|
Post by chew on Nov 28, 2011 23:33:19 GMT -4
chew the concept yes not the term for it and you believe it doesn't happen in science? Science is not a democracy.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 28, 2011 23:38:34 GMT -4
The surface layer perhaps, Armstrong describes it as such, but when they tried to push the flag into the regolith., the under layer was much more compact, as can be seen in this image from Surveyor 6.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 28, 2011 23:41:26 GMT -4
10) ... no one even seemed to provide a good reason to break in at all. but believing in conspiracies, a power block decided Nixon had to go. Yes, there is the problem. You believe in conspiracies. Not that you have discovered them - you believe in them. No matter the evidence, your natural tendency is to assume that whatever appears to be the truth must be some dastardly deception. Incidentally, the reason that they made two attempts at the Watergate was that they hadn't done what they'd planned to do the first time. That's pretty basic. It appears you know about as much about Watergate as you do about the moon landing. But then, if you actually went out and studied them, your "anomalies" might disappear in a puff of logic, and I don't think you want that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:52:54 GMT -4
trebor we are rehashing old ground yes i realize the the exhaust spreads in a vacuum, it does not disappear. if it has an affect at 100 feet it will have a much greater affect at 3 feet. Yes, And it is noticeable that it did from the photos taken from Apollo 11, which show a broad and shallow crater with fluid erosion marks. Now show us why it should have been larger.... some actual evidence would do.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:54:44 GMT -4
i will concede the crater if you concede the lm ascent engine should have had a flame. Why should the ascent engine have had a 'flame' while running in a vacuum? Please provide some actual evidence for this.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 28, 2011 23:55:49 GMT -4
raven artist drawing as realistic? OK i will concede the crater if you concede the lm ascent engine should have had a flame. Is that really how you think science works?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:56:12 GMT -4
trebor explain moving dust at 100 feet or was it 300 feet? Dust moves when you blow on it... Now show some evidence why the crater produced should have been larger... Edit: While you are at it answer this question as well:
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 29, 2011 0:06:05 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:11:19 GMT -4
what does a vacuum have to do with the absence of a flame? A great deal. there is no such thing as a vacuum in space, it is just the absence matter. The relative absence of matter is a vacuum. But gas expands to fill the available space, which in space is considerable. simply - there is no resistance to the movement of matter. Indeed, there is no resistance to the exhaust gasses. matter moving in a direction does not get sucked in a different direction. if you consult Aldrin's book he talks about a huge orange plume from the descent engine what is he talking about? If he did say such a thing he would be talking about something which did not happen, and is not visible in the film taken during the landing. Why don't you give an actual quote and reference?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 29, 2011 0:13:55 GMT -4
if you consult Aldrin's book he talks about a huge orange plume from the descent engine what is he talking about? Which book? What page?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 29, 2011 0:20:59 GMT -4
I have no qualifications that are pertinent here. I am not a rocket scientist. So what kind of scientist are you exactly?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:21:33 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Based on your posts here, it seems not. While you are at it can you answer this question: And:
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 29, 2011 0:22:00 GMT -4
chew "Science is not a democracy. " great line If you wish to worship at the alter of science go ahead, its your decision. Science can be (IS) influenced by money and politics, in short data and findings can be aligned with money and politics. Name one instance of money buying science.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Nov 29, 2011 0:22:55 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science i know how it works That claim would be more believable (as in at all) if you had shown any trace of the skills of knowledge needed to gain such degrees.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 29, 2011 0:23:29 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science i know how it works Wow, you've jumped from complete ignorance to outright lying.
|
|