand what you are talking about. How do you define the outer border of the Earth atmosphere? It is kind of like gravity, it keeps going forever, just gets thinner and thinner. There are reasons to define boundaries (Earth source molecules less common than other sources for example) but there isn't a fence, or a universally agreed definition and the preferred definition will depend on your application.For example a really good definition of the edge of the atmosphere is when you can't breath unassisted. But even that is fuzzy as it depends on genetics, training and activity level. Some people can climb Mt. Everest without oxygen. Others die at base camp. And airplanes routinely fly outside that boundary.My personal preference for the definition of deep space is outside of the Earth's magnetosphere, but future humans who inhabit the asteroid belt will probably move that out to the "boundary" between solar and interstellar space.

author: lordvader88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 12:00:38 pm
content: Remember everyone, only official history is allowed on this site, regardless of science. And questions are not allowed.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 01:30:16 pm
content: Quote from: lordvader88 on July 31, 2019, 12:00:38 pmNo, you started a thread suggesting you knew something to be different than commonly accepted but absolutely refused to comment on it. Consequently, people couldn't discuss it and your thread didn't take off. Please stop hinting at things you refuse to discuss and stop posting conspiracy theories.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 02:19:46 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 31, 2019, 01:30:16 pmIt looks like he has been banned. Can't say I blame the moderators: they showed a lot of patience and he was becomingtootiresome.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 08:24:16 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on July 30, 2019, 03:19:56 amReligion is 50% rational, 50% irrational. Man is limited, mortal and not in control of the universe (rational). But don't worry, there's a god that is in control of everything, answers prayers and can give you eternal life (irrational).The rational part of religion is the socket that connects the religious mind to reason.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 02:04:36 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on July 30, 2019, 03:10:07 amThe political parties are themselves effectively another form of religion. Large numbers of people absolutely believe that their party is the solution to everything and the other party is the cause of all the problems. There is no swaying them with rational thought or evidence, they will vote a straight party ticket regardless of who the candidate is so long as he/she talks the talk and pulls off presenting themselves as a devoted believer in the party ideals.The only significant difference I see is that overall the republicans tend to be a lot more homogeneous while the democrats attract a lot of people who are more "not republican" than they are dyed in the wool democrats who subscribe to the party ideals.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 11:45:28 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 30, 2019, 03:42:43 pm(Above BOLD was added by myself...).Dear 'Mr. Scram'. My prior/original post was "Tongue In Cheek". I firstly, didn't think that my originalstatement NEEDED further explanation, as I assumed almost everyone would already know Dave's stanceon subjects of religion?? I was mucking around, as he was continuing such a diversion/debate !Re: My mention of 'Philosophy', (which it really wasn't), Dave had the opinion that this encompasses 'religion'.I beg to differ, and anyway there was no such intention in my mind. Believe it or not!, I have a lot of respectfor Dave, his broad knowledge, his YouTube Posts and his help for those that need it. That doesn't meanthat I, (as a human being) don't disagree at times, or dare to speak of it.YOU however, have decided from some position of 'authority' to describe me in a paragraph, as...chances of your posts being viewed as worthwhile discussion....simply causing a ruckus...erratic writing style...Obviously you do not like me... and that's OK mate...I won't 'assume' anything about you though, as I don't know you from a bar of soap.Except that maybe YOU need to climb down from your Ivory Tower, & judge less, lest you be judged.As in my last reply to you....Have a nice day.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 02:47:56 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 01, 2019, 11:45:28 amYou're correct in your assessment I don't know you. I can only respond to what I do see, which are your comments and writing style. Don't make too much of it, it's only random internet people.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 02:19:29 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on July 30, 2019, 03:51:05 pmHow about a Van Halen belt?http://www.onestopbuckleshop.com/product/1537

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 10:13:48 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 02, 2019, 02:19:29 pmStylish, but not fancy.

author: CiscERsang
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 08:52:29 am
content: stylish and fancy.