|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote:
"M Cynth" wrote in message ... "Steve Dufour" wrote in message om... Also explain the geosync satellites I uplink video to every day in my work as a television engineer. They could be suspended from balloons in the atmosphere. I don't believe that you exist. You're a fabrication. It must be so because I haven't seen you. One ACTOR in the moon sequences doesn't seem to want to act OUTSIDE the laws of physics...I've looked at all the footages of the moon walks...and one thing keeps bugging me about the MOON DUST...its dispersal patterns and how high it kicks up. Take into account there is NO atmosphere on the moon...the gravity is 1/6 of earth gravity. Therefore, the disperal pattern would be different, and the height of the dust raising should be over the astronauts' heads by quite a distance. Conclusion...since the dust behaves EXACTLY the same as earth atmosphere and gravity...we can safely assume that lot of sequences was NEVER near the moon Dust can't lie. *plonk* |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
lunar dust is quite "sticky" compared to terrestrial dust. globs up
into multi-particle aggregates. This means that the dust is not dispersed as single particles and its effects are not the same as terrestrial dust. There is a nice set of literature on this that goes back a long ways. Just goes to show that "common sense" commonly means "it works in my backyard". Jay Windley wrote: "George" wrote in message ... | | I've looked at all the footages of the moon walks. So approximately how many hours of video is that? I know. Do you? | one thing keeps bugging me about the MOON DUST...its dispersal | patterns and how high it kicks up. Yes, funny how you can't fake those ballistic trajectories, even by adjusting the frame rate as has been suggested. | Therefore, the disperal pattern would be different Different *how*? | and the height of the dust raising should be over the | astronauts' heads by quite a distance. Sorry, no credit on this exam unless you show your work. | Conclusion...since the dust behaves EXACTLY the same as earth | atmosphere and gravity. Funny how peopled trained in physics seem to reach exactly the opposite conclusion. | we can safely assume that lot of sequences was NEVER near | the moon Even granted your premises (which we don't), that's still not a safe assumption. It's a fallacy of the affirmed consequent. | Dust can't lie. So let me get this straight. You come up with some arbitrary standard for how dust *should* behave, which you neither fully explain, justify, or quantify; and then you simply declare that the dust behavior violates your standard without explaining the violation. And this is somehow "proof"? How about this instead: you've just up and decided that the footage is fake, and now you're tyring to post-justify your opinion. I live in Utah, the land of dust. One thing you learn *very* quickly is that dust, in the presence of an atmosphere, really likes to be in that atmosphere. You can't disturb it without raising a cloud of it, even in still air. Show me in the lunar EVA videos where there's a raised cloud of dust, even when the dust is being massively disturbed. Since most of the interesting dust displacement is from footsteps, and since this produces low, flat trajectories, the *height* of the dust plumes is largely irrelevant. It is the *distance* they travel that is the telltale sign. Further, the dispersal patterns are equidistant, and noticeably so on the video. If I kick into loose dust, it all goes up and then all comes back down -- none sticks in the air -- and it all comes down roughly equidistant from the contour of my book. Try *that* on earth. You're right: dust can't lie. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message news:CBN_a.143256$o%2.61787@sccrnsc02... | lunar dust is quite "sticky" compared to terrestrial dust. globs up | into multi-particle aggregates. This means that the dust is not | dispersed as single particles and its effects are not the same as | terrestrial dust. True, but the "stickiness" of lunar dust is not the same under all circumstances. The lack of an oxide patina means you have greater chemical bonding at the particle interfaces and also greater propensity to "cold-weld". The generally uneroded shape of the individual particles means the aggregate is more susceptible to impression. But give moon dust a swift kick and you'll find you can overcome most of those accretion factors. It's true that lunar dust has some very interesting soil mechanics, but that doesn't mean you can't break it down to very small particles. The photography (i.e., the dust contamination of the optics) gives us a good idea of how fine and individual the particles can be. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
L Smithson wrote:
(markpeeters666) wrote in message . com... Stop discrediting the internet by posting this kind of junk. Do you work for the main stream USA media? Stop responding to dumb ****ing trolls and wasting bandwidth. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
give the lunar soil a swift kick and most of it will settle at once. a
very small fraction might disperse into individual particles. Even these should fall quite rapidly in the lunar vacuum. In fact they will fall with the same speed as a pebble. Samples of lunar "soil" examined on the earth under normal conditions i still sticky. Very difficult to disaggregate. Dispersal difficult even when added to alcohol, water, etc. etc. The many photos of footprints made by astronauts, or by the bounce marks of a landing strut also testify to the cohesiveness of lunar soil. BTW what is the grain size of the particles contaminating the optics? Jay Windley wrote: "Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message news:CBN_a.143256$o%2.61787@sccrnsc02... | lunar dust is quite "sticky" compared to terrestrial dust. globs up | into multi-particle aggregates. This means that the dust is not | dispersed as single particles and its effects are not the same as | terrestrial dust. True, but the "stickiness" of lunar dust is not the same under all circumstances. The lack of an oxide patina means you have greater chemical bonding at the particle interfaces and also greater propensity to "cold-weld". The generally uneroded shape of the individual particles means the aggregate is more susceptible to impression. But give moon dust a swift kick and you'll find you can overcome most of those accretion factors. It's true that lunar dust has some very interesting soil mechanics, but that doesn't mean you can't break it down to very small particles. The photography (i.e., the dust contamination of the optics) gives us a good idea of how fine and individual the particles can be. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message news:sOT_a.146653$YN5.96279@sccrnsc01... | | The many photos of footprints made by astronauts, or by the | bounce marks of a landing strut also testify to the cohesiveness | of lunar soil. Of course. Compression from footprints or strut impacts creates energy in the rubbing together of particles which, in the absence of a patina, "welds" the particles together. | BTW what is the grain size of the particles contaminating the optics? Unknown, since it was observed only and never sampled. But consistent with being held against the lens surface by electrostatic charge. This effect was anticipated. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"George" wrote in message ... I've seen the programs showing the so-called proof that moon landings were supposedly faked. I turned the sound DOWN...and just kept looking at the dust. Anyone watching would still be seeing EARTH dust...because, although the laws of physics don't change...we are STILL talking about a place where there is ONE-SIXTH earth gravity and NO atmosphere. I still say the dust is NOT behaving as if it were in one-sixth gravity and no atmostphere...and I think if ANYONE looked at ANY footage of EARTH dust in a desert, they'd SEE what I'm talking about...and a comparison with the moon footage would show the moon dust is TOO much like the height and dispersal of earth. Repeat after me..."ONE-sixth gravity, NO atmosphere"...then just keep looking and comparing with an earth dust scene. -- http://home.iprimus.com.au/georgehall George Hall's E-Serial Corner next time you'll tell me you can pull the plug out of the ocean |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA begins moon return effort | Steve Dufour | Policy | 24 | August 13th 04 10:39 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Back to the Moon on what? Saturn V, Magnum, Ares launcher, Shuttle Z | TKalbfus | Policy | 179 | January 16th 04 03:11 AM |
SMART-1 leaves Earth on a long journey to the Moon (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 5 | October 1st 03 09:07 PM |