Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

I don't care about your document. I asked you what sources you consulted to support your belief that thrust would always be diminished at launch. You posted three elementary websites and a Google AI reference. I responded to that in depth. You lately asked me on what basis I concluded that your claims were made in ignorance. That is the basis.

So you didn't provide me any sources?  Above you said that you did.

[JayUtah]

LM acceleration indicates 27,000 kN NET upward force, steadily for 1 second.   We currently have NO THEORIES that explain this.

False. You simply don't wish to understand the theories.

So prove this point for "the many".

You don't represent "the many." And no, you're not going to succeed at baiting me into your standard procedure: set a bunch of heinous tasks for everyone else, which you will then ignore. We will do it my way or not at all.

But I believe you simply "can't" which is why you "won't" -- the same as all others before you.

I've started, but we keep running into you trying to interpose objections from ignorance. So we have to stop and try to correct your ignorance before we move on. Why didn't you address the comments I made on the sources you provided? If you are so interested in whatever estimate I might wish to provide, why aren't you interested in whether the objections you keep trying to shove in the wheel spokes actually say what you think they say? Since you ignored that completely, who's to say you won't just ignore any big-bang estimate I provide?

[JayUtah]

So you didn't provide me any sources?  Above you said that you did.

I already provided the sources. What you do with them is your business. So far you don't even seem to realize they exist.

[najak]

I already provided the sources. What you do with them is your business. So far you don't even seem to realize they exist.

You provided me with no such sources is my current claim.  You made the claim of other sources - but then refuse to substantiate.

[najak]

So prove this point for "the many".

You don't represent "the many." And no, you're not going to succeed at baiting me into your standard procedure: set a bunch of heinous tasks for everyone else...

This is a 40+ year claim, current UNDEBUNKED.  This is for the "many" - I'm sure all of the Apollogists here would like to be able to honestly declare "ALL MLH claims have been Debunked", when clearly, here is one that has NOT.

You are dodging a 40+ year claim here, the SAME as all others before you.   It doesn't take a genius to see the real reason for dodging this.

[JayUtah]

This is for the "many"

No.

It doesn't take a genius to see the real reason for dodging this.

The reason we're mired down is that you refuse to examine the reasons I've given why the basis for your claim is partly predicated on your ignorance. You don't get to demand an answer that fits your limited understanding of the problem. Address my comments on your cited sources and then we can look at next steps.

[JayUtah]

You provided me with no such sources is my current claim.  You made the claim of other sources - but then refuse to substantiate.

I quoted a document specifically having to do with the lunar module ascent engine. I quoted a passage from your source for combustion instability. You did not address them.

I addressed the four sources you cited for your claim that thrust is reduced at launch. You ignored that.

[bknight]

najak, why haven't you figured out yet that Jay IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A SHORT ANSWER.

[najak]

This is for the "many"

No.

This was YOUR ARGUMENT.  "It's not just YOU, but many".  Now you disagree... so that you can recuse yourself from this embarrassment.

This is a 40+ year old claim, that REMAINS NON-DEBUNKED.  The Apollogy that "ALL hoax claims have been debunked" is FALSE.  This one remains undebunked.

I'd like to hear a poll of those reading to see who still thinks that YOU are the one who can finally debunk this 40+ year old MLH claim.

[najak]

najak, why haven't you figured out yet that Jay IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A SHORT ANSWER.

I HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT.

Why haven't you figured out his REAL reason for recusing himself from creating this FIRST EVER Apollogy?

[bknight]

najak, why haven't you figured out yet that Jay IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A SHORT ANSWER.

I HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT.

Why haven't you figured out his REAL reason for recusing himself from creating this FIRST EVER Apollogy?

You haven't figured out squat.  I wouldn't pretend to post for Jay, he knows more about Apollo than I.  And it would be presumptuous.

[JayUtah]

This was YOUR ARGUMENT.

Show me where I made any such argument.

...this embarrassment.

What makes you think I'm embarrassed?

This is a 40+ year old claim, that REMAINS NON-DEBUNKED.

Nonsense. Your claim is based on a naive model of the launch, therefore your expectations are simplistic. The principles you didn't consider were brought to your attention, whereupon you immediately demanded more detail. Your objection in principle to those effects was based on your incomplete understanding of how rockets work, which I have endeavored to correct. Further, my initial attempts to derive the estimates you insist upon have been beset by your insistent interpolation of more arguments based on ignorance. It is clear we must remedy that before any proof will make sense to you. I have shown you how you have misread your sources, and I have presented additional sources to support my reading. You have ignored all that. When you have addressed that, we can proceed.

You insist that I provide the estimates in one fell swoop, working only on my own. History has shown that you will simply dismiss that answer and set some new task in the hopes that you can maintain the illusion that your simplistic assertions remain "undebunked" and that your critics are flailing to keep up with you. But even in the hopeful case where you take the answer seriously, your objections to it would simply run into the same problem: you don't know what you're talking about. So we can either remedy your ignorance now or later. There is no useful scenario where we just overlook it.

[JayUtah]

Why haven't you figured out his REAL reason for recusing himself from creating this FIRST EVER Apollogy?

You keep making this out to be something the world needs or something that I should produce out of pride.

Your claim that the LM rises too fast has answers. You were given the answers. They derive from well-known principles of rocketry, even if you personally don't know them. You're the only one demanding more detail, and additionally demanding exactly how that answer must be written. However, when we show that your objections to that additional detail are poorly predicated, all you can seem to do is stamp your feet and bluster on about how I need to right the world's wrongs by acquiescing to every nuance of your demands. At no point do you consider that your expectations may be naive, as they have been shown to be in a number of other ways.

The sooner we fix your misconceptions from the sources you provided, the sooner we can continue.

[beedarko]

This is a 40+ year old claim, that REMAINS NON-DEBUNKED.  The Apollogy that "ALL hoax claims have been debunked" is FALSE.  This one remains undebunked.

I'd like to hear a poll of those reading to see who still thinks that YOU are the one who can finally debunk this 40+ year old MLH claim.

Describe the criteria by which you would consider the claim "debunked".  Then describe your resulting conclusions about the Apollo program.

Template:  "I'll consider the alleged acceleration anomaly to be sufficiently explained when _________________, at which time I will ___________ a moon landing ______________ ".

[Mag40]

This is a 40+ year old claim, that REMAINS NON-DEBUNKED.  The Apollogy that "ALL hoax claims have been debunked" is FALSE.  This one remains undebunked.

I'd like to hear a poll of those reading to see who still thinks that YOU are the one who can finally debunk this 40+ year old MLH claim.

I'd like you to stop bolding your entire posts. I'd like you to listen to the expert and learn what you can. I'M trying to follow what he is saying, why the hell can't you!

Stop acting like a child. You do not know what you are doing, you know it and so does the forum and most certainly the man you are getting educated by.

Step by step. This is a complex issue, as is anything to do with rocketry. It's why we have the phrase "it's not rocket science". Well this bloody well is!