|
Post by sts60 on Feb 15, 2007 14:41:10 GMT -4
First of all, he has already answered that question.
Did Jay actually respond to the Freemason question, other than to correctly identify it as "poisoning the well"? Not that I care, or that it matters, but I have not seen him actually deny it - did I miss that?
He is under no obligation to do so, of course, and it is utterly irrelevant to the "debate". Just fact-checking.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 15, 2007 15:00:53 GMT -4
in this video [...] they admit that they could have made the rocks in a lab.
No.
In that video, the interviewee gives hearsay testimony that he heard one scientist offer his opinion that it is almost possible to make rocks in the lab. He then qualifies that opinion by saying that the process he's thinking of would take so long and cost so much that it would be easier just to go to the moon and get them. The same expert believes the moon rocks are genuine.
"Just about" possible is still impossible. And since this was recorded in 2002, you need to discover what the state of the art was back in 1969 when the moon rocks were first examined by science. This doesn't change anything. There's still no scientist who claims he can fake moon rocks to the necessary fidelity. And there's still no evidence that they were faked, whether or not it might be possible. The witness in the video makes it very clear that there is no evidence whatsoever that the moon rocks were faked.
We believe the rocks were made in a lab.
If you believe it on the basis of this video, then you're grasping at straws. The argument in the video clearly supports the notion of Apollo missions as the most likely source for the moon rocks.
You believe that simply because it's what you want to believe, not because there's any evidentiary reason to believe it.
This is a very good documentary...
No, it's a very poor documentary. I debunked all his stuff six years ago. I'll respond in detail later, if necessary, but in the meantime I want to know what you did to verify Collier's claims before you went around representing it as a "good" documentary.
It seems again that you're judging something as "good" or "bad" solely on the basis of whether it agrees with what you believe, not on whether it can be demonstrated to make sense.
We show these links as to add weight to our argument...
One video tells us that your belief is improbable compared to ours. it doesn't lend weight to your statements; it lends weight to ours.
We have already seen and debunked Collier's video. You may not have known that, but now you do. It's old news to us, so it doesn't change how we view your arguments.
We are sorry if you do not get our jokes they are meant in a light-hearted way it is up to you how you interpret them.
Hogwash. Insults are not good-natured, "light-hearted" humor. If you insult the people and they don't like it, it's your fault and not theirs: it means you don't know how to apply humor good-naturedly.
If you insist on acting like a child, we will insist on treating you as one. If you would rather have a discussion among adults, then kindly act like one and omit the humor until you can use it without offense.
We are the ones schooling the PG.
No, you aren't. You're frantically Googling around for statements you believe support your predetermined beliefs, without really trying to understand the relevant sciences. We, on the other hand, learned about the relevant sciences long before turning our attention to Apollo, and we practice those principles in other scientific and engineering pursuits that have nothing to do with Apollo. We know the principles work.
We know exactly how insolation works...
Clearly you do not.
...beyond the protection of the magnetosphere.
The magnetosphere has nothing to do with the thermal effects of insolation.
Depending on how dense and what the medium is made of is of great effect.
We know what the medium is made of, and we know how dense it is -- or rather, how opaque it is. Because we know this, we can say that it is a second-order effect compared to angle of insolation.
Now at various times and places air can contain other materials. And those materials, where present, have their own optical properties. But where those variables intrude, you cannot relate the overall effect back to one supposed cause -- namely the raw opacity of the air itself. I'll discuss this in more detail below, where you bring up albedo.
Especially at the poles on Earth as there is a lot more atmosphere to travel though.
You insist on confounding those two effects. You say the weather is generally cold at Earth's poles because the sun must pass through more air there than at the equator, so less of it strikes the ground. We say it's generally cold at the poles because the angle at which the sun arrives at the poles is considerably less favorable for radiative heat transfer than at the equator.
Your only reason for emphasizing this seems to be to try to show that we don't understand heat transfer in general, and therefore we can't understand why your argument proves the LM can't have worked. But since you are the one who can't demonstrate more than a Google level of understanding, you can't assert that your understanding of the LM thermal environment -- or any thermal environment -- is correct.
...as the albedio of the Earth is in the region of 35% a significant amount of the solar-radiation is reflected off the atmosphere...
No, it is reflected off water that appears in the form of clouds. Water droplets have different optical properties than air.
The albedo (not "albedio") figure you cite is averaged over the entire sunlit planetary surface at any one instant, as hypothetically seen from a sufficiently great distance. Since the Earth seen from far away always has clouds over part of it, a single number that applies to the entire visible Earth will incorporate that.
One way to interpret the 35% albedo figure is to say that at any given moment, from some vantage point out in space, the Earth's surface is 35% obscured by clouds. Yet another way would be to say that at some place on Earth's surface, you'll have clouds 35% of the time. You have to consider cloud cover a transitory phenomenon.
But the average albedo figure does not let you infer what's actually happening on some point on the Earth's surface. At this very moment, in Utah, the sky is very cloudy. Considerably less than 65% (100% minus 35%) of the available visible sunlight is falling on the ground in Utah, as measured by my photographic light meter. But also at this very minute in Las Vegas, the sky is clear. There are no clouds. And considerably more than 65% of the available sunlight is falling on the ground there. None of that observation obeys the 35% "rule", so you have to consider that albedo doesn't mean what you think it means. You need to discuss the transitory nature of cloud cover and what it means to both the computation of albedo and the thermal environment of the Earth at various scales.
And albedo is most certainly not the reflectivity coefficient of Earth's air (principally the gasses nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide) itself. Not by a long shot. If air really were really only 65% transparent, then you wouldn't be able to see anything more than a few dozen meters away, even on the clearest day. Every day would look like a foggy day in London. That's the confirmation that you're not understand what albedo is and how it's computed, and how it affects radiative heat transfer on an annual, global scale.
And yes, we are nit-picking. One measure of someone's expertise is how well one uses the relevant terminology. When you mispell "albedio", that can be either because you aren't a good speller, because you mistyped it, or because you really don't know what you're talking about. Since you misuse the concept, it's more likely that the combination of your misspelling and your inability to apply albedo correctly is best explained by your relative lack of education in that area.
Similarly with "incidents" versus "incidence". Perhaps you're just a poor speller or a poor typist. Or perhaps you never heard the phrase angle of incidence until a couple of weeks ago.
When you purport to be knowledgeable and to "school the play-group," you consent to be held to a much higher standard of usage. You're failing to meet that standard. If you do not wish to be held to the standards expected of an expert, then don't purport to be one.
This is another form of atmospheric-diffusion.
No. Reflection and diffusion are two different things altogether.
That is why we think Jason Thompson was trying to use and apples and oranges argument that was supported buy the PG.
No. He is suggesting experiments that controlled for the atmospheric effects and studied only the angle of incidence effect in isolation. This is crucial to knowing which model of thermal behavior is correct: yours or ours. You simply dismiss them as "pointless", which leads us to suspect that you either don't know enough about science to know how this experiment would work, or that you know how the experiment will likely come out and just don't want to admit it.
Are you Freemasons or not?
I am not a Freemason.
This is not an irrelevant question...
Yes it is. We're making claims that can be tested for correctness independently of whether they came from Freemasons or from any other group you might suspect. Whether they are true or not is a matter of observation, not of trust. You're trying to find another ad hominem reason to dismiss people who disagree with you.
Do you agree with us that comparing the effect at the poles on earth to the effects on the moon are inappropriate and irrelevant?
Who's we? It looks like I'm only talking to one person. I don't recognize the opinions of sock puppets.
I agree that your comparison of the thermal effects at Earth's poles to its equator is irrelevant because you keep confounding the causes. I do not agree to the general provision that we cannot isolate and study the various modes of heat transfer on Earth, either as a matter of inferring from existing observations (e.g., the seaons) or conducting simple empirical experiments ourselves.
If you're begging the question of all experimentation on Earth, then I do not agree. You want to dismiss as "pointless" experiments that I believe are exceptionally relevant, and are in fact performed daily by elementary students all over the world to teach them about the several modes of heat transfer.
Regardless of where you are [on the moon] the only factor will be insolation.
Not exactly. Yes, I stipulate we will have eliminated all atmospheric effects. But you can still make a mistake here.
Insolation is what makes Earth's poles colder than its equator. And that's because of the angle of incoming light, not because of how much air the light has to pass through.
And because of that, we can say that the lunar surface at its equator, in the fullest possible sunlight, is hotter in general than the surface at either of its poles, where the sun strikes at a much lower angle. That is an application of exactly the same principle.
But what we cannot say is that an object at a lunar pole will be colder than the same object if it were at the lunar equator with the sun directly overhead. The temperature of the object depends on its orientation to the sun, not its position relative to any spot on the lunar surface or to any other object.
Therefore placing the LEM near the poles would have made little or no difference.
True, but that's not what we claim. We are not claiming that the LM was made cooler by putting it in some special "cool" place on the lunar surface. Nor do we claim that any such thing is possible.
Instead we're simply claiming that the LM's temperature is non-uniform and doesn't depend on anything except its orientation to the sun.
It's absolutely vital to understand that an object heated by sunlight does not reach a uniform temperature. The temperature at each point depends on how well that point can receive sunlight, and then by how well that object conducts heat from one point to another through its mass. If the orientation of the object changes, then there is a delayed effect in the change of temperatures.
If you consider the Earth and Moon as objects in space heated by the sun, you immediately agree that the temperatures at each point on those bodies are not uniform. We know the temperature of the lunar surface at different points will vary broadly with latitude and longitude due to overall angle of insolation. We know that a spot in the shadow of some rock will be colder than a nearby spot in full sunlight.
It is indeed possible (and sometimes necessary) to compute all those temperatures, but the only thing that's required to understand right now is the basic concept that different parts of an object heated by the sun come to different temperatures and stay there until something changes.
That's when thermal designers step in. If an object is supposed to withstand solar heating, the designers arrange for the parts of the object that face the sun to reflect away as much of that light as possible. They also arrange for any heat absorbed by that sun-facing surface to stay there and not find its way into other parts of the object that may be more sensitive.
That last part is easy. In a built object like the lunar module, heat will only travel where parts touch. And you control those, because you're the designer. And you have available some insulative materials that don't conduct heat very well. You can use those to limit how much heat moves through the object.
Consider the actual example of the landed lunar module.
It lands with its back to the sun. No sunlight falls on the forward face -- the part where the pilots stand and where they look out. So it gets no solar heating.
The big broad back of the lunar module is the aft equipment bay. It's just a sort of box tacked onto the back of the cabin. It's made of some very flimsy aluminum spars, and it houses the electronic equipment. Over those spars the builders fastened some thin aluminum plates. The equipment is inside the plated box, so no sunlight falls directly on it. The light can't get through the aluminum plates.
Aluminum reflects away about 95% of the light that strikes it. The light that isn't absorbed -- five percent of the incoming light -- gets converted to heat. Where does that heat go? Some of it goes to raising the temperature of those aluminum plates. The rest is transmitted to the spars the plate touches, and the rivets holding the plate to the spar. Anything that touches the plate has the ability to draw heat away from it.
It doesn't keep going like that forever. Heat doesn't propagate forever through materials. That's why you can grab the cold end of the fireplace poker, even though the tip is red hot. The heat travels only part way up the poker shaft. Similarly heat from the aluminum skin plate travels only a little way into the spars, and from the spars only a very little into the rest of the structure.
Now the sun is indeed low in the sky. That means that back plate faces the sun almost directly. If anything is going to get hot, that one will. Let's say even that it gets up to 200 F. I'm not saying that that's how hot it got, but it's a random number we can use for argument. If the back-facing plating bearing the brunt of solar heating gets up to 200 F, we can compute how hot the spars get. Since only some of the heat goes there, they may only get to 70 F. The points of contact are limited, and that helps dictate how much heat transfers. The other end of the spar may be only 40 F. And the structural element to which the spar is connected may only be 10 F.
The top of the LM is also plated with aluminum. But since the sun is low, the light strikes the top of the LM at a much lower angle. That same aluminum plating may only get up to 50 F due to solar heating, because it receives the light at so much less an angle.
If the sun were directly overhead, the top of the LM would get hotter. It would be receiving more sunlight there directly. But now the back plates of the LM would be colder because they are now receiving sunlight less directly. They're vertical surfaces when the ship is landed. But that heat still has to percolate through the rest of the structure, and it won't do that very well. All you can say is that some surfaces on the lunar module get hot, and that which surfaces are the hot ones depend on where the sun is relative to the ship.
That's the only thing they depend on. Since objects can only be heated from one direction at a time from the sun, "blobby" objects like the lunar module don't have higher average temperatures depending on which direction the sunlight comes from. Different parts of the ship get hot depending on which parts are most directly facing the sun. But if you averaged the temperatures of all the parts, that average wouldn't change much depending on where the sun is coming from.
Specifically you cannot say that if the sun is directly overhead, that means the LM must be at the lunar equator; and that if they're at the lunar equator the LM must necessarily be hotter there because the lunar equator -- like all equators -- is hotter.
That's not at all how it works.
Everything I said about the lunar module would still be true if you waved a magic wand and made the moon disappear, leaving the LM sitting alone there in space in the same orientation. The temperature profile of the lunar module depends only on its orientation in space relative to the sun, whether out in space or landed on the moon. The moon itself is also subject to insolation effects, but the moon's global insolation behavior doesn't dictate the lunar module's temperature.
Also near to the equator the astronaut would have exposed a smaller area as the solar-radiation would have hit them on the top of the head.
True, but misleading.
Where as near to the pole with the sun lower in the sky...
Incomplete.
You are very correct in saying that where the sun is low in the sky, a vertical surface such as the astronaut's front or rear would present itself very directly to the sun and therefore receive more sunlight. And you are very correct in saying that when the sun is high in the sky, the light will fall most directly on the top of his head and thus have more potential to convey heat to it.
But it is not true that low sun angles exist only at the poles.
Even at the equator you still have morning, noon, and night. At sunrise at the lunar equator, the sun will still be very low in the sky. And if I'm an astronaut working an lunar sunrise, the sunlight will strike my suit most directly. That's also true if I'm an astronaut working at the pole. The sun will be low in the sky and will strike my suit most directly. But at the poles the sun will stay low. At the equator the sun will gradually rise in the sky.
Now there is a small effect you need to be aware of. Reflected light from the surface does have a thermal effect. Small, but noticeable. So at the poles you never get much reflected light. But at the equator, with the sun fully overhead, the surface around you will be brightly and directly lit, and that reflected light will also add to your thermal situation.
As with all objects intended for space, the space suits are designed to have special thermal properties. Specifically, they are designed in layers so that heat cannot transfer very effectively from inner to outer layers, or from outer to inner ones. That keeps the astronaut from freezing to death as his body heat is lost to space, or from roasting as solar heating occurs. The outer layer is also designed to have certain optical properties -- its albedo is about 80%, so most of what arrives at the space suit surface is reflected away.
Keep in mind too that an astronaut doesn't keep facing the same direction. Even with a low sun angle and a maximum of solar heating, he is working and turning different parts of his body to face the sun at different times. This tends to heat the suit evenly.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 15, 2007 15:13:23 GMT -4
Wow. I see not much has changed around here since I've been gone. . .
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 15, 2007 15:30:12 GMT -4
People here have expressed that they find terms like "play group" insulting, so I would suggest that you stop using them.
And despite her explanaiton I believe H.body intends them to be insulting, so I renew my objection.
...you need to realize that you don't know everything...
...and that this is readily apparent. Many conspiracists seem oblivious to how foolish they actually look. I don't know whether this is just wishful entrenchment, or whether it would represent an actual delusion. But it's pure fantasy to believe that one's inexpertise cannot be conclusively observed. You just can't fake your way through some of these things.
First of all, he has already answered that question.
As a matter of fact I had not answered it when she wrote it. I have since, however.
I wanted to wait until she had revealed her intended prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 15, 2007 15:56:04 GMT -4
...and that this is readily apparent. Many conspiracists seem oblivious to how foolish they actually look. I don't know whether this is just wishful entrenchment, or whether it would represent an actual delusion. But it's pure fantasy to believe that one's inexpertise cannot be conclusively observed. You just can't fake your way through some of these things.
This has always fascinated me Jay. Although a very few HBs can, at least for short periods, muster rational sounding arguments, most I have seen truly are oblivious to the fact they are making complete fools of themselves by claiming to 'school' actual experts in the fields they are trying to discuss.
I'm reminded of my 7 year-old daughter who often claims to know more about things than I do, but of course she has an excuse; she's a child.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 15, 2007 16:02:15 GMT -4
First of all, he has already answered that question.As a matter of fact I had not answered it when she wrote it. I have since, however. Oops, my mistake. I mistook a post by STS60 for one by you. Not that it matters, she believes what she wants so denying that you're a Freemason will be ignored anyway. She probably still believes Jason and Bill are related.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 15, 2007 16:20:43 GMT -4
Not that it matters, she believes what she wants so denying that you're a Freemason will be ignored anyway.
People who are determined to reject you on ad hominem grounds will find a way to do it, even if it means stressing a dubiously relevant property. That's why I was hoping she'd reveal her intent without my having to give an answer. In that way I can show that her proposal is illogical regardless of my answer.
Now, of course, she could claim I lied about being a Freemason because I knew that if I admiited I was, she'd have grounds to reject me. You can play these games ad nauseam (and quibbling over suspected motives is exactly what most conspiracists do), which is another reason why you reject ad hominem arguments categorically.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 15, 2007 16:43:28 GMT -4
You know, a fair number of the relevant scientists can't be Freemasons, because all Freemasons are men.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 15, 2007 17:01:01 GMT -4
- The structure of the rocks show that they formed in a 1/6 gravity enviroment.
Actually you want to be careful with this one, there isn't strong evidence for it. However, what there is evidence for is the glass sphericals in the soil. These are made during impacts and scatered about the surface. On Earth we do have glass sphecials, but they are smaller and they break down in our weather and soil conditions reasonably quickly in geological terms (just a few million years.) The ones found in the Lunar soils samples were far bigger, indicating formation in lower gravity, and have been dated as billions of years old.
|
|
|
Post by Alliterative Andy on Feb 15, 2007 18:07:20 GMT -4
Regarding the validity of some suggested experiments...
I'm not sure if this will add or detract from my own confusion, but unless I'm mistaken, isn't the Earth's atmosphere also a source of radiation?
Since the temperature of the atmosphere is different from location to location, wouldn't the amount of energy it emits also differ from location to location?
So, if our goal is to isolate the effects of the Sun's radiation striking a planar object at various angles, I think we'd have to put the various objects in locations with similar atmospheric temperatures, as well as at similar elevations and isolating the objects' conduction and convection in the same way. That way, the amount of radiation received from the atmosphere would be nearly the same for each object.
Perhaps, too, this was explained earlier and I missed it...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 15, 2007 18:32:06 GMT -4
Anything that's hot can transfer heat via radiation. However, air most effectively transfers its heat via convection, which is simply conduction with some additional provisions for fluid dynamics. The amount of heat air transfers by radiation is negligible compared to the amount it transfers by convection. But any experiment that controls for air temperature will cover both the convective and the radiative transfer modes, so you're okay.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 15, 2007 19:28:31 GMT -4
My original experiment with the strong light source and the two cards was designed to be basically self-correcting in regards to conduction and environmental lighting (diffuse reflection and thermal re-radiation) -- I basically assumed that if you did the experiment practically you'd be inside, in still air, the direct source would dominate, and fatigue and boredom would discourage you from holding a card in front of a light long enough to experience significant second-order effects. As I posted that experiment, I basically hoped HeavenlyBody would leave it there, and not try to go into the details I intentionally left out. My mistake. I should have realized CT's will always go in the direction of more detail and more potential obfustication rather than stand up from their computers and confront the results of simple experiments.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlybody on Feb 16, 2007 4:07:06 GMT -4
Sorry Bob B, we meant STS60, STS60, are you sure you are qualified in this field and know what you are talking about? Take a look here astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=333and educate yourself regarding the magnetosphere. Here is a quote from the page "The magnetosphere helps absorb outbursts of harmful radiation from the Sun, reducing and stabilizing the amount that reaches the Earth's surface." It might be a good idea to buy a dictionary too, a pun means a play on words. Acronym = A word formed by using the initials of a phrase or other groups of words. PAP = Project Apollo Poppycock pap = childish slang word for excrement pap (according to gillianren) = gruel fed to infants, works just as well as excrement. have it what ever way you like it! Our pun was cheesy, bit was still a pun. LunarOrbit, Why are threatening to ban us for using the term play-group? Are the posters here a group or just one person? When posters come to this message board is it in a professional capacity (work) or for recreation (play)? Please explain why you find it offensive and how it justifies getting banned? Jayutah, bravo for picking up on our typo. Did that make you feel like an intellectual giant? In reality it made you seem petty minded. I & O are next to each other on our keyboard (we bet yours too) and it is very easy to strike both keys at the same time without noticing. We write these post very quickly and rarely spell check or even read our post before posting them. Did you notice we spelt albedo correct in previous posts? Is this yet another attempt to discredit us and detract from the subject? We would like to clarify our stand point on the insolation argument. We stated that comparing the effects of solar-radiation Earth to its effects on the Moon are invalid as they are two completely different environments. Tests that are carried out on Earth will be effected by other factors that do not exist on the Moon therefore the results will be inconclusive. Basically apples & oranges. Let's go back to our original question regarding the thermo-regulation of the LEM. Why would the angle of the Sun in the Lunar sky make the LEM and astronauts any cooler? We think it would be quite the opposite. Due to the fact more surface area is exposed to solar-radiation. And that we think that if the top of the LEM was covered with a reflective coating or they could have deployed a parasol and the legs of the LEM and the soles of the boots of the astronauts were well insulated. It may well be better to be near the equator. Regarding "Was it Only a Paper Moon" that we watched for the first time this week. I will watch it again tonight and make some notes on the other points. Here a few from memory. How wide from the front to back were the astronauts including back-pack and camera? Why did the LRV kick up dust in waves and why did the dust only go up as high as it would from a car or motorbike on Earth? What provisions were made in the event an astronaut vomited?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Feb 16, 2007 4:47:20 GMT -4
LunarOrbit, Why are threatening to ban us for using the term play-group? Are the posters here a group or just one person? When posters come to this message board is it in a professional capacity (work) or for recreation (play)? Please explain why you find it offensive and how it justifies getting banned?
Just to refresh our memories or expose them to this info for the first time. These are terms you (plural) agreed to when joinging here. I take it LO is under no obligation to explain himself to you.
9. Getting Banned
I try to be fair and I do not enjoy banning people. If you follow all of the above rules you should be safe, and you might even get away with breaking one or two of them occasionally. However, repeatedly breaking any of those rules may result in getting banned either temporarily or permanently.
I will take a user's past behaviour into account when they break a rule. Good behaviour is rewarded.
I do not ban people simply because I disagree with them. I ban based on behaviour, not on beliefs. If I ban someone I will explain why.
Some examples of banable behaviour are (but are not limited to):
1) Repeated insulting, rude, or offensive behaviour 2) Harassing other members of the forum, privately or publicly 3) Repeated or severe violations of the Proboards Terms of Service 4) Repeated Copyright violations 5) Posting offensive, obscene, illegal, or adult material 6) Invading another persons privacy 7) Trolling 8) Spamming 9) Repeatedly ignoring warnings from the moderator 10) Intentionally provoking the moderator
Remember: just because something isn't listed above doesn't mean it's safe to do! [revised: 01/07/07]
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 16, 2007 6:00:36 GMT -4
I will note that the implication of "play group" is a group of toddlers. This is why it's an insult.
|
|