|
Post by sts60 on Jul 1, 2005 9:12:57 GMT -4
blackpudding, welcome!
You have it nailed - some of these hoax believers don't understand the fundamental concept of a pressure difference, and, as echnaton pointed out, seem to think vacuum is some sort of magic "infinite suction". Next time someone brings that up, ask them what the pressure difference is between an ordinary (~35 psi) auto tire and a vacuum - then ask them what the difference is between a heavy truck tire (~110 psi) and sea level atmosphere!
Of course, it's all moot. The LRV tires weren't pneumatic anyway.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 1, 2005 10:19:51 GMT -4
It's all about the restraint layers. Hydraulic equipment such as skip loaders employ flexible hoses carrying pressures of several hundred pounds per square inch. Yet they don't balloon up. Why? Because there is impregnated in them a metal mesh that accepts the inflation load and provides the tube with appropriate tensile strength. The rubber or plastic component simply provides impermeability. Isn't this the same in garden hoses? The ones made of transparent rubber or plastic, with a net or mesh of fiber strings.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 1, 2005 14:01:49 GMT -4
Yes, garden hoses have restraint layers.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2005 21:01:31 GMT -4
I just checked that feather/hammer "Earth" test video...there is something verry strange about that feather. Not only does it drop like a hammer, it seems to rock around after hitting the floor. It really doesn't act like a normal feather. Hmmm..."funny" feather...
Dave
DaveThe orientation still doesn't explain a light weight fearher dropping like a hammer with no variation in attitue at all
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 8, 2005 9:30:44 GMT -4
Yes, garden hoses have restraint layers. So do fire hoses - and a standard 1-3/4" attack line is typically run at 50 to 100 psi. Last time I checked, they didn't explode a whole lot, despite the pressure differential between inside hose and atmosphere being a lot more than an auto tire to vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 8, 2005 16:02:55 GMT -4
...has anyone noticed that when the camera zoom's in and out the LM and astronaut grow and shrink in image size but the mountain behide doesn't move at all.
You're correct about how changing the focal length should affect the image. But what you're interpreting as texture on the mountain is instead scatter from contaminants on the outer lens element -- probably some dust. Note how the ridgeline of the mountain behaves appropriately while the texture "slips" against the mountain during the zoom.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 8, 2005 18:20:52 GMT -4
When I posted the explanation of why dust on Earth falls slower than on the Moon I was told that I am relying on NASA raw data!
I nearly choked.
I explained that all data used were easily found in physics texts that had nothing to do with NASA that the only possible NASA data that was being used was the 1/6th g factor for gravity on the Moon.
Supposedly I don't understand that I am being duped by a concerted effort to not only hide the truth of a Moon hoax but it all started ,,, what would it be??? 100 years ago? longer? Who explained air resistance first? Boyle?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 8, 2005 19:53:40 GMT -4
When I posted the explanation of why dust on Earth falls slower than on the Moon I was told that I am relying on NASA raw data! Oh for crying out loud! I explained that all data used were easily found in physics texts that had nothing to do with NASA that the only possible NASA data that was being used was the 1/6th g factor for gravity on the Moon. Even the 1/6th gravity of the Moon was know well before NASA. The only piece of information that could be linked to NASA is the knowledge that lunar soils are silt and sand size. Supposedly I don't understand that I am being duped by a concerted effort to not only hide the truth of a Moon hoax but it all started ,,, what would it be??? 100 years ago? longer? Who explained air resistance first? Boyle? I believe it was Issac Newton who first set forth a basic theory of air resistance. This would make it over 300 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 9, 2005 0:11:31 GMT -4
If I remember the "rules" correctly anything coming from one source, (particularly NASA or the US governmemt), must be treated as suspect testimony unless supported by more independant witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 11, 2005 9:42:25 GMT -4
When I posted the explanation of why dust on Earth falls slower than on the Moon I was told that I am relying on NASA raw data! Sound like your correspondent was someone that relies on ignorance as a primary source of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 19, 2005 19:18:43 GMT -4
Supposedly I don't understand that I am being duped by a concerted effort to not only hide the truth of a Moon hoax but it all started ,,, what would it be??? 100 years ago? longer? Who explained air resistance first? Boyle? I believe it was Issac Newton who first set forth a basic theory of air resistance. This would make it over 300 years ago. Boyle, Newton, same time period IIRC. Were they not both in the Royal Society at the same time? At any rate then , yes , 300 years. Yes, her favorite source of info is "Dark Moon" . Really frosted her when I obtained a copy, prior to that she simply told me I did not understand because I had not read the book.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 19, 2005 19:22:33 GMT -4
I just caught Jay on TV this morning. I was out of town and watching CNN before heading out and as is my want, when a commercial came on I clicked up one channel and lo and behold R.Rene is sticking his hand in his glove box on Discovery Canada. So I only saw about the last half but kudos to Jay and gang.
Who was the one who came up with "cultural vandalism"? (or was that "history vandalism"?)
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 19, 2005 20:24:32 GMT -4
It's been a while since I saw that program, but I think it was Jim Oberg that came up with that phrase.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 19, 2005 20:33:11 GMT -4
Boyle, Newton, same time period IIRC. Were they not both in the Royal Society at the same time? At any rate then , yes , 300 years. The lives of Boyle (1627-1691) and Newton (1642-1727) definitely overlapped, though I’m not sure about the Royal Society thing. It's been a while since I saw that program, but I think it was Jim Oberg that came up with that phrase. Yes, it was Jim Oberg. IIRC the phrase was “cultural vandalism”.
|
|