|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 15:30:45 GMT -4
Quoting the discussion: " starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/space_level2/apollo15_rover.html Here is a site where you can watch the lunar rover on the moon video....pay attention to the dust kicked up, especially in the last 5 seconds of the clip..how it arcs...and before that how the dust kicks up as he bounces....just like a dune buggy on a salt flat. There may be no air on the moon, but there is sure a lot of it where this film was shot. And if you look carefully at the still photo I posted you will notice a gap behind the front wheel down at ground level..and the dust being BLOWN behind it in a curve as soon as it falls below the mud flap/molding around the wheel. That gap shouldn't be there under any theory compatible with lunar physics. The dust shouldn't be blown anywhere..thrown up from the ground by the wheels, but not blown backwards. Now if you don't see it in the still pic, watch the movie." This is what caught my attention: "I posted you will notice a gap behind the front wheel down at ground level..and the dust being BLOWN behind it in a curve as soon as it falls below the mud flap/molding around the wheel. "
I mean the front weel...it shows something,No?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 1, 2005 15:38:05 GMT -4
No
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 15:41:12 GMT -4
The only problem you have with me is that, despite the fast that there are 140 members of the ApolloHoax forum, I am one of the three who believes that Apollo was a hoax. I don’t really care what you believe. My beef with you is that you’re willfully ignorant and pigheaded. (This is an observation, not an insult.) These are traits I find extremely objectionable. The larger particles of sand will get kicked up a few feet and then fall right back down just like we see in the clips. The smaller, tiny little particles of dust and sand stay in the air a little longer like a cloud....a dust cloud. They do no such thing. It depends on the soil gradation. A uniformly graded soil, i.e. one that contains particles falling within a very narrow size range, consisting of sand-sized particles will not produce much dust. This is because sand particles are course enough they are little affected by the air and will settle quickly. A soil consisting of silt or clay sized particles, or a well graded soil, i.e. one with an equal representation of all particle sizes, will produce dust because of the large number of fine particles. I showed you footage of Charlie Duke being jerked up on a wire. You say "Oh no, that isn't happening". When I say "Yes it is, you can clearly see it is with your own two eyes", then that doesn't seem to constitute an answer either. Correct, that is not an answer. It is begging the question.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 15:49:47 GMT -4
For example, we tried many different ways of wording the same question: "Do you trust Bart Sibrel after it has been demonstrated that he doesn't know what he's talking about?" (the key part of the question being: "do you trust Bart Sibrel") All right then. Yes, I do. I do trust Bart Sibrel, in as far as it is possible to trust someone I have never met. In any event, I do not dis-trust him. I believe that what he is saying is right. I believe that we have never been to the moon, that it was all faked, that the film footage was taken in the Nevada desert, that the footage presented is simply Earth footage run at half-speed, I believe that the "astronauts" are wracked with guilt and shame at what they have done, I believe that Buzz Aldrin is a liar, a thief and a cheat. And although I have not believed this for very long, I believed all of it before I had ever even heard the name "Bart Sibrel"I once believed, as you do, that the Apollo landings actually happened. In a way, I feel a fool that I did. But people believe many things that Government tells them. I changed my mind. I'm more than prepared to change it back. But first, you have to give me reason to do so.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 1, 2005 15:54:21 GMT -4
Quoting the discussion: " starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/space_level2/apollo15_rover.html Here is a site where you can watch the lunar rover on the moon video....pay attention to the dust kicked up, especially in the last 5 seconds of the clip..how it arcs...and before that how the dust kicks up as he bounces....just like a dune buggy on a salt flat. There may be no air on the moon, but there is sure a lot of it where this film was shot. And if you look carefully at the still photo I posted you will notice a gap behind the front wheel down at ground level..and the dust being BLOWN behind it in a curve as soon as it falls below the mud flap/molding around the wheel. That gap shouldn't be there under any theory compatible with lunar physics. The dust shouldn't be blown anywhere..thrown up from the ground by the wheels, but not blown backwards. Now if you don't see it in the still pic, watch the movie." This is what caught my attention: "I posted you will notice a gap behind the front wheel down at ground level..and the dust being BLOWN behind it in a curve as soon as it falls below the mud flap/molding around the wheel. "
I mean the front weel...it shows something,No?
I'm glad you posted that link. It's good to know there's always a fresh supply of the credulous and the illogical. I have no idea what you are going on about on the right front wheel. It is off the ground. Wheels do that when you drive over rough ground. And there is dust behind it...notice, however, there is a gap between wheel and the heavier chunk of dust. Which means that the wheel is currently throwing no new dust, and what is airborne (vacc-borne?) is from the last contact with the ground. Oh...since we have particles being kicked up with no air resistance, they are entirely capable of imparting velocity to the particles they strike. I have no problem in the fine dust that seems to be moving in all random directions. In fact, I expect it. To simplify this to the idea of a single, smooth, cylinder spinning isolated in a vaccum is to describe a situation completely alien to what we see here. Since tires have treads, some of the dust has been carried up towards the mudflap, and it is falling out of the zone between flap and tire. A little bit has actually been carried all the way around the wheel and is falling in front! The last is particularly remarkable. Look at that little waterfall of fine dust in front of the right front tire. At least to my eyes I can see parts of the vehicle through parts of the dust clouds. That makes me realize this is very fine stuff...the kind of stuff that would normally billow up in huge clouds and hang around for twenty minutes (I've done a lot of driving on dirt roads, and in the desert. I've also walked in areas so dusty you could see another hiker from a mile away). In short, there is much wrong with this picture -- if it is supposed to have been made on Earth. As a depiction of vehicular movemet on the Moon, I can see no problem with it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 15:59:31 GMT -4
I changed my mind. I'm more than prepared to change it back. But first, you have to give me reason to do so. We've already provided everything you've requested. If it's not good enough for you then there is nothing more for you to accomplish here. It seems the sensible thing for you to do is just go away.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 16:00:21 GMT -4
No, but "clouds", still clouds and not arc motion...Uh, I can see an "arc" motion quite clearly, but only on my high-quality DVDs of the video. It's less apparent in these postage-stamp sized online clips. In fact, you get a wonderful swirling rotation that is clearly purely ballistic. In air you get motion affected by fluid dynamics, which is wholly, totally absent in these videos. Consider a clot of dust ejected from a spinning wheel that has dug into a cohesive regolith. Consider a particle on the inside of the clot, directly adjacent to the wheel surface. Consider another particle on the outside of the clot, farthest from the wheel hub. As the clot separates from the wheel rim, it transitions to a purely linear velocity. It becomes ballistic at this point. But in transferring from angular to linear motion, the linear velocities do not equate. The outboard particle had a longer radius, and so now has greater linear velocity than the inboard particle. The clot will actually continue rotating in the same direction as the wheel as it follows a generally parabolic path. We consider that the cohesion of the clot is relatively weak, so the particles begin to pursue separate trajectories almost immediately. The faster particles move downrange (backwards, reckoned according to the direction of the vehicle) faster and may reach a higher apex. If you draw an imaginary line between these two particles and track it over the combined trajectories, you find that the line is initially vertical, but then rotates slowly in the same way that the wheel rotates. The particles also separate due to their slightly different ballstics, so the line lengthens. When you plot this sort of thing for all particles, you see a sort of pattern. And what's more, when you look at freeze-frame images of these disintegrating clots, they have a gorgeous geometrical shape deriving solely from the simple forces of angular momentum, linear momentum, and gravity. This simply doesn't happen on Earth. High-speed ejecta immediately meets with air resistance. This has two effects. First, it slows the particles. Second, it gives them chaotic paths. The mass of a particle increases roughly according to the cube of its size, but its surface area increases only according to the square of the size. Air resistance depends on surface area, but the force of gravity depends on mass. Thus ejecting a collection of variable sized particles into an ambient fluid is not a bad way of separating big and small particles. Air resistance also depends on speed. Very small particles, with a low surface area to mass ratio, are more susceptible per unit mass to air resistance. As they are ejected and meet with air, they slow immediately and become chaotic. Their interaction with fluid actually dominates, in which case we say that the particles have become aerosol. This is the way of the desert. You can't walk, drive, kick your feet, or do anything that sets dust in motion without a portion of that dust becoming suspended as aerosols that are very noticeable. There is no aerosol in any Apollo video. The heaviest particles have a smaller surface area to mass ratio and are thus proportionally less sensitive to air resistance. Their paths on Earth tend to remain ballistic regardless of how much air there is. The particles in between exhibit a smoothly varying response to air. You won't get good geometry in your rooster tail. You get this: a mixture of aerosolized clouds and particles being affected to varying degrees by the air. The fact that we can get any kind of pure geometry in a plume from the LRV tires suggests that there is no difference in the ballistics characteristics. Air simply isn't a factor in their shape -- otherwise you get chaos. ...very fast, dropBut the drop is consistent with the 1/6 acceleration. The reason it seems so fast is that all the dust falls to the ground. None of it hangs in the air, which is what you see on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 16:02:56 GMT -4
...and before that how the dust kicks up as he bounces....just like a dune buggy on a salt flat.Uh, this guy has obviously never been on a salt flat. ..you will notice a gap behind the front wheel down at ground level..and the dust being BLOWN behind it in a curve... The "curve" is essentially the condition I describe above. That gap shouldn't be there under any theory compatible with lunar physics.LOL! It's the purest application of ballistics!
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 16:14:54 GMT -4
I don’t really care what you believe. My beef with you is that you’re willfully ignorant and pigheaded. (This is an observation, not an insult.) No, it's an insult. The adjective "pigheaded"- ie with a head comparable to that of a pig- can never be anything other than an insult. Not that I mind. Call me all the names you want!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 1, 2005 16:20:04 GMT -4
Pigheaded means "stubborn", Margamatix, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 16:20:47 GMT -4
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Are you seriously suggesting that this travelled to the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 1, 2005 16:22:12 GMT -4
Yes, we are saying that. Explain why it couldn't have. (and the never ending circle continues...) Edit: You know what... don't bother responding Margamatix. We've already discussed this here and you didn't bother to explain why the LM couldn't have gone to the moon in that thread so why should we expect you to do it now?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 1, 2005 16:26:27 GMT -4
I'm beginning to think that the average pig may have cause for complaint.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 16:27:36 GMT -4
We've already provided everything you've requested. If it's not good enough for you then there is nothing more for you to accomplish here. It seems the sensible thing for you to do is just go away. Sorry Bob, that cheap appeal simply won't wash. It didn't happen, and I have provided you with bucketloads of evidence that it didn't happen. If you don't want me here on the ApolloHoax forum pointing out that Apollo was hoaxed, then I suggest you send a private message to Admin asking that my account be deleted. Otherwise, I suggest you continue to read with an open mind, the evidence I present to you.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 16:33:25 GMT -4
No, it's an insult. The adjective "pigheaded"- ie with a head comparable to that of a pig- can never be anything other than an insult. pigheaded, adjective, Stupidly obstinate.
|
|