|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 30, 2005 17:43:44 GMT -4
Why wouldn't dust clump in a vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 30, 2005 17:44:41 GMT -4
You're just grasping at straws now matix.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 30, 2005 17:46:29 GMT -4
Well, it's there for people to see and judge for themselves Bob. The url of the site is at the top of the original post. The video footage can be found three quarters of the way down the page in the orange coloured box. Like I said, it's there for anyone to see and judge for themselves. This footage was filmed on Earth. By "this" I must presume you mean, a particular clip. I have no doubt that a clip could be found that appeared to have been filmed on Earth (heck, with some searching I could probably find a clip of film made on Earth that appeared to have been filmed on the Moon.) The question that has been repeatadly posed to you, is; have you taken one of the long lengths of footage available on, say, Apollo Films and viewed it sped up? I really can't imagine the "lope" looking like it took place under Earth's gravity, regardless of film speed (in fact I think it would look even stranger sped up). No...you have seen all you need to see to form your conclusion. No actualy evidence is needed -- or desired.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 30, 2005 17:48:32 GMT -4
It doesn't. If you look at still photos, you can even see that it "clumps", which it would not do in a vacuum.
Why not?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 30, 2005 17:49:44 GMT -4
You're just grasping at straws now matix. Yes, but they are his straws and he grasps them tightly.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 30, 2005 17:57:11 GMT -4
This is just...very odd. I want to take Margamatix out to the San Franciso ballet and see if he actually believes ballerinas fly...or if he doubts that a young man in excellent physical condition could lift a young woman above his head and hold her there. I want to go with him to a martial arts exhibition and see if he really believes a man can do a backflip from a standing position and land on his feet, or if he starts looking for wires and springboards. I want to drive with him and see if he estimates the traffic he is trying to merge with is clocking an average of 220 KPH.
It's just...how could he look at these sped-up videos and not see Benny Hill as animated by Monty Python?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 30, 2005 17:58:07 GMT -4
I think it was one of Einstein's theories regarding space travel that once a craft reached a speed of a little over 24,000 miles an hour and aimed in the proper trajectory, it would be able to escape the earth's gravitational pull and then 'freely glide', through space at that speed with no need of any further power. To get to the moon, however, the gravity of earth would slow down a craft, but at 24,000 miles per hour it took a long time, after the craft reached over 2/3rd way the gravity of the moon would get stronger and the craft would speed up, being pulled toward the moon. That is the 'theory' about how they were able to travel to the moon.
Uh, that's ridiculous. Einstein had nothing to do with it. These principles were worked out by Isaac Newton hundreds of years ago. I don't know who you're supposed to be quoting, but based on such nonsense as contained in just this quote, they have no idea what they're talking about.
What about that?
Well, it's gibberish, basically.
Did you have a specific question?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 30, 2005 18:01:19 GMT -4
I really love the account of the X15 pointing the nose up and accidentally going into orbit. Then, since it is out of fuel, and the flaps no longer work, the pilot dies up there.
That's in about the same zone as those strange decaying orbits of Star Trek ("We lost power. We'll hit the planet in thirty minutes!") For, of course, exactly the reverse reason...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 30, 2005 18:02:57 GMT -4
I propose separating discussion of astronaut motion from this thread, the OPs of which contain all sorts of stuff, and continuing it on the "Gene Cernan running" thread if it has to do with perambulation. It would be a lot easier to discuss just the motion topic that way.
Any takers?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 30, 2005 18:07:34 GMT -4
No problem.
We just encountered standard HB behavior...."I accept this new evidence. Not on its own merits, but because I already agree with the theory because of this other piece of evidence."
Let us see if the OP has anything new to add re the Moon Shadow site.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Sept 30, 2005 21:17:41 GMT -4
I got a ways into the essay, and I can only say that your "history" is quite innacurate. You seem to have no background in space history, US or Russian, and the ways each country went about it. The original US manned booster, the Redstone, had been around for some time as an ICBM and had the nickname "old reliable". It was a derivative of the Redstone, the Jupiter C/Juno 1 that sent up the first little US satellite. It had been tested numerous times with unmanned Mercury capsules. Indeed, the Soviets did launch the first satellite, and the first man into space (which also orbited). The US was not busy with the X-15 at the time.
Do a bit of research on space flight history, the internet is full of facts and data going back to the very early days of rocketry. The US was designing and flying sounding rockets (suborbital) into space in the 50s.
The Atlas, our first manned orbital booster, was a cutting edge design, it did have failures. The problems were worked out, and it became the backbone of the Mercury orbital program.
I suspect this Rob Moore does little reading...I hope you will do some research. Edit...just read a bunch more, the essay rambles on in rumor and wierd "science", then falls into a morass of conspiracy goo...poor history, no evidence, just sillyness. Dave
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 30, 2005 22:00:56 GMT -4
Yah. I'd have to call this one a "low-grade rant." Not even up the Sibrel level...not even bullet points.
I was about to say, I'd love to see a hoax argument that worked point-by-point, indexed and with full citations. But then I realized since there isn't enough clean data to make a hoax out of, they are forced to innuendo, cropped images, and the like.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 30, 2005 22:08:18 GMT -4
Before I even consdiered such claim there re few things I'd want to know. First, who is Rob Moore? He's not a person I know of with a high up connection to the US Space program. What was he supposed to have done in the program? Where is the proof that he did it? Until then this is just a Bob Smith told a friend who told a friend that..... and has zero authority. After establishing this, if he did have an appropriate position, he'd have to explain the apparenetly new Physics he claims exists, and prove it. Then he'd have to explain exactly how the Missions were faked, including how the moon rock was obtained and the radio signals and footage faked. And no margamatix, your double the film speed claim is probably one of the dumbest things I've heard you claim yet, and you have claim some extremely dumb things before.
In the end this entire thing boils down to some unknown person claims a friend in a position of authority told him it didn't happen, but gives no actual proof to back up the claim. It wouldn't even get to be called Heresay in a court of law, it'd be laughed out by both lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 4:05:06 GMT -4
And on the subject of sped-up film, here is something else to consider, pointed out in the commentary to the bogus footage in the url provided.
If you double the speed of the footage, it exactly resembles movement on Earth. So astronauts moved slowly on the moon.
But why?
Astronauts working in the zero-gravity environment of the Space Shuttle do not move slowly. They are perfectly capable of moving at normal speed.
Objects in a vacuum do not move slowly because of being in a vacuum.
So why would anyone on the moon move slowly?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 4:11:10 GMT -4
. When sped up, the astronauts still spend more time airborne when hopping than they should in earth gravity. . No they don't. They spend exactly the same amount of time airborne. If they were really on the moon, they would be taking strides of 8-12 feet, and of 6 or so feet in height, which would take them off of the moon surface for 3-4 seconds at a time. Give it up frenat.
|
|