Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Motherboard"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AM87422S - Incorrect my friend, since what you're claiming is impossible.
To this day, not even the highest budget sci-fi movies or sci-fi TV series have ever recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour upon hour of Apollo footage, where even the dust and objects fall down at the rate of the moon's gravity. Even CGI today doesn't look quite right (CGI often looks a bit 'off', especially when modelling people).
When the popular hoax believer's claims of slow motion or wires are used, we get amusing results like this;
www.dailymotion.com/video/x6foqzi?start=250
Gee, that looks so realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can actually demonstrate perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
In other words, the Apollo footage could only be faked if the studio was located on the moon ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
felix mendez - As usual, you just make it up as you go along. Why don't you tell Amber that you support a guy (Kareem?) who claims all rockets are hoaxes, where he claims they are just tanks filled with helium to make them rise :-)
Stars CAN be seen during the day through telescopes, professional and amateur astronomers (like me) know that from experience, hence we CAN do daytime astronomy, albeit less effective than night.
Star light gets to Earth's surface just as effectively during the day as during the night, BUT, the brightness of our sky (due to scattered sunlight) makes it's very difficult to separate the faint light from the stars from the scattered light of the sun. In other words, scattered sunlight creates 'noise'.
However, the more powerful your telescope, the most powerful it's light collecting abilities, and hence when focused correctly can gather enough like from a star to make it stand out against the blue of our sky.
The astronauts say they can see stars under certain circumstances and they can't see stars under other circumstances, but as usual people like yourself need to distort the facts.
For example, this was how astronauts on the moon's surface viewed their surroundings for 99.99% of the time;
cdni0.trtworld.com/w960/h540/q75/59508_AP_19190543756508_1563576759853.jpg
Kind of difficult to see stars through that visor, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
felix mendez d) Completely untrue. Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006);
Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week."
In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!).
If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk.
Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."
In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem.
So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whistfull Westerner - You said "oh I have a car that proves you wrong, when it is moving I feel it."
Thank you for proving your ignorance so perfectly :-)
If your car (with windows closed) was travelling on a perfectly smooth road with no dips or rises, then you wouldn't feel it (vibration of the engine aside). Whether you're at 20 mph, 50 mph or 100 mph etc, you couldn't tell without the feedback of what your eyes and ears are telling you.
Travel in a bullet train at 200 mph and you wouldn't feel it. Travel in a passenger plane cruising at 500+ mph and you wouldn't feel it. Travel in Concorde (back in the day) at 1330 mph and you wouldn't feel it.
What you feel are any changes in speed, hence acceleration/deceleration of the craft such as take off and landing, pressing the accelerator or hitting the brakes etc, and changes in speed away from the general direction of the craft, such as bumps and dips and rises on a road, turbulence in the air, etc.
How can you not know that?
You said "so when you are in a car travelling 60 you feel nothing, only the acceleration to say 70 and then nothing."
Acceleration means an INCREASE in speed, deceleration means a DECREASE in speed. Every time you change the speed of your car you feel it, where the faster you change the speed the more you feel it (accelerate quickly and you're pushed back into your seat, brake suddenly and you're thrown forward in your seat).
How can you not know that while claiming to have an Engineering degree (I have a Mathematics and Computing degree btw).
I shouldn't be here explaining that to you, YOU should be here explaining that to others given your claimed qualifications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whistfull Westerner - You cried "Yes they do, you just lost, GAME OVER, if planes fly over a curve they have to account for it"
No kid, I just explain to you how flaps are used to obtain level flight regardless of the shape of the Earth.
You said "if a bridge is big enough it has to account for it"
No it doesn't. A very long bridge isn't made in ONE WHOLE PIECE and then air lifted into place, instead it is made to follow the LANDSCAPE that it goes over, and therefore will be designed for the NATURAL rise and fall of the LANDSCAPE itself, from valleys to hills/mountains (including going through them).
The fact that in the long term the average rise and fall is on a flat Earth or globe Earth or concave/hollow Earth is irrelevant.
Likewise roads and train tracks follow the natural LANDSCAPE that they go over, where bridges and tunnels are among the methods they would use to overcome certain obstacles.
Therefore by following the LANDSCAPE itself, then bridges and train tracks and roads of almost ANY length can be made, and hence the construction methods would work regardless of whether the Earth is flat, or a globe or concave/hollow. It's the SAME for each.
So again, how can you not understand that simple fact given your claimed qualifications? :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1