|
Post by thetart on Sept 13, 2010 22:39:13 GMT -4
Well Rodin has started a thread on Gamma rays... Started and then promptly abandoned once it was shown that he'd have to provide more than handwaving and insinuation. It's pretty obvious at this point that Rodin is a committed believer in the hoax theory. As others have before him, he's searching for some pseudo-intellectual reason to keep believing in it. That's why he's satisfied with explanations only that it "could" be fake. As long as he can pseudo-intellectually hold out hope that the Moon landings "might" be fake, he's happy and his worldview remains intact. But using rodins own logic, he is a racist. Well he could be a racist, therefore by his own logic he is.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 13:42:42 GMT -4
Furthermore the effect of micrometeorites had already been detected by 1) meteorites which fall to Earth at high frequency Of course. But micrometeorites were known from those that are observed burning up quickly This could be an artifact of the technology used to generate zap pots I have seen the description 'covered in zap pits' used in academic literature so I assume they are. If so I wonder how the side embedded in the regolith would become pitted?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 14, 2010 13:51:20 GMT -4
This could be an artifact of the technology used to generate zap pots This is your friendly reminder that "could be" is pointless. Do you have any evidence that it's possible? Because rocks get moved around. One example is rock blasted out of the ground by meteor impact. Another example is rocks disturbed by impact-caused moonquakes. There are photos of tracks left by rocks as they rolled down hillsides.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 13:59:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 14, 2010 14:08:37 GMT -4
Three problems: 1. It maxes out a mach 15, which is still too slow. 2. The flow of air at that speed would erode the rock in much the same way as hitting the Earth's atmosphere would. 3. The article talks about a temperature of 5000K which would also alter the rocks. Sorry, this won't work. Mach 9 is even slower. Still doesn't work. But can you answer this: Why was it necessary for NASA to fake Apollo? Never mind what could have been faked - why did it need to be?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 14, 2010 16:55:40 GMT -4
Of course. But micrometeorites were known from those that are observed burning up quickly Still not small enough to produce zap pits. If I hear you use the term 'could be' without providing one single shred of evidence, rodin, I would wish I could reach through this monitor and throttle you. Again, do your own homework.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 14, 2010 17:03:01 GMT -4
NASA Langley's Hypersonic Facilities Complex, 1969Irrelevant. That is not 'particle accelerator technology'. When you use technological jargon you really ought to try and understand what it means. For example, mach 15 is how fast? Do you have any idea how much speed you have to impart to a tiny grain of dust only a few microns in size on order for it to hit a rock and leave a crater? Kinetic energy is the key, and it varies proportionally to mass and the square of the velocity. If mass is tiny, you need a LOT of speed to have enough energy to leave a mark in a solid lump of rock or a glass spherule. At mach 15 the temperature of the gas stream impinging on the surface would affect the surface of the rock far more than the dust would. You really should try and make the effort to understand the stuff you pull out that you think is supporting your position. Most researchers take that time in order to avoid looking as foolish as you are making yourself appear with this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Sept 14, 2010 17:05:54 GMT -4
Let's not forget the not so small question of how NASA could produce 2 metre long cores if they didn't go to the moon, especially given the characteristics of the lunar material that point to it having formed under 1/6th g and in the absence of air and water.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 17:57:48 GMT -4
Of course. But micrometeorites were known from those that are observed burning up quickly Still not small enough to produce zap pits. If I hear you use the term 'could be' without providing one single shred of evidence, rodin, I would wish I could reach through this monitor and throttle you. Again, do your own homework. Regarding 'do your own homework' The most powerful resource I have is a search engine. Sometimes it does not readily yield the answer I seek. Perhaps the info is specialist and hard to extract - like are the Moon rocks covered in zap pits. Simple question, you'd think you'd get a definitive answer in minutes. I still have not found one, though 'covered' does seem to cover it As for impact speed - I read elsewhere Zap pits formed at Mach ten. Following the response here I check how fast micrometeorites travel. This information comes easily. It is 10-40 Km/sec. Sound is around 0.33Km/sec so we are looking for in the region of Mach 50. Obviously gas borne particles cannot achieve speeds anywhere near. The most likely method would be as I said before a sort of macro particle accelerator using a magnetic field to collimate and accelerate charged projectiles. Once charged small particles could be accelerated in a vacuum to speeds limited by field strength particle charge/mass ratio and path length. Therefore the bottleneck is putting a charge onto rock/sand/glass grains. Would glass for example take electrostatic charge? Yes. www.physicstutorials.org/index.php/home/electrostatics/types-of-charging
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 17:59:38 GMT -4
Let's not forget the not so small question of how NASA could produce 2 metre long cores if they didn't go to the moon, especially given the characteristics of the lunar material that point to it having formed under 1/6th g and in the absence of air and water. What's to stop them just ramming layers into a tube?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 14, 2010 18:14:50 GMT -4
Three problems: 1. It maxes out a mach 15, which is still too slow. 2. The flow of air at that speed would erode the rock in much the same way as hitting the Earth's atmosphere would. 3. The article talks about a temperature of 5000K which would also alter the rocks. Sorry, this won't work. Mach 9 is even slower. Still doesn't work. But can you answer this: Why was it necessary for NASA to fake Apollo? Never mind what could have been faked - why did it need to be? I agree now with you that gas-borne dust is a red herring. The particles would have to be accelerated by a magnetic field. Why did NASA have to fake Apollo? You mean which facet(s) was(were) technically unfeasible? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 14, 2010 18:21:14 GMT -4
Regarding 'do your own homework' The most powerful resource I have is a search engine. Then what, exactly, has led you to the conclusion that Apollo was faked, and why do you think a search engine will provide you with evidence to back that conclusion up? Why did you not search for evidence before drawing your conclusion and presenting it here? Explain why this is 'the most likely' when you have no evidence that any such system even exists? Not in dispute. The question is whether it could be accelerated to the required speeds. Do you have any evidence that any machine capable of doing so exists, or are you simply inventing whatever must exist to stop you from having to re-examine your initial premise that the Moon landings were faked?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 14, 2010 18:22:06 GMT -4
Why did NASA have to fake Apollo? You mean which facet(s) was(were) technically unfeasible? I don't know. Then how on Earth can you possibly have reached the conclusion it was faked if you can't even point to a sensible reason for it bieng so?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 14, 2010 18:22:54 GMT -4
Regarding 'do your own homework' The most powerful resource I have is a search engine.Sorry, I don't accept degrees from the University of Google. You can search for facts and for statements of putative fact. You cannot do a web search for expertise. You wouldn't be the first one to try to Google his way to erudition, but it just doesn't work. You're talking here to people who do things for a living, not just read about what others do. The most likely method would be as I said before a sort of macro particle accelerator...Magical Moonrock Faking Machine.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 14, 2010 18:24:17 GMT -4
Why did NASA have to fake Apollo? You mean which facet(s) was(were) technically unfeasible? I don't know. I would have to say that if you don't know the answer to that question you have absolutely no right to cast doubt on the reality or the Apollo Missions!
|
|