Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism

HGL's F.B. writings: Quick Question on Geocentrism · Next Question on Geocentrism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Levi Joshua Pingleton Nearly Right · Baronius is NOT Galileo · Moon Landing, Not TOTALLY Proven, and Even If Completely True, No Proof Against Geocentrism

Moon Astronaut Reacts to Moon Landing Deniers
Jack Gordon | 18 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMU7XcCNXu8

You obviously respect Charlie Duke, an old man who seems fun and also kind. I respect that.

I happen to respect another old man. Bishop Williamson.

His most favourite argument about the Moon landing is (yes, he thinks it didn't happen) one you didn't deal with.

There is a van Allen Belt between Earth and Moon. It's highly radioactive. In his terms, "in order to survive the radiation, it would need so much lead that the takeoff couldn't happen" ... perhaps a bit naive.

In a slightly different term, I think the van Allen belt wasn't discovered yet, the rocket would have had inadequate insulation, how come the crew wasn't killed off by the van Allen Belt?

If you want to state "I don't know, it was a miracle" ... I am fine with that. But only state that if that's what you honestly feel.

For my own part, I have two other interests in the moon landing versus moon faking question.

A) It would have been easier to fake the Moonlanding than to fake the Resurrection. I have heard a stat on how many people were employed by NASA, but the only people needed to be in a conspiracy would be the ones who were supposed to be in the moonlanding plus a few more involved in being close to the rocket at takeoff and in picking up the crew after return to earth. The other hundreds of employees, perhaps more than half of the people who were selected in 1965, could have been left out. Everyone has a fairly nice life afterwards, unlike the Resurrection, there were no repercussions like martyrdom possible to envisage.

B) In my very early days as a Geocentric, back in 2001, I was pretty ready to ditch Newton and Einstein in favour of Aristotle. If so, a man on the Moon facing Earth should be starting to fall towards the Earth pretty instantly, which obviously didn't happen if the Moonlanding was true. No test on Earth is one hundred % guaranteing the Newtonian view that anything having mass can be "down" ... I have since then abandoned or at least set aside for the time this model, but even then one could have envisaged a universe in which God observed NASA obviously not knowing what they were doing and arranging for falling to work, just around the mission in the way foreseen by the theories, so the astronauts didn't get hurt (confer the solution I suggested you about the van Allen Belt).

C) (OK, that's three now), people have said that those on the Moonlanding have finally proven that Earth turns around its axis, because they saw it. But in Geocentric / Thomistic terms, the Moon isn't going around Earth every month, it's going around the Zodiac every month. It's going with the Zodiac and with some delay around Earth in 24 h 55 min or so. That's why we observe the Moon rising and setting each night around full Moon (the further away, the more the one or other comes into the day half of the nychthemeron). So, the astronauts seeing Earth turn around its axis is like people in a chopper going around a tower seeing the tower go around its axis. Or, in other words, like people in a train seeing trees move quickly, and houses move quickly.

It is the same possibility why the observations we do from Earth are not a 100 % proof without any possible doubt, that the visible universe turns around Earth each day. I prefer to mobilise the possibility against an observation very laboriously arranged over doing so with the observation God offers mankind (except blind people) for free every day. In other words, the possibility in itself constitutes no reasonable doubt that the Universe actually does turn around Earth, and the one mechanism to explain that would be divine fiat, therefore proving God, therefore saying St. Paul in Romans 1:19 f was speaking inter alia about days and nights, summer and winter.

SpottedSharks*

@SpottedSharks

van Allen belts were harmless at the speed Apollo was traveling.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@SpottedSharks The speed doesn't change the issue. Per se.

The time of exposure does.

How long were they in the van Allen's belt? Or van Allen belts, plural?

I did a calculation:

[added consideration]

384 400 km / 72 h = 1483 m/s

[from video]

"The inner Van Allen belt is located typically between 6000 and 12 000 km (1 - 2 Earth radii [RE]) above Earth's surface, although it dips much closer over the South Atlantic Ocean. The outer radiation belt covers altitudes of approximately 25 000 to 45 000 km (4 to 7 RE)."

[from Earth's plasmasphere and the Van Allen belts
https://sci.esa.int/web/cluster/-/52831-earth-plasmasphere-and-the-van-allen-belts]

12 000 - 6000 = 6000
45 000 - 25 000 = 20 000

26 000 km / 1483 m/s = 17532 sec = 292 min 12 sec = 4 h 52 min 12 sec

It was a bit slower because the rocket was going at diagonal, it was also a bit quicker because the initial speed was significantly higher than 1483 m/s.

So, they would have been spending sth like 2 and 1/2 hours in the two van Allen belts.

[added consideration]

Actually, this is just true for the Earth to Moon trip, the return trip spent longer time in the van Allen Belts, because they were going slower, I'll presume.

So, perhaps 2 h 30 min + possibly another 4 h 50 min? That would make 7 h and 20 min.

Matuse**

@Matuse

Richard Williamson, who was excommunicated from the church? Who has never studied engineering, science, math, or astronomy in his life? Who was convicted of holocaust denial in Germany? Wow. You're lost. Utterly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Matuse Thank you for the compliment.

I'm aware that he hasn't studied astronomy, that's probably why his views on Geocentrism are mostly influenced by a quote from "1984".

He's however not the only man who tried a case about the van Allen belt(s) and I tried to rephrase it in more technical terms.

Meanwhile, Spotted Sharks pretended the speed rendered them innocuous, I replaied it's more like the time spent in them that's relevant.

I got a total (forth and back journeys) of perhaps 7 hours.

Do you have anything to say on that, or shall I place you in the category of people who have never studied engineering, science, math, or astronomy in their lives?

SpottedSharks*

@hglundahl Time spent in the VAB is directly related to the speed Apollo traveled. Consider this statement from a scientist named James van Allen: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.

However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@SpottedSharks Oh, 15 minutes?

That's quick.

Note that the inward speed was slower.

I was not aware that one week was what was needed for a fatal dose, will have to check the milliSievert.

Thank you very much.

So, there is a discrepancy between what James van Allen said (presumably the namegiver of the belts, right?) and my calculation.

15 min + 2 h out, I got the outward journey to two and a half, not very different, inward, I considered half the speed, so landed on twice that inward, I suppose he could agree in that, but I was NOT at all aware that fatal dosage = 1 week of exposure. Which is obviously longer than the round trip, and much longer than the part going through the van Allen belts.

Thank you very much, a link would be appreciated, but I might do a search myself on the quote.

@SpottedSharks "James Van Allen’s Response to Doug Lambert"*** from c. 2004, which is the year of the next letter?

* I highly appreciate that Spotted Sharks is not an empty youtube channel, it's not just giving a presentation, but actually even offering videos. Old ones, but even so.

SpottedSharks
https://www.youtube.com/@SpottedSharks/videos

** Here is a channel highly focussed on online gaming a bit more recently than a decade ago:

Matuse
https://www.youtube.com/@Matuse/videos

*** James Van Allen and the Van Allen Radiation Belts : James Van Allen’s Response to Doug Lambert
https://flatearth.ws/james-van-allen#james_van_allens_response_to_doug_lambert

I do not totally recommend the site, they do have two pages against (mainly against) Geocentrism. Doesn't mean it's bad to access Van Allen's answer there, though.