|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2007 14:40:30 GMT -4
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
EDIT: Stop trying to change the subject, too. This point is not finished yet.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 14, 2007 14:34:36 GMT -4
I noticed you seem to have missed my request for a screenshot with arrows on it clearing stuff up.
Oh, and what you think is not what is actually happening. Sorry to burst your bubble.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 14, 2007 12:31:42 GMT -4
So about that screenshot thingie... could you pull it off?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 14, 2007 11:19:49 GMT -4
I can make it go in slow motion by clicking the mouse quickly. I am able to follow a section of dirt and compare it with the section of ground from where it was kicked up. It flies backward in relation to the spot of ground from where it was kicked up. You are wrong. The trajectory is not parabolic. The only thing that would change the trajectory the way it is changed is hitting something head-on--something like atmosphere. I seriously have no idea what you're talking about and I'm tired of guessing and hoping it's right; it takes up a lot of time and effort. You know, the video I posted has the exact segment we're talking about in slowmotion, too. Could you post a screenshot with arrows showing what the trajectory, according to you, is? If you need picture hosting, go here.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 11, 2007 8:39:49 GMT -4
Know what, rocky? Why don't you draw it yourself?
Just pause the clip at the right place. Then use the PRINTSCREEN button on your keyboard to make a printscreen. CTRL-V it in MS Paint, then crop everything away except the part of the video. Then use some red lines (or blue, if that's a better color for you) to show us how the dust behaves according to you.
It's hard to discuss when the only thing you do is say "No, that screenshot isn't quite how I think it is. Nope, not that one either. Oh yeah, it's in an atmosphere because it is.)
EDIT: I don't want to sound too harsh or anything, it's just tiring for me that I've gone through so much trouble just to hear you say "No, that's not quite how I think it is."
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 10, 2007 18:08:05 GMT -4
I've created a short clip showing the dust cloud in (slow) motion, and uploaded it to YouTube. I've just uploaded it, so it might not work right away. It is without arrows to show you which way the cloud goes (unlike the screenshot), but it shows my point alright. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mBV8mG4-zE
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 10, 2007 17:33:47 GMT -4
Sorry, rocky, you're completely wrong about the actual behavior of the particles. Here's another screenshot showing the way the particles behave go. edited for better grammar/spelling/clarifying of what I mean EDIT 2 (sorry): If you would like me to elaborate on this, please ask.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 10, 2007 17:19:34 GMT -4
Wait wait wait, I'll change my tactic to a more direct approach. Rocky, are you talking about this particular dust cloud thingie? A simple yes or no would do.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 10, 2007 9:16:48 GMT -4
No, rocky.
The reason why the dust 'cloud' (can't find the right word for it; sorry for not being a native English speaker) isn't perfectly parabolic has been explained to you.
Your logic seems to be "The trajectory of the motes of dust are not parabolic; therefore it is not in a vacuum; therefore there is an atmosphere." That logic has been debunked. All of the individual motes of dust follow a parabolic trajectory, but the motes of dust constantly bump and collide with each other changing the trajectory of every mote of dust.
Then you say "The dust behaves the same way as it would in an atmosphere", yet you provide no video of dust in an atmosphere, making this argument a complete assumption with nothing to back it up (apart from a 'Haven't you ever seen motorcycles peeling out in the sand? The sand does exactly what the dirt in the video does.')
'We' have shown you why your logic is wrong. You haven't shown 'us' why your logic is right.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 10, 2007 8:42:45 GMT -4
No, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. You still do not support the statement "The dust shows there's an atmosphere." You haven't proven that. And this video doesn't prove it. You would have to have a second video definetly shot on earth atmosphere showing the same vertical speed change. Not a video of the exact same Apollo 16 scene. You can't say 'The Apollo 16 footage shows dust that can only behave this way in an atmosphere. I know how dust behaves in an atmosphere because of the Apollo 16 footage." You need another clip done on earth where the dust definetly is in an atmosphere where the dust behaves the same way as in the Apollo 16 footage. Got it? EDIT: Show us a video shot on earth where the dust behaves the same way as in the Apollo 16 footage.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 9, 2007 19:41:33 GMT -4
The trajectory they follow is exactly the trajectory that particles in atmosphere would follow. Prove it. Show us. Enlighten us. Pwn us with 'the truth'. Kick our butts. Go out there and make yourself a legend. .... You get the point. I would suggest that whenever rocky returns to this thread, the first thing we do is check if he's backed up this particular statement. If he hasn't, the only thing you post is another request to back up this statement, or ask him why he hasn't backed it up. If he has posted something to back that up, just go debunk that. Keep things focused, don't follow him when he's trying to lead you off the subject.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 9, 2007 12:02:29 GMT -4
Sorry for the double post.
Rocky, when you refer to "footage", do you mean the one minute segment of the Rover riding around? Because if you do, you have picked a horrible source. A lot of the time there is a huge link to some website in the screen. On top of that, I just converted the file to uncompressed frames, and it still looks horribly pixelated (the dust is mostly blobs).
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 9, 2007 11:30:51 GMT -4
I've taken a good look but stopped after a minute.
Why do I need to bother looking at footage of some guy talking, anyways? I hoped you had some actual mission footage instead of some guy talking.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 31, 2007 17:10:35 GMT -4
*slaps forehead*
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 30, 2007 17:18:03 GMT -4
Is this because your common sense tells you that the launched dirt has to hit something head on in order to change the curvature? Because if that's all your evidence supporting this statement, I'd try again.
Your theory is ruling out the fact there are thousands, millions of very small sized drops of dust (or whatever it's called) flying around close to each other. Any bumps would change direction and speed of the particles. Of course, they wouldn't do that if they all had equal speed and direction.
But, one can only assume that all these particles (is that the word?) have an equal amount of kinetic energy put into them and 'start off' moving to the same direction, if you assume the wheels of the rover puts an equal amount of kinetic energy and whatever it's called to each single particle. Which is, to put it bluntly, a rediculous assumption.
Oh yes, and your alternative theory has been shown to not be possible. And responses to that on whether or not it is wrong, or revising the theory?
I'm not an expert, I'll let others speak in more technical terms (if they feel like it; by the reactions of the other members I'm getting the feeling you are a person who needs a lot of patience to be handled with). These are just some things that you didn't really address in your post.
|
|