Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 15, 2007 14:47:55 GMT -4
If you really were objective truth-seeking scientists who believed your own arguments, you'd just do the measurements and calculations to prove that you were correct and put the whole matter to rest. You have the burden to prove your own claims. Please stop your evasion and get on with. You won't do that though because there are probably lots of people with science and math backgrounds reading this thread. And so far all who have spoken up think you are full of crap. I say the trajectory is so clearly non-parabolic that no calculations are necessary. Don't say it; prove it. Provide the evidence to back up your claims. You're insisting that I do them is just a diversionary tactic. We’re insisting you provide the evidence to back up your claims, nothing more. I guess all we can do is let the viewers decide for themselves in a case like this. They have and are so far unanimously against you.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2007 14:49:18 GMT -4
If I recall correctly, you refused to respond to the explanations of why your theories are wrong the official theories are right apart. You seem to ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 15, 2007 14:51:01 GMT -4
I say the trajectory is so clearly non-parabolic that no calculations are necessary. You're insisting that I do them is just a diversionary tactic. No. You are the one making the claim that the dust is not behaving the way it should, therefore it is your responsibility to support that claim. If you are unable or unwilling to support your claims then withdraw them. And I believe the score is currently 11-0 against you.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 15, 2007 14:54:39 GMT -4
Rocky,
If you throw a baseball straight up (air or no air) what trajectory will it follow? How far away from you will it land?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 15, 2007 15:16:05 GMT -4
I suppose you're referring to the people who responded here. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1181229615These people are most likely either friends of yours or just the same regulars here using different names. The trajectory is obviously not parabolic. In a vacuum it would be parabolic. Lots of grains of sand thrown in the same direction would hit each other from the side but that would not affect the trajectory the way it's being affected in the footage. Only hitting something head-on would cause it to vary from the parabolic trajectory the way it's doing in the footage. I don't withdraw my claim on the grounds that it's glaringly obvious that the dirt is traveling in atmosphere. I don't see what asking this question accomplishes. If there's no horizontal force, wouldn't it just fall straight down and land exacty where it was thrown from? I think you're insisting that I measure and calculate the trajectory is just a diversionary tactic because you know the footage was taken in atmosphere and are afraid to do bogus calculations to pretend you're proving your point because it will be obvious to a lot of the viewers so you're just taking the lesser of the two evils and denying the obvious and trying to obfuscate the issue. I think the viewers with math backgrounds are laughing at all of you because of your lame explanations for the trajectory that the dirt follows.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2007 15:16:28 GMT -4
If you really were objective truth-seeking scientists who believed your own arguments, you'd just do the measurements...
No, if we were really objective truth-seeking scientists, we'd demand that a scientific claim bear its burden of proof. There is no obligation to address with any greater rigor conclusions for which the only presented argument begs every important question.
...there are probably lots of people with science and math backgrounds reading this thread.
That would be us. By your own admission, it would not be you.
I say the trajectory is so clearly non-parabolic that no calculations are necessary.
Flip, flop. Flip, flop. If the trajectory is "clearly" non-parabolic then please give the physical properties of the magical material that exhibits such selective air resistance to allow a suddenly, aerodynamica, "obviously" non-parabolic trajectory without a hint of aerosolization.
And there's an additional question you've been begging. You seem to believe there's a dichotomy between parabolic (i.e., purely ballistic) and aerodynamic trajectories. The former you say is easily computable. The latter is, however, not merely the negation of the former. That is, aerodynamic trajectories are also computable, at least to the first order.
And unfortunately you don't get to say it "must" be aerdoynamic simply because it is (according to you) not ballistic. That's a little like saying it something must be blue because it's not green. Where would red be? The question of whether something is behaving aerodynamically is a falsifiable question, and you have the burden to try and fail to falsify it. That will be difficult, since you admit you don't know anything about computing aerodynamic trajectories. But it does make us continue to wonder about the underpinning of your claim.
I guess all we can do is let the viewers decide for themselves in a case like this.
They have, and you lose.
Jay, you said you used to teach at a university. What was the name of it?
The University of Utah. When you call, be sure to ask them about where I ranked in student evaluations.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2007 15:19:24 GMT -4
These people are most likely either friends of yours or just the same regulars here using different names.
Denial noted. You were invited to produce or identify your own supporters and advocates, which you have failed to do.
I don't withdraw my claim on the grounds that it's glaringly obvious that the dirt is traveling in atmosphere.
Round and round we go.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 15, 2007 15:23:08 GMT -4
The trajectory is obviously not parabolic. No one seems to agree with you. Show us that the trajectory is not parabolic. Provide the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2007 15:25:23 GMT -4
Lots of grains of sand thrown in the same direction would hit each other from the side but that would not affect the trajectory the way it's being affected in the footage. Only hitting something head-on would cause it to vary from the parabolic trajectory the way it's doing in the footage. And this is the fundementals your argument is based on, where your reasoning is wrong. The sand isn't 'thrown' in the same direction. Every grain is 'launched' with a different angle, speed and given a different kinetic energy.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2007 15:31:14 GMT -4
The trajectory is obviously not parabolic.
Then it should be very easy for you to construct the required mathematical proof to show it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2007 15:37:02 GMT -4
I think you're insisting that I measure and calculate the trajectory is just a diversionary tactic...
Surely an objective truth-seeking scientist wouldn't leave such an important point up to assumption or guesswork.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 15, 2007 16:05:57 GMT -4
These people are most likely either friends of yours or just the same regulars here using different names. Making unfounded accusations against the other members of the forum is against the rules. Either prove it or withdraw it. If it was obvious then people would be agreeing with you. Do you believe it's possible for a spinning tire to launch dust more or less straight up with very little horizontal force? The point I'm trying to make is that how far the dust travels depends on the angle it is launched at, and that depends on a number of variables. Where are these alleged "viewers" that you claim support you? I do not put any value in the opinions of silent people who may not even exist outside of your imagination.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 15, 2007 17:20:51 GMT -4
rocky, this is a scientific claim you are making. For hundreds of years empirical evidence has been required to prove any claim or theory made. Absolutely no single scientific theory in wide use today would have been accepted without such proof. Why are you asking members of a scientific forum, many of whom are practicing scientists, to accept your theory without so much as a lick of empirical evidence? In fact, you refuse to conduct empirical experiments to test your theory! You say you have video evidence, but it means nothing if you can't repeat those results accurately. Unless you can give us some hard evidence, whether it be mathmatical calculations or an empirical experiment, all you are doing is speculating. Speculation is the enemy of science and the enemy of truth.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 15, 2007 17:33:05 GMT -4
I suppose you're referring to the people who responded here. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1181229615These people are most likely either friends of yours or just the same regulars here using different names. The trajectory is obviously not parabolic. In a vacuum it would be parabolic. Lots of grains of sand thrown in the same direction would hit each other from the side but that would not affect the trajectory the way it's being affected in the footage. Only hitting something head-on would cause it to vary from the parabolic trajectory the way it's doing in the footage. I don't withdraw my claim on the grounds that it's glaringly obvious that the dirt is traveling in atmosphere. I don't see what asking this question accomplishes. If there's no horizontal force, wouldn't it just fall straight down and land exacty where it was thrown from? I think you're insisting that I measure and calculate the trajectory is just a diversionary tactic because you know the footage was taken in atmosphere and are afraid to do bogus calculations to pretend you're proving your point because it will be obvious to a lot of the viewers so you're just taking the lesser of the two evils and denying the obvious and trying to obfuscate the issue. I think the viewers with math backgrounds are laughing at all of you because of your lame explanations for the trajectory that the dirt follows. Rocky, I am no-ones sock puppet, infact even my doctor would probably have to take a strong drink toget the courage to submit me to an exam. 3rd point taken out of order The question about the base ball is being asked to see if you can work out standard trajectory paths. and there fore understand the essentials of what you are talking about, Gallileo and accelleration springs to mind here, everyone accepted how things fall and had never bothered watching or measuring them, reason... well it's all just nouse isn't it. (nouse=Common sense) Question:. reversing the argument a little but whilst not avoiding it. Can you provide sufficient evidence to show that these particles in an atmosphere Would NOT follow a parabolic path, and if not WHY not Getting Harbled off with this thread, but will percivere till one of us dies
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 15, 2007 18:03:32 GMT -4
I think it's glaringly obvious that the dirt in the video is not behaving as it would in an atmosphere in normal Earth gravity.
|
|