/sci/ - Science & Math

Can someone tell me how my food gets out of the microwave???

>>6274158
Are you trolling?
The Van Allen belts are not solid.

They use drills

>>6274165
>The Van Allen belts are not solid
Let me rephrase the question; How do they get through the Van Allen belt without dying from the massive radiation?

>>6274165
I believe he's thinking that the radiation belts cause harm to the shuttle crew...

>>6274172

radiation doesn't instakill

>>6274172
They use shielding, and they are not exposed for long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel

>>6274172
there's radiation involved throughout the entire space flight

>>6274172
Please define "massive"

>>6274172
it takes more than a week to have a noticeable effect (radiation poisoning), so theyd have to stay in the belt for a few weeks to die of radiation.

>>6274158
>Can /sci/ tell me how NASA's space shuttles get past the Van Allen belts?

They don't. Shuttles never even came close to them.

The only humans to pass through the Van Allen belts were the Apollo astronauts. They were only there for a short time, and were exposed to minimal radiation.

>>6274189
This.
I can't believe people still think we've been to the moon.

When NASA was asked if they could train their astronauts in Chernobyl they said the radiation was too dangerous.
The radiation within Chernobyl is child's play compared to the radiation within the Van Allen belts.

We have never been in space. It's all a hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhzjx8TsuQk

>>6274252
>he thinks chernobyl is real

>>6274172

the space shuttle and ISS go no where near the Van Allen Belt. The ISS orbits at 330 km, the radiation belts are at 1,000 to 60,000 km

>>6274280
Are you saying the ISS is real?
Did you even watch the video?

>>6274294
lol they aren't in 0g dude and the station is constantly making adjustments to its course and heading

you should know the station is an international endeavor and it would be highly unlikely other countries would be involved in this bullshit

canada also makes TONS of fucking youtube videos up there, there is no way they are using greenscreens

oh my god this is hilarious

can i get your email? i want to know all about the other delusions you have man, maybe i will write a book about you

>>6274302

he's pretending to be stupid for attention. much like a child would do

>>6274302
Why did she throw water on all the expensive equipment?
Wake up.

>mfw Chris Hadfield is just trolling us all and never actually went into space

>>6274313
Big troll. He got everyone fooled.
Don't believe any of it.

Give me a 24/7 webcam of ISS and I might believe it.

Come on guys, don't be stupid.
Why do you think they only release short clips at a time? It's because it's fake and staged. Doesn't take a brainiac to figure that out.

Some for of /x/ invasion going on I presume?

>>6274346
No. Just trolls.

>>6274332

>NASA HQ
>lets just stream from space cuz anon is a faggot!
>GOOD IDEA

>>6274332
the nasa channel use to have a live webcam of the ISS.
it was really boring.
also you can see the ISS from Earth

>>6274311
because she's a woman with no regard for such things and only there because feminists demand it

>>6274357
Stop calling me a troll and open your eyes.
You are blinded by mainstream science.
Stop believing in NASA. They are nothing more than Nazi scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaT2G4fMT4o

>>6274366
>also you can see the ISS from Earth
How can you be sure there are people on board?

>>6274368
>because she's a woman with no regard for such things and only there because feminists demand it
Nope, it's because it's fake. Throwing water on the equipment would cause it to malfunction. Do you know nothing?

>>6274158
van allen belts arent actually that bad, they take a long time to kill, and w can go past them quite fast.

>>6274332
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream

>>6274252
>When NASA was asked if they could train their astronauts in Chernobyl they said the radiation was too dangerous.

That never happened because it's nonsensical. You can't train people to not die of cancer, or not get cataracts. In any case the type of exposure is totally different. In Chernobyl you would be exposed to radioisotopes which stay with you, in space the radiation is the only problem, it does not persist.

>>6274368
I find it unlikely that unlikely that NASA would actually put a woman this uncareful in space just to preform antfarm-in-zero-gravity-grade experiments, and stupid interviews.

The floating blob of water is old. It's difficult for me to belive they haven't come up with something more spectacular over the last 20 years.

It is however likely that this is staged to keep the public interested in order to leech more money into this outdated space program.

Many things about this just doesn't add up.
I would have to side with the theory of a conspiracy on this until more compelling evidence or proof surfaces.

>>6274416
>How can you be sure there are people on board?

>>6274252
How do they sustain a zero-g parabolic flight for the length of the interview?

>She spills a tiny bit of water
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not it. I don't even see any spillage, she wipes her hand.

You're insane if you think this is evidence of anything.

>>6274453
>I find it unlikely that unlikely that NASA would actually put a woman this uncareful in space just to preform antfarm-in-zero-gravity-grade experiments, and stupid interviews.
NASA do human spaceflight because people think it's important and have for 50 years. Human spaceflight gets funding so you might as well use that for science. There are a great many good experiments on the ISS. Interviews are an essential part of outreach which guarantees interest in science both so people study science and so they are happy to fund it.

>It's difficult for me to belive they haven't come up with something more spectacular over the last 20 years.
Unless you can come up with something better you cannot make the claim that there is something better. Zero-g flights have existed for decades and yet the drinking thing is still what they do.

You've still presented no evidence.

>>6274484
The burden of presenting evidence is not upon me, because I don't present to you my own pictures and videos from space.
NASA is the corporation that needs to present evidence.
And even though they're trying they have not made it evident to me.
I myself am more interested in the part of the space program that isn't disclosed to the public.

>>6274510
>The burden of presenting evidence is not upon me
When going against the accepted story it is your job.
You make the positive claim that it is faked and a conspiracy, that requires evidence. I cannot prove it is not faked without hearing your claims on how that was done.

NASA presents all the evidence online, not looking at it is your problem.

The burden of proof is on you.

>>6274311
I think the video is PR boasting before anything else. Throwing water around is still frowned upon and no other ISS scientists do it after this camstream.

didnt know he had these things called after him

>>6274682
That's bollocks, I saw Hadfield do it and I don't watch many of these at all.
It's not that much of a big deal, you can see here wipe her hands.

>>6274694
Oh, well he did shove water into his eyes to demonstrate crying. Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watchv=3bCoGC532p8

Fucking whatever. The cunts are flying around up there, so you better get that tinfoil on before they watch your moments with binoculars and tell the NSA.

>>6274713
>The cunts are flying around up there, so you better get that tinfoil on before they watch your moments with binoculars and tell the NSA.

Why don't you get your binoculars and see if you can see their movements? You can't. The best camera on the space station is quite poor in comparison to what's easily available for earth observation and reconnaissance.

>>6274733
I remember at a younger age watching the last Space Shuttle mission undock and drift away from the ISS as they tracked across the night sky. Two fast moving, 'brighter than stars' dots. I'd imagine that those two factors alone make them hard to photograph in telescopic detail. The optical telescopes on Earth are indeed amazing instruments, but track slowly and use long exposure times. Also this >>6274455 appears to be a photo from Earth, but I didn't post it so I don't know.

>Are you even qualified to discuss science?

>>6274767
> I'd imagine that those two factors alone make them hard to photograph in telescopic detail.
You'd be wrong, see the image I posted or countless others.

Long exposures are used for faint objects not bright ones, there are large telescopes that can track objects in LEO. Small telescopes can easily track that quickly. I however didn't mention ground based telescopes.

>I wouldn't make dickish remarks if I knew as little as you did.

>>6274778
Well, basically what I'm pushing for is the presence of people in the ISS and I'm pretty sure we're actually on the same side; they are. But you can't see them with binoculars, as I sarcastically stated.

>I constantly post dickish remarks on 4chan, and so does everybody else.

>>6274786
>But you can't see them with binoculars
Which was my point. I said literally said "you can't".

>>6274789
I know. Believe it or not, I don't actually believe that astronauts watch people from space with Leuplods and report to the NSA. But people who dispute the existence of the ISS stereotypically say anti-government crap like that all the time. People playing with water in space doesn't contradict space programs. It's not smart. But it's not evidence tinfoillers can use either.

>>6274158
They don't have to pass through them. The shuttles have never passed an altitude that is higher than the lowest belt.

>>6274806
Correct.
The Apollo missions did pass through them, but the aluminium-honeycomb sandwich structure in the spacecraft protected the astronauts well and they weren't irradiated beyond acceptable limits. The cosmic radiation outside of the magnetic belts will prove to be a bigger issue for longer missions, as the exposure time is greater despite the lower intensity. Circuity malfunction is a persistent problem for satellites passing through these belts, but human exposure seems manageable. OP's question is sorted.

The space program is a hoax.
Look at the names of the shuttles. They form a sentence; "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis......and all Challengers shall be destroyed."
It should be noted that the shuttle named "Challenger" was destroyed.

This might sound "tinfoil-worthy", but it's the truth.

The space program is a hoax.
Look at the names of the shuttles. They form a sentence; "A Columbian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis......and all Challengers shall be destroyed."
It should be noted that the shuttle named "Challenger" was destroyed.

This might sound "tinfoil-worthy", but it's the truth.

>>6276413
Okay. Now where did this sentence come from, that we should think it matters?

Please provide a reliable reference.

>>6276413
when was there a shuttle named Enterprise outside of star trek?

>>6276441
Yes but it never flew. It was NASA's first Space Shuttle. Anon above is chronologically wrong.

>>6276441
It's what they named the atmospheric flight test article.

It was supposed to be named "Constitution" originally, but a letter-writing campaign by trekkies got them to name it after the Star Trek ship instead.

>>6274416
>go to trouble of putting a fucking space station in orbit so big, you can easily see it from earth, all for the express purpose of fooling the world in a giant scam
>dont bother putting people up there

aaaand you went full retard

>>6274416
>Throwing water on the equipment would cause it to malfunction.
>Implying that equipment can't be water proof.

>>6276413
>It should be noted that the shuttle named "Challenger" was destroyed.
...and whoever made up that sentence did after the Challenger disaster, but before the Columbia one.

>>6276447
It works better if you leave out "Enterprise" anyway.

>>6276454
not to mention just having all those people breathing puts enough condensation into the air to drench the place.

>>6274158

The shuttles operated in low earth orbit which is below the Van Allen belts.

The Apollo astronauts passed through them only relatively briefly on their way to and from the moon and this short duration limited their radiation exposure.

>>6276435
I heard it from William Cooper, but I have heard/read it other places too.
William Cooper was an American whistleblower, who died a few months after 9/11.
He exposed 9/11 months before it happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMlE6aiDFfY

I can't remember the exact video I heard him say that in so I googled a little and found this:
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html

Do some research on W. Cooper. I was a great man.

This probably still isn't a "reliable reference" for you sheeple. And yes, I call you sheeple, because you never ever question anything. You just swallow everything you're told.

You think you always need a reference or a source, like nobody can come up with something new.
Original ideas? What the actual fuck is that?

Because I'm not an academician everything I say has no value, apparently.

You claim to be smart, but this makes you really stupid in my eyes.

Please wake up, and start thinking.

I heard it from William Cooper, but I have heard/read it other places too.
William Cooper was an American whistleblower, who died a few months after 9/11.
He exposed 9/11 months before it happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMlE6aiDFfY
I can't remember the exact video I heard him say that in so I googled a little and found this:
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html

Do some research on W. Cooper. he was a great man.

This probably still isn't a "reliable reference" for you sheeple. And yes, I call you sheeple, because you never ever question anything. You just swallow everything you're told.

You think you always need a reference or a source, like nobody can come up with something new.
Original ideas? What the actual fuck is that?

Because I'm not an academician everything I say has no value, apparently.

You claim to be smart, but this makes you really stupid in my eyes.

Please wake up, and start thinking.

I heard it from William Cooper, but I have heard/read it other places too.
William Cooper was an American whistleblower, who died a few months after 9/11.
He exposed 9/11 months before it happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMlE6aiDFfY

I can't remember the exact video I heard him say that in so I googled a little and found this:
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html

Do some research on W. Cooper. he was a great man.

This probably still isn't a "reliable reference" for you sheeple. And yes, I call you sheeple, because you never ever question anything. You just swallow everything you're told.

You think you always need a reference or a source, like nobody can come up with something new.
Original ideas? What the actual fuck is that?

Because I'm not an academician everything I say has no value, apparently.

You claim to be smart, but this makes you really stupid in my eyes.

Please wake up, and start thinking.

>>6276515
>William Cooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper

LOL. Jesus do you believe what you say? Or are you just trolling?

>>6276515
/pol/ please go

>>6276515
>http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html
I've read a few of his points and the ones I read are his own misunderstandings and guesses. It's absolute crap.

>>6276515

You're on the wrong board buddy.

>>>/pol/

>>6276515
>I heard it from William Cooper
Yes, but where did it actually come from?

It's of no significance if someone just made that incredibly awkward sentence up after the Challenger disaster. You can always make something up to create the appearance of a pattern after the fact.

The supposedly eerie reference to Challenger being destroyed appears to have been made up after the fact, with no connection to information available before its destruction.

And for fuck's sake, link what you're replying to.

>>6276413
I don't remember the shuttles A, to, for, the, of, and, all, shall or be

>>6276591
But it's pretty eerie that they had a shuttle named "Destroyed", don't you think?

>>6276591
Oh yeah I always forget about good old destroyed

>>6276592
>>6276598
Sheeple. "Destroyed" must obviously be the name of a secret black-ops shuttle launched from Area 51. Otherwise, it wouldn't be in the sentence.

>>6276530
>2014
>Using WikiPedia as reference
ISHIGGITYDIGGITY

>>6276586
I did actually link to the post I was replying to, but I deleted the post because of some spelling errors and forgot to add links in the new one.
Sorry. My bad.

>Yes, but where did it actually come from?
Someones mind.
Where did the theory of relativity come from, if not THE MIND of Einstein?

>>6276592
>>6276598
>>6276605
They didn't have a shuttle named destroyer, they had a shuttle named Challenger which was destroyed.

>>6276591
You're so bad at this I don't know if I should laugh, cry or both.
If you're going to troll, do it right.

>>6276560
>I've read a few of his points and the ones I read are his own misunderstandings and guesses. It's absolute crap.
Like what?

>>6274280
first good response in this thread

>>6276539
>>6276574
God forbid I come and destroy your precious scientific delusions.

>>6276735
>Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat.
Misunderstandings.

>An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place.
More of them.

>There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.
Guesses and more misunderstanding.

>No rocket could ever have been launched with the amount of water needed to work such a system for even a very short period of time.
Guess, he has no numbers to back up such claims.

>>6276716
>Someones mind.
Oh, so it could well written after Challenger but before Colombia and would hence be meaningless.

>>6276716
>>Yes, but where did it actually come from?
>Someones mind.
More like someone's ass.

Why do you think it's significant that by the adding words, you can make the list of shuttle names into an awkward, near-nonsense sentence that incorporates a name changed because of a Star Trek fan letter writing campaign and doesn't predict the Columbia disaster?

>>6276586
It's a message you idiot.
They destroyed it to make the sentence complete. It's not a fucking prophecy. THEY made it happen. It was no accident, I can assure you that.

>>6274543
Ignorant fool!
I belong to the small minority that claims that genetically modified corn starch is unnatural and has nothing to do within the human body.

You belong to the believers of your accepted story and is hell bent on stuffing your face with it until I, the conspiracy theorist, proves to you that it unhealthy.

If you had questioned NASA as eagerly as you do me, then you would find out these things yourself. Go on! Be fooled! It's your funeral. I don't want you to believe me anyway. I'd prefer you did some investigative research of your own.

>>6274294
You know that you can see the ISS with a telescope, right? Like, with your own eyes. As in anybody with a strong enough telescope and a camera can see it's real and take a fucking picture. Like this one.

Has NASA explained what Dark Matter and Dark Energy is yet?

>>6277427
>implying all telescope manufacturers aren't controlled by the CIA and required to insert alien technology that makes the ISS appear on them
I bet you believe that WW2 actually happened.

>>6277427
Oh, nevermind. I see that's already been pointed out to you and that you actually suggested it's just a big giant decoy space station with nobody on it. For... reasons!?

I'd call you dumb as a bag of doorknobs, but that would be insulting to doorknobs. At least they serve a function.

>>6277406
> I don't want you to believe me anyway.
Obviously or you'd present some evidence or an argument.

What is even the point of going into space?

>>6277439
Ah, I see. Sorry, I'm little slow on the uptake as I'm a bit drunk right now. So this is just a troll thread. Got it. Moving on.

>>6277448
What's even the point of sailing across the ocean.

>>6277455
Little brown girls in grass skirts.

>>6277455
The space station isn't going anywhere. Why is it there? What to people do in it?

>>6277465
Then to answer the space question, little green girls in grass skirts and three boobs.

>>6277474
>The space station isn't going anywhere.

Kind of important to figure out how to survive in it/the long term effects of it, before you can travel across it.

>>6277474
>Why is it there?
So thousands of people can be given government money without the embarassment of applying for welfare.

>What to people do in it?
Orgies, mostly.

>>6277476
Prove they're out there, and we'll go.

>>6277446
Why? I did't claim to pass through the van allen belt, stayed there for days and returned to earth alive.

Nasa did. And they took measures to make it believable. When the lunar landing was showed on television, noone suspected video trickery. I don't blame them for buying the story at the time. These days everyone and their grandmother knows how to fake images and videos.

NASA haven't proved shit and only fools would believe their material. Until they cough up something that is actually convincing I will not blindly believe any of their bs, regardless of the number of people who do.

>>6277496
Aww, it's babby's first conspiracy theory!

>>6277448
Great question!

Most likely for a group of elect people to escape, destroy humanity only to return to be the gods of those who survived and be the sole keepers of all knowledge and science.

>>6277502
>ЯUSSIA
Pet peeve of mine. "Я" is pronounced as "ya". I learned a very small amount of Russian, and now cringe every time I have to read "TETYAIS" or "YAUSSIA" because someone thinks it just looks more Russian that way.

>>6277502
Nice. Resort to ridicule in order to undermine me.
Nobody wins, you lose.

>>6277502
this logic doesn't work.
it convinces conspiracy theorist that much more to know that potentially everyone but them are in on the conspiracy.

>>6277496
>NASA haven't proved shit and only fools would believe their material.

So was Russia in on the conspiracy too? You know, the guys who had a vested interest in seeing America and NASA fail miserably. The guys who had a nations worth of equipment pointed at the moon and could have easily detected if the transmission weren't actually coming from it. The guys who had thousands of scientists, engineers, cosmonauts (ok, so not so much thousands of those), watching the whole thing play out and who would have immediately called shenanigans had there even been an inkling on their part that the whole thing was faked.

Yup, totally in on it. During the middle of the cold war, Russia apparent;y worked hand in hand with America to fake the moon landing.

>>6276716
>not remembering that you can cite wikipedia's soruces

>>6277502
Moron!
There is no money (or power) to be made on the truth.
There are great riches for those who can sell a lie.
Thats why conspiracy theorists are poor, ridiculed and hunted, an why space agencies are filthy rich, believed, praised, and worshipped.

Hard to accept, but not hard to understand.

>>6277531
ah, you must think chemtrails are real
>you know, because the government would spread chemicals into the atmosphere over the same land they live in and occupy

>>6277496
>I did't claim to pass through the van allen belt, stayed there for days and returned to earth alive.
And where's your evidence this is a problem? You do claim there is a massive conspiracy at work, that is a positive claim that required evidence.

>>6277531
>instead of addressing that issue I'll deflect and cradle my persecution complex.

>>6277531
>There are great riches for those who can sell a lie.

So creating a grand conspiracy of pretending we went into to space makes people money... how?

You seem to operating under the underpants gnome theory.

1. Fake moon landing/space station
2. ?
3. Profit

Seriously, what's 2 here? Explain it to me!?

>>6277541
They're not chemtrails, they're ashtrails.

The holocaust never ended. Do you think that Jews who board a flight to Israel land in Israel?

>>6277521
This is essentially the crux of why you can't actually argue with a conspiracy theorist. Any arguments or evidence, no matter how valid, will only be ever seen by them as proof that the conspiracy is even bigger than they originally imagined. All this "evidence" only proves just how many people are in on it.

>>6277554
This is fantastic and made me smile. Whoever you are, I kind of love you.

>>6277548
So a theory of underpant gnomes (Whatever that is) is a legitimate one, but that of a conspiracy, a loaded synonym for organized crime is not?

Conspiracies have existed since the dawn of man. Nothing new.
You are either a:
a) Conspiracy theorist
b) Conspiracy propagator
Herd mentality predicts that most people will seek safety in the group that has the largest number of people.

In times of war and tyranny, Conspiracy propagators are in the majority.
In times of peace and freedom, Conspiracy theorists are in the majority.

>>6277519
No that is a valid argument , the USSR tracked the later Apollo missions. If it was a fraud why wound't the soviets expose it a such?

>>6277684
No it is not a valid argument! Your question however is.

Remember always that the world of science supersedes the world of politics.
The Union of American States and the Union of Soviet States were claimed to the public as being enemies during the cold war era. They had all to gain from this as their military complexes were funded by their respective tax payers. On the field of science they had all to gain from validating each others space programs as they were funded by their respective tax payers.

That sounds unlikely you say?

Well let's see what happened after the end of WWII.
In the political arena the Nazi governmental officials and generals were sentenced to life-imprisonment and death for their crimes at the Nuremberg trials.

What happened to the scientists? Were they sentenced to death? Imprisonment perhaps?

No! Prominent Nazi /Sci/entists in the fields of rocketry, chemical warfare, aerodynamics, medicine, mind control, cryptography, levitation, "Free energy" etc, faced no consequences and were moved to the American Union of States to continue their research. Nazi Germany's top rocket scientist Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun was given a top job at...
You guessed it! NASA!
He went on to be known as the father of the American space program.
Some punishment huh?

So please forgive me for not trusting these people and their superiors. Some scientists follow the truth and the rest follow the money and security. Thank you for an interesting question.

I would be happy to answer any further questions to the best of my ability. I might not have all the answers,and you might not enjoy the ones I have. But if I'm met with harassment I would kindly ask you to eff yourself in the a.

>>6274261
How can Chernobyl be real, if the moon isn't

>>6277516
Better than Pussia

>>6277809
Are you kidding? Pussia is awesome. Makes it sound like it's all Pussy Riot and Tatu.

>>6277448
Zero-gee sex.

I mean really, why hasn't anyone launched a fur lined love hotel? There is a mint there waiting to be made!

>>6278457
Launch costs have been too high. Hopefully that's changing.

SpaceX has been claiming that their Falcon Heavy will be able to launch the equivalent of a fully-fuelled, fully-loaded 737 into orbit, at a price of $135 million. They've also been claiming that the Falcon 9 will be able to fly for $5-7 million if their reusability thing works out. So one way or the other, we might see passengers going to space for under $2 million each in the near future, with a space hotel worth visiting being built for under $1 billion.