With all due respect, you have not once attempted to answer the question I posted.
That's because I've been waiting for you to resume your prior thread regarding the stability of the lunar module, a topic which you say you did not abandon as a flounce, but were merely detained from addressing because of external concerns. Your renewed activity here suggests those circumstances no longer hold. Therefore it seemed advisable not to multiply the posts in this thread that you would have to answer, in the hopes you would find time to resume the discussion you abandoned before. Now that it's clear you
did abandon that other thread because you could not continue it, I'm faced with what that says about the likelihood you will respond to meaningful criticism in this thread.
And in this thread, as in prior threads, you have simply adopted the same strategy of ignoring replies that attempt to correct your misunderstanding of common physical principles and further foisting your ignorant intuition and suppositions in place. That limits my willingness to address you in any depth or detail. You have proven yourself to be almost entirely refractory to carefully-prepared responses, so you have lost the privilege of demanding them. As I recall, you even complained that my responses before, in the other thread, contained
too much detail. You don't get to have your cake and eat it to. Want more substantive responses? Then prove you're worthy of them. Continue the other thread regarding the lunar module, and address the arguments made by everyone in this thread with something more substantial than protest and denial.
I get it, because the moon landings are real, what I am asking is obviously wrong and stupid.
Your claim here is based on an incorrect understanding of the principles that apply to projectile physics. You have resisted efforts to correct your understanding. You really deserve little more attention if you are unwilling to accept the corrections by the people whose feedback you have ostensibly come here to solicit.
I will not coddle your willful ignorance.But to dismiss others with contempt because it doesn't fit your view of things...
Your claims have been dismissed not because they disagree with "[my] view of things," but because they disagree with basic principles of Newtonian physics. You are receiving what you view as contemptuous answers because you are following the same process here as you did in your abandoned thread: you are frantically trying to dismiss learned correction as "irrelevant" and insisting that your ignorance be validated in its place. Since you have resisted ongoing reasonable efforts to educate you, criticism that sounds in contempt is really the only appropriate attitude that remains. You beg the question that your behavior on this forum to date is acceptable.
I think I have asked a reasonable question and have been courteous.
No. Dismissing others' provably correct knowledge of basic physics as something you can simply sidestep in favor of your own ignorant intuition is the opposite of courtesy.
But I don't believe anyone has came up with a reasonable answer to why there is an absence of regolith on rocks and boulders.
You have been given a reasonable answer which you dismiss as "irrelevant," and you have further demonstrated a fairly glaring ignorance of the physical principles that apply to your question. Further, you've been asked point-blank why you think your concerns regarding the authenticity of the photos in question remain valid given your ignorance, and given other circumstantial evidence that flatly contracts your claims. You have ignored those entirely. To maintain that your approach here has been "courteous" is laughable. As with your other thread, your argument rises no higher than dismissing the actual science and insisting on the basis of your personal incredulity that you must still somehow have a valid point. Ignorance is not the problem here;
willful ignorance is.
It makes sense, if the photos are real, there should be a logical explanation.
There is a logical explanation, and it has been given. That you feel I haven't delivered it personally is irrelevant; this is not a personalized debate. Jason Thompson, for example, has presented you with a well-reasoned rebuttal that you have largely ignored. You have rejected the logical explanation because that explanation has focused on refuting the incorrect premises on which you based your claims. If you are waiting for logical explanation that doesn't entail you admitting your mistakes, then you will be waiting a long time. Your expectations are based on misconceived or made-up principles of projectile behavior. You are not entitled to an explanation that leaves those errors intact, nor to weary your critics by asking for one.
Using Chinese photos or a "sandblasting" analogy as answers really doesn't explain this phenomena despite what people might think.
Yes, they do, despite your increasingly desperate protests to the contrary.
You argue that the Apollo photos depict a landscape that is improbable according to projectile physics. You hypothesize that this means they were not taken in an actual lunar environment, but must have been prepared somehow by other means to approximate what the public could reasonably expect from such photos. But photos purporting also to be of the lunar landscape, taken by other agents, depict a landscape substantially similar in all relevant detail to Apollo photos. This undermines your hypothesis because the agent in this case has no credible reason to defy physics or cover for NASA. If two separate data sets are consilient on the appearance of the lunar surface, then it becomes more parsimonious to consider that your expectations are in error for what it should look like, more so than if you are simply trying to explain one data set with a hypothesis that invokes other antecedents particular only to that data set. That's how parsimony works, and you clearly don't get it.
The sandblasting analogy is apt because it deals with particles that have a ratio of kinetic energy to mass that is more congruent with the behavior of impact ejecta than your "settling snowfall" expectation based the behavior of aerosols. It is also more apt because it reduces the magnitude of the effect of air resistance on the particles in a way that would more closely resemble the behavior of projectiles in the complete absence of fluid resistance. That you refuse to take them into account does not give you grounds simply to ignore them or sweep them aside. You can't explain
why it's irrelevant; you just don't seem to want to have to deal with it.
This closely mimics your inability to address the actual study of the lunar module flight dynamics, as revealed in your own sources. You can't deal with the notion of free-body dynamics as a set of behaviors that has a highly predictive and tractable mathematical model, and so can't realize that people
can conclusively dismiss your various theories. You will never succeed in this forum if your arguments boil down simply to asking members to ignore scientific facts they know, but which you simply refuse to acknowledge and then get all butthurt over being repeatedly corrected about.
No one here will coddle willful ignorance.
