|
Post by frenat on Oct 8, 2005 18:33:30 GMT -4
English not your first language matix? how about this? Strike one word and add another.
"less than 1.5 pounds per square inch of pressure" is what the thrust was after coming out of the nozzle after which it greatly decreased due to spreading out in a vacuum. Handwaving is what you've been doing when you say something is obvious but you don't have anything to back it up.
Edit: Anybody know why the bolding doesn't work inside a quote on this post? I ended up underlining the word I wanted bolded as well because the bolding would show up.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 8, 2005 18:00:30 GMT -4
Perhaps you should start with how much less than 1.5 pounds per square inches of pressure should move. Your handwaving won't work here. (not that it has worked anywhere else.)
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 8, 2005 17:25:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 8, 2005 17:21:15 GMT -4
Also the rocket plume spreads out quickly in a vacuum as opposed to in an atmosphere. The overall pressure of the thrust on the ground is not very much at all. But surely it would be enough to move a piece of 10mm pea shingle? Is that your professional opinion? Do you have any math to back that up matix? Because I have found this I found that quoted on another forum and unfortunately do not know the original source. (I suspect it originated with JayUtah though) The math is sound though. With a maximum pressure of 1.5 pounds per square inch and then the pressure being lower than that as it spreads out in the vacuum, it is not surprising that some small rocks were not moved.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 8, 2005 17:05:46 GMT -4
Also the rocket plume spreads out quickly in a vacuum as opposed to in an atmosphere. The overall pressure of the thrust on the ground is not very much at all.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 9, 2005 17:11:28 GMT -4
And the craft was hardly "untried". Apollos 8,9, and 10 all tested various parts of the system with 8 and 10 making the same journey to the moon that the 7 following did. Apollo 8 & 10 landed on the moon? Did I say that Matix? Landing is just a small part of the journey. Both 8 and 10 orbited the moon with 10 testing the LM in moon orbit. Of course if you could do any research outside your tiny little box, you would know that already.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 9, 2005 16:39:54 GMT -4
And the craft was hardly "untried". Apollos 8,9, and 10 all tested various parts of the system with 8 and 10 making the same journey to the moon that the 7 following did.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 2, 2005 14:18:32 GMT -4
Three things of which I'm sure you'll disagree completely then restate your original claim as if nothing happened. 1. The astronaut in the background is moving slower and covering less ground. The skipping gait seems useful for speed but would be overkill if moving slowly. 2. The astronaut in the background appears to be moving uphill. The skipping gait would be less useful while climbing. 3. The astronaut in the background does use the skip from what I can see but not the whole time. But why should he? It's not the only way to get around on the moon. There are plenty of clips of astronauts walking slowly and carefully. You don't always run or always walk or always skip do you? Of course it is hard to see much in these tiny, badly compressed clips that you keep linking to. Lunar Orbit seems to be having some trouble in deciding whether he is a fair man or not, but this rule, and rule 7 seem to be squarely aimed at just a couple of users. In case I am not around for much longer, I would like to thank those users with whom I have shared courteous, civil and adult debate. Of course they are only aimed at a few users! Not everyone on the forum engages in spamming. There are also very few that willfully break rules. Are you trying to imply they are aimed merely at you? Paranoid much matix? Or is it that you've been trying to get yourself banned so you can cry to your friends that we're oppressing the "truth" that you feel it should be aimed at you? As for courteous, civil and adult debate, where has that occurred? I have yet to see that out of you and I'm sure many others will agree. You have been rude, pigheaded, and have lied more than once. I am not the only one that thinks you are trying to get banned. Not a very mature thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 1, 2005 17:25:40 GMT -4
It didn't happen, and I have provided you with bucketloads of evidence that it didn't happen. Evidence? Hah! LOLOLOL I've seen plenty of conjecture and hadwaving from your side but nothing consisting of evidence. 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. That's what you've wanted all along isn't it? Then you can go back to your friends and claim "the truth is being suppressed. Look how they banned me. etc." I'm really doubting that you came here for any other reason than to engage in your "scambaiting". The problem is you have to find a scam first. Why don't you go hang out at the hollow earth boards? I'm also doubting that you ever really believed in the moon landings. Your mind is too shut and you've been way too pigheaded. Why don't you stop with that lie right now? Otherwise, I suggest you continue to read with an open mind, the evidence I present to you. Again, present some evidence and we'll be happy to look at it but you haven't had any yet. Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the one here being obstinate and pigheaded is the one calling for us to have an open mind?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 1, 2005 13:46:34 GMT -4
also, you never answered the qeustion of why dust would not clump in a vacuum? That's because he doesn't know. It's just another thing he made up to try to fit what he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 1, 2005 13:45:49 GMT -4
Wrong. the problem with you is you consistently ignore other's postings and direct question. You have been rude by almost anyone's definition. We don't care what you believe. What we do care about is that you have no evidence to back it up. And repeating the same tired argument over and over that has been debunked before is not evidence.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 1, 2005 10:31:26 GMT -4
I'll give you one thing matix. You are good for humor. Have you thought about being a comedian? Might pay better than a truck driver.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 1, 2005 10:28:04 GMT -4
Too much bouncing at double speed to have been on earth. Look at the arms, they move too fast. Way too much unsubstantiated nonsense in the absence of evidence from matix.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 1, 2005 11:46:28 GMT -4
Must be photoshop!!!!! (if it's bold and with extra exclamation points that makes it more credible right?)
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 30, 2005 17:44:41 GMT -4
You're just grasping at straws now matix.
|
|