|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 14, 2007 11:47:15 GMT -4
I am able to follow a section of dirt...
Prove it's the same dirt from frame to frame.
The trajectory is not parabolic.
Evidence? Computation? Or are you just so skilled you can identify parabolas perfectly by eye alone?
The only thing that would change the trajectory the way it is changed is hitting something head-on--something like atmosphere.
But since the atmosphere theory has been soundly disproven by other means, what's your next guess?
How many more of these questions do you intend to beg?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 14, 2007 12:22:29 GMT -4
Only as far as you're concerned. Anyway, the proof of an atmosphere in the video refutes it.
It's so clear that it can be discerned with the eye alone. I suppose that's why you're asking for mathematical proof.
Just watch it. It's clear.
All you have to do is look at it to see that it's not parabolic. There's no need to do precise calculations unless something isn't obvious.
I still think they could have removed any dust by sifting and washing sand. You're explanations of not being able to do that and that just moving the sand and driving on it would cause enough erosion to form enough dust to form clouds were laughable.
I guess I should just post stuff for the viewers to see and forget about you people. I know you're going to deny everything hell-or-high-water. I never hoped to make you admit anything. All I ever hoped to do was find an anomaly that was so clear that when you tried to explain it away, you'd look silly--this rover footage is it. You all look very silly trying to explain this away.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 14, 2007 12:31:42 GMT -4
So about that screenshot thingie... could you pull it off?
|
|
|
Post by rchappo on Jun 14, 2007 12:49:57 GMT -4
[. All I ever hoped to do was find an anomaly that was so clear that when you tried to explain it away, you'd look silly-- Keep looking...and look in a mirror.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 14, 2007 12:56:24 GMT -4
Only as far as you're concerned.
Denial noted. You can't address the proof except by mathematically-impossible Magic Sand, so the ball is still in your court.
Anyway, the proof of an atmosphere in the video refutes it.
Circular reasoning. Your proof requires Magic Sand to account for the missing evidence of atmosphere.
It's so clear that it can be discerned with the eye alone.
Begging the question. If it's so clear, then constructing the mathematical proof should be a piece of cake.
I suppose that's why you're asking for mathematical proof.
A parabola is a mathematical construct. Therefore whether something is a parabola or not is a matter of mathematical argumentation, not merely "Look at this and agree with me." I want to know what you did to conclude that the path in question was not parabolic. It's clear that all you did was to look at it casually, making your judgment subjective at best.
Since you are the one claiming the path is not parabolic, you have the burden to prove that its representation in the video does not fit the definition of a parabola, which definition is mathematical in nature. You do not get to say "It's not parabolic" without a mathematical argument.
Attendant to the mathematical argument is the need to identify exactly the portion of dust whose path is in question. That is also your burden of proof. No one is reasonably obliged to note your argument until those burdens are satisfied. To assert the conclusion otherwise is to beg the question.
Just watch it. It's clear.
Begging the question.
All you have to do is look at it to see that it's not parabolic.
Begging the question.
I still think they could have removed any dust by sifting and washing sand.
But you offer only vague, handwaving theories for how to accomplish this, and you refuse to test any of those theories yourself before requiring others to believe them. Those who have actually done what you refuse to do disagree with you that your "I think they could have" constitutes a valid depiction of reality.
Further, you have not answered the more serious question. It doesn't matter whether you can remove dust by sifting and washing, because the sifted and washed material that is impervious to aerosolization would also be impervious to sudden stoppage in air. You are trying to argue for magic sand that exhibits one property of air resistance, but not the others.
It's not just that it would be impossibly impractical to do what you say was done. It's that such a material is a mathematical impossibility because it is a contradiction. It's like saying a blue car that isn't blue.
You're explanations of not being able to do that and that just moving the sand and driving on it would cause enough erosion to form enough dust to form clouds were laughable.
No, it's a matter of personal experience that we have and you do not, and which you refuse to demonstrate either to us or to yourself. You're simply wishing into existence a hypothetical property of perpetual dustlessness that belongs to the ever-more-magical material you have to invent to make the evidence fit your theory.
You all look very silly trying to explain this away.
The spectators disagree.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 14, 2007 13:07:52 GMT -4
Only as far as you're concerned. Anyway, the proof of an atmosphere in the video refutes it. I still think they could have removed any dust by sifting and washing sand. You're explanations of not being able to do that and that just moving the sand and driving on it would cause enough erosion to form enough dust to form clouds were laughable These 2 require a little thought from you. OK let us suppose through what ever means that someone produced your super regulated sand, and that through partical inteaction of transporting and laying this sand it still produced no smaller particals. OK so we now have numerouse tonnes of this regulated graded sand in place. How is it that the Particles in the Sand only Experience Drag and Friction in 1 Dimension... you can not have One of these effects without the others., and "I don't believe that will happen" is hardly credible proof, and is even less credible given the strengths of you other Beliefs and your own admission that you do not understand the physics involved. I and many others have provided simple experiments to advise tests to view these problems, even a simple part of the answer, what do suppose the soil could be made of what is the approximate granule size, with these sort of figures I could even give you more mathmateical proof By Eyeballing my 1 ton rock flung from a trebuchet, could you tell me if it was parabolic or elongated or reduced, would you be able to determine the windstrength of a Tee shot if golf ball on TV. and determine ballistic variance from it. Tomorrow I will put up a series of curves let's see if you can eyeball the parabolas We have our proof it is the world around us. if there is one thing that is easy to do it is dust in atmosphere at stp at 1 g experiments. does the rest of that picture behave as if it was in a vacuum, or does that behave if it was in an atmosphere... (Jumps up and down...oooh oooh I know) Well you also still haven't answered the growing suspiscians that you are a gimped up CT ELIZA bot, and your answrs continue to add weight to this theory. try a Little independant research use our wicked science against us, show your physics teacher friend this thread then invite him to discuss them here, there is lots of other physics stuff a lot of us are interested in. egt him to help with drag equations or approximating the soil scenario (remember you magic dust has to do the tracks footprints, brightness refractive/reflective properties of actual lunar dust as well) awaits the (watch <vidlink> it's obvious and I believe I am right refute) =^..^= *Grabs a solution of high molar concentration of C 2H 6O and Juice squirted from an orange and settles in*
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 14, 2007 13:19:05 GMT -4
or as fast moving heavy particles don't spread out according to you, try the following
Equipment a long corridor, A Friend A shot gun (Sawn off so no choke), A target
Pin the target on the wall, you stand 25 cm from the target , your friend then shoots at the target from various distances down the length of the corridor Lets say 10m 15 25m, as there is no drag friction or variance in travel in an atmosphere to Z or Y vectors (So no spreading due to atmosphere) you should have nothing to worry about.
Do let us know how you get on, (remember good scientific theories should be reproduceable, I am sure most of us would be happy to test your findings)
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 14, 2007 13:25:14 GMT -4
You must be desparate if you say silly things like this. A large pebble would be almost imperivious to atmospheric drag and the trajectory would differ little from what it would be in a vacuum. Sand is a different matter. Sand would be very affected by atmosphere at the speed it is thrown up in the video.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 14, 2007 13:28:31 GMT -4
would you care to suggest reasons for the dimples on a golf ball then? and why an irregular pattern is better than a regular one?
Or for that matter as Large objects are impervious to effects, how a bloody big Fully Laden Antonov takes of Flies and needs to maintian constan thrust, if not affected by mere atmosphere
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 14, 2007 13:38:47 GMT -4
Sand would be very affected by atmosphere at the speed it is thrown up in the video.
...and therefore aerosolized as the result of such an effect.
You simply don't get it, do you? You're trying to argue that one manifestation of significant air resistance holds, while another manifestation of the same significant air resistance simultaneously does not hold for the same exact material.
You don't know why things happen, which is why nobody takes you seriously when you babble on about "common sense" and what is "obvious" to you.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 14, 2007 13:43:53 GMT -4
You must be desparate if you say silly things like this. A large pebble would be almost imperivious to atmospheric drag and the trajectory would differ little from what it would be in a vacuum. Sand is a different matter. Sand would be very affected by atmosphere at the speed it is thrown up in the video. That depends on the definition of "large" and "pebble". Have you ever thrown pebbles. The distance they travel in air has a lot to do with the size. A larger size generally means the pebble will travel further when thrown. Shape matters a lot as well. I define pebbles as small rocks of which several will easily fit into the hand. Do you have a more specific definition. Pick up a had full and throw them, even pebbles of similar sizes will travel different distances because of differing air resistance and initial velocities out of the hand.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 14, 2007 13:49:51 GMT -4
You must be desparate if you say silly things like this. A large pebble would be almost imperivious to atmospheric drag and the trajectory would differ little from what it would be in a vacuum. Sand is a different matter. Sand would be very affected by atmosphere at the speed it is thrown up in the video. Hogwash! Until you can solve my question in post #213 you don't get to claim how a particle of specific size will act in an atmosphere, which by your own admission, you don't know how to solve. There have been experiments suggested to you that would provide empirical evidence of how particles of various size behave in an atmosphere, but you refuse to perform them giving only lame excuses. Your determined ignorance is astounding. No one here believes or can be expected to believe the nonsense of someone who refuses to put to the test his own claims.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 14, 2007 13:51:23 GMT -4
Ever skipped stones, Ducks and drakes whatever you want to call it, even after just a few goes, it is possible to lose a good skipper due to an irregularity or excessively judged spin rate which causes it to visible curve and pitch incorrectly (I hate it when that happens)
or to use an American reference, the curve ball in Baseball, or what ever name it is you call it where it suddenly drops when in front of the pitcher, in cricket it bounces so cant really use that as a referance
To quote the old rule, Friction, It's a drag
There are Laws that I will undoubtably always follow as Religiously as I can (for an Atheist) The Laws governing Gravity Entropy and Motion. I doubt I am ever going to be in a situation where they don't apply
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 14, 2007 13:54:02 GMT -4
Rocky, it's very simple. Your two observations "stops suddenly" and "falls rapidly to the ground" imply contradictory properties having to do with air resistance. They cannot both be true. There is no material you can postulate, that can exist in the real world, that can solve that contradiction.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 14, 2007 14:28:28 GMT -4
I should have been clearer. I'm referring to the distance that the dirt travels in the video.
Sand would just slow down and fall to the ground. It's too heavy to float around in the air.
You're a good spin doctor but this situation is too clear.
Dust would float and sand wouldn't. The stuff in the footage is sand and it behaves the way sand behaves.
Of course I know this--this is the point I was making. A pebble thrown the distance that the sand in the footage is thrown would be slowed only a little by the atmospere. Sand would be slowed quite a bit as it is in the footage.
All that's necessary here is an understanding of the trajectories that objects follow in air and in a vacuum. Whether or not I look for the formula and plug in those numbers and solve that problem will have no effect on the points I'm making here.
I should make it clear. I think the dirt slows down and slowly leaves the path of the trajectory that it would have taken in a vacuum. It falls far short of where it would have hit the ground if it had followed the trajectory it would have followed in a vacuum.
|
|