Prev: Cars I've owned. (not proud of very many)
Next: 95 Camry ABS code 36
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 16 Nov 2009 07:52
"mrbawana2u" <mrbawana2u(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:477393ff-96a2-44e2-bf66-a7fde0081a89(a)o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 9:41 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net>
wrote:
> "James" <kingko...(a)iglou.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b00b60f$0$4061$d94e5ade(a)news.iglou.com...
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:56:08 +0000 (UTC), f...(a)mauve.rahul.net (Edward
> > A. Falk) wrote:
>
> >>In article
> >><f758b4ad-723f-4c3a-8ba3-82461bf6c...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >>Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote:
> >>>Yes, it's called, "spectroscopy." It's discussed and
> >>>demonstrated in introductory chemistry and astronomy
> >>>classes. ...
>
> >>You fool, spectroscopy is not in the bible, so it can't be real. Duh.
> >>Checkmate, athiests.
>
> > You are in the wrong newsgroup with such sarcasm,
> > but spectroscopy tells nothing about energy quantities.
>
> "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they
> wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a
> structure
> which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, 1934
>
> ======================
>
> If I recall (from a book I read about 10 years ago), Tesla's quote
> referred
> to his doubts about quantum mechanics, some of whose theories were purely
> mathematical and could not be proven via experiment at the time. It's
> somewhat devious to use his quote to imply that he would've had doubts
> about
> spectroscopy.

bit of a tard, ain't you, JoeShitEater?

=================

You're jealous of people who read more than the sports section and the back
of cereal boxes.


From: BradGuth on 16 Nov 2009 16:03
Our NASA LCROSS team is on serious steroids and/or hard drugs, as in
cover thy butt with all the media hype, spin and eyecandy meds they
can muster, or else. They must think our president BHO and his staff
of advisers are easily snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no
return. Because guess what folks, there’s water to behold from
creating any crater, mostly because basalt always has at least 50 ppm
to begin with (<750 ppm). Secondly, keeping yourself warm is really
not a problem, as is with keeping yourself and whatever technology
cool. For those polar crater locations, Stirling energy conversions
from photons to electrons is really going to become nifty when there’s
such a terrific thermal (light to dark) differential to begin with.

Once any molecules of water/ice are freed at 3e-15 bar, it becomes
nearly explosive in how it would unavoidably react by expanding into
such an extreme vacuum, and there’s all sorts of secondary IR that
even manages to get into the deepest of those polar craters from time
to time, contributing sufficient thermal energy to boil off or rather
sublime most any raw/naked volume of ice at that extensive vacuum, not
to mention the moon itself is also radiating <22 mw/m2 of it’s
residual and/or thorium core heat (thicker polar crust has got to be
worth at least 10 mw/m2).

The 50<750 some odd PPM of water that’s sealed in surface bedrock and
crust basalt is one thing that’s likely sure enough there to behold.
However, raw/naked ice under a crystal dry layer of physically dark
carbon dust is not as likely to exist/coexist unless that moon either
isn’t very old, and/or there’s water or mineral brine that’s still
leaking out from a substantial reservoir or aquifers inside the moon.

AP / “The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only
what scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete
said.”

And yet there’s still no UV florescence imaging or public view of
those original gamma spectrum readings. So, it remains pretty much
insider and/or need-to-know business as per usual, whereas raw/naked
ice in the vacuum of space apparently doesn’t have to go by any pesky
laws of physics, or any need of independent peer review.

The LCROSS 20 meter crater is basically giving up 1e3 m3 worth of
displaced and/or partially vaporized basalt that’s mineral saturated
and supposedly containing <250 PPM water. That’s roughly <3.5e3 tonnes
worth of lunar basalt w/minerals and those ppm of water to start off
with, and by taking roughly 11% of that as having been vaporized is
perhaps what our NASA has claimed as having given off measurable
water, that such frozen basalt by eights should have. I think the
impact vaporized closer to 25% if not as great as 33%, which means the
h2o content of that basalt wasn’t as great as 100 PPM, but then who’s
really counting since ordinary physics and easily peered replicated
science does not matter.

I would tend to favor that our physically dark lunar surface is about
as crystal dry as things within such a terrific vacuum environment
could ever get, though I’ll give a very remote possibility of there
being an underground artisan cache of water or mineral brine that has
been gradually venting/leaking out and into just those continually
frozen craters is at least technically possible, although it's
extremely unlikely those unavoidable h2o vapors weren't easily
detected by astronomers and their various sensitive spectrometry
methods as of at least decades ago.

Here's yet another image of the sorts of crystal dry minerals that our
moon has to offer. These hue saturations are not bogus/false colors,
just the original colors as having been enhanced on behalf of
observationology, similar to the nifty eyecandy that Hubble gets
published and accepted all the time.

Moon in color (natural but obviously saturation levels cranked up)
http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg

In LRO UV fluorescence imaging, this amount of mineral hue as
secondary reflectance should be at least ten fold better yet, and a
good thousand fold better resolution when obtained from just 50 km.
With their LRO extended dynamic range, any sign of water vapor (atoms
of h2o) as coming off such a naked surface of any crater shadowed ice
would have been unavoidably unmistakable. Of course this means there
really is not such raw/naked ice to behold.

So, apparently our NASA gets to lie their public funded bitts off, and
the rest of us don't, because at roughly 100<250 ppm of what's
supposedly accessible h2o within moon basalt, as such would have only
required vaporizing a few hundred tonnes of basalt in order to provide
those 25 gallons (94+ kg) of water. In other words, at 250 ppm it
would only require vaporizing 400 tonnes out of the 3.5e3 tonnes of
basalt in order to release 100 kg of its water, along with releasing
at the very least 1000 kg of sodium (though many areas of the lunar
surface are rich or saturated in sodium to the tune of <50,000 ppm),
plus there's many kg worth of other minerals and of course there's
30,000<100,000 ppm O2 = 12<40t that shouldn't have been all that
unexpected or hard to detect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
Basalt generally has a composition of 45–55 wt% SiO2, 2–6 wt% total
alkalis, 0.5–2.0 wt% TiO2, 5–14 wt% FeO and 14 wt% or more Al2O3.
Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly
in the range 5 to 12 wt%.

High alumina basalts have aluminium contents of 17–19 wt% Al2O3;
boninites have magnesium contents of up to 15% MgO. Rare
feldspathoid-
rich mafic rocks, akin to alkali basalts, may have Na2O + K2O
contents
of 12% or more.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JE00503.shtml
"Calculation of oxygen yield (as released by hydrogen gas reduction
of ilmenite) show that (1) beneficiated basalt will provide the most
oxygen (8–10%)"

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”



On Nov 14, 5:46 pm, "Good Gawd!" <conspiracies.101.102....(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> <
> Boy, those NASA "scientists" apparently will do almost anything
> to keep their plushy jobs.
> <
> The latest is their revelation that themoonapparently has lots
> ofwater.
> <
> Amazingly, they have said so even though NONE OF THEM
> has actually seen thewater, let alone tasted it to make sure it'swaterabd not battery acid.
> <
> Yet these space "experts" have informed us they have discovered
> at least 25 gallons within the plumes of the impact of  two of their
> spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last month.
> <
> The 5,592 miles-per-hour impact carved out a hole 65 by 98 feet wide.
> and kicked up thewaterin the form of ice and vapor identified by
> a follow-up spacecraft, according to NASA "experts".
> <
> The presence ofwateron themoonreportedly was the result of
> an analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact, showing
> telltale signs ofwatermolecules that had absorbed specific wave
> lengths of light.
> <
> “Indeed, yes, we foundwater. And we didn’t find just a little bit.
> We found a significant amount,” said Anthony Colaprete, the principal
> investigator for Nasa’s Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing
> Satellite, holding up a whitewaterbucket for emphasis.
> <
> Colaprete and other NASA "scientists" called the discovery ofwater
> on themoona thrilling discovery that has sent a ripple of hope for
> a future astronaut outpost in a place that always seemed barren and
> inhospitable.
> <
> Some space policy experts claim the discovery of  H2O makes themoonattractive for exploration again because an abundance ofwater
> would make it easier to set up a base camp for astronauts, supplying
> drinkingwaterand a key ingredient for rocket fuel. More
> importantly, such a project would also keep their paychecks coming.
> <
> Scientists also hope that thewater, in the form of ice accumulated
> over billions of years, holds a record of the solar system’s history,
> which is another bit of NASA nonsense..
> <
> “It’s very exciting, it is painting a new image of themoon,” said
> Gregory Deloy, from the University of California, hailing it as “an
> extraordinary discovery.”
> <
> “We’re unlocking the mysteries of our nearest neighbor and, by
> extension, the solar system,” said Michael Wargo, chief lunar
> scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington who hopes this
> "discovery" ofwatersilences the critics who say spending more
> billions on anything to do with themoonis an absolute waste
> of money (Editorial comment: I agree.).
> <
> According to NASA, only 12 men, all Americans, have ever walked
> on themoon, and the last to set foot there were in 1972, at the end
> of the Apollo missions. Critics say only 10 astronauts ever walked
> on themoonbecause the July 1969 landing -- the first -- was a fake.
> <
> Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who made that "historic" Apollo 11
> moonwalk with Neil Armstrong that still smells of deceit, deception,
> collusion and conspiracy, was pleased to hear of the "discovery"
> ofwaterbut still believes the US should focus on colonizing Mars.
> <
> Here, once again, is rare video footage of man first stepping
> on themoonin 1969.
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_GzwzaJuwY
> <
> Ed Conradhttp://www.edconrad.com

Ed, you're making it difficult for our public funded liars to catch a
break.

~ BG
From: BradGuth on 16 Nov 2009 16:06
On Nov 14, 6:53 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 5:46 pm, "Good Gawd!" <conspiracies.101.102....(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > <
> > Boy, those NASA "scientists" apparently will do almost anything
> > to keep their plushy jobs.
> > <
> > The latest is their revelation that themoonapparently has lots
> > ofwater.
> > <
> > Amazingly, they have said so even though NONE OF THEM
> > has actually seen thewater, let alone tasted it to make sure it's
> >waterabd not battery acid.
> > <
> > Yet these space "experts" have informed us they have discovered
> > at least 25 gallons within the plumes of the impact of  two of their
> > spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last month.
> > <
> > The 5,592 miles-per-hour impact carved out a hole 65 by 98 feet wide.
> > and kicked up thewaterin the form of ice and vapor identified by
> > a follow-up spacecraft, according to NASA "experts".
> > <
> > The presence ofwateron themoonreportedly was the result of
> > an analysis of the slight shifts in color after the impact, showing
> > telltale signs ofwatermolecules that had absorbed specific wave
> > lengths of light.
> > <
>
> Yes, it's called, "spectroscopy."  It's discussed and
> demonstrated in introductory chemistry and astronomy
> classes.  Your post here indicates that you would benefit
> from a basic science course.  Consider enrolling in your
> local junior college.

We had that capability of more than sufficient "spectroscopy" as of a
good half century ago, and of course better yet if you could actually
land upon and directly sample.

~ BG
From: Jeff Strickland on 20 Nov 2009 00:51

"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:OnpNm.18971$cd7.7907(a)newsfe04.iad...
>
>
> What methods and equipment would that expert use to determine that the
> sample was water?
>
>
>

???

I'm not sure what you're arguing, but it appears that you are saying there
is no water on the moon, despite the scientific community saying there is.

I'd be interested in knowing why you think the scientific community is
wrong, and what methods and test equipment YOU use to determine the sample
was not water.

I believe (but I have not read the book yet) that they used spectrumography.
This method of determining the chemical elements in space is accepted, much
the same way that gravity is accepted.











From: JoeSpareBedroom on 20 Nov 2009 02:21
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:he5aon$p47$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:OnpNm.18971$cd7.7907(a)newsfe04.iad...
>>
>>
>> What methods and equipment would that expert use to determine that the
>> sample was water?
>>
>>
>>
>
> ???
>
> I'm not sure what you're arguing,

I noticed that.

> but it appears that you are saying there is no water on the moon, despite
> the scientific community saying there is.

It appears you were drunk when you typed that.


> I'd be interested in knowing why you think the scientific community is
> wrong, and what methods and test equipment YOU use to determine the sample
> was not water.


How many messages did you read in this thread before you typed that?



> I believe (but I have not read the book yet) that they used
> spectrumography. This method of determining the chemical elements in space
> is accepted, much the same way that gravity is accepted.


No sober and non-hysterical adult has ever heard of spectrumography. What is
that?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Cars I've owned. (not proud of very many)
Next: 95 Camry ABS code 36