Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 rooster tail parabolic arch see the difference ? which does the trajectory of the dust look like and more importantly why ?
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 Why? look at the film , it's obviously nothing to do with the angle of the viewer , you can see quite clearly athe dust is thrown up into an arch and then it hits atmosphere and falls straight back down sorry if i was a little sharp , but it's pretty obvious it's nothing to do with with the viewpoint
fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 look at the film , it's obviously nothing to do with the angle of the viewer , you can see quite clearly athe dust is thrown up into an arch and then it hits atmosphere and falls straight back down sorry if i was a little sharp , but it's pretty obvious it's nothing to do with with the viewpoint I fear in the excitement you may have missed my rather simple question/explanation. How come there is only a horizontal atmosphere and not a vertical one?
marty78 Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 look at the film , it's obviously nothing to do with the angle of the viewer , you can see quite clearly athe dust is thrown up into an arch and then it hits atmosphere and falls straight back down sorry if i was a little sharp , but it's pretty obvious it's nothing to do with with the viewpoint I have looked at the film and where it is possible to see anything of note the dust seems to arc perfectly. The only time it looks a bit irregular is when turning. The best bit is about 3.13 ish when you catch a glimpse of smaller particles arcing. I have provided you with a 10 year old debunking of your video but you are not interested as it has facts (physics). I love the way the video maker freeze frames for no apparent reason as if to prove his point, unfortunately he lends no science to his assertion. Also for the dust to have reached 60 feet, which he claims it should, they would need to be travelling at 25mph, more than their top speed. But don't let the facts fool you.
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 I fear in the excitement you may have missed my rather simple question/explanation. How come there is only a horizontal atmosphere and not a vertical one? No I haven't . When the wheels throw the dust into the air regardless of whether or not this footage is taken in earth gravity and atmosphere or on the moon with no atmosphere it will go upwards into an arch and then take an arched path downward, but then there will be tell tale signs If theres no atmosphere the arch should be smooth and symetrical , its not If there is an atmosphere there will be an asymmetrical arch or "rooster tail" and there is because it hits a wall of resistance which you can plainly see if you allow yourself ,
Zingari Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 I have looked at the film and where it is possible to see anything of note the dust seems to arc perfectly. The only time it looks a bit irregular is when turning. The best bit is about 3.13 ish when you catch a glimpse of smaller particles arcing. I have provided you with a 10 year old debunking of your video but you are not interested as it has facts (physics). I love the way the video maker freeze frames for no apparent reason as if to prove his point, unfortunately he lends no science to his assertion. Also for the dust to have reached 60 feet, which he claims it should, they would need to be travelling at 25mph, more than their top speed. But don't let the facts fool you. sorry but i can see a arching upwards and an almost straight down fall and that fits the description " rooster tail " perfectly
fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 No I haven't . When the wheels throw the dust into the air regardless of whether or not this footage is taken in earth gravity and atmosphere or on the moon with no atmosphere it will go upwards into an arch and then take an arched path downward, but then there will be tell tale signs If theres no atmosphere the arch should be smooth and symetrical , its not If there is an atmosphere there will be an asymmetrical arch or "rooster tail" and there is because it hits a wall of resistance which you can plainly see if you allow yourself , You mean like this?
marty78 Posted 3 August 2012 Posted 3 August 2012 sorry but i can see a arching upwards and an almost straight down fall and that fits the description " rooster tail " perfectly At about 1:55 or 1:56 in your video the dust arcs over the the horizon against the blackness of the sky. I think it arcs.
Zingari Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 At about 1:55 or 1:56 in your video the dust arcs over the the horizon against the blackness of the sky. I think it arcs. Sorry but , i think it rooster tails It looks as if the dust is hitting atmosphere by all means give me an explanation of why it looks like this , but please don't tell me black is white , or that this is a symmetrical arc .
fleckneymike Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 Sorry but , i think it rooster tails It looks as if the dust is hitting atmosphere by all means give me an explanation of why it looks like this , but please don't tell me black is white , or that this is a symmetrical arc . You've disproved yourself again! Look at the picture you've posted above, compare the height with the length. If you still don't believe use the physics to examine the blokes claims from your vid about the dust only rising 10ft when he thinks it should be 60ft. Vo = Dust velocity = Rover Velocity = 10 MPH = 16 KPH = 4.44 m/sec Vxo = Horizontal Velocity = Vo cos 45o = 4.44 m/sec * 0.707 = 3.11 m/sec. Vyo = Vertical velocity = Vo sin 45o = 4.44 m/sec * 0.707 = 3.11 m/sec. aearth = Acceleration due to Earth's gravity = -9.8 m/sec2 amoon = Acceleration due to lunar gravity = (aearth / 6) = (-9.8 m/sec2 / 6) = -1.63 m/sec2 Initial vertical velocity = Vyo = 3.11 m/sec Vy = Velocity at maximum altitude = 0 m/sec Equation: Vy2 = Vyo2 + 2yamoon y = (Vy2 - Vyo2) / 2amoon y = (0 - (3.11 m/sec)2) / 2(-1.63 m/sec2) y = (-9.67 m2/sec2 / -3.26 m/sec2) = 2.97 m = 9.75 feet Very close to 10 feet, isn't it? What Rover speed would be required to shoot the dust up to 60 feet? 60 feet = 18.2m = (Vy2 - Vyo2) / 2amoon 18.2m (-3.26 m/sec2) = 0 - Vyo2 -Vyo2 = -59.3 m/sec, Vyo = square root (Vyo2) = 7.7 m/sec Vo = Vyo / sin 45 = 10.9 m/sec = 24.5 MPH (exceeds the Rover’s top speed.)
Zingari Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 err , what's that got to do with the shape of the dust trail ?
marty78 Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 err , what's that got to do with the shape of the dust trail ? Because it explains that the dust must be travelling in Moon's atmosphere not Earth's. Even if 1960's NASA could build a perfect vacuum they would also have had to re-create the Moon's gravity as well to make the dust fall at the rate it does. That is why FleckenyMike's question about why does it appear to hit atmosphere in the horizontal but shows NO signs of atmosphere in the vertical. You still haven't answered that by the way and it must be your turn to answer a question by now surely.
Zingari Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 Because it explains that the dust must be travelling in Moon's atmosphere not Earth's. Even if 1960's NASA could build a perfect vacuum they would also have had to re-create the Moon's gravity as well to make the dust fall at the rate it does. That is why FleckenyMike's question about why does it appear to hit atmosphere in the horizontal but shows NO signs of atmosphere in the vertical. You still haven't answered that by the way and it must be your turn to answer a question by now surely. no , vee ask zee questions ok i give up for now come on Empty , where are you ?
fleckneymike Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 err , what's that got to do with the shape of the dust trail ? Well, what you have there is the science to explain the height of the dust on the moon thrown up by the rover. Weirdly it matches and directly contradicts the very video you posted which clearly states that the dust should have reached up to 60ft. What you can also do is time how long the dust takes to fall, as you know it should fall at the same rate as it is in a vacum (though technically the moon isn't a vacum). On earth where we have an atmosphere the dust will fall at different rates. Look again at your video and note the fall rate of the dust. WIth regards the 'shape' there are a few reasons, one of which you've chosen to ignore (the point about the rover turning/skidding) as well as the 'bounce' of the rover. Now in order for the 'hoax' theory to work you have to create a paradox, if you watch the rover in action it 'bounces' off the surface of the moon and at times when it is in contact with the surface dust flies up. The dust, as we have establish moves up to 10 ft in the air, this was due to the speed of the rover which the equation shows (using the video's own speed figure) 16kph/10mph. A car on earth would not bounce off the surface to the same height seen in the video if it were only traveling 16kph, it would need to be travelling faster, however if it were traveling faster the dust would be thrown higher into the air which means the car cannot be traveling faster than the figure stated in the hoax video by the man who believes in the hoax.
Zingari Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 if the film was simply slowed down , could that all affect your assertions ? sorry mike you don't need to answer , i'm well out of my depth with this
whoareyaaa Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 This thought just popped into my head now could someone please explain... So they have managed to land on the moon, the buggys out... videos rolling.... now if I was NASA or anyone I would make sure that in these moon buggy videos you would at least get one shot of the Earth ? after travelling all that way right? please explain otherwise?
fleckneymike Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 This thought just popped into my head now could someone please explain... So they have managed to land on the moon, the buggys out... videos rolling.... now if I was NASA or anyone I would make sure that in these moon buggy videos you would at least get one shot of the Earth ? after travelling all that way right? please explain otherwise? Do you see the little satellite dish on the rover? What direction is it pointed? That will let you know where the Earth is.
whoareyaaa Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 Do you see the little satellite dish on the rover? What direction is it pointed? That will let you know where the Earth is. UP so the earth is now some how above the moon? either way a picture or a shot of video would proof this once and for all?
fleckneymike Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 UP so the earth is now some how above the moon? either way a picture or a shot of video would proof this once and for all? What do you mean 'somehow above the moon'? The only way to get the Earth in shot would be to lay on your back and look up.
Zingari Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 What do you mean 'somehow above the moon'? The only way to get the Earth in shot would be to lay on your back and look up. what's so difficult about that ? couldn't they have fitted the camera with a lens that rotated ?
sphericalfox Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 What do you mean 'somehow above the moon'? The only way to get the Earth in shot would be to lay on your back and look up. Not really.
whoareyaaa Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 What do you mean 'somehow above the moon'? The only way to get the Earth in shot would be to lay on your back and look up. Or simply just look up with the cameras they had... this would be top of the list though if anyone visited the moon to get a shot of the Earth right? http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/55246835#pm_cmp=vid_OEV_P_P
whoareyaaa Posted 4 August 2012 Posted 4 August 2012 Not really. This isn't a picture from the Apollo mission that is in question?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.