|
Post by BertL on Jun 14, 2007 14:34:36 GMT -4
I noticed you seem to have missed my request for a screenshot with arrows on it clearing stuff up.
Oh, and what you think is not what is actually happening. Sorry to burst your bubble.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 14, 2007 14:36:16 GMT -4
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. The point you are making is that you know how sand will behave in a atmosphere. You said: Sand is a different matter. Sand would be very affected by atmosphere at the speed it is thrown up in the video. Prove it. Prove to us exactly how sand will be affected by the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 14, 2007 14:39:31 GMT -4
You all look very silly trying to explain this away.
The spectators disagree.
11-0 so far. But who's counting?
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 14, 2007 14:54:33 GMT -4
Oh I think I get it now, the sand is light enough to be stopped in one direction of travel, the reason being that from the moment it left the wheels of the LR it was continually slowing down to drag imparted on it via the atmosphere, same principles of a dragsters parachute or a retarded bomb tail, or a shuttlecock
So simple,
however it's bit where it is traveling downwards, you know the the not exhibiting atmospheric drag in the same degree that you still need to fill me in on. how does it do this again,
does the cross sectional area of the particles suddenly change, or maybe they undergo a massive phase change and become super dense. Fans in the ceiling, Magnets in the floor and small pieces of Iron or cobalt in the dust.
sort of like throwing an inflated balloon, vs a deflated balloon.
or it could be that it was filmed in a vacuum and that through either the fact that you can not track individual particles in video footage of that resolution but only the average density pocket of irregular grains thrown up at differing velocities and angles maybe giving an illusion of movement that isn't there, sort of like watching a good Mexican wave. strangely there is movement but not in the manner expected, just the reflection of light of the particles in a slightly different orientation than a previous moment but the particle remaining essentially static in regards to the apparent motion of the wave.
ever looked at a helicoptors rotor, or a prop or spoked wheel in real life, and then also in the way that TV Video Film Photographs capture the motion, a Stroboscopic input can produce some beautifully strange effects, I used to use one on my centrifuge, I could get the tubes to reamin static and could watch it spin out, even though they where travelling at Recockulous speeds
|
|
|
Post by gorgonian on Jun 14, 2007 15:02:03 GMT -4
This I think is where you have a misconception. It will have an effect. It will support your assertion. All these times when people have pointed out that you were begging the question (which means basically begging them to agree with you -- "this is obvious," "only a fool wouldn't agree," etc. -- without supporting your idea with demonstrable evidence) will stop when you begin to support what you are saying with actual, demonstrable, verifiable evidence. In order to prove your point (and you have the burden of proof here) you must support your assertions in this way. You saying that doing this would have no effect followed by a repeat of your question begging is the fundamental problem you are having. My advice: stop begging the question. Stop insisting it is obvious and people that disagree with you are silly or desperate. This is not having an effect on what you are saying. You have a burden of proof. Meet it. Back up your statements with objective evidence.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 14, 2007 15:07:04 GMT -4
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. (a) Please identify in the video a particle whose trajectory we can see and follow. (b) What are the particle’s departure conditions and how did you determine them? (c) Given those conditions, what would be the particle’s trajectory in a vacuum? (d) Compare the actual particle trajectory to the predicted trajectory and report the results. (e) Please provide your proof that the variance is explainable by the existence of an atmosphere. We await your results. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 14, 2007 15:41:10 GMT -4
Sand would just slow down and fall to the ground. It's too heavy to float around in the air.
...and therefore too heavy to be stopped suddenly by it, as you claim the video shows. Simply flip-flopping between the two parts of the contradiction doesn't make it go away.
Dust would float and sand wouldn't.
Irrelevant. You can call it dust or sand or tapioca pudding for all the good it does you. A grain of whatever simply can't have the contradictory properties your theory requires. If you had taken Bob's challenge you would have been brought to an understanding of this, regardless of whatever label to attach to the individual particle.
All that's necessary here is an understanding of the trajectories that objects follow in air and in a vacuum.
An understanding you admit you do not have and refuse to demonstrate or learn. Determined ignorance is not a position from which you can credibly accuse others of disinformation.
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.
You're not making it clear at all; you're obfuscating and backpedalling to avoid the contradiction you've just now realized you've been belaboring for weeks.
Originally you said the material "stopped suddenly." Not an hour ago, you assured us that its path was so obviously non-parabolic that it was absurd of us to ask for measurements or mathematical proof.
Now you're reversing your claim and saying the path gradually departs from the ideal parabola. That makes it even more crucial for you to supply rigorous proof of what exact region of dust you mean, an objectively verifiable assurance that the region is the same from frame to frame, and a mathematical argument that it fails to match the expected ballistic trajectory and matches instead a properly-computed aerodynamic trajectory.
Without that rigorous proof, it's possible that your subjective, handwaving observations of a "slowly" diverging non-parabolic path are instead an error-prone observation of a path that is actually parabolic. You changed your story, but not your conclusion.
Now you're in hair-splitting mode. You cannot keep trying to have your cake and eat it too. Put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 14, 2007 16:22:03 GMT -4
Only as far as you're concerned. Anyway, the proof of an atmosphere in the video refutes it. What if I told you I created that video as a special effects experiment using Adobe After Effects, and that I don't really know how to make parabolas very well? Would it still qualify as proof?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 14, 2007 18:28:37 GMT -4
Originally you said the material "stopped suddenly." Not an hour ago, you assured us that its path was so obviously non-parabolic that it was absurd of us to ask for measurements or mathematical proof.
Wow. Listen to those gears grind as rocky tries to dig himself out of the mudhole of his own self-contradictions.
The flying mud clumps look they're in a 1g atmosphere, though. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 14, 2007 18:50:50 GMT -4
Wow. Listen to those gears grind as rocky tries to dig himself out of the mudhole of his own self-contradictions. He's busily re-aligning the goalposts so that the sand/dust/dirt flies between them, but only after suddenly and gradually being slowed down by, yet not aerosolizing in, the 1g atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 14, 2007 19:20:30 GMT -4
Round and round in circles we go....
This is now sooooo boring I just can't be fagged with it any more. Rocky won't do any experiments, won't admit to even the slightest concession, and thinks ignorance is an acceptable position from which to argue something is anomalous. What is the point of carrying on?
But just one last try: Rocky,
YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT A SINGLE DIRT PARTICLE TRAJECTORY! What you see is a cloud of dust particles, all following different trajectories. The 'cloud' you see arises because of the time they spend clustered around an area densely enough to be seen on the film. If you watch those clouds they DISPERSE as they fall, precisely because all the dust is not following the same path and it all spreads out until it can't be picked out on the film any more.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 15, 2007 0:18:14 GMT -4
YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT A SINGLE DIRT PARTICLE TRAJECTORY! What you see is a cloud of dust particles, all following different trajectories. The 'cloud' you see arises because of the time they spend clustered around an area densely enough to be seen on the film. If you watch those clouds they DISPERSE as they fall, precisely because all the dust is not following the same path and it all spreads out until it can't be picked out on the film any more. Nice try, Jason, and many of us here know that you are making sense. But Rocky won't. He seems to have missed what I said (and others have since repeated) in post 89, page 6: Surely, Rocky, you could convince all of us if you simply picked out a readily-identifiable dust particle (one that, even if it tumbled, could not be confused with another) and traced its trajectory frame by frame by frame by frame by frame by frame by frame... and presented us with an appropriate gif.
It would be even more convincing if you did it with 100 particles.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 15, 2007 14:29:50 GMT -4
If you really were objective truth-seeking scientists who believed your own arguments, you'd just do the measurements and calculations to prove that you were correct and put the whole matter to rest. You won't do that though because there are probably lots of people with science and math backgrounds reading this thread.
I say the trajectory is so clearly non-parabolic that no calculations are necessary. You're insisting that I do them is just a diversionary tactic.
I guess all we can do is let the viewers decide for themselves in a case like this.
Jay, you said you used to teach at a university. What was the name of it?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2007 14:40:30 GMT -4
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
EDIT: Stop trying to change the subject, too. This point is not finished yet.
|
|
|
Post by rchappo on Jun 15, 2007 14:45:47 GMT -4
If you really were objective truth-seeking scientists who believed your own arguments, you'd just do the measurements and calculations to prove that you were correct and put the whole matter to rest. You won't do that though because there are probably lots of people with science and math backgrounds reading this thread. I say the trajectory is so clearly non-parabolic that no calculations are necessary. You're insisting that I do them is just a diversionary tactic. Only a fool would fail to see the contradiction contained in the above post. You must be a wind up merchant surely? Someone with your thought process surely can't survive in the world...or at least get through life without getting punched every day.
|
|