|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 15, 2009 0:46:15 GMT -4
This is eactly it. When your pug or cat is standing on you, their mass is focused through the area of four small points, their paws. When they are lying on you that mass is spread out over the entire surface of their body, thus reducing the pressure that is applied to any single point. ...hmmm...sex kind of works that way sometimes too... ...um...
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 15, 2009 22:37:26 GMT -4
...hmmm...sex kind of works that way sometimes too... ...um... Yeah. . . that one kind of broke my brain as well. I had to do a hard boot.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Feb 21, 2009 2:24:26 GMT -4
I really hate to sound like a cold-hearted prick, but as far as Ralph Rene and Bill Kaysing go, I have a name for each of them "Good Bye!" and "Good Riddance!" With chowder-heads like those two writing fiction and passing it off as the truth, it's no wonder our youth here in America are so inept in science!
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 22, 2009 18:33:41 GMT -4
Fortunately, only a small percentage of the population accepted it as the "truth".
It's mostly those that peddle Creationism and Intelligent Design that drag down America's science education. But that's another thread....
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 22, 2009 18:51:13 GMT -4
Actually its mostly people who see teaching only as a job and those who have tied the hands of schools to the teacher's unions who have dragged down America's science education, not helped at all by the attitude that if your kid isn't learning it's the teacher's fault. Belief in creationism and ID has had very little to do with the quality of American education.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 22, 2009 18:54:32 GMT -4
It does effect science education.
Even before the fiasco began, I knew of schoolmates in high school that felt that evolution is "such a crock". Evolution is the basis for much knowledege in biology.
To reject evolution in favor of ID/creationism does effect the quality of one's science education.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 22, 2009 19:05:48 GMT -4
I disagree. I very much doubt that anyone who goes around telling everyone they know in High School that "evolution is such a crock" were going to become biologists anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 22, 2009 21:41:22 GMT -4
Could you two maybe take the evolution vs. creationism discussion off-line, please?
Thanks.
Fred
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 22, 2009 21:55:23 GMT -4
I'm not talking about evolution vs. creationism except to say that that particular debate has nothing to do with the (somewhat depressing) quality of American education.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Feb 23, 2009 9:59:32 GMT -4
Further, given how ignorant the HB crowd is repeatedly shown to be, why would anyone listen to them?Because the idea is appealing to some people. The idea that Government pulled the wool over everybodies eyes but you and others who have access to this secret knowledge. Anyone who doubts the Truth is either a fool or in on it and trying to cover up the Great Secret.The key part is the Secret Knowledge, which makes them feel better then the rest of us schlubs.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 23, 2009 12:04:50 GMT -4
It gives a sense of control to them as well. "They may be fooling everyone else, but I'm too savvy for them. I've got their number."
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Mar 28, 2009 12:24:44 GMT -4
I'm not one to hijack a thread, but since this is closely related I thought it would be better than starting another thread about a hoaxer with the same flawed logic. I'm currently arguing with yet another youtuber who thinks that the different locations from Apollo 17 show the same background and therefore *prove* that it was a hoax. (yes - this same old argument again!). The youtube thread is here... www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzH4iSRZYgII already know the flaw in his logic. Like other hoaxers, he seems to think that these hills are the size of parking lot speed bumps, and shouldn't be visible at the other stations. Can anyone tell me the name of the Geological formations he's pointing out, their scale and the distance from each station? I believe all of these shots were taken facing south, so it's most likely a combination of Bear Mountain and Mons Vitruvius, but I'm not sure. Like other hoaxers, he also seems to lack simple math skills, as show in comments like this... Distance to the horizon at 5 ft off the ground (chest-mounted cameras) on the moon is <1.5 miles. Even at 50 ft off the ground it's <5 miles. The base of that same hill shouldn't be visible, let alone crisp from all those stations, miles and miles apart. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Mar 28, 2009 23:06:15 GMT -4
His analysis doesn't make any sense. How does he deduce the size of the mountain by looking at the rover and LM? Also, he says that you can see the base of the mountain, when in fact you can't.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 29, 2009 6:20:26 GMT -4
That "same old argument" so often amounts to, "I don't understand it so it must be faked." Unfortunately I'm on super-slow dialup so looking at videos is out, but if you can post some stills I might be able to help -- I drew a roughly-scaled map of Taurus-Littrow in TurboCAD. Have you checked out the Apollo 17 landing-site maps and diagrams at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal? The top of the light-coloured mound with the crater above it on East Massif is about 13km from the LM and 16.5 km from Shorty Crater, Station 4. Even that "little" crater is about 500 metres (horizontally) beyond the top of the mound and is about 200 metres in diameter. In the opening scene of the video shown here, East Massif is at top right and lower down Bear Mountain is intruding on the light-coloured mound on the right, which it doesn't do in shots taken near the LM. I wonder if the HB could explain that. I had trouble finding the heights of the mountains, but believe that the top of South Massif is 7,500 feet, 2287 metres above the valley floor, and North Massif is 7,000 feet, 2153 metres. East Massif looks to be about the same height as North Massif, but it's very hard to tell. I don't think I've seen any photo that undoubtedly shows the base of East Massif, not even from as high as Tracy's Rock, Station 6. A few years ago fellow member Bob B. did a nice analysis of the change in perspective on East Massif between two of the stations, 6 and 8 -- www.braeunig.us/pics/mountains.jpgThe photos are AS17-140-21497 and AS17-146-22367. The first shows part of Bear Mountain at centre right and part of Tracy's Rock at bottom right. A careful comparison of the ridgeline of East Massif and other features, particularly the 5th and 6th arrows (counting from the left), shows that not only is the camera position further to the left in the lower picture, it is also forward and down -- the difference between Tracy's Rock (Station 6) and Station 8. The distance between arrows 1 and 7 is about five kilometres. The black rocks under arrow 7 are about 14.5 km from the LM and 17.5 from Station 6. Bob's Rocket and Space Technology website (link at the bottom of every page here) is always worth a look. Last year I examined the photos taken from the Apollo 17 ALSEP site and near the LM of Turning Point Rock and Tracy's Rock on North Massif, plus all the ones taken from the rover during the trip to them. The HB would probably have trouble explaining things in them, if he's knowledgeable enough to comment, particularly the change in perspective of a rock and the long trail it left as it tumbled down the side of North Massif. Has he noticed the LM to the right of the top of Tracy's rock in some of the photos, such as AS17-140-21493HR? And the telephoto shot of the LM from the same area, AS17-139-21204HR? Perhaps "All faked" will sort-of do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 29, 2009 6:33:47 GMT -4
I'm currently arguing with yet another youtuber who thinks that the different locations from Apollo 17 show the same background and therefore *prove* that it was a hoax. Yawn. It's NasaScam's "These backdrops are all exactly the same!!! (except when they're different)" all over again. It's the East Massif mostly ("that hill behind the LM with the light colored mound at its base"), with Bear in the foreground of some. Here is an orbital photo of Taurus-Littrow with some features labeled. What the YouTuber labels "rocks in a line" is in fact the trail left by a boulder which had rolled down the hill, indicated by the arrow pointing to "boulder" in the photo. Also note that what the YouTuber indicates as "dark outercropping" (out ercropping?) is not the same "outcrop" labeled in the photo. (Also note that this photo is flipped roughly 180° relative to the two images linked below, which are in standard north-up orientation.) Here is about the best traverse map I could find overlaid on an actual photo. Note the YouTuber only used a line drawing of the map, givng absolutely no information about the surrounding terrain. (Seleain? ) Unfortunately, the East Massif doesn't appear at all in the photo, basically since Gene & Jack never went anywhere near it. But by comparing this map with the orbital photo linked above, you should be able to get an idea about the distances involved. As to scale, here is a topographic map of Taurus-Littrow. Bear rises some 300m above the valley floor, and the peak of the East Massif is over 2km above its base, and nearly 1.4km higher than the "mole" indicated by the YouTuber near the light foothill.
|
|