Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[Mag40]

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.

I appear to be the only one who can be bothered with your antics.

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...

Complete nonsense. There is no "suction" going on. There is an object (the foot). It is in a space. It moves and there is a very, very slight Bernoulli-style pressure drop.

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

Pretty much negligible compared to the effect of the friction which is what we are seeing.

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

Bollocks.

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.

So what.

Thus the particles are simply "traveling with the air speed".

My god, and this is your "Physics" conclusion is it? The air speed is going to be less than the foot speed and will drag virtually nothing.

I won't claim much "added acceleration" during this ascent

Good. I will claim virtually none and cancelled out by air resistance.

, 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.

More bollocks. What the hell kind of physics are you talking about. This is like the barest flimsiest of pressure differentials not Hurricane bloody Katrina!

This Initial Suction impact

Nope. No meaningful suction. Just a flimsy pressure drop.

which is considerable

Complete bollocks.

only exists with Atmosphere.   A suction dart will NOT have ANY adherence to a window on the moon -- suction power would be 0!

Obfuscation and irrelevant.

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.

What the hell are you talking about! There is no suction. There is a tiny pressure drop as the foot vacates a space. It's like wafting your hand across the ground.at the same speed as the jump. You'd move barely a few grains of sand - if vertical you would not even get them off of the surface.

I've seen some desperate attempts to "explain" stuff in the past, but this one is the pinnacle of absurd exaggeration and poor understanding.

Try harder.

Time up = time down and your ridiculous "suction-cup" baloney is not cutting it.

[bknight]

deleted post The way I read it I thought it pertained to the ascent engine.

[najak]

Time up = time down and your ridiculous "suction-cup" baloney is not cutting it.

My "suction" hypothesis is just that - hypothesis.  In the absence of articles to source our ideas, seems like we're both hypothesizing here.

Likewise, your claim of friction seems like a worse hypothesis to me..  How do you propose horizontal friction will result in vertical motion?

Perhaps the best hypothesis is adhesion.   If you can find an article on this, great, share it, and I'll learn from it.

Where does that leave us?
1. The sand rises to the same level as the bottom of the boot.  Why?
2. A wide boot rising DOES cause an upcurrent of air - and this would reduce air impedence.  Do you disagree?
3. IF there are forces pulling it up as it rises (e.g. impact of low-pressure) - this alters the parabola (which only applies if Gravity-alone operates on it)

Other considerations:
1. As we see with "the Salute" we see to the inside of the Left Boot Dust rising FASTER than the boot - which indicates that within the chaos at lift off, somehow, some dust was launched FASTER than the boot. If on the moon - this would result in that sand going considerably HIGHER than the boot rise, and would fall AFTER the boot falls.

2. When we see the darkness beneath Cernan's foot, we have no idea if any of this dust was also, like with Young, kicked up faster than the boot rise...

3. For BOTH cases, Cernan and Young - we do see the dust that was even with the bottom of the boot fall way faster than the boot.  This is NOT how it should work on the moon.


Your example of volleyball jump showed sand that rose much LESS than the foot... so doesn't match what we see with these lunar clips.

Here is a clip of a volleyball jump that caused the sand to rise as high as the foot (or a bit higher) -- and as we can see it fall WITH the foot, NOT BEFORE.  This is a rule.

Generally, "Time Up = Time Down" --   both foot and sand rose together -- and fell together.  But with Cernan and Young, they do not.

https://youtu.be/XLjPKjppy_0?t=21



IN SHORT - what force made the sand rise isn't vital to the argument.  It's secondary.  And we're both just guessing at this point.  But we do know that Dust that rises with the bottom of the foot, should fall with the bottom of the foot.  And that this dust, when in the air, always looks DARK... you can see it when elevated above the ground.

[Zakalwe]

The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it

Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again

[najak]

The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it

Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again

Thanks for chiming in!   Yeah, you got me.  I was pulling from fiction here.   

And if you read on, you'll see that my assumption of "significantly low-pressure in the wake of a boot jump" was also wrong (self-corrected from just looking up the vacuum created behind a 60mph flat-backed van). 

And I'm also not sure about the immediate "suction event" on lift-off, if such a factor occurs in this context (with air present).

We are admittedly spit balling hypotheses, in the absence of not being able to find an article online that discusses this (that I can find yet).

Do you have any idea about what are the true factors that contribute to making "sand rise in the wake of the foot"?   My next best guess is "adhesion". 

@Mag40 thinks it's friction and static electricity.   What say you about these hypotheses?

I don't see how one could surmise that "horizontally applied friction, results in a matching upward motion".  Do you?

[najak]

New Sample Case - partly completed.

Here is the Sample KRITA video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link

This one is close-up from the side - so we can witness the forward motion of the sand with certainty.  This dust rises with the boot, and then Falls way faster than this astronaut.



The working folder of FrameCaps and KRITA project and this MP4 are all here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1H9HM4amvj8hyCHa1_3vg79uXdZeLav8V?usp=drive_link

Footage Reference:  Jump start at 2:18, video name: a16v.1464821.mpg
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/video16.html#station8
Journal Text: 146:48:21   3 minutes 44 seconds ( RealVideo Clip: 1.0 Mb or MPG Video Clip: 33 Mb ). Both clips by Ken Glover.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg

[najak]

Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again

I'd like to hear your views on this most recent example that I've shown here.

[najak]

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.

I thought I'd address your very bad volleyball example here, head on.  Then see if you concede that "yes, this was a very bad example".

I captured these 10 frames and put it into KRITA for analysis.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wS5ILuAV3w6HGQH0Nd6ja8uLQFsLrgRw/view?usp=drive_link

And here are the 1st 6 frames.  Do you see anything wrong with your example here, to compare this against the "Navy Salute"??

[Zakalwe]

Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again

I'd like to hear your views on this most recent example that I've shown here.

I'm sure you would...

[najak]

I'm sure you would...

How do you explain the sand falling from the boot-bottom down to the ground so much faster than the astronaut falls?

[Mag40]

How do you explain the sand falling from the boot-bottom down to the ground so much faster than the astronaut falls?

This is trolling again. Your obfuscation analyses are just avoiding completely obvious things:-

1. Your inability to see it falling, grey regolith against a grey background means nothing and doesn't prove it falls faster.
2. I provided a gif of volleyball that showed the same thing. Your dopey suction-cup explanation doesn't cut it. Your cut frames again mean nothing, the sand definitely appears to disappear far too quickly. If you dispute this you are in denial.
3. You continue to avoid the really irrefutable: Time up = time down. We see a nice little parabola in perfect sync. An honest, competent physicist knows what that means.
4. Whilst the dust is difficult to see dispersing, there is clear evidence on the darkening ground of it moving forwards.

[Mag40]

I thought I'd address your very bad volleyball example here, head on.  Then see if you concede that "yes, this was a very bad example".

See if I "concede"? You can talk!



So, he carries a dust wave to apex and it "disappears" immediately, well before  he falls down. Are you going to concede this? It is rapid dispersal and hard to see against a similar background. And that's in very clear video!

[bknight]

How do you explain the sand falling from the boot-bottom down to the ground so much faster than the astronaut falls?

This is trolling again. Your obfuscation analyses are just avoiding completely obvious things:-

1. Your inability to see it falling, grey regolith against a grey background means nothing and doesn't prove it falls faster.
2. I provided a gif of volleyball that showed the same thing. Your dopey suction-cup explanation doesn't cut it. Your cut frames again mean nothing, the sand definitely appears to disappear far too quickly. If you dispute this you are in denial.
3. You continue to avoid the really irrefutable: Time up = time down. We see a nice little parabola in perfect sync. An honest, competent physicist knows what that means.
4. Whilst the dust is difficult to see dispersing, there is clear evidence on the darkening ground of it moving forwards.

Tere is no "vacuum pressure" the pressure is equal in all directions at a value of near zero.  The astronaut steps/jump down onto the surface pressing this very angular regolith into the "valleys" in the boot profile.  As soon as he steps/ jumps the regolith starts to fall until there is none left some falls early, some falls mid jump and some near the apex of the step/jump. But it doesn't fall faster as there is no atmosphere to resist falling as it does on Earth.
Someone said of you, you were an HB and attempt to snag onto something you perceive incorrectly as proof of a hoax.  What you should do as any rational person, ask how could this be explained?  Then go over ways that the magician did his trick.
There are too many instances where objects move as if in a lower G than earth, you don't see them but that is the nature of a HB.

[najak]

So, he carries a dust wave to apex and it "disappears" immediately, well before  he falls down. Are you going to concede this? It is rapid dispersal and hard to see against a similar background. And that's in very clear video!

This is a better example than the other one, but is still not apples to apples. 
1. He's jumping at a diagonal... which disperses more.. 
2. There is only a tiny amount of sand that rises to the level of his foot.
3. It's far away.   My side show was VERY CLOSE.   It's harder to see sand from so far away.
4. This sand is not beneath is foot, benefitting from the "low pressure" that reduces air resistance.

I have a volleyball shot that is:
1. Close
2. More straight up.

This one is very similar to my side-shot of the leaping astronaut.

https://youtu.be/XLjPKjppy_0?t=26

So do you concede that your first Volleyball shot was impertinent?

[Mag40]

@Mag40 - gonna cut this off here, and take it back to Sand post instead.

The hell you are! You have this evaded post a show stopper for any objective person:

1. "dust at apex" - In an atmosphere, the boot leaves a temporal vacuum suction in it's wake (you are aware of this fact, yes).

It's mainly friction.

This temporary vacuum only lasts a very short time, but this suction effect pulls the dust upwards as the boot rises.  As the boot reaches apex, it's upward velocity slows, and the vacuum effect instantly dissipates, leaving that dust to fall at earth gravity.

Nope - mainly friction. I specifically posted a gif of volleyball on the beach and the same sandy colour against a sandy background shows the same thing. Earth gravity has the dust disappearing instantly in the same irrelevant way. Just because it's harder to see doesn't mean a thing.

While the Cernan falls slower due to partial suspension.  This is what would be EXPECTED to be seen on earth, per MLH theory.

That is just bollocks. The dust impacts simultaneously with his feet touching the ground on 3 successive jumps. Should I fetch where you said it was sliding along the ground?

The dust falling from apex too fast, is the damning evidence here.  This is IMPOSSIBLE on the moon.   The "Hippity" clip supports MLH, not PNA.

Grey on grey and a poor quality video. The only damning thing is your persistent obfuscation. What you can or cannot observe with the conditions present is totally irrelevant.

Once more your evasion on this matter is noted and starting to deliberately irritate now.
That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.

The dust reaches apex at the same time as he does. Time up = time down. Which part of that confuses you?

2. "parabola" - why use this term?  Parabola's are the same shape on moon and earth, with a 2.4X speed difference, that's all.

Because it is a parabola. Because it is visible. Because it reaches apex in a beautifully consistent synchronised motion with his jump.

I assume you are talking about the "faint dust" that appears on YOUR gif (but NOT the one from NASA's own site)

You are lying. The dust parabola is visible on every NASA version.

But let's assume YOUR source is accurate -- we see at 4-5 frames after liftoff, that there is a patch of dust that STARTED moving upwards at a FASTER rate.

And once again with the diversion avoiding the issue. My source is 100% accurate and if you suggest it has been doctored or any other HB lie along those lines, than people will start to see your true nature.

this of course may end up hitting apex at around the same time as John.

Rubbish, it is a blob on your crusty copy of the footage! Most of the dust travels forward. Once more you avoid points I have raised. If you think I am suddenly going to let you away with this, think again.

Additionally, in atmosphere, the lighter dust experiences more air resistance, which also slows it's falling a bit -- also giving you this effect.

And not visible on the volleyball clip! All diversion from the main point.

3. 4 ft high is not "ridiculous amount".

Of course it is! So is the distance involved.

Since we can't see the fall, we have less idea about suspensions.

Nonsense, we see no suspension at all on the leading section of the event.

This is a Half-parabola, giving us less physics to analyze.

Irrelevant in the extreme. We have enough to analyse it by height, projected distance and force.

BUT the full clip is explained by him simply kicking his leg twice as hard as you thought he did.   This is a feasible and reasonable MLH theory.

There is nothing reasonable about this it all. I do not believe you think that. No honest physicist would look at that totally weird looking dust wave and conclude it looks Earth-like.

I'm still waiting for you to expand on your bare assertion about the time. I've done a manual check and his figures are spot on.

Keep trying.

Keep running away from the evidence. The game is up and you've been here less than a week. Your credibility is now in question since you are clearly evading the obvious on 3 separate matters. Smart people show they are smart by their actions not by bragging about it whilst showing they aren't.


John Young Jump
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust in perfect sync with his jump and the same height. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see shaded areas on the ground moving forwards away from Young.

Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.

Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.

Members should be made aware of your truly daft claim that the upward "draft" from a suction vacuum is responsible for lifting the dust off of the surface! Simple experiment, place bucket 1/4 inch from surface and yank it up - are you seriously claiming that the bucket pulls up a column of dirt/sand/dust?

You have nowhere to go now. Cernan and Young jumps both show dust level with boot at apex. Time up = time down. The dust is not on wires therefore......an honest physicist fills in the details.

Answer this without the HB two-step evasion.