|
Post by gillianren on Nov 18, 2011 14:55:41 GMT -4
At times I am just a fool on the hill (don't ask). It may shock you to know that we are also familiar with the Beatles. Yeah, I have a question. Is there anything you are good at? You avoided English classes. You clearly avoided history classes, because you don't understand the Cold War dynamics of the Apollo era. You don't understand that one person's definition of where red ends and orange begins isn't necessarily the same as someone else's. You don't understand heat transfer at even a basic level. You don't know dirt, despite your claims there. You don't know that it is the responsibility of the person making a claim to defend it, not to get everyone else to prove them wrong. You appear to have fallen for the Electric Universe garbage, one of the most ludicrous "scientific theories" I know. You don't know how to respect the ability, education, and expertise of people who are experienced in a field; you don't even know how to acknowledge it. Given all that, what gives you the educational authority to doubt the Apollo record? I mean, what do you, personally, have expertise in that is contradicted? You keep bringing up that footprint, but you left everyone to guess exactly what your problem with it is. The reason we ask for your credentials is to determine what your level of expertise is so that we know how to frame our responses--and to know what we should assume you already know. The further we get into this discussion, the less you appear to know. You might want to stop digging.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 18, 2011 15:00:35 GMT -4
I don't have the information available to me because I am not at my home office computer. So you have in fact researched all the images of footprints to see if they have inclusions or not?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 15:07:09 GMT -4
sts60 Very impressive. But I have to say based on your demonstration, you don't know dirt. Evasion noted. Do you, or do you not, intend to support your claim that the Apollo footprints are at odds with reality? First, I didn't claim to "know dirt". You did. That is an assertion of expertise, and you have been repeatedly asked to support that assertion. You have assiduously avoided doing so, offering only the lame excuse that you would not be believed. You were told exactly how you could be believed, but you still refuse to back up your claim. The reason is obvious: you have no such expertise, and having shot off your mouth and been called on it, you are hoping we forget about. Sorry; that won't happen. Second, as Jay has already pointed out, it doesn't matter how much I know dirt; I showed you. My simple experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite of what you said should happen, and exactly what was observed in the Apollo images you derided. Third, an appeal to ridicule may work in political debates, but this is a science forum, and everyone sees you evading the challenge. You are free to demonstrate exactly what is wrong with my simple experiment, if you can. Otherwise you're just running away from your own mistakes again. (Hint: if you are going to say that the rocks placed on top of the compressed "dirt" layer should have disappeared completely after being stepped on, you should really try to explain how a rock can be hidden completely by a layer that is thinner than the height of the rock. There'd probably be a Fields Medal in it for you for that particular bit of topology.)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 18, 2011 15:15:57 GMT -4
Jason Thompson It would have been easier to base my findings on just one image. But the fact of the matter is if the only image available had been the one posted (HR preferred) it is enough to raise the questions about both issues. The question is raised only because you make assumptions that don't hold in some cases, and may or may not hold in other cases. Your argument fails to convince people because they don't share your assumptions and therefore ask you to prove them.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 18, 2011 15:17:48 GMT -4
sts60 you said it for me "...you should really try to explain how a rock can be hidden completely by a layer..." that's it exactly...how can a rock on the surface of the lunar soil, disappear completely if it is compressed by a boot? thank you for the assistance. He showed you how. Obviously you can't explain away his demonstration so you're being obtuse about it. Your underlying assumption has been refuted. Your argument fails. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 18, 2011 15:21:49 GMT -4
Funny, with the larger photo, I can see "inclusions" of a similar nature to the surrounding soil in the footprint.
No large rocks, of course, but there are very few of those in the photo around the footprint. And I suspect that if you want to take a picture of a clear footprint, you would (consciously or even unconsciously) choose to step in an area with the fewest large chunks of material.
If that's unclear, I'll spell it out. Aldrin chose NOT to step on any large rocks. There are not that many around, it would be easy not to step on one.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 15:25:34 GMT -4
concept came from the electrical universe non-sense i referred to earlier. i can't give you the links now, but if you will wait a few hours i would be more than happy to oblige
Don't bother. You can't rescue yourself by appealing to a crackpot theory about the nature of the Universe. Especially when that theory is irrelevant to what you're talking about. The incident under discussion happened in low Earth orbit, in a relatively well-characterized region.
and i am going to fly by my seat again, i am not a physicist.
Nor an engineer or geologist or historian or apparently possessing any expertise in any of the areas under discussion. That in itself is not a problem. The problem is you keep telling people who do know what they're talking about things which are patently absurd.
Why do you keep assuming you're right and everyone else is wrong, in the face of your admitted ignorance and egregious mistakes?
Why do you prefer to "fly by the seat of [your] pants" instead of actually paying attention to useful explanations?
there are areas around the earth with streams of protons and other areas around the earth with streams of electrons.
electrons, electricity. just made a leap of logic here,
Not really a leap of logic, but a complete failure to know what you're talking about. You're confusing the low Earth orbit region in which the Shuttle operates with the Van Allen belts, which are generally above Shuttle (and ISS) altitudes. The Van Allen belts have nothing to do with the TSS experiment.
but it was also based on a science guy saying that the tether was an experiment to tap this energy field,
Correct.
and proposed it was also an attempt to see if the field could be effected, drained or just punch a hole it it like the US attempted in the early 60's by detonating nuclear weapons in the atmosphere (this is not my assumption)
Completely wrong. The TSS had nothing to do with "draining" or "punching a hole in" the VABs.
principally to allow space travel, then again the radiation thing is so mysterious, its hard to know for sure who is telling the truth.
It is not hard for any of the physicists, engineers, satellite manufacturers and insurers, telecom operators, and so on. It's hard for you because you (a) have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and (b) so far have refused to learn.
although maybe you can tell me why the soviets sent a turtle to the moon?
Presumably to see what would happen to it before they sent a man there.
Ralph Rene seems to think that it was because the turtle has a high resistance to radiation, where in the world would you even find that data? who radiates turtles?
Ralph Rene, to put it gently, couldn't pour (wastewater) out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel. He knew (past tense; he's deceased) as little about the relevant science as you do.
Please avoid further handwaving and attempts to claim that everyone is as ignorant as you of the subject, and either support your claim or retract it.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 18, 2011 15:26:09 GMT -4
gillianren I kinda like the electric universe theory ( I guess I should say model not theory ) the comet being a big snow ball never made much sense to me. but then again i am not a space scientist. You see, that's the problem. Reality doesn't care what you like.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 18, 2011 15:26:46 GMT -4
1) it was suggested that Armstrong was not interested in star gazing, i posted information that disputes it Actually it was suggested he might have been more interested in the moon and the earth at that particular time. 2) that stars could not be seen because eyes were incapable of adjusting when the sun was present. I posted Mike Melvill’s comments to the contrary If you block enough light and allow your eyes to adjust you might be able to see a few of the brighter stars depending on how bright it is in view. And they do mention seeing stars in the mission transcript. if that is what you base your argument on, i can't argue it, other then to suggest in Apollo 13 movie, the astronauts seemed to have a great deal of spare time on their hands. I would suspect the Apollo 13 crew might have had more important things on their minds. And are you suggesting they were at no point able to see the stars? Question on all this: So what? Are you building up to some earth shattering point here? If so I do hope you try to get there at some point.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 15:29:35 GMT -4
sts60 you said it for me "...you should really try to explain how a rock can be hidden completely by a layer..." that's it exactly...how can a rock on the surface of the lunar soil, disappear completely if it is compressed by a boot? I showed you the exact mechanism. Please address the refutation of your claim; your continued evasions smack of intellectual cowardice.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 18, 2011 15:30:52 GMT -4
the comet being a big snow ball never made much sense to me. Direct observation by probes visiting comets has shown them to be big "snow balls".
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 18, 2011 15:31:52 GMT -4
gillianren Beattles? no, thats not it...good miss Since the phrase has its origins in a song by Paul McCartney, it's not a miss at all, and that you think it is shows yet another thing that you're ignorant of. I'm still waiting to be shown that you know anything.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 18, 2011 15:32:52 GMT -4
gillianren I kinda like the electric universe theory ( I guess I should say model not theory ) the comet being a big snow ball never made much sense to me. but then again i am not a space scientist. No, you're not, because anyone who thinks big balls o'electricity makes more sense doesn't even know what research has been done which conclusively proves that comets are big snowballs. What do you know?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 18, 2011 15:35:07 GMT -4
gillianren Beattles? no, thats not it...good miss Since the phrase has its origins in a song by Paul McCartney, it's not a miss at all, and that you think it is shows yet another thing that you're ignorant of. I'm still waiting to be shown that you know anything. Yep. Anything else that uses that line is very likely a reference to that song. If you think it comes from somewhere else, I would be interested in seeing what it was.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 18, 2011 15:37:47 GMT -4
...then again the radiation thing is so mysterious, its hard to know for sure who is telling the truth. Do you think the hoax authors with no relevant scientific training and books and videos to sell you are telling the truth? The Soviets sent a number of biological samples to lunar distances and back again, primarily for the same reason we and everyone else did: to determine the biological survivability of the space environment according to several factors, including but not limited to radiation. While we can theorize and model, often even just a few data points are ultimately more valuable. Ralph Rene knew nothing of value about radiation. He was a construction worker with no relevant training or experience.
|
|