/sci/ - Science & Math

We did go to the moon, but we didn't get there with rockets.

We used portals. Much easier.

Real, goddammit. It's not even that amazing of a feat, why disbelieve it?

The moon is close and nothing that special and it took EVERYTHING science had (and a LOT of brand spankin' new things too) at the time to even reach it and get back.

>(photo's

There's nothing wrong with the photos. All their science checks out.

>van allen belt

Do people die on the poles for no reason? No, they get cancer faster if they live there for years and years. It's not instantly lethal to leave the radiation belts, it just compromises your lifespan. Astronauts are not outside of it for years and years.

>never been back

IT'S A DUSTY ROCK. IT'S EVEN MADE OF THE SAME ROCKS AS EARTH. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE MOON. IT COSTS BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO GET THERE AND BACK.


There's not that much special about Mars either!

Venus would be way more interesting, if also fifty times as fucking difficult.

If it was really a fake, the Russians would have called America out on it straight away.

Then how do you explain things like the flag waving, the lights shining in different directions, no landing marks, the ridiculious jumping around, etcetera.

>>2930094

Don't forget: NO FUCKING STARTS SHINING IN THE GODDAM BACKGROUND

>>2930067
>There's not that much special about Mars either!

>>2930094
by readin wikipedia?

>>2930094
>>2930099

>>2930094
> Flag moving
No air to stop its movement while being set up.

> Lights shining...
Millions and millions of reflective rocks all around. Ever been in a snowy place on a sunny day?

> No landing marks
surface dust blown away by thrust while landing.

> Ridiculous jumping around
1/6th earth gravity.


Come on, I give you a 3/10. You could at least use the nutjob conspiracy stuff.

>>2930099
So much sunlight, the exposure time on the cameras is shorter than a regular camera. Because of the limited exposure time, the light from the stars isn't strong enough to cause a chemical reaction.

hijacking cancerous thread cause anonyma cant start a new one.

>need a pseudo code to keep an angle output between 0 and 2pi

brainfreeze atm, fucking equinox! halp guise?

>>2930144
add or subtract 2pi as needed

>>2930144
mod(2 pi)

>>2930154
yeah but whats the pseudo code? i just want to read output between 0 and 2pi so i can plot it, instead of manually editing every single output.....

>>2930157
thanks! thats what i was looking for!

>>2930193
mod operator is %
<span class="math">\frac{num}{pi} % 2[/spoiler]
or something like that

>>2930144
Better: map all of your trig functions to the first quadrant so that you can reduce the order of your Taylor series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM

seriously consider what is being shown in this video

if you cant at least watch it all the way through you are not really qualified to have an opinion

the view of earth from the ship always looked like a crapy distorted cliped view of the earths surface to me
even when i was shown this in the 1970s my reaction was one of disbelif that anyone could not notice that it was clearly visiable in the angle of light on the clouds
this may be because i have always shown far above average spatial perception

may other research of this matter turned up the fact that for more than a year prior to the production of this false trip to the moon there was a concerted effort to maintain 24/7 observation of the visable moon surface (earth side) using all the observatories available on the earth(in all time zones)
it was ended abruptly a few months before the 'launch' in 1968
of note was the obesrvation of a large green cloud on the moon surface in the location they supposedly had landed at during this false production a short time before the abrupt end

my tenative conclusion; the real trip was a military exercise not open to the general public that happened in 1967
then a false production was made to bring the public into awareness for purposes of gaining public support in matters relating to funding etc.

>>2930419
>shown this in the 1970s

so you're at least 50 years old and still this dumb

> never been back
The fuck is that supposed to mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Manned_landings

If you're going to jump onto some conspiracy, could you at least read like ONE PARAGRAPH of actual history before you start spewing random shit onto your keyboard?

>>2930094
>>2930099
the sun is a star, and that's how it looks on the moon. the shadows are a matter of perception.

as for the flag "waving in the breeze," you're right, it doesn't. That would be momentum.

Jumping: Less mass = decreased effect of gravity, or weight. Less gravity = higher jumps.

There are landing marks, along with other things. fuck, they left a whole pile of shit up there! plus, you can shine a laser at specific points on the moon, where they have those reflectors op was talking about, and the light will come back to you. the moon isn't a goddamn mirror, so explain that.

ITT dumbasses that believe in conspiracy theories. I can probably explain most of your theories as psychological bias.

>>2930121
THIS.

>>2930094
HURR DURR THE MOONS FAEK DURR NO ONE WENTTO TEH MOON ITRE IMPOSIBEL I DONT LIKE LOGIC HURR

Why would the americans take a flag there if it would be down the whole time? There is a horizontal pole on top of it because they weren't stupid enough to forget the no atmosphere thing. You can easily see the pole in the photos.

This is so fucking stupid I have no words.

>>2930891
so whats your take on it tripfag manthing?
im 42

why do people who don't understand science much at all suddenly have absolute certainty when a conspiracy theory pops up? (OMG FLAG WAVING)

if you're still not convinced, google RETROFLECTOR
RETROFLECTOR
RETROFLECTOR
RETROFLECTORS, HOW DO THEY FUCKING WORK?

- We have detailed information about everything that happened
- They jump on the moon because it's too hard to walk, basicly. It's not safe, it's easy to trip when there is less gravity acting on you, you actually see them trying in the videos
- The Russians would know and they would fuck America's ass
- Thousands of people worked on the sole purpose of going to the moon. From the astronauts themselves to minor scientists, since the first space missions, when it was considered going to the moon, to the start of the Apollo project when it was made the ultimate goal, to the numerous attempts, the successful Apollo 11 and all the other later missions until Apollo 17
- Learn how light works before saying the sky shouldn't be black. Also, what the fuck is that suppose to mean? They faked moon landing with a black sheet behind them? They went to a desert to shoot the fake moon landing and there were no stars there? What the fuck does that imply really besides complete ignorance?
- There is a horizontal pole that keeps the flag from going down
- We came back there a few times, go read. We didn't insist on it though because the main reason to go to the moon was political, not scientific. It's much cheaper to just send robots, also, we already have rocks from it to study.
- It was broadcasted worldwide as official, it stopped the world and any sign of it being fake would win the war for the ussr just because it would make a fool of the american government

>>2931003
42 year old fucktard

There are no stars because of light pollution.

Ever been in a city at night? DERP

The camera from Surveyor 3, removed from the lander and returned on Apollo 12

>>2931041
i belive that behind the scenes there was a great deal of agreement between the two sides of the cold war for the purpose of enhanceing their control over their respective intrests.
in competetive matters it is probable there were agreements as to who would take credit for an advancement in the eyes of the public; this being a matter of bartering for differing intrests around the globe.
i also am not arguing that they did not go, i am only pointing out that they did not go at the time they made the first announcement to the world.
i feel their is sufficient evidence to be certain that some of the images are altered and some of them altogether false as depicted in the video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM
i dont have the link to the information but i have seen this information about the global observation program that led to the observation of the large green cloud on the moons surface shortly before the programs conclusion
what do you think could have caused it?

>2931224 cont.
my opinion is that it is the actual time of the event.
the military had done this in secret prior to the 1969 stage show mock up.
it would be wrong to assume what i am saying is as unfounded as the babbleing of many of the crazies (ignorant people exist on both sides of the investigation and contribute nothing of value)
for my own view i site specificaly
the testimony of certain persons who participated in 'the disclosure project'
the video i refered to previously
the analysis of the photographs which show obvious alteration
and although not to anyones benifit other than myself i also include a conversation i had with the son of a man who worked in the whitehouse at the time of this landing
he had many insights into the path the photos had been on before ariving even there
he said his father had really only found fault with three of the immages but they by themselves were very disconcerting for him as he otherwise belived all was as it had been presented
what the public is told and the truth are seldom the same thing

i also appear to be the only person pointing to the previously concluded program to use all the observatories around the globe to gather constant detail obesrvation of the surface of the moon in the year preceding the launch
at this moment i cba to dig the information back up but the program concluded shortly after the observation of a large green cloud that i presume to be caused by some sort of gas released on the surface
from this i am surmising that this is the time of the actual mission and later thinktank evaluations determined there was a value to releasing the information

>>2931041
many of the issues involving the absence of stars are the result of the film grade used at the time
by itself its a minor detail and a great distraction to those who will not bother to dig deeper