furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 11, 2007 6:45:32 GMT -4
Turbulance can't be seen unless there's something in the air such as smoke or dust. As I said before--sand can be made dust-free by sifting and then washing for as long as necessary. You attempts to say it's impossible to make sand dust-free were pretty lame. Also, the erosion caused by the wheels kicking up dust-free sand would not break up enough sand into dust-sized particles to form a visible cloud. That was another lame attempt to discredit the theory that they could have sifted and washed some sand to make it dust-free. Face it. This anomaly is too clear for you to explain away. You can't change the laws of physics. www.youtube.com/watch?v=npARfNtO7u8Somewhere between the twenty minute mark and the twenty two minute mark of this video some of the footage of the rover can be seen played at double speed. video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apolloIt looks just like a dune buggy driving on earth. Thankyou .. You're correct in stating I Cannot Change the laws of Physics. All Together Now We Cannot Change the Laws Of Physics I would suggest watching a Dune buggy/Dirt Bike at speed and watching the Roostertails, noting Vortices and Aerosolisation, and Turbulence wakes they are suprisingly visible, you might also like to watch the Irregular spray pattern from the back of a speed boat. Air Smoke Dust Sand Meteors, the Basic difference is particle Geometry and Mass they all obey basic rules and exhibit properties of motion in atmosphere that (with the exception of brownian motion) can be reasonably modelled (Electros Statics in the Lighter particles as well)** There fore We can watch find vortices and turbulence in Sand Sawdust Wood Chippings Grass cuttings, Leaves, Fields Of Wheat, Tornadoes tearing up roads, Hurricanes tearing up Cities, infact anything, the massier (you know what I mean) the particle the more force is required but can be witnessed easily,** some of these effects will be the formation of clouds settling from the rooster tail and spreading in the horizontal (depending on the viscoscity of the atmosphere), other exhibited effects would be vortices, **Washing removes Dust, Dust being smaller particles increases the atmospheric viscoscity and velocity to cause the effects but does not eliminate them however, Larger particles also exhibit these properties regardlless of treatment, the only way to surely remove these effects is to replace the atmosphere with a non Viscous one.** infact if you where looking for proof of a hoax I would suggest actively searching for them... These would raise significant scientific argument that it IS a hoax. I cannot think of any method used by the astronauts that could conceivably form a vortex of dust on the moon, Maybe residual gassing from the Rocket Motors, I cant recall the calculated density of the atmosphere on the moon but I recall it is close to negligible. So you now have an Idea of something that would be serious scientific proof of an atmosphere, Look for a Vortex. you might want to try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VortexHas a Pretty picture some maths bits and pretty much all you need to prove that it is fluid dynamics (note in galaxies and Large Gravity systems, You can utilise Gravity as A Fluid) www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1487080/2/istockphoto_1487080_dune_buggy.jpgwww1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1487077/2/istockphoto_1487077_dune_buggy.jpgwww.sand-stormers.com/r2.jpgwww.harrisonfordweb.com/vacation/snaps/buttercup4.jpgYou get the idea.. **Following added in Edit
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 11, 2007 5:38:54 GMT -4
During the whole video the dust behaves just like it would in an atmosphere. That is slow-motion footage of the rover driving on earth. With the Absence of Vortices, natch this is due due to the Magic Sand that as well as being washed to remove to remove fine particles to stop billowing of dust at the base and noticeble fine aerosol forming , we now have particles with 0 drag coefficient (unaffected by atmospheric drag) or are the dust particles so incredibly dense that their Drag is neglegible to the motion? I also couldn't see any evidence of turbulence caused by the Astoronaut and Rover vehicle passing through an atmosphere, I take it the Driver had a wash that morning before filming on set? Or Maybe they changed the atmosphere in the studio to a Friction less one? does that sound plausible.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 11, 2007 5:01:36 GMT -4
I answered reply #242 last night and this morning my post isn't there. What's going on? I'll answer it again. I was referring to the dirt that goes up an makes a line at a 45 degree angle that is to the left of the vertical line of dirt that you've outlined. The dirt you outlined goes off-camera. The dirt to which I'm referring slows down and almost stops and falls almost straight down. The particles aren't in a clump. There's no interaction between them that would make them fall down the way they do. Only hitting something head-on would make them behave that way. Does this mean that the rest of the Dust is behaving as it would do in a vacuum Under Gravity apart from one isolated volume hat is not behaving as you perceive it should?
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 10, 2007 11:18:22 GMT -4
You haven't shown anything that would satisfy an objective person. You only have the attitude that you have. You haven't debunked anything. You only have the attitude that you have. I guess all you can do now is try to fill up the thread with technobabble to try to reduce the number of people who read the part where you're cornered. That's the tactic that disinfo agents use when they're cornered. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 So you want us to explain Acceleration due to gravity without using technobabble relation to a mass of particles being thrown fhe interaction from an irregular surface with an irregular wheel and the differences those particle paths (notice the plural) would exhibit within at atmosphere at terrestrial gravity and a vacuum at lunar gravity. are these technobabble words like CLOUD, or AEROSOL, Image RESOLUTION, several semi technical questions have been asked of you in various threads I asked 4 easily researchable questions of you, you have been in this thread asked a specific question in relation to ballistic paths, you are FREQUENTLY asked questions that go unanswered or you give a defacto (sometimes self contradictory) statement with no offer of evidence or source, These questions are to determine your level of understanding, and that way we can gear our responses to your level. to use a phrase we can numptify the science bit Common sense does not seem to apply in your physical surreality, as you Continuously refuse to accept basic physical constants and processes, yet you state that these are proof and they are based on science.. there is a method to scientific proof, and while us poor deluded souls that believe or know the landings occured we have at least a method to our madness, you are only exhibiting madness in your method. please state which terms you do not understand , meanwhile here is a simple little test you can play with to witness the effect of atmosphere on particle suspension. you will require some sand about 100g or so. a mug or cup, a source of water, a spoon, soap, salt pour sand into the dry cup till it is around 1/3 full, now stir with the spoon observe and record results. repeat several times recording and observing. leaving the sand in the cup fill to 3/4 full with water, and stir with spoon as you had previously, observe and record results, repeat and record repeat the experiment but this time before addeng the water ad a little soap to remove noticeable surface tension (don't go over board we dont need bubbles, although you could repeat with foam for a giggle) repeat agin but this time saturate (dissolve as much salt as you can into the solution, in fact you may notice that once the water is saturated with salt, you don't even need the sand) You may observe that when the sand wasin air the sand fell back to position quickly and only under the most vigorous of stirring can you possibly form a cloud or vortex, how ever in the water it takes very little to raise a cloud you might have noticed it takes quite a while for the sand to settle and any vortices to die down agin this will hopefully show you one of the important effects of atmospheric density on small particles travelling through them, while the air is not as thick as water, in comparison to a vacuum it may well as be. you might wish to try this with different solids or even liquids, why not try Coarse building sand versus Kids playpit sand,Glass beads teflon beads, a non polar solvent, Iron filings, Soil, or Clay you might also observe that the size of particle and its density effects the ability for it to form these clouds. now while this does nothing to answer parabolic flight of particles that can not be even accurately measured had that been a 100 fps HD video, you might understand that the biggest singular flaw in the behaviour of particles in a vacuum compared to particles in an atmosphere, is the absence of this ability, to form clouds and drag vortices If you have a really big white poly bucket (I have one for making beer in) using sand your could do all sorts of fluid based experiments concerning particle behaviour, you would be able to do a single stroke at the bottom on watch as the fluid naturally produces vortices, and the wat the particles behave, some things that go aginst common sense, get some marbles small glass beeds and some sand in the bottom of your bucket, get a good stirrer get all the water moving steadily round at one time per second, try and wtch what the sand or individual particles do, als watch how it seperates forms coloumns, and at what speed they drop out Lots of very simple fluid dynamics experiments YAY! For Scieeeeeeence WOO! *Editted and added reproduction with Salt for altering fluid density, and soap for removing noticable surface tension, also could possible be used for whipping up a foam to observe as well
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 7, 2007 14:28:27 GMT -4
I didded a LOL, I likes the term Cookie littles a lot, also reminds me of a blame chasing drinking game (Cookie Jar) which also fits and is a lot of fun, plus has the added benefit of inducing long term liver damage ;D
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 11, 2007 19:54:02 GMT -4
True I got myself into the mindset of someone that believes in common sense and belief rather than physical or calculable evidence.Yes, common sense and belief tell us that no one could possibly be as dense as most HB's appear to be, however physical and calculatable evidence proves this to be wrong. not to mention empirical. *In edit, I apologise I am not really this dense I am just traveling close to c at the moment, and physical and calculable got shifted to UV and I couldn't correctly interpret them as being empircal
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 11, 2007 8:47:10 GMT -4
True I got myself into the mindset of someone that believes in common sense and belief rather than physical or calculable evidence.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 10, 2007 22:47:03 GMT -4
That is the sort of logic I have only arrived at through the application of chemicals.
I still haven't got my head around, If it is impossible to go to the moon, why did NASA bother to fake Dust that causes so much argument, as no one would be able to dispute it.
I Have forgotten which thread it is in but they state that they put fibre glass in it (to get the halo effect) WHY? no one had witnessed the effect from earth so why bother putting it in.
some times the ... err thought / logic (neither of them fit) makes me slack jawed in wonder
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 10, 2007 20:51:30 GMT -4
Well I did manage to contradict myself several times (nearly gave myself a stroke trying to switch off my brain like that) I personally thought the no stars question would have given that away... Belated :
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 7, 2007 9:36:19 GMT -4
Now all you Apollogists are going to have to eat your words,
This is a Clever Ploy by You to decieve people as WE are now showing the truth and people no longer believe the Lies that have been spreading for 40 Years , This mission was carried out, as Nasa had by then fixed all the Fuxored technology with help from the Aliens, to fly by the moon ship and return the Aliens and 47 Cats to them, the reason that this has been released now, is to try and discredit US, WE Truth Hunters finally rattled the cage,
you will now spread more lies that this is false, but you KNOW this isnt TRUE, because this footage is obviously Genuine (It Appeared on Youtube and wasn't released by NASA, so it must be true) because you are all going to cry Fake and Fraud and Not so, and the rest of your BrainWashed cronies will convince the world that this is fake, while common sense tells you it MUST be true.
FACT: All PANs Are FAIL LOLZOR
Q: Why are there no stars in the Picture
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 18, 2007 20:51:17 GMT -4
I'm saying that we can't believe everything we read and I'm giving examples of untruths that are in the press. That is the topic. If I get warned or banned for that it will be an injustice. All l'm saying is that all of that data is not proof that Apollo was real as data can be manufactured. False data has been manufactured before and the whole country ended up believing it. Answer this question. Do you argue that all of the Apollo data are proof that we went to the moon? Soooo which data from which sources do you find credible, and why are these sources more credible from a random person from a random country that has a random amount of knowledge in a subject relevant to an aspect of what you are discussing., and before you go on about the US government, may I remind you that they govern <5% of the worlds population. so even on a basic probability curve (without even taking into account a support factor within the USA for the government), Luck Fate whatever is against a purely anti US government argument.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 13, 2007 11:10:19 GMT -4
I must admit I do like a good creationist argument, there was a while (bout 2 years back) that it seems that a lot of good Creationist Debaters and IDers seemed to get infiltrated by a few HB's and seemed to put forward a recruitment drive that a true Believer in the Bible would believe in the hoax etc. and all science is Evil and unfortunately a lot of forums just became Flame posts stating Science evil Burn Hell, at that point it destroyed a lot of effort put in by people in presenting flawed but well argued posts or just questioning basic theories of science, whilst a lot of regular posters had already realised that if you wish to argue about science you have to use science. I have rethought some of my creation theories in relation to arguments presented (although still do not believe in Gods or Fate), I have reduced my 99% Abiogenesis viewpoint to include other possibilities.
The above piece listed seems to have correctly taken all the data and all the maths, and then mis-applied them in their conclusion. It is also nice that it cites sources so I can happily check any details.
If the Argument against us, is that we are all irrational pro government science disinfo agents due to the manner in which we answer or use science as a weapon, the fact that I have had a lot of very stimulating debates and convos down the pub and via Email with creationists, AntiScience, Religious persons that have had a well thought out idea, well presented and researched, and have come back later after correcting figures or further understanding new received data. It is a pity that General HBs here and other sites seem to be Sugar Laden ADD sufferers, and sometimes make the God Fearing Creationist Zealot I have dealt with look moderate.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 13, 2007 9:03:07 GMT -4
Just as a side point, I was just researching Lunar regolith composition and it seems that my least favorite camp of people the Creationists (Dramatic Organ Music) accept the moon landings and are even using apollo data in their arguments. www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.aspAt no point do they call into question Astro Physics Geologists or Doubt the moon landings in this article, it also happens to be a finely written and informative piece, and its sources seem correctly cited for the Soil analysis and Lunar/Cis Lunar Inter Planentary space, and basic theories of Dust accreation in the Lunar Enviroment and across the solar system as a whole, I have not fully digested the article yet. (saving that for later) They of course seem to be using this analysis to prove that the earth is on 6000 years old or whatever it is they claim. since Similar Regolith deposition of Rare materials Such as Iridium and other Exo Terran materials cannot be found at depth, It seems to be an interesting piece, Also Has references for a Lot of other Sources, that will help hopefully in answering other questions I have (mostly Electrostatic and Van der walls forces within particles) But if these Bible Thumping (Self Censorship)s can and do accept the landings and are also capable of fashioning what appears to be an thoroughly researched and accurate piece, why can't the Hoax Believers do the same. Note, In Cretionist arguments apart from the basic You'll all burn in hell firebrand zealot, I find a lot of articles very well researched and presented in an unbiased method, then just requires a literal Leap of faith to reach the Hypothesis. Editted due to apostrophes
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 10, 2007 16:24:52 GMT -4
OT.
Euurgh non standard plurals, anyone want to guess at the numbers involved in
Your Moose set my sheep running to his mongoose
zero, 1, many, and all we don't need any other steenking numbers
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 9, 2007 15:53:39 GMT -4
and now children let's relax with a little: {Quote} If we suspect data are bogus, what's the point of doing any measurements? We can't do anything anyway; only a government can launch satellites that measure radiation.{/Quote}
and if those satellites happen to be private funded projects, thinking especially about communications systems here, it would be inconceivable to believe that essentially every semiconductor can be used as a device to measure charge, in fact they would need to know that info. Electronics Magnetism and EM Communications sort of go hand in hand with the Electromagnetic nature of the belts, who launches them is irrelevant, any EM transponder placed within the belts would be subject to its effects. every piece of material would be subject to effects, Field effect transistors and ICs would all become detectors, and even if not built specifically for measuring the VAB would in fact be transmitting the Data,
Another Gem: {Quote}They rely on data all right. The question is whether the data they use came from Apollo, or from satellites and probes. {/Quote}
where the data originated is irrelevant, it would not change the physical nature of the VAB.. but it continues...
<It's quite possible that the people who build the spacecraft are using the secret set of data when they design their spacecraft. How are we supposed to know whether they use the data that we can read in libraries, or some top secret data that is not consistent with Apollo?>
of course there are only a few people required to build a probe or satellite, the electronics circuit designers required for basic satellite design, specialists that design the circuitry to be sufficiently hardened, all the QA staff, Review etc. are all in it as well as the component manufacturers, accountants.
Quote: No. "Every space scientist and spacecraft engineer and satellite operator in the world is lying" is not a plausible explanation, especially in light of your absolute failure to provide any evidence to back up your claims.
(reply) never said every scientist in the world is lying. I only alleged that only people with high security clearances could see the real data. That doesn't mean that every scientist in the world is lying. (/reply)
But every single tech involved in the design or for the design review and QA would have to have ACCURATE data for performance prediction, which would indicate that they all have access, also you seem to have run into a brick wall in relation to ThROW (The Rest of the world) are all of these foreign nationals and agencies also using secret data, and have they signed an agreement that all of them will use there own data and keep a secret set as well?
<<Look at some of the forbidden examples at the beginning of this thread of government scientists who lie. >>> Yada yada yadaa what not an attempt at misdirection surely..
I lied about my age to get alcohol when I was 14 does that mean that all info after that point is false. sometimes scientists lie, and then when reviewed their reputation sinks lower than whale sh*t, and the scientific community laughs at them and they tend not to be taken seriously again.
Some might make early observations or observations via a flawed method, these theories can then be amended retested to see if the hypothesis holds (your GM tube in the first radiological measurement is a good example) GM tubes are set for a specific range by applying a high voltage with the tube, after a certain amount of ionization has occurred the tube fires (a Count) and the ionisation starts again, I can saturate a GM tube by cranking up the Bias and point it at a CRT, however by correcting the voltage I can tune the device to a useful range, the same settings used to do a beta count from a low source is effectively useless for a high radiation source and vice versa, correct settings for the window of determined results is necessary, would you use a medical thermometer to measure the temperature of LOX or Hot Cooking oil and determine that it is safe to stick your hand in given the reading... of course not.,
now for a fun a non space agency related counter.
imagine if you will A researching physicist in university has access to various data tables, lets just take for example, basic particle constants (Mass Charge densities etc) Geo magnetic data, he also has access to some research time on a cyclotron (a nice big Magnetic particle accelerator)
would it not be plausible to suggest that they could not also calculate theoretic particle behavior reasonably accurately on interaction of magnetic fields on Protons Electrons Ions and nuclei in a vacuum. without direct observation/measurement, and then observe/measure the accuracy of predictions based on lab experiments with the cyclotron.
after deriving a set of theoretical mass charge boundaries for a proposed belt of trapped radiation around the earth, they then proceed to check if the densities and probable energy level are correct, they determine that one method to do this would be to a measurement of wave propagation similar to the method used for propagating radio waves in the charged upper atmosphere (ionosphere) as a result ELF-VLF radio waves are chosen so as to not be too affected by the upper atmosphere, and lo and behold wave reflection occurs at the lower point of the belts, by sliding down the frequencies the upper boundary of a belt is found, lowering the frequencies further, boundaries of the outer belt are found.
using these detected reflection boundaries a simple radar system can be set up so that pulses measured across a time base will give dimension, these dimensions can then be compared with results from earlier lab controlled observations this can derive required particle density required to fit that geometry. taking the particle density in a given area and applying the Magnetic field strength at that area would give the energy level of the trapped particles.
now using this model, not only can the dimensions of the belt be determined by an earth bound observer, but also anomalies and activity, they could also use this to monitor compression of the solar facing belt during a solar event to determine magnitude, now to achieve this it would require ACCURATE info, any errors in Mass Charge Magnetic field strength would have resulted in a null or data anomaly event, which would lead to further investigation and a chance for the up and coming physicist to make a name for himself.
granted I haven't done all the maths and some of the physics is wayyyyy beyond my self, but given the fact that VLF radio astronomy is Orders of magnitude cheaper than space exploration, it is not surprising that VLF and ELF Radio astronomy is widespread and in a lot of cases sufficient to not warrant further Probes, also given the amount of data extracted by test toroidal plasma reactors and supercollidors Cyclotrons and the like,
So as well as anyone in the space industry we now have to include Radio Astronomers Professional and amateur, any physicist working in fusion, plasma, Colliders, cyclotrons, essentially any physicist with a knowledge of electromagnetism, the suppression of education world wide into the fundamentals of Electromagnetism and Fundamental particles, probably all theoretical mathematicians as well, gosh this CT isn't just huge it is all encompassing, now seeing that US Govt NASA Pixies at the bottom of the garden, are going to have to Permanently eradicate suppress mask this secret VAB Knowledge which is independently researchable without access to a rocket for the rest of time, surely it would have just been simpler and cheaper to go to the moon a couple of times huh.
Short version Strength Dimension Intensity Current of the belt can be determine by earth based observations and calculations, with this data then groundbased measurements research in to ex magnetosphere radiation levels can proceed giving theoretical values based on absorbtion with the belts, propagation and measurement on the earths surface and upper atmosphere can provide incident radiation data (balloons Hi alt rockets aircraft mountains) this allows whole fields of research that have nothing to do with space travel to have access to independently gathered data for their required discipline,
|
|