|
Post by turbonium on Feb 4, 2006 22:13:50 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 4, 2006 22:36:01 GMT -4
The only comment I have is: where's the argument?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 4, 2006 22:40:06 GMT -4
From a given spot on the moon the earth would not move in the sky(weel not much anyway, there would be some small movement due to libration and the moon's orbit but the earth would never rise or set). You would see it rotate every 24 hours and every 30 days it would go through a phase cycle. But what is he trying to say?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 4, 2006 22:40:37 GMT -4
Yes, I don't know what his contention is - maybe he's waiting for replies before he makes his argument......
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 4, 2006 22:42:27 GMT -4
What's he trying to say? Only Hufschmid knows, and if we guess and get it wrong, he'll berate us for our "stupidity". This isn't science at all; it's just Hufschmid hacking away at straw men.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Feb 4, 2006 23:21:58 GMT -4
Only Hufschmid knows, and if we guess and get it wrong, he'll berate us for our "stupidity".
Isn't the main question he posted answerable beyond a "guess"?
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Feb 4, 2006 23:46:20 GMT -4
Yep, the answer is E.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Feb 4, 2006 23:47:15 GMT -4
Frenat's got it.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 5, 2006 0:04:41 GMT -4
My guess is he has some quote from an astronuat that he interprets to mean something different than what the astronaut meant.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 5, 2006 0:05:24 GMT -4
The only scrupulously correct answer is E, although I think Hufschmid wants us to guess C. The reason it's "none of the above" is that his "cycle of visibility" (the word is "phase") is vague enough to be questionable. And the lunar period is not 30 days, so neither are the Earth phases seen from the moon 30 days long.
No, this is bad argumentation all around.
Hufschmid wants you to commit to one of his canned answers so that later he'll spring some sort of hidden gotcha out of left field. Presumably he's going to dredge up some quote from Armstrong that appears to contradict what you chose as the right answer to his question. He gets to interpret the quote however he wants when he presents it. It may be a completely wrong interpretation, but it makes any subsequent interpretation you apply to it sound like apologetics and backpedaling. He can say we're just interpreting the quote differently because we "realized the contradiction" and had to do damage control.
Getting your opponent to commit to a rebuttal before you've presented your full argument is one of the oldest tricks in the book. If he's going to call it a "science challenge" then I expect something a little more sophisticated than silly high school debate tricks.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 5, 2006 0:15:01 GMT -4
Probably an astronaut said something about "earthrise". Even if you knew the earth would never rise and set from one point on the moon, it would still look like it should if it is low on the horizon and therfore a valid description.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 5, 2006 2:09:53 GMT -4
Well a quick look through the ALSJ turns up nothing that they would have said on the surface or during the technical debrief. About the only thing they did talk about was how the Earth was high in the sky and so hard to see to photograph.
I suspect that as stated, Hufschmid, wants people to pick (C) which is still wrong (it describes a figure 8 and the phases take 28 days to go through) and then pull out a quote about Earthrise from the CSM, attributing it to the surface part of the trip.
|
|
|
Post by Van Rijn on Feb 5, 2006 3:07:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 5, 2006 12:58:25 GMT -4
Yep, that's an interesting one, too, I can't say what he is trying to point at because I don't know which quote of Armstrong he is referring to. It would be nice if he resolved that one. However, I just found the following quote which is ascribed to Armstrong: "I put up my thumb and it blotted out the planet Earth. " Now, that's interesting. It just so happens that I can see a half moon very high in the sky at this moment. So I went outside and put my thumb up, and yes it just about covers the moon (extrapolated to a full one) but not more. Now, as always when we look at Apollo there seems something fishy here, too. Let's do a little simple calculation: Moon's equatorial diameter, DM, is about 3476 km. Earth's equatorial diameter, DE, is about 12756 km. DE divided by DM equals about: 3,67 Now as everyone should know the area of a circle is: pi x r² so inserting the factor 3,67² we get a circle area that is about 13,5 times as big as the one of the appearing moon. Now, even if we consider that Armstrong's space suit gloves were large do you think he could have blotted the earth (appearing 13,5 times larger than the moon) out with his thumb? No way! PS: Here is the full quote: “It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.” found here: en.thinkexist.com/quotation/i_put_up_my_thumb-and_it_blotted_out_the_planet/217255.htmlPPS: I guess he will feel even smaller when all Americans finally know that he has been lying to them for decades. Or maybe he does already. What did he say in that interview? "I don't deserve it."
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Feb 5, 2006 13:59:21 GMT -4
So how far was Armstrong's thumb away form his eye? Holding your thumb close to the eye blocks out much more of the view than a full arms length. Have any data on this for your calculations?
This stuff is only fishy if you want it to be.
Ranb
|
|