I think Muslim is someone who claims he/she is a Muslim. However, Islamic interpretation is someone who believe in God and believe Muhammed is last messenger of God and what prophet brought. So if you ask me about Muslims according to first interpretation, then I don't think all Muslims believe it and if you ask about Muslims according to second interpretation, then I think all Muslims do believe humans are descended from Adam and Hava. Its just my opinion, may be its wrong.
Regardless of "right or wrong," I know that this thread has enlightened many. Not that that people with greater understanding are or should be more tolerant of barbaric practices. Including when they are seen in Muslim/Islamic cultures. Also there's been a tremendous amount of hatred of Jews expressed here, which is a ridiculous attitude. Regarding the OP, "Why do Islam hates people," I do believe it has been elaborated on in many dimensions. |
|
|
|
....I was simply pointing out what the person from NASA said...
Here is your post #55, referencing "people going through Van Allen Belts" - Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet?So since you wrote post 55 you now believe that NASA didn't say that people had not gone through the radiation belts? |
|
|
|
I'm confused by science words. Is there actually water or just evidence? Could I put it in the cup or no?
In at least one area on Mars, at a very limited time of the day and likely a limited time of the year, you could walk to one of the ravines showed in the picture, jump down in it, maybe dig a bit through cold, wet mud, and fill a cup with water. It wouldn't be something you could drink, no. If you went too early you would find the ravine bottom hard icy mud. If you went too late, a few hours after it was liquid, it might have all boiled off (if the temperature moved above about 10C) or it would have refrozen (if the temperature moved below 0C). But if you dug a well in that area, say two hundred meters down, it would always be liquid. And it might possibly be clean water, if the sedimentary action is similar to here. |
|
|
|
...
..The video of him talking was the same in both videos. I couldn't care less about what you're writing, because I was never arguing about whether or not we got through the belts, purely pointing out the NASA employee says they need to do more work to get humans through them.
Here is your post #55, referencing "people going through Van Allen Belts" - Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet? Now you say you were never arguing about whether or not we moved people through the belts.Moving goalposts. Probably want to delete your prior posts, before claiming something different. Your link (not you) was a twisted, sick misframing and misrepresentation of Smith's actual talk. It took things out of context to make a point that is obviously wrong to anyone with a glimmer of understanding of the science. You bought into it or whatever, and I called you on it. This is not complicated. A one minute google search would have shown you the propagandist doing the video was a outright liar. There's nothing wrong with not understanding why bigger electronic parts are affected less by radiation than miniaturized parts. But these are not matters of opinion, they are well understood. |
|
|
|
See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.
No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing. Facts prove things. So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you. First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk. They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections. To make it simple, they lie about what he said. That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of. No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts. No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them. No, you don't have a point. Here is the unabridged video of Smith. http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.htmlHere are some parts of his talk - can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...
...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...
Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.
This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it. Would you like to get real please? If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions. This is not complicated. He says, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...". If they don't know how to solve these problems to get people through that area of space now (in 2015), then how did they do it in 1969? No part of your statement is true. No more than your links accurately reflected what "NASA says," or "What a NASA engineer said." See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.
Testing a spacecraft is standard practice. It was done with Apollo, and it is being done with Orion. It's as if you intentionally mistake things. Well, you got caught. The concern is clearly stated as to the electronics being a matter of concern. If your car's computer and sensors quit, your car would quit. Was that true in 1969? nope, because none of today's miniaturized electronics existed. Regardless, systems testing is good practice. Again, I invite you to simply ask your question to Kelly Smith, if you actually believe he said things - or implied things - that he didn't. Right, deflecting from what I was actually talking about... strawman fallacies. I agree testing a spacecraft is always a standard practice, but of course that has nothing to do with what I was originally talking about. If they knew how to get through the radiation in 1969, then they should know how to get through the radiation now. But thanks for showing he said what I said he said. "Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test... Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for us to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space..." What you're saying is that because there is a different technology (miniaturized electronics) on Orion, it may malfunction when it goes through the Van Allen Belts, which is why they're testing it without humans first. What he should have said, "We must solve these challenges before we can send people in Orion through these areas of space". Because everyone knows we've already sent people through these areas of space. So how did they protect the previous 1969 Apollo mission's guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics? Because they were bigger back then, they were more protected? Why didn't they test the radiation levels back then to figure out how to get their electronics through the Van Allen Belt back in '69? Oh you want me to ask them. I don't care. My point was he said they need to study up, get the radiation information, so they can send Orion up through the Van Allen Belts, so they can then actually get humans up there. Which is what he said. Your goalpost shifting is quite obvious. Not only is spacecraft testing standard practice, so is aircraft and auto. Van Allen belts were extensively studied before Apollo. Instead of asking misleading questions based on lying youtube videos, why not just read a bit about it? Yes, today's electronics is far more sensitive to radiation than that of 1969. That is why solar storms and Carrington events are problematic today. When Apollo flew, the program directors and the astronauts knew the exact risk factors from Van Allen, solar radiation, and solar storms. Everybody knew that if a bad storm hit, the men in the capsules were dead. Everyone knew there was no risk from the Van Allen belts they traversed. Just as an example, here is Wikipedia on the van allen belts. Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. .... The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts... The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them..... ... total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[30] |
|
|
|
This is what affirmative action can do to a nation. During the 1990s, a lot of qualified white police officers were fired, and unqualified and inexperienced Africans were brought in. The death sentence was abolished, and prison sentences were reduced to one-sixth. Also, a lot of the murderers and rapists never spend more than a year in prison for their crimes. Oscar Pistorius, for example spent only a few months behind bars for killing his girlfriend in cold blood.
Sad. It is such a beautiful country. |
|
|
|
All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times SaysAfter decades spent playing up the dangers of a warming planet, the New York Times admits that even if every country lived up to their current carbon reduction pledges, it won't make any difference. Pointing to a "new analysis,' the Times notes that the planet would still heat up by 6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is too high to prevent global catastrophes from raining down.
The analysis comes from Climate Interactive, which is the source of carbon calculations used by the U.S. and other governments. It concluded the current pledges — made in advance of the big Paris conference on climate change — would reduce the expected global warming to 6.3 degrees, from 8.1 degrees that would occur without those pledges.
Keep in mind that climate scientists say that any warming above 3.6 degrees will be really, really bad. (Some even say this threshold is too high.)So what's the point? Why should countries undertake a hugely expensive effort to reduce carbon emissions, when the climate scientists themselves are saying it won't do any good? Because they want to feel better about themselves? Get some good headlines? Some might argue that taking this first step could lead to many more, which could produce still more CO2 reductions down the road. But that, too, ignores an inconvenient fact that President Obama, Al Gore and everyone else proselytizing against fossil fuels won't admit. If climate scientists are right, keeping the global temperature increase under 3.6 degrees will require the entire planet to go completely carbon free in about 60 years, something nobody is proposing to do, or say what it would entail. And after that, we'd need to be removing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere each year, something nobody has a clue how to accomplish. Of course, it's also possible that the climate scientists are wrong, both about future warming and about the harm it will cause, and we don't need to worry about CO2 at all. Either way, all those pledges to cut carbon emissions would be pointless. Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren't something to be celebrated. Nor should the leaders who propose them. http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092815-773048-climate-change-pledges-made-so-far-wont-stop-global-warming.htm ...comments...priceless... |
|
|
|
See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.
No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing. Facts prove things. So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you. First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk. They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections. To make it simple, they lie about what he said. That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of. No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts. No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them. No, you don't have a point. Here is the unabridged video of Smith. http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.htmlHere are some parts of his talk - can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...
...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...
Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.
This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it. Would you like to get real please? If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions. This is not complicated. He says, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...". If they don't know how to solve these problems to get people through that area of space now (in 2015), then how did they do it in 1969? No part of your statement is true. No more than your links accurately reflected what "NASA says," or "What a NASA engineer said." See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.
Testing a spacecraft is standard practice. It was done with Apollo, and it is being done with Orion. It's as if you intentionally mistake things. Well, you got caught. The concern is clearly stated as to the electronics being a matter of concern. If your car's computer and sensors quit, your car would quit. Was that true in 1969? nope, because none of today's miniaturized electronics existed. Regardless, systems testing is good practice. Again, I invite you to simply ask your question to Kelly Smith, if you actually believe he said things - or implied things - that he didn't. |
|
|
|
See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.
No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing. Facts prove things. So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you. First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk. They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections. To make it simple, they lie about what he said. That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of. No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts. No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them. No, you don't have a point. Here is the unabridged video of Smith. http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.htmlHere are some parts of his talk - can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...
...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...
Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.
This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it. Would you like to get real please? If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions. This is not complicated. |
|
|
|
See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.
No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing. Facts prove things. |
|
|
|
That's a strawman fallacy. No one was using youtube videos to prove the moon landings were fake in this thread. I neither see a strawman argument nor a logical fallacy on my side. My argument covers the ongoing discussion pretty good imho *edit Btw. How to land on the moon if you cant cross the van allen belt?  You would start from low earth orbit, and simply set an orbit which avoided the belts. This would obviously not be on the plane of the sun and the planets. The orbit would loop out past the Moon, and would be calculated to intersect the Moon on the spacecraft's way back. It's not the fastest method or the safest - that is the Hohmann maneuver used by Apollo. Also it would limit the landing sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit |
|
|
|
Did you notice the cute comment on the MythBusters page, "The episode proves that landing on the Moon can be reproduced in studio  Knock, knock – wake up!" No, the episode does not prove that. Proof that the Moon Landing was not faked is not proof that the Moon Landing could have been faked. |
|
|
|
Not sure which is the better conspiracy theory... that NASA made it to the moon or that NASA altered physics and/or used CGI decades before it was invented, to produce the Apollo videos at the time.
According to some, you should just Ask Youtube To Get Your Answer. No need to use your brain or open a book. MythBusters were asked to use their brains, and... myth busted. Not even plausible. True. Here's the link. Didn't take them very long, either. http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing |
|
|
|
Not sure which is the better conspiracy theory... that NASA made it to the moon or that NASA altered physics and/or used CGI decades before it was invented, to produce the Apollo videos at the time.
According to some, you should just Ask Youtube To Get Your Answer. No need to use your brain or open a book. |
|
|
|
.... I'm not backtracking. That was a quote where I was responding to someone. You just seemed to ignore that. They wrote, "Flowing Water On Mars indicates that LIFE CAN HAPPEN ON MARS. (Screw the religious people )" So I responded, that the statement is true, (that life can happen on mars) if you can believe NASA. If NASA says we went to the moon officially, and people from NASA say we can't get through the Van Allen Belts, I find it hard to believe anything NASA says officially. Tarry on though, this is funny. Edit: I think you think I named the links, I copied the youtubes name for the links. I wasn't saying the link's names as a statement.  In case it isn't clear, I am practicing here the "Are you still beating your wife?" logical fallacy. Which if even answered implies - 1. You have a wife. 2. You have a history of beating your wife. 3. You may today be beating your wife. Now, before thinking all that through too carefully....what is life like today in those secret far side Nazi Lunar bases? When vil de Battle de Earth commenz? |
|
|
|
Pakistan: Entire Family Murdered In Latest “Honor Killing”…Pakistani police Wednesday were looking for four men believed to have killed a couple and their four children as retribution for a perceived “honor crime.” Police officer Mohammed Aslam said the killings happened Tuesday in the town of Athara Hazari in central Pakistan. Aslam said the men are believed to have hacked the family to death with axes and knives. One daughter, identified by police as Aisha, survived and relayed what happened to authorities. She and the other bodies were found after a man delivering milk to the house noticed that no one was coming to the door, Aslam said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/pakistani-honor-killing_n_6300908.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000017 Muslim parents face court in Germany after murdering daughter for shoplifting condoms to have sex with forbidden boyfriendKilled ... 19-year-old Lareeb Khan was strangled to death by her father A MUSLIM father has admitted to strangling his 19-year-old daughter to death after she was caught shoplifting condoms to use with a man she had been forbidden from dating.Asadullah Khan, 51, used his bare hands to strangle his daughter Lareeb because she had brought “dishonour” to the family, the court in Germany heard. His wife Shazia Khan, 41, is also on trial for their daughter’s murder as she did not attempt to stop him. The couple, originally from Pakistan, then dressed their daughter in her dental assistant work attire and used a wheelchair to transport her to their car. They used the car to relocate her body from their high-rise apartment in the city of Darmstadt to a forest, where they disposed of it by rolling her down the hill. Mr Khan said the family’s honour had been jeopardised after Lareeb had started dating a man despite attempts by her family to stop it. The situation then escalated to a fatal level when Lareeb was caught attempting to steal condoms from a store. Mrs Khan told the court that she did not stop her husband as she feared him. But the couple’s youngest daughter 14-year-old Nida said in court that Mrs Khan “was not suppressed” by her husband and “could do what she wanted”. She also said she wants nothing more to do with her parents.Lareeb’s boyfriend Raheel said they had planned to get married but her parents threatened him, Picture (Bild) Newspaper reported. He added that Lareeb had told him that her mother, Mrs Khan, had repeatedly abused her with a stick and pressed her hand on a hot stove.Mr Khan had also tried to strangle Lareeb on a previous occasion. http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/muslim-parents-face-court-in-germany-after-murdering-daughter-for-shoplifting-condoms-to-have-sex-with-forbidden-boyfriend/story-fnh81p7g-1227548916085------------------------------------- Germans should stop being so selfish and open up to other traditions and cultures, in their own country...  How's the Family Honor doing now? Inquiring minds would like to know.... Why couldn't the forbidden boyfriend shoplift his own condoms? |
|
|
|
Yes, actually we can and have sent humans through the Van Allen belts. Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet? You are making no sense now. Please state your premises and supporting evidence. I am tired of looney Youtube links. So you didn't want to watch the NASA engineer talk about the Van Allen belts in the first video? And you didn't watch the other man in NASA in "space" talking about how they can't get through the Van Allen belts and right now we can only fly in earth orbit and we "could" go to the moon if we could get through them? Keep your eyes closed, then. I'm only simply asking that you produce facts, and figures to support your opinions instead of Youtube videos. No, I don't care to watch your videos and the idea that Youtube videos are some kind of "proof" is laughable. Astrophysics is a science. Buy a textbook or two. Van Allen belts are well studied. Look up the facts. From a simple Wikipedia 1 minute check.
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts.....Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field.
The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.Emissions from the Sun are a major danger, not the Van Allen belts. This is so funny, lol. I said people from NASA said we haven't been through the Van Allen belts. The proof that they said it is in the videos. I'm not arguing about whether or not we can. I'm not trying to prove we can or can't. But it's funny you think I am. I'm telling you the people from NASA said we can't. Why did they say that? I'm not concerned about some video that you think says something. You may have misunderstood it, their words may be taken out of context, whatever. "One person from NASA talking" is not "NASA." This isn't rocket science. Yeah... it's not. I said these quotes - "Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet?" (video links showing people at NASA saying it) "I said people from NASA said we haven't been through the Van Allen belts." I didn't say NASA said it in some sort of official document. I never claimed that. Please read next time. Here is the BS you are now backtracking on. If you believe NASA.....
DID SPACE.COM ADMIT WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON?
NASA Admits They Can't Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts Carry on! But since you brought the subject up, let's explore it a bit. 1. Do you now, or have you ever, held the belief in whole or part, that the US did not put men on the Lunar surface? 2. Do you now, or have you ever, held the belief in whole or part, that the US did not have spaceships that move men through the Van Allen radiation belt? 3. Do you have, or have you ever, an official Moon Denial card? 4. Are you in reality a secret operative from the Nazi Lunar Base on the far side of the Moon? 5. As a secret operative of the NLB, have you sworn to use propaganda Youtube links to sow confusion and mistrust of Diet Pepsi? I await your answers. |
|
|
|
Yes, actually we can and have sent humans through the Van Allen belts. Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet? You are making no sense now. Please state your premises and supporting evidence. I am tired of looney Youtube links. So you didn't want to watch the NASA engineer talk about the Van Allen belts in the first video? And you didn't watch the other man in NASA in "space" talking about how they can't get through the Van Allen belts and right now we can only fly in earth orbit and we "could" go to the moon if we could get through them? Keep your eyes closed, then. I'm only simply asking that you produce facts, and figures to support your opinions instead of Youtube videos. No, I don't care to watch your videos and the idea that Youtube videos are some kind of "proof" is laughable. Astrophysics is a science. Buy a textbook or two. Van Allen belts are well studied. Look up the facts. From a simple Wikipedia 1 minute check.
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts.....Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field.
The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.Emissions from the Sun are a major danger, not the Van Allen belts. This is so funny, lol. I said people from NASA said we haven't been through the Van Allen belts. The proof that they said it is in the videos. I'm not arguing about whether or not we can. I'm not trying to prove we can or can't. But it's funny you think I am. I'm telling you the people from NASA said we can't. Why did they say that? I'm not concerned about some video that you think says something. You may have misunderstood it, their words may be taken out of context, whatever. "One person from NASA talking" is not "NASA." This isn't rocket science. |
|
|
|
Yes, actually we can and have sent humans through the Van Allen belts. Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet? You are making no sense now. Please state your premises and supporting evidence. I am tired of looney Youtube links. So you didn't want to watch the NASA engineer talk about the Van Allen belts in the first video? And you didn't watch the other man in NASA in "space" talking about how they can't get through the Van Allen belts and right now we can only fly in earth orbit and we "could" go to the moon if we could get through them? Keep your eyes closed, then. I'm only simply asking that you produce facts, and figures to support your opinions instead of Youtube videos. No, I don't care to watch your videos and the idea that Youtube videos are some kind of "proof" is laughable. Astrophysics is a science. Buy a textbook or two. Van Allen belts are well studied. Look up the facts. From a simple Wikipedia 1 minute check.
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts.....Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field.
The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.Emissions from the Sun are a major danger, not the Van Allen belts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
)
