|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 5:52:35 GMT -4
The astronauts claimed that moon dust was plentiful and all-pervasive. Cernan claimed that it was so abundant that it even got into the pores of the skin "and all moving parts"
Yet in the moon photographs, there is not a single piece of dust on the feet of the Lunar Module- they are perfectly clean. Why is this?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2005 6:32:54 GMT -4
You claim to know all the evidence, you should know the answer to this, heck even if you have bothered to read a few sites such as Bad Astronomy and Clavius, which you have been repeatedly refered to, you would know this. Once again you are showing your initial claim to have studied the evidence is nothing but a lie and that you can't even be bothered going and looking up the answer to your questions even after you have been told where to find them. Go and read the accounts of Armstrong and Aldrin about the motion of the dust on the moon caused by the rocket engine and then think about why dust acts that way on the moon and why it acts the way it does on Earth. (Hint: the moon doesn't have air) If you still can't figure it out, come back and ask again and we'll explain it to you in one and two syllable words so you are sure to get it, but until then why should we believe that a person that opens with blatent lies and who can't even be bothered looking at the evidence that has already been provided is going to listen to what we say?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 6:37:54 GMT -4
Couldn't you just say what the reason is?
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 27, 2005 6:50:14 GMT -4
The simple answer is that as there is no atmosphere or wind on the moon the dust stays where it lands unless it gets kicked up, by say, walking on it. As the LM stayed still it didn't disturb any dust aside from what it's engine kicked up during landing, which would move in a parabolic arc away from it, as there is no air to make it billow or move backwards over the feet.
And PhantomWolf, I think we have established that margamatix has not looked at all the evidence, so we don't need to keep re-stating the point, nor do we need to attack him, although he is asking questions that have been answered before he is being civil for the most part, unlike some members of these forums. To be honest I see nothing wrong with simply answering his questions, if he starts to be rude/annoying/refuses to look at proof then you can ignore him, and if he's very troll like then he might get banned, but until he has become unbearably rude/stupid he has a right to have his questions answered.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2005 7:27:31 GMT -4
I agree that his questions can be answered, though as of yet he's shown absolutely no sign of being willing to accept the answers given or even acknowledge that his beliefs could be wrong. He merely changes the topic with a new thread.
This from a guy that seemed to think it was wierd that the Astronauts wouldn't do it for Bart, and yet was quite happy to lie to us, and an arrogant lie at that. Even when others called on his lack of knowledge (by at least Jay before before I did) he rebuted them with repeated claims of his superior knowledge.
He has been directed to explore both Clavius and Bad Astronomy on at least three occasions by other posters, and yet it appears he hasn't bothered to do so because this question is comprehensively covered at both places.
Now Jay is a very patient man and he'll answer questions left and right even when people aren't listening to the answers, but I'm afraid I'm not. I'll happily discuss Apollo with anyone and do it politely, once they show that they are willing to actually listen to the answers given, explore the materials referanced and have left their arrogant "I know all there is to know" attitude at the door. I haven't seen any of that from margamatix as of yet. If he changes and admits that he doesn't know everything, shows that he's willing to research the reference materials supplied nd is willing to ctually learn something, then I'll more than happily treat him like a questioner, however while he acts like a unlistening, uninterested in the truth HB, I'll treat him like one.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 7:49:00 GMT -4
I have looked at all of the sites I have been directed to, and I have not found one piece of evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that man has landed on the moon.
I found a website called ApolloHoax.net which has an "Apollo Hoax" forum, one board of which is called "The Hoax Theory".
On the "Hoax theory" board of the "Apollo Hoax" forum on the "Apollo Hoax.net" website, I have theorised that Apollo is a hoax.
If that's trolling, then heaven help us. It aught to be made clearer that this is a board purely for those who positively believe that the moon landings are real, and that others are unwelcome.
|
|
|
Post by gdwarf on Jul 27, 2005 7:54:44 GMT -4
I have looked at all of the sites I have been directed to, and I have not found one piece of evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that man has landed on the moon. I found a website called ApolloHoax.net which has an "Apollo Hoax" forum, one board of which is called "The Hoax Theory". On the "Hoax theory" board of the "Apollo Hoax" forum on the "Apollo Hoax.net" website, I have theorised that Apollo is a hoax. If that's trolling, then heaven help us. It aught to be made clearer that this is a board purely for those who positively believe that the moon landings are real, and that others are unwelcome. No, that is not trolling, what you just did might count as it though. Trolling on scientifically minded boards is submitting something as fact and then ignoring evidence that proves it isn't, it is also changing the topic of a thread when it isn't going your way, it is also when you insult people, which you haven't done. Anyways, I did have an if in my statement. I would, however like to point out that all the points you've made have been proven flase. Yet you continue to say that man never landed on the moon, I'd advise you to have an open mind, as a closed one will never, ever, help you.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 8:08:21 GMT -4
Yet you continue to say that man never landed on the moon, I'd advise you to have an open mind, as a closed one will never, ever, help you. I believed for over 30 years that we did land on the moon and it is only the weight of evidence I have seen that convinced me that I was wrong. You can hardly say I have a closed mind. I will continue to look objectively at any site to which I am directed by forum members, but none I have seen so far comes within a million miles of being "proof"
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 8:10:23 GMT -4
The simple answer is that as there is no atmosphere or wind on the moon the dust stays where it lands unless it gets kicked up, by say, walking on it. . And you don't think that the Lunar module using its engine to brake itself as it descended to the surface would kick it up?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2005 9:16:21 GMT -4
The simple answer is that as there is no atmosphere or wind on the moon the dust stays where it lands unless it gets kicked up, by say, walking on it. . And you don't think that the Lunar module using its engine to brake itself as it descended to the surface would kick it up? The LM's exhaust pushed the dust outward to the sides at very high velocity. The dust traveled far from the LM before falling back to the surface. The exhaust would not have kicked the dust up where it would have fallen back onto the LM itself. Try this experiment: Take a water hose with a nozzle that generates a high-velocity stream. Point the nozzle straight down at a hard surface, like concrete pavement, and watch what happens to the stream. It will radiate outwards at a very low angle to the surface. The LM's exhaust would have reacted similarly, carrying the dust with it away from the LM.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 27, 2005 9:37:29 GMT -4
I believed for over 30 years that we did land on the moon and it is only the weight of evidence I have seen that convinced me that I was wrong. You can hardly say I have a closed mind. Understanding the reality of the moon landings is not a belief lake that of say, the tooth fairy. It comes from an understanding of many different and varied pieces of evidence that consistently point to one conclusion. You say that you have looked at evidence and this has changed your mind. So can you tell us what evidence convinced you that your belief was wrong?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2005 10:51:22 GMT -4
For instance, do you think that the descent engine should have kicked up billowing clouds of dust which should have settled on the LM's footpads (but didn't)? Is that one of the things that convinced you?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 10:51:53 GMT -4
Couldn't you just say what the reason is?
Couldn't you just look for the answer yourself? We grow tired of typing the same answers to the same old questions into the computer. That's why we set up the web sites -- so we don't have to keep doing it.
You're about the 50th person who has asked that same question. Do I really have to type in an original answer all 50 times?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 27, 2005 11:59:07 GMT -4
there is not a single piece of dust on the feet of the Lunar Module- they are perfectly clean. Do I detect a slight exaggeration here? Surely one would have to inspect all 24 footpads with at least a magnifying glass, if not a microscope, in order to make that claim. However, I applaud you for inspecting large, sharp, clear photos. They're much better than tiny, indistinct, fuzzy videos.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2005 12:39:23 GMT -4
And you don't think that the Lunar module using its engine to brake itself as it descended to the surface would kick it up?
Nope. It kicks the dust outward. According to the principles of fluid dynamics, if you direct a reasonably coherent stream of fluid perpendicularly toward a flat surface, the fluid will deflect at right angles (roughly) and radiate outward in a "sheet" parallel and very close to the flat surface.
So if a rocket engine directs its gas downward toward the (reasonably) flat lunar surface, it will not billow up into the air (there isn't any). It will not bounce back upward. It will, instead, form a sheet radiating outward horizontally from the point at which the plume contacts the surface, hugging the surface as it goes.
The reason for this is the tendency of fluids to follow minimum-energy paths. Going sideways after striking a horizontal surface is "easier" than going upwards in the opposite direction.
This is visible in the films, and it was observed by Buzz Aldrin, who commented on it during his debriefing. You can even see it in the Saturn V and V-2 launches. The exhaust splays outward, not upward or in a ball.
This is important for two reasons.
First, the path followed by the dust is exactly the path followed by the exhaust. The technical term for this is "fluid entrainment". Objects in a fluid of sufficient density follow the flow of the fluid. Think about that the next time you wonder what makes the boats move in Pirates of the Carribean.
The dust particles will become entrained in the exhaust and will follow its direction and velocity until the fluid loses sufficient density.
Second, the lunar module's landing feet are well above the surface and the dust sheet when the engine is cut off and the dust sheet goes away. The engine is typically stopped at an altitude of 1.5 meters. How long it takes the LM to fall that 1.5 meters in lunar gravity is left as an exercise to the reader.
The point is that the exhaust gas, and its entrained dust, is moving at about 2,500 meters per second. Let's say, generously, that it looses half that velocity in the transition from "downward" to "outward". So the last dust to depart the region under the engine is moving at about 1,200 meters per second. From the center of the LM to the footpads, horizontally, is a small handful of meters -- about 5. So at a speed of 1,200 meters per second, the last dust particle to be entrained by the exhaust will leave that 5 meter radius in 4 milliseconds, not enough time for a footpad to drop low enough to catch it. If the LM takes on second to fall to the lunar surface, that last dust particle will be on the horizon by then.
Let's say some lucky dust particle manages to swoop high enough to hit a footpad. What makes you think a dust particle moving at more than 2,000 miles per hour will linger in a footpad?
So much for the engine.
The footpads are cupped on the bottom; the foot is dish-shaped. When they hit a particulate surface violently, the dust is thrown outward, not upward. Looking at the dynamics of such an impact, there's no justification whatsoever for a dust trajectory that deposits material inside the footpads.
The pads were covered with aluminized Kapton insulation. Nothing much sticks to that; it's very smooth plastic.
It is my judgment that the expectation for seeing dust in the footpads in a lunar landing of that sort is not supported by any scientific principle. It's just wrong intuition.
|
|