Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[najak]

For the Big Navy Salute, there is a cluster of dust that has been kicked up FASTER than his boot, as can be seen here 4 frames after he leaves the ground.

This dust (circled) CLEARLY had a faster initial upwards velocity - or we wouldn't see it here ABOVE the bottom of his boots, by about 5"...

So does some dust appear to fall more in line with John -- yes -- it's THIS small amount of dust -- which is why you can HARDLY see it. (if at all)

Here, notice the circled cluster of dust - higher than the boot bottom:


Here, John is still at his peak, while there is NO SIGN OF DUST in the air at all.    Sure, you might be able to see a TINY BIT (questionably) -- but if it's there, it's explained by the dust that was kicked up higher than the boot.


It's also explainable, if it's scant, by atmosphere -- when slows the fall of smaller particles...

Either way, your "proof fails miserably", but the evidence of "Sand falling way faster than the astronaut is clear as day" -- it's time for you to reconsider your conclusions here.

[najak]

Here's a link to MP4 where I show all frames of the Salute, in source resolution from NASA mpg:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13PbDNid-AEWhkh8PA1IiUOx0PG7GRKO0/view?usp=drive_link

[Mag40]

For the Big Navy Salute, there is a cluster of dust that has been kicked up FASTER than his boot, as can be seen here 4 frames after he leaves the ground.

I can see a blob on a crusty old copy of the footage! You are also deceptively putting up images that are not at apex, where quite obviously we see the nice neat little parabola of dust in perfect sync with his boots.

Either way, your "proof fails miserably", but the evidence of "Sand falling way faster than the astronaut is clear as day" -- it's time for you to reconsider your conclusions here.

Dust is grey on grey. Your failure to see this is irrelevant. What we can see however, and very clearly, is the shading on the ground of the dust kicked forwards. My proof is yet to be addressed, your fudging obfuscation means nothing.

[najak]

You are also deceptively putting up images that are not at apex,

My footage is raw unmodified frame captures of the MPG from the NASA site.

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/video16.html
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg

Yours appears to be "damage control", by PNA's wanting to maintain their faith. 

Or if you accept yours as real, we have the CLEAR evidence that by Frame 4 after liftoff, we have that whole cluster of dust that has outpaced the boot -- it starts with a faster upward velocity.... and in an atmosphere, smaller particles will fall slower.... which would explain why it's so faint (in your movie, not the one from NASA site).

Meanwhile, we have all of the other mass of dust that rises with the boot, falling far too quickly - which you entirely ignore.

====
Nevertheless, I think I have a better example to show you soon.  We'll see how that turns out.

[Mag40]

My footage is raw unmodified frame captures of the MPG from the NASA site.[p/quote]
NASA has numerous versions of the footage of various compression, frame rates, version number (copy of copy), you chose the crustiest I have seen and as I said you deceptively snapped something not at apex.

Yours appears to be "damage control", by PNA's wanting to maintain their faith.

Mine shows the clearest footage of all, recorded straight on to VCR. Your hand-waving is not going to wash. It is you frantically trying to avoid addressing the proof that any honest physics student would recognise.

Or if you accept yours as real, we have the CLEAR evidence that by Frame 4 after liftoff, we have that whole cluster of dust that has outpaced the boot -- it starts with a faster upward velocity.... and in an atmosphere, smaller particles will fall slower.... which would explain why it's so faint (in your movie, not the one from NASA site).

Completely irrelevant obfuscation. Accept mine "as real"? What a ridiculous thing to say and very indicative of any potential concession for a single thing. I don't believe anything will be sufficient to alter your preconceived and ill-informed belief.

Meanwhile, we have all of the other mass of dust that rises with the boot, falling far too quickly - which you entirely ignore.

A lie. I have stated several times that it is grey on grey and your assessment of its dispersal is meaningless. You have failed to reply honestly to the observation that there is clearly a shaded area that moves forwards during his jump.

Nevertheless, I think I have a better example to show you soon.  We'll see how that turns out.

How about you address the irrefutable boot-high parabola that obviously rises at the same speed as he does?

[Mag40]

I see that dust rising to boot level.. and 7 frames later - it's ALREADY ON THE GROUND!   This proves a mismatch in gravity... Cernan is suspended.

Demonstrating that you do not understand Newtonian physics. Time up = time down. You don't get to suggest your inability to see dust dispersal grey on grey means anything.

Proven and admitted. The dust wave rises to apex at the same time.

Now this dust on the ground has forward velocity, so bounds/scuttles along the ground until it collides with a high point, which creates the small splash.

The 3 dust splashes are icing on the cake that you don't seem qualified to understand.

So as you advised, Mr. Scientist, it's time to change your hypothesis/theory, to match the actual evidence.

Your pathetic patronising is beyond tedious. Your hand-waving continues.

Clearly from the footage, we see the wave splashing across the surface. His approach is one continuous sequence so don't insult everyone by suggesting the old speed-up slow-down  with the video.

I don't care if you are man enough to concede or have the appropriate understanding. Once we see his jump rising at apex synchronised to a parabolic wave of dust, we know it is either also on wires, or he isn't!

[najak]

Proven and admitted. The dust wave rises to apex at the same time.

Your scientific fallacy here is "rise up time = fall time" is false, where a vacuum force are acting on the dust as it rises (max vacuum pressure peak 14 PSI), pulling it upwards.

So in this atmosphere, especially with a wide-flat boot - there is more vacuum effect.  (low-pressure causes force, like a vacuum cleaner)

The fact that the dust rises with the boot so well, is also an indicator of atmosphere, required to achieve this vacuum suction, pulling up the dust as the boot leaves the ground.

Argument is strong that for the Navy Salute, the dust beneath the boot shouldn't be rising that much...  so why does it?   Vacuum effect -- only possible in an atmosphere with high PSI (14 PSI earth).  There is an adhesion argument here, but with dry/heavy/hard play sand like particles - there is very very little adhesion to speak of ... not enough to justify so much dust rising beneath the boot, as fast as the boot.

Your volleyball video involves much narrower feet with toes pointed down...  MUCH less vacuum effect here.

Here's a video that covers the topic.  Learn this, then incorporate it into your thinking.

https://youtu.be/xReTQzdocdA

[Bryanpoprobson]

A vacuum is not a force, basic physics 101.

[najak]

A vacuum is not a force, basic physics 101.

Correct, and I knew this.  Vacuum creates a PSI force imbalance by removing PSI from one side, and the other side's PSI "pushes" it towards the vacuum as a result.  When someone talks of a "vacuum force", this is what they mean -- it's an atmospheric force "Imbalance".

Using the term "Vacuum Suction Force" or just "Vacuum Force" is a widespread practice.  It's a simplification for laymen -- an easier model to wrap your head around.

Here's an article using the term:
https://eurotech-vacuum-technologies.com/how-to-calculate-vacuum-suction-force-to-find-appropriate-suction-cups/

It's nice to meet you.   I hope you have more to contribute here.

[Mag40]

Your scientific fallacy here is "rise up time = fall time" is false, where a vacuum force are acting on the dust as it rises (max vacuum pressure peak 14 PSI), pulling it upwards.

Bollocks. The main thing pulling the sand or dust upwards is friction.

The fact that the dust rises with the boot so well, is also an indicator of atmosphere, required to achieve this vacuum suction, pulling up the dust as the boot leaves the ground.

More bollocks, it's mainly friction. Tell me about John Young's second jump.

Argument is strong that for the Navy Salute, the dust beneath the boot shouldn't be rising that much...  so why does it?   Vacuum effect -- only possible in an atmosphere with high PSI (14 PSI earth).  There is an adhesion argument here, but with dry/heavy/hard play sand like particles - there is very very little adhesion to speak of ... not enough to justify so much dust rising beneath the boot, as fast as the boot.

Pure ignorance. The regolith contains very fine, light, jagged particulate, static electricity and friction.

Your volleyball video involves much narrower feet with toes pointed down...  MUCH less vacuum effect here.

Obfuscating the point. The sand isn't visible going down.

Learn this, then incorporate it into your thinking.

Don't patronise me. You have nowhere to go. Three simple clips and all you can do is throw diversion at them.

[najak]

Learn this, then incorporate it into your thinking.

Don't patronise me. You have nowhere to go. Three simple clips and all you can do is throw diversion at them.

If you incorporate the vacuum force into MLH theory, as you should, then this explains clearly why the dust rises WITH the boot, but then falls much more quickly than does the bottom of the boot.  Vacuum dissipates as the boot slows down, and the dust falls very fast.

The volleyball video shows that the sand does NOT rise with the foot much at all-- because with narrow feet pointing downwards - there is very little vacuum effect, compared to a much larger flat-footed wide boot.  And so the absence of sand rising with most volleyball jumps is evidence that this rise works better with a vacuum involved... which is mostly missing from this volleyball context.   More evidence here of MLH.

"Diversion" -- nope.  Until you incorporate Vacuum force into your argument/reasoning -- it is you were are running from the evidence/science, because it doesn't align with your current beliefs.

Do you admit that a vacuum force within earth's atmosphere would cause extra lift to the dust beneath the boot as it rises?

If so, then you need to incorporate it, and alter your argument, else you'll be disingenuous.

If not -- then I'd like to know which other PNA's (Pro-Nasa Apollogists) reading this, agree with you.  Or if any PNA's would like to correct your error in thought.

[Mag40]

If you incorporate the vacuum force into MLH theory, as you should, then this explains clearly why the dust rises WITH the boot, but then falls much more quickly than does the bottom of the boot.  Vacuum dissipates as the boot slows down, and the dust falls very fast.

Friction and static electricity.

The volleyball video shows that the sand does NOT rise with the foot much at all...

Deliberately missing the point made. The sand dissipates invisibly, sand against a sandy background. Your failure to see this on Apollo means nothing at all.

Do you admit that a vacuum force within earth's atmosphere would cause extra lift to the dust beneath the boot as it rises?

Well sure very slightly. It may even contribute to it rising as high as the foot, negating atmospheric impedance.

If so, then you need to incorporate it, and alter your argument, else you'll be disingenuous.

Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.

If not -- then I'd like to know which other PNA's (Pro-Nasa Apollogists) reading this, agree with you.  Or if any PNA's would like to correct your error in thought.

Trolling. Nobody here is a Pro Nasa "apollogist" and your poor manners show no signs of abating. I've let myself get irritated by it to a small extent.

[najak]

Do you admit that a vacuum force within earth's atmosphere would cause extra lift to the dust beneath the boot as it rises?

Well sure very slightly. It may even contribute to it rising as high as the foot, negating atmospheric impedance.

If so, then you need to incorporate it, and alter your argument, else you'll be disingenuous.

Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.

I didn't realize "Apollogist" was offensive - I thought it seems accurate.  Those who defend Biblical faith, call themselves Apologists.   So figured the term is non-offensive, and also a wonderful play on homonym.  What about it do you find offensive?

The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it... that operates over a longer distance even.   

The "air impedance" you mention is ALREADY figured in to vacuum force... the particles are moving into a vacuum/low-pressure where air impedance is much less.

So for now I won't argue "impossible on the moon", but only "this is how we should EXPECT it to work on earth with 14 PSI atmosphere, and a large wide boot."   Thus "rise up = fall down" are not so symmetric.

[Mag40]

The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it... that operates over a longer distance even.

Your ability to conflate knows no bounds. Are you seriously suggesting that a small drop in pressure from something exiting a specific space is a 14 psi to a vacuum in difference?   

The "air impedance" you mention is ALREADY figured in to vacuum force... the particles are moving into a vacuum/low-pressure where air impedance is much less.

What vacuum! There is no vacuum. There is a small drop in pressure.

The main effects causing dust to rise are friction and static.

So for now I won't argue "impossible on the moon", but only "this is how we should EXPECT it to work on earth with 14 PSI atmosphere, and a large wide boot."   Thus "rise up = fall down" are not so symmetric.

I'm more convinced than ever that you are wasting my time. You show no capacity to accept evidence and immediately fudge and obfuscate.
 
I missed your reply to the sentence: Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.

[najak]

I'm more convinced than ever that you are wasting my time. You show no capacity to accept evidence and immediately fudge and obfuscate.

Ditto.  It's why I'm calling for some 3rd party member with strong skills and who isn't afraid to contract a fellow PNA.

One thing I'll say is that you are correct about the "slight drop in PSI"... although the immediate effect at liftoff, is MORE like a dart suction cup, due to the absence of air... so when you first lift from the ground, the suction for that first instant is MUCH higher.   Like pulling the suction dart off of a window...

Thank you for your correction... after the first instant where contact is broken, the PSI differential drops substantially (to well under 1 PSI).

So MOST of the upward force of the dust is created during the first instant via this tight suction.

I missed your reply to the sentence: Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.

So let me revise my previous statement.  In the wake of the boot rising, there is *enough* PSI to cause air-currents to follow the boot.   Thus the particles are simply "traveling with the air speed".  I won't claim much "added acceleration" during this ascent, but will claim that the upwards air current (which is CERTAIN) eliminates the "air impedence" entirely -- as Dust and Air are moving at the same speed in unison.

This Initial Suction impact, which is considerable, only exists with Atmosphere.   A suction dart will NOT have ANY adherence to a window on the moon -- suction power would be 0!

While for earth, the STARTING suction power would be substantial... which could be closer to 14 PSI (never more).  On the moon, this substantial starting force is entirely missing.