Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - nickrulercreator

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing and wires
« on: December 02, 2018, 03:24:39 AM »
I've seen a lot of posts saying there was evidence that wires were being used. I'm really not sure how any of these videos would make you believe that wires are in use. So please, prove me wrong with a nice, clear video that shows wires.

Really, the only videos that are claiming wires exist show a brief (like 1-2 frame) flash above the astronaut. Hint hint: these flashes always appear above the antenna on the back of the spacesuit. In fact, whenever there is a flash above the astronaut (at the top of the frame), the antenna also flashes. This is evidence that it isn't a wire, just a reflection caused by sunlight hitting off of the antenna. There are no other good claims for wires that I've seen.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?
« on: October 15, 2018, 09:42:06 PM »
Mankind did. Simple.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: October 15, 2018, 09:37:48 PM »
This is fake. Point blank. We don't need to debunk anything. THey need to PROOF their case, not the other way around. Because the flat earth model is older than the round earth, therefor THEY need to proof, not us.

That's not how any of this works. It's the flat earthers trying to debunk it, and claim it's fake. It's their responsibility to prove it's fake. Age has nothing to do with it.

Sandokhan, you keep referencing the ether. As far as I know, the ether has no scientific evidence to support its existence, and in fact has been proven to not exist. But, by referencing it, you must have some evidence that supports its existence, right? May I see it?

The problem with information sandokhan shares is it's basically antique and like the Ether drift theory has been disproved by modern equipment, technology and higher educated scientist.
All of the experiments, tests, hypothesis theories, formulas, etc come from 50 to 400 years ago.

The Ether Drift theory has been disprove multiple times and to my knowledge had never been replicated by any other scientific experiment throughout history other than the one that was flawed in the first place.

An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s
 Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result

So what is his opinion on all of this? Surely he must acknowledge what science has shown to be true and false.

But how does your model explain the fact that Venus can be visible all through the night according to this article

Plus according to your explanation we should see Venus at its waxing crescent phase and not fully lit up as we see it in the sky.

The article you linked doesn't say anywhere (except the title) that it will be visible "all through the night." In fact, it says "This also means that Venus remains visible after sunset for between three-and-a-half hours (at 30 degrees North) and five-and-a-half hours (at 60 degrees North)!"

This is not all night long.

Sandokhan, you keep referencing the ether. As far as I know, the ether has no scientific evidence to support its existence, and in fact has been proven to not exist. But, by referencing it, you must have some evidence that supports its existence, right? May I see it?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: October 02, 2018, 10:17:31 PM »
The guy does a decent job but you can only tell he is stressed to the max trying to keep his head square to his shoulders throughout the video. Veins are popping out of his neck as he corrects the natural tendency to tilt your head up from the flat earth.

With trillions in funny money, NASA can create anything and all, well not all but most will believe the garbage.

Money doesn't fix everything, J-Man. Also, how can we know that he is red from being stressed? Could it not be that there's no gravity on the ISS pulling the blood to his legs like there is on Earth? Why would he need to keep his head square to his shoulders? What natural tendency makes us tilt our head up?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Object Density
« on: September 28, 2018, 08:01:10 PM »
For the same reason they would in the RET gravitational model - air resistance.

What if you dropped a women's basketball and 16lb bowling ball?

A women's basketball has a diameter of 9.23 inches, and a bowling ball has a diameter of 8.5 inches.

A women's basketball is about 20oz, or 1.25 lbs. That's a difference of 14.75 lbs between the basketball and bowling ball. Surely with near-similar diameters, the air resistance is also nearly similar. And with such different masses, the bowling ball should hit the ground much quicker than the basketball if it's based on density. Right?

What about a ping pong ball and golf ball? Nearly similar diameters, but one is far heavier. Of course, because the ping pong ball is so light, you'd need to experiment that in a room where nearly no wind is present (turn off AC for a while?). But if done right, which would hit the ground first?

Brian Cox's video does just this, with a ball and feathers in a vacuum chamber. Both hit the ground at the same time.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: IR Video from FL300 -> 500 mile visibility?
« on: September 03, 2018, 08:49:55 PM »
Going through the comments, it was pointed out in YouTube that (paraphrasing) "We can see the curvature of the earth. The Earth is Round!!1!" and the following explanatory image was provided:

However, we can see from JTolan's IR observation, that there are mountains above that bright line of the "round horizon". Here is the important screenshot from the video:

The mountains are above that bright line of the horizon, telling us that it is not truly the earth's horizon we are looking at.

Secondly, here is the Earth Curve Calculator for those values:

According to the Earth Curve Calculator, when looking over 475 miles at an altitude of 31,000 feet the amount hidden below the horizon is 44794.7290 feet below the "horizon".

Accounting for the height of the mountain:

44794.7290 feet - 14,000 feet = The top of the mountain should be 30794.729 feet, or 5.832 miles below the horizon.

JTolan further asserts that not only that, but the mountain is at the correct elevation it would need to be as if the earth were flat. I have not assessed this further assertion. Interesting.

He seems to be measuring the tops of the mountains in the foreground to determine that?

How can we confirm those are mountains? They could very well be artifacts, reflections, flares, etc.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the space mission failed?
« on: September 03, 2018, 08:47:23 PM »
Which mission are you referring to?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cruising the round earth?
« on: August 29, 2018, 07:54:58 PM »
I took your third image of the horizon as it was the lowest in the frame, meaning it is affected by the fisheye effect the least, and decided to see if there was curve. In fact if it is any fisheye effect creating the curve, it'd be in the opposite direction, curving around the middle of the frame, not the opposite way.

The only initial change I made to the photo was bumping up the brightness. In photoshop I used the line tool to draw a line from the leftmost point of (what I could identify as) the horizon, to the rightmost point. In this image, you can clearly see (if you zoom in) that the horizon in the middle is above the red line, while the horizon at the edge of the photos is in-line with the line.

I decided to make it easier to see this curve, so I compressed the image horizontally and got this as the result:

The curve is very obvious. This cannot be any fisheye effect, as it's not above the center of the frame.

In Chapter III - THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION., Rowbotham proposes an experiment to test if the Earth is rotating. It goes like this:

Picture a ball on a ship. If you drop the ball from the top of the mast, and the ship is stationary, the ball will fall straight down. If the ship is in motion and you drop the ball, then the ball, relative to the mast, will still drop straight down. This is a result of the ball's momentum given to it by the ship. He relates this to the different models of the Earth. If the Earth was stationary and you dropped a ball, the ball will go straight down, and the same for a rotating Earth.

Rowbotham then proposes that to test whether Earth rotates, you must throw a ball straight up while the ship is in motion. He gives us this image:

His text goes as is:

put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

Rowbotham then says that, because when we throw a ball into the air while standing on Earth's surface, and it does not stop at its peak altitude, this means Earth's surface is not moving under the ball, and thus it is stationary.

This makes no sense. What would cause the ball to lose all horizontal velocity at D? Why would the ball not continue in the horizontal direction as it falls, just as it moved in the horizontal direction as it rose? In real life, if you threw the ball upward while the ship was in motion, it would travel in a vertical line relative to the ship. It would not stop at its maximum altitude, like Rowbotham claims. That's pure nonsense.

This doesn't prove the Earth is flat or round, it just proves Rowbotham was very wrong in his experiment.

I'm curious, as I've been looking at a map of a bi-polar model and cannot quite wrap my head around how the sun would move over this version of the Earth's surface. Any diagrams or explanations?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 21, 2018, 04:03:22 AM »
NASA...yes this is NASA...this is the accomplishment of the human race or was it?

Collins was chewing on fruity bars and not looking at the universe of stars. Duh....made in a studio in Hollywierd.

Cherry-picking to the max!

They asked if they could see stars when photographing the solar corona, not in general.

Collins was joking because he was in orbit at the time.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 17, 2018, 06:10:24 PM »
You really don't expect this lunar hoax to be believed when NASA itself admits it's impossible. I;m not sure what you hope to gain from idiots who have been indoctrinated to a spinning globe? Aren't they all broke now anyway?

Where in this video does NASA say its impossible?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 15, 2018, 06:51:05 PM »
Turn of phrase: the idea falls apart, not the physical module.
But firstly, before I get into it, thank you for providing an actual response to my posts.

I see my mistake, thanks for the correction.

I'll focus primarily on the area for 'thermal control and radiation shielding.' Micrometeoroid protection doesn't seem like a priority, simply because if something so fragile as to be torn by a screwdriver acts as protection then there's little else that wouldn't.

The inside aluminum hull was fragile as it could be pierced, but the micrometeoroid protection was a priority because that was random. An astronaut can think, and know not to stab the aluminum hull. The micrometeoroid protection also did its job well. The aluminum sheets broke micrometeoroids into small fragments, stopped by successive layers. See the image on the top of page 8 for a better idea:

They don't have to live inside the LM, as I said. That is how things are said to be, not the necessary state. Given the lack of a lunar atmosphere, and so lack of danger from re-entry, on top of the weak gravity to minimise how much force is needed to escape it, the 'module' doesn't need to be any more than a frame with a couple of rockets attached for momentum control. Not only is this lighter, something of huge importance when it comes to space travel, but it's substantially simpler, and simpler is always going to be preferred by anyone on a mission far away from any repair shops and tools. There's less that could go wrong. The simple presence of spacesuits fulfil every other requirement of the module, and if they don't work there's no using the module anyway.

Simpler, but impossible. The suits had no way of keeping a person alive for 3 days. The astronauts were limited to the food they could eat. On Apollos 15-17 the astronauts had a fruit bar, but that was it: . It was enough to give them a snack if they needed it in their EVAs, none of which lasted more than 7.5 hours. Astronauts ate heavily before they went on their EVAs, there's no way to provide them that food without having to take the suits off.

Another problem arises for water. Astronauts had 32oz pouches for water for the EVAs, but that can't hold a man for 3.125 days. Astronauts drank heavily before they went on EVAs as well so there was water in their system. Experts say 64oz of water should be drank per day, so for 3 days an astronaut would need a 192oz pouch of water (1.5 gal, 5.67L). That weighs 12.5 pounds (5.67 kg). Plus, the astronauts are sweating as they work, so more water would likely be needed. The suit simply couldn't hold that much water.

Another problem is the amount of air and battery power needed. For Apollos 7-14, the suits had 6.5 hours of life support. For A15-A17, it's 7.5 hours. If you live on the Moon for 3 days 3 hours, or 75 hours, you'd need 10X more air and 10X more battery power.

Overall the suit would be immensely heavy and impractical. Astronauts would have gigantic packs, far larger than they already are, making movement basically impossible.

Instead of a separate module attacked to the ship, just make a room that can serve as an airlock and strap it down inside. It doesn't need to be airtight, it doesn't need to run the risk of something being knocked loose by the force of depressurisation. That gives you living space and substantially less in the way of weight to carry and elements to go wrong.

I'm not getting a picture of this well, do you have an illustration? Do you mean something like Voskhod 2 had, with an airlock sticking out for the EVA?

This could easily be knocked loose by depressurization, or if hit by an asteroid.

Also, how would astronauts get to the LM through it? Would they need to pressurize and then depressurize the airlock, or depressurize and then repressurize the CM?

Further, if there's a fault in the LM, that only prevents the moon landing rather than cutting off astronaut living space and resources.

If there's a fault in the CM, though, the astronauts have no living space at all. This is what happened on Apollo 13. Luckily, the astronauts still had a functioning LM they could live in.

By every metric this is preferred.

Tell that to the engineers at the time.

Yes, as you say, no doubt they could plan to make the lunar module sturdy enough to take depressurisations, the astronauts be careful with how rarely they go through from one module to the other and so so less often, all of that, but the simple fact is you wouldn't want to take the risk. On any mission like this you would want to minimise how much could go wrong.
They added more, more and more moving parts prone to go wrong, even when it was unnecessary.

Dude, these are astronauts, are you serious? These people were test pilots. Every day they had to get into a new plane that could, at any moment, kill them (and there was a good chance of that happening). One test pilot was dying every week in the 50s. These people also had to get on top of a rocket with enough fuel that, if something went wrong, an explosion comparable to a small atomic bomb would occur. I'm confident that they were aware of the risk, and I'm also confident that they would accept the risk.

I don't understand this argument. By its very nature, an airlock is part of the ship. It is substantially more secure than a docking port that is literally made to split apart. If something hits it, the LM blows away, most of their living space and possibly the astronauts themselves are knocked away with it.

If something hit the airlock, it'd also blow away too, killing the astronauts.

They had airtight walls and a vessel capable of holding that pressure, mechanisms capable of depressurising and surviving that force, special legs they left behind, hell they even threw in a ladder...

The airtight walls, as I explained above, were necessary because a space suit couldn't keep a man alive for three days. The ladder's mass was negligible, but the ladder was necessary for getting down to the surface, and back into the LM. This is pretty obvious.

The "special legs" I'm assuming means the descent stage. This is also necessary. If you didn't have the descent stage, problems could, and would arise. First, if you only had one stage, and that stage's engine breaks on landing, you won't be getting off of the surface. This actually happened on Apollo 15, but because they had the ascent stage, no worry was needed. A single stage spacecraft would also have to be far larger and carry more propellant (thus being heavier) because it would need to carry things no longer needed, such as used propellant tanks, fuel cells, landing legs, and more. By having two stages, these things don't have to be carried. It's the same reason rockets have multiple stages, to discard excess mass.

Really? You get automatically shiny, triumphant colors, symmetrical designs...
Go behind the scenes at any factory, especially for the manufacture of vehicles. The real mechanisms never look nearly so pretty as those in the space programme, despite the fact the space programme has a hundred times the reasons to be concerned with practicality and to not waste weight and money on style.

The space program was concerned with looks, but they weren't going to let it control the spacecraft's design. Much of the look of the spacecraft is because that's how it had to be. Gold foil? That's used for thermal control and shielding. Octagonal descent stage? Far easier to build than a circle, or other shape, and allows more cargo to be held. Boxy ascent stage? That's simply the outer skin molding around the aluminum hull.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 14, 2018, 04:41:18 AM »
Ditto for the tin foil; there is precisely no reason for it to exist, except for the propaganda value.

For the remainder of this post I'll be discussing two parts of the craft, as I'm not sure what you're referencing as "tin foil."

First, the solid aluminum hull. The aluminum hull, the gray part underneath the gold foil, was what astronauts lived in. It acted as an airtight seal, and as the structural support of the whole thing. That had a reason to exist. An image of the aluminum frame can be seen here:

Second, the gold foil wrapped around the aluminum hull. That served mainly as thermal control, as well as a secondary purpose of micrometeoroid protection and radiation shielding (the latter of which was mainly done by the aluminum hull). The foil consisted of at least 25 layers of different materials. The outer layer was kapton and aluminized mylar foil with gold leafing on it. This served as thermal control. The highly-reflective surface helped to reflect the sun's radiative heat away from the LM, keeping the inside of the LM cool, as well as keeping heat inside the LM so that it didn't radiate into the vacuum of space. A layer of aluminum helped with micrometeoroid protection Other layers included metallic inconel, which was primarily used for areas that had to withstand more direct heat, such as the RCS plume deflectors. That can be seen as the black material on the deflector underneath the RCS engine here: . This was also coated in heat-resistant Pyromark paint. Another material used was nickel, which also helped dealing with high temperatures, mainly from the engines.

As for the crinkliness of the spacecraft, this was done on purpose. The layers were folded and crinkled so as to provide an easier venting path for heat, and to minimize contact between the layers themselves and the aluminum hull. If the layers weren't crinkled, they'd be touching much more, allowing for conduction of heat to take place far easier, heating up the spacecraft to dangerous levels.

All of this information can be found here in detail: This website provides detail as to where exactly these materials were used on the spacecraft: The LM handbook is a great resource as well:

'll admit, there's a cool-factor there, vacuum being so empty that something so fragile can withstand it, but like any 60s sci-fi it falls apart when you actually think about it.

What would make it fall apart? The aluminum hull was rigid. The LM had interior support rods as well: . It could survive standing on Earth as it was being built and tested, why couldn't it survive in space where there is no gravity, and on the Moon where there is only 1/6 gravity?

The combined CM-LM living/working space is just such a bad idea. The lunar lander is the crux of the mission, by any account it ought to be kept in the best possible condition, not constantly pressurized then depressurized then repressurized (particular with such fragile components) once it makes it to the moon, and with astronauts tramping all through it.

What other way would astronauts get out of the LM then? You can't have a pressurized spacecraft suddenly open to the vacuum of space, you'd have no air left, and it'd damage the spacecraft. You also can't have the LM constantly depressurized, the astronauts need a space to live inside. The pressurization system and LM was built to withstand the multiple pressurizations and depressurizations. I don't see why it wouldn't be. The engineers at Grumman and NASA were smart, they accounted for this. The astronauts also weren't "tramping all through it." Once inside, it was really just used for minimal walking around (it wasn't a huge amount of space), and sleeping.

Plus imagine the worst happened and the module broke down on the moon; unlucky Mr Three without the name recognition of Armstrong or Aldrin suddenly loses a chunk of his living space and has to trust that a docking port holds rather than a more secure airlock.

Collins would have 3X the space in the CM if Aldrin and Armstrong didn't come back. The LM was great for adding space for 3 people, but not necessary if there is only one. Also, the docking port would hold, why wouldn't it? It's a much more secure airlock than the LM which could've broken away if something hit it. Your logic here really doesn't make sense. You're grasping at straws.

A bunch of men banging around the connector while they float from module to module over a period of several days in a high-risk, brand new environment is hardly what a sensible organization would opt for.

First, astronauts weren't constantly transversing between the CM and LM. Most of the mission to and from the Moon was spent in the CM, not in the LM. The LM was only meant for landing on, and lifting off of the Moon, so it wasn't necessary to be in it constantly except for inspection, preparations for landing, and other similar tasks.

Second, I'm confident that the astronauts weren't wildly banging around the CM-LM connection, and took care as they transferred. These people are highly intelligent, why would they be so stupid to do something that careless? It was much more likely that they floated freely between the spacecraft, and put a hand or two on the wall to keep steady.

Third, I'm also confident the engineers took into account the dangers of breaking the connection while in space. They certainly would make sure the connection was rigid and could withstand the average bump.

Really, they shouldn't need any more than a frame with a couple of rockets, two chairs, seatbelts and pockets on.

Uh, that's basically what they had, minus the chairs and seatbelts. The astronauts stood so as to have a better view out the window when landing, and it was only 1/6 gravity, so it really wasn't necessary for them to be sitting.

But it isn't about the practicality of the mission, it's about the look of the thing.

If it was about looks, the spacecraft would've looked far different. I can guarantee you that.


Do we have any evidence of this phenomena actually happening? This really requires one to stretch their limit of belief.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module
« on: July 10, 2018, 11:36:43 PM »
Incorrect. The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.


A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as thin as "0.015 to 0.025" inches thick. About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.


As a further follow-up, I wanted to verify a few dimensions and get a true sense of perspective on how thin 0.012-0.015 inches really is.

According to this ALCOA source, US aluminum beverage can walls were approximately 0.015 inches thick in the 1970s. According to this excellent Scientific American article from September 1994, The Aluminum Beverage Can, can wall thicknesses were reduced even further to 0.003-0.006 inches. This study shows that US aluminum soda cans with walls 0.005 inches thin can contain internal gas/liquid pressure loads of 50+ psi.

Moving away from aluminum pressure vessels, I wanted to check relevant dimensions of aluminum sheet and foil. According to this Aluminum Industry document, aluminum sheet is a product 0.008-0.249 inches thick (previously 0.006-0.249 inches), and aluminum foil is a product 0.0079 inches or less thick (previously less than 0.006 inches). Reynolds Wrap Aluminum Kitchen Foil varies in thickness from 0.00064-0.00137 inches as you progress from the standard product to the extra heavy product. So while the aluminum skin of the Apollo LM crew cabin may have been, in certain areas, the equivalent of 3 (very thick) layers of aluminum foil, that foil was not thin modern-day kitchen foil grade. Perhaps kitchen foil of the 1960s-1970s was an awful lot thicker!

Overall, the chem-milled aluminum skin was sufficiently robust for the lunar landing missions. While you may not have been able to push your finger through the side walls, a sharp pointed object or a stray foot may have resulted in disaster so care was needed. Andrew Chaikin wrote in A Man On The Moon (p156):

    "In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."

While technically nothing you said was wrong, it wasn't the full story. The hull was .012 inches thick at the thinnest areas, but there were numerous support ridges and bars around the outside of the frame, as can be seen in these photos:

These provided structural support. Your quote above states this as well:

About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.

The hull wasn't weak enough to push through with a foot or anything, but something sharp could've pierced through it (a knife, for example).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >