|
Post by sts60 on May 22, 2007 13:30:43 GMT -4
Jason, what Jay said.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on May 22, 2007 16:42:19 GMT -4
I just took another look at the footage. It's at an angle but the trajectory of the soil is clear enough. The soil kicked up by the rover is not following a symmetrical parabolic trajectory the way it would if it were in a vacuum. It's stopping and falling almost straight down. The only thing that could make it do that is atmosphere. I know you people have to defend the offical version of things hell-or-high-water so I understand why you're doing it but this situation is too clear. The tactics you people are using only work when the situation is vague. They don't work in clear situations like this. This is the proof. The moon missions were faked. In a vacuum objects--no matter what their size is--follow a parabolic trajectory when thrown. If there's atmosphere, it slows the objects down and they land short of where they would have landed if they'd followed the parabolic trajectory. That's what's happening in the footage. You guys are like creation-scientists. You have your foregone conclusion and you have to distort science to make it fit your conclusion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 22, 2007 16:53:59 GMT -4
Rocky, have you actually watched cars driving around in the dirt on Earth? Dust kicked up by a car doesn't stop in mid-air and fall down - some of it (including the heavier bits and gravel) follows a curve from the wheels up and then down to the ground and the lighter stuff billows up in a cloud that slowly calms down again after the car passess.
If the moon rover films were taken in an atmosphere there would be a dust cloud kicked up by the rover. There is no dust cloud, therefore there is no atmosphere present.
In the movie Apollo 13, Tom Hanks reaches down and runs his hand through the "lunar" soil. In that brief clip you can see dust billowing up in a tiny, barely-visible cloud around his gloved hand - a dead giveaway that the scene was filmed in an atmosphere. If they couldn't prevent it showing up with 1990's film technology then they certainly couldn't have prevented it in the late '60s and '70s.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 22, 2007 17:49:51 GMT -4
The soil kicked up by the rover is not following a symmetrical parabolic trajectory the way it would if it were in a vacuum. Really? You can see what every little grain is doing? Why can't you grasp the simple fact that what you see is not a simple ballistic arc because what you see is a vast number of particles, each individually too small to be resolved, all being thrown up in different ways and only being visible when they appear in large enough numbers over an area? Why can't you answer the lack of billowing dust clouds question that has now been put to you several times? But an atmosphere couldn't make it do that, as has been explained to you many times. Bullsh*t. I have no vested interest whatsoever in defending NASA or the US government. I am not even from the US. I don't give a fig whether it was faked or not, frankly. What I care about is people who obviously don't have a clue about actual science who try and tell me I, a scientist, am trying to distort it to fit my preconceived ideas. You admit you don't understand the science, yet you dare to presume to judge our conclusions against your own limited understanding. Bullsh*t. And lots of small objects following different paths cause things to appear different on the scale you want to use as your proof. How dare you presume to tell us that we are distorting science when you admit you don't even understand it yourself? Why don't you just clear off and find some equally ignorant people who will pat you on the back for your supposed 'ingenuity' in uncovering the greatest hoax of all time that has somehow been overlooked by every qualified person in the ENTIRE world for nearly forty years.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on May 22, 2007 17:59:29 GMT -4
Actually, unless the wheels are spinning faster than the car is moving, the dirt kicked up will go straight up and down. It's path will only appear to follow an arc relative to the car, not the ground under it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 22, 2007 18:13:04 GMT -4
The soil kicked up by the rover is not following a symmetrical parabolic trajectory the way it would if it were in a vacuum.
False expectation, explained at length.
It's stopping and falling almost straight down. The only thing that could make it do that is atmosphere.
No. An atmosphere would not make it do that. It would make it do something different, since air doesn't act only horizontally. Further, the dust in the video does not do any of the other things an atmosphere would make it do, such as aerosolize or exhibit chaotic flow. Therefore your claim that this represents ejection of material into an atmosphere is simply not supported by the data. You're handwaving. Your hypothesis simply does not fit the data.
I know you people have to defend the offical version of things hell-or-high-water...
Affirmed consequent. We criticize your theory because it's demonstrably wrong according to evidence and known principles, not because we're committed to an alternative. And we show you at length why it's wrong. But you habitually ignore those demonstrations, preferring instead to pretend we must be ideologically entrenched. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
They don't work in clear situations like this.
Clarity is not a substitute for correctness. Oversimplification is not a virtue. You don't simply get to insist that the problem really is as cartoonishly simple as you've made it. I've explained at length to you why it isn't. Why do you consistenly ignore those explanations?
Every conspiracy theorist, including you, simplifies often complex real-world problems down into little toy examples not because those toy versions effectively capture the essence of the problem, but instead because that's all they can understand. Unlike real investigators, who expand their knowledge to meet the problem, conspiracy theorists try to cram the problem into their layman's understanding and pretend that's all that's ever necessary.
I and others have given clear, complete explanations for why the single-body ballistic formulation doesn't describe handfuls of loose ejecta. If you disbelieved those explanations, you could tell us why they're superfluous or incorrect or inapplicable. But when you just stomp your feet and insist that your gross oversimplification must somehow be right, and that your handwaving about the effects of air really does constitute some better theory, we just have to laugh.
In a vacuum objects--no matter what their size is--follow a parabolic trajectory when thrown.
That holds for one object. That does not hold for aggregations of objects under a variety of departure conditions. You're trying to make groups of objects collectively behave according to rules that are defined only for one object.
If there's atmosphere, it slows the objects down...
But not equally according to size, and not preferentially in a single direction, as your theory implies. You are the one rewriting the rules of physics in order to make your idea seem right. You point to only one effect of atmosphere, not all the effects of atmosphere that would affect this evidence.
You have your foregone conclusion and you have to distort science to make it fit your conclusion.
Again, you admitted relative ignorance of ballistic science just as you had to admit ignorance of the optical sciences that pertained to your last argument. And you've quite effectively demonstrated that ignorance. How many more subjects are you going to admit ignorance of while taking experts to task for trying to educate you? From what position of admitted ignorance is it ever appropriate to accuse others of distortion or deception?
You're quite a piece of work. I do physics for a living. What exactly do you do that would make you more of an expert? I want an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on May 22, 2007 18:51:36 GMT -4
Tofu, to avoid the long wait, just move the track button I was on a wireless network. It took about 15 minutes to download. You don't have to wait for the thing to download completely to move the track button. Soon as it shows up, slide it over to the time mark. Then, let it load from there.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on May 22, 2007 19:07:39 GMT -4
I just took another look at the footage. It's at an angle but the trajectory of the soil is clear enough. The soil kicked up by the rover is not following a symmetrical parabolic trajectory the way it would if it were in a vacuum. It's stopping and falling almost straight down. The only thing that could make it do that is atmosphere. Folks, would this count as "dead wrong" or "not even wrong"? As said to you, the individual grains follow a parabola. In the footage, you see thousands of them. At least. Each follows there own path, thus giving this appearance. I've seen dirt kicked up by vehicles on Earth. They do not behave the way you claim. Considering that, I'd vote that Rocky's claim is "not even wrong". You are a hoot. We are not govt agents defending anything. We are people that have had long interests in Apollo. We debunk claims like yours for the benefit of others, because letting false claims like your go unchecked spreads ignorance and/or false assumptions. Don't go paranoid over the fact that we know more about the relevant physics than you. Not by a long shot. You still haven't answered this. I think this is the third time I've asked. I'll keep asking until I get an answer. "I don't know" is acceptable. Covered already by my colleagues. Not even wrong. Irony. If anyone is acting like a creationist, it's you. We examine the data at hand, do the research, and give the results. The relevant science we use is both common to the scientific world today, as well as having been established with Apollo. We're also open to correction by each other. What you are doing is making claims based on what hoax proponents tell you, holding the firm belief that the moon missions were faked. Data to the contrary is ignored by you. You simply relay on videos make by people out to make loads of cash, or to get attention. The claims of Percy, Kaysing, Sibrel, Rene, et al have been shown to be in error with science. Yet, you accept those claims, as they agree with what you believe. It's fun to see the pot call the kettle black.
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 22, 2007 20:04:17 GMT -4
I just took another look at the footage. It's at an angle but the trajectory of the soil is clear enough. The soil kicked up by the rover is not following a symmetrical parabolic trajectory the way it would if it were in a vacuum. It's stopping and falling almost straight down. The only thing that could make it do that is atmosphere. You haven't taken into account the fact that tightly compacted projectiles have a natural tendency to disperse, as they move farther away from a common launch point. It's the same principle by which a shotgun works. You're seeing the regolith in a nice tidy little "bundle" as it gets ejected from the spinning rover wheels, and assuming it should retain this compact form until it hits the ground. Once the grains become scattered to the point where it's difficult to see them in a low-resolution video, you automatically assume they "hit a wall of air" and fall to the ground. You're also not considering that a spinning wheel churning up dust, is creating a multitude of unique and disparate particle trajectories as it digs through each millimeter of regolith. Because of these continually changing launch angles and velocities, it's impossible for you to state with certainty, that the clump of stuff you see coming down, was the same clump of stuff you saw going up. Ah yes, the de facto HB mantra. "They don't see the world through my straw, therefore they are NASA shills". <yawn> True skeptics don't *want* to believe anything Rocky. We believe what is proven empirically through scientific methods. All the blind ideologues are in your camp I'm afraid. As well as the profiteers. That statement is completely true with one glaring exception: You're applying it to the wrong group.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 22, 2007 20:22:12 GMT -4
Rocky, I watch the videoand see a generally ballistic arc of what materials I can make out...in this poor video iteration. Proof it was filmed in a vacuum...or do you have calculations proving me wrong? And where is the dust clouds from an atmosphere? BTW, why did they have to fake the missions, according to your theory? Still awaiting an answer on that one...too...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 22, 2007 23:49:06 GMT -4
You also have to remember that not only does each particle follow it's own parabolic curve, but that it has its own velocity. Larger particles will travel slower that small ones because the wheel will transfer a similar amount of momentum regardless of the particle mass and smaller mass = greater velocity. Add to that, that many of these particles will actually intersect on their travels and so hit each other and transfer momentum, and you have a right royal chaotic mess on a particle level.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 23, 2007 0:15:24 GMT -4
Larger particles will travel slower that small ones because the wheel will transfer a similar amount of momentum regardless of the particle mass and smaller mass = greater velocity.
I'm not sure what you mean. I think we might have slightly different notions about the ejection mode. In my opinion the velocity of the particles is roughly invariant, but the momentum of each particle differs due to differing mass. But as my choreographer says, we may be talking about different shades of blue.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 23, 2007 1:09:33 GMT -4
Hmmm. Well, thinking about it, I'd guess it depends on how the wheel and soil interacted. If the particles are picked up by the wheel and then thrown off, I'd agree with you, that yes they'll have a similar velocity, based on the speed of the wheel. If however, as I was thinking, the wheel merely places a consistant force on particles at rest on the ground, then the force applied to a smaller particle would result in a larger velocity than to a larger particle.
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 23, 2007 2:00:33 GMT -4
Hmmm. Well, thinking about it, I'd guess it depends on how the wheel and soil interacted. If the particles are picked up by the wheel and then thrown off, I'd agree with you, that yes they'll have a similar velocity, based on the speed of the wheel. If however, as I was thinking, the wheel merely places a consistant force on particles at rest on the ground, then the force applied to a smaller particle would result in a larger velocity than to a larger particle. Suffice to say, not every piece of regolith was ejected from the wheels at an identical velocity and angle, as perhaps some HB's would prefer to believe.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 23, 2007 2:13:59 GMT -4
Hmmm. Well, thinking about it, I'd guess it depends on how the wheel and soil interacted. If the particles are picked up by the wheel and then thrown off, I'd agree with you, that yes they'll have a similar velocity, based on the speed of the wheel. If however, as I was thinking, the wheel merely places a consistant force on particles at rest on the ground, then the force applied to a smaller particle would result in a larger velocity than to a larger particle. Suffice to say, not every piece of regolith was ejected from the wheels at an identical velocity and angle, as perhaps some HB's would prefer to believe. I think this is quite right. We see the Rooster Tail because of it. The physics of the tail is very simple, but it's not a two body problem, it's about a 10,000 object problem.
|
|