Mythbusters to Tackle Moon Hoax, page 4

reply to post by re22666

---

I guess I did misunderstand your reference to particle physics but you also seem to have misunderstood what I was looking for. I wanted to use a simulator to demonstrate the difference in trajectories on Earth and the Moon not a simulation of how dust particles interact. I see now that was unnecessary. As to why I referred to the height of the arc: it was just part of my point that a ballistic curve on the moon would be different than the curve our eyes are trained to follow on Earth. Different enough that our eyes may be fooled by it.

Back to the video then. I see the dust (arc, cloud, particles) rising from the wheels, slowing at the top of arc, then speeding up as it descends back to the surface. As I said in my first post, I studied the video and I don't see anything but that. The transition between rising and falling is delayed which is accounted for by reduced gravity. I just don't see the dust slowing down after beginning its descent.





[edit on 22-8-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by re22666

---

I guess I did misunderstand your reference to particle physics but you also seem to have misunderstood what I was looking for. I wanted to use a simulator to demonstrate the difference in trajectories on Earth and the Moon not a simulation of how dust particles interact. As to why I referred the the height of the arc: it was just part of my point that a ballistic curve on the moon would be different than the curve our eyes are trained to follow on Earth. Different enough that our eyes may be fooled by it.

Back to the video then. I see the dust (arc, cloud, particles) rising from the wheels, slowing at the top of arc, then speeding up as it descends back to the surface. As I said in my first post, I studied the video and I don't see anything but that. The transition between rising and falling is delayed which is accounted for by reduced gravity. I just don't see the dust slowing down after beginning its descent.

well then i guess we are looking at two completely different videos.

reply to post by re22666

---

Or one of us thinks we're seeing something that isn't there.

And it ain't me.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by re22666

---

so....NASA went back to the horse and buggy with the space shuttle?

I was only trying to make an example, about technolgy trees. If you don't stay on the same branch, it will wither and die, even if the tree gets bigger overall.

Say we made the jump to "more advanced" electric cars instead of going back to horses. But suddenly in a half century we wanted to have a standard combustion NASCAR race. It would still take a lot of work to bring that technology back on line.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by re22666

---

so....NASA went back to the horse and buggy with the space shuttle?

I was only trying to make an example, about technolgy trees. If you don't stay on the same branch, it will wither and die, even if the tree gets bigger overall.

Say we made the jump to "more advanced" electric cars instead of going back to horses. But suddenly in a half century we wanted to have a standard combustion NASCAR race. It would still take a lot of work to bring that technology back on line.

that is a terribly flawed analogy. first of all, it is based on a hypothetical. you do not know it would be hard to bring that technology back in line. you just believe that it would. but that is completely beside the point.

let me correct it so it actually fits the point I made.

if we suddenly made the jump to electric cars but in 40 year wanted to have a standard combustion nascar race, we would have no idea how, no capabilities, no technology, no knowledge of how to pull it off. we would have to completely rediscover cumbustion engines.

does that seem logical to you?

it would be fine if the problem was that nasa was "having trouble bringing that technology back in line." but that is not the problem is it? no, the problem is that they have NO IDEA how to achieve something they already did decades ago. NO IDEA. not trouble bringing it back inline, they CANNOT accomplish it. do you see the difference? do you see the absurdity in the very concept?

lets look at it another way.
what is NASA doing? working on space exploration right? so what they spend their time working on is better ways to explore space right?

ok, cars are for getting us from here to there right?
changing from combustion to electric, will still get us from here to there right?

so the same goal is achieved with the new technology as with the old, just in a different way. to go back to a combustion race would be simply for novelty purposes since we can still move a car from here to there right?

so NASA's goal is to get into space
has that goal changed?
we are not talking about digging up the ol' LEM and gettin 'er runnin' out in the yard. we are still talking about getting from here to there.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by re22666

---

I guess I did misunderstand your reference to particle physics but you also seem to have misunderstood what I was looking for. I wanted to use a simulator to demonstrate the difference in trajectories on Earth and the Moon not a simulation of how dust particles interact.

just curious here but why would you want to run a simulator to demonstrate the difference in trajectories? what does that have to do with my point? I am talking about how dust acts in an atmosphere vs. how it acts with no atmosphere. the trajectories in either gravity are meaningless. they do not speak to my point, nor do they address what is being shown in the film. this is about velocity change, caused by dust particles interacting with the atmosphere and each other. you seem hung up on the gravity thing. i am not speaking to the gravity difference at all, since it has nothing to do with what i am talking about. so i am not sure what you think your simulation would prove, but after rereading this, i now see that you are obsessed with the moon's gravity and completely missed my point.

reply to post by re22666

---

I thought we were done. You see the dust slowing down after the apex of the arc and I see it continuing to accelerate downward until it flops to the surface. I tried to see what you describe but I don't.

Not much point in continuing the discussion if we are discussing different views of what shows in the video.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by re22666

---

I thought we were done. You see the dust slowing down after the apex of the arc and I see it continuing to accelerate downward until it flops to the surface. I tried to see what you describe but I don't.

Not much point in continuing the discussion if we are discussing different views of what shows in the video.

yeah but then i realised that i am not sure where you were going with your simulation and that you were stuck on gravity so apparently you had no idea what i was even talking about so i thought i would try going back to where you began to 'school' me and see if either, you could explain to me what you meant so that i might begin to understand, or maybe you could now more clearly see what i meant. but if you want to leave it at that we see two different things fine. of course you said my link didnt work too, so i am not sure what you looked at. but hey, fine, we can agree to disagree. just wanted some clarification is all. nevermind.

reply to post by re22666

---

Oh, all right. Try it this way. Just to see if you can get my point. I have no expection that I will convince you the landings weren't faked or even that your are wrong on this particular point.

I say the dust on the moon moves differently than we are conditioned to expect it to move because of the reduced gravity. The difference in what we expect to see and what we do see causes us to think there is something funny going on with the dust. When, in fact then dust is doing exactly what it should do in low gravity and the absence of air.

You see the dust slowing on its descent. That would indeed be impossible on the moon. I do not see it doing that.

Now I am done.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by re22666

---

Oh, all right. Try it this way. Just to see if you can get my point. I have no expection that I will convince you the landings weren't faked or even that your are wrong on this particular point.

I say the dust on the moon moves differently than we are conditioned to expect it to move because of the reduced gravity. The difference in what we expect to see and what we do see causes us to think there is something funny going on with the dust. When, in fact then dust is doing exactly what it should do in low gravity and the absence of air.

You see the dust slowing on its descent. That would indeed be impossible on the moon. I do not see it doing that.

Now I am done.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Phage]

just when i would like to let it alone. you again state the fundamental problem with your argument.
you assume i have a problem with the dust because it moves differently than on earth so i think there is something funny with it.

in fact, i see it moving exactly as i would expect it to on earth. it does not look funny, strange, or different at all.

that is the problem.

i guess it just would have seemed like a worthwhile conversation if you stopped assuming so much of what you seem to think i am thinking.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by Interestinggg

---

Yeah. I'm sure our good ol' Government would put the heat on the sponsors to pull out if any thing negative was said.

We may live in a free country, but it is controlled by money and money rules every thing! Politicians are in it for money and a quick comment about the landing.

It never happened or we would of gone many times more for research. It is just too expensive to do such a worthless project. Back then it was the U.S. against the Russians in Technology and we had to prove to them that we could get there faster than they could. Hense we faked it so it would create doubt in Russians mind about our Offense/Defense Technology.

reply to post by mapsurfer_

---

My question is if there was no gravity on the moon, how moon dust would "float" off into space?? how does moon dust just assume a acceleration out of no were? where did this vector of velocity and inertia become to the moon dust, from zero point? A entropy moon dust nowadays?

stuff in space just doesn't decide to float away now without something acting upon it.....

sheesh.....do any of you study or research things before you post?


All these claims that the Mythbusters don't know physics and chemistry and won't prove anything, yet in your posts it is very obvious that you haven't been educating yourselves up to speed to be anyones critic....


Learn before you decide to speak and state someone else if wrong....it might just be you that is in the wrong!!!!

but hey the moon is cheese right?

The only way we will proove or disprove this all, is to go to the MOON and have private funding for a mission that is not government controlled, other wise it is all guess work and theory.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by mapsurfer_

---

My question is if there was no gravity on the moon, how moon dust would "float" off into space?? how does moon dust just assume a acceleration out of no were? where did this vector of velocity and inertia become to the moon dust, from zero point? A entropy moon dust nowadays?

stuff in space just doesn't decide to float away now without something acting upon it.....

sheesh.....do any of you study or research things before you post?


All these claims that the Mythbusters don't know physics and chemistry and won't prove anything, yet in your posts it is very obvious that you haven't been educating yourselves up to speed to be anyones critic....


Learn before you decide to speak and state someone else if wrong....it might just be you that is in the wrong!!!!

but hey the moon is cheese right?

The only way we will proove or disprove this all, is to go to the MOON and have private funding for a mission that is not government controlled, other wise it is all guess work and theory.

you know, you may almost have had a point had you not started with the gravity thing. who is saying there is no gravity on the moon? the moon has 1/6th earth's gravity. now please try and make some sense.

your opening statement does not make any sense. you have obviously not done any real research on the subject. please check with people before telling them they may be wrong about things that you have no knowledge of, as evidenced by your entire post.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by re22666

---

wow I cannot believe I have to explain this....

Anyway...CLICK the HANDLES blue NAME on the REPLY part of my POST..


Read what the person posted that I was REPLYING TO....


Then read what I had to say IN REBUTTAL of that particular persons post...


...wow does anyone read, or follow directions these days.....

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by mapsurfer_

---

My question is if there was no gravity on the moon, how moon dust would "float" off into space??

ok. i am reading it. if there was no gravity on the moon, the dust would just "float" off into space wouldnt it? either you mispoke or some words are invisible here. the moon is moving isnt it? there is your potential energy right there. of course by now though all the dust would surely have been shaken off and we would know nothing of dust on the moon.

sheesh.....do any of you study or research things before you post?

any of you? is there a whole crowd under this one person you replied to? if so, my sincerest appologies but this makes it look like you are addressing all of us that doubt mythbuster's and nasa's integrity here.

All these claims that the Mythbusters don't know physics and chemistry and won't prove anything, yet in your posts it is very obvious that you haven't been educating yourselves up to speed to be anyones critic....


Learn before you decide to speak and state someone else if wrong....it might just be you that is in the wrong!!!!

learn what? grammar? english? reread your statement again, see if you do not care to change it before telling "all of us" to learn something.



[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

reply to post by re22666

---

The funny thing is even after you read what I suggested you couldn't figure out that the whole entire reply I was posting was COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL and in no way shape or form had anything OTHER to do with THAN what the persons post I was replying to...only THAT one POST! none OTHER!!!

So now your engaging me on what? my humoring the original post with time?

All I was doing was showing how far fetched that one post was, is and outside the box.

wow....comprehesion is lacking these days...nice attacks though, good try to get me riled up....but it doesn't work.

Even if you are the devils advocate, the point you still can't follow the point of my reply.

Good job!!

[edit on 25-8-2008 by theability]

BREAKING New Documentary Investigates the Death of Andrew Breitbart
  Posted 3 days ago with 90 member flags

The Zombie Apocalypse is Real! And it\'s Here Now!
  Posted 14 days ago with 86 member flags

While Americans keep arguing about Trayvon-Zimmerman
  Posted 8 days ago with 79 member flags

The Suspicious Death of MI6 Agent Gareth Williams..
  Posted 18 days ago with 77 member flags

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary
  Posted 10 days ago with 58 member flags

This is scary!
  Posted 15 days ago with 57 member flags

Wow! Wikileaks Information Dump? Not sure what to make of this location.
  Posted 16 days ago with 55 member flags

Undercover US agents brought down our new Superjet: Russia’s extraordinary claim about crash which
  Posted 1 days ago with 45 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: