|
Post by rodin on Sept 20, 2010 12:53:03 GMT -4
I pose a simple question
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 18:14:50 GMT -4
Three problems: 1. It maxes out a mach 15, which is still too slow. 2. The flow of air at that speed would erode the rock in much the same way as hitting the Earth's atmosphere would. 3. The article talks about a temperature of 5000K which would also alter the rocks. Sorry, this won't work. Mach 9 is even slower. Still doesn't work. But can you answer this: Why was it necessary for NASA to fake Apollo? Never mind what could have been faked - why did it need to be? I agree now with you that gas-borne dust is a red herring. The particles would have to be accelerated by a magnetic field. Why did NASA have to fake Apollo? You mean which facet(s) was(were) technically unfeasible? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 17:59:38 GMT -4
Let's not forget the not so small question of how NASA could produce 2 metre long cores if they didn't go to the moon, especially given the characteristics of the lunar material that point to it having formed under 1/6th g and in the absence of air and water. What's to stop them just ramming layers into a tube?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 17:57:48 GMT -4
Of course. But micrometeorites were known from those that are observed burning up quickly Still not small enough to produce zap pits. If I hear you use the term 'could be' without providing one single shred of evidence, rodin, I would wish I could reach through this monitor and throttle you. Again, do your own homework. Regarding 'do your own homework' The most powerful resource I have is a search engine. Sometimes it does not readily yield the answer I seek. Perhaps the info is specialist and hard to extract - like are the Moon rocks covered in zap pits. Simple question, you'd think you'd get a definitive answer in minutes. I still have not found one, though 'covered' does seem to cover it As for impact speed - I read elsewhere Zap pits formed at Mach ten. Following the response here I check how fast micrometeorites travel. This information comes easily. It is 10-40 Km/sec. Sound is around 0.33Km/sec so we are looking for in the region of Mach 50. Obviously gas borne particles cannot achieve speeds anywhere near. The most likely method would be as I said before a sort of macro particle accelerator using a magnetic field to collimate and accelerate charged projectiles. Once charged small particles could be accelerated in a vacuum to speeds limited by field strength particle charge/mass ratio and path length. Therefore the bottleneck is putting a charge onto rock/sand/glass grains. Would glass for example take electrostatic charge? Yes. www.physicstutorials.org/index.php/home/electrostatics/types-of-charging
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 13:59:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 13:42:42 GMT -4
Furthermore the effect of micrometeorites had already been detected by 1) meteorites which fall to Earth at high frequency Of course. But micrometeorites were known from those that are observed burning up quickly This could be an artifact of the technology used to generate zap pots I have seen the description 'covered in zap pits' used in academic literature so I assume they are. If so I wonder how the side embedded in the regolith would become pitted?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 13:26:22 GMT -4
That the field may attenuate/divert incoming gamma rays. So, along with photographic analysis, geology, and perhaps some other topics, we can now add radiation to the list of things about which Rodin knows little of value. The Van Allen belts have no effect on gamma rays, which are electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who passed basic high school physics should know that.. I refer you to the picture in the OP where the gamma radiation is very distinguishable from background.No. It is distinguishable only in this image because the image is the arithmetic pixel-wise sum of several passes of data, at -- obviously -- extremely low spatial resolution. The Moon is indistinguishable from background in each source image, but it is a consistent source of that radiation at that location in the frame, from image to image. Hence when the images are summed, the consistent presence of gamma intensity at that location in the frame sums to a greater value. The background sources shift and vary from one source image to another because they are essentially noise. Hence over the majority of the frame's extent, they do not sum to very great values. even though they are as prominent as the Moon in each source image. Again, a real photographic analyst understands the notion of intensity buildup. Now you're claiming this radiation exists in biologically significant amounts on the Moon's surface. You've been asked multiple times to substantiate this claim. Please do so, or admit that you don't know what you're talking about. I concede that on reflection it should have been obvious gamma rays are not affected by the Van Allen belts, since obviously the much less energetic light passes clean through. I do understand very well the principle of signal to noise enhancement by repeated sampling. Looking at the OP photograph the background space around the gamma Moon appeared to me to show structure, suggesting it was more than just noise. I have since read up on various gamma ray observation satellites The first Explorer 11 returned 31 gamma ray 'events' (photons?) in 147 hours of useful observation. If this is correct then the structure in the background must be noise since gamma events are so few and far between absent something energetic to focus on. Intuitively one would think the Sun would be a far more powerful gamma ray source than the Moon. The fact the reverse is true piqued my interest. For the record I don't think I ever made the claim that the Moon's gamma radiation was definitely biologically significant (to the extent of being an Apollo dealbreaker for example). I put a question mark in the thread title for a reason .
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 12:29:33 GMT -4
The Van Allen Belts interact with charged particles, but have no effect whatsoever on short-wavelength EM radiation (which gamma rays, x-rays, UV and visible light all are). OK
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 5:37:19 GMT -4
Rodin. As can be seen in the info that goes with your picture, it is showing reflected Gamma Rays. Those same gamma Rays are hitting the Earth and we are doing just fine. This isn't quite correct. The Gamma Rays are created when Cosmic Rays hit the Lunar surface. Actually its both The same article states which if true means that gamma radiation from the Moon's surface is very weak indeed - almost indistinguishable from background I refer you to the picture in the OP where the gamma radiation is very distinguishable from background. en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lunar_Prospector
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 5:17:06 GMT -4
What about the Van Allen belts also? What point are you trying to make and the VARB? That the field may attenuate/divert incoming gamma rays.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 11:20:44 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 11:15:47 GMT -4
1) we fake moon rocks
2) they are then indistinguishable from the real thing because there IS no real thing with which to compare
simples
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 11:12:34 GMT -4
This Moon Rock thread was set up as a stumbling block i was supposed to fall over. No, it was set up to hold you accountable for claims you made that you could explain where they came from, if not the Moon. So far you cannot, you simply appeal to magic. Explain is not prove What is so far-fetched about suggesting using particle acceleration technology to zap rocks?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 11:09:53 GMT -4
To give correct date? Dope with isotopes. And how do you propose that would work, exactly? You keep saying it is simple, but have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the actual practicality of it. If no-one knows what a real lunar rock looks like up close, why even bother describing features that are so hard to produce? If they're inventing lunar rock they can give it any property they like and provide a plausible reason for it. Zap pits were a total surprise. If no-one would expect a lunar rock to have them, why would anyone trying to fake them go to the effort of putting them in? You seem to think that all this invention was easier than actually going. Why make such an elaborate hoax if that's all it was? If everyone thought the goal was to beat the Russians (or appear to), why not just stop once that was achieved with the first landing? Why go to all the effort of making more and more fake missions with ever-increasing levels of complexity? Zap pits were, it was discovered, relatively easy to fake, thanks to the development of high speed firing systems./ Furthermore the effect of micrometeorites had already been detected by 1) meteorites which fall to Earth at high frequency and 2) possibly observed damage to orbiting craft So they were surprised that the expected effect of the same objects we call meteorites was found on the Moon? By the way are these rocks pitted all over or only sunny side up?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 10, 2010 11:02:04 GMT -4
|
|