• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
I doubt that many real scientists are on a forum like this.
Click to expand...

Do they need to be?

This is a bit like the joke about the two hikers and the bear, when one stops to put on a pair of running shoes.

They don't have to be good enough scientists to be indisputably right about how the LRRR works...they just have to be better than you at understanding how certain ideas about how it MIGHT work are almost certainly wrong.
 
nomuse said:
So...you don't even know how to calculate it, but you are sure you already know the answer.

Anders, doing physics is not being able to subtract and multiply; it is knowing which variables matter. it isn't a matter of not doing the math; it is a matter of applying the wrong assumptions to the problem.
Click to expand...

One thing is certain. The heating of the alleged mirror is not zero. The question is how much the mirror is heated by the sunlight and by the surrounding environment.
 
jaydeehess said:
Really? The query is really quite straightforward;
Either you accept JU's stated credentials in which case, according to you, he is lieing about Apollo;
OR
You reject his claimed credentials in which case you ipso facto are stating he is a liar about his credentials.

OR: you accept his credentials and his statements on the veracity of Apollo.

There are no other choices, right?
Click to expand...

There are other choices. I already told you that I have doubt about all the information on Internet forums. Doubt means uncertainty. How can you be certain about uncertainty? It just doesn't compute.
 
Just imagine the secret industry that must be responsible for manufacturing scientific equipment that produces incorrect results which are still consistent and usable for predictions of real phenomenon.

The computer that Anders is using is made of lies. :eek:
 
Anders Lindman said:
One thing is certain. The heating of the alleged mirror is not zero. The question is how much the mirror is heated by the sunlight and by the surrounding environment.
Click to expand...

In case you didn't notice, I already asked you that question. You seem to be incapable of answering it, yet for some reason you think you know the answer.

Dave
 
Anders Lindman said:
One thing is certain. The heating of the alleged mirror is not zero. The question is how much the mirror is heated by the sunlight and by the surrounding environment.
Click to expand...

But you don't know the scale of it. You can't even do a zeroth-level approximation, because you don't realize you have to factor in (at a minimum) emissivity and absorption to arrive at a theoretical maximum black-body temperature.

And if you want to properly approximate an object on the Moon, you also need to consider thermal mass and you have to solve for time; does the day last long enough to reach that high equilibrium temperature.



But let's take one step past even zeroth order and consider this in almost abstract terms. Assume you have a perfect mirror sitting in full sunlight, in vacuum. Does its temperature increase under that insolation?
 
nomuse said:
Assume you have a perfect mirror sitting in full sunlight, in vacuum. Does its temperature increase under that insolation?
Click to expand...

Perfect mirror? That would be like having the efficiency of a perpetual motion engine. That's different than real mirrors.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Do some web searches. I'm sure you could find that information on the Internet.
Click to expand...

Your argument, your homework.

You are claiming that the loss of effectiveness in the LRRR cannot be attributed to out-of-tolerance thermal effects, as the scientists and engineers believe. You are responsible showing this.

What you've shown instead is that you don't know the first thing about heat transfer or thermodynamics. This makes it very unlikely that your judgment regarding the thermal behavior of the LRRR is correct.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I'm not calling anyone posting on forums liars. That would be stupid. People could be lying or not lying. A 12 year old girl could claim to be a NASA scientist on the Internet, lol.
Click to expand...

Are you calling me a liar or not?

Keep in mind that for many people here, my reputation precedes me. Unlike many people you may encounter, I'm known to be who I say I am. Although I'm not a NASA scientist; I'm a space scientist and engineer. One doesn't have to work for NASA in order to do that.

It will be very hard for you to convince the people who have followed by work on this topic for the past 12 years that I'm not extremely well informed regarding the manned exploration of the Moon. Therefore I am most definitely one of the ones whom you say should be cowed into silence.

Are you calling me a liar? Yes or no.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The scientific method is good for finding out things. It is however vulnerable to Big Lie frauds.
Click to expand...

No, explicitly the opposite. Scientific findings and the theories that derive from them must ultimately predict something about the real world with useful accuracy. The larger you cast the net of deception, the sooner you run up against differences between your fabricated science and the real world.

This is why you are always perpetually enlarging your web of fantasy. The more you say, the more you have to invent in contrast to the real world to make it seem reasonable.
 
JayUtah said:
Are you calling me a liar or not?

Keep in mind that for many people here, my reputation precedes me. Unlike many people you may encounter, I'm known to be who I say I am. Although I'm not a NASA scientist; I'm a space scientist and engineer. One doesn't have to work for NASA in order to do that.

It will be very hard for you to convince the people who have followed by work on this topic for the past 12 years that I'm not extremely well informed regarding the manned exploration of the Moon. Therefore I am most definitely one of the ones whom you say should be cowed into silence.

Are you calling me a liar? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

That's like asking: Is Einstein's theories a hoax? I suspect it is. Are people lying on forums? Most likely. Are YOU lying on this forum? I have no clue. So that's the answer to your question. It's like a total uncertainty. You can't expect people to be certain about everything.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Are YOU lying on this forum? I have no clue. So that's the answer to your question.
Click to expand...

No, that's an evasion of my question. It largely incontestable that I am who I say I am and that I have the expertise to which you refer.

According to you, Kennedy was killed to keep me and my kind from spilling the beans. This implies I know Apollo was faked. But I claim publicly that Apollo was not faked, but was in fact real.

Therefore I ask you again: Do you claim I'm a liar? Yes or no. You've essentially already answered that question "yes," but I want to make sure that's really your position.
 
JayUtah said:
No, that's an evasion of my question. It largely incontestable that I am who I say I am and that I have the expertise to which you refer.

According to you, Kennedy was killed to keep me and my kind from spilling the beans. This implies I know Apollo was faked. But I claim publicly that Apollo was not faked, but was in fact real.

Therefore I ask you again: Do you claim I'm a liar? Yes or no. You've essentially already answered that question "yes," but I want to make sure that's really your position.
Click to expand...

Oh no, most scientists have no clue about conspiracies. For example, many of the architects and scientists for 9/11 truth didn't suspect any conspiracy at first and only when they started looking into it more closely did they start to believe in a conspiracy. See for example this documentary (experts talking about the WTC buildings collapsing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom