|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 17, 2007 0:51:28 GMT -4
The floating dust isn't the only evidence of air on the moon in Superman 2... the 3 Kryptonian criminals talk to each other and aren't wearing space suits. It's definitely a good example of a bad moon set.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 17, 2007 0:57:55 GMT -4
You ain't seen nothing yet. Check out the 2-part "Six Million Dollar Man" episode "Dark Side of the Moon" -- provided free at this moment by some friendly You-Tuber. Yes, you heard it right. The Moon does have a dark side in that episode. Dark and cold; "Absolute Zero," the dialogue assures us. But I still have to reserve a special place for the nuclear shaped charge. Doesn't sound so implausible? You'd have to watch the way they did it!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 17, 2007 4:24:36 GMT -4
...I also watched the last man on the moon running around. I wasn't quite sure if it was an artifact or not, but it sure seemed to me like stuff being kicked up by his feet at a low-angle was bouncing. I recall seeing something similar a few times in TV of astronauts on the moon, but I wasn't sure that it was actually a bounce, and wonder if it was the effect Jason Thompson mentioned in post 341. The other thing I wonder regarding the plumes of dust from the rover's wheels is, assuming that we were viewing one perfect parabola of dust, would it really appear as a perfect parabola if we were not exactly perpendicular to it? Say the plume was heading a little away from us, wouldn't it be foreshortened? Having viewed the 16mm film of the Apollo 16 Grand Prix often on a TV screen, I can't agree with Rocky that it was obviously filmed in an atmosphere. The lunar surface is so rough and there are so many small craters that on any one movie frame we are most likely seeing multiple plumes and multiple part-parabolas, some of them produced by wheel-spins and some not. We sometimes see the dust moving in waves. But the one thing we don't see is dust billowing.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 17, 2007 8:05:13 GMT -4
You people really made yourselves look silly when you said that it was impossible to make sand dust-free by sifting and washing it.
« Reply #211 on Jun 9, 2007, 4:23pm »
This is downright silly. There's nothing impossible about sifting some sand and washing and scrubbing it until it's dust free and then placing it where the rover is going to drive. Spinning wheels over dust-free sand would not cause enough sand to erode into dust to make a cloud. This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly. You can pretend all you want but you destroyed your credibility when you said this.
If a theory that's being put forth is just inherently silly, it doesn't matter how many people there are with scornful patronizing attitudes that agree with it--it's still silly.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 17, 2007 8:09:21 GMT -4
Show us it's not impossible, then. Show us. Just show us.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 17, 2007 8:52:29 GMT -4
Yawn. The 'magical' aspect is the fact that your washed and sifted sand is affected by air in one direction only.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 17, 2007 9:50:00 GMT -4
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Please go into detail.
You people keep talking about dust billowing.
Of course it's billowing; they didn't remove the dust by sifting the sand and washing it first.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 17, 2007 9:51:45 GMT -4
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Please go into detail.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 17, 2007 10:05:14 GMT -4
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Please go into detail. You people keep talking about dust billowing. Of course it's billowing; they didn't remove the dust by sifting the sand and washing it first. Rocky, for Christ's sake, will you stop ignoring my short and to the point posts?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 17, 2007 10:08:55 GMT -4
This is a very vague statement. I'm not sure which explanation it refers to. Just tell me which reply it is.
The only reference to magic sand that I remember is when it was being said that it was magical because it was dust-free which is a silly statement as it would be very easy to make sand dust-free by sifting and washing it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 17, 2007 10:10:27 GMT -4
You people really made yourselves look silly...
Apparently not.
...when you said that it was impossible to make sand dust-free by sifting and washing it.
We know why the dust forms. You just say it somehow didn't happen again during handling after washing and sifting. And those of us who have handled such treated particules know what we're talking about. You, who refuse to acquire any practical understanding of the process, do not.
There's nothing impossible about sifting some sand and washing and scrubbing it until it's dust free and then placing it where the rover is going to drive.
It has been clearly explained to you many times why it's impossible to handle particulates without generating dust. You simply say that it somehow didn't happen in this case, but do not say why.
Spinning wheels over dust-free sand would not cause enough sand to erode into dust to make a cloud.
The majority of the dust is created as it is removed from the washing apparatus, conveyed to the photography site, and laid down -- not right as the rover wheels pass over it. The rover wheels would aerosolize the dust that was created in those prior steps.
This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly.
Not to the people who have actually tried to do it. And that would not be you.
And the whole idea that dust-free sand would exhibit the properties you say you see in the videos is also totally silly. Even if you could make it and get enough of it under the wheels without creating more dust, it still wouldn't be ejected from the wheels in air in the "obviously non-parabolic" way you say.
Not only is your sand made magical by the impossible process you say created it, but also by its uncanny ability to selectively defy the laws of aerodynamics -- laws you admit you don't understand.
You can pretend all you want but you destroyed your credibility when you said this.
Not according to any who have rendered an opinion. If you can refer to anyone who agrees with you at all, anywhere, now would be the time to identify him.
If a theory that's being put forth is just inherently silly, it doesn't matter how many people there are with scornful patronizing attitudes that agree with it...
Ah, so anyone who agrees with us simply has a "scornful patronizing attitude," and their opinion does not factor into your assessment of your own argument's strength. That would be very helpful to maintaining the illusion that there's a silent army of very knowledgeable lurkers supporting you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 17, 2007 10:13:33 GMT -4
Round and round and round we go.
Rocky the aerodynamic contradiction in your argument has been the principal topic of discussion for the last several pages, and was first mentioned in my initial response more than 20 pages ago. Quit stonewalling. Either answer the questions or admit you cannot.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 17, 2007 10:21:22 GMT -4
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Please go into detail.
Discussed in excruciating detail in several recent posts. If you can't pay attention to the discussion you started, then stop wasting our time.
Of course it's billowing; they didn't remove the dust by sifting the sand and washing it first.
Why do you suppose they didn't? After all, you say there's a process that achieves this. They expended a great deal of funds elsewhere in that scene to achieve the lunar surface effect. Any thoughts on why they didn't put any dustless sand under where these actors were standing?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 17, 2007 11:13:01 GMT -4
Keep posting Rocky. You provide endless hours of humor when you do.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 17, 2007 11:24:41 GMT -4
The dust billows in From The Earth To The Moon, too; a teleplay that the producers tried to make as scientifically accurate as possible...hmm...I wonder why...
Do you suppose it is because it was impossible to shoot the scenes without creating billowing dust?
|
|