|
|
Post by chew on Oct 31, 2011 20:06:08 GMT -4
The closeness of your estimate to the Ares velocity might be the product of an accurate method, or the product of pure chance. There is no way to know from this single data point. Now, if you applied your method to 100 flights, you'd start to be able to construct a statistical average. He still hasn't applied his "Mach cone" method to the Ares.  What is that, about a 45 o angle? So the Ares, according to the exhaust is going 1564 m/s, but the Mach cone says it is going 425 m/s. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 20:06:51 GMT -4
That they formed on the Saturn V when they did... And where they did; the hoax authors attempting to measure the Mach cones don't seem to be able to recognize what is and is not a Mach cone, or accurately describe where they should form. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 31, 2011 20:09:58 GMT -4
Now, if you applied your method to 100 flights, you'd start to be able to construct a statistical average. You have been shown the way of how these calculations can be done, so what's the problem, go ahead and apply this model to as many rocket launches as you wish. Let me know if you encounter any problems with this method. Otherwise you are just talking. I wouldn't bother. I didn't even reach for the technical term "photogrammetry" when realizing something was deeply flawed. The basic word "perspective" was enough for me. You haven't accounted for it. You haven't shown how you account for it. But this is beside the point. I'm not making the claim that your fantasy method works. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it somehow accesses a higher geometry beyond the geometry we know, and returns the right answer even with the wrong reasoning. It isn't up to me to show that. It is up to the promoter of the idea. Come on; I test my test equipment before I use it to test equipment. If you or the person you are reporting from are serious about this method, then it is up to you to fully understand and thoroughly test it. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 20:19:27 GMT -4
What is that, about a 45 o angle? So the Ares, according to the exhaust is going 1564 m/s, but the Mach cone says it is going 425 m/s. Hmm? Ar you kidding? You can't see the Mach cone unless it's lit up by something like flames or explosion gas from inside. And it starts from a rocket's top and not almost behind it. So tell me now, where in this Ares X-1 video do you see a "Mach cone"? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 20:24:06 GMT -4
You can't see the Mach cone unless it's lit up by something like flames or explosion gas from inside. No, you cannot see a Mach cone unless it's illuminated in a very particular way, which is why it is almost never observed in the field and has to be observed in a controlled environment like a wind tunnel. No. It starts wherever there is a convex boundary, which is 3-5 places on the Saturn V. You are correct in that one cannot use the exhaust plume as a Mach cone. However you are also incorrect in showing photos alleging to be the Saturn V Mach cone. That's not a Mach cone. Now that you're finally paying attention to what is and is not a Mach cone, please address the items I mentioned which suggest the phenomenon in the Russian photograph is not a Mach cone. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 20:26:00 GMT -4
McClellan, If the third stage never reached orbit, then what did observers see in the sky before, during and after TLI? Who did see all that? Names, please. And who COULD see the Apollo rockets when they were far away from Florida on their way across the Atlantics? |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 31, 2011 20:32:58 GMT -4
Who did see all that? Names, please. How many names? How many thousand names would you like? |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 20:35:57 GMT -4
However you are also incorrect in showing photos alleging to be the Saturn V Mach cone. That's not a Mach cone. And what's this according to you then?  And where does this fine triangular zone with straight boundaries start if not from the top of the Apollo rocket? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 20:36:45 GMT -4
Everyone in Hawaii for some missions, everyone in Australia for others. I assume you can find the relevant phone books. In the meantime try: www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.htmlAn Apollo stack, including the S-IVB, is a naked-eye object at night. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 20:38:26 GMT -4
And what's this according to you then? Asked and answered. Circular reasoning. The absence of equivalent formations at the other Prandtl-Meyer boundaries is what makes that not a Mach cone. I covered all this already. Please don't make me repeat myself. |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 20:40:29 GMT -4
Who did see all that? Names, please. How many names? How many thousand names would you like? I'm not going to require impossible things from you. Just name any names you have heard of then, people who have seen the Apollo rockets flying in space. Otherwise you are just creating yourself a convenient argument by saying that "many people have seen these rockets flying above their heads before the TLI". |
|
|
|
Post by mcclellan on Oct 31, 2011 20:42:55 GMT -4
I covered all this already. Please don't make me repeat myself. My question was quite simple, if this is NOT a Mach angle, then what is it that we see ACCORDING TO YOU? What do YOU call this phenomena? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 31, 2011 20:44:31 GMT -4
My question was quite simple And has already been answered. If you'd stop ignoring my posts you'd have your answer already. Go back and read this thread again so that you can stay current with the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Oct 31, 2011 20:50:27 GMT -4
What is that, about a 45 o angle? So the Ares, according to the exhaust is going 1564 m/s, but the Mach cone says it is going 425 m/s. Hmm? Ar you kidding? You can't see the Mach cone unless it's lit up by something like flames or explosion gas from inside. And it starts from a rocket's top and not almost behind it. So tell me now, where in this Ares X-1 video do you see a "Mach cone"? Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Now you are looking at things skeptically! Too bad you didn't apply that same skepticism to the pictures you said were a Mach cone around the Saturn V. Because what you are saying is a Mach cone around the Saturn is not lit up by the exhaust. Look at the exhaust, don't look at the lines drawn on the photo. Notice the exhaust does not limit itself to a sharp line like you would see in a Mach cone. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Oct 31, 2011 20:53:10 GMT -4
How many names? How many thousand names would you like? I'm not going to require impossible things from you. Just name any names you have heard of then, people who have seen the Apollo rockets flying in space. Otherwise you are just creating yourself a convenient argument by saying that "many people have seen these rockets flying above their heads before the TLI". My dad saw Apollo 8 as it orbited before TLI. |
|
