|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 5, 2010 14:20:28 GMT -4
Unlike most HBs, IM has an endearing kind of folly. He is just so wrong about so many things that it is hard to understand just how far the misconceptions go.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 5, 2010 15:18:13 GMT -4
Unlike most HBs, IM has an endearing kind of folly. He is just so wrong about so many things that it is hard to understand just how far the misconceptions go. I'd agree. He's polite and has asked to be pointed towards a text on the subject. Compared with Jarrah, Duane Daman and the rest of the crazy gang at YouTube, I have no quarms with IM. Most of the YouTube guys are wrapped up in a tight ball of venom and hatred. He's actually quite refreshing. When I look at Kaysing, I don't see a hateful figure, maybe a man who liked to spin a yarn and tell a tale from his chair. Not hateful though. Hell, people on this board have come out an commended Kaysing for his charity. It seems that the modern moon hoax conspiracy theorist is angry with the government, and if I may add, a little disturbed. IM does not come across that way. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 5, 2010 18:15:06 GMT -4
The question is, will Gargleplatz actually read those texts, and if he does, will they actually change his mind?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 5, 2010 19:52:10 GMT -4
The question is, will Gargleplatz actually read those texts, and if he does, will they actually change his mind? I hope so, on both counts. Bate is accessible if you have a good enough grounding in classical mechanics. He doesn't. Sidi requires not only classical mechanics but some advanced techniques as well. The link I posted to a basic mechanics text should help, but it's hard for someone who has staunchly claimed to be a qualified professional to admit going back to read primers. Yes, his extreme folly is amusing until you're the one he's calling out as the "misguided member." Then it's just annoying. People with delusions of grandeur simply don't want to be told that their understanding fails at a basic level. Okay, granted he may not be as crude and vitriolic as the dregs of YouTube, but I don't consider "He could be much worse" to be much of a compliment. Good pictures, though. And that's the truth. At least half the problem in most of these debates is getting the point across, whether it ends up being right or wrong. As soon as I saw his diagrams, it confirmed my earlier suspicion that he was alluding to a gravity gradient. The bottom line is that he's claiming to be a qualified professional in computers and engineering. But he isn't, and he has to know that he isn't. That doesn't bode well for any sincerity-of-belief argument. He's trying to pawn off Googled-up factoids as if it measured up to a professional qualification, and that's just not sincere. He may sincerely believe each and every factoid, but that doesn't make him generally sincere. Further, I and others have already addressed the points he resurrected in this second of two threads on LM powered descent, guidance, and so forth. As near as I can tell, he simply ignored all that. Regardless of how sincerely you believe your factoid, you can't simply let pass in silence a contrary argument if you're going to be seen as sincere. You have to account for it. At least acknowledge it. All that said, I wouldn't address any of his claims if I thought he was unreachable. |
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Nov 5, 2010 19:55:09 GMT -4
Unlike most HBs, IM has an endearing kind of folly. He is just so wrong about so many things that it is hard to understand just how far the misconceptions go. I'd agree. He's polite and has asked to be pointed towards a text on the subject. Compared with Jarrah, Duane Daman and the rest of the crazy gang at YouTube, I have no quarms with IM. Most of the YouTube guys are wrapped up in a tight ball of venom and hatred. He's actually quite refreshing. When I look at Kaysing, I don't see a hateful figure, maybe a man who liked to spin a yarn and tell a tale from his chair. Not hateful though. Hell, people on this board have come out an commended Kaysing for his charity. It seems that the modern moon hoax conspiracy theorist is angry with the government, and if I may add, a little disturbed. IM does not come across that way. I remember the same sort of things being said about Rodin not so long ago, do not confuse politeness with reason. |
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Nov 5, 2010 20:09:04 GMT -4
All that said, I wouldn't address any of his claims if I thought he was unreachable. I've seen gonetoplaid doing videos that tear his argument to pieces......they don't appear to reach him. Always the ego thing....loss of face is everything to such people. |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 5, 2010 20:21:12 GMT -4
I remember the same sort of things being said about Rodin not so long ago, do not confuse politeness with reason. I see where you are coming from, but I don't think I am confusing the two. I doubt IM will show any reason, but he's very different (so far) to some hoax proponents who are obsessive and wrapped up in a tight little ball of hatred and venom. At least he has come here to present his case, unlike a certain other person of antipodean origin who simply does not have the bottle or can remain civil/on topic long long enough, to answer some fundamental questions. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 5, 2010 20:21:20 GMT -4
My eye opener in orbital mechanics was a simple computer simulation, which I wrote just for fun.And by doing so you moved several steps from propositional to practical knowledge. As I've said, you'll learn more about swimming in the first 15 seconds after having been thrown into the water than you will in a month of reading books on the subject. The beauty of orbital mechanics is that you start with only two concepts: momentum and gravity, which you can express so very simply in classical mechanics. Yet from those two simple variables springs a huge variety of celestial mechanical behavior, from the simple elliptical orbit of a minor satellite to the ruthlessly n-body behavior of the Kuiper Belt. Toward that end, about five years ago I supplied a large scale computer system for modeling Kuiper Belt behavior, containing algorithms not likely to differ especially from those in your rudimentary simulation. ...will show what is then going on and that in fact this is right, even if it seems counterintuitive at the first glance.That's why propositional knowledge tells so little of the story. When you start playing with real spacecraft, you quickly learn that "everything is an orbit." That's why Sidi's book and nearly every professional-level treatise of spacecraft control begins with an orbital mechanics refresher. P63 treats the LM's trajectory as an orbit. I.m's concept of it in pure "horizontal" and "vertical" velocity is misleading.
|
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 5, 2010 20:37:59 GMT -4
As soon as I saw his diagrams, it confirmed my earlier suspicion that he was alluding to a gravity gradient. He was in fact squarely contradicted, and in a rather rude manner. I think it would have been more productive to give him, that he was in fact correct that an orbiting object will finally end up in a "natural" attitude. From there I think he would have been more reachable when being explained that his understanding of the principle of gravity gradient was wrong and why it was wrong. Frankly we don't know if he has a degree in engineering. I know from experience that it's possible to have a degree without being qualified in the field, so to call him a liar is not appropriate and should have been brought to attention by the moderator according to the forum rules imho. Yes. I totally agree. But you have to take into account the vast amount of detailed arguments he has been met with within a few days. I know from my profession, and I guess that everyone can agree, that you simply cannot turn your world view upside down in a couple of days. And when the load of arguments is accompanied by blatant insults, it gets even more difficult. Very understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 5, 2010 20:52:13 GMT -4
I suspect his pictures were created for his YouTube series (search "hunchbacked" if you are so inclined...). Plenty of pretty pictures and graphics, but all misdirected...all thrust, no vector.
I would love to set down with him for an hour with "Orbiter", it's a marvelous way to learn how orbital mechanics work, and why thrusting in any direction during orbit will have unexpected (for the novice) consequences down the road when you least expect, or want, them.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 5, 2010 20:53:41 GMT -4
Always the ego thing....loss of face is everything to such people. Real engineers soon learn that face is best saved by caving in to facts. First, engineering is about being right, not just appearing right. Second, you earn credibility by showing that you can be swayed by facts. Holding up a flagging claim by gross misinterpretation and bluster, in the face of certain contrary fact, loses you face. Every engineer makes mistakes. That's why we tend to travel in packs. But by the same token, an engineer must have confidence in his knowledge and skill. That confidence comes through practice, not through proposition. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 5, 2010 21:32:31 GMT -4
He was in fact squarely contradicted, and in a rather rude manner.Not rudely, merely decisively. He merely asserted that the CSM would naturally orbit horizontally. He didn't say why he thought so. Under no true model of dynamics would that be so. When pressed, he cited merely "centrifugal force" without saying what particularly about it would produce the appropriate torque. I ventured that he was thinking of tidal forces, the gravity gradient and I said as much. I succinctly informed him that the force he described was a third-order force in the problem. Keep in mind that I was then taken to task for assuming he was talking about the gravity gradient. You can't have it both ways. Either his handwaving was appropriately rejected as such, or his alluded-to effect was acknowledged and addressed. ...I think he would have been more reachable when being explained that his understanding of the principle of gravity gradient was wrong and why it was wrong.I did that early on and was told that I had "many misconceptions regarding space flight." He had plenty of opportunities to engage profitably in discussing the quantity of the gravity-gradient force. Frankly we don't know if he has a degree in engineering.As an engineer and a former teacher of engineers, I can propose with some significant confidence that he does not. I have pointed out exactly what portions of a basic engineering education he has lacked, according to his arguments. He is claiming to be an engineer. His claim; his burden of proof. I dispute his claim, and I give good reasons for it which remain unaddressed. Since he relies in no small amount upon these supposed qualifications to give authority to his arguments, I fail to see why this is not a valid line of questioning. But you have to take into account the vast amount of detailed arguments he has been met with within a few days.I'm not impressed. When he first presented the "flat spin" article, I corrected his misinterpretation immediately, as did several others. I then went on to explain rather laboriously what the article meant. In his week-long "absence" he visited the forum several times without posting. After a week, during which he was supposedly preparing the original post to this thread, he simply regurgitated his original claims. In that post, he refers to me specifically several times, yet spectacularly fails to address a single element of my essay that sat there for the seven-day interim. And when the load of arguments is accompanied by blatant insults, it gets even more difficult.His or ours? I struggle to see why his approach doesn't fit the definition of arrogance in the extreme.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 5, 2010 22:12:01 GMT -4
Frankly we don't know if he has a degree in engineering. I know from experience that it's possible to have a degree without being qualified in the field, so to call him a liar is not appropriate and should have been brought to attention by the moderator according to the forum rules imho. I'm quite sure Lunar Orbit knew what was being said. The fact is, if he's that unqualified to hold a degree, he would also be unable to hold a job in the field. I'll also note that it has been my experience that engineers, indeed scholars in general, are meticulous about their terminology, at least within their own field. The fact that he blew off several corrections about that with "well, it's what I'm comfortable using" is not a good sign that he has any expertise in any scholarly field. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 5, 2010 22:25:21 GMT -4
I think InquisitiveMind considers the mere fact that people disagree with him insulting. The only way he wouldn't have been insulted by us is if we all bowed down to his superior intellect, and that wasn't going to happen without him earning it.
If someone comes here all adamant that 2+2=5 then they are wrong, and the rest of us shouldn't be required to coddle them just because they can't handle being told they're wrong. I'm not saying it's okay to insult the guy, but I'm not going to punish people for disagreeing with him just because his ego can't handle it.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 5, 2010 22:27:46 GMT -4
Frankly we don't know if he has a degree in engineering. I know from experience that it's possible to have a degree without being qualified in the field, so to call him a liar is not appropriate and should have been brought to attention by the moderator according to the forum rules imho. I disagree. His knowlegde of basic physics is wrong, that's not a mistake a person with a degree makes, they'd never have passed the exams. It's like saying you are a qualified programmer but not having a clue about the difference between a procedure and a function. |
|
