Lunar Living: 9 Weird Aspects of Living on the Moon

July 12th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
A lunar outpost on the rim of Shackleton Crater at the moon’s South Pole as envisioned by artist Jorge Manes Rubio (ESA).

Living on the Moon would be challenging, to say the least. A total of twelve Apollo moon-walkers between 1969 and 1972 spent a cumulative 80 hours walking around on the surface of the moon. Obviously, they had to bring their own food, water, and air to breathe.

NASA engineers did a good job of preparing the Apollo astronauts for what would be a very non-Earth-like experience. But the moon-walkers were there for only one to three days on each of the lunar landing missions, and were focused on getting historic stuff done as quickly as possible before coming home.

Let’s say you were traveling to an existing moon base as a tourist, with enough food, water, and air to spend a month there, and a round-trip ticket to get there and back home. What are some of the differences you would experience living on the Moon compared to Earth?

1) No atmosphere, no weather, no water, no life

One of the most obvious differences with Earth is that the moon has no atmosphere. No atmosphere means no blue sky, no air to breathe, no weather, and no life. Obviously, you could not simply “go outside”; you would have to have a pressurized space suit. And when you did go outside, there would be no trees, lakes, grass… just a barren grey desert with craters, rocks, and rolling hills.

Apollo-16 lunar panorama with astronaut John Young, April 21, 1972.

Walking around near the South Pole (a likely choice for a moon base, see below) would be treacherous because with the sun low on the horizon, and no atmosphere-scattered sunlight to help illuminate the landscape, any low spots would be almost totally black — some might look like bottomless holes. Venturing into larger craters would require artificial lighting.

2) Gravity: If you weigh 200 lbs on Earth, on the Moon you only weigh 33 lbs

As the Apollo astronauts found out, walking around with only 1/6 of Earth gravity takes some getting used to. They developed a “bunny hop” method of moving around that seemed to help keep them from falling over. Astronaut Harrison Schmitt (the last man to walk on the moon) compared it to walking on a giant trampoline. Without much gravity, your muscles would weaken and you would have to have a daily exercise plan to keep from becoming a couch potato.

3) Good luck sleeping, daytime on the moon lasts for 2 weeks

The moon takes 29.5 Earth days to rotate, so that means two weeks of daylight followed by two weeks of darkness for almost everywhere on the moon. To avoid the problem of a moon base being plunged into darkness for 14 days at a time, with temperatures falling to 280 deg. F below zero, a moon base would probably be located near the South Pole, where there are locations that are almost always sunlit, and temperatures remain more moderate. If that is where you spent your month, the sun would hug the horizon, and it would circle around you during your 1-month stay. You would probably still use a 24-hour (Earth time) clock to maintain a healthy circadian rhythm.

4) The day-night temperature range is over 450 deg. F

Because the lunar surface is relatively dark (about the same reflectivity as the open ocean), and because there are no clouds or weather to cool the surface, daytime temperatures soar to 250 deg. F at the lunar equator. The six Apollo missions were planned so that the sun would not be very high in the sky to limit how hot the astronauts and lunar module would get.

During Apollo-11, the sun’s elevation was only 15 deg. early on a lunar morning, so that lunar daytime surface temperatures were reduced. (This also explains why there is no shadow of the flag to the right; note the length of the “thigh gap” between the shadows of Buzz Aldrin’s legs.)

Just as dangerous is the fall of lunar temperatures to -208 deg. F at during the two-week long lunar night. This is probably too large of a temperature range for humans to cope with in terms of heating and cooling of buildings and spacesuits, which is partly why many believe a weakly sunlit site near the South Pole would make the best place for a permanent lunar outpost. Temperatures at the South Pole on solar-illuminated crater ridges hover around 32 deg. F (0 deg. C), and the sun shines for over 90% of the year at some higher elevation locations:

“Lunar Temple” at the moon’s South Pole, by artist Jorge Manes Rubio (ESA).


5) The lunar sky is always black, with almost no daytime stars

With no atmosphere, the sky would always appear black, even when the sun is shining. But because the sun shining on the moon surface produces considerable light, all but the brightest stars would not be visible during the daytime. It’s the same reason you cannot see stars next to the full moon.
The Apollo moonwalkers generally did not see stars, and neither do astronauts on the International Space Station when they are on the sunlit side of the Earth. Gene Cernan (Apollo 17) said he could see a few stars if he stood in the shadow of the Lunar Module to reduce the amount of sunlight being reflected from the lunar surface.

At night, though, the stars would be spectacular. I suspect at the South Pole, many more stars would be visible since the landscape would be only weakly illuminated by the sun, and your eyes would adapt to the twilight-like brightness.

6) The view of Earth would be amazing

Since the Earth is 3.7 times larger than the moon, it covers over 15 times as much of the sky as does the moon. This combined with the fact that the Earth is colorful would make the Earth a spectacular sight. A person with reasonably good eyesight would be able to identify the continents. You can get a good idea of the dramatic difference between how the Earth and moon look from this DSCOVR satellite image of the moon transiting the Earth:

The appearance of the Earth rising above the moon’s limb as Apollo-11 orbited the moon was greeted with amazement by the astronauts as they scrambled to change from black & white to color film to capture the sight.

Furthermore, since the Earth rotates over 24 hours, you would get to see different sides of the Earth, rather than just one side of the moon we are limited to here on Earth. There would be phases of illumination throughout the month, just like we see of the moon, but they would be reversed. A “full Earth” would occur during the “new moon” on Earth, while a “new Earth” from the moon would occur during the “full moon” here on Earth. Also, when there is a lunar eclipse on the Earth there would be a solar eclipse on the moon, and when there is a solar eclipse on the Earth, there would be an “Earth eclipse”, with the shadow of the moon falling on a portion of the Earth:

How a solar eclipse on Earth might appear from the moon (Pat Rawlings).

7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky

Because the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth, the Earth’s position in the lunar sky would always remain the same (or nearly so) as seen from the moon’s surface. There would be no Earthrise or Earthset the way we have moonrise and moonset. If you were near the moon’s South Pole (where sunlit locations stay relatively cool) the Earth would dramatically hang just above the horizon in one spot, while the sun slowly travels around the horizon over the course of one month. This would make the whole Earth viewing experience even more breathtaking.

8) Meteors : Bring your Kevlar vest

The moon is constantly being bombarded by tiny micrometeors. Rarely, one large enough to be seen from Earth hits the moon, such as this one captured by accident by an astrophotographer while photographing the lunar eclipse on January 20, 2019:

Without an atmosphere to slow the meteors down and burn up all but the largest of them, they hit the moon surface at astonishing speeds. For comparison, a bullet fired by a 30 caliber rifle travels close to 2,000 mph as it leaves the muzzle. Now imagine a small meteor travelling at 45,000 to 196,000 mph. A BB-sized meteor travelling at 100,000 mph would hit your space suit with the energy of 90 30 caliber rifle bullets slugs fired at point-blank range. All of that energy would be concentrated like a knife point in the tiny BB-size spot. Luckily, the probability of being hit by a meteor of even that small size is believed to be vanishingly low. But the possibility would always be in the back of your mind. The moon-walkers (like space-walkers) wore suits with protection against very tiny micrometeors; they just had to hope there weren’t any larger ones with their name on it.

9) Smelly, messy moon dust

The Apollo moon-walkers found that the lunar soil tended to cling to everything, and it has an odor somewhat like gunpowder or wet sand. Very fine and abrasive (like tiny shards of glass), it would probably present a long-term health risk in the pressurized buildings of a lunar base, and much effort would go into cleaning it off of space suits and equipment brought in from outside and filtering it from the air.

Lunar dust in a vial given to a woman by first moon-walker Neil Armstrong (photo Christopher M. McHugh).


I’m sure there are other unusual aspects of living on the moon I haven’t thought of. Just the daily routines of life would be difficult, and much effort would be expended on activities necessary to sustain life: food, recycling of water, waste disposal, oxygen generation and removal of excess carbon dioxide, energy generation and storage, etc. Here I’ve assumed all of that has already been taken care of for your month of leisurely lunar living.


3,057 Responses to “Lunar Living: 9 Weird Aspects of Living on the Moon”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RW says:

    Interesting Roy, but the Moon missions were nearly certainly faked. Man has never left low Earth orbit and still won’t 50 years later, because they haven’t figured out how to safely get through the radiation belt.

    • RW says:

      which starts only about 1000 miles up. Despite claimed amounts, the radiation levels are lethal to humans. When NASA sent up an Orion (unmanned) test flight in 2014 into the radiation belt and back, they were asked what the measured radiation levels were, and they said that information was classified. Why would something like that be classified? I think the answer is obvious.

      Look, like most people I assumed the Moon missions really happened until I spent some time critically examining all the evidence, logic and behavior of those involved. I came to conclusion fairy quickly that they were nearly certainly faked.

    • WizGeek says:

      @RW: Are you serious?! A little light Wikipedia reading may clear things up:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel

      • Russell Cook says:

        The utterly maddening thing these days is how hard it is to distinguish when someone is being serious or is doing subtle satire lampooning the sheer idiocy of the current anti-science crowd.

      • RW says:

        This information on wiki about the radiation levels is not accurate. I don’t know how high the levels are, but they’re lethal. Even for only a short time through them. This is why no one else, in any country, anywhere in the entire world has ever even attempted to go through the Van Allen belts. In now over 50 years.

        Sometime in the early 1990s, the Space Shuttle when to its highest altitude. I think it was only about 400 miles up. The radiation levels were so intense they penetrated the shuttle, the astronauts suits, and they could see ‘sparks’ in their eyes with their eyes closed. They turned around and came back down to a much lower altitude right away. This was only about 400 miles up. The main portion of the belt doesn’t even start till about 1000 miles up, so they weren’t even fully in it yet.

        All of this can be summed up by (I forget where and by who, but not that long ago) when two Russian astronauts were asked why Russia never went to the Moon. The immediate response from one of them was: “Can’t get through the radiation belt…you know-a we don’t-a-have a Hollywood (and they looked at each other and chuckled)” They know it was faked.

        • Nate says:

          ‘This information on wiki about the radiation levels is not accurate. I dont know how high the levels are, but theyre lethal.’

          Then I guess I wonder how YOU know they are lethal, if you don’t know the levels, and they are classified?

          • RW says:

            It can be logically deduced by the fact that no one will go through it, even 50 years after Apollo allegedly did (and with what would have been zero problems or issues, had they actually gone through it).

      • RW says:

        Think about it. If the Moon missions really did happen, it would have proved that going trough the VA Belts was no problem at all since none of the many astronauts who allegedly went through it ever suffered even the slightest from radiation sickness or poison. And I just found out recently a few of them actually allegedly went to the Moon more than once.

        Yet, no one anywhere, in any country, no matter how advanced their space program, to this day, over 50 years later, will go through it (or has ever attempted to go through it). Or even into it briefly. They just flat out will not do it.

        Forget that no one has repeated the Moon missions in over 50 years. That’s highly suspect enough and should be raising red flags. No one has even attempted the first leg of the mission, which is the go through the Van Allen belts, which are just above the Earth.

        • Nate says:

          I suppose you’ll find a way to dismiss the pictures from the recent lunar orbiter of the landing sites, with left behind landers, rovers, and burned spots.

          Also the Wiki page indicated the Apollo trajectory took them through the gaps in the inner belt.

          • RW says:

            Yes, of course, I’ve seen those. They’re pathetically fake looking. I would think they ought to be able to fake them better than that for crying out loud. I mean really, it’s sad how badly faked they are.

            And why so far away? With such little detail and so blurry? The Moon has no atmosphere, yet you can hardly see anything in those pictures. Yet satellites on Earth much higher up through the entire atmosphere can get so much detail on small objects. They ought to be able to easily get close up crystal clear shots of everything in lots of detail, yet we never see anything like that. It’s because there’s nothing there and viewed too close up, faked CGI would be too easy to see as such.

          • Nate says:

            As expected.

            What about ‘Also the Wiki page indicated the Apollo trajectory took them through the gaps in the inner belt.’

            That seems feasible.

    • coturnix says:

      The moon landings were most certainly real, although some of the footage may have been faked or augmented in some ways.

      • RW says:

        I did consider the possibility that the footage and photos were faked, but that they still went to Moon.

        • coturnix says:

          If NASA didn’t go to the moon, the soviets would know it, and would rat the nasa out, that is a 100% proof that nasa did go to the moon. But of course, there is no way to independently verify moon photos, and there are some arguments some of those may be faked, such as lack of radiation damage etc.

    • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

      Wow! I looked at the title to this article and KNEW this would bring out all the kooks.

      Yes, RW. The moon landings were faked. Bigfoot is real. Elvis faked his own death. 9/11 was an inside job. Got it.

      Japan’s JAXA spacecraft Selene detected the halo around the Apollo 15 landing site. Of course, Japan is in on the hoax as well. NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured images of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites, and the “moon buggy” tracks can be seen, equipment, as well as the astronauts foot paths. Of course, this is fake too and NASA is continuing the hoax.

      No matter how much evidence is presented, conspiracy nutjobs will insist otherwise because they have a screw loose in their head.

      • RW says:

        Bigfoot is likely real (I’ve never seen one), don’t know anything about Elvis, and — based on what I’ve seen — I’m not convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        Nice one HGS!

        There are still some people convinced that the Earth is flat!

    • CoRev says:

      RW, I was one of those who did the ACTUAL TRACKING of those Apollo missions. You are so wrong it is almost crazy to respond to your ignorance. Please read more with an open mind.

      Pointing a radar antenna at an object in space in both sending and receiving modes, and tracking those X, Y and Z components, BTW Z is distance, and losing communications as they went around the MOON becomes pretty obvious.

      Please note the receiving mode. Yes in constant two way communication until they disappeared behind the moon.

      Could you explain how the tens of thousands involved were duped by those pesky radiation belts? Or perhaps you could explain that pesky communications delay due to the radiation belts.

      Next I expect you to deny the Mars landings. How could those satellites pass through those radiation belts.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Corev,
        How much did you get paid to be in on the conspiracy? I heard about your secret studio in Area 51.

        • CoRev says:

          Stephen Anderson asks: “How much did you get paid to be in on the conspiracy? I heard about your secret studio in Area 51.”, I hope tongue in cheek. If not how deluded is he?

          His implication would be we ALL of us are still getting paid not to write out memoirs about their false beliefs. 😉

    • Richard Greene says:

      RW, we all know the 1969 moon mission was faked.

      That’s old news.

      However, it was faked only due to NASA budget cuts.

      In a brilliant effort to raise money privately for a real moon mission, NASA faked the “first” moon mission in Hollywood studios, where people thought a “science fiction movie” was being made … and then NASA raised a lot of money by selling small vials of fake moon dust for $19.95 each, which was a lot of money in 1969 and 1970

      All the suckers who thought they were getting authentic moon dust actually are proud owners of ordinary dust collected by Mrs. McGillicutty, a custodian who worked for NASA at the time !

      And a result of the dust sales, NASA raised enough money for five real flights that landed men on the moon, which no one talks about any more.

      Source: The internet.

    • peterg says:

      I saw apollo 10 firing its rockets to leave earth orbit. The exhaust covered half the sky. If they were not leaving earth orbit, where exactly were they going, do tell.

    • Ken says:

      You say “nearly certainly faked.” Nope. There were thousands of people involved with making the spacecraft, rockets, space suits, radio equipment and rudimentary (by today’s standards) computers they used and other equipment used. The moon landings were remarkable human achievements that should be celebrated and acknowledged as such. That so many were undertaken successfully speaks to the dedication and genius of the teams of scientists and engineers NASA assembled. And the did it with slide rules.

      Deny it if you must but you join a select list of deniers of the Holocaust, flat Earthers and people who think Trump colluded with the Russians to win in 2016.

  2. Nate says:

    Nice article, Roy.

    Will any Moon Landing Hoaxers come out of the woodwork??

    In Sci Fi we often have Moon or planetary bases, particularly in the future after the Earth is overpopulated or trashed.

    It seems like they think is inevitable, but as you point out, it would be super difficult!

    Earth-based environmental enclosures, even underground, on or under the ocean, or in Antarctica, seem more likely to come first, in a future with a damaged Earth.

    • Nate says:

      Oh I see, RW already did come out of the woodwork!

    • Objectivist says:

      (Sorry for the late response, I mostly composed this a few days ago, but didn’t finish ’til now.)

      Hi Nate, since your post is the first to not involve crazy conspiracy theories, it wins.

      >In Sci Fi we often have Moon or planetary bases, particularly in the future after the Earth is overpopulated or trashed.
      >
      >It seems like they think is inevitable, but as you point out, it would be super difficult!

      I respectfully disagree, and here’s my rebuttal to all of Dr. Spencer’s negative points:

      (spoiler: for the most part, simply live underground)

      >1) No atmosphere, no weather, no water, no life

      This isn’t an issue when living underground. The underground habitat can be as nice as one can imagine. What’s required is effectively unlimited, “free” energy, which allows cheaply bringing materials from elsewhere in the Solar System. BTW, “no water” is incorrect, there is both free water at the poles, and water trapped in minerals which can be extracted.

      Life will become present in the arbitrarily large underground farms, parks, and terrariums…all running on the Earth’s 24-hour diurnal cycle.

      Abundant energy will be available both as undiluted sunlight, and no-worry nuclear power.

      >2) Gravity: If you weigh 200 lbs on Earth, on the Moon you only weigh 33 lbs

      This is probably the most substantive issue. Due to gross negligence by NASA, we have no idea what the minimum gravitational requirement is for sustained human life. It seems likely 1/6 G isn’t enough. (Note: It also seems likely that 1/3 G isn’t enough, either – that’s Mars gravity.)

      If human physiology requires more, it may be that lunar settlers will have to sleep and/or exercise in centrifugal environments.

      All that said, the low lunar gravity is really the most novel and likely “fun” aspect of lunar life. The astronauts never experienced much mobility without wearing a spacesuit. In a habitat with (really!) large rooms, it would enable sports and other activities that are hard to imagine today.

      >3) Good luck sleeping, daytime on the moon lasts for 2 weeks

      This is not an issue at all, given underground living. Humans on the Moon will live using the regular, terrestrial 24-hour day.

      It’s worth mentioning, for those that might miss the “outside”, that high resolution displays are at the point where they provide a truly “windowlike” experience. That’s aside from AR/VR, which will soon be enabling Earthdwellers to experience a wide range of other places, and potentially the other way as well.

      >4) The day-night temperature range is over 450 deg. F

      Just a couple of meters below the surface, the temperature range is almost completely stable. It seems that something like 2-5 meters underground for the top level of habitat would be optimum. The entire range of concerns is: radiation, meteorites, and thermal issues. Underground habitats address every one of them.

      By the way, for the “pro Mars” crowd – almost nothing is different about living on Mars, except the length of the diurnal cycle. Yes, you’d weigh twice as much, but still only 1/3 of Earth normal. The concerns about temperature extremes, radiation, meteorites, and environmental contamination (dust etc.) are all just about the same. Underground living is still the only sane path.

      The one thing that Mars has going for it over the Moon is carbon. The Moon doesn’t seem to have any, so it’ll have to be imported. Asteroids? Other moons? Nuclear spacecraft will help a lot!

      >8) Meteors : Bring your Kevlar vest

      Ah, the safety of a few meters of rock overhead! Regular living quarters should be a few levels further down…

      It is true that going outside on the Moon would have that extra little element of suspense – but then there won’t be poisonous critters, critters that might eat you, storms, lightning, wind or any of the other myriad hazards we take for granted every day. Oh, and by the way you can still get flattened by a meteorite on the Earth’s surface too.

      I will say that 90x the energy of a 30 cal bullet is something. I guess about the same as getting hit by an Apache cannon round…

      >9) Smelly, messy moon dust

      This is another real issue, and another reason to leave the lavish underground habitat as little as possible…

      Once into the regolith, the vast majority of the habitat would be like any other tunnel in rock. Presumably it’d be sealed with some sort of paint/epoxy. Another interesting aspect are lava tunnels, some of which have been identified. These may be very low cost, very large, habitat candidates.

      https://www.universetoday.com/138261/lava-tube-openings-found-near-moons-north-pole/

      So, you ask, “Why bother going to and living on the Moon if all you’re going to do is hang out in underground apartments???”

      First, it isn’t entirely “inside living”. There would be substantial involvement with the outside, though I hope a good bit of it will be remote telepresence using robotics. There are without doubt interesting lunar mineral resources and so on. The Moon is also a great place to develop our ability to robotically construct large structures like telescopes – a great skill to have when starting a Mars colony.

      One real allure of lunar colonization is guilt-free heavy industry. On the Earth, environmentalists will oppose every effort to do really big engineering. Nuclear power has been demonized beyond all reason. Pollution and toxic waste are huge and constant problems. All of those concerns vanish on the Moon. It is a natural site for heavy industry of all kinds, including spacecraft manufacture. With its shallow gravity well, it is a natural space station and gateway to the rest of the Solar System, just as visualized in science fiction 70+ years ago.

      It also represents a truly new frontier, and is the first step into an unlimited future for humanity!

      (BTW, as to the “hardships” of lunar life, I expect the Moon to be the absolute forefront of robotics and robotics research, for many reasons.)

      • Nate says:

        All interesting points..

        ‘On the Earth, environmentalists will oppose every effort to do really big engineering. Nuclear power has been demonized beyond all reason. Pollution and toxic waste are huge and constant problems. All of those concerns vanish on the Moon.’

        I dunno, in the Red Mars series of books, there were eco-terrorists who opposed developing Mars.

        There may be some push back from people who enjoy looking up romantically at the beauty of pristine full Moon.

  3. Eben says:

    Check how the moon was made , never meant to be lived on

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8LRxIANzQs

  4. Scott R says:

    RW

    What possible purpose could there be in faking the moon landing and all the money that would have to be continuously poured into it to keep that quiet, keep us entertained with pictures and such. More realistic government conspiracies are designed to steal our money or gain power… brain wash us into electing someone, or hide harmful substances from us due to lobbyists or what not. It’s always about the money and power. There is no money and power involved with a moon conspiracy.

    Radiation isn’t proof that we didn’t go. People smoke cigarettes. Is that proof that they aren’t bad for you?

    Anyways… I’m not one to trust the government with very much, but come on seriously… what is your proof it was faked other than the radiation?

    • RW says:

      Scott,

      I’ve spent quite a bit of time really thoroughly examining this and critically thinking about it, and I would suggest everyone take the time to do so. Most people who believe we went and the hoax believers are crazy — I’ve found — are people who have never actually critically examined the issue in any significant detail. Superficially, many of the arguments in support of going and debunking it was a hoax seem to make sense, but fall apart upon critical examination of all the evidence and logic.

      They faked it primarily because they took/spent so much of the tax payer’s money to develop technology to get man to the moon (to fulfill Kennedy’s promise), but ultimately they just couldn’t do it (like not even close); and didn’t have the humility or integrity to admit it. I think as it became more and more apparent in the late 1960s that they were just not going to be able to do it, they came up with the idea of faking it. You know, “if you can’t make it, fake it” was the mindset that developed and that they ultimately executed. This would keep the tax payer revenue coming in for decades to come and the other reason was to try to get one up on the Russians, who at that time, were much more advanced and more accomplished in space than the USA. It was like a bluff in poker from a military strategy point of view, to make the Russians think we were technologically superior to them. It may have worked initially, but the Russians — I believe — eventually found out not long after either through espionage or through their own knowledge were simply able to determine it wasn’t possible.

      I don’t blame the astronauts. They were just following orders, and ultimately it saved the astronauts lives, as they would have almost certainly perished and never made it back. Bill Kaysing, who was a senior editor for Rocketdyne, said he saw internal memos in the 1960s estimating the chances of sending a man to the moon and returning him was like 1 in 10,000 at best. Basically zero or impossible. It was largely how he deduced that the missions must have been faked.

      • Ric Werme says:

        “Ive spent quite a bit of time really thoroughly examining this and critically thinking about it,”

        And you don’t know the strength of the van Allen belt? Yet you know that exists?

        • RW says:

          Well, I certainly know what the levels are reported to be like on Wikipedia if that’s what you mean.

          • gbaikie says:

            Is wiki different than this:
            https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SMIII_Problem7.pdf

            “4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour.

            What is your answer to the ‘moon landing hoax’ believers?

            Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.

            The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.

            Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless. ”

            So if strapped crew to outside the spacecraft, it would not kill them, though not good to increase one’s monthly or yearly levels of radiation [not vaguely recommended to do this].

            Main thing astronauts need to worry about is lifetime [or career time] radiation exposure, and our astronauts do exceed radiation worker lifetime levels of radiation by flying long time in orbit in ISS. But this mostly due to GCR radiation which is difficult to shield against [these particles going much faster {near speed of light}].
            If strapped crew to spacecraft [without shielding] and they spend a lot time in the belt, they would not die lethal dose but would die from accumulation of radiation [they get cancer and lots other health risks and problems] if talking about weeks or months.

    • RW says:

      If interested, here are few good introductory videos on the subject:

      Marcus Allen:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVXvGOqInJE&t=157s

      Bart Sibrel:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-qMyHyMNZw

      Well known Fox special from the early 2000s:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiy9I1u3LHg

      • RW says:

        Here is better one from Marcus Allen. He was/is an expert on the cameras allegedly used to shoot the Apollo Moon photos. IMO, there is much in the photography that is extremely suspicious, but there’s not a smoking gun.

        There was a recent one from him (from last year) that was really good, but it’s no longer up on youtube. At any rate, here is this one for anyone interested:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mzh-CWImMA&list=PLPSiAGL2tJ-byiABQJTtuANOIBK0Len9e

        • tom0mason says:

          Marcus Allen ain’t no expert, he maybe a professional photographer but he would not have used the same cameras, film magazines, or film stock that the Apollo missions used.
          Still pictures https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
          Also note that lots of photos were not put on public view because they just were not very good enough.

          As for the video see See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
          A glorified security camera “these slow-scan television (SSTV) cameras, running at 10 frames per second (fps), produced only black-and-white pictures and first flew on the Apollo 7 mission in October 1968. A color camera using a field-sequential color system flew on the Apollo 10 mission in May 1969, and every mission after that.” They had fragile Orthicon tubes in them and had a tendency to ‘flare’ when shooting bright scenes. But they were about the beast technology of the day for such a small camera.

          Also note that due to the data rates for the transmission of video signal was very low (but high for the day), meaning that absolute resolution was low, and movement would smear. Overall the resolution of the video was about 300(H)200(V) lines maximum.

        • RW says:

          Well, Marcus Allen says he was an expert on exactly the cameras used for Apollo and had used them himself.

      • RW says:

        That uncut/unedited interview with Sibrel I linked above is absolutely fascinating, but here is another thing of his he made:

        ‘Astronauts Gone Wild’. Now, I don’t agree with his tactics at all, but even considering, the behavior/responses from the astronauts is extremely suspicious and not consistent with them being innocent and having really gone to the Moon. Quite the contrary actually, as they look very uncomfortable, making strange gestures, etc. They look and are acting guilty, IMO.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vcvl0OeU&t=2s

      • RW says:

        Sibrel seems to want to blame the astronauts, which makes no sense to me. I presume they were just following orders, i.e. more or less had no choice, and I doubt highly any of them came up with the idea of faking it or actually wanted to do it when presented and ordered to do it.

        Again, I don’t agree with or support Sibrel’s tactics, but I find the behavior and responses of the astronauts extremely suspicious. But everyone can make up their own minds as to whether they think it is or not.

  5. Poi Bunny says:

    Oh dear, what have you done!

    “The moon takes 29.5 Earth days to rotate”

    Even worse than “the moon landing was faked” crowd is “the moon doesn’t rotate” crowd. They will be complaining shortly.

    PB

    • bdgwx says:

      That may cause more consternation in the comments section than whether the Apollo missions were faked.

      Anyway, if I may be pedantic for a moment the Moon actually rotates on its axis every 27.3 Earth days with respect to the stars. 29.5 Earth days is the synodic or diurnal period and is the result of both the Moon’s rotation and it’s orbit around the Sun.

      • JDHuffman says:

        No consternation here.

        I find people that are both ignorant and smug to be enjoyably amusing.

      • gbaikie says:

        What is the tilt angle of axis of the Moon, upon which it spins once every 27.3 Earth days?

        The Moon has small tilt angle, and because of the low tilt angle the Moon has “virtually has no seasons”.

        But when are these insignificant seasons?

        When is it winter in the northern hemisphere of the Moon?

        “There are seasonal variations, but they are negligible. The biggest driver of seasonal variation on Earth is the 23 degree tilt. The Moon, however, with very little tilt compared to the Sun (1.54 degrees to the ecliptic), would have much smaller seasonal variations.”
        https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3541/are-there-seasons-on-luna

        Everyone saying there seasons on the Moon.
        And they are saying they are virtually no seasons and/or they are negligible.

        But when are the negligible and/or virtually no seasons happening [even if they are but tiny and weenie]?

        I would bet that the wisest of people could provide answer.

    • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

      The moon landing fake crowd have an excuse. They are mentally ill. The moon non-rotating crowd are just plain stupid, have no understanding of simple kinematics, and are easily confused. They are the worst. They have the ability to be educated, but refuse, and would rather remain in their state of confusion.

  6. coturnix says:

    But on a plus side, there is no greenhouse gases!

  7. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer wrote –

    “Because the lunar surface is relatively dark (about the same reflectivity as the open ocean), and because there are no clouds or weather to cool the surface, daytime temperatures soar to 250 deg. F at the lunar equator.”

    During the day, the atmosphere keeps the Earth’s surface cooler than without. No GHE – cooling is not heating. At night, the atmosphere keeps the surface warmer than without. Obviously no GHE, temperatures drop anyway.

    “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”

    Cheers.

  8. donald penman says:

    I believe that the USA landed a man on the moon because I lived through this period and except the experiences they communicated to the public, it would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

  9. JDHuffman says:

    72 year-old Buzz Aldrin “teaches” a bully not to call him a “coward and a liar”:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw9azZmLxtw

    • RW says:

      Except why would he punch him if he really walked on the Moon? You don’t know the whole story between the two of them prior to that event. Sibrel has him on tape inadvertently admitting/conceding the Moon missions were faked (you can find it on youtube if you search for it).

      Sibrel has since said what he did to Aldrin in this instance was not appropriate and he wouldn’t do it again.

      • JDHuffman says:

        RW, in all your research, were you able to come up with an estimate of how many people would have had to be involved in faking the 6 missions, including all the necessary security and subsequent coverups?

        • Dr Myki says:

          Answer: about the same number involved in faking global surface temperature data.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DM,

            How many people do you think are involved in faking global surface temperature data? Why do you think global surface temperature data is faked?

            Is there a conspiracy, do you think?

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yup, I figured it would be a lot.

          • Dr. Myki, if you really have a PhD, which is not obvious from any of your comments here, sue the school — they should have failed you. !

            Surface temperature compilations REQUIRE fake numbers for all surface grid cells that have no thermometers, and for grid cells where one or more stations failed to report the temperature in a given month.

            As a result, a majority of surface grid cells contain wild guessed numbers = fake numbers that are REQUIRED for the global average temperature compilation.

            Earlier this year, the USHCN had 61% fake numbers (designated “e”) and 39% real measurements — a record high percentage of faked (estimated / infilled / wild guessed) numbers for what is supposed to be the BNEST surface weather station network in the world !

            Surface temperature compilations are not real science — they are science fraud.

            This subject of “infilling” is rarely, if ever, discussed, but NASA-GISS has claimed record heat for some surface grid cells in Africa where THERE ARE NO THERMOMETERS.

            I’m sure this is the kind of science you love, Dr. Myki, or is your alleged PhD in gender studies?

          • Dr Myki says:

            Mike, JD and RG,
            I take it from your skeptical comments that you agree the surface temperature record is not to be trusted. That means a lot of people must be complicit in the fraud. If so, why not be skeptical about the so-called moon landing. RW provides some “compelling” evidence why we should be.
            (compelling by the standards of denialists).
            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ian, please stop trolling.

        • Nate says:

          ‘how many people would have had to be involved in faking the 6 missions, including all the necessary security and subsequent coverups?’

          An awful lot.

          Youve got all the folks at the two or more space centers, all the folks working for contractors building the spacecraft, all of folks working at the various radar tracking stations in various countries, all the press people with access to these centers and people.

          An awful lot of books should have been written by now by some of these guys telling the true story.

          • CoRev says:

            YUP! ” all of folks working at the various radar tracking stations in various countries, and all the folks supporting them, and all the folks that processed that data, and all the folks who analyzed that data, and on and on.

            But never mind RW thinks it was/still is a scam. Now that’s obsessive. Ask an y of us just in my groups. I’ve already answered earlier.

            What RW forgets is that many of us are still alive with working minds and memories.

          • CoRev says:

            RW, from your commentaries I can safely assume you know little math or physics. Do you think you can aim a radar antenna at a satellite located to fake moon landing simultaneously from both sides of the earth?

            Do you think the difference in moon/moon faking satellite coordinates wouldn’t be obvious? Remember the Z coordinate.

          • RW says:

            CoRev,

            I don’t know exactly how they did it, but if you are who you say you are, i.e. actually worked on the missions, I don’t think you or any others like you were in on it.

            According to Bart Sibrel, a control center technician who worked on the Apollo missions recently admitted he/they couldn’t distinguish a simulated Apollo training exercise from the Tetra satellite from real signals coming from the Moon. And that presumably this is how they did it, i.e. they claimed the satellite had crashed, but it was actually still up there to fake the signals coming from the Moon without the ground crew ever knowing they were only simulated as was done in training sessions.

            What you allegedly have knowledge in and worked in, I cannot assess whether or not you could be fooled into thinking you were receiving real transmissions from the Moom when you were actually not.

            I do, however, understand basic physics that the Moon has no atmosphere and is a vacuum. Therefore there is no sound on the Moon, yet here we have one of the astronauts hammering a stake into the ground with a hammer and his mike inside his helmet clearly picked up the sound (loudly), which is not possible:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x25g5sdhG7U

            BTW, this is the closest thing to a smoking gun that the Apollo missions were faked. In all my research at least.

          • RW says:

            In all of my research at least, it’s the closest thing to smoking gun, BY MY ASSESSMENT.

            Before I first saw this I was still on the fence about whether or not I thought they really could have faked it. This definitely tipped the scales for me towards thinking it was indeed likely really faked. It was at this point that I started to delve more deeply into it all.

          • CoRev says:

            RW, I have no reason to lie and less to think I/we the tens of thousands who worked on the Apollo missions, were fooled. Much of the equipment was so dated that the developers were no longer available for changing. They needed to be changed to spoof the readings. No knowledgeable people and change was not possible.

            I seriously wonder about the source of the videos you link. If spoofing is being done it is most likely there. How can anyone tell the validity of them? Modifying it/them could be achieved with relative ease and small team.

            That’s just not true for the actual missions where hundreds of thousand were involved and would have to be spoofed, all their equipment spoofed, all the equipment support pieces, and all the manufacturers would have to be involved or spoofed fo 50-60 years.

            You believe something of the magnitude of Apollo is easier to spoof than the evidence you present which is simple using today’s computer technology. That is the laughable part of your story.

          • RW says:

            NASA doesn’t deny the recorded audio of the clip of the astronaut allegedly hammering a stake into the lunar surface. They can’t, because their own astronauts have commented on it as part of the official record and it’s on the original footage that has been shown and released. The linked video and recorded audio is not the only source of this incident.

            There is no way it’s possible, which means at least this particular footage was faked and shot somewhere on Earth. From this, it can and should be concluded that all of the other footage was likely faked and thus all of the Apollo missions themselves were likely faked too. It’s not absolute proof since they could have faked the footage, but not the missions. However, this is not logical given all of the other contradictory evidence and logic.

            I’m sorry, but I do indeed think you have been fooled and suggest you take a step back and look into all of this in much more detail and with a much more critical eye.

            Maybe start with the Bart Sibrel interview I linked. I don’t particular like his style and approach to all of this, but — but based on all my own research, thinking, and analysis — I do think he’s right.

        • RW says:

          Not an exact number, no. I would guess maybe 50-100 people involved in the project actually knew it was faked, but it’s only a guess. I have no way of knowing.

          The overwhelming majority of people who worked on it did not know it was faked, including the people at Houston command center.

          Like the atomic bomb, it was all heavily compartmentalized. Only those who needed to know it was being faked were told and knew.

          • Nate says:

            RW,

            ‘The overwhelming majority of people who worked on it did not know it was faked, including the people at Houston command center.

            Like the atomic bomb, it was all heavily compartmentalized. Only those who needed to know it was being faked were told and knew.’

            You are talking like these are facts, when in reality they are pure speculation.

            The 50-100 number is simply unreasonably small. That accounts for only astronauts, their bosses, backup crews, and associated engineers.

            Youve got thousands of flight controllers, rocket engineers and technicians, contractors, radar tracking and communication people in various countries, and their chain of command.

            They would have to be involved or duped. By who? Another team of engineers creating and somehow feeding them sophisticated fake data.

            Then youve got the Hollywood production team. Have you seen the credits at the end of movies??

            Then there is this, IMO, fatal flaw.

            How do you hire the MANY required smart, highly talented engineers, astronauts, movie producers, special effects people, who are simultaneously willing to be complicit in a corrupt conspiracy, and be kept under CONTROL for decades after?

            How do explain that NONE of these hundreds or thousands of people have written Books?!

          • JDHuffman says:

            RW, you make a compelling case. I wish more people were able to think for themselves, rather than simply swallowing the consensus view. But, having lived through the Apollo program, I remain skeptical that it was a hoax.

            One of my concerns would be that other nations would have had to be involved in the hoax. I could maybe understand some of our allies helping us, but the Soviets? Red China? Many nations, and even some amateurs, had the ability to follow the radio transmissions. Transmissions from the lunar surface could not be faked. Such an effort could be easily detected.

            The moon landings happened during the Nixon Administration. That was a time of extreme whistleblowing. Some insider, that knew the landings were being faked, could have been an instant hero!

            Again, I appreciate your willingness to question, and make a reasonable argument. If it happens that proof emerges someday that the landing were faked, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

          • RW says:

            If what you’re saying is true and logical, then the atomic bomb, i.e. the Manhattan project, could not have been kept a secret. Over 100,000 people worked on the project and only a very small number of people actually knew what was ultimately being worked on.

            For Apollo, I don’t know how many people knew, but secrets can be kept in the name of national security, especially if people were threatened to keep it secret. It may have been a few hundred that knew. I have no way of knowing how many.

            The Apollo astronaut James Erwin was believed to have been killed almost immediately after he contacted Bill Kaysing in the early 1990s. Coincidence? Maybe, but it’s hard to believe it was. If you want to whole story from Kaysing, see the link below starting at 26:40. Same thing with Gus Grissom, who many believe was killed in order to silence him and/or send a message to the other astronauts that they better cooperate.

            Also, a large film crew would not have been needed for the footage. A few dozen people probably could have done it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxHnpa90w4&t=25s

          • RW says:

            JDHuffman,

            I think it was likely accomplished using a satellite NASA had claimed had crashed to the Earth, but that was actually still up there. I think it was named the Tetra satellite or something similar. This satellite was what was supposedly used for simulating signals coming from the Moom for the Apollo training sessions. According to Bart Sibrel, one of the technicians recently admitted that they had no way to distinguish any of the training exercises from the alleged real mission or real transmission from the Moon. In other words, if it was faked, they in Houston monitoring it all would have had no way of knowing.

            But your position is fair enough. I studied it all in a lot of depth and just couldn’t come to any other conclusion that it was nearly certainly faked. I can’t be absolutely sure of course, but as close as one could be for something of this nature I am.

            I should say I did not initially think it was faked when I started looking into it not long ago. It took quite a bit of time before a reached the point where I thought it might actually have been faked and that it was worth seriously considering.

          • Nate says:

            The Manhattan Project. The secret had to be kept for 2 y. It wasnt kept secret very well. The Russians learned about from at least two sources. The head of the project told his communist mistress also.

            Only the nuclear physicists involved knew what a nuclear bomb even was at the time. Others could be satisfied they were working on a secret military military project.

            There was no Press access to the Manhattan project.

            The goal of defeating the Nazis was considered a noble cause by most. Faking the moon landings for PR? Not such a good cause.

          • Nate says:

            Good arguments, JD.

            They could apply equally well to climate science conspiracy theories.

          • Nate says:

            RW,

            Many issues. One more is the iconic images of Earth from behind the Moon. I had a large poster of one of these when I was a kid.

            These are awfully impressive fakes, and weve obtained many since then that match up. Compare to the best from Hollywood at the time, eg 2001, not remotely of the same quality and realism.

            And we have video and audio of these photos being taken in 1968 and the reactions of the astronauts. Good acting!

          • RW says:

            I don’t think mainstream climate science is a conspiracy. Just wrong mostly, regarding the magnitude of the effect.

      • DMT says:

        RW, I am with you on this one. I dont trust anything USA leadership says anymore. Think “weapons of mass destruction”, fake news about Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, the fake news about Iran at the moment. There is always a hidden agenda at work. With the moon landings it was elaborately staged simply to demonstrate superiority over the Russians. The same with climate change – only the gullible believe this is true. Stick to your guns, the truth is gradually being revealed.

        • RW says:

          What fake news is there about Obama and Hilary? All the fake news I’ve seen is about Trump.

          • DMT says:

            You can include him if you like. But seeing as he is currently in charge, whose side do you think he is on? He is perfect in the role – a serial liar who can protect hidden agendas.

  10. PhilJ says:

    You would need a large hydroponcs greenhouse, both to provide food and recycle the oxygen…

    You could mine for the water but nuteients would be scare . all waste would need to be recycled plus regular fertilizer deliveries from Earth

    I might try to get there as a stowaway on the fertilizer ships 🙂

  11. PhilJ says:

    A UV filter for the greenhouse would be needed….

    Hmmmm sci fi stoy brewing….

  12. PhilJ says:

    RW,

    “This information on wiki about the radiation levels is not accurate. I dont know how high the levels are, but theyre lethal”

    How do you know they’re lethal if you don’t know how high they are?

  13. John Moore says:

    I’ve always had a problem with the lunar “temperature.”

    On Earth, it normally means the temperature of the atmosphere, at a standard height above ground, in a standard structure.

    On the moon, what does it mean? Is it the temperature of the surface? If so, the impact of that on someone living their is very different from an atmospheric temperature.

  14. PhilJ says:

    RW,

    “Except why would he punch him if he really walked on the Moon?”

    That’s exactly WHY I would punch him if he called me a liar and a coward…

    Good for you Buzz!!

    • Entropic man says:

      I sympathise with Buzz Aldrin’s response.

      I would have followed my father’s advice.

      “Don’t punch him, you’ll hurt your hand. Use an implement.”

  15. PhilJ says:

    “The poor dog died due to exposure to harmful radiation. Is that lethal enough”

    And don’t you think we learned from that? And how to decrease the exposure of our astronauts?

    I suppose you think the miracle of Apollo XIII was faked too?

  16. Norman says:

    RW

    This link will provide you with all the answers to the questions you bring up. You may have missed it in your research. All the points made are brought up and refuted. The Van-Allen Belt intense radiation barrier is a hoax. I think these Conspiracies theories are intentionally developed to see how many people can be caught by them. I think they are done on multiple topics. It is a way to control the Public. The only way to control is to test how the thought process works and how people come to believe things as either true or false.

    Here is the link. Hope you take some time to read it.

    http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

    Quote from the scientist who found and studied the belts and they are named after him. ”
    “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen”

    • RW says:

      If it’s a hoax, then it stands to reason many subsequent missions would have gone through the belt. Because the Apollo missions would have proved it to be no problem whatsoever, right? Yet not a single one has or will since.

      Why did Kelly Smith (a NASA engineer) say in a video that the Van Allen belts are an area of ‘dangerous radiation’ if in reality they’re not? He further said ‘we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space’.

      BTW, Van Allen said the exact opposite in 1959 in a Scientific American article. He recanted this when Apollo started.

      Werner van Braun, who built the rocket, also prior said travelling to the moon was impossible, because the size of the rockets needed to carry enough fuel to get them there, would need to be unfeasibly large (way larger than the Saturn 5 rocket was). He also recanted this when Apollo started.

      All of this, at a minimum, should be extremely suspicious.

      • Norman says:

        RW

        You are making many unsupported declarations.

        You say Van Allen had stated something in Scientific American in 1959. Great how can I verify that? Even if I went to a library you don’t say what issue or article this appears in.

        Then you say the Saturn V does not have enough fuel to get to the Moon. Find the quote of Werner Van Braun. This is not good research to make many unsupported claims. You make the claims you need to provide the evidence.

        Also scientists KNOW the Van Allen Radiation Belts have dangerous radiation. They even know the amounts of exposure. They did things to mitigate the dangers to astronauts. No one would want to be in this region for continuous periods.

        • RW says:

          It’s in the short video I linked above. It’s in the March 19th issue from 1959. The video not only says the quote from the article, but shows it on the screen.

        • RW says:

          It’s in the short video I linked right here. It’s from the March 19th issue from 1959. The video not only says the quote, but puts the text from the article on the screen.

          • Norman says:

            RW

            Yes I found it. Read on, it says that if they do not find a way to protect the astronauts. They found a way. One was to avoid traveling into the most intense parts of the Belts and the other was a type of shielding that worked against high energy particles. The radiation in the belts if high energy protons and electrons. Not gamma or X-rays.

            If you read what Van Allen said. They give the radiation intensity as 10-100 roentgens. Van Allen said if an astronaut was exposed to this for 2 days they would have a 50-50 chance of survival. They were only in this region a short time.

            Read the article I linked to. It covers nearly every conspiracy point about the Belts.

          • RW says:

            If what you’re saying makes sense, then what are they doing with Orion in trying to figure out how to get through the belts and protect from the radiation? With unmanned flights first for rigorous testing? 45 years later?

            They would already know exactly how to do it, because they did it successfully 9 times, and perfectly each time. Right?

            It makes no sense. And remember, the Van Allen belts are just the first leg of the mission. They then have to travel 1000 times further than the space shuttle goes, land on a foreign body manually, take off from that foreign body manually, synchronize manually from that take off with the lunar orbiter craft traveling at 4000 miles and hour, travel that 1000 times distance back to earth, and successfully make it back to the surface coming it at 25,000 miles per hour when they first hit the atmosphere in their return pods. All on the first attempt with no practice run or test run or anything.

            BTW, I understand the unmanned Orion craft that went the VA belts passed its tests, which is good news; however, I understand the re-entry pod they designed for use with it failed its tests. And it failed despite having a much more robust construction and heat shielding than the pods used on Apollo. In other words, it’s more robust and modern than what was allegedly used on Apollo, and it failed its tests? What does this tell you?

            Did they ever have any issues with the re-entry pods on any of the Apollo missions? No, they didn’t. So what’s the problem? It doesn’t make any sense.

          • RW says:

            “If you read what Van Allen said. They give the radiation intensity as 10-100 roentgens. Van Allen said if an astronaut was exposed to this for 2 days they would have a 50-50 chance of survival.”

            No, he said if they were exposed to just 10 roentgens for two days they would have only a 50% change of survival, so presumably they would be made very sick and be immensely physical impaired from two days exposure to 10 roentgens. Even a smaller dosage — logically — would probably have made anyone ill. Perhaps significantly ill.

            “They were only in this region a short time.”

            Yes, I’m totally aware that at the speeds they were allegedly traveling at, they would have only been exposed to the VA radiation belts for maybe and hour or less.

            It still doesn’t make any sense that they’re still trying to figure out how to do it 45 years later, and that this is only the first leg of the mission. Which they still haven’t even done, and neither has anyone else. In now over 50 years.

            However, it makes absolutely perfect sense if they were not able to figure it out, and never actually went through it, and the Apollo missions were faked. It matches up perfectly with that.

          • RW says:

            “Read the article I linked to. It covers nearly every conspiracy point about the Belts.”

            I did. I’m not convinced it anywhere near adequately addresses the issues. In particular, it glossed over the shielding issue of the Apollo craft and dismissed it without sufficient evidence or logic. Especially when you consider what they’re trying to do with Orion 45 years later.

            If they really did what the say, i.e. they went through the belts, the shielding they had easily provided sufficient protection, etc., it would be a non, already long solved issue and they would not be working on trying to do it with unmanned test flights today before even considering actually sending someone through it.

            How do you not see the glaring illogic of this?

          • Norman says:

            RW

            You claim to have researched the topic. It seems that is a failed attempt. What you did was get conned by a few very simplistic distorted videos on YouTube that are total junk science (no basic research, just false statements by unknown people fooling people into thinking their points are valid).

            If you do research on this issue you will find the YouTube videos you believe are valid are total junk. Worthless. You will accept you fell for a conjob and work to extract your mind from this false narrative.

            Here are some that might help you.
            https://www.quora.com/Why-did-a-NASA-engineer-admit-that-they-cant-get-past-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts-Isn%E2%80%99t-this-the-smoking-gun-of-a-cover-up

            And here
            https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts/

          • RW says:

            Norman,

            Look, I’ve seen all of this kind of stuff and sought it out myself during my research. One of things I did specifically was listen to the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. And then critically analyzed and digest all of the claims. Over a period of weeks and months.

            I most certainly didn’t just watch a few youtube videos and then think the missions were faked. I didn’t even start doing much research until a reached the point where I thought there was a real chance they may have actually been faked. It was a slow process, taking many months.

            In order to make any kind of informed assessment you need to put in some significant time listening to both sides. And then really critically thinking about, over a long period of time. This is what I did, and I concluded the evidence and logic supported that the missions were nearly certainly faked. I understand that for someone like yourself who apparently assumes the missions couldn’t have been faked and hasn’t taken the time, it seems hard to believe. But this is what happened.

            If you think you’re sure and don’t want to do it, that’s fine. It’s your choice.

          • RW says:

            And my conclusion has nothing to with waving flags or the inability to see stars in the photographs or footage (which is actually correct that stars should not be visible in either). And in the footage, the flag doesn’t move or wave unless they’re fiddling with it. They weren’t stupid enough to leave in footage of the flag waving on its own. Now, the way it waves when they’re fiddling with it is a little suspicious in that it doesn’t look (to me) like it’s waving in 1/6 gravity (or in a vacuum), but ultimately it’s inconclusive.

            There is much in the photography that is highly suspicious for a number of reasons, but nothing that approaches a smoking gun, in my view. However, it was many of the more suspicious aspects of the photography I’ve seen presented that made me consider the possibility that the missions may have actually been faked.

            But it was long time from that to concluding the missions were nearly certainly faked.

          • RW says:

            This should have said:

            “I understand that for someone like yourself who apparently assumes the missions couldnt have been faked and hasnt taken the time, it seems hard to believe. But this is what happened WITH ME.”

          • RW says:

            Also, I was born after the Apollo missions allegedly took place, so I never witnessed the ‘event’ when it happened (and thus was never convinced or believed what was alleged to have happened actually happened at the time it happened). I learned in school history class that they took place and the USA put men on the Moon, and assumed, like most everyone, that they really did.

            Of course, years later I learned about the conspiracy theory that it was faked. I mean who hasn’t heard of it? It must be the most iconic conspiracy theory of the 20th century, right?. I of course, like most everyone, assumed it wasn’t actually be true.

            It was the landmark Fox special from the early 2000s that planted the the seed in my mind that it could possibly have really been faked, but I was not convinced at all after watching it that it was faked. I think I saw it when it originally aired and didn’t revisit the issue until many years later when I watched it again on — I think — Netflix streaming. It was at that point that I started doing more research and finding more and more suspicious and illogical things about the photography in particular that no one seemed to be able to provide any logical answers to.

            For example, no one really seems to address the many highly suspicious aspects of the photography pointed out by Marcus Allen, and he’s an very credible authority on them because he was a professional photographer and used the same cameras they used on Apollo and new that particular camera and all its features and nuances intimately. Rather than address his claimed issues with them and offer answers, they more less just say he’s crazy, should be hospitalized, etc. I found this highly suspicious to say the least.

          • Norman says:

            RW

            Your major point that proved the lunar missions were faked was the Van Allen Radiation belts. Now you are giving vague ephemeral research in convincing you that these missions were faked.

            Whatever research you did not the Van Allen Belts is most certainly unscientific and very poor. If you did as poorly with your other research I would suggest investing in more scientific and rational thought process.

            So far all the points you have brought up to prove the Moon Landings were fake are not good at all. You seem very convinced that you are correct. After proving your radiation thesis is horrible what gives you such confidence. I am sure all the other material is similar junk science created by someone on a blog or YouTube video.

            Here is one. I am now totally certain the Earth is a flat disk and there is a massive conspiracy theory. It has to be true, I saw a YouTube video about it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPRJzNc876A

          • RW says:

            Norman,

            All you’re doing is coming from the perspective that they couldn’t have been faked and just quickly searching out evidence and claims online that allegedly demonstrates they weren’t. Anyone can do this, as it takes minimal time, thought and effort.

            You’ve not really critically examined anything, where as I have. This alone does not make me correct and you wrong, but it does make my position on the issue more informed than yourself, in my view.

            The Van Allen Belts are only one of the issues. We haven’t even delved into the other issues, which there are many.

            BTW, there is — IMO — no absolute proof or smoking gun the Apollo Moon missions were faked. It’s the preponderance of all of the evidence, logic and behavior that supports, by my assessment, that they were nearly certainly faked or seemingly had to be faked.

            But you’re free to examine the evidence and make up your own mind. Or not. If you want to believe the missions really happened based on what you know and have seen, so be it.

          • RW says:

            Norman,

            I assume you understand basic physics and that the Moon has no atmosphere and is a vacuum. Therefore there is no sound on the Moon, yet here we have one of the Apollo astronauts hammering a stake into the alleged lunar surface with a hammer and his mike inside his helmet clearly picked up the sound (loudly), which is not possible:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x25g5sdhG7U

            BTW, this is the closest thing to a smoking gun that the Apollo missions were faked that I’ve found. If this doesn’t make you suspicious that the Moon missions could have really been faked and it’s worth looking into, then it’s hard to believe anything would.

            BTW, NASA doesnt deny the recorded audio of the clip of the astronaut allegedly hammering a stake into the lunar surface. They cant, because their own astronauts have commented on it as part of the official record and its on the original footage that has been shown and released. The linked video and recorded audio is not the only source of this incident.

            There is no way its possible, which means at least this particular footage was faked and shot somewhere on Earth. From this, it can and should be concluded that all of the other footage was likely faked and thus all of the Apollo missions themselves were likely faked too. Its not absolute proof since they could have faked the footage, but not the missions. However, this is not logical in my view given all of the other contradictory evidence and illogic surrounding the missions.

          • Norman says:

            RW

            Even this “hammering sound” on the Moon does have a valid answer.

            The vibrations traveled through the suit and were picked up by the microphone. None of your solid evidence are at all solid and it seems many have already explained all the alleged “fake” Moon Mission items quite well.

            https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/924238/Moon-landings-hoax-astronauts-hammer-noise

            Maybe you can claim the vibration idea is not valid. Did the Conspiracy theorist ever do valid experiments to prove that vibrational energy could not travel up the arm to a microphone? Conspiracy ideas are generally not science. They can be interesting ideas and things to think of. I know of very few actual conspiracy peddlers that come up with actual proof of any of their points. The Myth Busters do actual experiments to prove things. The others just make claims that people like you seem to believe. You demand proof of the scientists but demand zero from the conspiracy peddlers.

            Not sure why you think this is such a solid conspiracy. Evidence in favor of the Moon Missions.

            https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax

            Read through the evidence the lunar missions actually did take place as stated.

          • Nate says:

            RW,

            What do you make of this paper from 1964?

            Analysis of proton flux when shielded by Aluminum. See Fig 19 for Van Allen dose analysis.

            Idea is that capsule is an Aluminum/steel shell of a couple cm, and then instrumentation inside adds more shielding, to reduce dose below 10 rads/hour.

          • RW says:

            Norman,

            “Even this “hammering sound” on the Moon does have a valid answer.”

            No, it doesn’t. The explanations for it are absolute nonsense. Listen to it. It’s a high frequency hit sound of two hard objects coming into contact with one another, i.e banging on one another. Completely consistent with someone being surrounded by normal air on Earth and hitting something, the sound getting through the face plate of helmet and then picked up by the mike. This is exactly what it sounds like. Even if some resonance of the vibration were to somehow miraculously make it through the glove, through the hand (both of which, BTW, are highly absorbant to vibration) and into the suit, up the arm and into the mike, it would be at most a very low level, low frequency thumping sound — not a high frequency sharp hitting sound.

            But even this is nonsense and wouldn’t happen. Nothing would be picked up even if one of the astronauts took a metal baseball bat and whacked it as hard as they could on a metal pole. There is no sound in space, period. Let alone loud sounds of objects whacked against each other.

            Like I say, this is the closest thing to smoking gun I’ve found. It should be arising extreme suspicion from everyone, but people try to rationalize it away when the explanations for it are nonsense.

            As I’ve said, it is possible they faked the footage (to show to public for the ‘event’) and still went to moon, but based on everything else I’ve seen and critically analyzed I can only conclude they did not.

          • RW says:

            Norman,

            “The Myth Busters do actual experiments to prove things”

            You probably don’t know, but a Russian group of scientists tried to duplicate Myth Busters’ results and could not. When pressed, one of the Myth Busters who does the show admitted they falsified/fudged the results, and said that ultimately their show was ‘entertainment’ and not science. Or something like this.

            Look, if you want to think I’m stupid, gullible, or unaware of all kinds of bunk/untrue things on youtube, etc. Fine, it doesn’t bother me. I’ve spent a lot of time digesting and critically thinking about it all. From both sides. You have not.

            For one, are you aware that one of the Moon rocks given directly by one of the Apollo 11 Astronauts to a curator in Holland in 2009 was put under the microscope and found to be fake? It was a piece of petrified wood. Are you aware that it is now illegal to own or be in possession of alleged Moon rock?

            If so, what nonsense is this? And how does it not arise major suspicion? What possible reason would there be for making having Moon rocks illegal, except that they know they’re fake and don’t want people looking at and/or to be able to examine them? This, by itself, should be raising major red flags, but for some reason it doesn’t. Because people are not being rational.

          • NAte says:

            RW,

            ‘Ive spent a lot of time digesting and critically thinking about it all. From both sides. You have not.’

            Are you sure you look at information from sides with equal srutiny?

            Once someone decides on a hypothesis like this one, the tendency is to read and accept only confirming information.

            It can be seen here in several of your posts. Information that seems inconsistent with your idea is mostly ignored or dismissed.

            Information that you have already accepted is considered a ‘smoking gun’, even when people find flaws in it, such as the hammering sound.

            It is well known that sound travels well through solid materials like human bones, railroad tracks, etc,

            and yet, you dismiss that idea with hand-waving arguments and ‘But even this is nonsense and wouldnt happen.’

            Critical thinking? Ive taught this concept. An important aspect of that is ‘consider the source’.

            Is it a reliable source? Does the source have its own agenda? Is the source’s main agenda journalism? Or promoting conspiracy theories? Or obtaining ‘views’ by being controversial? Is the source providing supporting evidence for its claim?

            So when you present ‘facts’ to us such as moon rocks were found to be petrified wood,

            I immediately wonder, have you ‘considered the source’ for this information?

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            “Once someone decides on a hypothesis like this one, the tendency is to read and accept only confirming information.”

            Not really, and I would suggest if anything the opposite is case for those who believe the missions really happened. They’re starting from the premise that they couldn’t have been faked and just accepting any confirming information out there with little to no scrutiny. Norman is a classic example, but you appear to be doing the same thing, as does most everyone else, in my experience.

            The problem is there was no independent verification of the alleged Apollo missions unlike virtually all other major landmark events in human history. From after launch when the rocket disappears from view to splash down days later all we have to rely on is what NASA more or less claims happened in between.

            This makes it very difficult to assess credibility by conventional means, and fairly sophisticated critical thinking techniques involving the behavior of those involved, various forms of evidence and logic, how responses to questions about things are answered (or not answered) by NASA, the astronauts themselves, etc. have be relied on heavily.

            “Information that you have already accepted is considered a smoking gun, even when people find flaws in it, such as the hammering sound.”

            Even the captured hammering sound is not an absolute smoking gun that they didn’t go to the Moon. I’ve said there is no absolute smoking gun, and (of course) I can’t be absolutely sure the missions were faked. Only nearly sure.

            “It is well known that sound travels well through solid materials like human bones, railroad tracks, etc,

            and yet, you dismiss that idea with hand-waving arguments and But even this is nonsense and wouldnt happen.”

            It is absolute spectacular nonsense on steroids, yes. Sound needs air to travel from one place to another. That’s what sound is. Human skin and tissue is highly absorbant to vibration. So are the space suit gloves. But even if we entertain the ultra slim possibility that some of the vibration from hammer hit (at the end of the hammer) when back through the hammer, through the glove, and into the skin on the hand, then up the arm, how does that vibration get converted into sound captured by the mike? Let alone sound as glaringly loud and sharp high frequency ‘hit’ as that audio? It’s not possible.

            Under normal circumstances you would never accept these possible explanations for something like this. They’re pure nonsense. In that clip, they’re not on the moon.

            To quote Bart Sibrel: “When are people going to give up their emotions and start facing facts?”

            He addresses a lot of these kind of psychological barriers people seem to have in assessing all of this stuff and why they can’t seem to see glaringly suspicious things that they would normally see. They can’t let go of their emotions and see what’s right in front of them:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-qMyHyMNZw

          • Nate says:

            ‘fairly sophisticated critical thinking techniques involving the behavior of those involved, various forms of evidence and logic, how responses to questions about things are answered (or not answered) by NASA, the astronauts themselves, etc. have be relied on heavily.’

            Yes, sophisticated, as in having a conspiratorial mindset, like my mother-in-law.

            Some people look at events and see patterns that others dont see, that matches up to conspiracy patterns, and then see confirming information on conspiracy-oriented internet sites, and become even more certain about it.

            Most of us seek out information that tends to confirm our prior beliefs.

            Hence the success, and evolution of Fox news etc.

            “‘Once someone decides on a hypothesis like this one, the tendency is to read and accept only confirming information.’

            Not really, and I would suggest if anything the opposite is case for those who believe the missions really happened.”

            Always its the other team who has biases, but not my team!

            Well, that is telling.

            In the discussion here there has been a number of rebuttals to your claims about the VA radiation.

            And most of it is dismissed or ignored (eg several of mine).

            You are not really open to such dis-confirming information, are you?

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            “Yes, sophisticated, as in having a conspiratorial mindset, like my mother-in-law.

            Some people look at events and see patterns that others dont see, that matches up to conspiracy patterns, and then see confirming information on conspiracy-oriented internet sites, and become even more certain about it.”

            I don’t have a conspiratorial mindset. I don’t even think mainstream climate science is a conspiracy, as lot of people here do. I’ve seen numerous 9/11 inside job conspiracy documentaries, and I’m not convinced from what I’ve seen that it was. I’m not someone who believes in wacky things or conspiracy theories in general.

            I have however spent a lot of time digesting the claims of the Apollo missions being faked, and I’ve concluded that this is the one biggie conspiracy theory that is actually true, almost for sure. But it took a very long time before I even reached the point where I thought there was a real chance it could actually really be true. Upon watching the landmark Fox conspiracy theory show from the early 2000s I was not convinced from that that it was faked. At most, it opened up the possibility it might be possible it was faked. Have you even watched it?

            “In the discussion here there has been a number of rebuttals to your claims about the VA radiation.

            And most of it is dismissed or ignored (eg several of mine).

            You are not really open to such dis-confirming information, are you?”

            It’s because it doesn’t even come close to matching up with all of the behavior surrounding the issue. If correct, it would mean the Van Allen radiation belts problem was resolved 50 years ago, perfectly. They allegedly went through it 9 times 100% perfectly with not a single issue whatsoever, with anything or anyone. It should be a long solved issue, yet no mission from any country has even attempted to go through the belts ever since, and we have astronauts today saying the farthest they can go is low Earth Orbit. It doesn’t make sense at the most elementary level of logic. When this is weighed with all the other illogic, inconsistencies, unexplained anomalies — most of which we haven’t even discussed — I conclude it’s not correct. With high confidence.

            As I’ve said, there is no single smoking gun. Including the Van Allen Belts (or even Van Allen’s earlier statements about them). It’s when all of the evidence and behavior is weighed together and thoroughly digested and critically analyzed that I’m making my conclusion.

            If you want to know how they faked the 1/6th gravity effect in the footage, here you go. They apparently used wires in conjunction with slow motion, and it wasn’t even that difficult to do. A few examples from the footage can be seen here:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0

          • Nate says:

            RW,

            Ok, so you are not accepting of most conspiracy theories, just this one.

            You keep saying youve done research, Ok. But just saying that is not convincing to others.

            Each conspiracy theory out there has been researched by advocates and slick videos posted about them.

            Flat Earth, Chem trails, Sandy Hook, 911. Plenty of convincing sounding info by people who seem convinced.

            Long ago I looked at a Fox News video, that someone showed me. Then i found other sites that specifically debunked each item in that video.

            The flag is waving, the shadows are wrong, etc

            Have you looked at those and thought critically about them?

            You have to deal with the rebuttals of each item directly.

            -The recent pictures of the landing sites from Japan and NASA. You claim, unconvincingly, that its obviously fake.

            -The 1964 paper I showed you researched shielding of the VA radiation. Others showed you data. It appears adequate.

            -The number of people involved and the lack of books from these people, despite the Cold War being long since over. The more people, the more decades, the more the probability becomes vanishingly small.

            -The highly realistic, naturalistic ‘acting’ ‘production’ and ‘special effects’.

            -Your scenario involves deception on an enormous scale. Sort of like an Oceans 11 caper x 1 million.

            This is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

            You just dont have that.

          • Nate says:

            ‘ It should be a long solved issue, yet no mission from any country has even attempted to go through the belts ever since”

            Two obvious possibilities here:

            1. It cant be done safely

            2. There has been no strong interest by the main players, US and Russia, in sending humans to the Moon again, until now. Mars is MUCH HARDER.

            With the Cold War Space Race over, the waning interest in it, and the emphasis on low-gravity science, low-cost unmanned planetary exploration, Earth sciences, and the utility of satellites in orbit, #2 makes a lot of sense.

            Why do you reject #2?

          • Nate says:

            The South Pole was first reached in 1911, but the second time was not until 1956, by plane.

            Like the Moon race, the race to the South Pole having been won, -there was simply no compelling need to go to such great efforts to go back.

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            “Ok, so you are not accepting of most conspiracy theories, just this one.”

            Yes, correct.

            “You keep saying you’ve done research, Ok. But just saying that is not convincing to others.”

            I can see that, and just saying it shouldn’t be.

            “Each conspiracy theory out there has been researched by advocates and slick videos posted about them.”

            Of course. Means nothing. I’m well aware and have seen many.

            “Flat Earth, Chem trails, Sandy Hook, 911. Plenty of convincing sounding info by people who seem convinced.”

            Well like I say I’ve seen quite a few, and I’m not convinced.

            “Long ago I looked at a Fox News video, that someone showed me. Then i found other sites that specifically debunked each item in that video.

            The flag is waving, the shadows are wrong, etc

            Have you looked at those and thought critically about them?”

            Yes. For one, my conclusion has nothing to do with waving flags on the (alleged) Moon footage.

            I explain much of this here:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-363889

            “You have to deal with the rebuttals of each item directly.”

            I have. Which ones do you want to go through? Assuming I even disagree with them.

            “-The recent pictures of the landing sites from Japan and NASA. You claim, unconvincingly, that its obviously fake.”

            Yes, because there is no reason why they couldn’t get really clear, close shots with lots of detail to put it all to rest once and for all (provided they really went). Especially given how close the satellite orbits the moon and that there’s no atmosphere even to ‘blur’ the results. People have also analyzed them and found the relative sizes of the items to one another don’t match the actual documented sizes of the items.

            Plus, it’s just plain looks fake. The rover tracks, for example, are seem too distinct and clear.

            “-The 1964 paper I showed you researched shielding of the VA radiation. Others showed you data. It appears adequate.”

            Appears? Based on what? That you think the missions had to have happened?

            “-The number of people involved and the lack of books from these people, despite the Cold War being long since over. The more people, the more decades, the more the probability becomes vanishingly small.

            -The highly realistic, naturalistic acting production and special effects.

            -Your scenario involves deception on an enormous scale. Sort of like an Oceans 11 caper x 1 million.”

            Initially, I thought the same, because superficially at least, it seemed logical. It was the main reason I dismissed it or assumed it couldn’t have been faked. For many years. However, the successful execution of the Manhattan project suggests it’s fairly easily possible, i.e. they had nearly 150,000 people working on it and only an extremely small number actually knew what the final product they were working on was. I don’t know how many people knew the Moon missions were being faked (or were ultimately faked). I have no way of knowing. I would guess it’s at least 100 people, but less than 500, but I have no way of knowing the actual number.

            “This is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

            You just dont have that.”

            Superficially, it would seem that it is an extraordinary claim, but it’s not really if you think about it since there has been no independent verification of any of it. NASA basically just claims they went to the Moon for Apollo 11-17. It can’t be verified (either way) in any conventional way.

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            “It should be a long solved issue, yet no mission from any country has even attempted to go through the belts ever since

            Two obvious possibilities here:

            1. It cant be done safely

            2. There has been no strong interest by the main players, US and Russia, in sending humans to the Moon again, until now. Mars is MUCH HARDER.

            With the Cold War Space Race over, the waning interest in it, and the emphasis on low-gravity science, low-cost unmanned planetary exploration, Earth sciences, and the utility of satellites in orbit, #2 makes a lot of sense.

            Why do you reject #2?”

            Good question. I will try to answer it. Now, as I’ve said, keep in mind it’s not one specific thing that is convincing me the Moon missions were faked. It’s the preponderance of all the evidence, logic, and especially the surrounding human behavior that ultimately is.

            Firstly, the Van Allen belts are only just the first leg of the Moon missions and they are right above the Earth, so it’s not just that no one else has attempted to go the Moon in over 50 years; no one else has even attempted just the first leg of mission in now over 50 years.

            Russia never even attempted to go to the Moon, even after we allegedly did. If it was possible at the time, there would have been strong motivation for them to do it also. But they never did, given at the time at least (before Apollo allegedly happened), they were considerably more advanced and more accomplished in space than the USA.

            Now, it is within the realm of possibility that no one ever attempted to go more than about 200-300 miles above the Earth in over 50 years because there was simply no interest in doing so? Yes, but I don’t think this is logical and reasonable, given if the Apollo missions really happened, it would have proved going through the Van Allen Belts and back (and even significantly beyond for days at a time) was absolutely no problem whatsoever.

            So yes, I’m concluding from this that the more likely or credible reason is because no one has figured out yet how to do it safely (or how to get astronauts through it safely). The Orion project’s unmanned rigorous Geiger sensor loaded test flight into the Van Allen belts and back is perfectly consistent with this conclusion, BTW. As is its departure/return pod failing its tests despite having significantly more robust heat shieling than the Apollo ones did. In other words, it’s more robust and it failed its tests (meaning if humans were inside they would have overheated and been killed upon re-entry).

            Also, haven’t you noticed that desired new Moon missions by Presidents always eventually get cancelled? When push comes to shove, it seems they can’t ever actually do it again. I find this illogical and highly suspicious, as should everyone. But few people ever do for whatever reason.

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            As further support for my conclusion on your posed question, see what two astronauts from the ISS said themselves in and interview while in space. They say the furthest humans CAN go is low earth orbit. They don’t say at all that there has never been a desire to go further so they just haven’t gone any further yet. See this video starting at 21:27 below for their first hand comments:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlUNJzU9Mdw

          • RW says:

            If interested, and in fairness, this was one of the best programs I saw that purports to debunk the Moon hoaxers. It was a whole program dedicated to debunking the many arguments put forth by those claiming it was a hoax.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy6ZLJoam1Q

            Let me know if you want to go through these.

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            Have you seen any of Bart Sibrel’s stuff or watched that general interview that covers a lot of his stuff I linked? Probably not, because you assume he’s a conspiracy kook or nut as you’ve been led to believe. Do you know he has actual footage from NASA of the Apollo 11 craft clearly faking a shot being half way to the Moon? That he put into a documentary called ‘A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon” for anyone to see? Which can now be seen for free on his youtube channel?

            You might wonder how he got the footage in the first place, as it makes no sense NASA would have given it to him. Well, you should watch the interview I linked to get the whole story, but basically he believes an insider at NASA, who knows the Moon missions were faked, sent it to him deliberately.

            He also produced ‘Astronauts gone wild’ where in it, the behavior, body language and demeanor of the astronauts is incredibly suspicious, despite the fact they were misled into thinking they were doing interviews commemorating the Apollo missions. They look like guilty people who have been found out to me. Allen Bean didn’t even know they traveled through the Van Allen Belts, and then when he realized they had to have he rambled on nonsensically how they were able to see the effects of the radiation. All while making weird faces and a ton of uncomfortable gestures…

            Now, a certain amount of annoyance for being misled about the interview purpose is expectable, but their reactions were way over the top beyond this, IMO. I found their behavior INCREDIBLY suspicious to say the least.

          • Nate says:

            “See what two astronauts from the ISS said themselves in and interview while in space.”

            Honestly, what they said was that we cannot go higher now. The context was the need for a heavy lift vehicle, the one being developed, NOT the VA belts.

            The whole video is typical of the conspiracy theory genre, lots of certainty about speculative claims, smoking guns, with little discussion of alternative boring explanations for things.

          • Nate says:

            ” it is within the realm of possibility that no one ever attempted to go more than about 200-300 miles above the Earth in over 50 years because there was simply no interest in doing so? Yes, but I dont think this is logical and reasonable”

            It is perfectly logical when one considers the changed missions of NASA, and budget.

            Space missions must have a compellin reason. Other than going to the Moon again, there is no NEED to exceed VA.

          • Nate says:

            ” extraordinary claim, but its not really if you think about it since there has been no independent verification of any of it. NASA basically just claims they went to the Moon for Apollo 11-17.”

            Cmon that is a stretch. Many people saw the rockets launched, we all saw the live TV, many journalists were embedded at NASA and interviewed the participants.

            NASA is not the Borg, with a single mind, eg James Hansen and Roy Spencer both worked for NASA.

          • Nate says:

            “-‘The 1964 paper I showed you researched shielding of the VA radiation. Others showed you data. It appears adequate.’

            Appears? Based on what? That you think the missions had to have happened?”

            You didnt look at the paper. No surprise.

            The paper is well documented, full of real data, published by people who are experts in that field. Anyone can read it and critique it.

            Unless one is already convinced of a conspiracy, I see no way to refute what is in this paper.

            I pointed you to a figure. In it they show radiation levels predicted in the VA belts for Al shielding of various thicknesses. The levels for 1 hour of exposure are below 10 RADS for Al thicknesses similar to the shell of the capsule.

            And the added shielding of all the capsule instrumentation would reduce this number further.

            You need to look at original sources, and not rely on assertions in videos made by HOAX advocates.

          • Nate says:

            “He also produced ‘Astronauts gone wild’ where in it, the behavior, body language and demeanor of the astronauts is incredibly suspicious”

            Again a video by a MOON-HOAX fanatic.

            Incredibly suspicious only if one already has a conspiracy mindset.

            Only suspicious if one sees nefarious motives when motives cannot be determined.

            Suspicious only if one is seeking and finding patterns in random noise that are not actually there.

            Again, RW, it seems that when information has reasonable, plausible alternative explanations, you always ASSUME the HOAX explanation is MORE LIKELY.

          • RW says:

            “Its easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”

            -Mark Twain

            Indeed it is, especially in this case.

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            “Again a video by a MOON-HOAX fanatic.

            Incredibly suspicious only if one already has a conspiracy mindset.

            Only suspicious if one sees nefarious motives when motives cannot be determined.”

            Yes, based on his own research and experience over many years with this issue he is full fledged believer it was a HOAX. I mean he has a tape given to him by NASA from NASA of the Apollo 11 crew faking a shot being half way to the Moon for crying out loud.

            He considers this proof (by logical deduction) that Apollo 11 was faked since there is no logical or credible reason for why they would have done this (unless they couldn’t actually go half way to the Moon).

            If this doesn’t at least make you take a step back and consider the possibility it actually could have been faked, then it’s hard to believe anything would. You could at least watch the interview and hear what he has to say about it all. And the videos of his I mentioned on youtube can be watched for free.

            I’ve presented more than enough here that should at least have opened up the possibility for anyone with a reasonable mind that the missions could have really been faked. I think I’ll leave it there unless you want to discuss some other alleged refutations of it was a HOAX.

          • Nate says:

            Ive presented more than enough here that should at least have opened up the possibility for anyone with a reasonable mind that there are alternative non-HOAX explanations for the evidence claimed to be supportive of a HOAX.

            Again, I would recommend seeking out original sources to check out the validity of the assertions made by by advocates, whose videos need not meet the usual ethical standards of science or journalism publications.

          • Nate says:

            RW,

            ‘Do you know he has actual footage from NASA of the Apollo 11 craft clearly faking a shot being half way to the Moon? ‘

            Considering the time I wasted on the earlier video with the nothing-burger interview with ISS astronauts, I dont think I need to go hunt for that one.

            Don’t you wonder why this footage, if real, was sent only to a HOAX advocate, rather than the New York Times, NBC News, etc?

            Wouldn’t that make more sense?

            If only you would apply as much skepticism to these You-tube videos as you do to NASA photos and videos..

          • Nate says:

            ‘unless you want to discuss some other alleged refutations of it was a HOAX.’

            Ok, here is debunking of the “the Apollo 11 craft clearly faking a shot being half way to the Moon?”

            http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

            Can you rebut this debunking?

          • Nate says:

            Particularly problematic is this:

            “Space writer and former NASA engineer James Oberg points out an obvious problem in Sibrel’s scenario: if the astronauts were indeed in low Earth orbit, they would have been in the necessary line-of-sight for ground stations for only 4-5 minutes at a time. It was impossible in the 1960s to transmit television from low Earth orbit for the 20-30 minutes he says the fakery lasted. On the other hand, if the spacecraft really was where the crew said it was — 130,000 miles from Earth — it would stay at the same point in the sky (relative to other celestial objects) for hours at a time.”

            Your response to this?

          • RW says:

            Nate,

            I’ve actually seen the footage. More than once. If they were really half way to the Moon shooting the Earth out the window the camera would be at the window (pointed towards the Earth) — not far back away from the window, which is clearly evident when the lights come on at the end.

            NASA has tried to explain it away by claiming they were just rehearsing, but there would be no need to fake the shot to rehearse if the real Earth was out the window.

            All you’re doing is presuming the missions couldn’t have been faked and seeking out information confirming this presumption. You’re not actually thinking for yourself and critically examining anything.

          • Nate says:

            RW,

            I actually looked at the Sibrel film.

            The biggest problem I have with it is that it makes numerous claims in the vein of ‘this is how it was done’ with a convincing English female narrator.

            But none of those claims are backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

            The ‘problems’ with the images of Earth are not obvious at all.

            Then there are the real issues with converting from a low orbit view of Earth, with motion, to a far away view of Earth, that just don’t work.

            It is just a bunch of empty assertions. I fail to see why you are convinced by this nonsense.

        • RW says:

          Linked right below I mean.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Werner van Braun, who built the rocket, also prior said travelling to the moon was impossible, because the size of the rockets needed to carry enough fuel to get them there, would need to be unfeasibly large (way larger than the Saturn 5 rocket was). He also recanted this when Apollo started.”

        I am curious. Do you know how large the Saturn V rocket was?

        My understanding of Saturn V is that it’s biggest rocket to ever to successful launch.
        The Russian had bigger one but it failed to launch and it was never successfully launched
        So bigger than Shuttle.
        SLS is eventually suppose to lift more payload than Saturn V- but first version only planned to lift 70 tons to Low Earth Orbit.
        Saturn V more than 100 tons.

        Lots people watched the Saturn V launches. They also felt force of their take off.
        And they were expensive to make and made total of about 20 of them.

        So question is what were the Saturn V rockets other than a Moon rocket?
        Their large size could be said to be somewhat useless for any other purpose.
        And because we want to go to Moon and Mars, we making such large rockets, again.

        • RW says:

          I think the rocket was about 300 some odd feet tall, but you’d have to look it up. The rocket itself was definitely real and not faked. And was quite impressive indeed. It’s just that if we take van Braun’s earlier word and claims, it would not have been anywhere near big enough to carry enough fuel to get to the moon (let alone back). I think he said it would have to be bigger and taller than the size of NY’s Empire State building or something like this. van Braun was more or less a Nazi war criminal, so getting him to cooperate with the Apollo program I doubt would have been a problem.

          Most people who think it was hoax think the astronauts were almost definitely on the rocket when it launched. I’m not so sure myself.

        • RW says:

          There is absolutely no question that if the Apollo missions were faked that van Braun knew.

          • Norman says:

            RW

            This article covers your Wernher von Braun angle on this.

            https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-wernher-von-braun-confirmed-that-rockets-cant-leave-earth.t9796/

            If you were really concerned about the Moon landings being faked because the Saturn V did not have the power to make it there you could easily prove this with calculations. You could take the estimated fuel supply in each stage. Calculate the energy available for thrust and see if it could reach speeds of escape velocity. Your points are not very good at all. What I don’t like about these Conspiracy theories is they lure people like you with very simple ideas and zero depth. They appeal to you on an emotional and not rational level. They NEVER have any actual calculations. Like the Van Allen Belts. Do they ever give you actual radiation exposures that you can see.

          • RW says:

            Norman,

            Where was it claimed by myself that van Braun claimed such size was needed to reach escape velocity? The issue, according to van Braun, as I understood it, was reaching escape velocity AND having enough fuel to then make the journey all the way to the Moon would require so much fuel the rocket would have to be unfeasibly large and far larger than the Saturn 5 rocket was. Clearly the Saturn 5 rocket reached escape velocity, so I don’t get your point.

            “What I dont like about these Conspiracy theories is they lure people like you with very simple ideas and zero depth. They appeal to you on an emotional and not rational level. They NEVER have any actual calculations. Like the Van Allen Belts. Do they ever give you actual radiation exposures that you can see.”

            Well, we’re talking about van Braun himself here and what he said. The man was brilliant. There’s no doubt about this.

            Look, I would like to believe the Moon missions really happened, but based on all my research, critical thinking, and analysis of all the available evidence, logic, and behavior of those involved, I’ve come to the conclusion they didn’t and were faked. With very high confidence. I’m not absolutely sure of course, but fairly close to being sure (for as sure as one can be with some of this nature). You’re free to examine the evidence and make up your own mind.

          • CoRev says:

            RW, you’ve claimed researched, analyzed and done crtical thinking, but show none of these actions, evidence from them, nor the ability to do so. All you have done is parroted from some dubious sources, while ignoring or rationalizing away comments from people like me who did work on Apollo and other missions or video sources.

            You could have taken GBaikie’s advice and done the calculations for the Saturn V. Or you could, if you understood the physics of radar tracking and data acquisition in a real time environment how that was spoofed. How does a single satellite spoof those X, Y and Z coordinates and the specific signal delays to add the spoofed distance and speed of that moving vehicle?

            If the space missions were spoofed when did they occur? Was it with Apollo 1 or the later missions? How did they spoof Apollo 13?

            All you’ve shown so far is your ignorance of the actual parameters needed to be spoofed and the numbers of people effected and involved. Without that its just bias confirmation from someone too ignorant of the details to know what it would take to spoof one, ;et alone all Apollo missions.

            The only one spoofed so far is you by believing your probably spoofed sources.

          • tom0mason says:

            RW
            Von Braun first conjecture was almost certainly correct if it was based on the erroneous idea of a single stage rocket and his ideas of cost.

            However what he said was

            From the space station’s orbit, however, a journey to the moon becomes feasible. In the orbit we can construct the type of vehicles we require for the lunar trip, in the same way that we can build the space station. These vehicles will already have a speed of 15,840 miles per hour – the speed of the space station as it moves around the earth. Since we have this running start, we will not need excessive amounts of propellants or very powerful rocket motors […] [My bold]

            He probably saw the light later when the ideas about multi-stage designs made the truth of getting to the moon possible and quite practical with the technology of the day, given the amount of money the US was willing to put in the project.
            Power to weight ratio (or more properly thrust to weight ratio) optimized for each stage makes one heck of a difference.

            By jettisoning stages when they run out of propellant, the mass of the remaining rocket is decreased. Each successive stage can also be optimized for its specific operating conditions, such as decreased atmospheric pressure at higher altitudes. This staging allows the thrust of the remaining stages to more easily accelerate the rocket to its final speed and height.

            [my bold]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket

          • Nate says:

            And here is another opportunity to add to the numbers of people who would have to in on the conspiracy.

            How many rocket design engineers and contractors and management of these people would become aware, or could figure out that the design of the rocket was FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, and would simply not work?

            Pffft!

          • RW says:

            tom0mason,

            Yes, just because van Braun earlier thought/said it wasn’t possible or feasible doesn’t mean he/they couldn’t have developed the tech on a smaller rocket to accomplish it in the years afterward leading up to Apollo 10 or 11.

            Again, van Braun’s comments about this are not a smoking gun and don’t prove the missions were faked. However, they do arise a great deal of suspicion, given everything else, especially since he seemed so emphatic about it at the time he made those statements. And this is my central point with it, i.e. that’s it’s highly suspicious.

            The same goes for what Van Allen himself said in 1959 in that it doesn’t preclude that they could have found a way to protect from the radiation by the time of Apollo 10 or 11.

            My ultimate conclusion that the missions were faked has fully taken all of this into consideration.

          • RW says:

            tom0mason,

            “Von Braun first conjecture was almost certainly correct if it was based on the erroneous idea of a single stage rocket and his ideas of cost.”

            Actually, what van Braun said was based on 3 separate rocket design — not a single rocket. He said each of the three rockets would have to be enormously large and far larger than the Saturn V rocket was. So he was apparently making the statements about a multi-stage design at the time. Again, it’s all very suspicious. Or should be.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        RW,
        The Van Allen radiation belts are lethal but not instantly so. Furthermore they are “Belts” so exposure can be limited by not lingering where the radiation levels are high.

        Take a look at the Chernobyl project:
        https://www.bechtel.com/projects/chernobyl-shelter-and-confinement/

        Thirty meters away from the melted core of the reactor the radiation is dangerous so the confinement structure was built 300 meters away. The point is that increasing the distance 100 times reduces the radiation 10,000 times thanks to the “Inverse Square Law”.

        The Van Allen radiation belts may be dangerous but you can use the “Inverse Square Law” to reduce the effect.

        • RW says:

          I never claimed (or thought) the radiation in Van Allen belts were instantaneously lethal. Even if they were lethal from relatively short exposure, the person exposed wouldn’t die anywhere near right away.

      • tom0mason says:

        RW

        See https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm for how the radiation hazard was assessed and actual measured levels from each Apollo mission.

        Also of note this the many pounds of Gold foil that much of the Apollo capsule was enveloped in. And also note when the astronauts were on the moons surface their suits offered a good measure of protection. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Skylab_A7L )

        • gallopingcamel says:

          That video was mostly accurate but there were parts that were wrong.

          For example you don’t use hydrogen rich materials for beta particle shielding. Hydrogen rich materials are useful shielding materials for protons and neutrons.

          Electrons are easily absorbed in a sheet of paper unless they have high energy. The Duke university Free Electron Laser generates relativistic electrons at ~1 GeV. As stated in the video high energy electrons can generate Bremsstrahlung (aka “Braking Radiation”). This is simply the conversion of the kinetic energy of high energy particles into photons.

          To shield against 1 GeV electrons we used a combination of four feet of lead and twelve feet of concrete. So why did the Apollo missions not need that kind of shielding?

          The Van Allen belts are made up of low energy particles (0.1–10 MeV) that are much less penetrating and dangerous than high energy particles.

      • Nate says:

        Excellent video.

        Very concise, but very informative.

        Will skeptics pay attention to it?

  17. PhilJ says:

    Norm,

    Can I call you Norm?

    ” theories are intentionally developed to see how many people can be caught by them. I think they are done on multiple topics. It is a way to control the Public. ”

    Again! A very intuitive statement!

    Psssst.. The GHE is one of them, and to my shame a Canadian is complicit in pushing that one…

    • David Appell says:

      The existence of the greenhouse effect is (besides the planet being warmer than the Sun can make it) obvious when viewed from space:

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

      No hypothesis without a greenhouse effect can explain this curve.

      • David Appell says:

        In fact, because of collision-induced ab.sorp.tion, where two or more molecules that collide temporarily have quantum states that can absorb in the infrared, any planet with an atmosphere has a GHE.

      • JDHuffman says:

        DA, you are making the same bogus assumption. You assume back-radiation results in raising surface temperatures.

        You just don’t understand the relevant physics.

        • David Appell says:

          You assume back-radiation results in raising surface temperatures.

          Of course it does: a body (the surface) that absorbs energy (radiation from the atmosphere) has an increase in temperature.

          See the SB Law.

      • This thread, thanks to RW, quickly degenerated into what may be a candidate for one of the worst comment threads this year on a science-related website.

        And then Mr. Apple showed up.

        His tedious “know it all” lectures usually make a thread worse.

        But here, Apple’s “sermons” put everyone to sleep, as usual, but after they woke up, they completely forgot about RW and the fake 1969 moon mission.

        • RW says:

          Oh come on…lighten up. I’ve enjoyed it.

          BTW, you don’t have to agree with me. You can think the Moon missions really happened. It’s perfectly OK with me.

  18. donald penman says:

    We all have experience of temperature data we have our own sense of is the world getting warmer or not but few have been to the moon or are likely to go there. I have never experienced any inflation of temperatures during my lifetime the scale of temperatures is the same as when I was younger, weather while variable remains within certain limits.

  19. donald penman says:

    I feel I have experienced an increase in temperature because of the UHI because I live in a small flat in an area in which there are many of these tightly packed together, it can be extremely hot during the summer and nearly everyone has there windows open at this time.

  20. Bindidon says:

    Roy Spencer

    “The moon takes 29.5 Earth days to rotate, so that means two weeks of daylight followed by two weeks of darkness for almost everywhere on the moon. ”

    Merci / Thanks for writing it.

  21. Bindidon says:

    I never would have even imagined that still so many US people are gullible followers of this fake news of faked Moon landings.

    The very best stuff was written by commenter DMT:

    “With the moon landings it was elaborately staged simply to demonstrate superiority over the Russians.”

    who by the way manages to ignore that if it had been faked, the Russians NEVER AND NEVER would have missed the chance to ridicule the USA worldwide!

    Strange people… but people managing to deny Moon’s rotation about its axis after all aren’t less.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Bindidon says: “Strange people… but people managing to deny Moon’s rotation about its axis after all aren’t less.”

      Bindidon, the Moon orbits Earth, but it does not “rotate on its axis”. If it had axial rotation, we would see all sides of it. The fact that we only see one side indicates it is not “rotating on its axis”. It’s the same motion as a racehorse.

      Be cautious not to attack people just because you do not understand. That would make you appear smug and ignorant.

      • Randy A Bork says:

        In order to discuss the rotation ‘on its axis’ question you must agree on a reference frame. If your reference frame is the the earth, you get one perspective. If it’s the remainder of the universe, you get a different perspective.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Randy, the reference frame is its axis, as in vertical line through its center of gravity.

          A racehorse runs an oval track, but is NOT “rotating on its axis”.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            El Stupido does not understand the inertial reference frame which is why he has everything backwards. He rotates his reference frame at whatever angular velocity his object rotates. No education is physics or kinematics will do this.

            This is why Postma through him under the bus by declaring the moon does indeed rotate about its own axis. Poor JD has not visited his site since. LMAO.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Child, when making comments you might want to try to make sense. A sensible comment can be difficult, especially if you’re uneducated. It might be best to get an adult to help you.

            Not stealing another person’s name will help also.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m more curious about how it is that you think you’re right, when every scientist on the planet knows the Moon is rotating.

            Where does that attitude come from?

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA makes his own “reality”: “…every scientist on the planet knows the Moon is rotating.”

            DA, just because you imagine something, and bang it out on your keyboard, that does NOT make it reality.

            Grow up, and learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            You avoided the question.

            How is it you think you’re right when every astronomer on the planet thinks the Moon is rotating?

          • JDHuffman says:

            You changed your bogus claim from “every scientist” to “every astronomer”.

            Keep changing, maybe someday you will get to reality.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            “Not stealing another persons name will help also.”

            Says the clown who stole his name from Harry Dale Huffman. Poor JD can never win.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Stupid”, keep trying to distort reality. It’s not working for you, and that makes you even more desperate.

            Nothing new.

          • David Appell says:

            You changed your bogus claim from every scientist to every astronomer.

            Here’s what the organization that has been to the Moon says:

            “Misconception
            “The Moon does not rotate.

            “Reality
            “The Moon does spin on its axis, completing a rotation once every “27.3 days; the confusion is caused because it also takes the same “period to orbit the Earth, so that it keeps the same side facing us.”

            https://moon.nasa.gov/about/misconceptions/

            Why should I believe you and not them?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You could try thinking for yourself?

          • David Appell says:

            JDHuffman says:
            Randy, the reference frame is its axis

            An axis is not a reference frame.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, when it comes to this “moon rotation” debate, “reference frames” just become an excuse for people to miss the point. It’s more fundamental than that. More simple, more straightforward.

          • David Appell says:

            *ALL* of physics is about reference frames.

            An axis is not a reference frame. That shows you the level of understanding we’re getting from some people here.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            David, when it comes to this “moon rotation” debate, “reference frames” just become an excuse for people to miss the point. It’s more fundamental than that. More simple, more straightforward.

        • Nate says:

          JD,

          How in does a vertical line define a 3D frame of reference frame exactly, JD?

          3D as in x, y z axes? Just one axis wont do it.

      • Adam Gallon says:

        Wrong, the Moon rotates once on its axis, in the same time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth.
        Easy enough to prove.
        Get a person to stand in the centre of a room.
        Get somebody else to sidestep around them, get the person in the middle, to slowly spin, so they can see the person’s face, all the time.
        You stand still at one side of the room.
        You’ll see back of the person’s head, who’s “orbiting” the person in the middle, at the same time you’ll see the face of the person in the middle. Half an “orbit” later, you’ll see the reverse.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Adam, an easier visualization is a racehorse running around an oval track. Inside the track, you only see one side of the horse. Outside the track, you would see both sides of the horse. The horse is obviously not rotating on its axis.

          It’s the same motion as the Moon, “orbiting” but NOT “rotating on its axis”.

        • gbaikie says:

          Grab hands of a kid and swing them.
          Where is the axis of the spin?

          Does the kid or the moon spin on it’s axis?

          Or are you acting as the axis of the spin of revolution
          of the kid?

          The issue is not the revolution of the orbit of the Moon or of
          the revolution of the kid.

          • Nate says:

            Earth not holding onto Moon with ‘arms’.

            Moon rotates about an axis tilted 6 degrees from its orbital axis, which defines its North and South poles.

            Hard to do that holding a kid with arms.

            Apparently NASA is planning a mission to land at the South pole (or fake it).

            Anyone wanna tell me how they figure out where its South Pole is?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Anyone wanna tell me how they figure out where its South Pole is?”

            With Earth, at equinox, the south pole is 90 degrees south [or perpendicular] to the solar plane.

            Probably same with Moon.

            When is it spring or fall on the Moon?

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            gbaikie,
            The kid spins on his own axis, or center of gravity. He spins one time per 1 revolution.

            The issue is people don’t comprehend simple kinematics.

          • JDHuffman says:

            gbaikie presents another example debunking the Moon rotation, and notice how the clowns seek to pervert reality.

            It’s amazing to watch.

          • Nate says:

            ‘With Earth, at equinox, the south pole is 90 degrees south [or perpendicular] to the solar plane.’

            Huh?

            Perpendicular to solar plane?

            If we land at the Moon’s pole, a point amongst the stars directly overhead, wiil be stationary.

            Point is, poles and rotational axis are defined by looking at the stars apparent motion from the surface of the planet or moon. And observing that their motions are circles around two points in the sky that define the rotational axis.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Nate says:
            July 14, 2019 at 1:47 PM
            With Earth, at equinox, the south pole is 90 degrees south [or perpendicular] to the solar plane.

            Huh?

            Perpendicular to solar plane?

            If we land at the Moons pole, a point amongst the stars directly overhead, will be stationary.–

            As will be the case with anything on solar plane [or parallel to it] and perpendicular to solar plane.
            Except the small movement due to the parallax effect plus lunar axis tilt of about 1.5 degrees.
            You can’t see the difference, you have to measure it over long period of time.

            “Point is, poles and rotational axis are defined by looking at the stars apparent motion from the surface of the planet or moon. And observing that their motions are circles around two points in the sky that define the rotational axis.”

            Yes, of course, with Earth spinning every day, it’s rather dramatic. And fairly simple to get a stop action photo of it.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            gbaikie,
            I suggest you bring this topic up with your buddy Joseph Postma. Smart guy. He already threw JD under the bus regarding the moon rotation business. You are next.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            HGS, please stop trolling.

      • David Appell says:

        Ger*an says:
        Bindidon, the Moon orbits Earth, but it does not rotate on its axis.

        If the Moon didn’t rotate around its axis Earthlings wouldn’t always see the same side of it.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

        • JDHuffman says:

          Wrong, DA. You’ve got it backwards. The fact that we only see one side proves it is not rotating on its axis.

          Consider the simple example of the racehorse. The horse is not rotating on its axis as it runs the track. If the horse actually had axial rotation, you would see all sides of it from both inside and outside the track.

          This is just another example of you refusing to see reality. You much prefer your pseudoscience.

          Nothing new.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, the racehorse is rotating about its own axis.

            First the horse run/looks north, then west, then south then east then finally north again.

            A view of 360 degrees has swept across the horse’s field of vision, just as if the horse stood still and rotated its head by 360 degrees (if it could).

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong again, DA. The horse is changing directions. The motion is translational. There is no axial rotation.

            You just don’t understand the relevant physics, and can’t learn.

            Nothing new.

          • David Appell says:

            There is no axial rotation

            Then translational motion is parallel to the racetrack.

            It’s possible for the horse to have translational motion AND complete the track always facing the same direction. That would be the case where it’s not rotating — its head always points north, where north is its direction out of the starting gate.

            (A horse isn’t the best analogy, because it can’t run sideways. So consider a human instead.)

            That would like be the right-hand side of this animation:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

            The left hand side of the animation has the horse/human rotating about its axis while it goes around the track.

          • David Appell says:

            PS: Your Trump-like need to insult everyone betrays a lack of confidence.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, learn what “translational motion” involves. then get back to me.

            And your whining about getting insulted is due to your inability to learn combined with your propensity for whining.

            Grow up.

          • David Appell says:

            Let the horse run in a straight line.

            Do you agree it can do so either while rotating or without rotating?

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            JD squeals:

            “The horse is changing directions. The motion is translational!”

            WRONG!

            Definition of translation:

            “It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
            [http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]

            Draw a line through the horse from tail to head. That line is rotating. So NO TRANSLATION.

            Poor JD. So ignorant of simple kinematics.

            SO what is YOUR definition of translation??? This will be amusing.

          • JDHuffman says:

            The horse is not rotating on its axis, either running a straight track or an oval track.

            Do you agree that you don’t know beans about the relevant physics?

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Poor JD is confronted with the truth, and he does not answer the question about translational motion. He punts.

            The horse is either translating or rotating on its own axis. Those are the two choices. We KNOW a race horse is not translating while running a circular track, so it has to be rotating on its own axis.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Please define translation, JD. Still waiting…..

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, you still haven’t answered the question.

          • David Appell says:

            If the horse actually had axial rotation, you would see all sides of it from both inside and outside the track.

            Why?

            ==

            Does the Earth orbit and rotate, or just orbit?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, why would you ask a question that had already been answered?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364075

            Oh, you’re just trolling. Understood.

  22. Brent Auvermann says:

    JDHuffman, there would be no way for us to see the same side of the moon all the time if the moon did NOT rotate on its axis…at exactly the same angular speed as it revolves around the earth. 🙄

    • JDHuffman says:

      Brent, you are confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on its axis”. There are two different motions.

      Consider the simple example of a racehorse, as discussed above.

      • David Appell says:

        Yes, orbiting and rotating are two different motions. Ger*an/JDH doesn’t understand that they can happen together.

        For the Moon they are both happening. Brent is right — if the Moon didn’t rotation we wouldn’t always see the same side of it. This animation on tidal locking makes this clear:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

        • JDHuffman says:

          Wrong DA, I understand quite well that both motions can happen together. Thanks for the false accusation.

          The Earth both orbits and rotates on its axis. The Moon only has one motion, orbiting.

          You don’t know beans about the relevant physics. You recently confused Earth’s orbital position with seasonal tilt. And, once again you link to that same graphic from pseudoscience. You just can’t think for yourself.

          “Orbiting” is NOT “rotating on an axis”. A racehorse appears to be rotating on its axis, if viewed from outside the track. But, the horse is only orbiting. Changing direction is not the same as axial rotation.

          You just can’t learn. That might explain your inability to hold a job.

          • David Appell says:

            A racehorse appears to be rotating on its axis, if viewed from outside the track.

            The racehorse also appears to be rotating from its own reference frame, as the horse first runs and looks north, then west, then south, then east. Same as if it stood in place and rotated its head by 360 degrees.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, you are dedicated to being a clown.

            An airplane flying around the Earth would “appear” to turn upside down, viewed from space. But the plane is never upside down. The plane is not flying upside down, the racehorse is not rotating on its axis, and the Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.

            You just can’t understand the relevant physics, but you believe you do.

            And, that makes you a dedicated clown.

          • David Appell says:

            Let’s stick with the horse.

            Do you agree that the horse’s field of vision sweeps through 360 degrees as it runs around the track?

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes, the horse is changing directions. The motion is translational. There is no axial rotation.

            Do you agree that you don’t know beans about the relevant physics?

          • David Appell says:

            If the person’s view sweeps through 360 degrees, then it is rotating. Around a racetrack its undergoing translational motion with rotation.

            A person could also go around the track with its head always pointed in the same direction. That’s translational motion without rotation.

            The first is on the left. The second is on the right:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

          • JDHuffman says:

            You didn’t answer the question.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            JD moans:

            “Yes, the horse is changing directions. The motion is translational. There is no axial rotation!.”

            WRONG. With translational motion there is absolutely no change of direction per the definition of translation. JD exhibits his ignorance of simple kinematics.

          • David Appell says:

            Does the Earth orbit and rotate, or just orbit?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, why would you ask a question that had already been answered?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364075

            Oh, you’re just trolling. Understood.

        • David Appell says:

          JDHuffman says:
          The Earth both orbits and rotates on its axis

          Now imagine slowing down the Earth’s rotation rate to 1 complete rotation per year.

          Then the Earth is still rotating, and it’s still orbiting.

          In this case, would someone at the Sun always see the same side of the Earth?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The answer is: no.

            If you understood the argument, you would know that the motion “orbiting”, as described/explained here:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555

            would necessarily involve someone at the center of the orbit always seeing the same side of the orbiting object. That is for “orbiting” only, without axial rotation combined.

            So, an object that is “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”, even with only one axial rotation per orbit, necessarily involves someone at the center of the orbit seeing all sides of the orbiting object.

            Understand the argument yet, Fatvid?

          • David Appell says:

            Would someone at the Sun always see the same side of the Earth?

            Yes they would.

            Get two spherical objects — one for the Sun and one for the Earth.
            Rotate the Earth while orbiting it around the Sun. Then the conclusion is clear.

            Or, just look at the left-hand side of this animation:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

            Ignore the Earth; focus on the Moon’s axis, the small white circle. Do you see the black patch rotating around the axis? Do you see the black patch facing the stars and universe? Do you see it facing a field of 360 degrees of the stars and universe?

            That’s rotation while orbiting, just as the Earth would do if its rotation rate was one cycle per year.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Re-read my comment until you understand.

          • David Appell says:

            Your comment is wrong.

            NASA says the Moon rotates. And you think I’m supposed to disregard that for your opinion, from someone who is afraid to comment here using their real name, who doesn’t even understand linear momentum, taught in the 2nd week of freshman physics?

            That’s not going to happen.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            Re-read my comment until you understand.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            (You’re as wrong about the moon’s motion as you were about my understanding of linear momentum)

    • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

      Brent,
      Pay no attention to JD. He does not even understand what an orbit is.

  23. gbaikie says:

    “Walking around near the South Pole … would be treacherous because with the sun low on the horizon, and no atmosphere-scattered sunlight to help illuminate the landscape, any low spots would be almost totally black — some might look like bottomless holes. Venturing into larger craters would require artificial lighting.””

    I think walking around south pole would be quite different depending upon the particular place. I tend think there would be more variation of appearance due to various potential combination of light.
    The moon is consistent in some ways, which is roughly summed up as it’s ancient and impactors have had enough the time to shape it and leave their mark upon it for billions of years. Or in time one gets more small impactors. Or the new in terms of millions of years is the smaller impactors. A “enemy” has mostly bombed the place with lot smaller bombs BUT also has used wide variety of bombs.
    So not like a unbombed land which is bombed, but a thoroughly bombed land bombed again and again. It looks like bombed by a lot small bombs but it’s bombed a lot more small bombs than it appears.

    But hills are going to look like hills with snow because of contrast if there is more region which not directly lit by the sunlight. And the bright hills could be dimly illuminate regions in shadow.
    Or you could be region without the brightly lit hills.
    And you also two sources of light, the very bright sun and big blue Earth. In terms of region of land, the Earth is constant- forever. The sunlight is constant in terms of one Earth day or during the time a person is awake, the sun is constant, and moves sort like grass grows- probably more the faster bamboo grows.

    There is certainly a sameness quality to a location in terms human living by the hour or days, but you probably don’t need too far to find a different appearing landscapes. Though other than the ancient bombing of the land, the dominate aspect is the dust covering nearly everything. And with human activity in region, it will leave tracks in the dust which should quite visible from a distance if they are lighted.

    What you could see in dark crater would depend upon how well your eyes are adjust to the darkness.
    And humans could have “lunar night googles”, or the enhanced vision one might allow you see well within or into a dark crater.
    Could part of spacesuit or a “hand held device”.

    Anyhow, it’s going to fun adventure when we go to lunar polar regions. But even the Apollo sites would have been much different with “color TV” and/or smart phones and multimedia.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      “Walking around near the South Pole … would be treacherous because with the sun low on the horizon, and no atmosphere-scattered sunlight to help illuminate the landscape, any low spots would be almost totally black….”

      I recommend using a LED flashlight as the batteries last five times longer than with incandescent bulbs.

  24. Leitwolf says:

    Fun fact: even on the moon you would enjoy a nice little greenhouse effect!

    With the sun in the zenith you get the full amount of solar radiation of ~1368W/m2, reduced only by the lunar albedo of 0.13. Thus it is easy to calculate the maximum equatorial temperature, which is (((1-0.13)/1)*1368/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 380.6K.

    However, average top temperatures on the equator are more about 394K, which is obviously warmer than it could be in theory. And as we all know, because we have been told so many times over, that can only be due to the GHE or GHGs respectively…

    😉

  25. rah says:

    Space weather is the weather one would have to pay attention to and take mitigating action against on the moon. A solar flare sending out a powerful CME towards the exposed surface of the moon would ruin the day of everyone that was not protected if on the illuminated side.
    That factor and the heat and cold extremes is one reason they are seriously considering putting any full time settlement in huge ancient lava tubes they believe are an abundant feature on much of the moon.

  26. PhilJ says:

    RW,

    “n other words, its more robust and modern than what was allegedly used on Apollo, and it failed its tests? What does this tell you?”

    That the engineers working on Apollo were luckier, or better , or both…

    • RW says:

      That’s the best response you can come with?

      • rah says:

        When I was a 15 y/0 kid and taking flying lessons I got to meet Neil Armstrong about a year after Apollo 11. Neil’s brother, Dean Armstrong, was a neighbor and Neal came to visit. I have no doubt they did it.

        A few years before that I also got to meet Paul Tibbets when he visited his niece and her husband, who worked for Tibbets Mechanical and lived across the street from us.

        • JDHuffman says:

          rah, both Armstrong and Tibbets were real people. No one disputes that. I’m glad you got to meet them.

          But, that does not “prove” the moon landings took place.

          I’m also skeptical that it was a hoax, but there’s no need to present evidence that has no bearing on the issue.

          • rah says:

            And what makes you think that I, or anyone has some obligation to “prove” it happened to you? Or that I give a squat about what you think of my post involving meeting two historic figures. I expressed my belief it happened and was right there watching it the images on the TV stretched out on the living room floor. I’ve read about all the biographies or memories from the Astronauts that took part and met the man that stepped out on the lunar surface first. Armstrong flew the X-15. Both Aldrin and Armstrong flew combat in Korea with distinction. Collins was also a hot pilot. Every single one of them faced death multiple times before they ever got selected to be an astronaut.

            Armstrong hated it! He hated the notoriety of being the first man on the moon because it robbed him of his true love of flying the machines and on hands problem solving in the realm of aeronautical Engineering. Never again would he be allowed to fly as a test pilot again, let alone strap a rocket on his butt and take it for a ride.

            Chaffee, White, and Grissom were real people too Were they’re deaths and funerals faked? Was Armstrong’s last second ejection from the practice lander a fake?

            No! In my book every single one of you “skeptics” of the premier accomplishment of NASA attack the ethics and integrity of every single person directly involved in the program. I’ll take the word of a Collins, Armstrong, Aldrin, Bean, Gordon, Conrad, Lovell. Swigert, Haise, Shepard, Rosa, Mitchell Scott, Worden, Irwin and the plethora of steely eyed rocket men and engineers and others directly involved in that program and you can continue to besmirch the word of literally 100’s that had first and knowledge as you do.

          • JDHuffman says:

            rah, easy buddy. Perhaps you missed my admission “I’m also skeptical that it was a hoax…”

            I’m not attacking your heroes. But the entity “NASA” has seriously tainted itself. Who knows when the internal corruption began, but it was evident by the 1980s. NASA obviously favored politics and budgets over human life:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uljATTG58TY

            You get to believe what you want, and others get to believe what they want.

            Or, do you favor Tolatarianism?

  27. rah says:

    From WUWT. Great link to the last few minutes before landing in real time.
    https://www.firstmenonthemoon.com/

    The corruption began or at least became obvious during the era of the “shuttle”. But of course there were always small things like NIH having to do with NASA not giving fair consideration for technology Not Invented Here.

    Yea, I served on hazardous duty for 12 years in the military because I want a totalitarian system. There is a 30′ flag pole I installed in my front yard. Below the Stars and Stripes flies a Gadsden flag. That answer your question about my fundamental belief in our system of government as it was intended? Besides I said skeptics can believe what they want but I will take the word of those that were there that say they did it.

    Nobody is saying those guys were perfect. A read of Collin’s book ‘Carrying the Fire’ makes it clear he didn’t much care for Aldrin. Heck back when Armstrong first started test flying he was flying a familiarization flight of the dry lake beds with Yeager. Yeager told him not to touch down on a particular lake bed and Armstrong did it anyway and got stuck. All of those astronauts that had been pilots were hot shot competitors. Of course Schmitt was not a pilot and it pissed all the pilots off that a geologist bumped a pilot off a mission.

    • Nate says:

      ‘I will take the word of those that were there that say they did it.’

      Its a good point Rah. These were 24 guys with lots of guts, character, and credibility.

      They were direct eye witnesses to the events of 50 y ago. Quite different from ‘internet experts’.

      I would just ask the skeptics whether testimony from these 24 guys matters?

      It would matter a great deal if their testimony was at murder trial, and you had to decide if someone was guilty of murder, or not, based on their eye-witness testimony, beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Yes?

      • DTW says:

        I’m sure these guys are just great. But when it comes to protecting the “interests “of their country of course they will lie. Just like politicians, the military, spies etc etc.
        Believe otherwise and you will believe all the so-called “concerned” scientists that global warming is real.

        • rah says:

          Yeh, and of course during the height of the cold war with each side fighting to be the first on the moon the Russians colluded with the USA to keep mum about the deception the US pulled off. Right?

        • rah says:

          DTW
          I’m sure we went to the moon. I am equally sure that human caused climate change is not about the climate at all, but is a means to reach a political/social end. An end that no freedom loving person, including me, wants to see us reach.

          • David Appell says:

            What “political/social end” is gained if you drive an electric car instead of a gasoline-powered car (besides saving money)?

            What end is gained if your electricity comes from renewable sources instead of coal or natural gas? Your toaster won’t care.

          • rah says:

            Ah. give it a break! The government would control the energy more directly eliminating the free market system by limiting the sources to those that require continued government subsidies to remain operational. That is why they want to outlaw “fossil fuels”! Renewables can’t compete on a level playing field in a capitalist system. Several various high UN officials have directly stated what the objective of “climate change” is, and it has nothing to do with climate.

          • David Appell says:

            rah: climate change is about certain molecules in the atmosphere absorbing IR.

            That’s just basic physics.

          • David Appell says:

            rah says:
            Ah. give it a break! The government would control the energy more directly eliminating the free market system by limiting the sources to those that require continued government subsidies to remain operational.

            Fossil fuels already have the largest subsidies, because the govt allows them to pollute for free.

            This costs Americans a few hundred billion dollars a year.

            So tell me again about a “free market.” To you a free market clearly means anyone being allowed to dump their trash anywhere. I’m going to save on garbage fees by throwing my trash bags over your fence and into your yard. I’ll save lots!

          • Svante says:

            +1 to David Appell.

      • Nate says:

        ‘But when it comes to protecting the ‘interests’ of their country of course they will lie.’

        What interests? Lie for their country about a PR stunt during the Cold War, which has now been over for 30 y?

        Implausible.

  28. gallopingcamel says:

    Dr. Roy said:
    “To avoid the problem of a moon base being plunged into darkness for 14 days at a time, with temperatures falling to 280 deg. F below zero, a moon base would probably be located near the South Pole, where there are locations that are almost always sunlit, and temperatures remain more moderate.”

    Dr. Roy is a real scientist so why is he still using Fahrenheit? OK, just a pet peeve of mine.

    Like I said, Dr. Roy is a scientist but lunar colonies will be designed by engineers. While there is something to be said for access to perpetual sunlight most serious Moon colonies will be underground and will be nuclear powered, probably by Molten Salt Reactors such as LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor).

    An industrial scale lunar colony would be underground in the basalt bedrock to ensure that:
    1. Temperature variations are tiny.
    2. Micro-meteorites are not a problem.
    3. There is no smelly, abrasive regolith.
    4. No need for feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power.

    Working on the Moon’s surface is dangerous and uncomfortable. Instruments and antennae may need occasional maintenance or upgrades but “Moon Walks” should be as rare as possible. Think of a lunar colony as something like “Outland” minus the windows and the drug crazed killers.
    https://www.amazon.com/s?k=sean+connery+outland&i=dvd&hvadid=2394244270&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_7es531nrmm_e

    Power to weight ratio will be an important factor when choosing a power plant to work on the Moon. Right now LFTRs win in this category but who knows what innovations could happen in the next 20 years?

    No matter what the heat source, power plants need heat sinks too! Near surface Moon rock (depth > 1 meter) at most latitudes has a temperature ~240 Kelvin making it a great heat sink. LFTRs run at high temperatures so that Braxton cycle heat engines can be used with high thermal to electric conversion efficiency.

    IMHO the most serious problem is low gravity. I suspect that humans will suffer serious health issues unless they spend several hours per day exercising in rotating gyms at one “Gee”.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Like I said, Dr. Roy is a scientist but lunar colonies will be designed by engineers. While there is something to be said for access to perpetual sunlight most serious Moon colonies will be underground and will be nuclear powered, probably by Molten Salt Reactors such as LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor).

      An industrial scale lunar colony would be underground in the basalt bedrock to ensure that:
      1. Temperature variations are tiny.
      2. Micro-meteorites are not a problem.
      3. There is no smelly, abrasive regolith.
      4. No need for feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power.–

      I would say lunar solar power is not “feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power”

      I would say if only harvest solar power about 25% of a 24 hour day, then I count that as “feeble PV (Photo-Voltaic) power”.

      For an “industrial scale lunar colony” you might be correct.

      But my starting point, is can make the Moon worth going to, for any kind of purpose.
      And I think it’s possible that lunar water might be mineable.
      And if lunar water is mineable, then one do lots of things on the Moon.
      I am not vaguely a supporter of NASA goes the Moon mines lunar water and has lunar base- which a rather modest goal compared NASA or anyone establishing an industrial scale lunar colony.

      I do support idea the NASA goes to Moon and sees if there could be some lunar water which could be mineable. By mineable I mean investment dollar spent to do it, and with expectation of a large return on investment, if done successfully.
      So not an endless quagmire for tossing tax payer money at.

      But if there is mineable lunar water, that means to getting to the Moon will cost a lot less money. And space agencies or other entities could have lunar bases, and maybe we get an industrial scale lunar colony [not government money “investing” in such a commercial enterprise].

      NASA is being paid to explore Space and I wish it do this. Explore Moon to determine if and where there could be mineable water, then start Mars exploration program- to determine if and where there might sites which could be viable settlements [again, commercially funded and not some governmental Potemkin village].
      NASA would need various bases on Mars, but I don’t call them settlements, as I don’t call ISS, a settlement.

      • DMT says:

        Lunar water? What is the value in lunar water? There is no economic or any other value in going to the moon. That is why somebody high up decided a long time ago to fake the landings.
        Better to trick your enemies to waste valuable resources on a stupid exercise by staging the whole event.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Lunar water? What is the value in lunar water?”
          The value of lunar water is water has 8 times more mass
          of oxygen than hydrogen.
          And a liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen rocket engine uses about 6 times as much oxygen has compared to hydrogen.
          Or want say 6 tons of LOX per 1 ton of LH2.
          A ton of LOX on the Moon is worth about $1 million dollars and
          a ton of hydrogen is worth about 4 million dollars.
          If lunar water is worth about $500 per kg or 1/2 million dollars
          per ton.
          One could sell LOX at $1000 per kg and Liquid Hydrogen at 4000 per kg. Or 7 kg of rocket fuel is 6 kg of LOX and 1 Kg of LH2:
          6000 + 4000 = 10,000 / 7 is rocket fuel at $1,428.57 per kg.

          With leaving Earth it requires about 9 kg of rocket fuel to lift 1 kg of payload to orbit. With Moon it require 1 kg of rocket fuel to lift 1 kg of payload to lunar orbit.

          So in terms of cost of LOX to lunar orbit, 1 kg of rocket fuel: $1,428.57 + buying 1 kg of LOX: $1000.00 is $2,428.57.
          add $1000 cost other costs and profit: $3,428.57 per kg of LOX in low lunar orbit.

          How much does it cost to send LOX from Earth to lunar low orbit?
          Somewhere around $10,000 per kg. How much does it cost to send LH2 to lunar low orbit, a bit more than LOX, say about 12,000 per kg.

          Say brought LH2 from earth to low lunar orbit and costs 12,000 per kg. And Lunar LOX cost $4000 per kg
          so 7 kg of rocket fuel costs: 12000 + 24000 and / 7 = $5,142.85 per kg of rocket fuel. Or you have 1/2 the cost as compared bringing LOX and Hydrogen to lunar orbit from Earth.

          As comparison, say costs 10,000 per kg to ship rocket fuel to low lunar orbit, how much does cost to ship rocket fuel to lunar surface?
          You again use 1 kg to ship 1 kg of rocket fuel: 10,000 + 10,000 = equals $20,000 kg
          But if making lunar rocket fuel as above, it’s $1,428.57.

          Now with Apollo lunar mission, one was existentially bringing a tank truck worth of rocket fuel to the Moon, in order to return the crew to Earth. Or most of mass had nothing to with crew or rovers, it was rocket fuel. So lunar landing was actually a crewed tanker truck landed on lunar surface.
          And if have rocket fuel on the Moon, you don’t need to land tanker truck on the Moon in order to return to Earth.
          To give some number, LEM:
          Launch mass:
          33,500 pounds (15,200 kg) std
          36,200 pounds (16,400 kg) Extended
          {that about it’s mass before lands on Moon}

          Dry mass
          9,430 pounds (4,280 kg) std
          10,850 pounds (4,920 kg) Extended
          {that it’s mass without rocket fuel}
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

          • gbaikie says:

            So that posted, so talk a bit more.
            What I described was the simple stuff.
            What is more important is re-using spacecraft.
            Re-using rockets or spacecraft is pretty hard
            with Earth launches.
            SpaceX is the first to commercially reuse it’s first
            stage rocket. It’s also starting process of re-using it’s
            fairing [which protects your payload from atmospheric environment
            of launching rocket into space]
            https://www.space.com/spacex-boat-falcon-heavy-payload-fairing.html
            SpaceX is reusing it’s dragon capsule, and had hoped to re-use the second stage rocket [which appears to me hopeless at this time].

            Anyhow, Moon is much easier- if you have rocket fuel.
            SpaceX is currently trying to reuse it’s First stage without much fuss between flights, for about 10 uses.
            And there is no reason lunar spacecraft could not also be reused for +10 times. If if assume can reuse +10 times, one needs to lift 1/10th mass of spacecraft to Moon from Earth and 1/10th cost to make spacecraft.
            The cost of LEM in 1960 dollars was about 50 million dollar- and even though inflate makes it + hundred million, one could probably get one costing about 50 million, but if used 10 times, it’s 5 million.
            In terms of seat price, and round trip from Earth to Moon and back, it’s at least about 1/2 billion. If had rocket fuel on Moon
            the seat price could 1/10th, 50 million dollars per seat [or less].
            Current russian are charging NASA more than 70 million per seat to ISS. SpaceX say they could charge 20 million per seat.
            So it could cost maybe twice the price of going to ISS.

            But if have rocket fuel at $1,428.57 per kg on the moon, you also export things to Earth. So say exported 10 tons of lunar dirt.
            So one would dramatically lower the price of lunar dirt on Earth.
            You can buy lunar dirt on Earth, people spent more than $1000 per gram. And one buy lunar meteorite, somewhere around the price of gold [$50 per gram]. So one might lower price of lunar dirt to about [$10 per gram or 10,000 per kg, $10 million per ton].
            Or you buy something like baseball card for say $20 with some lunar dirt with some details about it.
            Now if only shipping 10 tons per year, lunar material still far rarer than cut diamonds. And there broad range of use for lunar material. You can’t create good fake lunar material- it’s unique and unique in terms of where it taken from on the Moon. So one could tiny bit of lunar material implanted in say $20 bills, and probably cost less than paper of the money {which is also special paper}. So a government could buy say 1 ton of spacial lunar dirt and that could enough to handle their currency needs.

          • gbaikie says:

            Imagine a country with inflation problem. So their million dollar bill is worth less than $1 US dollar.
            So they issue a 100 million dollar bill with lunar dirt, and handles their inflation problem, and costs them say 10 cents [US cents] in cost for lunar material. Or regardless of their idiocy, that bill will something people want because it’s got lunar dirt in it.
            Or will be collectible long [centuries] after that government as been murdered.

          • gallopingcamel says:

            @gbaikie,
            Scientific “Lander” missions within the solar system are merely a prelude to industrial projects that will be driven by the profit motive.

            Mining water on the Moon will make sense as a raw material for local use but it won’t be exportable.

            So what valuable products could be produced on the Moon at competitive prices? Right now I cannot think of anything but that may mean that I am lacking in imagination.

            Asteroids on the other hand are rich in valuable metals such ar Nickel. With nuclear rockets, mining Nickel on asteroids might be profitable.

          • gbaikie says:

            –gallopingcamel says:
            July 14, 2019 at 11:23 PM
            @gbaikie,
            Scientific “Lander” missions within the solar system are merely a prelude to industrial projects that will be driven by the profit motive.

            Mining water on the Moon will make sense as a raw material for local use but it won’t be exportable.–

            I think you could export lunar water which is cheaper then lifting Earth water.
            Earth water shipped to Mars orbit would be expensive.
            Earth water shipped to ISS {LEO} is also expensive, but shipping Earth water to high earth orbit and Mars would be more expensive and so it’s easier for exported lunar to provide same or lower price as water shipped from Earth.
            To give idea of what shipped to ISS:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station

            Examples:
            “After the spacecraft docks, the six crewmembers of Expedition 56 will spend the next few months unloading the cargo, which includes 1,170 lbs. (530 kilograms) of propellant, 115 lbs. (52 kg) of oxygen gas, 930 lbs. (420 kg) of water, and 3,450 lbs. (1,565 kg) of other “dry” cargo like food and other equipment, NASA public affairs officer Dan Huot told the media.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_(spacecraft)

            NASA loves to talk about their recycling of water, but they also have lots of water shipped.
            And costs more than $2000 per kg to ship water to ISS.
            For crew going to Mars we will need water to drink and use and water is good shielding vs GCR radiation, so crew need water going to Mars and leaving Mars to return to Earth.
            So say tens of tons per year in terms of Mars exploration, Mars settlements could require hundred of tons of water per year- and lunar water could cheaper than Earth water. But could sell Lunar LOX and could hundreds to tons for NASA Mars exploration, and thousands of tons LOX for people and cargo going to Mars for Mars settlements.

            –So what valuable products could be produced on the Moon at competitive prices? Right now I cannot think of anything but that may mean that I am lacking in imagination.–

            It depends at what point- as said lunar dirt, Lunar jewelry, lunar scientific samples [cores] which can indicate history of our solar system and general things of study about the Moon.
            Some think mining PMG and shipping the various expensive metals t Earth:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_group
            “The six platinum-group metals are ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum. ”
            The idea is some asteroid impact the Moon at lower velocity- around lunar escape being lowest. Most impactor hitting Moon or Earth are at 20 km/sec due largely to orbital velocity of sun of Moon and Earth and space rocks impacting at different orbital inclinations and crossing their orbital paths. Or the size gravity well only limits the minimal impact velocities. Comets generally impact at +30 km/sec.
            Anyhow there are some asteroids with PMG, and many would impact at high velocity, but say 5% would impact at slower velocity in regards to the Moon.
            This also applies to Mars, and small impactors would slowed by the atmosphere of Mars.
            But say 50 years after lunar water mining, Moon could export pure silicon and lots of stuff including lunar iron/steel.

            Some people think one can mine gold on Moon, but I think you don’t need to export lunar gold, rather you can store gold on Moon as any nation’s reserve currency. And of course gold is useful material used for lots of things.

            –Asteroids on the other hand are rich in valuable metals such as Nickel. With nuclear rockets, mining Nickel on asteroids might be profitable.–

            Well before 1998, I thought mining asteroids was only viable path to starting markets is space [or adding to the existing global satellite market], but then got Clementine results:
            “NASA announced on March 5, 1998, that data obtained from Clementine indicated that there is enough water in polar craters of the Moon to support a human colony and a rocket fueling station”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_(spacecraft)

            And I did a 180. Because I knew then, that water mined from space rocks was most valuable thing to mine. Or I knew if one buy water in Earth high orbit at $1000 per kg, that would change everything.

            But water at $500 per kg at lunar surface, is a faster way to do it. Or problem with space rocks is got to sell a lot water, and lunar surface can start [within first several years] at 1000 tons of water per year. So start in year one, at about 100 tons and double production each year- but have to get to 1000 tons within 5 years.
            With space rocks, it’s “get” 100,000 or million tons water ore- and how do sell it in a short time period. Or if need +100,000 tons of water in orbit, mining space rocks could work.

            Part of mining lunar water to increase yearly volume of water demand requires lunar export of Lunar LOX to Lunar low orbit.
            And if NASA is also busy exploring Mars, that also element of how one increase demand for lunar rocket fuel. And if got commercial lunar rocket fuel, this helps NASA get funding to explore Mars, and Mars settlement, make lunar rocket fuel makers, trillionaires, of course some are going to go bankrupt, and some may only be billionaires. But idea of people will only focus on the Moon, is silly, and a lunar trillionaire could get more involved with mining space rocks or be heavily connected with Mars settlements.

            I roughly agree with Amazon, Bezos, but I think it could go a bit faster {at least I hope it does}.

            But in terms exporting, I tend to think it works like countries, exporting and importing is small part of country total economy. So with Moon most business will be on the Moon, 10 to 25% might be related to lunar export.

          • gbaikie says:

            More on this:
            –Mining water on the Moon will make sense as a raw material for local use but it won’t be exportable.––

            One thing about exporting Lunar LOX to low earth orbit is it’s a solution to a problem.
            The problem is selling enough water.
            And that is related to potential costs of mining lunar water.
            And there is huge amount of doubt about the “mineablity” of lunar water.
            Ideally the conditions could be that one sell water at less than $100 per kg.
            But talking about starting prices of water as related potential market size of lunar water market in less than 10 year period from the start of investing capital in order to mine lunar water.
            So price and how much can be sold within a time period, like, 1 year.
            So if don’t have to process say 10 tons of water ore to get 1 ton of water [or less], that lowers the cost to mine lunar water, and so lunar water can be cheaper, and other part is how much one sell, and finally least of variabilities involved the Earth launch cost and cost to get anything to the Moon.
            Another factor is the CEO and probably many CEOs involved. And quite simply, they need a lot talent. But I don’t think there is shortage of this.
            But there is zero chance of talent in this regard in terms it being run by governmental agency.
            So fundamentally critical but I assume it’s available in large supply. And there is not shortage capital- part of the talent of CEOs is being to get investment dollars.
            But no one going do this, with basic exploration would could allow it.
            So I would say exporting LOX is necessary if cost a lot to mine lunar water, and you can’t enough market for lunar water at the lunar surface within the first few critical years of starting it.

            So exploration could indicate you don’t need to focus on exporting LOX. And/or could have business models that indicate don’t need to do it. But in long term [not useful, because hard part is near term] lunar water and lunar power is going to be quite cheap- $1 per kg of lunar water and $1 per kw hour of electrical power.
            And export at that point will depend on what happening mining space rocks. And unrelated to what happening on Earth or Mars- the Moon will be cheaper than either.
            And I think eventually, the Moon will import water from mining space rocks. Or water in space will be cheaper than water on Earth- eventually.

        • DMT says:

          Sure. I bet you are the type of person who travels 100 mies to save 6 cents per gallon on gas. Real smart!

        • gbaikie says:

          Anyways I think a critical aspect of mining lunar water, depends upon the lunar surface conditions in lunar polar region.
          Roughly lunar polar regions extend to about 80 degree latitude [north or south].
          Moon radius about 1736 km, circumference: 10910 km
          10910 / 360 is 30.3 km is distance per 1 degree
          10 degree = 303 km radius
          At 85 degrees:
          5 degrees = 151.5 km
          Circumference at 85 degree:
          952 km
          So if had electrical grid encircling at 85 degree latitude
          the length would be 952 km [591.5 miles].
          And could make grid giving constant electrical without having
          952 km distance of grid. I would it’s more of max length.
          But if had such simple circle, then line which which 151 km long
          could reach that circle anywhere within 80 degree latitude region.
          Anyhow at say 0 degree, walk to 90 west or east longitude, it’s
          952 km / 4 = 238 km.
          So without including the topography [and have to] if had solar collector 238 west and east, the 3 points would give 100% sunlight.
          OR if had solar collector at 0 and 180 one gets 100%, two points at distance of 303 km.
          But if include topography one could have 2 or 3 site less than 100 km distance.
          But anyhow if starting lunar water mining you probably want to start with one site location which gives 80% of more of sunlight during the first few years of planned operation. And possible a site might have places to put solar farms within 50 km distance and get 100 %. Another aspect is if put solar panels on higher pole, it possible it makes significant difference.

          Other than power needs [and it’s possible you use nuclear power so above can mostly be ignored] another aspect is how water concentration is there is water ore. It’s possible there chunks of ice [100%]. Most assume there is not sheets of ice [100%].
          One thing I could say, is there probably regions with less than 5% water concentration within the top 1 meter of regolith.
          But that doesn’t mean much. Let’s say with a 1 square km there 10% of area which require less .5 meter surface to be removed has at most 5% water concentration as compared to 10% of 1 square km there are 10% of the region which have about 5% water concentrate within the top 20 cm [ 8″] of the surface. And add to that there is 50% there less water below .5 meter OR say there 50% chance there there more water than in the top 20 cm surface. It probably doesn’t much about what below .5 meter, unless there was say high certainty of higher than 20%.concentration below .5 meter.
          So what about 10% of small region of 1 square km which has 5% water within 20 cm
          So 1 square km 10% region at 20 cm depth, has 5%
          1 million square meter, 100,000 square meter at .2 meter depth and 5%, is 20,000 cubic meters at 5% or 1000 cubic meter of water.
          That not mineable unless there large region which about same [if better, why talk about first one].
          My rule is need 10,000 tons, but in this situation it might be 20,000 tons. And how area is 20 square km. 3 km radius is about 28 square km. How about assume it’s in a +6 km diameter crater.
          It might worst if in 100 km diameter crater in the middle of it.
          What is the typical depth of 10 km [or less] diameter crater.
          Google it:
          “Moltke Crater, 7 kilometers in diameter, is an excellent example of a simple crater with a bowl-shaped interior and smooth walls. Such craters typically have depths that are about 20 percent of their diameters.”
          https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kiefer/Education/SSRG2-Craters/craterstructure.html

          • gallopingcamel says:

            There is evidence that plenty of water exists on the Moon, particularly near the poles.

            Mined water ice can be used directly to maintain food production (hydroponics). With a powerful energy source it will be easy to convert water into hydrogen gas for industrial use and oxygen for respiration.

    • David Appell says:

      GC wrote:
      Dr. Roy is a real scientist so why is he still using Fahrenheit?

      Obviously Roy wrote this for a popular audience and is also posting it here.

  29. gallopingcamel says:

    gbaikie said:
    4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour.

    OSHA has a tendency to exaggerate. The generally accepted LD50 acute radiation dose for gamma radiation is ~450 Rads.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6372928

    I was brought up on Rads and REM (Roentgen Equivalent in Man) but these units have been replaced. 1 Gy (Gray) = 100 Rads.

    Thus the LD50 dose for gamma rays is 4.5 Gy. Remember that this dose kills 50% of exposed persons within 30 days.

    An acute dose is delivered in a short time scale such as less than one day. When a near lethal dose is spread out over weeks or months the exposed person may gain in life expectancy! What does not kill you makes you stronger!

    When many thousands of people in Taiwan were exposed to lively gamma rays from Cobalt 60 it was expected that they would be more prone to cancer than the general population. A study found that short term cancer mortality fell by a factor of 30:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

    Exposing cancer patients to near lethal doses of X-rays can improve their life expectancy:
    http://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Sakamoto-2012_ANSconf-June23.pdf

    Ironically Dr. Sakamoto lives in Sendai province in Japan.

  30. gbaikie says:

    –RW says:
    July 13, 2019 at 12:49 PM
    I think the rocket was about 300 some odd feet tall, but youd have to look it up. The rocket itself was definitely real and not faked.–
    I am glad you agree it was real. Wiki:
    ” The Saturn V (pronounced “Saturn five”) was an American human-rated expendable rocket used by NASA between 1967 and 1973. The three-stage liquid-propellant super heavy-lift launch vehicle was developed to support the Apollo program for human exploration of the Moon and was later used to launch Skylab, the first American space station.”

    • DMT says:

      The rocket was real but nobody ever went to the moon in one.

      • gbaikie says:

        But why built a rocket which can go to the Moon and not use it to go the Moon.
        And why stop making the rocket, once you finishing going to the Moon.
        How can you make mistakes, like not sending astronauts who are not geologists, until later in program. Why send lunar cart, and decide you should use rover. How do lean things if whole thing going there is fake. Why would do Apollo 13 if fake.
        Who has the vast skill of doing it- who has the creative talent to do that story. Why is all fiction so bad in comparison.
        If had such creative story telling genius, would choose Apollo 13,
        or would seem too fake to have accident with 13. Is some reason promote the idea that 13 is an unlucky number- where does that make any sense. Or is idea to promote that 13 is lucky number- because they survived. Was Apollo 13 purpose to promote the virtue of duct tape? Don’t go to moon without bring some duct tape.

        • gbaikie says:

          I would really, really want to live in world where writers had such skill at writing fiction. But we don’t such talent evident, today or yesterday. The greatest writer ever would be seen as incompetent in comparison.

        • rah says:

          Watched a program on the development of the Lunar Rover. The issue all along was of course size and weight. The metal pressure hull of the ascent stage of the Lunar module was so thin that a technician working inside once dropped a screw driver and punctured a hole in it. The ascent stage would actually balloon out when pressurized.

          The Rover replaced the cart when they found it possible to design the thing to fit into one of the four quadrant triangular spaces in the descent stage of the Lunar Module. Obviously it had to be designed so it was not to complicated and time consuming operation to fold out and assemble. Really quite an engineering feat.
          https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf

      • Nate says:

        Yeah agree gbaike.

        There are lots of documentaries right now.

        The drama of Apollo 8 and 11 and 13 was way better than fiction. The acting way better and more natural than astronauts and flight controllers could pull off.

        Apollo 8, their giddiness when they witnessed the first Earth Rise and fumbled with the camera.

        Then the special effects.

        Can’t help but be impressed with the imagery of the Earth, of the Lunar surface from orbit, and the LEM approaching touchdown, with all the drama of that.

        Way better and more realistic than what was possible in 1969, IMO.

  31. There is a bonzer offers from be done with to essentially in hurt of win. drroyspencer.com
    http://bit.ly/2NIsTmv

    • Bindidon says:

      How is it possible that in 2019 people still are naive enough to click on such links?

      You just need to move the mouse above this stoopid ‘drroyspencer.com’ to understand that something bad might happen to you…

    • Bindidon says:

      How is it possible that in 2019 people still are naive enough to click on such links?

      You just need to move the mouse above this stoopid name field ‘dr…’ to understand that something bad might happen to you…

    • JDHuffman says:

      The imposter is likely just another Alarmist. You can tell by his inability to make any sense:

      “There is a bonzer offers from be done with to essentially in hurt of win.”

      He probably also writes “science” papers….

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      plug the URL into virustotal.com and it comes up clean.

  32. gallopingcamel says:

    I clicked on that link and a bunch of naked ladies popped up.

    Did someone hack you or are you playing a little joke on your loyal fans?

  33. PhilJ says:

    CoRev,

    “PhilJ, no! He thinks the miraclce of Apollo 1 was faked.”

    A very sad day for all those involved I’m sure…. (I wasnt yet a twinkle in my daddys eye for that one)

    • CoRev says:

      PhilJ, I forgot to mention the faking of the Apollo 13 accident. One of my favorite missions were those prior to 11. They showed the engineering was good. Of those my favorite is Apollo 8, which went to and around the moon and safely returning. Showing it could be done, regardless of those pesky radiation belts.

      That is compared to the early Russian flights with no plan to return and the best possibility was a quick death as your module burned up. The Laika story is an example.

  34. David Appell says:

    The Moon’s albedo is 0.11, according to N.A.S.A.:

    https://is.gd/iwa59J

  35. Norman says:

    PhilJ

    Above you commented to me: ” theories are intentionally developed to see how many people can be caught by them. I think they are done on multiple topics. It is a way to control the Public.

    Again! A very intuitive statement!

    Psssst.. The GHE is one of them, and to my shame a Canadian is complicit in pushing that one:

    I do agree with you that the change in UV to the surface should be deeply researched but I do not agree with you that the GHE is a made up theory. This one is easy to verify using empirical evidence.

    I am not sure I have done the calculations with you. I have tried with others.

    I use this as an easier example to demonstrate the reality of GHE.
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d2bd9aad5a85.png

    If you would click on the link it gives empirical measured values for Desert Rock, Nevada location last summer.

    I made the graph with Solar Net (the downwelling solar minus the upwelling solar…this is the energy that the surface will absorb).

    The Upwelling IR. This is the energy the surface is losing by radiation (no other heat loss mechanisms are included in this graph only EMR)

    The Downwelling IR. The energy radiated by the warmed atmosphere down to the surface.

    If you take the area under the curves you will get a total amount of energy reaching or leaving the surface in a 24 hour cycle. This amount will change with the seasons. This is a cloudless day to make the calculations easier.

    The energy from the solar input in 24 hours can be determined by taking the area under the curve, which is very close to a parabola (NOTE, these are just rough calculations but the values are large enough that an approximate value will not alter the conclusion).

    Area under a parabola is 2/3(height)(width).
    In the graph you have a height of almost 800 and a width of 12.

    Area=6400 watts total. Multiply by 3600 seconds to convert the watts into the total amount of joules absorbed. You get 23,040,000 joules of available solar input in 24 hours for one square meter of desert surface.

    If you use the average of around 550 Watts/m^2 for the energy the surface emits upward and away you get an emitted value (lost) of
    (550 W/m^2)(24 hours)(3600)= 47,520,000 joules/m^2

    This empirical data shows that the surface receives far less energy from the Sun than it radiates away in a 24 hour cycle. It is not possible for this to continue at this rate.

    But if you add the Downwelling IR as added surface energy (not a heat flow, an energy flow) you get a surface square meter receiving the 23,040,000 joules from the Sun plus the (400)(24)(3600) = 34,560,000 from the Downwelling IR from the atmosphere. You now have a positive energy input of 57,600,000 – 47,520,000 = 10,080,000 joules. If you convert that to a flux over 24 hours you need to get rid of 116.6 W/m^2 which are removed by evaporation and convection.

    If you want to calculate is as a heat equation not as energy flows.. you would take the NET IR and NET solar.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d2be16101dd2.png

    And you would get close to the positive input of 10 million joules/m^2 in a 24 hour cycle.

    The major point is the Sun could not sustain the rate of emission without a GHE. It is not remotely possible. The surface would have to be much cooler than it currently is.

    • Norman says:

      PhilJ

      In fact if you calculated the temperature of the sand surface if only solar input was the total energy source (no downwelling IR).

      You have a solar input of 23,040,000 joules/m^2 of desert surface. The average emission in 24 hours with this energy input would be 266.67 Watts. During the day it would be higher at night lower but the average surface temperature of the desert soil with an emissivity of sand at 0.9 would have an average temperature of 269 K or 24.5 F.

      With the GHE present and active the desert soil is much much warmer in the summer months in this desert.

      Night it will get to a low temperature of 93 F (this is not the air temperature but the surface temperature of the sand, the one emitting the UPwelling IR). During the day the sand will soar to 161 F. Much much warmer than the Sun could possibly get it without the GHE.

      No I do not think the GHE is a conspiracy at all. I think it is well established and empirically validated science. I am not sure why any actual science person would be strongly against the reality of this factual idea.

      • MIke Flynn says:

        N,

        Night time temperatures (air) drop to less than 35 F at Desert Rock.

        Surface temperatures can drop to below freezing.

        No GHE. Your averages are meaningless – just more pseudoscientific cultist nonsense.

        As Dr Spencer has pointed out, the presence of an atmosphere on Earth results in a cooler, not a hotter, surface, during the day. And, conversely, at night, the surface is warmer. Thus, the less the amounts of supposed GHGs in the atmosphere – eg, arid tropical deserts, the days are hotter, and the nights are cooler.

        Instead of “calculating” temperatures (the method beloved of GHE true believers), just measure them. If they differ from your calculations, your calculations are in error.

        Cheers.

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          Making up completely false information that is easy to refute does not help your credibility in the least.

          Here:
          https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d2bed5bbba23.png

          The air temperature at Desert Rock in Summer drops to 23 C or 73 F

          I guess making up stuff and posting it is what you think you need to do. Not sure why you think this is a cause you should invest time in.

          What else do you want to be wrong about?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            “At Desert Rock Airport, the summers are sweltering and mostly clear, the winters are cold and partly cloudy, and it is dry year round. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 34°F to 99°F and is rarely below 26°F or above 105°F.”

            Or (from another source) –

            “In recent times the highest recorded temperature in December has been 31°C that’s 88°F, with the lowest recorded temperature -14°C, about 6°F.”

            Maybe you are talking about another Desert Rock, in Nevada, USA?

            I look at extremes rather than averages. Averages tend to be pointless – but good for fakes, frauds and fools.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            My posts were from July 22, 2018. Your point that winter temperatures get below freezing really has no purpose other than to troll.

            You should take your own advice. “Begone Troll”

            What you posted was only trolling and has nothing at all to do with the points I am bringing up.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, you’re missing Mike’s point. Your incorrect calculations are bad enough, but one day’s observations do not prove the planet is being heated by the atmosphere.

            Do you need some more facts to deny?

            Overhead –> 5.3 F

            Ground –> 73.1 F

            Reality is a bitch, huh?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            You wrote –

            “Your point that winter temperatures get below freezing really has no purpose other than to troll.”

            Your mindreading is defective. My point is that you seem to be claiming that the GHE can only be observed during summer, and when the Sun is shining brightly.

            Don’t blame me for what Dr Spencer wrote. It is obvious that maximum temperatures on the airless Moon are higher than anything achievable on Earth. Atmosphere reduces maximum temperatures during the day.

            Your “points” are irrelevant – pointless, even. Still no GHE.No CO2 heating.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            An observation from space like this one is all you need to see that the GHE exists:

            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

            No one here can explain this observation without a GHE.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Sorry Norman, you are still making the same mistakes. You can not add and subtract fluxes like that.

      • Norman says:

        JDHuffman

        If you follow the logic, you will see I am converting the fluxes into energy, just joules received in a 24 hour cycle. Energy is added and subtracted. There are no longer any fluxes for you to worry about.

        The energy the Sun delivers to a square meter of desert surface in a 24 hour cycle is around 23 million joules (give or take on a sunny day). The amount of energy this same square meter emits in a 24 hour cycle is somewhere around 47 million joules.

        (Note different ways of calculating can give somewhat different results but that is not what I am interested in at this time, I am not going for high precision…just some basic conclusions).

        So you have an energy input from the Sun of 23 million joules per square meter in 24 hours but you also have a surface emission of 47 million joules in a 24 hour period for the same square meter. The Sun does not provide enough energy in a 24 hour cycle.

        So no there are not fluxes to worry about. Just 1st Law energy conservation. GHE is quite real. If you did any actual experiments you could prove it to yourself. For one do a three plate experiment and post your results on this blog. Let us know.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Norman, you are so confused I don’t know where to start.

          Your bogus calculations indicate the Earth is putting out more than it is taking in! Instead of questioning your “work”, you assume GHE is a “heat source”.

          If you had the corresponding spectra, it might help you. You need to find solar wavelengths, at least.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            I have already done this before I have linked you to solar spectra and IT IS NOT necessary. The NET solar energy IS the amount of energy the surface absorbs. That you don’t accept this fact is a problem only with your lack of understanding of heat transfer physics. It is not possible to reach you. That is why I have no desire to communicate with you. Remember it is you who once again had to invade my comments with your ignorant unscientific nonsense. If you had even a little reasoning ability maybe it would be possible to discuss ideas with you. I think PhilJ is an intelligent skeptic, one who can reason. I do not see any potential for this in you. You do not understand my post at all so you pretend to by bringing up a point that does not matter. Solar spectra will not change the amount of energy available at all. You know this but pretend it matters.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Further to the point of needing the spectra, you need to remember flux and energy cannot be treated the same. That’s especially true since you are dealing with a power flux. Power is not conserved, but energy is conserved. So the way you handle the two algebraically is important.

            For example, a block of ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. It contains internal energy, “E”, based on its mass and temperature. If you add an identical block of ice, you have doubled the internal energy, “2E”, but the emitted flux does not become 600 Watts/m^2.

            That’s why your “work” is invalid. You are handling the values incorrectly. To see your mistakes, you need the spectra.

          • David Appell says:

            No one says this is what happens if you combine two blocks of ice.

            Emissions depend on temperature. Period. Not internal energy. See the SB Law.

            PS: the internal energy per unit volume of the two ice blocks remains that same after combination.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          N,

          You wrote –

          “For one do a three plate experiment and post your results on this blog. Let us know.”

          Why don’t you do the experiment yourself, rather than demanding others waste their time? Because you are a fraud, that’s why! You have no intention of actually backing up your pseudoscientific nonsense with an experiment, do you?

          Just another fool trying to avoid actually doing anything of use. Away with ye, laddie! You can’t even describe this pseudoscientific GHE you claim exists.

          What a faker!

          Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            The reason it is pointless for anyone but JDHuffman or you to do the experiments is because you do not accept the results when other people do such experiments. E. Swanson and Roy Spencer have already done experiments proving the IR emitted from a colder object directly alters the temperature of a hotter heated object. It is established by experimental evidence along with all textbook heat transfer physics. It is still not accepted. Only you or JDHuffman doing the experiment yourself will ever have a chance to change your incorrect thoughts on this. Nothing else will ever do it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman, you keep referrng to those experiments as if they proved 2LoT to be wrong. You just don’t understand the experiments. They are NOT proving “cold” can warm “hot”.

            You keep referring to things you can’t understand because you have nothing else.

            Sheeesh.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    RW…re your conspiracy theories on the Van Allen Belt radiation…

    The VA Belts are donut shaped and not a sphere, it’s not a big issue to avoid the high intensity areas.

    More on the VA Belts from an expert.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/06/16/astroquizzical-van-allen-belts-barrier-spaceflight/#3f88121d6f8d

    “Charged particles are damaging to human bodies, but the amount of damage done can range from none to lethal, depending on the energy those particles deposit, the density of those particles, and the length of time you spend being exposed to them”.

    Has no one heard of radiation shields? Any metal of appreciable thickness will stop the electrons and protons in the Belts dead.

    Colour TVs with the older picture tube had electrons accelerated by 40,000 volts hurled at phosphors on the screen. In the older high voltage coils that created the 40Kv, the accelerated electrons produced xrays that are lethal. The solution was to build Faraday cages around the coils to stop the radiation.

    According to conspiracy theories, those electrons should have carried on through the TV screen and given everyone cancer. They don’t. The electron beams are focussed to pass through holes in a metal shield before striking the phosphor screen. The phosphors absorb so much electron energy very little escapes.

    Electrons, even at very high speed cannot penetrate metal of appreciable thickness. A thin sheet of lead is impenetrable to electrons.

    The danger with a metallic sheathed spacecraft traveling through a field of electron charges is the Eddy Currents set up in the metal. The metal produces a short circuit to the electrons and they SC heats the metal. Even that could be dealt with.

    I missed the most important fact. Electrons and protons are particles, not radiation. Radiation is emitted by charged particles as they move. The radiation itself id not the lethal entity, it’s the actual particles.

    The VA Belts are donut shaped and not a sphere, it’s not a big issue to avoid the high intensity areas.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    cam…”An acute dose is delivered in a short time scale such as less than one day. When a near lethal dose is spread out over weeks or months the exposed person may gain in life expectancy! What does not kill you makes you stronger!”

    It’s like the initial radiation from A-bombs, it can burn you and kill you. There were POWs in a Japanese internment camp at Nagasaki in direct view of the bomb. Those receiving radiation directly died instantly whereas as those shielded by something like a wall suffered no ill-effects.

    As far as the long-term radiation effect, many people within range of the bomb lived a long and healthy life even though there was radiation left by the bomb.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    cam…”Dr. Roy is a real scientist so why is he still using Fahrenheit? OK, just a pet peeve of mine”.

    Elementary, my dear Cam. Roy is writing a blog in the US and Fahrenheit is the scale used generally in the US by the US public. In Canada, we converted to the CGS system decades ago, among much complaining and belly-aching.

    I still switch between the systems randomly.. ..miles/kilometres, kilograms/pounds, inches/centimetres, kilograms/pounds, Fahernheit/Centigrade.

    In science, I still use the CGS system in general but there are cases where foot-pounds, etc., crop up.

    Then there are tons and tonnes. What would you use? Kilotons or kilotonnes?

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    brent auvermann…”JDHuffman, there would be no way for us to see the same side of the moon all the time if the moon did NOT rotate on its axisat exactly the same angular speed as it revolves around the earth”.

    Why? Where’s your proof?

    Here’s mine, that the Moon cannot rotate about its axis and keep the same side facing the Earth.

    Place two coins side by side in front of you. Left-hand coin is the Earth, RH coin is the Moon.

    Draw a line from 9 o’clock on the left hand coin, through its centre, to 3 o’clock. The RH coin butts up against 3 o’clock on the LH coin at it’s 9 o’clock. So continue the line through 3/9 o’clock, the RH coin’s centre, and onto it’s opposite side at 3 o’clock.

    Where the RH coin meets the LH coin draw an arrow head pointing to the LH coin’s centre. The vector (radial line) on the RH coin, from its centre to it’s 9 o’clock, represents the same face of the Moon always pointing at the Earth.

    Now move the RH coin around the LH coin always keeping the arrow head in contact with the LH coin’s perimeter and pointed to the LH coin’s centre.

    IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MOVE THE RH COIN AROUND THE LH COIN, WITH THE ARROW HEAD TOUCHING THE LH COIN’S PERIMETER, AND HAVE THE ARROW HEAD TURN 360 DEGREES AROUND THE RH COIN’S CENTRE.

    Here’s the reason. Each point along the radial line on the RH coin is turning in concentric circles about the LH coin’s centre. That applies to each point on the Moon as well. Each point on the Moon is turning in concentric circles around the Earth’s axis. Points on the Moon turning in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre cannot rotate about the Moon’s centre.

    This describes curvilinear translation. It is not possible for particles on a rigid body to turn in concentric circles about an external axis and have the rigid body rotate at the same time about it’s own axis or COG.

    You are failing to understand why the Moon is in orbit. It has only one force acting on it, Earth’s gravity. The Moon remains in orbit because it LINEAR momentum is sufficient to overcome the acceleration on it toward the Earth caused by Earth’s gravity. In fact, it’s orbit is a resultant path between the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravitational force.

    Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects, depending on it’s momentum. If the momentum is too great, the body will be hurled off into space on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. If the momentum is insufficient, the body will spiral in toward the Earth. If the momentum is just right, the body will go into orbit around the Earth.

    If that body is not rotating, and has the same face toward the Earth, while it has linear momentum, and there is no gravitational force acting on it, the body will continue in a straight line. However, Earth’s gravity bends the Moon’s trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path. A moment later, it bends it onto another path, and so on.

    Earth’s gravity eases the same face of the Moon onto ever changing LINEAR paths. Every point behind that face, including the points on the face itself, are turning about the Earth’s centre in concentric circles. Each point follows a tangential path to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.

    The Moon completes its orbit without having to rotate at all due to the interaction of it’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravity. It’s orbit is equivalent to a straight line trajectory and it has no need to rotate.

    That is true in any reference frame…there is no local rotation about an axis.

    • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

      Gordon squeals:

      “Each point on the Moon is turning in concentric circles< around the Earth’s axis. Points on the Moon turning in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre cannot rotate about the Moon’s centre.

      This describes curvilinear translation. It is not possible for particles on a rigid body to turn in concentric circles about an external axis and have the rigid body rotate at the same time about it’s own axis or COG."

      Gordon has been confused regarding curvilinear translation since Day 1. The definition of curvilinear translation:

      “Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
      [http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf}

      You CLAIM to be an engineer,but have NO UNDERSTANDING of simple kinematics. If you cannot understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation, you will always be confused regarding the moon’s rotation about its own axis.

    • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

      Gordon squeals:

      “IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MOVE THE RH COIN AROUND THE LH COIN, WITH THE ARROW HEAD TOUCHING THE LH COINS PERIMETER, AND HAVE THE ARROW HEAD TURN 360 DEGREES AROUND THE RH COINS CENTRE.”

      WROng! Of course its possible. You don’t “roll” the RH coin along the surface of the LH coin. You let it slide. No problem at all.

      Poor Gordon’s stupid coin tricks confuse himself!

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “You are failing to understand why the Moon is in orbit. It has only one force acting on it, Earth’s gravity. The Moon remains in orbit because its LINEAR momentum is sufficient to overcome the acceleration on it toward the Earth caused by Earth’s gravity. In fact, it’s orbit is a resultant path between the Moon’s linear momentum and the Earth’s gravitational force.

      Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects, depending on it’s momentum. If the momentum is too great, the body will be hurled off into space on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. If the momentum is insufficient, the body will spiral in toward the Earth. If the momentum is just right, the body will go into orbit around the Earth.

      If that body is not rotating, and has the same face toward the Earth, while it has linear momentum, and there is no gravitational force acting on it, the body will continue in a straight line. However, Earth’s gravity bends the Moon’s trajectory slightly, sending the Moon onto another straight-line path. A moment later, it bends it onto another path, and so on.

      Earth’s gravity eases the same face of the Moon onto ever changing LINEAR paths. Every point behind that face, including the points on the face itself, are turning about the Earth’s centre in concentric circles. Each point follows a tangential path to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.

      The Moon completes its orbit without having to rotate at all due to the interaction of it’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravity. It’s orbit is equivalent to a straight line trajectory and it has no need to rotate.

      That is true in any reference frame…there is no local rotation about an axis.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball

      The animations in the linked article should make that even clearer, and settle the issue.

      • David Appell says:

        Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects

        Except he Moon’s linear momentum vector NEVER passes through the Earth.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Try the animations, David. They can help the simple-minded avoid missing the point.

        • David Appell says:

          You don’t understand linear momentum.

          For the moon, its linear momentum vector always points tangent to the orbit curve of the Moon.

          It never passes through the Earth. Ever.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          #2

          Try the animations, David. They can help the simple-minded avoid missing the point.

          • David Appell says:

            You clearly do not understand linear momentum.

            Do you understand it always points tangent to the curve of the Moon’s orbit?

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, your new name is “Purple Whale”!

          • David Appell says:

            Yet again, instead of addressing the science, you bail out and resort to insults.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            Try the animations, David. They can help the simple-minded avoid missing the point.

          • David Appell says:

            You don’t understand linear momentum, and the animations don’t help you.

            You think the linear momentum of the Moon points to the Earth. That is, you think the velocity of the Moon points to the Earth.

            Show us where that happens in the Moon’s orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “You think the linear momentum of the Moon points to the Earth.”

            Incorrect, David. It is represented by the arrow in the animations continually at right angles to the arrow representing the force of gravity, which points to the Earth.

            Don’t tell me what I think ever again.

  40. nurse ratchet says:

    Gordon, time to put away your coin collection.
    Your head is spinning (rotating) with all this nonsense.
    It is a full moon tonight so I shall prescribe extra meds for you and your fellow patients.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nurse crotchrot…”Gordon, time to put away your coin collection.
      Your head is spinning (rotating) with all this nonsense”.

      If you were not a female impersonator, no doubt in full drag, you might understand my coin demo and get it that it is not possible for a rigid body orbiting another body, with the same face toward the latter body, to also rotate locally about its own axis.

      This is basic engineering physics, which I studied in-depth.

      Nicola Tesla had no problem arriving at the same conclusion. Goes to show that Tesla was miles ahead of modern NASA theorists.

      • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

        Gordon is a complete fraud. He has NO UNDERSTANDING of simple kinematic concepts such as curvilinear translation. Every time he is corrected on the issue, he quits posting. His ignorance is simply breathtaking.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          HGS,

          Do you have a point?

          Are you just annoyed that your “corrections” seem to be ignored? Maybe if you strutted around in jackboots and a peaked cap, waving a riding crop, you might make others quail at your threat of “correction”!

          As to curvilinear translation, a body orbiting the Earth is merely a projectile whose velocity is such that its horizontal motion exactly compensates for the rate at which gravity causes the projectile to fall towards the Earth. The Moon is such a projectile,

          The particles of the body remain on parallel orbital ellipses. The body exhibits curvilinear translation, without simultaneously rotating about its axis.

          But who cares? Does it make a blind bit of difference to anyone, and what relevance does it have to anything to do with the non-existent GHE?

          So carry on trolling. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. Bad luck for you and your ilk.

          Cheers.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            WTF is your point? I have never said I believe in the GHE. It has nothing to do with the moon’s rotation anyway. But it seems that many non GHE believers also don’t believe the moon rotates on its own axis. But that ain’t me.

            So just shut up and mind your own business.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Maybe you should do a little investigating before you open your mouth and insert your foot, jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            HGS,

            You wrote –

            “So just shut up and mind your own business.”

            Ooooh! So manly and assertive!

            And if I don’t, how do you intend to “correct” me? Threats of violence? Juvenile attempts at gratuitous insults?

            I am heartened to hear that you don’t believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! That’s a totally ridiculous idea, I agree.

            Just assure me that you don’t believe in the GHE, and of course I will believe you. I can’t see why you appear upset. I can’t see where I said you believed in the GHE – are you complaining about something I didn’t say, rather than something I did?

            Carry on with the mindreading. You might need a bit more practice.

            Cheers.

          • Bindidon says:

            Begonia

            Oh! The olde, withered Begonia clearly shows signs of Alzheimer…

            1. “So carry on trolling. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. Bad luck for you and your ilk.”

            2. “I cant see where I said you believed in the GHE are you complaining about something I didnt say, rather than something I did?”

            Isn’t it, Begonia? Dites-nous tout!

            But you soon will be saved, it’s time for your altar boy to come back and tell us as usual:

            “HuffmanGoneStupid, Bindidon, please stop trolling.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Silence, beast.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Isnt it, Begonia? Dites-nous tout!”

            Why does a German speak French? The same German who leaves the blog in a snit then re-appears with a female nym he claims is his girlfriend?

            Where has your girlfriend gone recently. Get tired of keeping up the charade of having to post for two?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          stupid…”Gordon is a complete fraud”.

          Something posting with a pseudo-pseudonym calls me a fraud. Something lacking such ingenuity that it has to steal another poster’s name to make up his nym.

          It’s little wonder that something lacks the basic understanding of kinematics or physics in general and is too stupid to follow a simple experiment with coins that disproves its point.

          In other words, your nym states that JD has far more intelligence than you, that you are he after he becomes stupid.

          Even if JD did somehow become stupid, he’s still be far in advance of you.

      • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

        The moon on the right is exhibiting curvilinear translation. The moon on the left is rotating on it’s own axis, like our moon.

        Gordon is completely confused.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          HGS,

          Nope. Your wisely anonymous Wiki graphic author has it back to front. You can derive the correct depiction from Newton’s Laws of Motion if you choose. And no, I won’t do it for you. Look it up for yourself.

          Others are free to believe what they wish,

          Cheers.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            You don’t NEED Newton’s laws of motion, which shows your ignorance.

            All you need are the definitions of kinematic motion in which forces are not needed.

            For the figure on the right, draw a line through the centroid of the moon, and label points A and B at the outer edge of the moon. That line remains parallel to its original position throughout that moon’s motion, thereby meeting the definition of translational motion.

          • HufmanGoneStupid says:

            Furthermore, the motion of points A and B as I’ve described above form two congruent circles, another requirement for curvilinear translation:

            “It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
            [http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]

            I guess you’ve never had a class in kinematics. Too bad. You’ve been corrected. My job is done.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Stupid”, you’re still getting it wrong.

            You do need Newton’s work, as that allows you to understand the forces that produce orbital motion. You still can’t understand orbiting.

            And, you are confused about “translational” motion. In your limited education, you believe train tracks cannot turn. You appear unable to learn.

            Nothing new.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Dear El Stupido,
            I’ve posted the correct definitions of translation from University Engineering school websites. Sorry you are too dumb to understand them.

            You, however, never define anything, because you don’t know what you are talking about. You just pound the keyboard, hoping something intelligent will appears.

            Poor brainless does not comprehend that kinematics does not deal with forces that cause motion. The motion can be described without knowing the forces.

          • David Appell says:

            JDH, does the Earth rotate while orbiting the Sun?

            Or does it just orbit?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, why would you ask a question that had already been answered?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364075

            Oh, you’re just trolling. Understood.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Stupid”, the only relevant thing you have linked to was the MIT example problem involving a train on a circular track. The example mentioned that an object on the train would NOT be rotating on its axis.

            You don’t want to talk about that link….

          • David Appell says:

            JDH, what is the view of the Earth, from the Sun, when its rotation rate is only once per year?

          • David Appell says:

            The Moon isn’t on a track.

            But, yes, the train is rotating. It points from 0 to 360 degrees while moving around the track. That’s rotation.

            That’s the left-hand animation here:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA attempts another distracting question: “JDH, what is the view of the Earth, from the Sun, when its rotation rate is only once per year?”

            See Figure 2, clown.

            https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ

          • David Appell says:

            You misinterpreted that figure — the arrows on the right hand side don’t represent a horse going around the track, do they? Or the moon that always faces the Earth….

            Surely you understand this at least….

          • JDHuffman says:

            Figure 1 illustrates Arrow in orbital motion, only.

            Figure 2 illustrates Arrow both orbiting AND rotating CCW on its axis.

            https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The thing with David’s comments is…they reveal that he doesn’t actually understand what we are trying to explain. It’s not that he understands our position, but disagrees, like some people. He is actually so dense that he doesn’t even get it!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Oops!

            Figure 2 is orbiting CCW, but rotating CW!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Yes DREMT, his mind is closed. All he can accept is his pseudoscience, his false religion.

            He’s like several others here, and what makes them clowns is they all believe they understand the relevant physics!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            stupid…”All you need are the definitions of kinematic motion in which forces are not needed”.

            The accelerations and velocities in kinematic IMPLY forces. Acceleration is not possible without a force, neither is velocity, you need a force to get a body in motion. When it stops accelerating it has constant velocity. You cannot ignore the force keeping the Moon in orbit nor the momentum due to a constant linear velocity.

            At each instant of time, the Moon is following a straight line (tangential) path. If gravity could be switched off at any one of those instants, the Moon would fly off in a tangential line (perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth).

            That’s why the Moon APPEARS to rotate in your gif. In fact, it is being slowly nudged by gravity from one tangential line to another through a 360 degree ORBIT.

            There is no local rotation.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Gordon,
            You have obviously never taken a physics course in your life.

            Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points (alternatively “particles”), bodies (objects), and systems of bodies without consideration of the masses of those objects nor the forces that may have caused the motion (per WIkipedia)

            You DON’t need info on the forces to describe the motion, clown. Period.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            JD has invented the world’s first non moving gif. Brilliant! You have to pretend the arrows move. At least this matches his pretend physics.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            JD’s Figure 2 represents translational motion per multiple kinematic definitions:

            1. The orientation of the object is unchanged during the motion. (check – all the arrows point in the same direction)
            [http://www.physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/fall2017/201/phy201_lect17_handout.pdf]

            2. It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. (check – all the black lines are parallel to the red line)
            [http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]

            3. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. (check – the arrows do not rotate.)
            [http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why “definitions of translation” and “reference frames” don’t settle the issue

            People that go on and on about definitions of translation, and reference frames, and have no other argument apart from that, are missing a fairly basic, and key point. You can describe the motion of the moon as follows:

            http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf

            Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).

            You can look at it as though the moon were rotating about an axis passing through the Earth, or more specifically a pivot point at the Earth-moon barycenter, in which case it moves as per the rectangle about point O in the diagram; with all the particles that make up the moon travelling in concentric circles around the Earth. Yes, I am aware that gravity is not holding the Earth rigidly in place like the rod from point O connected to the rectangle, but this is just a simplification to get across the point about the change of perspective.

            Since people try to argue that the moon’s motion is a translation, plus a rotation on its own axis, but you could also describe it as simply a rotation about the Earth-moon barycenter, with no axial rotation, it’s clear that kinematic descriptions alone will not settle this issue. That’s why you need to consider the forces involved, and get to the bottom of the correct definition of what “orbital motion” (meaning “orbital motion without axial rotation”) really is. This you can do here:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555

            Finally, people arguing that “reference frames” settle the issue need to remember that the above description of the moon rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis, is looking at the problem from the inertial reference frame. Usually people try to say, “from the inertial reference frame, the moon is rotating on its own axis. So that puts paid to that.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Yawn…..

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s exactly what I think, when you write for what must be, literally, something approaching the 100th time, the exact same explanation of curvilinear translation, etc. With the exact same, “Gordon shrieks”, or “Gordon squeals”, or “Gordon blubbers”, etc.

            Yawn.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            You bored me at “Why”. Yawn…..

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Keep pounding that keyboard. Something intelligent is bound to appear in a few billion years,

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Thank you for your concession.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Dr Em T,
            Try to keep your responses to 1 line. I don’t read your comments if they exceed 1 line.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It just comes across like you have no rebuttal. If that’s what you’re going for, fine.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          stupid…”The moon on the right is exhibiting curvilinear translation. The moon on the left is rotating on its own axis, like our moon”.

          You are suffering an illusion. Neither one is rotating about its axis.

          The Moon on the left does keep the same face toward the Earth and I have no idea what the Moon on the right is supposed to represent.

          On the left hand gif, the effect of Earth’s gravity is similar to having a rigid member attached to the Moon’s centre and extending to the Earth’s centre. Of course, you’d need a slot in the Earth to allow the rigid member to turn. In that case, the rigid member would prevent the Moon rotating on it’s own axis.

          Armed with that insight, look at the LH gif again. Watch it carefully with the full notion that every point on the Moon is turning in concentric circles as if it was attacked to the Earth by a rigid member. It performs orbital motion without local rotation.

          In fact, imagine a land bridge between the Earth and the Moon, attached so the Moon would have a similar orbit but non-elliptical as the Earth rotated. The same side of the Moon would always face the Earth and there’s no way the Moon could rotate due to the solid connection with the Earth.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Poor Gordon squeals:

            “The same side of the Moon would always face the Earth and theres no way the Moon could rotate due to the solid connection with the Earth.”

            WRONG! You have a deep misunderstanding of kinematics and reference frames. You think that moon could not rotate with a connection to earth because you are fixing the reference frame to a rotating earth! OMG. How dumb. You truly must have flunked kinematics. Place a compass north arrow though the centroid of that moon attached to earth and you will see that moon happily rotating around the north arrow.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Stupid”, you still do not understand orbital motion. You’re obsessed with kinematics when you should be studying orbiting.

            But using my name might fool some into thinking your smart.

            Good luck with that….

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “WRONG! You have a deep misunderstanding of kinematics and reference frames.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791

    • Mike Flynn says:

      The cowardly psychobabbling “nurse ratchet” reappears!

      Pompous and delusional as ever, a troll with nothing of substance behind a child like exterior.

      There is only one rational response for such a snivelling creature – Begone troll!

      • nurse ratchet says:

        Security!
        As expected, the full moon is upsetting our patients.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Mike f…”Pompous and delusional as ever, a troll with nothing of substance behind a child like exterior”.

        There is a twist here. Nurse Crotchrot is tranny troll. Maybe it’s seeking a Section 8, like Klinger in MASH.

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    A good discussion on the Van Allen belts and danger to humans.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-humans-survive-the-Van-Allen-radiation-belts

  42. Bindidon says:

    Recently I read an interesting Indian paper about the tidal forces operting within the Earth-Moon system:

    Order In Chaos: Definite Rules That Govern The Drift Of Moon Away From The Earth

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0097.pdf

    Nice work, which reminded me another paper written by an Egyptian scientist in 2003

    Evolution of angular momenta and energy of the Earth-Moon system

    http://cds.cern.ch/record/636493/files/0308162.pdf

    { Differential equations about tidal forces were setup by Newton and Laplace 250 years ago! }

    *
    Moon’s spin about its axis is not at all the point here.

    I’ll come around with links to work about that. starting with the first explanation of Moon’s longitudinal librations presented by Lagrange at the Academie des Sciences in Paris.

    There will be also links to work contradicting the idea, mainly based on Tesla’s quick thoughts 100 years ago.

    *
    This all is nothing for those embarrassed by the mix of arrogance and ignorance so desperately filling their brain.

    We should leave them playing with racehorses and coins, and concentrate instead on reading what true scientists and observers managed to detect and understand.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Bindidon, if you can’t get to a point, just present irrelevant links and ramble.

      There are a couple of other typists here that might be fooled.

      • David Appell says:

        Describe the situation where the Moon *IS* rotating while orbiting.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        No matter at what speed, or in what direction, the moon were rotating on its axis whilst orbiting, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth. Situation described.

        • David Appell says:

          Not if the Moon’s rotational period was the same as its orbiting period.

          Then you’d only see one side.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Wrong again DA.

            You just can’t learn.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Not if the Moons rotational period was the same as its orbiting period.

            Then youd only see one side.”

            1)Do my coin experiment and prove it for yourself.

            2)If you draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the near face of the Moon and on to it’s centre, in order for the same face to always face the Earth, that line must always pass from Earth centre through the near face to the Moon’s centre.

            That means all points on the that line, through the Moon MUST travel in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre. In order for the Moon to rotate about its axis, those points would also have to rotate about it’s axis.

            It is simply not possible for all points on the Moon to orbit the Earth in parallel lines (concentric circles) and rotate about a local axis at the same time. If that were the case, all points on the near face would have to turn through 360 degrees.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Incorrect. Re-read previous comment until understood.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…from your first link…

      “When the Moon was formed it was much closer to the Earth than it is today. It just needed about 20 days then togo around the Earth. Now it takes the Moon 29.5 days to make one revolution.

      You are way out of your league here. No need to be commenting sarcastically on matter of physics you don’t begin to understand.

      You are still harping about librations, which are tiny APPARENT motions of the Moon.

      re link 1…

      Point 1: no one has any idea how the Moon was formed.

      Point2: according to this lame theory, the Moon would have to lose momentum gradually in order to adjust to a larger orbit. They did not say how much closer it was in the past but I am sure a calculation would place it in the Earth’s atmosphere, a bad place to be for an orbiting body.

      The authors seem to lack a background in physics.

      Your second link is about a model predicting facts about the Moon a long time ago.

  43. Bindidon says:

    Re: Sir Isaac Newton’s statements about

    – uniformity of the principle of all planets’ rotation about their axis;
    – Moon’s rotation about its axis as the origin of Moon’s longitudinal libration

    *
    A. Last year, I came across a Google book

    Revolution and Continuity (edited by Barker & Ariew)

    which included a contribution by Allan Gabbey:

    The Case of the Rotating Moon
    Innovation: Newton and Lunar Libration (p.97)

    https://tinyurl.com/y3ujfanl

    It was about a hint within Laplace’s work, concerning a letter from Sir Isaac Newton to Mercator, in which he explained his theory about the connection between libration and lunar rotation. But I came across a short statement on page 107:

    “But no relation between libration in the longitude and the equation of the center what is mentioned, and …” (see continuation on page 107).

    Unfortunately, I did not look any further. I thought, Sir Isaac would have proposed an inofficial theory which he did not include in his official work.

    B. But today, I finally found, just a few pages away, the definitive indication that Sir Isaac not only believed that all planets revolve around their own axis, but that this also applies to the Moon, and that the rotation of the Moon around its own axis is the basic reason for the longitudinal libration.

    P. 110/111, annotation No. 32

    „In like manner the moon rotates around its axis by diurnal motion; hence arises its libration.”

    C. A further Google search gave within a Google book

    Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World

    https://tinyurl.com/y6lyg454

    p 579, [35]:

    “The planets rotate around their own axes uniformly with respect to the stars; these motions are well adapted for the measurement of time.”

    p. 580, [36]

    (like in Gabbey’s annotation)

    “In like manner the moon rotates around its axis by diurnal motion; hence arises its libration.”

    This book is a translation of the following original source:

    Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
    https://tinyurl.com/y3lrplg8

    The texts were saved via screen print, as I had to experience that what you see in a Google book is not necessary visible in a subsequent search, let alone in a search by other people:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZbMY4GiY0Fe3ZBCChroNuKEjOddPO8jZ/view

    *
    D. Conclusion

    Until now, all the Pseudoskeptics deying Moon’s rotation around its axis pretended that all work done by Cassini, Mercator, Lagrange, Laplace etc was a non-sequitur, because Sir Isaac Newton never had integrated such theory within his own work.

    He did very well.

    QED, case closed for me.

    E. But…

    You will see that Pseudoskeptics never give up.

    They will say: “Even Sir Isaac can have gone wrong! Nikola Tesla was right! Look at our racehorses and coins!”

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “…case closed for me.”

      For you, the case, like your mind, was closed from the very beginning.

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh! The beast forgot to include the cannonball!
      I heavily apologise.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Apologize to your parents for the disappointment.

    • Dr Myki says:

      According to Wikipedia:

      “Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth.”

      Note the term : “..Moon’s axis of rotation..”
      The Moon rotates on its axis. Debate closed.

      • Dr Myki says:

        P.S. An interesting fact.
        Even though the Moon only presents one face towards the Earth, it is possible to see 59% of its surface (due to librations).

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        mickey…”The Moon rotates on its axis. Debate closed”.

        Libration is an apparent motion just like the apparent motion of the Sun across our sky.

        Besides, even someone as obtuse as you could get published in the wiki.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DM,

        Wikipedia contains a deal of nonsense.

        Case closed.

        Cheers.

      • gbaikie says:

        –Dr Myki says:
        July 15, 2019 at 5:04 PM
        According to Wikipedia:

        “Libration in latitude results from a slight inclination (about 6.7) between the Moon’s axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit around Earth.”

        Note the term : “..Moon’s axis of rotation..”
        The Moon rotates on its axis. Debate closed.–

        So, is it saying that Moon axis is 6.7 degrees.
        It tilts 6.7 degree relative to Earth.

        And I would add the Moon axis tilt to Sun is about 1.5 degrees and tilts 1.5 degree northward and then back, then tilts 1.5 degree southward, and tilts back- and completing cycle once a year.

        And would say the 6.7 degree is combination of the 1.5 degree tilt relative to the sun added to Moon’s inclination of about 5.145 degree relative to Earth.

        The 5.145 is the inclination of orbit rather tilt of axis.
        Or said differently, one change the Moon’s inclination and it would nothing to the spin of the Moon but instead it’s changes of inclination of orbit- one could move the Moon inclination so it’s 0.0 rather than 5.145 degree. {It would require massive amount delta-v – though if changed it from 5.145 to 5.144 inclination, it would require a lot less delta-v- and again, nothing to do altering spin}. A perhaps practical way to change the inclination
        would be to use gravity assist- Have space rock change it’s inclination by flying close to Moon, and change of space rock inclination will correspond to change of Moon’s inclination {or energy will be conserved- as is the case with all gravity assists}.

        • gbaikie says:

          Hmm, more.
          The required delta-v energy of change of inclination is related to it’s orbital velocity [And it’s Mass].

          When launching rockets from US to get satellite to the zero inclination of geostationary orbit, it requires a change of inclination of the orbit. A typical way of to this is changing the inclination at the apogee of GTO trajectory [orbit]- because this where it has slowest orbital velocity. As I dimly recall it requires about 1.5 km/sec of delta-v. One could google it.

          Another way to lower the delta-v cost of changing the inclination is to swing by the moon [it’s complicated but it has been done- and takes a lot time and not normally done].

          Anyhow, the Moon orbital velocity to Earth is:
          ” Mean orbital velocity (km/s) 1.022
          Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 1.082
          Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 0.970 ”

          So it’s not a fast velocity to change, and to use at least of
          energy, one would change it at apogee: 0.970 km/sec.

          Now more interesting question, can change the 1.5 degree tilt of the Moon.
          I am not sure it can be done, but anyways, any ideas of how it might be done?

          • gbaikie says:

            Question, if changed the Moon’s inclination so it was at Earth’s equator [0 inclination]. Would alter the Moon’s 1.5 degree tilt in regards to the Sun?

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      ☺️

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…you really like to put yourself out on a limb while sawing off the branch between you and the tree.

      All you have quoted from Newton is about libration, a tiny apparent seesaw motion of the Moon from a certain Earth perspective.

      The other word used is diurnal, which refers to the APPARENT motion of the stars and planets across the night sky due to the Earth’s rotation. You have not cited anything that confirms either Newton or your other author is talking about a full 360 degree rotation of the Moon about its axis.

      However, the ease with which you close your mind to direct evidence you can prove for yourself confirms my suspicion that you have no interest in science and only a vague interest in statistics.

      • Dr Myki says:

        From the Sun’s point of view, all points on the Moon’s surface are illuminated at some point in time. Therefore, the Moon rotates 360 deg with respect to the sun.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          mickey…”From the Sun’s point of view, all points on the Moon’s surface are illuminated at some point in time. Therefore, the Moon rotates 360 deg with respect to the sun”.

          No, it doesn’t. It orbits the Earth and due to its orbit it exposes different faces to the Sun. At no time during its Earth orbit is the Moon rotating about its axis. That means, no matter the reference frame, the Moon is never rotating about its axis.

          Rotation requires an angular velocity of mass about that axis. Turning in an orbit does not satisfy that requirement unless the body is both orbiting, and rotating about its axis, like the Earth about the Sun.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Bindidon you clowns are amazing. Newton agreed with all of us that the Moon rotates on its axis RELATIVE to the stars. That is obvious, due to its orbit.

      Nice try, but you will need much more denial. The simple racehorse ruins your false religion.

      Nothing new.

      • Bindidon says:

        One day, anonymous Hoffnan, we will see who are the clowns in this circus…

        I’m patient.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Bindidon, are you “patient” or just “slow”.

          We already know who the clowns are. They are the ones that claim a racehorse is also rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track. And then, they try to claim they understand the relevant physics.

          Great humor, huh?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            JD…”We already know who the clowns are. They are the ones that claim a racehorse is also rotating on its axis as it runs an oval track”.

            Ironically, the same clowns who believe a trace gas making up 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere can warm the planet catastrophically.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Dear dimwits,
            I am with Postma. No GHE, but the moon does rotate on its own axis. The guy is smart and has a MS in astrophysics. I am in good company.

            However, Postma threw you clowns under the bus. JD was so embarrassed, he never did return to Postma’s site. LMAO.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            HGS,

            Who is Postma? Are you appealing to his authority, perhaps?

            Maybe you should appeal to someone who is accepted as an authority by your intended audience.

            Even better, provide some facts upon which people can form a judgement of your argument.

            Just blathering about how wonderful you are is unlikely to prove persuasive. Carry on if you believe that you can attract others to your cause by acting the fool.

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Stupid” is unable to think for himself, like the other clowns that troll here. He doesn’t understand a racehorse proves the Moon is not rotating on its axis. “Stupid” is unable to figure it out. He clings to his “heroes”, like an adolescent adoring some new rockstar.

            They can’t think independently. They all apparently are in the same typing class, and ride the same schoolbus….

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            JD’s favorite song: “The wheels of the bus go round and round”

            LMAO

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            HGS, please stop trolling.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Mike…”Maybe you should appeal to someone who is accepted as an authority by your intended audience”.

            Like Nicola Tesla, who thought the Moon did NOT rotate on its axis.

  44. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer wrote –

    “7) The Earth is always in the same part of the lunar sky”

    This could indicate that the Earth orbits the Moon, if the Moon was rotating on a more or less vertical axis, in the same way that the scientific consensus of the time had the Sun travelling round the Earth. But of course, it doesn’t.

    The Moon doesn’t seem to be rotating with respect to the Earth, otherwise the Earth would not remain in the same place in the lunar sky.

    Once again, what is the point of all this? Does it also apply to the Earth, for example? Should another rotation of the Earth (1 day) be added every orbit around the Sun as it behaves like the Moon? Should the year have about 366.25 days, rather than 365.25?

    In addition, there could be a presumption that the Moon’s axis of rotation is at about 90 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic, but as Uranus shows, this is not necessarily correct. Who is to say that the Moon’s original rotation (if any) was not around an axis similar to that of Uranus, or even on an axis parallel to the Moon’s orbit?

    A bullet in flight is designed to rotate in such a fashion, as is a well made arrow.

    But what the heck, it seems to make not a blind bit of difference to man nor beast, in practical terms.

    Rotate (or not) to your heart’s content. The exercise is good for you.

    Cheers.

    • studentb says:

      “Should another rotation of the Earth (1 day) be added every orbit around the Sun as it behaves like the Moon? Should the year have about 366.25 days, rather than 365.25?”
      Almost got it right. One Earth orbit of the sun comprises 364.5 sunrises plus 1 extra sunrise due to the effective rotation =365.25 days.

  45. Mike Flynn says:

    I noticed that David Appell wrote –

    “Emissions depend on temperature. Period. Not internal energy. See the SB Law.”

    Once again, the pseudoscientific cultist reliance on vague definitions raises its ugly head.

    In this case “emissions”. I’ll just point out that the discussion has been about “fluxes” using units of W/m2, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that DA has equated “emissions” to “fluxes” to muddy the waters.

    Unfortunately, emissions may have more to do with emissivity than temperature. Ice at -1 C may, in fact, be emitting more energy per unit area than boiling water at 100 C, if the water is contained in a receptacle with very low emissivity.

    So DA’s very definitive assertion may not be correct, and generally isn’t, in the real world.

    Throwing in a command to “see” the SB Law is just another attempt to appear intelligent and sciencey, while neglecting to mention that the SB Law has very serious constraints placed upon the conditions under which it applies – and these are very rarely (maybe never) found in the real world.

    And still no GHE. Not even a useful description of the mythical creature. Unicorns have better descriptions. No CO2 heating, either!

    Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike…”I noticed that David Appell wrote

      Emissions depend on temperature. Period. Not internal energy. See the SB Law.”

      Appell is confused. He doesn’t seem to get it that temperature is a measure of heat, which is internal energy. Conversely, temperature is a measure of the average internal energy, which is heat.

      S-B claims that EM intensity is the temperature of a body to the 4th power. It can also be stated as the heat dissipated when the EM is produced. Heat is lost when EM is emitted and the internal energy is reduced.

      Unless of course the internal energy as heat is replaced at the same time.

      One must also remember that Stefan took great pains to reduce heat loss by conduction and convection. With both operating the S-B equation regarding heat loss is no longer valid.

      • Dr Myki says:

        “With both operating the S-B equation regarding heat loss is no longer valid.”
        That is why it is valid for planets (since there is no conduction nor convection to outer space).
        That is why we can calculate an effective planetary emitting temperature.
        For Earth this is 255K.
        But the surface is about 300K.
        The difference is due to greenhouse gases.
        Here endeth the proof.
        Simple, eh?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          mickey…”That is why we can calculate an effective planetary emitting temperature.
          For Earth this is 255K.”

          Sorry, the Earth is not a blackbody radiator like the heated platinum wire upon which S-B is based. The sigma in S-B does not apply to the Earth and there is no T on Earth upon which to base it. Sigma applies only in the range of 700C to about 1400C, not to the surface at a guestimated 15C.

          The 255K is a guess, nothing more. As someone pointed out in an earlier post the difference between that 255K drawn from a hat and the 288K, another number, could be accounted for through natural variability.

          • Dr Myki says:

            “The sigma in S-B does not apply to the Earth”
            Huh!
            The constant in the SB Law is actually not a constant?
            Well, blow me down. How could we have all made this mistake for so long ?!
            All those manufacturers of radiometers, all the tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who rely on their instruments, you mean they got it wrong? !
            Let it be known from this time forth, the SB constant is not constant according to GR !!

            (p.s. please ask nurse Ratchet to give you another ECT)

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “(p.s. please ask nurse Ratchet to give you another ECT)”

            OK, Ian.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364815

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DM,

            You asked –

            “Well, blow me down. How could we have all made this mistake for so long ?”

            You tell me. How would I know why you and your ilk make such stupid mistakes? Have you considered that stupidity and ignorance might play a large part?

            When you find out, would you mind letting me know?

            Cheers.

          • Nick Schroeder says:

            Emissivity & the Heat Balance

            Emissivity is defined as the amount of radiative heat leaving a surface to the theoretical maximum or BB radiation at the surface temperature. The heat balance defines what enters and leaves a system, i.e.
            Incoming = outgoing, W/m^2 = radiative + conductive + convective + latent
            Emissivity = radiative / total W/m^2 = radiative / (radiative + conductive + convective + latent)
            In a vacuum (conductive + convective + latent) = 0 and emissivity equals 1.0.

            In open air full of molecules other transfer modes reduce radiation’s share and emissivity, e.g.:
            conduction = 15%, convection =35%, latent = 30%, radiation & emissivity = 20%

            The Instruments & Measurements

            But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured.

            Well, no it’s not.

            IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/calibration/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0. The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface emissivity can be less than 1.0.

            That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected emissivity of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.

            This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Sigma applies only in the range of 700C to about 1400C

            Wherever did you get that wildly absurd idea?

          • gallopingcamel says:

            GR said:
            “The 255K is a guess, nothing more.”

            Just a quibble. The 255 K estimate is not a guess as it is based on impeccable mathematics. Nevertheless it is wrong because it depends on unrealistic assumptions about the thermal properties of solids. Here is the how Scott Denning once explained it:
            https://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/morcombe1.jpg

            Today Dr. Denning and this camel are much closer to agreement that the temperature of an airless Earth should be around 209 Kelvin.
            https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Mickey…”The sigma in S-B does not apply to the Earth
            Huh!
            The constant in the SB Law is actually not a constant?
            Well, blow me down. How could we have all made this mistake for so long ?!
            All those manufacturers of radiometers, all the tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who rely on their instruments, you mean they got it wrong? !”

            Right and wrong. The constant is a constant only within the temperature range from which Stefan got his data from Tyndall. That temperature range can be regarded a blackbody since it is hot enough to emit an EM range of frequencies to classify it as a blackbody.

            As you know, the so-called constant is a constant of proportionality. That means it relates T^4 to the intensity of the EM from a body of temperature T. However, that proportionality is not constant across a temperature range that drops to room or surface temperature. To use it under those conditions you must adjust sigma.

            The second part is wrong. Radiometers do not use S-B to measure heat in relation to a detected IR frequency. They are adjusted in a lab to read the equivalent heat that WOULD BE EXPECTED from an EM source at the measured frequency.

            Radiometers do not measure heat, they detect frequency in the IR spectrum. If you took a high frequency oscillator in the IR band and ran its output through a transducer that emitted in the IR frequency band, the radiometer would tell you the heat of the source, which would be dead wrong. The observer of the radiometer would not know he/she had been fooled.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DM,

          You don’t need to demonstrate more stupidity and ignorance than you actually possess. Unless you really want to, of course!

          You wrote –

          “That is why we can calculate an effective planetary emitting temperature.
          For Earth this is 255K.
          But the surface is about 300K.
          The difference is due to greenhouse gases.”

          Others may well question from which part of your delusional fantasy you plucked some random figures. In any case, you seem to be claiming that when the calculated figure differs from the measured, an imaginary reason is concocted to reconcile the discrepancy, rather than accepting that your calculation was wrong.

          As Feynman said –

          “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

          You also wrote –

          “Simple, eh?”

          I assume you were describing your personality, and if so, I agree.

          Cheers.

          • Ian N Smith says:

            Which bit did you not understand?
            Or which bit do you disagree with ?

            (p.s. please ask nurse Ratchet to also give you another ECT)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            INS,

            Try reading and comprehending. It might be a new experience, but it should answer your witless gotchas.

            What “bits” are you talking about?

            I assume your last sentence was a puerile attempt at being gratuitously offensive . If you need a spot of assistance at being offensive, I’m here to help.

            You may not be aware that I generally decline to take offence, unless I am given good reason. You haven’t provided any reason at all.

            Cheers.

        • Nick Schroeder says:

          Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.

          That is just flat ridiculous.

          NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a -430 F frozen ice-covered ball.

          That is just flat ridiculous^2.

          Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.

          The sans atmosphere albedo might be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.11, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark.

          And the naked, barren, zero water w/o atmosphere earth would receive 27% to 43% more kJ/h of solar energy and as a result would be 19 to 33 C hotter not 33 C colder, a direct refutation of the greenhouse effect theory and most certainly NOT a near absolute zero frozen ball of ice.

          • David Appell says:

            Nick Schroeder says:
            Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K.

            That is just flat ridiculous.

            Everyone knows it’s not a realistic calculation.

            Everyone understand it’s just a heuristic calculation.

            Only you seem to be out of the loop.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, it’s always been known that the SB Law is for emission into a vacuum.

  46. gallopingcamel says:

    Colonizing the Moon should be a much higher priority that missions to Mars.

    Colonizing the Moon is “doable” with chemical rockets. Colonizing Mars and the asteroids won’t make sense until we have nuclear rockets.

    With nuclear rockets trips to Mars will take less than a day when Mars is on our side of the sun and less than four days when it is at its greatest distance:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/

    • DMT says:

      Why bother? We should fake a Mars landing so as to goad the Chinese, the Indians, the Israelis etc. into wasting their money.

      • gbaikie says:

        –DMT says:
        July 15, 2019 at 11:13 PM
        Why bother? We should fake a Mars landing so as to goad the Chinese, the Indians, the Israelis etc. into wasting their money.–

        camel is talking about colonizing, and you seem to be talking about NASA exploration of Mars.
        NASA is spending 20 billion per year, not exploring the Moon and Mars.
        And generally the idea has been adding a billion to budget and organize in a particular direction {not spend money on other things}
        such as NASA spending about 10 billion on James telescope. So maybe delay building other large telescope, finish and launch the James telescope. And in terms Mars, do something with ISS which NASA spending about 5 billion per year on. So continue ISS while doing Moon, but before Mars, end in some fashion ISS [transfer operation to some other party or whatever- basically have a plan}.
        So in terms Mars exploration, roughly it’s stop paying for ISS, and paid for Mars program, and maybe add 1 billion per year [or keep with growth of budgets of all the other governmental dept and agencies- which NASA has not done for decades]. Anyone favor of getting rid of George Bush’s dept of education?? It not helping anyone. Just to name one. And not happy about Bush’s homeland security morass of utter incompetence and vast corruption.

        • David Appell says:

          NASA is spending 20 billion per year, not exploring the Moon and Mars.

          Baloney. The only people who have been to the Moon were sent by NASA.

          How many rovers has NASA sent to Mars — 6, right? And another one going next year?

          There have been missions to comets.

          Cassini. The Huygens probe. Both major feats of exploration.

          Dragonfly was just announced — a drone to fly on Titan.

          All these constitute exploring the solar system.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            July 16, 2019 at 7:58 PM
            NASA is spending 20 billion per year, not exploring the Moon and Mars.

            Baloney. The only people who have been to the Moon were sent by NASA.–

            Tomorrow starts 50th Year Anniversary of Apollo.
            NASA had the Saturn V rocket, largest rocket, ever, and sent 12 crew to lunar surface.

            –How many rovers has NASA sent to Mars 6, right? And another one going next year?–
            I believe NASA only space agency to successful land spacecraft on Mars, and it seems the count is 9 which were successful:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars

            –There have been missions to comets.

            Cassini. The Huygens probe. Both major feats of exploration.

            Dragonfly was just announced a drone to fly on Titan.

            All these constitute exploring the solar system.–

            You look in telescope and call that, exploring the solar system.
            Some believe looking in telescopes should be the only way to explore space.
            I will note you don’t count ISS as exploring the solar system, and a large portion of NASA’s budget.
            Somewhat recently NASA send a spacecraft to Pluto- still getting data back, and has secondary target selected to visit.
            And Voyager 1 is furthest from Earth.
            The Parker Solar Probe has gone closest to the Sun and will get even closer.
            Their are lots scientists who are completing to do their various pet projects, and there is large focus has been on Mars.
            But crewed exploration is much better way to explore the Moon or Mars. Many agree the we need a Lunar and Mars program which has systematic focus of exploring the Moon and Mars.
            It seems we would not be exploring Mars robotically as much as we are without the goal to actually go to Mars, which has been the plan since the 1980’s. Though not a realistic plan, but…

          • David Appell says:

            So you just disproved your original point, by listing all the ways NASA *IS* exploring the solar system.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            July 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM
            So you just disproved your original point, by listing all the ways NASA *IS* exploring the solar system.–

            The public is giving NASA about 20 billion dollar per year to explore space.
            Another role of NASA is to provide congress with knowledge regarding of what congress should spending money on regarding space exploration.

            I think NASA has failed to inform Congress and NASA has failed to explore space.

            I see no reason for NASA to make rockets.
            Because NASA has failed to inform the Congress, the Senate is essentially building a rocket, SLS {the Space Launch System or also called the Senate Launch System}. It was suppose to be launched before 2017, and no one can guess when it’s going to be launched.

            So now and always most of what most people would call space exploration has NOT been launched by NASA built rockets. And I would say NASA was largely responsible for destroying US launch market [the same rockets used for exploration].
            Of course US military requires US rocket companies, so it funded the development of EELV:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Space_Launch
            One could say that after SpaceX was slightly helped by US military, that NASA did finally start assisting US rocket development of SpaceX and others in terms for use ISS COT program- and NASA no longer had the Shuttle.

            I would also say NASA has shot itself in the foot regarding past efforts to explore the Moon. And I would note it require US military to discover water in the lunar poles.
            It almost seems US military is more of civilian space agency than NASA.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        Why bother?

        There is nothing more enjoyable than spending other people’s money.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      cam…”Colonizing the Moon is doable with chemical rockets. Colonizing Mars and the asteroids wont make sense until we have nuclear rockets”.

      Don’t you watch Star Trek and Stargate SG-1? They now have warp drives, worm holes, and star gates. Heck, with a star gate, you just pop in one end and come out millions of light years away in seconds.

      They even have subspace generators and traveling through time is no problem.

      Listening to them talk reminds me of climate alarmists, and other scientists talking about the Big, Bang, black holes, and space-time curvature.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Rather than just blindly reject current scientific theories based upon your outdated and limited thought process.

        YOU: “Listening to them talk reminds me of climate alarmists, and other scientists talking about the Big, Bang, black holes, and space-time curvature.”

        Maybe you should read the observations and evidence that support the theories you reject. They may not be the correct theories but they do have supporting evidence for each of them and in some cases they have lots of evidence. At this time no better theory has been developed that explains the observed phenomena. You certainly have not come up with any valid ideas but you are so much smarter than all the scientists that you are certain they are wrong.

        It must be fun to be as godlike and arrogant as you are. When you post you sound like a crackpot that just makes up stuff. You can’t understand molecular vibrations even when I have linked you to videos explaining them. The think all EMR is generated by electron transitions which is total crap and very stupid on your part. Electron transitions require quite a bit of energy to achieve but you are no able to calculate this but you are certain that you are right on all things even though you have zero supporting evidence for any of your warped ideas.

        The theories you reject are based upon observed evidence. You ideas are based upon no evidence and just mostly made up from your crackpot thought process.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          N,

          You wrote in response to GR –

          ” . . . you are so much smarter than all the scientists . . . “.

          Are you damning him with faint praise? Newton was wrong about the corpuscular theory of light, Tyndall was wrong about the meteoric origin of the Sun’s heat, and Lord Kelvin was wrong about the age of the Earth.

          I must be smarter than all of them, wouldn’t you say? So-called climate scientists are not even in the same class as real scientists like Newton, Tyndall and Lord Kelvin.

          You can’t even come up with a theory of GHE, can you? Or a description of the GHE, for that matter!

          How stupid is that? Nearly as stupid as believing that Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, or that Michael Mann actually won a Nobel Prize, as he claimed in court documents. You aren’t gullible enough to believe such nonsense, are you?

          Cheers.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Norman, rather than just blindly attacking others, based upon your outdated and limited thought process, maybe you should learn some physics

          It must be fun to be as godlike and arrogant as you are. When you post you sound like a crackpot that just makes up stuff. You can’t understand that a racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis. You can’t understand that all fluxes are not the same. You can’t understand that “cold” does NOT warm “hot”. You can’t understand that a power flux can NOT be treated as energy. You are certain that you are right on all things even though you have zero supporting evidence for any of your warped ideas.

          • David Appell says:

            A racehorse is a poor example, because a horse can’t run in all directions, only forward and backwards.

            Replace the horse by yourself.

            Then it’s clear you are rotating as you go around the track, because your field of vision sweeps through 360 degrees. (Same for the horse, of course.)

            If you weren’t rotating you’d remain facing in the direction you were at the track’s starting gate. On the back stretch you’d be running backwards. Your field of vision would remain the same throughout the race.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            How can you still not even understand what we are trying to explain to you?

          • David Appell says:

            Because your explanations are wrong.

            The entire scientific community says you’re wrong. NASA says you’re wrong. My own understanding says you’re wrong.

            And you think I’m going to believe you just because you say I have to.

            Ha.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Your comments demonstrate that, rather than understanding our arguments and disagreeing, as some here do, you actually don’t understand what we’re trying to explain.

            Until you have demonstrated that you understand, whether or not you choose to “believe” us is immaterial.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Maybe you should read the observations and evidence that support the theories you reject. They may not be the correct theories but they do have supporting evidence for each of them and in some cases they have lots of evidence”.

          1)Big Bang theory…based on two main suppositions.

          i)there is Doppler shifting in the spectra of stars that suggest some are moving away from a centre and others are moving toward it. This is supposedly regarded as evidence of a Big Bang.

          ii)there is an alleged residual heating of the atmosphere at around 4K. That is presumed by wannabee physicists to be the heat left over from the BB.

          That’s it Norman….the entire evidence. Number i) presumes a known size for the universe and a known centre. Number ii) is measuring EM energy and claiming it as heat. That’s downright silly.

          2)black holes….the theory has changed over the past few decades.

          i)old theory…stars at end of life run out of fuel. They expand into Red Giants then begin to collapse. Some collapse and blow up as a supernova and some collapse into an extremely dense neutron star. For no known reason, some collapse further into a super dense black hole. There is absolutely no explanation for that process.

          ii)the new theory claims a black hole is a space-time anomaly, which is the height of silliness. Neither time, which has no physical existence, or space, which is a definition by humans based on a theorized x,y,z projection into space, have the properties to produce a super-dense mass that can bend light.

          3)space-time theory…describes a three dimensional space based on the human defined Cartesian coordinate system or polar coordinate system coupled to a 4th dimension of time.

          That is nothing is coupled to nothing. Neither of the 4 dimensions exist in the physical universe.

          I regard space-time as a major gaffe by Einstein. If you read his paper on relativity, he begins talking about acceleration without talking about the forces and masses involved. In other words, he is using kinematics to explain the relative motion of a human in a box then arriving at very strange relationships between time and relative motion.

          Relative motion has nothing to do with time or human measurement. Motion of a mass is directly related to a driving force and any opposing forces. Relative motion of the same has been royally screwed up by the less than perfect human mind which often fails to observe correctly, without illusion.

          Space-time is about illusions in the human mind.

          Along the way, he defined time as the ‘hands on a clock’ which is absurd. Therefore an observer observing relative motion with a clock in hand has no concern about the forces and masses involved nor does he have to worry that time has no existence.

          Using such thought experiments, Einstein concluded that time could dilate and the length of a measuring stick could change length as it neared the speed of light.

          The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, an expert on time, found Einstein’s claims preposterous. He claimed Einstein knew nothing about measurement and that his theory of relativity is not a theory at all. That’s is likely true since he was a theoretical physicist who betrayed his own claims that physics should be about real observation and not about speculation.

          You can blindly accept all those theories if you like but there are serious questions that need to be answered and they are not being answered. Rather, we have modern scientists blindly accepting paradigms without asking questions at all.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        That “Bussard Revisited” link imagines that humanity may master the art of converting matter into energy with 100% efficiency. Very fanciful but in my mind less absurd than using wormholes for space travel.

        Even with today’s primitive understanding of physics rockets based on thermonuclear reactions appear to be possible, opening the prospect of commercial traffic throughout our solar system.

        At a steady acceleration of one “gee” you can get to Jupiter in a couple of weeks.

      • David Appell says:

        Listening to them talk reminds me of climate alarmists, and other scientists talking about the Big, Bang, black holes, and space-time curvature.

        Gordon, do you not understand that are you living on a curved spacetime — that the Earth’s surface is a curved space, where parallel lines eventually meet?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”The think all EMR is generated by electron transitions which is total crap …”

        Ironic. Both Bohr and Schrodinger defined quantum theory upon the properties of the electron, as it orbits the nucleus, therefore, according to you, they are both full of crap.

        It was Bohr who described the absorp-tion/emission of EM from the electron, not me. Neither did I produce the equations describing the relationship between the nucleus, the electron, and the EM. Afraid I’ll need to blame Schroddy for that.

        Where do you think I get this stuff? Unlike what you have deluded yourself into believing, I got it from Bohr, Schrodinger and others.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          Both Bohr and Schrodinger defined quantum theory upon the properties of the electron

          Wrong. Bohr happened to use the hydrogen atom to illustrate quantum theory, but he knew every quantum particle has a deBroglie wavelength.

          Schrodinger’s wave function, and his equation, apply to any quantum system.

    • gbaikie says:

      –At a constant acceleration of one “g” it takes only days to get around the solar system. Reaching the stars takes only a few years.–
      Hmm.
      24 hours is 86,400 seconds
      86,400 times 9.8 m/s = 846,720 m/s or 846.72 km/sec
      Distance = Acceleration 1/2 times Time squared
      86,400 x 86,400 times 4.9 m/s/s = 36,578,304,000 meters
      Or 36,578,304 km
      “The minimum distance from the Earth to Mars is:
      54.6 million km
      Let’s try 1/2 gee: 4.9 m/s/s for 2 days:
      172,800 x 172,800 times 2.45 m/s/s = 73,156,608,000 meters
      Nope, 1.5 days:
      129,600‬ x 129,600‬ times 2.45 = 41,150,592,000
      100,000 x 100,000 times 2.45 = 24,500,000,000‬
      Which near 1/2 halfway point that requires turning around and accelerating the opposite direction- so you can stop at Mars.
      and 100,000 second time 4.9 m/s/s = 490,000 m/s or 490 km/sec.
      And at 490 km/sec in 1800 seconds [30 mins] you travel 882,000 km
      Or 2400 seconds: 1,176,000 km
      Did not include Earth orbital speed of about 30 km per second.
      But you are NOT doing hohmann, and you are adding vectors:
      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vect.html
      Hmm, just going to guess that it adds 2 km/sec
      or add 200,000 km
      24,500,000 + 1,176,000 = 200,000 = 25,876,000‬ km
      Close but add more mins to 100,000 seconds acceleration and could be wrong about only getting 2 km/sec from Earth orbital velocity.
      Plus have match Mars orbital velocity. About 28 hour speeding up and speeding down if going 1/2 gee.

      And with 1 gee, say 76,000 seconds
      76,000 times 76,000 times 4.9 = 28,302,400,000‬ meter
      28,302,400 km
      And at 1 gee for 76,000 seconds = 744,800 m/s 744.8 km/sec
      And turn around quickly in 30 min, go another 1.34 million km
      So speed up for 21 hours than slow down for 21 hours
      and save about 15 to 16 hours vs 1/2 gee.

      With chemical rocket I think one could get to mars from Earth in about 1 or 2 months.
      One 1 month would require a lot delta-v, similar in excessive waste of energy accelerating at 1 gee, and two months also uses considerable amount chemical energy, similar to doing the 1/2 gee acceleration.
      But I think NASA could do it in about 3 months or less with chemical rockets, but only for crew. And roughly cost about 1/2 billion dollar for additional rocket fuel as compared to 6 to 7 month trip.
      6 to 7 month is hohmann + patched conic
      and 3 month is non hohmann trajectory. But similar to hohmann in that it only burn it’s rockets at Earth perigee and uses about 75% of Earth’s orbital velocity.
      Anyhow I think one have Mars settlements just by using chemical rockets. I think first class or most expensive schedule flight per seat with chemical rocket would be 2 months, and coach is 3 months. And cheap could involve first going to Venus orbit and doing hohmann + patched conic to Mars which should take less than 4 months [but first got to get Venus, the whole trip of earth to Venus to Mars would take longer, than Earth to Mars with hohmann + patched conic. But from Venus you sooner and different launch windows, and having different arrival times at Mars could have economic value.
      Or every two years one will have departure from Earth over period a few month. And not be able to go to mars from Earth for 1 1/2 years, but you could go to Venus and then go to Mars at time within that 1 1/2 years.
      Or of course advantage 1 gee or 1/2 gee is you can leave all the times from Earth to get to Mars- but using huge amount of energy, it’s somewhere around 1/1000th the cost to go another star system.
      Or about 100 times the cost of going there slower.

      • DMT says:

        Why bother?
        We have stuffed our own planet, what purpose is served by going to another?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DMT,

          You wrote –

          “We have stuffed our own planet, . . . “.

          Maybe you and your invisible playmate have stuffed your personal imaginary planet. Mine seems fine, life is good, and the universe seems to be unfolding as it should.

          Are you perhaps confusing fantasy with fact?

          Cheers.

        • gbaikie says:

          –DMT says:
          July 16, 2019 at 4:24 AM
          Why bother?
          We have stuffed our own planet, what purpose is served by going to another?–

          I don’t see it as about going to another planet, but effecting Earth.

          Or only millions of people want to go Mars, and if they do they, it effects billions people on Earth.

          I assume the unlikely situation of NASA doing what I think they should do.
          That means within 10 years perhaps within 5 years, we know whether regarding the Moon if and where there is the better locations of mining lunar water.

          And it basically should indicate whether there is need for such things as lunar bases on the Moon. Or many countries are considering if this as possible, will know whether should focus on it, or not.
          If highly positive, one will have commercial lunar water mining within 10 years, if highly negative, it is removed as option or at least until circumstances change.
          Probably it’s somewhere in the middle, if exactly in middle, it’s not as good as result in terms making any kind decision regarding the Moon. Which say is worst result. Or does help much in terms of making any rational decision, but in broad range of somewhere in the middle which is most likely, probably will help make rational choices.
          Then you have the unexpected discoveries connected to all exploration activity [this is always the case with any exploration].
          Let’s say it is negative, then NASA should consider what other options are there for mining water and making rocket fuel in space.
          But in meantime, whether negative or positive results, NASA starts it’s manned Mars exploration.
          In terms dollars spent a negative results diminishes the amount per year that NASA will get for there Mars program.
          And if don’t waste money on Mars, that is good news for you. But also a correct decision to make.
          But if NASA does a good job exploring the Moon to get this negative result, it still net positive for NASA, it’s proven NASA can do things like this. But NASA screws it up, it also good US citizens, because it points a problem of NASA, opens steps to do something about it- including cancelling NASA altogether- Also good for you who don’t want waste money on government space exploration.
          So large part of lunar exploration in my view is testing NASA ability and/or inability. And I tend to think it’s somewhat too common in NASA, that they don’t want to be tested. But it is in the public interests that NASA is tested.
          And it’s possible the test, is also “somewhere in the middle”, and also, less useful as a result.
          I see no advantage canceling NASA, other than it would cause massive re-organization, and something new would be created which attempts to do what NASA was suppose to do. One may “lose” a decade of time and gets confusion, and perhaps many failed attempts trying to get something which resembles a space agency which can serve the US interests. Or it’s just ends and is replace by things like “GoFundMe” and perhaps has wacky religious connections.

          But in terms of positive, NASA explores Mars and finds if and where there sites for human settlements. And again if highly positive, you get Mars settlement within 10 years.

          Now the most important bit about space in general, is there is a 300 billion dollars global satellite market.
          And without it- we don’t have global communication, internet, global security, etc. Or trying get equal capability that this global satellite market delivers would cost tens of trillions per year, to world with about 1/3 cost being to US. And not counting the cost of all wars it might start.
          And without this global industry, NASA would cease to exist.

          So commerical lunar mining, would add to the global satellite business, and Mars settlement in addition would super charge it.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        @gbaikie,
        I can send you a spreadsheet that does those calculations accurately.

        It gets really interesting as the space ship approaches light speed. Traveling 27,000 light years to the galactic core takes 10.6 years according to “Ship Time”.

        • David Appell says:

          Just wondering, have you calculated how much energy would be required to sustain a 1g acceleration for a ship the mass of, say, the Space Shuttle?

          • gbaikie says:

            For 24 hours:
            “86,400 times 9.8 m/s = 846,720 m/s or 846.72 km/sec

            Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared
            [when get near light velocity it’s different}

            Shuttle orbitor not fueled or loaded:
            “Empty weight: 171,961 lb (78,000 kg)”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_orbiter
            Joules:
            78,000 kg x .5 times 846,720 squared
            39000 x 716,934,758,400 =
            2.796 x 10^16 joules

            Of rocket is not 100% efficient, the above is amount
            kinetic given to a space shuttle by rocket power which
            involves very specific impulse [high temperature or high velocity
            rocket exhaust] Or high ISP.
            Or you can’t do this with chemical rocket- you can’t make something go 846.72 km/sec. But you could have chemical rocket that provides the same amount of joules energy.
            “9×10^16 J Mass-energy in 1 kilogram of antimatter (or matter)”
            So something 1 kg of antimatter could impart that much energy to Shuttle and make go 846.72 km/sec.
            But to make 1 kg of antimatter is something like more energy than we use on planet earth for years. Trillion of dollars of electrical energy at wholesale prices.
            But “6.3×10^13 J Yield of the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II ”
            A thousand of these size nuclear bombs could be used- well better bombs, but small nukes, and it could cost less than 1 billion dollar. See Nuclear orion:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
            Of course 1000 of these bombs have a fair amount of mass- a million times more mass then the antimatter. No maybe about 100,000 times more mass- but would have look it up.
            You don’t need antimatter unless doing star travel- unless someone come up with cheap way to make it [or find it].

            The shuttle at that velocity:
            “1×10^16 J Estimated impact energy released in forming Meteor Crater”
            If hit Moon [it would vaporize in Earth atmosphere] would make a slightly bigger crater than Meteor Crater.

          • gallopingcamel says:

            I calculated a fuel consumption of 3 kg/second to propel a 100,000 tonne spaceship.

            The power amounts to 3 X (3 X 10^8)^2 = 2.7 X 10^17 Watts

            Such a large number is difficult to comprehend so let us compare it to the world’s electric generating capacity. The latest figures (2018) suggest 2,860 GW or 2.86 X 10^12 Watts.

            Thus a PAR (Proton Annihilation Rocket) need to deliver ~100,000 times more power than all of the world’s electrical power plants combined.

            According to Wikipedia the mass of the space shuttle is 2,030 tonnes so you would only need 2,000 times the global electrical consumption.

            At this point your BS detector should be howling.

          • gallopingcamel says:

            @DA,

            Thanks for that link on the Relativistic Rocket. Here is another one you may like:

            https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/12/24/ask-ethan-could-we-reach-the-speed-of-light-by-christmas-synopsis

            At first blush it looks as if Ethan’s figures disagree with mine.

            For example his figure for trip time to the galactic center is ~30 years compared to my 10.6 years.

            His figure is for a “Round Trip” whereas my figure is for a “Fly By”.

          • David Appell says:

            3 kg/s of what? Any mass, where E=mc2?

          • gallopingcamel says:

            DA said:
            “3 kg of what?”

            This shows you did not read my explanation of the PAR (Proton Annihilation Rocket).

            The Bussard “Ram Scoop” collects inter-stellar gases that are primarily hydrogen The PAR converts hydrogen atoms into energy with 100% efficiency.

            That should trigger your BS detector!

        • gallopingcamel says:

          DA said:

          “Any mass, where E=mc2?”

          The power amounts to 3 X (3 X 10^8)^2 = 2.7 X 10^17 Watts. My apologies for not spelling this out in detail.

          The energy released by annihilating 3 kg of mass per second is calculated by multiplying the mass (3 kg) by the speed of light squared (300,000,000 meters per second).

          If there is ever a rocket like that, the owner will need to be careful where he points it as it could be a devastating weapon.

    • David Appell says:

      What’s the point of colonizing the Moon, except as a way station on the way to Mars and maybe elsewhere?

  47. Entropic man says:

    Mike Flynn

    “As Feynman said

    It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.

    It is ironic that you and other deniers keep quoting Feynman.

    There is strong experimental evidence for the greenhouse effect and AGW; none for your delusions.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      EM,

      You cannot even usefully describe the GHE, can you? Some science. Do you expect anybody to believe you can devise an experiment to test something you can’t even describe?

      As to AGW, this is a completely different thing. Mankind produces much heat. Heat produces hotter thermometers. Why you and other GHE true believers think this is mysterious is a mystery to me.

      Maybe you have an alternative hypothesis for thermometers indicating higher temperatures? No?

      Phew! For a moment there, I thought you might think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! Only a delusionally psychotic pseudoscientific climate cultist would believe such nonsense.

      Carry on trying to deny, divert and confuse. No GHE. No CO2 heating.

      Cheers.

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man, would you mind sharing that “strong experimental evidence” for the GHE and AGW?

      I’ve likely already seen all the nonsense, but maybe you have something new to add to the comedy?

      • Nick Schroeder says:

        The atmosphere and its albedo reflect away 30% of the incoming solar energy making the earth cooler. Remove the atmosphere and the earth gets hotter. Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory claims exactly the opposite.

        That the earth without an atmosphere would be similar to the moon, blazing hot lit side, deep cold dark, is not just intuitively obvious, but that scenario is supported by UCLA Diviner lunar mission data and studies by Nikolov and Kramm (U of AK).

        This actual and indisputable fact negates, refutes, guts and tosses RGHE theory straight onto the long established rubbish heap of failed scientific theories together with Vulcan, phlogiston, Martian canals, luminiferous aether, spontaneous generation, tabula rasa, phrenology and cold fusion.

        No RGHE, no CO2 warming, no man caused climate change or global warming.

        Since the earth is actually hotter without an atmosphere, radiative greenhouse effect goes straight into the historical trash bin of failed theories and all the handwavium, pseudo-science, thermodynamic nonsense pretending to explain it follows close behind.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA keeps using the same link he doesn’t understand.

            Nothing new.

          • David Appell says:

            Don’t bail out again. Tell us what about that figure I don’t understand.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, Institutionalized Pseudoscience Climate Comedy (IPCC) claims the GHE means CO2 can heat the planet. That spectrum you keep linking to indicates that some atmospheric gases absorb surface-emitted infrared. Surface emitted infrared COOLS the surface.

            Learn some physics.

        • Bindidon says:

          Nick Schroeder

          It is really amazing that people like you post such comments on a blog owned and managed by meteorologist and climate scientist Roy Spencer, who
          – is very well convinced of the role of GHE within our atmosphere, and
          – has written many interesting, alarmism-free head posts on his own blog about that.

          Nikolov and Zeller have lost any credibility since long a time (especially by publishing articles under stoopid nicknames like ‘Volokin and Rellez).

          Gerhard Kramm has been debunked ten years ago by Chris Ho-Stuart and A.P. Smith.

          Both N&Z as well as Kramm together with Dlugi and Moelders started from the wrong assumption that we must consider Earth in this case as having the same albedo as the Moon (0.12), what is wrong.

          “Remove the atmosphere and the earth gets hotter.”

          You have been contradicted about that at WUWT.

          Without an atmosphere (or with an atmosphere containing no IR absorbing/reemitting IR, that’s the same), all radiation emitted by Earth between 5 and 40 micron would directly escape to space, what would cool Earth far more efficiently as is actually the case.

          But you are here not the only one denying this!

          Welcome to this blog’s pseudoskeptic deniers, Nick Schroeder.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Bindidon, without an atmosphere, Earth would become like the Moon.

            Learn some physics.

          • Bindidon says:

            JDHuffman says:

            “… without an atmosphere, Earth would become like the Moon.”

            This is not the challenging situation.

            Simply because Earth is a planet with 70% water at its surface.

            What is of interest is to compare our planet as it is now with the same planet lacking water vapor (and pfff! the little bit of CO2), e.g. when it reaches a point in space and time where at least one of the three Milankovitch cycles has reached maximal influence.

            The effect of this situation is then that, due to the extreme cooling of the planet, all water vapor precipitates, and CO2’s atmospheric concentration subsequently decreases to a minimum.

            With as result that Earth then moves to a frozen iceball.

            The albedo of ice is 0.3 (by accident identical to the actual value).

            Thus, computations of the temperature of an Earth lacking any water vapor are with 255 K simply correct.

            Of course it would be different if Earth was a nake mass of rock! But that is not the point.

            *
            “Learn some physics.”

            What does allow you to write that, Huffman?

            Who are you? You never referred to any own relevant work in this domain.

            If you were a person with real physics knowledge, you would never behave so arrogant, but would show the results you managed to obtain instead.

            Thus I consider you a layman as I am, not less, not more. You are, like the insulting Robertson troll, not even able to process time series.

            So what!

          • JDHuffman says:

            Except I get the physics correct, and you get it wrong, Bindidon.

            Nothing new.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Roy Spencer, who
            is very well convinced of the role of GHE within our atmosphere, and
            has written many interesting, alarmism-free head posts on his own blog about that”.

            The difference is that Roy does not support the catastrophic warming/climate change theory. He has claimed CO2 SHOULD warm the atmosphere but he has never said how much.

            I can live with that.

        • David Appell says:

          Nick Schroeder says:
          Since the earth is actually hotter without an atmosphere

          Then why is the average surface temperature of the Earth greater than the average surface temperature of the Moon?

          • JDHuffman says:

            The Earth has the ability to regulate its temperature.

            Learn some physics.

          • Nick Schroeder says:

            With or without an atmosphere?

            Averages are meaningless.

            Lunarific

            Lit side 350 K, dark side 150 K, average 250 K, range 200 C

            Uninhabitable

            Earthy

            Lit side 300 K, dark side 230 K, average 250 K, range 40 C.

            Comfy

            Identical averages, entirely different worlds.

          • David Appell says:

            NS: Of course averages aren’t meaningless.

            Why is the average temperature of the Earth greater than the average temperature of the Moon, the opposite of what you claimed?

          • David Appell says:

            Identical averages, entirely different worlds.

            a) that’s not true, and
            b) that’s not what you claimed.

            You said the Earth would be warmer without an atmosphere than with
            an atmosphere.

            The Moon proves you wrong.

          • Nick Schroeder says:

            w/o 255 K w/ 288 K = -33 C cooler

            w/o 255 K assumes .3 albedo and is scientific malfeasance!!!

            w/o earth albedo similar to lunarific 0.11.

            0.3 = 957.6 W/m^2 0.11 = 1,217.5 W/m^2

            Per Q = U A dT = 1/R * A * (Surf ToA)

            Surf = 288 K ToA = -60 C = 213 K dT = 75 C

            w/ 75 C w/o 1,217.5/957.6 * 75 C = 95.4 C

            w/o atmos is 20.4 C hotter than w/ atmos and RGHE is trashed!!

      • David Appell says:

        Observational evidence for the GHE and its increase:

        “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

        Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

        “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

        Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1

        Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

        More papers on this subject are listed here:
        http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

        • JDHuffman says:

          DA, it makes no sense to try to support your pseudoscience, with your pseudoscience.

          Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            You lack the knowledge to even *begin* to critique those papers.

            So you bail out, as usual. As I noted above.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, I’ll just let your pseudoscience debunk itself:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth….”

            Seeing what you want to see is NOT science. It is pseudoscience.

            Learn some physics.

          • David Appell says:

            in·fer·ence
            /ˈinf(ə)rəns
            noun
            a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, please stop trolling.

      • David Appell says:

        Review

        “The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change,” Brindley & Bantges (2016)

        Abstract: “Spectrally resolved measurements of the Earths reflected shortwave (RSW) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere intrinsically contain the imprints of a multitude of climate relevant parameters. Here, we review the progress made in directly using such observations to diagnose and attribute change within the Earth system over the past four decades. We show how changes associated with perturbations such as increasing greenhouse gases are expected to be manifested across the spectrum and illustrate the enhanced discriminatory power that spectral resolution provides over broadband radiation measurements. Advances in formal detection and attribution techniques and in the design of climate model evaluation exercises employing spectrally resolved data are highlighted. We illustrate how spectral observations have been used to provide insight into key climate feedback processes and quantify multi-year variability but also indicate potential barriers to further progress. Suggestions for future research priorities in this area are provided.”

        Citation: H. E. Brindley, R. J. Bantges (2016), Current Climate Change Reports, DOI: 10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5. Full text:
        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5

  48. Bindidon says:

    Yesterday, I intentionally omitted a paragraph placed, in Sir Isaac’s work, in front of what I uploaded and linked to in a comment above.

    This blog’s best denialist has surprisingly fallen into the trap, and, surpassing my boldest expectation, replied as follows:

    Bindidon you clowns are amazing. Newton agreed with all of us that the Moon rotates on its axis RELATIVE to the stars. That is obvious, due to its orbit.
    Nice try, but you will need much more denial. The simple racehorse ruins your false religion.

    Note, en passant, that the guy did not just write modestly: “We all agree with Newton…”. No, no.

    Now I add this paragraph [35] omitted yesterday, and everybody understands what Sir Isaac had in mind with it: to consider the Moon’s situation as a being the same as that of all the planets: that it not only revolves around what attracts it (or better: around their common barycentre), but also rotates around its own axis.

    *
    [35] While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes: the sun in 26 days; Jupiter in 9h.56m.; Mars in 24 2/3h.; Venus in 23h.; and that in planes not much inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and according to the orders of the signs, as astronomers determine from the spots of maculae that by turns present themselves to our sight in their bodies; and there is a like revolution of our earth performed in 24h.; and those motions are neither accelerated nor retarded by the actions of the centripetal forces, as appears by Cor. XXII, Prop. LXVI, Book I; and therefore of all others they are the most uniform and most fit for the measurement of time; but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.

    [36] In like manner is the moon revolves about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude; but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the moon’s inclination on its axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars, nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.

    Not only is it amazing to see how accurately Sir Isaac draws these parallels between moon vs. earth and earth vs. sun!

    He confirms herewith the views of many astronomers who spent, since the Babylonians, so much time in observing the moon , what he sums up in succinct thoughts, later mathematically translated in equations by Lagrange and laplace:
    – rotation of the moon around its axis in the same time as it revolves around earth;
    – derivation from this synchronity that
    – – the moon always must show us the same side
    – – the libration in longitude is due to a combination of moon’s rotation and of its position on its orbit around earth.

    This is Science, as opposed to the mix of arrogance, ignorance and presumption demonstrated all the time by the ‘pseudoskeptic denial trio’ and their altar boy.

    I repeat: QED – Case closed.

    No need anymore for fruitless debates about racehorses, coins, cannonballs etc etc etc.

    But as said: Pseudoskeptics never give up… they never admit anything!

      • Bindidon says:

        Altar boy

        Don’t you REALLY understand that by writing the nonsense above, your are actually discrediting the work of one of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years?

        All what I wrote are HIS OWN WORDS you can read here:

        Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World

        https://tinyurl.com/y6lyg454

        Feel free to retrieve Sir Isaac’s original work in Latin, translated 1729 into English. I won’t do such a tedious job for you.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Beast, don’t you REALLY understand that calling me “altar boy” (creepy), describing what I said as nonsense, and making an extended appeal to authority, are not a rebuttal to what I said in the comment? Neither is “yawn”.

          • Bindidon says:

            For the last time

            All YOU personally think and wrote here or anywhere else is of NO interest.

            What matters is that you clearly answer the following question by YES or NO, and not by YO or NES, or by any other nonsense:

            Do you accept what Sir Isaac Newton has described in his work, and was later mathematically proven in works of Lagrange and Laplace?

            That is what matters, nothing else.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “All YOU personally think and wrote here or anywhere else is of NO interest.”

            Oh, OK. I’ll stop talking to you then.

          • Bindidon says:

            This means then in fact that you do not want to answer to the central question:

            Do you accept what Sir Isaac Newton has described in his work, and was later mathematically proven in works of Lagrange and Laplace?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Since all that I personally think and write here or anywhere else is of no interest to you, then you have no interest in my response. Strange you even asked me a question.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Bindidon is frustrated because he pounds on his keyboard, relentlessly, but only nonsense comes out.

          • Bindidon says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team

            (What an abuse!)

            You perfectly know that with

            All YOU personally think and wrote here or anywhere else is of NO interest.

            I meant your comment

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791

            I am not interested in because it is nothing else than a trial to divert from the central point wich still is:

            Do you accept what Sir Isaac Newton has described in his work, and was later mathematically proven in works of Lagrange and Laplace?

            Please answer with yes or no. Any other answer is again nothing else than dodging.

            If you don’t answer, there will be some evidence that you indeed deny Newton’s, Lagrage’s and Laplace’s work.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Bindidon, if you think calculations settle the issue, you don’t understand the issue.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Bindidon, do you deny that you are trying to misrepresent the work of Newton?

          • Bindidon says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team

            “Bindidon, if you think calculations settle the issue, you don’t understand the issue.”

            As expected, you refuse to answer the question, and keep dodging around.

            Because Newton did no calculation but sythesised the ideas of many others. The calculations were made later.

            Therefore I can draw only one conclusion: you reject Newton’s work concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis, but lack the courage to CLEARLY WRITE it.

            I wish you all the best, end of the communication. I don’t want to communicate with people lacking courage, I am with nearly 70 simply too old for that ridiculous game.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I was referring to your “mathematically proven”, nonsense. I said nothing about Newton.

            You already made it clear that you had no interest in anything I have to say, which is why I don’t take your questioning too seriously. At nearly 140 I’m simply too old to communicate with people lacking consistency, courage, the ability to actually respond to an argument I made, etc.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Bindidon blabs “Because Newton did no calculation but sythesised [sic] the ideas of many others.”

            Newton developed calculus to verify his theories about gravity and orbital motion. He knew things centuries ago that still aren’t widely understood today.

            Newton was a genius. Today we get keyboard abusers….

          • David Appell says:

            Ger*an says:
            Newton developed calculus to verify his theories about gravity and orbital motion.

            In large part they were Kepler’s ideas on orbital motion, not Newton’s.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Just after I stated “Today we get keyboard abusers”, DA shows up.

            Perfect timing!

          • David Appell says:

            Another insult.
            Another bail out.

            Both say “weakling”

          • JDHuffman says:

            Now DA, am I really insulting you, or are you just insulting yourself?

            You are the one making the stupid comments. I’m the one trying to help you understand.

      • David Appell says:

        DrR, do you finally understand that the Moon’s velocity (or linear momentum) does not pass through the Earth?

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          When did I argue that it did?

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA continues to exhibit his confusion about linear momentum. He’s so confused about physics.

            That’s why he makes such a good clown.

          • David Appell says:

            In the comment just above this one:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364576

            That comment, and mine, has since been edited, leaving the awkward phrasing

            Any body with linear momentum passing the Earth at the distance of the Moon will experience one of three effects

            “passing the Earth…” doesn’t sense. The “through” after “passing” has been deleted.

            Are you in fact Roy Spencer? Who else has editing access to this blog besides Roy?

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, I saw you make the mistake yesterday. That was reflected in my comments. DREMT did nothing. No one is editing. You are delusional.

            Seek professional help.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            JD is right. Of course it hasn’t been edited, and of course I’m not Dr Spencer.

            Plus they aren’t even my words, I was quoting Gordon.

            You made a mistake, as usual, since you hardly bother reading what people are saying before you leave another nasty brown smear on the blog.

          • David Appell says:

            If I made a mistake, and it appears I did here, then I apologize.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Apology accepted, thank you.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Yes Bindidon, the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from the stars. It’s the same motion as a racehorse, which appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from outside the track.

      But neither is actually rotating on its own axis.

      QED–Case Closed.

      • David Appell says:

        the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from the stars.

        About time you admitted it. Such motion is called “rotation.”

        • JDHuffman says:

          “But neither is actually rotating on its own axis.”

          (DA, did you ever consider your lack of maturity was a key factor in not being able to get a job?)

          • David Appell says:

            A body that rotates in one inertial frame rotates in all inertial frames.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Again, you fail at basic reading comprehension, David.

            “the Moon appears to be rotating on its axis, when viewed from the stars”

            Appears to be. Not is. OK?

          • David Appell says:

            It appears to be rotating because it is. The view of someone standing on the Moon’s surface across the stars by 360 degrees.

            It’s the same as if you slowed the Earth’s rotation rate down to 1 day/year. The Earth would still be rotating, and the Earth would always present the same side to the Sun (because the angular velocity of rotation is the same as the angular velocity of orbiting).

          • JDHuffman says:

            WRONG again, DA!

            You can’t get it right. You don’t understand orbital motion, and you can’t learn.

            If you slowed the Earth to only one rotation per complete orbit, it would STILL appear to be rotating on its axis, viewed from both inside and outside its orbit. That’s because it IS rotating on its axis.

            You get too many things wrong to have any credibility. You just state things with no concern about accuracy. That puts you in the same sinking boat as the other clowns.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            An orbit is a path, clown.

          • David Appell says:

            Thats because it IS rotating on its axis.

            Then so is the Moon, because there is absolutely no difference between an Earth orbiting the Sun at a revolution rate of 1 day/yr and what the Moon is doing as it orbits the Earth. None.

          • David Appell says:

            DrEMT wrote:
            Appears to be. Not is. OK?

            No, not OK. If you can stand stationary on the surface of the Moon and the entire universe sweeps across your view in one lunar period, how is it the Moon is not rotating?

            (Hint: it is)

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, your inability to understand orbital motion is amazing.

            I wonder how many other things you can’t understand….

          • David Appell says:

            Don’t bail out again — tell me what I don’t understand about orbital motion.

          • JDHuffman says:

            You can’t understand that there are two different motions. You are obsessed with believing that orbiting is two motions. Orbiting is only ONE motion. Orbiting is changing directions around a center.

            The racehorse is only performing ONE motion. It is “orbiting” around the center of the track. It is NOT rotating on its axis. It’s the same motion as the Moon.

            You cannot understand because you are consumed by your false religion.

            Nothing new.

          • David Appell says:

            Orbiting is one motion — revolving around a central point.

            Rotating is a separate, independent motion — revolving around an internal axis.

            They are separate motions. There can (obviously) be orbiting with rotation, or orbiting without rotation.

            The Moon is both orbiting and rotating, because someone who stands on the Moon’s surface sees the entire universe sweep through their field of vision, 360 degrees.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well DA, you reiterated very well what we’ve been teaching.

            But in your last paragraph, when you tried to actually apply the teaching, your analytical skills failed you.

            Maybe try the string/orange exercise….

          • HuffanGoneStupid says:

            The three stooges at least provide entertainment. But it must be demoralizing for them to always be on the losing end.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Orbiting is one motion — revolving around a central point.”

            Precisely. And an object revolving around a central point moves as per the moon, with the particles that make up the object moving in concentric circles about the central point. Study:

            http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf

            Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).

            The rectangle, revolving about point O (the “central point”) is moving as per the moon. As you say, rotating about its own axis would be a separate, independent motion.

            Understand, yet?

          • David Appell says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
            And an object revolving around a central point moves as per the moon, with the particles that make up the object moving in concentric circles about the central point.

            You are confusing “central points.”

            There are TWO central points in this situation — the Earth’s center point, which is the point around which orbiting occurs, and the Moon’s center point, about which the Moon’s particles move.

            Motions about these two points are *independent.*

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, David, this is what people are trying to explain to you.

      • Bindidon says:

        JDHuffman

        Thus you deny Sir Isaac Newton’s wording AND hte mathematical proof of it by Lagrange and Laplace.

        And that simply on a blog, without any scientific proof.

        That’s how denialists work.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Bindidon, you can’t cover up for your deficiency in physics with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.

          But, it appears you will try.

          Nothing new.

          • Bindidon says:

            Huffman

            Either you accept what Sir Isaac Newton wrote in his own work or you do not.

            Anything else coming from your side is dodging.

            Why don’t simply answer with
            – Yes, Sir Isaac is right, and the subsequent work done ny the French mathematicians is right too
            or
            – No, I disagree with Newton’s position, and Lagrange and Laplace’s work therefore is void.

            Your blah blah with “… insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations” is nothing else than avoiding to answer the question above.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Newton has it right. You have it wrong. Laplace and Lagrange are not relevant to the issue.

          • Bindidon says:

            Oh I have no problem with being wrong!

            Newton wrote in his Principia

            [36] In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in respect to the fixed stars {***}, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moons orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moons face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moons orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moons libration in longitude…

            {***} exactly as he wrote in [35] for all planets

            Thus this is right, and my interpretation is wrong, but you are simply unable to exactly write why it is, let alone to formulate a scientific proof for this.

            Thus I propose to close the discussion here, unless you come out with said proof.

          • JDHuffman says:

            I’m fine with your admission that you were wrong.

            But I doubt you will be able to “close the discussion”.

            You’re too addicted to pounding on your keyboard….

          • Bindidon says:

            I repeat:

            “Thus I propose to close the discussion here, unless you come out with said proof.”

            If you had such a proof, there is at least 100% evidence that you would have wroten it here.

            So, as usual, you stay behind redundant stuff like

            “Im fine with your admission that you were wrong.”

            and

            “But I doubt you will be able to close the discussion.
            Youre too addicted to pounding on your keyboard.”

            instead of simply accurately doing the job I expected.

            I’m patient, and will wait for you scientific explanation for where and how I’m wrong in my reading of Sir Isaac’s wordings in the paragraphs [35] and [36] mentioned above.

            Please: NO RACEHORSES.

            Thanks in advance.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            b,

            Newton, like yourself, assumed (without any particular reason), that a rotational axis perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane exists. This is an assumption not founded on any observation, and as Uranus shows, is not valid for all orbiting bodies in the Solar System.

            Newton was a great man, but also made assumptions from time to time as part of the scientific method. Some were wrong. That’s life.

            Appeals to authority are not always well founded.

            Maybe you could provide some evidence that Newton’s assumption that the Moon has an axis of rotation aligned in any particular direction? For example, might it not be similar to that of Uranus, pointing toward the body which it orbits? Or maybe aligned along its trajectory (something like an arrow or ballistic projectile in flight)?

            In addition, Venus and Uranus exhibit retrograde rotation. In the case of Venus, this would mean that each orbit removes one day from its year. After four and half billion years, why isn’t Venus furiously spinning in the opposite direction? Only joking, of course.

            Newton’s assumption may have been wrong. How would you show it was correct?

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Bindidon, you want me to prove you’re wrong?

            I submit your comments as evidence.

            I rest my case.

          • SkepticGoneWIld says:

            I am skeptical of the GHE for scientific reasons. But the moon rotation issue? In this case the consensus has it right.

            I don’t understand why all the GHE skeptics in here have the moon rotation issue wrong. Very curious.

            As Bindidon pointed out, it’s hard to argue with Newton. Newton’s Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy” was a brilliant piece of work.

            Here is another link to the document:

            https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich/newtonspmathema00newtrich_djvu.txt

            The money quote, again:

            “In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most equable in respect of the fixed stars, viz., in 27 J . 7 h . 43 , that is, in the space of a sidereal month ; so that this diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit : upon which account the same face of the moon always respects the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon s orbit nearly ; and hence arises a deflection of the moon s face from the earth, sometimes towards the east, and other times towards the west, according to the position of the focus which it respects.”

            Bummer, man.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Newton is the guy who came up with the laws of motion. You would think he new a thing or two about the moon’s rotation. My engineering degree and profession is based on Newtonian physics, forces acting on matter.

            So we have 4 or 5 clowns in here making declarations otherwise. Newton? Or the clowns? I’ll take Newton any day. The guy was a genius.

          • JDHuffman says:

            SGW, you don’t have an engineering degree. You don’t even have a high school education. You’re a child.

            Grow up. Quit stealing other people’s names. And quit avoiding reality, like the MIT example that proves you wrong.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Poor clown is pissed off that I called him out on Postma’s site regarding his moon non-rotation stupidity. And Postma agreed with me that the moon rotates on its own axis. How does the underside of a bus look like anyway?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            SGW, please stop trolling.

          • JDHuffman says:

            “Child Remaining Stupid”, are you more obsessed with me or Postma?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes: ”

      binny lays a trap for us and ends up trapping himself.

      In your cherry picked quote (why not post the entire article???) Newton states:

      “While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes:”

      Newton distinguished between a revolution about a remote axis and a ROTATION about its own axis.

      Later he states:

      “In like manner is the moon revolves about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars…”

      He is talking about the Moon revolving about an external axis wrt the FIXED STARS.

      In other words, as viewed from the Sun, the Moon appears to REVOLVE about an external axis. He says nothing about the Moon rotating about its own axis.

      UN-QED.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “He is talking about the Moon revolving about an external axis wrt the FIXED STARS.”

        Exactly as I explained in this comment:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791

        From the inertial reference frame (“fixed stars”) you can state that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis. If it was simultaneously rotating about both, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson

        You are really the blithering idiot you are insulting me all the time.

        You aren’t eben able to follow a discussion, and come in with your superficial reading of some details instead.

        “In your cherry picked quote (why not post the entire article???) Newton states:”

        And what, do you think, is this???

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364870

        READ THE COMMENT form A to Z, Robertson, and stop reducing what I write to what you want to read.

        *
        Like your adlatus-in-deny JDHuffman, you cherry-pick yourself:

        “He is talking about the Moon revolving about an external axis wrt the FIXED STARS.”

        Look at paragraph [35] in the comment I linked above, Robertson, and try to understand why Sir Isaac begins [36] with “In like manner…”

        This of course refers to his perfect understanding of
        – the similarity of the Moon with all planets (he knew about in hids time) wrt rotation about their axis,
        AND
        – the similarity of the Moon with all planets wrt reckoning the revolution about their axis wrt a fixed star.

        Newton was a genius, Robertson! He discovered 350 years ago what you aren’t even able to understand when simply having to read what he thought and wrote! That tells us everything about you.

        I repaste here the beginning of [36], bold emphasis mine:

        36] In like manner is the moon revolves about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude

        As usual, you dissimulate the evidence, Robertson. I’m not sure you do this by intention; it might be due to the fact that you are unable to properly read documents. You merely scan them for what fits to your own narrative.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I would read that as Gordon described. Maybe it’s just a language barrier thing.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        For a start, 35 begins:

        “While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres…”

        And 36 begins:

        “In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars…”

        So that suggests the axis he is referring to in 36 is the “remote centre” referred to in 35, as Gordon explained, and not the moon’s own axis.

        Another thing I note from your comments is that you continually use the word “revolves” in 36 when the correct word is “revolved”. This could be a deliberate attempt on your part to subvert what he is saying, as you have done that several times.

        • Bindidon says:

          DREMT

          “Another thing I note from your comments is that you continually use the word revolves in 36 when the correct word is revolved. This could be a deliberate attempt on your part to subvert what he is saying, as you have done that several times.”

          Jesus DREMT!

          I mistyped the word at one or two places, and sometimes saw the mistake and corrected it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, perhaps I over-stretched there. But be careful with your quoting!

      • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

        Gordon squeals:

        “In other words, as viewed from the Sun, the Moon appears to REVOLVE about an external axis. He says nothing about the Moon rotating about its own axis!”

        This is what cultists do. They twist words to support their own delusional beliefs.

        In the same paragraph as Newton mentions the moon “being revolved about its axis”, he further states:

        “but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the inclination of the moon s axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth ; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.”

        It is perfectly clear that when Newton uses the term “axis” for the moon, that he is talking about the rotation about its own axis since he states, “the inclination of the moon s axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth”. He talks about the inclination of the moon’s axis and poles. Clearly not an external axis.

        Gordon is living in some delusional parallel universe.

        • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

          The moon non-rotation people have all the markings of a cult:

          1. Scripture Twisting: In this case, twisting the principles of physics to support their belief.
          2. Exclusivity: Their group is the only true religious system.
          3. Persecution complex: Us against them mentality.
          4. Avoidance of and/or denial of any facts that might contradict the group’s belief system.

          I rebuke thee, and darn you to heck!

          • JDHuffman says:

            A simple racehorse destroys your entire mantra, child.

            Grow up.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            A simple toy horse with a tooth through its center of mass destroys your delusions.

            Grasping the toothpick, perform a CCW quarter orbit around an imaginary circular track, keeping the left side of the horse facing the center of orbit. You HAVE to spin the toothpick constantly between your fingers to keep the same side of the horse facing the center of orbit. Spinning the toothpick rotates the horse on its axis, clown.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            tooth = toothpick

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As if seeing things the way you do is hard.

            Duh.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Child, at the quarter orbit, you have provided the turning motion to replicate orbiting. Now, still at the quarter orbit point, rotate the horse CW. You will see different sides. Now, rotate the horse CCW. You will see different sides.

            If the horse is actually rotating on its axis, you will see both all sides, from all directions. If the horse is not rotating, you will only see one side from inside the track.

            It’s the same motion as the Moon. See if you can get an adult to explain it to you.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I’d say it’s fairly ambiguous earlier on. It’s fairly clear once he is talking about the libration of latitude that he is referring to a property of the the moon itself, however gbaikie has already done an excellent job here:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359222

        Of describing how you could define a so-called “axis of rotation” in a sphere that is not actually rotating on its own axis.

  49. David Appell says:

    June global average surface temperature at a record high for the month, according to both JMA and GISS.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/07/15/earth-just-had-its-hottest-june-record-track-warmest-july/

  50. Bri says:

    I think the big problem of any Lunar base is the near impossibility of transporting construction materiel to the moon.In my opinion (and NASA’s) you must use Lunar material if you want any reasonable living space. NASA likes the idea of using lava tubes or other cave’s ,but space is still very limited.
    I think we could send up robot’s capable of cutting the moon rock and building stone igloo’s. The heavy weight of the stone would hold back the internal air pressure and reduce the radiation danger.
    Igloos are the only domed structure that doesn’t need support during construction and they are simple enough that a robot or 3 could set about building them in advance of any people the interior would need to be coated to provide insulation and sealing but spray foam is compact and light enough to ship there.
    if your robot can make one it can make 100 and you will want some room.

  51. Bindidon says:

    Well, concerning this record June temps, I am a bit suspicious, because Nick Stokes reports for the month
    – (1) for GISS, an increase of 0.07 C up from May, but wrt 1951-1980, what is, adjusted to UAH’s baseline (1981-2010), about 0.03 C
    but he reports
    – (2) for his own NCEP/NCAR index, he gives a decrease of 0.05 C down from May (wrt 1994-2013, -0.04 C displacement wrt UAH for 1981-2010, thus near zero), but this decrease is the third in sequence.

    What however I’m ready to take more serious is the report of Japan’s Met Agency because they show the coolest, directly evaluated surface time series (WeatherBELL is similar, but is based on a reanalysis model).

    https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jun_wld.html

    • Dr Myki says:

      More evidence which, I am sure, will be vigorously denied by the usual inmates:
      “Record temperatures across much of the world over the past two weeks could make July the hottest month ever measured on Earth, according to climate scientists.

      The past fortnight has seen freak heat in the Canadian Arctic, crippling droughts in Chennai and Harare and forest fires that forced thousands of holidaymakers to abandon campsites in southern France and prompted the air force in Indonesia to fly cloud-busting missions in the hope of inducing rain.

      If the trends of the first half of this month continue, it will beat the previous record from July 2017 by about 0.025C, according to calculations by Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, and others.”
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/16/july-on-course-to-be-hottest-month-ever-say-climate-scientists

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DM,

        You quoted (amongst other silliness) –

        ” . . . If the trends of the first half of this month continue, it will beat the previous record from July 2017 by about 0.025C, according to calculations by Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, and others.

        Ooooh! A trend! Qualified with an “if” , even. “If” my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle.

        This is your evidence of something you can’t even describe? A prediction of the future?

        The Earth has cooled since it had a molten surface, in case you hadn’t noticed. Antarctica is now covered by ice, so fear of death by boiling, roasting, frying or toasting is exaggerated.

        Maybe you could try to describe this GHE for which you claim to have evidence, but you won’t succeed. Nobody has.

        No GHE. No CO2 heating.

        Cheers.

        • nurse ratchet says:

          “If” my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle.”
          You mean, if my wheelchair had three wheels…

          “..so fear of death by boiling, roasting, frying or toasting is exaggerated.”
          I would be more worried about tonight’s dinner being ruined again by cook boiling, roasting, frying or toasting everything she touches. The Denialist Dreamtime Retirement Home is not renowned for its culinary efforts.

          • Mike says:

            nr,

            You wrote –

            “You mean, if my wheelchair had three wheels

            How many wheels does your wheelchair have? If it had a different number, it would still be described as a wheelchair, would it not?

            Maybe you have not been keeping up to date with your “logical trolling” lessons. If you cannot even describe this GHE which the pseudoscientific climate cultists seem to worship, then senseless trolling is your only refuge, I suppose.

            Carry on acting the fool. It will no doubt impress the heck out of the usual crowd of fools, frauds, and fakers.

            Cheers.

  52. Poi Bunny says:

    May I point out that the most accurate prediction of the month was mine predicting the “moon doesn’t rotate” complainers would soon arrive?

    Seldom has so little been said by so few in so many posts.

    PB

  53. Eben says:

    If you lived on the far side of the moon and didn’t have precise instruments you would not even see the moon orbits around another body that being Earth , you would however observe very clearly it spins around completely on its axes every 27 dayz.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Yes Eben, and that observation would be due to its orbital motion. The Moon does not rotate on its axis.

      • David Appell says:

        It’s due to the Moon’s spin rate equaling the orbital rate.

        It takes both for the same lunar face to always present to the Earth.

        If the Moon didn’t rotate, we’d see all sides of the Moon, like the right hand side of this animation:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

        • JDHuffman says:

          Just keep linking to the same erroneous graphic.

          That makes you look smart….

        • David Appell says:

          What’s erroneous about it?

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, not understanding your own links is a common problem with your cult.

            Nothing new.

          • David Appell says:

            You don’t think it’s erroneous — you lied about that too.

            Anytime you’re asked a direct question you try to worm your way out of it, try to change the subject, thinking no one is going to notice. When your duplicity is as noticeable as the Sun or Moon. This is what makes you a lightweight and a weakling. Many others here have also noticed you doing this.

            It’s pathetic and sad. You’re sad.

          • JDHuffman says:

            DA, don’t get mad at me because your head doesn’t work. I can’t think for you. You have to learn to do that on your own.

            Your questions are irresponsible. That’s why I don’t waste too much time on you. I answer whenever I think it will add value for others. Most of the time, I just consider you a joke, and respond accordingly.

            Grow up, and learn some physics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            This is like a Turing test.

            One group describes “orbital motion” like a machine would. They seem to think of it like a robotic arm drawing a picture of an orbit, seen from above. The robot’s program translates the pen, then rotates the pen. This would be the “Spinner” group. They think of “orbital motion” as an object translating, plus rotating on its own axis, like some sort of computer program drawing a picture on a screen. This is completely devoid of any connection to the forces involved wrt an orbiting object, or any sort of ability to visualize, or intuit, what is actually happening, like a human being can. It’s scary how many people on here choose to see it like this. They need to see animations, gifs etc, to even try to get a handle on our way of seeing it. If they see a stationary diagram, they struggle. They even complain that it’s not animated for them.

            The other group think about what “orbital motion” actually is, what forces are involved, and can visualize and intuit what is actually happening. They don’t need to see gifs, or even diagrams, but they have to use them to try to explain what they are saying to the machines, who just don’t possess the abilities required to get what is being said to them. The “Non-Spinners” see a written description of “orbital motion”, and the forces involved:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364555

            and without even needing to see the accompanying animations in the “Newton’s Cannonball” link, understand that “orbital motion” is better described as an object rotating about a central point, with no rotation on its own axis. One motion, not two.

            There’s no point talking to the machines, because their programming will not let them see things any other way. You just have to hope you can get through to the people.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            As SGW mentions, Newton, or the clowns? Easy choice. Newton.

            Kinematics? Or pretend clown physics? Easy choice. Kinematics.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Who is SGW? Is that your slightly less immature twin brother?

        • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

          DA,

          You need special glasses to view that graphic, along with a tin hat. Once you have these two items, your eyes will be opened, and you will see the truth!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well that’s one way to admit you’re unable to see things from our point of view. I wasn’t aware that was something to be proud of. I can see it the way you see it, after all.

      • Eben says:

        “Yes Eben, and that observation would be due to its orbital motion. The Moon does not rotate on its axis.”

        Go back to skool , return your science degree diploma and ask for your money back ,
        you have been scammed on your education.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Eben, it doesn’t take much education to realize a racehorse is not rotating on it axis. It just takes the ability to think for yourself.

          Try it, you might like it….

    • Eben says:

      Is called “angular momentum” either you have some or you have none, it’s just basic fizzix,
      If you claim moon has no angular momentum you are scientifically retarded.

      • JDHuffman says:

        The Moon has angular momentum based on its orbit. But it has no angular momentum about its center of mass.

      • Mike says:

        e,

        You wrote –

        “Is called “angular momentum” either you have some or you have none, it’s just basic fizzix,”

        As JDH pointed out, there is angular momentum, and then there is angular momentum.

        The Moon orbits the Earth. The Earth/Moon system orbits the Sun. The Solar System apparently orbits the centre of the local galaxy, which orbits . . .

        That is just in one plane, of course. Everything possesses angular momentum in respect to something somewhere – except maybe at the exact point centre of creation. And of course, no matter could be involved, because it would then be rotating and possess some angular momentum about its axis.

        I’m fairly sure that one cannot establish an axis about which the Moon rotates, because there seems to be no rotation in respect to any axis through its centre of gravity.

        Another question might be raised about whether geostationary satellites rotate about their CG while pointing their antennae at a fixed point on the Earth’s surface. Has anybody claimed that a geostationary satellite rotates on its axis once per revolution? I don’t know, and it seems about as unimportant as the question of whether the Moon can be considered to be rotating about an axis passing through its centre of gravity.

        All good fun.

        Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben…”you would however observe very clearly it spins around completely on its axes every 27 dayz”.

      So, if you were standing on the side facing the Earth, and throughout the orbit you are always facing the Earth, how would you complete your 360 degree rotation about the Moon’s axis?

      • Entropic man says:

        At your next dance hold your partner’s hands and spin.

        Look at her face and it stays in front of you. Look behind her and you will see the background moving as you rotate.

        Your inner ears will also tell you you are rotating.

        • JDHuffman says:

          E-man, or you could learn about orbital motions.

        • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

          EM,
          Somehow, magically, your partner goes from non spinning to spinning instantaneously upon contact with the partner. It’s a dangerous dance move. Serious injuries may result.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “At your next dance hold your partner’s hands and spin.

          Look at her face and it stays in front of you. Look behind her and you will see the background moving as you rotate.

          Your inner ears will also tell you you are rotating.”

          Indeed, but neither of you are rotating about your own axes, are you? You are both rotating about a “barycenter” where your hands meet.

          The argument is, and always has been, “the moon does not rotate on its own axis“.

          Capiche?

      • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

        Gordon squeals: “So, if you were standing on the side facing the Earth, and throughout the orbit you are always facing the Earth, how would you complete your 360 degree rotation about the Moons axis?!”

        You stand still, clown.

        Gordon violates the axiom, “there’s no such thing as a stupid question”.

  54. Scott R says:

    Folks… Didn’t stop by to talk about the moon… I would like to present my charts proving just how important El Nino is to all of this, and the link to the sun.

    Chart #1 – The UAH data is directly tied to the El Nino cycle. There is no other climate forcer more important than this.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1REud2hTHZiRYsNw_3O6dTPR4BJurHJe2/view?usp=sharing

    Chart #2 – 170 years of Global ocean data (HADSST3) shows us that despite having a 100 year uptrend, it is quite possible that there is a pivot at 0 deg on this chart, but we have only experienced 1/2 a centennial cycle. Note the last 7 solar cycles were the strongest of the last 400 years.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QJS_EZyyBH9vqm3lFlMtGDyLCSOA7azY/view?usp=sharing

    Chart #3 – For some reason, Antarctica hasn’t warmed at all. Both the UAH data, and the HADSST3 southern ocean data show no long term trend. In fact, in the last 40 years the trend has been down while the rest of the globe generally warmed. A strange divergence wouldn’t you agree? The one place we have no heat islands has 0 man made global warming.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-I3AqwbUdDgF5M_RwvWi-enWwxB1YnEf/view?usp=sharing

    Chart #4 – It turns out that both the El Nino current, and the southern ocean are on an 11 year cycle – just like the sun. Both are off-set. So it isn’t until SC 24 ends and SC 25 begins where you actually see La Nina. My theory is that the increased solar activity causes the trade winds to pick up, which ends el nino. There could also be a magnetic connection, or some other connection that remains a scientific mystery. It is possible that stronger than normal El Ninos in the last 40 years have been hiding cold water in the southern ocean, and amplifying the UAH trend.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wxmoCO92TMuGpyHLNxpvlEhzb7qE29-S/view?usp=sharing

    Chart #5 – With it being known El nino has an 11 year period, 3.6 year harmonic, and a 2.2 year harmonic, it is clear that 2016 was the down beat. We’ve had our 2.2 year harmonic, and now the 3.6 year harmonic is close to ending. La Nina conditions are already present in region 1, 2. Course we will have to wait for the official 3 month average for region 3.4. Here is my prediction for the next 4 years.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p28uWumqtOInP5Z9VHl7uLvDqLUL0v9w/view?usp=sharing

    Please let me know what you think. This is how I look at the climate system under normal situations. We however appear to be entering a “sleep mode” where the sun goes to quiet for 35 years. How that effects this most important climate relationship is a mystery to me. Even without a grand solar min we would see -0.2 on the UAH within 4 years. Couple that with the magnetic field doing it’s own thing. Interesting times ahead for sure.

    • Dr Myki says:

      “Please let me know what you think. This is how I look at the climate system under normal situations. ”
      Are you ok?
      If this is what you see “under normal situations” I wonder what you would see if you were drunk.
      Honestly, have you ever heard of the terms: correlation, degrees of freedom, confidence levels etc.
      There should be a law against providing data to ignoramuses.
      Please contact nurse ratchet for an appointment.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Troll, begone!

      • Scott R says:

        Dr Myki,

        What I’m saying by normal situations is that the sun has been in one particular mode for our entire lives, and the entire sat record. We have no idea what to expect when it goes into GSM mode. All we have are sun spot counts and some proxy data. We don’t really know.

        Why not provide constructive criticism? Pick one item you disagree with and explain yourself.

        Thank God scientific data is public. Imagine a world where scientific data was private, held by the political elite, influenced by lobbyists, corporations, and the wealthy. They would determine what information we received thru biased government agencies and then thru biased media sources… “debunked” by biased online entities as well. Hmm it’s not that hard to imagine for people like me because we live it every day already as GSM information is suppressed.

    • Norman says:

      Scott R

      Thanks for breaking up the endless prattle on the Moon Rotation issue. I avoid this one. It goes no hundreds of posts.

      On your first graphic the El Nino cycle is straight line but the temperature is upward.

      If your second graph is valid that one can match the temperature somewhat.

      I do not think you last graph is of value since it covers only a couple years. On Roy Spencer long term graph you can see an upward temperature increase over time.

      • JDHuffman says:

        What makes the “Moon/Rotation” issue interesting is the way it affects the clowns. They clearly abhor reality, or anything that disproves their pseudoscience.

        So, they have to hate racehorses….

      • Scott R says:

        Norman glad to help!

        Absolutely, we warmed from 1980-2016. I’m not disputing that. Look at the amplitude of the change in the UAH temperatures as we cycle thru El Nino. It’s HUGE! I believe that during these La Nina cycles of the last 40 years, the cold Antarctic waters were building up, not being fully released. That explains the 40 year decline in the southern ocean. Basically it means El Nino has a positive 40 year bias creating the trend at least in part.

        The last graph is my short term prediction for UAH based on what forcing I feel the La Nina cycle will have on the earth’s climate.

    • Bindidon says:

      Scott R

      “Folks Didnt stop by to talk about the moon ”

      It is not primarily a discussion about the moon, Scott. Please take some time to review the comments here. I’m sure you will discover something filigree in the background.

      Congratulations for having now done the job. I hope you understand that I still do not agree about many points.

      I come back to your interesting comment with a more complete reply.

      cu
      J.-P. D.

    • bdgwx says:

      This is a well thought out post. I agree that there is better than even chances that we drop below 0.0C on UAH within the next 4 years, but I’m more skeptical of -0.2C. My totally subjective odds are 75% for <0.0 and 25% for <-0.2C. One mitigating factor that will continue to keep upward pressure on TLT temperatures is the seemingly never ending upward trend in oceanic heat content.

      • JDHuffman says:

        bdgwx worries: “One mitigating factor that will continue to keep upward pressure on TLT temperatures is the seemingly never ending upward trend in oceanic heat content.”

        Don’t fret bdgwx, there is no “never-ending upward trend in oceanic heat content.”

        Someone is yanking your chain.

      • Scott R says:

        bdgwx… it will be interesting to see if linear sea level trends break during the GSM. We also need to reexamine our global sea level data to make sure it properly take into account isostatic rebound. The data may have a bias due to the fact that people live in mostly tropical / mid latitude locations. Perhaps even though the rising areas are roughly 30%, compared to 70% sinking (roughly), the amplitude of the change seems much higher in the polar regions to offset that fact. I’m assuming they did their job, but I haven’t investigated it personally to know for sure. I do know that sea level in New York has been dropping for about 9 years now, and eyeballing the NOAA tides & currents map, that seems like it could be roughly the axle of rotation for the north American continent. That said, I can not make any assumptions about the cause. It could also be related to us coming off the centennial lows of the late 1800s and going into the highest solar output of the last 400 years. There could also be other sub surface processes going on giving us the sea level trend. In any case, the linear trends keep me away from pinning this on Co2, since that is not increasing at a linear rate.

  55. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell wrote –

    “Then why is the average surface temperature of the Earth greater than the average surface temperature of the Moon?”

    Although this is an obvious gotcha (I don’t believe DA is quite so stupid as not to know the answer), others might not realise that the answer is at once both simple and complex.

    The main reason is that the Moon cooled faster than the Earth due to its greater surface to volume ratio. According to NASA, the Moon’s inner and outer core are only about 330 km in radius, compared to the total radius of about 1737 km. The Earth’s figures show far slower cooling.

    So once again, using averages is a pointless waste of time – like comparing apples and oranges.

    Pseudoscientific climate cultists love meaningless averages. Then they can demand answers to totally irrelevant and pointless gotchas, thinking it makes them look smart. My opinion, of course. Others may think as they wish.

    Cheers.

  56. gbaikie says:

    Try again:

    “First of all, we need to be clear what we mean by continuous acceleration at 1g. The acceleration of the rocket must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference travelling at the same instantaneous speed as the rocket (see the FAQ article on accelerating clocks), because this is the acceleration that its occupants would physically feel—and we want them to accelerate at a comfortable rate that has the effect of mimicking their weight on Earth.”
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html

    A comfortable rate does not mean much when your time is slowed down.
    So try it with higher gees.

    Let’s do the star trek of speeding to the Sun.
    You can’t do this with hohmann transfers, but we going use Nuclear Orion, and we aren’t doing hohmanns.
    Let’s start at Jupiter L-2. Not sure of it’s distance. Here:
    https://tinyurl.com/yyyy5kvu

    51,879,339 km from Jupiter L-2 to Jupiter.
    So point the Orion spacecraft at Jupiter and you will also to pointing towards the sun. Accelerate at 1 gee for 1 day, and that is:
    For 24 hours:
    “86,400 times 9.8 m/s = 846,720 m/s or 846.72 km/sec
    and distance traveled is: 36,578,304 km
    Making you still 15,301,035 km from Jupiter.
    Stop accelerating in terms of rocket power, but you are accelerating due to Jupiter and the sun’s gravity.
    So aim craft so you will not enter any atmosphere- an atmosphere wcan vaporize you at this speed, and you don’t want to slow down
    from any atmospheric drag.
    So how long does it take you get past Jupiter?
    15,301,035 / 847 km/sec is 18,064.97 seconds or about 5 hours.
    So you gain velocity over the 5 hours, and you will lose velocity, climbing out of Jupiter’s gravity well, but if accelerate after passing point where gaining stops, you will lose less if leave Jupiter faster. But also another factor to consider is you have oberth effect:
    https://tinyurl.com/oqnt3mf
    “The gain in efficiency is explained by the Oberth effect, wherein the use of an engine at higher speeds generates greater mechanical energy than use at lower speeds. In practical terms, this means that the most energy-efficient method for a spacecraft to burn its engine is at the lowest possible orbital periapsis, when its orbital velocity (and so, its kinetic energy) is greatest.”
    So want burn [or explode small nuclear bombs] during the time going the fastest as compared after leaving the gravity well.

    Let’s see, diameter of Jupiter is:
    Equatorial radius (1 bar level) (km) 71,492
    make 90000, so diameter of 180,000 km
    Time involved 180,000 / 850 km/sec is 211.7 seconds
    So say 1200 seconds [20 min] of acceleration with rocket power, start when nearest edge of planet is perpendicular to you flight path, and want 5 gees- or round number 50 m/s/s.
    This is not particular uncomfortable, because you can be on a couch for 20 mins.
    So 1200 times 50 m/s/s is 60,000 m/s or added 60 km/sec.
    So you have spent more time gaining velocity gravity and time losing velocity from Jupiter gravity. Plus the sun’s gravity is added. Not sure how much. But we added 50 to the 850 km/sec and going to toward the sun at +900 Km/sec.
    At Jupiter sun’s escape velocity is 18.5 km/sec
    At Earth distance it is 42.1 km/sec
    42.1 – 18.5 = 23.6 km/sec
    It seems by time you cross Earth orbital distance one should gain
    23.6 km/sec
    How long does it take to get to Earth distance from Jupiter distance?

    • Dr Myki says:

      Amateur hour: I love how you sometimes quote numbers to 8 significant digits and then suddenly resort to only 1 or 2.

      • gbaikie says:

        Don’t you see how fantastical fair I am being- I giving someone a opportunity to provide more correct answers.

        If you going to a star, is there better place to start than from Jupiter L-2 ?
        Maybe Saturn L-2 is better.
        Maybe Mercury is better.
        Maybe, high Earth orbit is better.
        Maybe I am wrong that you could go from Jupiter L-2 directly to the Sun.
        What is known is heading directly towards the Sun, is a hard thing to do. Currently we have space probe doing this right now, it’s the Parker Solar Probe:
        http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
        It went twice near the sun, and going for another pass, by using gravity assist will get closer to the Sun in coming year.

        Not sure a star ship, should get as close the sun as the Parker Solar Probe is getting or will get to the sun.
        But the way we do it, is by losing orbital velocity- from Earth can’t just fly towards the sun {or we can’t do it currently- if we had a nuclear Orion rocket, then one should be able to do it, but I thought that from Jupiter it would a better place.}

        Now, I should mention I didn’t get to what consider “my point”.
        I was wondering why keep your acceleration at comfortable 1 gee acceleration, if going to the stars. People can live under 2 gees and people can withstand 5 or more gees, particular if it’s a short time period. And when going near light speed, your time period is made shorter.

        Another point is a robotic mission could withstand say 10 gees fairly easily and “forever”. And first mission to stars will probably be robotic.
        But I should mention our first mission to star is not going to what anything soon- probably possible within say +50 years.

  57. Entropic man says:

    This is why Trump is placing racism games.

    He is trying to distract his voter base from the rapid decline in the coal industry.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2019/01/16/why-theres-no-bringing-coal-back/

    • JDHuffman says:

      E-man, have you had time to find that “strong experimental evidence” for the GHE and AGW, yet?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”This is why Trump is placing racism games.

      He is trying to distract his voter base from the rapid decline in the coal industry”.

      I am a socialist and I support him 100% on his stance. There are illegal immigrants in the US who have arrived en masse. Some of them have committed egregious crimes, one of them repeatedly raping a woman confined to a wheelchair.

      No one has any business illegally crossing a country’s borders. If we tried it from Canada, we’d be immediately arrested and deported. If we persisted we’d be in a US prison for a long time.

      This is reverse discrimination.

      The reasoning is obvious. We in Canada would not work for dirt wages and conditions. Some US entrepreneurs want illegal immigrants because they will work for very low wages with no protection. I regard such entrepreneurs as traitors to their country who are putting legitimate US citizen’s out of work.

      Guess who is supporting illegal immigration…the Democrats, especially those from Third World countries?

  58. gallopingcamel says:

    Dr. Roy made some good points relating to living on the Moon.

    Too bad that things have drifted “Off Topic” into issues that have been discussed many many times before.

    Why are we not discussing where to find the most accessible water on the Moon?

    • Bindidon says:

      gallopingcamel

      1. “Too bad that things have drifted ‘Off Topic’ into issues that have been discussed many many times before.”

      This is something you will have to live with on this blog. What you didn’t observe is that the discussion moves to a new point (a correct interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton’s wordings concerning Moon’s rotation about its axis).

      This is more a discussion about what different people view as true or not.

      2. “Why are we not discussing where to find the most accessible water on the Moon?”

      If it was an intersting matter for the majority of the commenters, not only you and gbaikie would write about it., most people would.

      As you can see, it isn’t at all the case.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      To be fair, it’s considerably less “off topic” than all the other times it’s been brought up.

      • Bindidon says:

        Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team

        I agree 100% with you.

        Btw: soory for the ‘altar boy’ but you are yourself the origin of this somewhat derogatory term.

        It has to do with your endless repetitions of the ridiculous ‘xxx, please stop trolling”.

        If there are people trolling not even half a bit less than all those you so ‘impartially’ selected, then these are your ‘friends’ Huffman, Robertson and Flynn.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          OK, apology accepted. I will not call you names or insult you if you do the same.

          • Bindidon says:

            DREMT

            I take the opportunity for a reply to a comment of yours

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365142

            in which you correctly start referring to Sir Isaac

            [35] While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, …

            but surprisingly omit

            (1) … in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes

            AND above all

            (2) … but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.

            *
            Similarly, you correctly cite him again

            [36] In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in respect to the fixed stars, …

            but one more time omit the text immediately succeeding

            viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit;

            These omissions considerably weaken Sir Isaac’s perceptible intention to show the parallelity of
            – the planets wrt the Sun
            – the Moon vs. Earth.

            *
            And somewhat strange for me is that Sir Isaac’s following sentences in [36] still remain systematically ignored in the thread:

            – (1) … upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly…

            and

            – (2) … and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude

            *
            I don’t understand. Like James in ‘Dinner for one’, I’ll do my very best suspect any bad intent here.

            *
            Last not least, I read somewhere that gbaikie had some idea explaining Moon’s libration in latitude.

            Please read Sir Isaac again:

            … but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the moon’s inclination on its axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars, nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.

            Again this wonderful, amazing seek for a parallel.

            *
            Maybe this is a consequence of the transition from the geocentric model of the Universe, where all motions must be explained differently, to a heliocentric model, where more and more motions experience a uniform, synthetic explanation?

            Somewhat roughly spoken: who needs gbaikie’s thoughts when there is a genius like Newton at hand?

            *
            DREMT, it is not my role to convince you: to get convinced must arise from within our own innermost. I just want you to be as honest as I try to be in this comment.

          • Bindidon says:

            Oops!

            “Ill do my very best not to suspect any bad intent here.”

          • JDHuffman says:

            Bindidon, how much time did you waste assembling this unorganized pile of out-of-context quotes, interrupted by your opinionated incomprehensible ramblings?

            Ever heard of Occam’s razor?

            You’ve got endless piles of such garbage. But the simple racehorse explains the physics quite well.

            Nothing new.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes Bindidon, I did notice that in 35, Newton makes the point of referring to the local axes, that the planets rotate about, as “their proper axes”, but does not make that clear distinction when discussing the moon, in 36.

            I noticed that he observed the moon’s “day” (“diurnal motion”) as being as long as the time it takes to complete an orbit about the Earth. No arguments there.

            I noticed that he observed that the same face of the moon always turns towards the center of the orbit, as it would if it were rotating about a “centre point”, but not on its own axis.

            And I noticed his observations about the librations of latitude, which I discussed here:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365193

            Did you have a point?

          • Bindidon says:

            DREMT

            “Did you have a point?”

            Oh yes, though in your eyes possibly irrelevant, but not in mine.

            *
            “I did notice that in 35, Newton makes the point of referring to the local axes, that the planets rotate about, as their proper axes, but does not make that clear distinction when discussing the moon, in 36.”

            Sorry, but I allow me to insist:

            “[35] in the meantime they make their several rotations about THEIR PROPER AXES

            vs.

            “[36] In like manner is the moon revolved about ITS axis”

            What is, in your opinion, the difference between the two expressions?

            Is, for you, ‘its axis’ something different than ‘its proper axis’ ?

            In French as in German, the two are absolutely identical and interchangeable.

            “son axe” and “son propre axe”, as well “seine Achse” and “seine eigene Achse” are identical, because ‘propre’ and ‘eigene’ are semantically already contained in ‘son’ resp. ‘seine’.

            Is in the English language the term ‘proper’ here not redundant as in French or German?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, I’d say “proper” in English would indicate a difference when using it, as opposed to not.

            I was, personally, also noting the similarity in the expressions “While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres…” and “in like manner is the moon revolved about its axis”.

            It’s the concept of “being revolved about” something that makes the connection in my mind that he is referring to an object being spun around a central point, or axis, rather than on its own axis.

            But we can each find different ways of reading things. I don’t think over-analysis of somebody’s words, no matter how important he may be, is going to resolve this issue, personally, so I think it’s a bit of a waste of time.

          • Bindidon says:

            If you don’t know this book yet, you will love it:

            https://tinyurl.com/y559armb

            It is a perfect fit to your opinion.

            Oops! 2:08 AM… Time to shutdown.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Thanks. That might help some people understand.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          @Bindidon,
          Wow! I did not see that coming!

    • gbaikie says:

      What interesting is, what going to the Moon will do in terms of benefiting people living on Earth.
      The adventure would be important, and probably least of it, would the fun for Americans. Or the global involvement of the adventure is the most important.

      • Bindidon says:

        I think most important would be to try to solve the problems we have on our actual planet.

        Spending quadrillions of US$ for all this stuff – manifestly fascinating you – will have exactly one consequence: less money for the rest.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Bindidon says:
          July 17, 2019 at 3:22 PM
          I think most important would be to try to solve the problems we have on our actual planet.”

          What problems have been solved in last couple decades which are example of the type problems you want to try solve in the future?

          I would imagine, granting 150 billion dollars to Iran, would not be an example, that you would give.
          Perhaps, the global fund?
          Or are thinking about something else?

        • Ken says:

          One of the benefits of research is resulting technologies. War and Exploration have both presented demands on science to produce technologies from which we all benefit. Example is clock that allowed mariners to determine longitude.

          The Apollo Space program resulted in research on multiple fronts. Lighter materials, micro computers, advanced medicine and monitoring … the list is long.

          So spending quadrillions on space program is actually a wealth generator … unlike ‘solving’ problems we have on earth and will always have.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      cam…”Why are we not discussing where to find the most accessible water on the Moon?”

      In this day of scientific ego and arrogance, scientists are reluctant to say, “I don’t know”. No one knows if the Moon has water let alone where to find it.

      Roy stated in his article that the Moon rotates every 28 days. We are disputing that. I realize this has carried on from previous posts but it’s really an example of the inability of alarmists to think clearly about physics.

      I am excluding Roy from that debate. He is not an alarmist and this on-going debate has nothing to do with him. Roy has taken a stance on it, however, in this article, and I would like to hear his reasoning.

      Those who support the observation that the Moon cannot possibly turn around a local axis have provided sound evidence to support their position. The alarmists have ridiculed the arguments rather than respond with sound physics. They do the same with their pseudo-scienfic arguments in support of AGW.

      I have laid out a model using coins to defend my position. Not one alarmist has responded with a scientifically-based rebuttal, simply because they can’t.

      It’s the same with climate science in general. If the AGW and GHE models cannot be supported by science, without bending the laws of thermodynamics and physics, neither deserves to be offered as a theory.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        The Moon’s orbit is known with astonishing precision based on modern measurements so I don’t see why anyone would waste time arguing about something Isaac Newton wrote 350 years ago.

        While we don’t know whether water ice exists in LARGE quantities on the Moon we do have plenty of evidence that it exists at both poles in shaded areas that receive little or no sunshine. This supports Dr. Roy’s idea that lunar colonies need to be at the lunar poles.

        Here is a Wiki quote that relates:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

  59. Stephen P Anderson says:

    The Moon has to spin on its axis folks or we wouldn’t continue seeing the same aspect. One of God’s hilarious jokes. He wanted us to see his face all the time I guess.

    • JDHuffman says:

      We only see one side of the Moon because it is NOT rotating on its axis. It’s the same motion as a racehorse. It’s not that hard to comprehend, unless people fear reality.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      stephen…”The Moon has to spin on its axis folks or we wouldnt continue seeing the same aspect”.

      You are confusing orbital mechanics with local rotation.

      Presuming a circular orbit for the Moon, all particles on the Moon must revolve in concentric circles around the earth’s centre.

      That’s obvious. If the near side is always facing us, it means every particle on the near side face is moving in a circle around the Earth’s centre. Furthermore, it means every particle behind the face must also be turning in concentric circles.

      The Moon’s axis is on one of those concentric circles and every particle along a radial line from the Moon’s axis to the Earth is moving in concentric circles.

      It is not possible for all particles on the Moon on a radial line, including the axis, to move in concentric circles around the Earth and rotate about the Moon’s axis at the same time.

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        GR,
        If we were standing on the Sun watching the Moon orbit around the Earth then when it is between us and the Earth one side is facing us and when it is on the other side of the Earth the other side is facing us. In order for it to do this it has to rotate around a central axis. If it wasn’t rotating around a central axis but stationary then from the Sun the same side would be facing us all the time and on the Earth we’d see different aspects of the Moon every day.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Stephen, you are still not understanding orbital motion. Use the racehorse as a model. The horse APPEARS to be rotating on its axis, if viewed from outside the track. But, it is not really “rotating on its axis”, it is changing direction (orbiting).

          Use the orange/string, if you’re still confused.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Poor JustDumb Huffman. A race horse “turns” in order to not run off the track. If the horse didn’t rotate on its own axis, the poor horse, like JD, would always be a loser.

            Synonyms for turn: rotate, spin.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            HGS, please stop trolling.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            An orange attached to a string that rotates once on its own axis per 1 orbit will not cause the string to wind up around the orange. If the orange rotates less than 1 time per period of orbit, the string will wind around the orange. If the orange rotates greater than one time per period of orbit, the string will also wind around the orange. If the orange stops rotating on its own axis completely per 1 period of orbit (i.e. curvilinear translation}, the string will again wind around the orange.

            Poor JD. Always behind the curve (pun intended)

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Synonyms for loser: dud, failure, JD, flop, has-been, Dr Em T, disadvantaged, down-and-outer, Gordon.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            HGS, please stop trolling.

    • Bindidon says:

      Stephen P Anderson

      I’m glad to see that exceptionally we share a view. Rien n’est impossible!

      Here is what one of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote about Moon’s rotation about its axis:

      Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World

      p. 579-580

      https://tinyurl.com/yxktpqd8

      Please read § [35] and § [36], and note the parallels between
      – the planets wrt the Sun
      vs.
      – the Moon wrt Earth.

      Amazing…

      Don’t wonder about comments soon attached by one or more members of this blog’s HyperScience trio!

    • Bindidon says:

      Stephen P Anderson

      I’m glad to see that exceptionally we share a view. Rien n’est impossible!

      Here is what one of the greatest scientists of the last 500 years, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote about Moon’s rotation about its axis:

      Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Princples of Natural Philosophy and His System of The World

      p. 579-580

      https://tinyurl.com/yxktpqd8

      Please read paragraphs [35] and [36], and note the parallels between
      – the planets wrt the Sun
      vs.
      – the Moon wrt Earth.

      Amazing…

      Don’t wonder about comments soon attached by one or more members of this blog’s HyperScience trio!

      And don’t forget to ‘learn some physics’.

    • Bindidon says:

      Stephen P Anderson

      As expected, Google Books picked page 580 off, but luckily I typed the text by hand in (you can’t copy and paste there).

      *

      [35] While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the meantime they make their several rotations about their proper axes: the sun in 26 days; Jupiter in 9h.56m.; Mars in 24 2/3h.; Venus in 23h.; and that in planes not much inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and according to the orders of the signs, as astronomers determine from the spots of maculae that by turns present themselves to our sight in their bodies; and there is a like revolution of our earth performed in 24h.; and those motions are neither accelerated nor retarded by the actions of the centripetal forces, as appears by Cor. XXII, Prop. LXVI, Book I; and therefore of all others they are the most uniform and most fit for the measurement of time; but those revolutions are to be reckoned uniform not from their return to the sun, but to some fixed star; for as the position of the planets to the sun is non-uniformly varied, the revolutions of those planets from sun are rendered non-uniform.

      [36] In like manner is the moon revolved about its axis by a motion most uniform in restpect to the fixed stars, viz., in 27 d.7 h.43 m., that is, in the space of a sidereal month; so that its diurnal motion is equal to the mean motion of the moon in its orbit; upon this account the same face of the moon always turns towards the centre about which this mean motion is performed, that is, the exterior focus of the moon’s orbit, nearly; and hence arises a deflection of the moon’s face from the earth, sometimes toward the east, and other times toward the west, according to the position of the focus toward which it is turned; and this deflection is equal to the equation of the moon’s orbit, or to the difference between its mean and true motions; and this is the moon’s libration in longitude; but it is likewise affected with a libration in latitude arising from the moon’s inclination on its axis to the plane of the orbit in which the moon is revolved about the earth; for that axis retains the same position to the fixed stars, nearly, and hence the poles present themselves to our view by turns, as we may understand from the example of the motion of the earth, whose poles, by reason of the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic, are by turns illuminated by the sun.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        In any case, if we could contact the dead and ask Newton to specifically state whether he agrees the moon rotates on its own axis, or not, I don’t think that the answer he would give = QED, as you apparently do.

        We apparently have different ideas on what QED means.

        It just seems like a bit of an excuse for a massive diversion from talking about the issue logically to appealing to authority. If you like authority, what’s wrong with Tesla?

      • Nate says:

        ‘ a massive diversion from talking about the issue logically to appealing to authority’

        Hilarious. From the guy who endlessly quoted and re-quoted Nikola Tesla on the subject.

        On planetary motion, Id go with Newton.

  60. Bindidon says:

    Scott R

    Here are some replies to your charts and ideas.

    “Chart #1 The UAH data is directly tied to the El Nino cycle. There is no other climate forcer more important than this.”

    1. The Nino3+4 area (5N-5S, 170W-120W) ist not the best sentinel for ENSO events. You need to add at least the atmospheric pressure delta between Darwin and Tahiti to have it complete:

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    2. Nice to show us Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991 with a little peak in UAH’s record, but imho it would be more appropriate to show UAH’s subsequent even deeper and much longer drop, as big eruptions cause the lower stratosphere to warm and the lower troposphere to cool:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_ecu50TZYPYfr57XIWZ_rcu9p2trm2hy/view

    And then you would see that El Chichon’s eruption, though weaker than Pinatubo’s, nevertheless managed to eliminate in UAH LT nearly all traces of the most powerful El Nino of the last 150 years, the 1982/83 edition.

    *
    “Chart #2 170 years of Global ocean data (HADSST3) shows us that despite having a 100 year uptrend, it is quite possible that there is a pivot at 0 deg on this chart”

    Nothing is impossible, indeed.

    Did you ever produce a graph showing a percentile-based comparison of TSI (or SSN) with
    – ocean heat contents
    – ocean surface temperature
    – land surface temperature?

    *
    “Chart #3 For some reason, Antarctica hasnt warmed at all. Both the UAH data, and the HADSST3 southern ocean data show no long term trend”

    Why should Antarctica warm? To take it as a scale is the same mistake as if you had chosen the Arctic, for the inverse reason.

    “The one place we have no heat islands has 0 man made global warming.”

    The one place? How do you know that? Do you know all 35575 GHCN daily stations having ever dealt with temperature since measurement begin?

    But sorry, Scott: you average chart is as wrong as possible.

    You show 2 charts with the same window height, but with anomalies having completely different ranges. Only an experienced observer sees that despite looking like a terrible decline, the average’s linear trend indicated in the chart is nearly equal to that of the original data (about -0.09 C / decade).

    Correct would be either this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QYHHhwzscRu3eNl4X5BjsllpEpUXgDXS/view

    or this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtnZJ2kh3i6QQmkXZfk2IiWMEyg5sg0f/view

    *
    “Chart #5 With it being known El nino has an 11 year period, 3.6 year harmonic, and a 2.2 year harmonic, it is clear that 2016 was the down beat. Weve had our 2.2 year harmonic, and now the 3.6 year harmonic is close to ending. La Nina conditions are already present in region 1, 2. Course we will have to wait for the official 3 month average for region 3.4. Here is my prediction for the next 4 years.”

    My answer to your, with all respect, ‘coolista alarmism’ you know already:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNxySq1EfCOl4t9-l4MIpoFdAQZEQ0OG/view

    None of us has the tiniest idea of how it will look like in 12 months.

  61. Look at an splendid gain prize in behalf of you. drroyspencer.com
    http://bit.ly/2NJw1i1

  62. Gordon Robertson says:

    stupid…”Gordon squeals: So, if you were standing on the side facing the Earth, and throughout the orbit you are always facing the Earth, how would you complete your 360 degree rotation about the Moons axis?!

    You stand still…”

    There’s a good reason for calling you stupid.

    If I am standing on the near side of the Moon facing the Earth, the entire Moon is turning in concentric circles with me.

    That includes the axis!!!

    Doh!!!

    The axis is turning in a larger circle than me. How the heck do I rotate around the axis when it is moving in a parallel circle to mine?

    Your reply has to rank with the most stupid ever presented on this blog.

    • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

      Gordon,
      You MORON. The moon is rotating on its own axis, therefore you stand still you complete and utter dumbass, because you are rotating along with it.

      You are the IDIOT that can’t even figure out what curvilinear translation is. So its expected you ask brainless questions that prove your incompetence.

      It’s just you 4 blithering idiots against the rest of science. It shows you never took an engineering course in your life. You just LIE.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Ever stopped to question why this makes you so angry?

        • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

          Yawn.

          Ever take a course in kinematics? That would be a no.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yawn.

            Ever understood why kinematic descriptions won’t resolve the issue despite having it explained to you in great detail dozens of times? That would be a no.

          • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

            Why would I listen to someone with a IQ of 50 try to explain a principle of physics to me? I would just pat their head, and say “that’s a nice boy”.

            That’s a nice boy.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m sorry for your argument loss.

  63. Gordon Robertson says:

    scott r…”I believe that during these La Nina cycles of the last 40 years, the cold Antarctic waters were building up, not being fully released”.

    Your point about ENSO cycles is interesting.

    With regard to Antarctica, it is ice built upon a solid land mass. In the Arctic, the ice is built on an ocean with two major ocean currents, the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift. In both summer and winter, the ocean currents and strong winds tend to move the ice into the North Atlantic, reducing the ice mass.

    Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.

    Having said that, the significant warming in the Arctic is limited to locales that move around month to month. That could be related to warm water and air being moved around by the North Atlantic currents and winds.

    • Dr Myki says:

      “Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.”
      Huh?
      Your reply has to rank with the most stupid ever presented on this blog.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DM,

        You wrote –

        “Huh?”

        Do you intend to follow it up with such gems as “Duh!”, “Wow, just wow”, or “Not even wrong!”?

        You go on to utter the following inanity –

        “Your reply has to rank with the most stupid ever presented on this blog.”

        Such as the one you just provided, I presume.

        I understand, if you are just trying to emulate GR. Maybe you could add some reasoning to dispute whatever it is you disagree with.

        If you are attempting to be patronising and dismissive, you might need a bit more practice. Why should anybody pay particular notice to your fact-free opinions? Appealing to your own authority is hardly likely to convince many of your supposed expertise.

        Cheers.

        • Dr Myki says:

          Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.
          Let’s unwrap your stupidity.
          Ice is cold, therefore it cannot be warmed !
          So, I guess, the Sahara is hot, therefore it cannot be cooled !
          The student/denialist is stupid, therefore he cannot learn. (maybe this statement is true)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DM,

            You wrote –

            “Ice is cold, therefore it cannot be warmed !”

            What a silly thing to say! As you say, ice is cold. Covering something with ice keeps it cold. Try heating the ice until it is not cold, and it ceases to be ice.

            I trust you are not one of those foolish GHE true believers who claims that you can use the IR radiation from ice to heat water?

            You go on to say –

            “So, I guess, the Sahara is hot, therefore it cannot be cooled !”

            You guess incorrectly. Why you make such a stupid guess is beyond me.

            Keep guessing if it keeps you happy. The future will tell whether your guesses were any good, but so far you are not doing too well at guessing the past, are you? Just like foolish “climate modellers” – cannot even successfully model the past!

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mickey…”Ice is cold, therefore it cannot be warmed !”

            D-u-u-uhhh!!!

            There is very little heat input to warm it. It’s even colder in the Antarctic than in the Arctic and both have little solar input through most of the year.

            Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, when asked if glaciers were melting on the mainland stated it is far too cold for glaciers to melt in Antarctica. He’s an AGW supporter.

            The Arctic is a different situation. It is subject to warmer water from both the north Atlantic and Pacific. Wind and oceans current can drive ice out of the Arctic and during the brief Arctic summer, ice breaks up and flows out of the Arctic. As it loses ice it warms.

            Ask Newfoundlanders about the icebergs in spring.

            The Antarctic has ice piled to a mean level of 2 km across the continent. The maximum thickness is 4.7 km. That’s a lot of ice and a lot of cold temperatures.

            The Antarctic loses hardly any ice in the brief summer. Ice is cold and it keeps the place cold. And CO2 has no effect whatsoever.

          • Dr Myki says:

            Let me repeat your statement:
            “Since Antarctica is covered in deep ice all year round, I would think that should explain why it has not warmed.” !!

            If anything, I would say that it is too cold in Antartica for any warming to cause significant melting. Only a fool would contend that the presence of ice somehow prevents warming!

            In any case, you are dead wrong again since:
            “The western side of the Antarctic Peninsula has been experiencing some of the fastest warming winters on the planet since observations began in the 1950s.”
            https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/11/antarctic-peninsula-western-map-warming-glaciers-penguins-krill/

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mickey…”If anything, I would say that it is too cold in Antartica for any warming to cause significant melting. Only a fool would contend that the presence of ice somehow prevents warming!”

            You’re not that obtuse are you Mickey? If there is insufficient heat from the Sun to warm an area covered in an average of 2 km of ice then definitely, the ice prevents warming.

            The ice sets the temperature in Antarctica…obviously.

            As far as part 2 of your reply, you are referring to an area on the Antarctic peninsula that is closer to the tip of South America than the centre of the mainland. The area is a thin piece of land in the middle of a vast ocean where ocean currents can set the temperature.

            That’s not the same as being surrounded by ice to a depth of 2 km.

            One thing we know for sure, it’s not a trace gas warming the Peninsula.

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    scott r… re Myki…”Why not provide constructive criticism? Pick one item you disagree with and explain yourself”.

    Because Myki, aka Mickey, as in Mickey Mouse, is not a real Doctor. Mickey is an alarmist troll who has nothing to contribute but smart-assed comments and ad homs.

    • Dr Myki says:

      “Mickey is an alarmist troll who has nothing to contribute but smart-assed comments and ad homs.”
      Flattery will get you nowhere.

    • Scott R says:

      Gordon Robertson in regards to Dr Mickey Mouse lol.

      I hope everyone here realizes that it is important to keep an open mind to opinions that differ from yourself. If you do not do that, you are passing on opportunities to learn and grow, and we become just as bad as the blog trolls. By taking in the data that might disagree with your opinion and giving it the study it deserves, you either come out of it with a stronger foundation for your opinion, or, a modified opinion. There is no downside. That is what SHOULD separate a science based blog from political blogs although follow Neil Degrasse Tyson and you will find yourself outnumbered 10:1 by AGW alarmists that use no other technic other than site the lame 97% of scientists agree crap. Anyways, I’m not doing this for the satisfaction of being right, or for political reasons. I’m genuinely concerned about the GSM and understanding the climate is critical for all of us.

      • Dr Myki says:

        “I hope everyone here realizes that it is important to keep an open mind to opinions that differ from yourself.”

        “…AGW alarmists that use no other technic other than site the lame 97% of scientists agree crap.”

        Is that what you call keeping an open mind?
        A bit hypocritical perhaps?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Ian, please stop trolling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        scott r…”I hope everyone here realizes that it is important to keep an open mind to opinions that differ from yourself”.

        Agreed.

        Since Mickey showed up, all he/she has done is take shots at skeptics via ad homs and sarcasm. Mickey offers little in the way of discussion.

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    eben…”Is called angular momentum either you have some or you have none, its just basic fizzix,
    If you claim moon has no angular momentum you are scientifically retarded”.

    The Moon has no angular momentum it has only linear momentum. The Moon want’s to move in a straight line with linear momentum and it is drawn incrementally into an orbit by the Earth’s gravitational field.

    Angular momentum applies to a body rotating about an axis, like the Earth. A person standing on the Earth at a certain latitude has angular momentum.

    If you are standing on the Moon facing the Earth, you would have no angular momentum, otherwise you’d gradually turn away from the Earth and end up on the dark side of the Moon.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      btw…the reason it is called ‘angular’ momentum is its relation to the change of an angle experienced by a mass as it rotates about an axis.

      Linear momentum is expressed as the mass of a body times its velocity. Angular momentum is the mass of a body times its angular velocity. Angular velocity is the angular change wrt time of a radial line connecting a mass to an axis.

      There is no angular velocity of a radial line from the Moon’s axis to a point on it’s face. With a radial line from the Moon’s axis to a point on the near face, both the axis and the point on the face are moving in Earth orbit in concentric circles at the same angular velocity wrt to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.

      There is no way a point on the near face can rotate about the Moon’s axis.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Gordon, it’s also possible to speak of the Moon’s angular momentum “relative” to its orbit. That is L = mrv = mωr^2.

        But, your “linear” momentum is actually a better description. If gravity were suddenly turned off, the Moon would travel in a straight line with the same momentum = mv.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          JD…”Gordon, it’s also possible to speak of the Moon’s angular momentum “relative” to its orbit. That is L = mrv = mωr^2″.

          Yeah, I can see that. Good point. The reality is that the Moon is in orbit and you could look at its orbital rotation about the Earth, as if it’s on a rope, as angular momentum.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            part 2…

            Certainly, if you swing a bucket of water around your head on a rope, the bucket has angular momentum but no local angular momentum. If it did, the water would run out.

            The water r.e.m.ains in the bucket because the water has linear momentum and wants to travel in a straight line. The bottom and sides of the bucket pull it into orbit via the rope.

            We both know there is no local angular momentum on the Moon about its axis.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Exactly, Gordon.

            Angular momentum confuses many. But your in-depth understanding of the relevant physics puts you far ahead of the typist-clowns that attempt to insult you.

            Nothing new…☺

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            JD…”your in-depth understanding of the relevant physics puts you far ahead of the typist-clowns that attempt to insult you”.

            My understanding of physics merely scratches the surface. I consider myself fortunate to have gone through the amount of physics and math thrown at us in first year engineering.

            It amazes me that the alarmists cannot even rebut such a superficial understanding. Makes me wonder what AGW is actually based upon.

      • nurse ratchet says:

        Gordon ! I think you may be right for once! Well done.
        Think of an olympic hammer thrower. While he is rotating on the plate the hammer always faces him/her but appears to rotate according to the audience watching. As soon as he/she lets go, the hammer travels in a straight line and does not rotate. Just like the Earth and moon. Suddenly remove the Earth and the moon would behave like the hammer.
        Problem solved. Now let’s move on children.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nurse…”Think of an olympic hammer thrower. While he is rotating on the plate the hammer always faces him/her but appears to rotate according to the audience watching. As soon as he/she lets go, the hammer travels in a straight line and does not rotate”

          I posted a video a while back showing what you’re talking about. As the handle and chain leave the throwers hands, you can see the ball going straight. However, as he releases it, the chain and handle are pointing slightly toward him and the ball drags the chain and handle forward. As the ball moves forward, the chain swings in behind the ball but its momentum carries it slightly past the ball’s path. As it does, the chain turns the ball slightly.

          If it was possible to release the chain from the ball just after release, the ball would run straight without rotating.

  66. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”Because Newton did no calculation but sythesised the ideas of many others. The calculations were made later”.

    Now you are becoming a blithering idiot. Newton developed calculus based on the geometry of Descartes. He did all his own math, being so good at math that he was eventually put in charge of the Royal Mint.

    Your angle is likely that Leibniz had a hand in the development of calculus as well, offering the differential ‘d’ in d/dt. It was actually Newton who developed calculus but the powers that be in the world of political-correctness are working overtime trying to discredit the real inventors of scientific principles and associating them with wannabees.

    Newton ‘revealed’ his calculus in 1665 when Leibniz was about 10 years old. He’s concealed it for some time. It has been claimed that Leibniz stole the ideas of Newton which has a likelihood since Newton predates Lebniz significantly.

    It was Newton who explained Kepler’s orbital math by gravitational force. Kepler was essentially a mathematician who relied on the data of astronomer Tycho Brae. He managed to compile the raw data into sensible data using mathematical relationships. He was no physicist.

    Newton was in another class altogether, as a mathematician and physicist.

    • Bindidon says:

      Robertson

      “Now you are becoming a blithering idiot.”

      As usual: you insult people because you are too superficial and busy with your own thoughts to correctly understand what other people write.

      The sentence you referred to you reproduce out of the context of a long series of comments, Robertson. You very probably din’t read even one of them.

      What I wrote with ‘Newton did no calculation’ was OF COURSE restricted to the equation of the Moon’s center.

      I agree: if I had written ‘no calculation in this context’, I would have avoided the problem anyway.

      *
      Sir Isaac did greatest work in numerous directions during decades, but it is definitely known that he no longer wanted, in his late phase, to attack the problem of the equation of Moon’s center.

      This was indeed done by Lagrange and Laplace, wether you like it or not.

      Laplace furthermore was the guy who continued Sir Isaac’s great work on tide calculations.

      According to Sir Isaac’s calculations, tides would not have exceeded one meter anywhere on Earth.

      But Laplace’s dynamic tide equations gave tide maxima up to 15 meters, what nicely corresponds to actually observed values.

      You are such a boring, ignorant boaster, Robertson!
      Jesus.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”What I wrote with Newton did no calculation was OF COURSE restricted to the equation of the Moons center.”

        You did not state that, did you? You made it appear as if Newton was a dummy who thought up ideas and had others figure it out.

  67. Gordon Robertson says:

    DREMT…”Exactly as I explained in this comment:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791

    From the inertial reference frame (fixed stars) you can state that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, but not on its own axis. If it was simultaneously rotating about both, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth”.

    Sorry, I missed your reply. I agree with what you are saying and I have no idea why the spinners don’t understand.

    I have pushed the definition of curvilinear motion in a circle although it is better to view the Moon as a body rotating about the Earth’s barycentre attached to a rigid member. It’s important to get it that the Moon is not free to turn on it’s own axis due to the Earth’s gravitational field holding the same lunar face toward it.

    Some physicists would frown on my use of extending curvilinear motion to cover a circle but I am only apply the definition as stated. I learned in engineering studies to view angular motion via tangential lines to a curve. Doing so allows curvilinear translation to be viewed as simply rectilinear translation in a curve as a series of tangential lines.

    The Moon’s orbit is essentially that, since the Moon’s momentum is linear. It’s gravitational force that forces the Moon into an elliptical orbit. Since the near face is tidally-locked to Earth’s gravity, the latter hold the Moon in a curvilinear path with all particles moving in concentric circles with the same angular velocity wrt to a radial line from Earth’s centre to the Moon’s axis.

    AFAIAC, the Moon’s orbit might as well be described as rectilinear translation with a complication. Let’s face it, orbital motion is unique. The orbiting body is not powered by a force as one might expect in rectilinear translation.

    It’s also amusing how the human brain wants to see what is not there. If you look at the gif with the Moon orbiting the Earth, with the same face always in, the mind wants to see the Moon rotating about it’s axis. A closer view, once it is known all particles on the Moon are moving in concentric circles, allows the mind to see that the Moon is orbiting while not rotating.

    • nurse ratchet says:

      Gordon, it is time for bed.
      Stop staring at the moon, it will still be there tomorrow.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “I agree with what you are saying and I have no idea why the spinners don’t understand.”

      Once people understand that from the inertial reference frame, you can still describe the moon’s motion as not involving rotation on its own axis, that ought to be the end of the argument for most people; since most newcomers to this argument and even some of the old hangers on (like Bart, or barry, for instance) will argue that from the inertial reference frame the moon is rotating on its own axis, and from a non-inertial reference frame it’s not. With that false understanding corrected, they ought to be forced to move on, but instead they just come back to it again and again.

      I think it’s why it’s one of the very first points Tesla made in his first paper on the moon’s rotation.

      • JDHuffman says:

        The Moon/rotation issue offers a perfect example of how some people cannot leave their false religion. The issue of AGW/GHE involves complicated physics. But, the Moon/rotation issue has easily understood examples, such as a racehorse, merry-go-round, Ferris wheel, orange on a string, etc. Regardless of such clear examples, they choose to reject reality.

        Nothing new.

      • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

        Yawn.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dremt….”will argue that from the inertial reference frame the moon is rotating on its own axis, and from a non-inertial reference frame its not”.

        What it comes down to is no matter the reference frame you must still apply the basics. If a body is not turning about its axis, it’s not turning in any reference frame. It has no local angular velocity or momentum, therefore it cannot turn locally, no matter the reference frame.

        I have no issue with the claim that the Moon APPEARS to be turning around its axis from a different reference frame but closer examination, and application of the basics, shows it is not.

        There is no evidence that the Moon is turning about its axis and the first clue should be that the same face is always toward the Earth. That threw me for a bit of a loop at first because I was taught that the Moon does exactly one rotation about its axis per Earth orbit.

        That’s when I began to notice the parallels between orbital motion and the definition of curvilinear translation. Then it made sense.

        When I tried to do it, using two coins, it immediately became apparent that local rotation was impossible with one lunar face tidally-locked to the Earth.

        • HuffmanGoneStupid says:

          Gordon squeals:

          “Thats when I began to notice the parallels between orbital motion and the definition of curvilinear translation. Then it made sense!”

          How can it make sense when you don’t even have the correct definition of curvilinear translation??

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It doesn’t matter that you don’t like Gordon’s definition of curvilinear translation. Because from the inertial reference frame, you can argue that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.

            And since you can do that, all arguments about reference frames, and definitions of curvilinear translation, etc, are rendered moot. Your entire method of attacking us, on this discussion, is rendered moot. Understand? You don’t have an argument left. So you can go on about people squealing, or shrieking, or blubbering, as much as you like. Be as angry as you want.

            You don’t have an argument left.

          • Ball4 says:

            ”Because from the inertial reference frame, you can argue that the moon is rotating about the Earth-moon barycenter, and not on its own axis.”

            No. That’s wrong by simple observation since the moon surface experiences night and day; the belt of Orion is not fixed in place as observed from the moon surface (just like on Earth).

            Thus the moon is not tidally locked to the fixed stars (the sun is a star) so the moon is rotating on its own axis turning day into night as the sun also rises and sets on the moon. Proof is watching the moon terminator sweep across the surface in your backyard telescope as the moon rotates on its own axis. The moon IS tidally locked to the Earth presenting only one face give or take a little libration.

            And once you come to understand that, all arguments about reference frames, and definitions of curvilinear translation, etc. are rendered moot. Your entire method of debating, on this discussion, is rendered moot. Understand? You don’t have an argument left. So, you can go on about people squealing, or shrieking, or blubbering, or trolling, as much as you like. Be as angry as you want.

            The belt is not fixed. You don’t have a defensible argument.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Mod