|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 15:25:34 GMT -4
concept came from the electrical universe non-sense i referred to earlier. i can't give you the links now, but if you will wait a few hours i would be more than happy to oblige
Don't bother. You can't rescue yourself by appealing to a crackpot theory about the nature of the Universe. Especially when that theory is irrelevant to what you're talking about. The incident under discussion happened in low Earth orbit, in a relatively well-characterized region.
and i am going to fly by my seat again, i am not a physicist.
Nor an engineer or geologist or historian or apparently possessing any expertise in any of the areas under discussion. That in itself is not a problem. The problem is you keep telling people who do know what they're talking about things which are patently absurd.
Why do you keep assuming you're right and everyone else is wrong, in the face of your admitted ignorance and egregious mistakes?
Why do you prefer to "fly by the seat of [your] pants" instead of actually paying attention to useful explanations?
there are areas around the earth with streams of protons and other areas around the earth with streams of electrons.
electrons, electricity. just made a leap of logic here,
Not really a leap of logic, but a complete failure to know what you're talking about. You're confusing the low Earth orbit region in which the Shuttle operates with the Van Allen belts, which are generally above Shuttle (and ISS) altitudes. The Van Allen belts have nothing to do with the TSS experiment.
but it was also based on a science guy saying that the tether was an experiment to tap this energy field,
Correct.
and proposed it was also an attempt to see if the field could be effected, drained or just punch a hole it it like the US attempted in the early 60's by detonating nuclear weapons in the atmosphere (this is not my assumption)
Completely wrong. The TSS had nothing to do with "draining" or "punching a hole in" the VABs.
principally to allow space travel, then again the radiation thing is so mysterious, its hard to know for sure who is telling the truth.
It is not hard for any of the physicists, engineers, satellite manufacturers and insurers, telecom operators, and so on. It's hard for you because you (a) have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and (b) so far have refused to learn.
although maybe you can tell me why the soviets sent a turtle to the moon?
Presumably to see what would happen to it before they sent a man there.
Ralph Rene seems to think that it was because the turtle has a high resistance to radiation, where in the world would you even find that data? who radiates turtles?
Ralph Rene, to put it gently, couldn't pour (wastewater) out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel. He knew (past tense; he's deceased) as little about the relevant science as you do.
Please avoid further handwaving and attempts to claim that everyone is as ignorant as you of the subject, and either support your claim or retract it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 15:07:09 GMT -4
sts60 Very impressive. But I have to say based on your demonstration, you don't know dirt. Evasion noted. Do you, or do you not, intend to support your claim that the Apollo footprints are at odds with reality? First, I didn't claim to "know dirt". You did. That is an assertion of expertise, and you have been repeatedly asked to support that assertion. You have assiduously avoided doing so, offering only the lame excuse that you would not be believed. You were told exactly how you could be believed, but you still refuse to back up your claim. The reason is obvious: you have no such expertise, and having shot off your mouth and been called on it, you are hoping we forget about. Sorry; that won't happen. Second, as Jay has already pointed out, it doesn't matter how much I know dirt; I showed you. My simple experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite of what you said should happen, and exactly what was observed in the Apollo images you derided. Third, an appeal to ridicule may work in political debates, but this is a science forum, and everyone sees you evading the challenge. You are free to demonstrate exactly what is wrong with my simple experiment, if you can. Otherwise you're just running away from your own mistakes again. (Hint: if you are going to say that the rocks placed on top of the compressed "dirt" layer should have disappeared completely after being stepped on, you should really try to explain how a rock can be hidden completely by a layer that is thinner than the height of the rock. There'd probably be a Fields Medal in it for you for that particular bit of topology.)
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 14:30:36 GMT -4
And I'm still waiting for you to address your egregious error in conflating an electromagnetic current with ionizing radiation (the TSS tether reference). I do not intend to let you walk away without taking responsbility for your own claims. I can't make you, obviously, but I will be happy to keep reminding you until you address your claim... and also why making such fundamentally silly mistakes doesn't make you reevaluate your basic premise.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 14:23:26 GMT -4
sts60 Golden's are great family dogs. That's actually not a Golden, but you can't tell from that picture.
bewildered???
Why are you bewildered? I simulated the conditions for your claim and showed you the results, with details for anyone to verify.
just wondering if you have any science back ground?
Other than a degree in space physics, a master's in electrical engineering and another in systems engineering, longtime experience as an amateur astronomer, stints as a planetarium operator and telsecope operator for a 36" reflector at a public observatory, and two decades in civil, military, and commercial space system engineering, including working three Shuttle flights as a payload controller plus crew training, spacecraft integration, etc.,... No, I can't say I do.
what is that supposed to represent?
I hope you are not being deliberately obtuse. It represents exactly what you said wouldn't happen: rocks disappearing into the soft soil under a footprint.
try putting down a layer of flour(?) with some larger impediments on top, then step on it.
No, I've done enough work for you. I put some "larger impediments" down on a very thin layer of small particulate material and demonstrated how they sank into it when a footstep occurred - the only reason they didn't disappear completely was because the thickness of the compressible material layer was less than the thickness of the rocks.
I deconstructed the entire process for you, so that one could see exactly what was happening, and showed exactly the opposite of what you claimed should happen, and if you want me to spend more time on this I will be happy to quote you an hourly rate for my engineering services.
Now, how about actually providing evidence for your claim to expertise in any field related to soil mechanics ("I know dirt")?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 13:52:36 GMT -4
"Stand back! I'm going to try Science!"
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 13:12:32 GMT -4
prove i am off base concerning dirt on the moon? 1)crusting 2)no inclusions in prints Asked and answered, but here is a simple empirical exercise. The rocky substrate. Not really compressible even when trod on by my considerable weight. A thin layer of "very fine particles" on top - about 5-10 mm covering the rocks - and trod upon by the "astronaut". "No evidence of rocks or any intrusions". Add some rocks on top of the compressed "topsoil". Step on it again. Notice, even though the loose particles layer has already been compressed, that the rocks are readily pressed down into it. There's simply not enough powder to cover them. Now, add another thin layer, again about 5-10 mm of "very fine particles": Now step on it: What do we see? ...if you look at the foot print it consists of very fine particles, there is no evidence of rocks or any intrusions.... ...there is zero evidence of any intrusions... ...they disappear after he makes the impression Exactly. What we don't see is the rocks becoming part of the print left by the boot,... a large intrusion in the print Now, we can see that the rocks are not buried in a deep layer at all by brushing the fine layer of "regolith" off a couple: And all that's left now, after demonstrating exactly the effects we see in the Apollo image, and exactly not what playdor the self-proclaimed "I know dirt" expert says we should see, is to destroy the evidence in order to protect the conspiracy: Talk about a real "moondoggie"... (Edited for format/clarity)
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 11:53:03 GMT -4
concerning the tether there is an interesting book by James M. McCanney planet x comets & earth changes he has this insane theory about the electrical nature of the sun check it out. No. You attempted to handwave that radiation somehow prevented Apollo from happening, and you attempted to use the TSS tether break in support of that notion, and you confused radiation with electrical energy. Kindly address your error, rather than attempting to divert attention away from it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 10:48:15 GMT -4
i have said not to listen to me, as you guys have pointed out, i am just another fool.
Spare us the aw-shucks routine. You came here of your own free will, to a board where claims get careful examination, and made claims. Don't try to evade the consequences of your own choices.
Also, as far as I know, no one has called you a fool. But you have made many foolish claims, and you will be asked to assume responsibility for them, rather than evading them via Gish-gallop to a new set of ridiculous claims.
again i would prefer to stick around and have fun with you guys, but will leave with out hard feelings if i am causing too much anxiety.
You are causing no anxiety, though a fair amount of amusement. What is not amusing is intellectual dishonesty - attempting to avoid responsibility for your own claims.
this is hoax portion of web site correct?
... which means your hoax claims will be critically examined.
so i am off base on all the off topic stuff i have posted
Then kindly acknowledge your errors and self-contradictions. And please explain why they don't make you wonder if maybe you're wrong, rather than all the people who actually know something about this topic.
prove i am off base concerning dirt on the moon? 1)crusting 2)no inclusions in prints
Asked and answered. And we're still waiting for you to back up your claims of domain expertise with regard to the lunar regolith.
please note: i never made a claim that the actual boot impression was impossible.
That you are not dragging the "wet-sand" howler is indeed to your credit.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 10:17:41 GMT -4
interesting quote from AULIS website... No. Before you try to Gish-gallop to yet another claim regurgitated from a conspiracist web site, kindly answer the challenges to your existing claims. Don't think you're the first conspiracy believer who tried to evade challenges by changing the subject.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 10:15:27 GMT -4
Also, kindly answer the question I made in post 542, where I examined your handwaving about radiation and how you confused electrical energy with ionizing radiation: Given your manifest lack of relevant knowledge and your many mistakes, have you ever questioned your premise that Apollo was faked? Have you ever considered that maybe you're wrong, and not all the scientists and engineers and historians and educated laymen? If not, why not? This is a direct question, and the moderator may or may not require you to answer (depending on which side of the bed he got up on this morning). If you fail to answer it, however, please explain why anybody should bother trying to help you anymore.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 10:08:14 GMT -4
i will not share with you my credentials,
I do not believe you have any relevant credentials.
why would you believe me anyway?
I would believe you if you could provide a credible-sounding sketch of your qualifications, and would stop making claims that (a) are easily refuted and (b) aren't inherently self-contradictory.
See for you self, pull up the HR images and start searching the foot prints, the evidence is there or it isn't.
Already shown to you, by at least two separate posters, but the real problem is...
At the end of the search you will need to find an explanation as to what happens to the large pebbles and rocks when compressed.
... your claim is self-contradictory. You show images of footprints in soil liberally sprinkled with pebbles and rocks, and complaing that in your cherry-picked footprints the pebbles and rocks don't appear, but you don't grasp that your premise requires the astronauts - whether on the Moon or on the Earth - to avoid stepping on any pebbles or rocks. That's prima facie absurd.
If NASA has dreamt up a good reason for this phenomena, i am sure you'll let me know.
Asked and answered.
You made an argument from personal authority ("I know dirt"), implying special expertise in area(s) related to soil mechanics. Provide your credentials to back up your claim or retract it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 2:35:27 GMT -4
yep, a foolish attempt on my part to even suggest that radiation could be a problem. did you ever see video from sts 75 what in the world happened to that tether? laurelwhat they found out was that even at that altitude there was more energy then was thought. i believe that the tether was melted and broke. some say the tether was an attempt to drain some of the radiation, Just when I thought you said the stupidest thing ever, you keep on talking. You are trying to wave around the radiation bogeyman by invoking the broken TSS tether, and you're waving your hands about "more energy". The "more energy" means more electrical energy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with radiation. The electrical flow was due to the conductor in the tether cutting through the Earth's magnetic field. And the greater-than-expected current (and associated higher-than-expected power) isn't why the tether broke anyway. It has literally nothing at all to do with radiation, but you are trying to say it's evidence that radiation was a problem for Apollo. You are correct that what you said was "very foolish". No. No you don't. You don't know anything about any of the subjects in which you have made mistakes that would have embarrassed any reasonably competent eighth-grader. Yet you still insist to an audience including educated laymen and space engineers that you are somehow proving Apollo was phony. This is a direct question: given your many mistakes and demonstrated lack of knowledge on this subject, and your record of contradicting yourself, why have you not reevaluated your premise? Why have you not asked yourself, "Maybe I'm wrong, and not all the scientists and engineers?" Are you simply not interested in learning anything? Or is it some sort of religious objection to spaceflight, or anti-American prejudice? Or are you simply a troll?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 18, 2011 2:14:19 GMT -4
check it out show me a foot print that contains a imperfection caused by a rock or pebble... OK.Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You're looking at a surface that obviously has both fine particles in abundance, and macrosopic bits including pebbles and larger rocks. Yet you're somehow suggesting that they did not walk on a real surface, because of your ignorant expectations of how the lunar regolith should behave, and how many careful images of footprints the crews should have taken, coupled with your general ignorance of the actual record showing a variety of responses of the soil to the astronauts' boots. You say you "know dirt", as if that somehow makes you some sort of expert qualified to render judgment on images which have been examined in detail by generations of professional geologists. What exactly is your expertise in any field related to soil mechanics? I expect you to cite your exact credentials, both academic and work-related, to back up your bragging.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 17, 2011 23:35:12 GMT -4
You're sure that fossil fuel formation is a natural process in the Earth? Then you have just debunked your own appeal to ignorance in the post in which you derided that theory. What does that say about your reasoning?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 17, 2011 22:35:00 GMT -4
... here's one: oil is from dead animals and plants, had that FACT shoved down our throats for how long. wait now they have discovered it can be made naturally in the earth...revelation! Here's a revelation: oil formation from "dead plants and animals" is "made naturally in the Earth". That is the very essence of fossil fuel formation theory, whether you believe the theory or not. You haven't even formed your own strawman correctly.
|
|