|
Post by trebor on Dec 8, 2011 16:51:53 GMT -4
You are aware that is not a real image?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 23:08:04 GMT -4
attached is an image of two pictures are you saying an intelligent person would described both of these pictures as being equal and describe them the same way? The objects in the left image could never be possibly seen by eye, no matter how dark it is. You need a very good telescope. if we can agree that dust deposition is a continuous process. if we can agree that meteorites are a continuous process. Ok. if the rocks are newly deposited there should be a spray pattern for the debris. Why do you assume the rocks are recently deposited? the rocks would start to accumulate some of the debris from impacts and gather dust. And why do you assume the impacts would not blast dust from the rocks? LunarOrbit sorry i will leave thank you Why not actually address the points made? Is it that you can't? Can it be that you don't want to?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 15:55:37 GMT -4
tedward english no, not good This is a very poor excuse for you twisting and selectively reading other peoples words. Not to mention entirely ignoring inconvenient replies.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 15:18:48 GMT -4
randombloke please refer to my earlier posts Perhaps you should try reading some of the replies to you. i offered alternate scenario for a recent movement of the rock as a possibility. And you missed one other. Seriously, try reading... you might be able to get someone to explain the longer words if you ask.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 15:14:57 GMT -4
Playdor, what is the difference between "couldn't" and "didn't"? Apparently the same as between "heat" and "temperature" :\
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 15:01:09 GMT -4
Armstrong was in space many days, i previously referenced his interest in looking at stars. Armstrong said stars could not be seen. False: Armstrong stated that he didn't, except through the optics or when in the moon's shadow. Then start being honest. maybe you need to go to Armstrong and get a more definitive explanation of this answer. The more definitive explanation is that whether or not stars can be seen depends on the lighting conditions. I can only go by exactly what he said. False, All, you are doing is carefully quote mining him then twisting the meaning.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 14:54:27 GMT -4
stars could not be seen from cislunar inter space False, he did not state that stars could not be seen from cis-lunar space by eye... He stated that he didn't. Not that anyone could not possible do so. This also illustrates a media that is controlled, this answer should have been challenged to explain exactly what he meant, Or a question that is too trivial for anyone to take seriously. And what it means is that when in a very bright environment seeing stars is not easy.... which is well known. Do you think he would have said this if he could not, or did not look for stars and Aldrin or Collins did look and saw them? They did look for stars, and did see them. Both through the LM optics and when in the shadow of the moon. Do stop quote mining and find an actual point.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 14:44:15 GMT -4
twik i do not have an imagination capable of creating a scenario that would deposit dust just on the ground layer. You know, you really should try reading posts some times. As has been pointed out the regolith is formed by micrometeorite and meteorite impact, which would very slowly erode the rock depositing the dust all around. To state that dust would not be accumulated on top of a rock there needs to be a mechanism that accounts for the material specifically being averted from the top surface of the rock. Or a mechanism which would tend to remove the dust from the rock. Say, micrometeorite impacts. please also note the rock has very large unfilled cavities which would tend to trap particles. And why do you assume none of those have any dust in them?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 14:25:28 GMT -4
personally i do not know any more about Melvill, other then some Internet information saying he is highly regarded as a pilot. I think his statement of going from daylight to blackness of space, filled with stars needs to be respected. And where in this 'quote' did it say anything about the sky being 'filled with stars'? Creatively twisting fanciful quotes gets you nowhere. For that matter should we disregard Yuri Gagarin's account of the sky being black with no visible stars? to defend space absent of stars goes against this information and any logic i can imagine. Actually it is perfectly in keeping with what is known about human vision. and no matter what has been posted on this site to give scientific blather to personal reasons why there were no stars observed on Apollo 11 mission (yes optics excluded) This is still false. They fully mention a good view of the stars when in the moons shadow. is a serious detraction from all the other valuable information you guys actually know. Actually it is perfectly in accordance with what is known about the brightness of the sun, the stars and human vision.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 10:15:32 GMT -4
I would suggest that Melville, in a vehicle that was accelerating pretty much straight up, would not see the earth and could well not see the sun either. In such a case, his vision could well adapt in the time he took to fly out of the atmosphere. There is video taken from inside the first flight taken, in it the cockpit is lit very well with direct sunlight, not to mention he is wearing shades. Which suggests to me that he didn't, and the 'quote' is fanciful.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 6:21:59 GMT -4
bob b chew asked me who made the remarks concerning seeing stars in daylight, in space. You know you really should start trying to address or even read the points made to you. But let us try another independant source. Here is the transcript of Yuri Gagarin's flight in Vostok 1 : epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/i_tsk/zv-reis.htmlGoogle translate makes a half decent go at it.... and.. But he seemed to have seen them later :
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 2, 2011 5:50:02 GMT -4
It is believed that the earth and the moon have a continuous influx of dust that comes from space Lunar regolith is formed and moved about by micrometeorite and meteorite impact. See : meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/regolith_breccia.htmThe slow dusting of micro meteorites would slowly erode surface rocks, and is the reason there would be no thick layer of regolith clinging to every side of it. See : lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30804.HTMIt is likely the rock has been there billions of years and that it was once part of the lunar bedrock blasted apart and reformed by a vast number of micrometeorite and meteorite impacts.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 22:47:24 GMT -4
that same material should be distributed evenly, everywhere. What is this assumption based on? Also, why do you assume the rock has no regolith on it?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 19:48:11 GMT -4
abaddon when does Armstrong mention optics? Armstrong: This quote has been shown to you quite a few times....
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 19:46:37 GMT -4
Armstrong said you can't see stars. False. Despite your careful quote mining.
|
|