A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"The Eagle has landed" NOT!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 16th 03, 12:44 AM
Mark McIntyre
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The Eagle has landed" NOT!

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:11:30 +0200, in uk.sci.astronomy , NJ
wrote:

Don't ask me, I didn't do it. Perhaps they did it the way you would
have done it.


Just FYI, this type of response is highly typical of conspiracy
theorists when a flaw in their conspiracy is spotted. To remind you,
you proposed a theory, its therefore yours, if someone finds a hole,
you have to plug it.

The details of what exactly was done are not important.
They are a distraction from the greater issue.


Since you're using the details to build a conspiracy theory, you can I
expect see that this response is nonsense. The entire matter hinges on
the detail.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Ads
  #2  
Old August 16th 03, 02:08 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "The Eagle has landed" NOT!


"NJ" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
| I'm sorry but I don't buy a word of your story. What you say is
| not consistent with the photographic evidence.

I disagree. Telemetry, photography, film, theory, and eyewitness testimony
are fully consistent.

The evidence is incontrovertible that the area between the north and east
struts was fluid-swept. The erosion pattern is self-evident, and this is
the area behind Aldrin in the photo in question. I've gone the extra step
in reconstructing the last portion of the LM's descent to demonstrate that
all the evidence is consistent. Attacking my descent scenario does not
erase the evidence of sweeping in the area in question, it merely
necessitates a different explanation for *how* it was swept.

| Looking at the image AS11-40-5915 it is clear that the last few
| metres of flight of the Eagle was in a straight line. The gouge
| in the ground made by the surface probe in the foreground of the
| image is straight.

No. The tip of the footpad is at (1.4,-0.7) in the reseau fiducial
coordinate system. The gouge is visible only up to (1.5,-0.85) after which
point it is obscured by subsequent footprints. This amounts to only about
12 inches of gouge beyond the tip of the probe. You can only substantiate
that much purely leftward drift between probe contact and footpad contact.

Cff. AS11-40-5902, AS11-40-5903. In the latter, the outboard limit of the
trench is visible at (-0.8,-1.5) in the photo. The trench *may* have been
longer since the soil has been subsequently disturbed by footprints, but
this evidence supports only a few inches beyond the tip of the probe.

The area between the north and east struts was fluid-swept before probe
contact, based on timing and quoted forward drift rates (ca. 2-3 fps). You
cannot disprove fluid sweeping of that region based on probe tracks.

| Any yawing from one side to the other after it had contacted the
| ground would have caused the gouge to not be straight.

The corrective yaw occurred after the *footpads* contacted the surface. It
was only a fraction of a degree anyway. The evidence of the footpad
assembly's motion after contact could not possibly be any clearer.

I think you're reading too much into my yaw claims. I don't claim these
would be pronounced yaws -- probably less than two or three degrees.

| It is just inconceivable that the Eagle "did a dance" ...

I'm not proposing it "did a dance". I'm proposing a slight yaw to the left
upon probe contact, which is fully consistent with flight dynamics, followed
by a corretive yaw to the right after the footpads came to rest.

| about a lightly contacting surface probe ...

"Light" or not, it's still a moment. Since the moment arm is half the
stride of the LM -- intentionally wide -- this is not an insignificant
moment.

| whose loci on the ground was a straight line.

It's not a straight line until final impact of the footpads, and then not a
guarantee. Initial probe contact is at a point.

The condition of the aft probe is consistent with motion both forward and to
the left. We cannot draw any conclusions about possible yaws based on it.

The conditions of the left and right probes are both consistent with
leftward motion. The landing film substantiates a considerable left drift.
(It also substantiates a brief "hover" over the spot in question, behind
Aldrin in the challenged photos.)

The condition of the left probe is consistent with forward motion *after*
footpad contact (not probe contact), but the condition of the right probe is
consistent with rearward motion after footpad contact. This could happen
only if the spacecraft yawed to the right after the footpads made contact,
but not necessarily while only the contact probes were in contact.

I currently have no way to prove that such a yaw occurred, nor is it
especially necessary to do so. The yaw hypothesis, however, explains the
following:

1. the displacement in the trench dug by the the right probe,
2. the pattern of compression around the right footpad,
3. the condition of the aft probe,
4. the condition of the left probe.

It is also consistent with flight dynamics assuming a standard approach
profile and a rear-first probe contact consistent with a "flare" to cancel
forward motion.

| Anyhow, in the composite AS11-58635-5 there is what appears
| to be circumstantial evidence in the form of a straight
| edge leading directly away from the "forward" footpad

The area surrounding the forward footpad is completely dark. Please refrain
from referring to composites as they typically occur only in low-quality
JPEG versions, and contain fabricated elements to "sew" them together.
Please find what you're looking at in one of the raw photographs and work
from that.

| That one trench is straight is a give away and that it
| appears there is a second makes it conclusive that the LM just
| set down without left or right yaws during the last few metres
| of travel.

There is no "giveaway". You can't say that one piece of evidence is
conclusive if the conclusion you draw fails to account for other pieces of
evidence.

| Those gouges in the ground tell me that the Eagle glided in on a straight
| course during its last few metres.

No. Probe tracks can tell you only what happened in the last second or two
of flight. The swept area corresponds to the overflight of some few seconds
*prior* to probe contact.

| Thus the swept areas are not consistent with the landing
| trajectory and marks in the ground due to the contact probes.

But you can only explain one -- or at most two -- of the contact probes.
You think you see a trench near a probe, but my explanation discusses the
final configuration of the probe itself, for which there is ample
observation. You do not explain at all the aft probe.

My theory explains all three probes, plus the testimony of the pilots and
the telemetry and the landing video. The theory that explains the most with
the least is generally accepted over other theories.

I sense you're trying to read too much into the yaw issue. Here's a sort of
rough timeline to accompany my hypothesis.

touchdown minus 5 seconds: significant left drift begins; forward drift rate
holds steady.
touchdown minus 3 seconds: left drift rate increases; forward drift rate
holds steady; "hot spot" area swept.
touchdown minus 2 seconds: aft contact probe strikes surface; forward motion
largely arrested; slight leftward yaw begins; left drift continues at
reduced rate.
touchdown minus 1 second: left and/or right contact probe strike(s) surface;
left drift at small drift rate.
touchdown plus 0.1 second: small right yaw produced by RCS.

| I haven't made any excuses and I do not accept your story about
| the landing.

Your hypothesis explains less evidence than mine. You want to "simplify"
the question by looking at only part of the evidence which, shorn of its
conflict by your selectivity, appears conclusive.

| That a stage set of some sort was used? Eminently not beyond the
| bounds of reason.

Conformity to reason is not the criteria that separates fact from
speculation. Falsifiable substantiation is the criteria. You have no
falsifiable substantiation for your claim, therefore it is speculation.

| Don't ask me, I didn't do it.

But you're arguing that someone did it that way. The question is whether it
was done at all, not how they did it. The fact that in order to have done
it so as to produce the observed evidence, they would had to have done it
stupidly, argues against its having been done -- or rather, against the
observed evidence having come about in that way.

| The details of what exactly was done are not
| important. They are a distraction from the greater issue.

On the contrary. Your "careless stagehand" hypothesis lacks proof that it
happened. In the absence of that proof we can guess how likely correct the
hypothesis is based on how plausible it is in the abstract. Your hypothesis
is also implausibe because it requires people to act contrary to accepted
practice and contrary to common sense. A hypothesis which is neither
plausible nor proven is properly rejected. You cannot save it by
downplaying the implausibility. Implausibility is only countered by
conclusive proof that it actually occurred that way.

| It doesn't matter why they goofed. They GOOFED.

It *does* matter. People intent on fooling other people don't goof. Or if
they do, they correct the goof so that the illusion is complete. They don't
just leave the goofs there for anyone to see.

Again, you say it doesn't matter when in fact your hypothesis is shown to be
implausible for yet another reason. You say "they goofed," but it is the
very existence of the "they" which I question and which you must prove. And
the fact that, in your hypothesis, "they" must be blithering idiots in order
for the hypothesis to work, does not bode well for the possibility that
"they" exist.

| 3. The "pre-made rocket mess on the ground" lines up perfectly
| with the DPS skirt (in terms of the major thermal and mechanical
| effects).
|
| You mean the ground under the bell looks brown and well swept.

No, I mean that the misalignment you propose is clearly contradicted by
evidence. The area of greatest effect is directly under the engine skirt.
The secondary effects are consistent with the landing film. You argue that
the position of the LM is inconsistent with the sweep effects, but you're
oversimplifying the question.

| Yes it does but the actual flight path as indicated by the gouge
| in the ground conflicts with the "swept out area" constituting
| the hot spot.

That's because they happened a few seconds apart. The gouges happened 1-2
seconds prior to touchdown. The sweeping behind Aldrin happened 3-5 seconds
prior to touchdown, before the probes had made contact.

| There should have been fluid errosion of the lunar surface
| material where all those footprints are but there is none.

Exactly. This is evidence that falsifies your reconstruction of the LM
descent. You have formulated a hypothesis according to selective evidence,
and now you're trying to establish it as an "inconsistency" that not all the
evidence fits your reconstruction!

Keep in mind that the footpads are considerably outboard -- on purpose. It
is possible for there to be considerable purely lateral drift without the
side footpad directly landing on a swept area.

| We'll just have to disagree on this.

No. I don't agree to disagree. I bring together all the available evidence
from a dozen photographs, from pilot reports, from flight dynamics theory,
and from video and form a simple, coherent hypothesis which explains it all.
You ignore almost all of that evidence and draw a conclusion based only one
or two tidbits. Then you try to bring back that previously ignored evidence
as "inconsistency".

That's patently absurd. The answer to the "inconsistency" is that your
hypothesis fails to account for all the facts.

Imagine Tom is accused of murdering his wife. Tom had just taken out an
enormous life insurance policy on her, and the prosecutor uses this to
formulate a hypothesis that Tom murdered his wife to collect on that
insurance. Now along comes the defense and acknowledges that Tom did take
out that policy, but goes on to point out that Tom's wife was murdered in
some hostile country where she had had to go on business. The addition life
insurance was precisely to provide in case she lost her life in that trip.
Further, the defense points out that Tom was seen by dozens of people at
home when his wife was being murdered a long way away. Thus the defense has
a fully consistent case that accounts for all the evidence. The prosecution
can't come back and say that the defense's evidence is "inconsistent"
because it doesn't fit the *prosecution's* hypothesis.

In this example the prosecution's case is based on selective evidence. And
because the evidence has been filtered, it can be made to look very
persuasive. But if additional evidence contradicts that hypothesis, it is
the hypothesis which must give way and not the observations. You're in the
position of trying to argue that the dangerous trip was a mere trivial
coincidence, and that Tom's alibi is based on lies.

The evidence in the photographs falsifies your landing hypothesis. You
can't account for all the evidence with your hypothesis, but you choose to
say it's the evidence that's fishy and not your hypothesis. That's not how
it works. The question is not whether you can come up with a hypothesis
according to which the evidence appears fishy. (There are an infinite
number of those.) The question is whether you can falsify all the
hypotheses according to which the evidence appears fine.

Or, you can show me one of those stagehands.

| I have changed nothing. I have falsified your claims for the
| cause of the optical hot spot ...

No, you falsified two of them:

1. Heiligenschein. To be sure, I never claimed that heiligenschein was
responsible for this particular effect in this particular photo.
Nevertheless your analysis of why it doesn't explain it is quite correct.

2. Reflection off the aft equipment bay cover. I did put this forth as a
hypothesis and I agree with your falsification of it and subsequently
withdrew it.

Now we're left with the third:

3. Texture-affected reflection due to DPS sweeping.

| I agree that a hot spot can be produced by the means you
| describe ...

Okay, stop there for just a second. As long as you concede that
AS11-40-5902 and AS11-40-5903 could have been produced in a manner other
than by artificial light, we can move on to the landing issues.

| ... but contend that the hotspot cannot have been made how you
| describe because the photographic evidence does not support your
| version of the last few metres travel by the Eagle.

But that's a different question. One asks how the hot spot could have been
produced at all. The other asks why the hot spot is where it is. But the
latter question is predicated on assuming an answer to the first question.
That is, if you say that 5903 shows evidence of DPS sweeping inconsistent
with the contact probe evidence, then you have to accept that the hot spot
is the result of DPS sweeping.

You have to make a decision on the cause of the hot spot before you can move
on to your argument about inconsistent placement, so we *require* you to
either concede the cause of the hot spot (which you may have done above, but
it's not clear) or make clear you understand that your LM placement argument
is contingent upon the hot spot *not* being a studio light.

| If the faults in the apollo record suggest that man did not land on
| the moon then where else are you going to suggest the Eagle was
| staged if not in studio conditions?

That's not the point. Pointing to alleged inconsistencies and saying they
could only be the result of studio photography is the means to the end of
proving that the moon landings were hoaxed. If you instead try to prove the
hoax by other means, you can conclude that the photography was faked, but
you don't have to prove it -- it just naturally follows from your conclusion
by other means. I think this is what you allude to below.

If you accept as a premise that the landings were faked, then the
photography was obviously faked whether it *appears* faked or not. Thus the
appearance of the photography is irrelevant under that line of reasoning.
In short, if you have a way to prove the landings are fake without using the
photography, don't bring the photography into it.

| I didn't want them thinking sometime "oh well maybe that "high
| sounding" technical what'sit" might have caused the hot spot when
| it did not.

That is a legitimate concern, but that does not excuse putting words in your
opponents' mouths. You say at the beginning of the FAQ that Bad Astronomy
got some stuff wrong. If you want to make that case, you have to make it on
the basis of what people at Bad Astronomy actually said, not based on how
you think a reader might react to Bad Astronomy. A reader who reads your
FAQ but not Bad Astronomy will come away thinking that Bad Astronomy claimed
the hot spot was caused by heiligenschein, when that was not the claim.

Whether you intended it or not, you employed the straw-man fallacy. You
attacked what you wanted your opponent's argument to be, not what it
actually was.

| I have stated artificial lighting is a plausible suggestion
| given the circumstances.

But now you're into a contradiction. If you still argue that the hot spot
was produced by a studio light, then you have no basis for claiming that the
LM was incorrectly placed since the hot spot area doesn't then necessarily
represent the claimed path of the DPS plume.

You *must* concede the artificial lighting point before you move on.

| I don't have to prove the existance of the studio
| or stage set.

Yes, you do. You say you want to challenge the authenticity of the evidence
in favor of Apollo. You can't do that by saying, "It *could* have been
filmed on a stage." A hypothesis without proof is not a challenge.

| I only need show that the apollo record doesn't make sense.

That's not sufficient. "Makes sense" is subjective and depends on one's
skill to determine what *should* be the case. (See below -- this isn't
always a matter of "common sense".) Your proof is still indirect and
therefore can't be used to support any specific conclusion.

And your new argument is even trickier to prove.

Earlier you claimed that 5903 was implausible because it represented a
lighting situation that couldn't be produced naturally on the moon in
sunlight. That speaks directly to whether it could have been taken on the
moon or must have been taken in a studio.

Now you claim that the photographic evidence is not self-consistent: i.e.,
that the path evidence by the DPS plume is not consistent with the path
evidenced by the contact probes. Now I have addressed the merits of this
argument above. You're confusing what happened at one instant with what
happened at another time. But strictly from an evidentiary standpoint all
you have is an apparent inconsistency. Nothing about that inconsistency
points to a necessary terrestrial origin.

You've merely postulated a hypothesis involving a film set which tries to
explain the observations. Nothing about the observations inherently
requires a film set, which was not the case in your previous hypothesis --
it did require one.

I've given another hypothesis (e.g., timing) which also explains the
observation. I can also offer others. For example, I could be totally
wrong about the smooth area being the result of DPS sweeping. I don't
believe that hypothesis, but it's one that has to be dealt with.

It's not a given that the LM went directly left in the last second or two.
It's a reasonable assertion based on what we see, but it's not necessarily
the case. It's not a given that the LM swept the area behind and to the
left of the spacecraft, but it's a reasonable assertion based on what we
see. The historical method doesn't favor making your sort of rigid,
selective hypothesis and then using it to disauthenticate things. We don't
know exactly what happened, so we can't tell exactly what didn't happen.

But here it's important to realize that the inconsistency doesn't reveal
something that can't have happened on the moon and so therefore must have
happened on earth. Here we have -- allegedly -- something that merely
couldn't have happened. *Where* it couldn't have happened is irrelevant.

A picture of a one-eyed man on the moon isn't any more or less authentic
than a picture of a one-eyed man on earth. But a picture of a two-eyed man
on the moon not wearing his space helmet is clearly not authentic, while a
picture of a two-eyed man on earth not wearing a space helment isn't out of
place.

Since you have introduced the notion of a film set in this hypothesis, where
it is not inherently indicated, you *do* have to prove its existence.
Otherwise the lack of proof makes your hypothesis clearly unparsimonious.
It would rely on the hypothetical existence of something whose existence
could not be determined.

| I am satisfied that I have falsified both hypotheses of yours.

There were three hypotheses, enumerated above. You falsified two. You
*must* concede the third because your new argument depends on it. You
*must* concede that the hot spot in 5903 was likely caused by the DPS plume.
That means the lighting per se in 5903 is not implausible under the lighting
conditions on the moon.

| Scientists change their minds as and when the evidence
| demands it.

Of course, but not without closure on the abandoned argument.

| I cannot prove it was taken in a studio just as the imagery
| cannot prove man landed on the moon.

But the task is to *explain* how the imagery came to be. You can either
explain that it came to be as claimed: by having been taken on the moon; or
you can try to explain it as having been faked in some way. Clearly the
latter is the poorer hypothesis because it fails to explain many of the
observations and requires many inconvenient premises such as the existence
of film sets and filmmakers whose existence cannot be proved. (And you
can't expect us to prove they *don't* exist.)

That is the nature of inductive proof. There is always an inductive leap,
and the inductive leap associated with the hoax hypothesis is a gaping
chasm, while your attempts to widen the inductive leap in the NASA
hypothesis comes across as ill-educated grasping at straws.

| However if there are serious flaws in the record then I am
| entitled to question the "official" version of events.

Not unless you can prove it really is a flaw and not simply your error in
observation or deduction. Fully 99% of the alleged flaws I've examined (not
necessarily from you but from all sources) are easily traced back to some
wrong assumption or deficiency of understanding on the part of the person
identifying them.

| All I need know is that what the photographs depict do not
| conform with any possible reality.

But you don't seem to understand just how fiendishly difficult that is to
prove. It requires you to infallibly understand and predict all possible
manifestations of reality so that they can be fully enumerated and
falsified. If you leave out even one, your argument falls flat.

Yet many conspiracists attempt it. They drag up a straw man and disembowel
him for their readers. And then they claim that they've eliminated all
possible manifestations of reality under which a photo can be genuine,
therefore it must be false. And not only that it must be false, but that
the conspiracists' particular, detailed hypothesis for how it was faked must
also be true.

You claim to be following the scientific method. What you're doing is
antithetical to the scientific method. You should be following the
historical method, and what you're doing is antithetical also to the
historical method. Indirect proofs rarely succeed in proving anything.

Now factor in that knowledgeable people can usually very quickly come up
with several possible manifestations of reality under which a photo could be
considered real. I'm sorry that you've adopted a strategy which requires
you to do rigorous, exhaustive falsification. But I will not concede that
you don't have to do it.

| If anything is clear it is your desire to lead the reader away
| from the crux to the smoke of your making.

I'm conducting a logical analysis. It's not "smoke" unless you don't
understand logical analysis.

| | Regarding the "Hadley" images 10075741.jpg and 10075742.jpg
| | Anyone may examine them and try rotating them as you
| | described ...
|
| Yes, thank you for conceding that point.
|
| Did I say they "register"? I don't think so.

Immaterial. Your argument is that there is no harmonious registration. One
has been produced, therefore your argument is wrong. Refutation doesn't get
any plainer than that.

| Wrong. I never lean on my qualifications as support for what I
| say.

Yes you do, every time you say you are well-enough versed in the applicable
sciences for your analysis and opinion to be trusted. Either substantiate
that claim, or stop claiming that you are well enough educated to make the
statements you have made. You say you are competent in physics. How? By
what means? You say you know calculus. Who taught you? Where? When?

| No one needs a university degree or rocket science
| experience to see what is wrong with the apollo record.

They do if the judgment of "wrongness" relies on specific knowledge that
would be obtained by relevant education or job experience. "Common sense"
does not suffice in all cases. Much of science and engineering is
counterintuitive, and much else is wrongly understood by the general public.
This is true in many fields. That is the reason for expertise.

| I defend the notion that no one need be a scientist or engineer
| to study the apollo record and to reach their own conclusions
| on the matter.

The question is not whether someone has a right to draw a conclusion, but to
what extent a conclusion drawn in ignorance ought to be trusted or
considered useful. Someone ignorant of medicine might draw the conclusion
that surgery is impossible because they have evidence that people die when
you cut into their abdomens. That conclusion would not be as useful or
trustworthy as one drawn by someone who can demonstrate understanding of
anatomy and anaesthesia.

| I was merely reluctant to mention what qualifications I have
| because I think they are not relevant.

Then it is important for your readers to know that you don't have
qualifications that are relevant to your claims. You can either state it as
I just have, or you can give your qualifications and let your reader judge
whether they apply to your conclusions or not. But what is *not* acceptable
is to continue to make

| A good argument can stand on its own merits.

Not if that argument relies on correct understand of specific details which
are not general knowledge. Someone who doesn't understand the details may
not be able to determine wherein the argument fails.

| The scientific method doesn't care what qualifications
| you have.

Absolutely it does. The scientific method requires you to be able to
identify likely antecedents that will violate your framework of
falsifiability. That requires intimate understanding of the behavior of the
systems with which one works. This is why scientists must be carefully and
rigorously trained as scientists, and why pseudoscientists such as yourself
are clearly detrimental.

| Resting an argument on a persons qualifications is illogical.

No, it's exactly the opposite. You, for example, make several arguments
that relate to the behavior of rocket engines and exhaust plumes. You argue
that the behavior observed in the Apollo record is not what would be
expected.

You allude to theoretical notions. But of course that depends on how well
you understand the theory. I showed that you didn't. But whether you did
or didn't is immaterial; the key question is that understanding of the
theory is *required* in order to make a valid argument. It doesn't "stand
on its own". It stands on how well the writer of the argument has
understood the principles that govern it.

You provide counterexamples. But before we can accept them as
counterexamples it has to be shown that they represent a putatively similar
case. And we find that there is a superficial resemblance, but with expert
knowledge we are able to identify important differences that invalidate the
alleged similarity. Again, common sense alone does not identify them.

The reliability of your arguments is based on the premise that one doesn't
have to be a specialist in order to draw parallels, identify inconsistency,
and so forth. But the refutations clearly bring out that specialized
knowledge *is* essential. The refutation identifies things you would have
known if you had the proper training and experience.

Anyone, regardless of qualifications, is able to construct a logically sound
line of reasoning in the abstract. But to populate that line of reasoning
with technical facts and observations *does* in fact require an expert.
*IF* the theory were as you say it is, *THEN* the Apollo photographs would
be suspect. But the theory is *not* how you say it is, and so you argument
fails. That's a clear requirement for appropriate expertise.

I suggest you pick up any book on logic. Every logic textbook I have used
contains a very lengthy and interesting section on expert knowledge and
testimony.

| I never allude to my qualifications In arguments.

Of course you do, in this very message.

| I have never mentioned qualifications as a substantiation
| to any arguments in the faq or derived from the faq.

Yes, that's the problem. You behave as if you're an expert, and so the
reader draws the conclusion that you are. But in fact you're not, and your
readers should be made aware of that so they can decide whether your
arguments

| Now, If I were asking someone to "trust me" ...

You do that just by writing your FAQ. If you profess to educate someone,
you do so according to the tacit premise that you are qualified to do so. A
FAQ is historically written by someone who has some recognized understanding
of the topic.

| Anyone reading that section of the faq can see that I have taken
| into account the effect of incidence angle.

No, you haven't. You have failed to discuss the *rate of change* in the
incidence angle.

How does the fact that the sun angle *changes* more rapdily on earth than on
the moon affect your argument? See, this *screams* "second-derivative" to a
knowledgeable student. So in your answer, please explain how the concept of
a second derivative applies.

| You have not countered anything in my faq in regard of
| this. I explain angle of incidence and heating in the faq.

You do so incorrectly.

| Not only is this basic radiant heat transfer, it's basic
| calculus. Your inability to recognize the effects of differences
| in first and second derivatives makes it extremely unlikely that
| you have any prowess whatsoever in physics,
|
| That's rich coming from someone who has made a complete hash of
| understanding my explanation in this section of the faq.

I haven't made a "complete hash" of anything. I wrote a brief dismissal at
first, saying that every heat transfer specialist to whom I gave your
argument laughed out loud at it. For several rounds you complained that I
had not addressed it sufficiently and not told you what was wrong with it.
And so I wrote a lengthy response dedicated to that point and nothing more.
And to this day you still have not addressed any of the points I raised in
it.

| I could say the same about you in regard of physics.

You tried, but you ended up only being able to bring to bear a niggling,
inconsequential detail which made no quantitative difference whatsoever in
the data.

| Don't worry about calculus Jay, I have lots of calculus under my
| belt.

Obviously you don't. Otherwise you would have caught the error. It's
fundamental.

This is one of those claims to qualification that you say you never use.
You keep assuring me and other readers that you are well-versed, yet you
make one fundamental mistake after another. At this point I am not prepared
to believe you are an expert in anything except pulling the wool over the
heads of unsuspecting people. You simply cannot be as well-educated as you
claim, and continue to make egregious errors in basic concepts.

| You have not outlined any problem in my argument at all.

Yes, I have. At length. You never responded to it.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Space: 1999" Eagle: Realistic? Chuck Stewart Technology 0 July 12th 04 07:20 AM
Spirit has landed! Remy Villeneuve Policy 1 January 5th 04 06:35 PM
Shenzhou has landed Rick DeNatale History 74 October 25th 03 07:23 PM
For Nathan Jones, "The Eagle has landed" NOT! Flood lighting indicated. Jay Windley Astronomy Misc 0 August 5th 03 08:57 PM
"The Eagle has landed" NOT! Flood lighting indicated. Fred Garvin Astronomy Misc 0 August 5th 03 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.