|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 13, 2007 10:54:10 GMT -4
Rocky's sifting is more likely to result in him finding gold than it is to create dust free sand.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 13, 2007 10:56:57 GMT -4
No matter what they did or didn't do when it comes to arranging dust-free sand and sand with dust, you people said it was impossible to make sand dust-free.
Face it. It's easy to make sand dust free by sifting and washing it. Your credibiblity is shot.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 10:59:47 GMT -4
No-one said it was impossible to make sand dust free, we said it was impossible to keep sand dust free. Move on from this pointless diversion and deal with the real problems in your argument, like the inherent contradiction in keeping all particles light enough to be aerosolised out of the dust yet still have it stopped in its motion by air, the absurdly complex scenario you have to invent to make your argument stick, and your continuing inability to show us which particle you picked out to calculate the trajectory you say they all followed. Your credibility is in far worse shape than ours right now.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Aug 13, 2007 11:01:02 GMT -4
sifting sand causes dust, why can't you see that? try sifting a sackload of sand and see how long it takes to get rid of the dust, spread it around a bit and see if there is any dust. a sack of sand from a builders merchant costs small change or go to the beach and get a sackful yourself
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2007 11:07:12 GMT -4
you people said it was impossible to make sand dust-free.
Only in the context of your argument. You described a process that would create more dust during post-process handling.
It's easy to make sand dust free by sifting and washing it. Your credibiblity is shot.
How much sand have you personally sifted and washed? Say an amount.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 11:10:39 GMT -4
I'm wondering if there's any point in carrying on, personally. What are the chances that rocky will heed the warning and retract his claim about paid disinformationists on this site and thereby avoid getting banned? Past performance sugests a more likely scenario involves gathering his third and final ban to wear as a badge of honour on some other website where he is respected by others of his ilk.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2007 11:11:54 GMT -4
I see no evidence that Rocky plans to do anything different than he has already done in the past 50 pages.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 13, 2007 11:50:21 GMT -4
Rocky, I want to see a retraction and apology to everyone you have accused to being a government agent. You have until the end of the day tomorrow, or you will be banned permanently. Now hold on, LO. Shouldn't you also give him the option to prove his claim? Also, I don't really care because I've already written rocky off as a malicious troll for his deliberate misrepresentations, refusal to acknowledge evidence, and refusal to learn (documented here and here), but personally I think it should suffice that he simply stop making the allegations unless he provides evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 11:54:46 GMT -4
I disagree. A retraction of the claim will take up one line of a new post. I see no reason to be lenient with a person who has already been banned twice for refusing to follow very simple rules.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 13, 2007 12:05:42 GMT -4
rocky,
Given that the dust present in the sand is the result of agitation then even if (note the IF there) you could produce completely dust-free sand, move it to the set and place it on the floor without creating more dust, then the act of driving the lunar rover over it would create sand that would billow behind the rover in the atmosphere.
It doesn't matter how dense that "cloud of dust" is, whether it is as dense as you see on a desert road or not, any billowing dust behind the rover immediately betrays that it was filmed in an atmosphere. And guess what ... you can't see any in the footage I have seen from the Apollo record.
Like yourself, I haven't seen anything like all of it, but those who have, tell me that the rest of the record likewise shows no dust billowing. Given what I have seen, I have no problem accepting the assertion that the rest of the record is the same.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 13, 2007 12:53:22 GMT -4
Now hold on, LO. Shouldn't you also give him the option to prove his claim? I gave him the opportunity to do that before I banned him last month, and told him if he continued to make unfounded accusations upon his return he would be banned permanently. The time to prove his accusation has passed, and he failed to do so. It is time for him to apologize. He may disagree, but I'm being extremely generous by giving him another chance at all. That's not good enough for me. He needs to learn that making unfounded accusations against the members of this forum has consequences. He needs to apologize, before the end of the day tomorrow (August 13, 2007) or he will be banned permanently.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 13, 2007 14:11:13 GMT -4
It's easy to make sand dust free by sifting and washing it. Then prove to us and the world how easy it is... DO IT![/i] [/size]
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 13, 2007 14:21:57 GMT -4
(reply #100)
It would take years of erosion to produce enough dust to form a visible cloud. The sand used could be made of a very hard rock that would not form a significant amount of dust. Your position that it is impossible to lay some sand on the ground that isn't dust-free enough not to form a cloud when driven over is laughable.
Like I said--your credibility is shot.
This is so basic that there's no need to do any experiments. Your demanding that I sift and wash sand and drive over it to veryify it is just your way of avoiding the fact that you've said some very silly things. That would be a difficult experiment to carry out and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 13, 2007 14:23:56 GMT -4
On the beaches of the outer banks, the sand was relatively dust free, but there was no way you were going to drive or walk over it and leave a crisp imprint of tire or foot...it was too coarse. You can't have both dust free sand AND fine imprints, Rocky. Now, if you go further into saying they put certain sand formulas here, and other sand formulas there...I say it would be easier just to go to the Moon. Remember, there was a vast engineering, design and construction army at work during Apollo, creating viable hardware for the mission. If it wasn't viable, the workers would know it. As Bob B says...why COULDN'T we go to the Moon??
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Aug 13, 2007 14:33:58 GMT -4
The sand used could be made of a very hard rock that would not form a significant amount of dust.Harder than quartz? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand#Constituents_of_sand"The most common constituent of sand, in inland continental settings and non-tropical coastal settings, is silica (silicon dioxide, or SiO2), usually in the form of quartz, which, because of its chemical inertness and considerable hardness, is resistant to weathering." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartzen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scaleYou've not only got magic sand, you've got magic rock, too!
|
|