Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[Mag40]

This is a better example than the other one, but is still not apples to apples. 

That's just bollocks.

1. He's jumping at a diagonal... which disperses more.

Bollocks and missing the whole point. The soil is gone before he even starts to come down. Your John Young observation is wrong and irrelevant anyway. You keep avoiding the game-over bit. The nice little parabola that follows him up does so in perfect sync. Your rather daft diversion about magic suction-cups is all you've come up with.

2. There is only a tiny amount of sand that rises to the level of his foot.

Irrelevant nit-picking. The footage shows rapid sand dispersal (on the beach) and difficult to see sand against sand.

3. It's far away.   My side show was VERY CLOSE.   It's harder to see sand from so far away.

Have you not got the balls to concede this simple point?

4. This sand is not beneath is foot, benefitting from the "low pressure" that reduces air resistance.

What the hell has that got to do with the point being made? You are just flannelling and squirming.

The sand rises to the volleyball player's foot height and disperses (to the eye) much faster than his fall. If you dispute this, you are just plain lying.  This is on a really clear piece of video, compared to a grainy one for Apollo.

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

I gave you an example that showed the point perfectly and you want me to concede something else, when you haven't got the basic integrity to concede the obvious?

[bknight]

You have addresses my questions in post 72, why are you ignoring me?  It is you think that you are way smarter than I and you are lowering your perceived skills to speak to me?

[najak]

#1: 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.

#2: 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.

#1: You are suggesting "adhesion" as the primary force to cause dust to rise with the boot.  I actually agree that this *may* have been the most significant factor.  For this issue, the "why did it rise" is a secondary issue -- we SEE IT rising to foot level, then falls to the ground way faster.

#2: Most of the footage is "NASA doing it Right" - it's the mess-ups that Break Physics is what's telling.  If you are watching a magic show, believing "this is ALL Real", but then see the "hidden mechanism" just ONCE -- now you know the whole show was just "an illusion".   You don't continue to watch the show, with the continued belief that ALL of this is REAL now (just because in the rest of the show, you can no longer physically see the hidden mechanisms.

In Apollo Footage - most of it runs "according to plan" (they slow FPS to 40% simulates Lunar gravity perfectly)...  but on occasion they mess-up -- and in the case of dust beneath an astronaut with wires lifting up -- the dust gravity tells us the truth.

But this is a "who cares",  mostly.   We see the dust rising as high as the bottom of the boot, but then falls WAY FASTER than the boot.

I'm talking of the 2nd example -- the leap from the side - where we are super close, not far away.

[najak]

I gave you an example that showed the point perfectly and you want me to concede something else, when you haven't got the basic integrity to concede the obvious?

The debate between you and I has gone full-circle.  You keep ignoring the caveats that I am stating, as you restate your original claim that fully discounts something that is very real.

For example, you mention the "scant sign of dust between John's feet" as your proof, while ignoring one CRUCIAL caveat -- we SEE dust from the onset rising FASTER than the boot!... So even for an Earth Studio, where John is being hoisted to slow his trajectory -- you are comparing it to dust that we SEE rising FASTER than the boot -- and so you are comparing Apples to Oranges.

I'm not sensing that you have the mental skills to see the gross error in your logic.

I hear your points -- I've addressed your points.   You ignore my very real counter points - -and continue to say your same claim, unmodified...

So we're at full-circle here.  I may document some of your concerns in the KB doc, to demonstrate how they are invalid objections, and you can read it there -- Perhaps I'll keep updating those sections until my refutation of your objection is crystal clear.

[Mag40]

#1: You are suggesting "adhesion" as the primary force to cause dust to rise with the boot.  I actually agree that this *may* have been the most significant factor.  For this issue, the "why did it rise" is a secondary issue -- we SEE IT rising to foot level, then falls to the ground way faster.

You express a level of irritation at your "caveats" being ignored when they haven't. Then repeat a lie.

Friction is the primary cause, aided by electrostatic attraction. It doesn't fall to the ground faster - that is really deceptive of you. I have proven that it is often difficult to see the dust/sand falling (sand against sand or grey against grey) so your observation is irrelevant. I have pointed out at least 3 times now that there is shaded area that tracks forwards in front of Young corresponding to dust dispersal.

#2: Most of the footage is "NASA doing it Right"

Obfuscation. All of it is right.

it's the mess-ups that Break Physics is what's telling.

You are the one making the "mess-ups".

If you are watching a magic show, believing "this is ALL Real", but then see the "hidden mechanism" just ONCE -- now you know the whole show was just "an illusion".   You don't continue to watch the show, with the continued belief that ALL of this is REAL now (just because in the rest of the show, you can no longer physically see the hidden mechanisms.

The problem with that analogy is that you aren't watching a magic show and your poor observations have swayed your judgement.

In Apollo Footage - most of it runs "according to plan" (they slow FPS to 40% simulates Lunar gravity perfectly)...  but on occasion they mess-up -- and in the case of dust beneath an astronaut with wires lifting up -- the dust gravity tells us the truth.

And there's the lies again. I do not believe you are honest enough to admit a single significant thing.

But this is a "who cares",  mostly.   We see the dust rising as high as the bottom of the boot, but then falls WAY FASTER than the boot.

Repeating the same lie again. Once you've got the first part of that, physics is done and an honest physicist would know this. Time up = time down. Quite clearly circumstances don't favour seeing dust dispersal. The footage is grainy and it's essentially all grey. Your inability to see the second part of the process doesn't mean a thing. You are clinging to it with the only cost your integrity.

You have admitted that the nice little parabola goes up with his boot. That is an irrefutable aspect of physics. It means for him to do the rising part it has to be at terrestrial freefall speed that is x245% - this is the real reason why you are diverting and obfuscating. Nobody needs to see the second part, the first part does the trick. That tiny little segment of footage proves he is in lower gravity.

[Mag40]

The debate between you and I has gone full-circle.

That is bollocks. You are wriggling and squirming to avoid admitting the irrefutable.

You keep ignoring the caveats that I am stating, as you restate your original claim that fully discounts something that is very real.

Your "caveats" are irrelevant diversion.

For example, you mention the "scant sign of dust between John's feet" as your proof

You can minimise it all you like as your desperation increases, but it isn't "scant" and is a clear parabolic arc that perfectly matches his jump time and height.

while ignoring one CRUCIAL caveat -- we SEE dust from the onset rising FASTER than the boot!

Pardon my French but that is bullshit. We see a clump going forwards. Even if it were going faster (which its final height disproves), its subsequent dispersal occurs on the opposite side of Young and is not possible to see. Luckily we don't need that. Any honest physics student (and you clearly are no expert) has more than enough data. The beautiful little dust parabola between his boots in perfect sync.

The only crucial thing is your refusal to address the obvious.

... So even for an Earth Studio, where John is being hoisted to slow his trajectory -- you are comparing it to dust that we SEE rising FASTER than the boot -- and so you are comparing Apples to Oranges.

You are inventing fruit and ignoring irrefutable physics.

I'm not sensing that you have the mental skills to see the gross error in your logic.

I'm sensing you are playing "TBFDU defence" and resorting to pathetic jibes. Your judgement concerning my "mental skills" is obfuscation. It is clear that you are unable to admit this because the tiny clip closes the whole case. You're just another in a long line of HBs who lack critical thinking skills and basic logic.

I hear your points

And confirmed the one that proves the conclusion.

I've addressed your points.

A lie. You've still to address the only one that matters, all your diversion is what every HB does.You've ignored that the falling regolith is largely obscured by dissipation grey on grey and you have ignored the shaded areas on the ground showing it mainly goes forwards. On the right, there is very slight, but clear surface discolouration as he lands.

You ignore my very real counter points - -and continue to say your same claim, unmodified.

I just addressed again your only counter point - your claim of soil going faster - yet it fails to attain any real height. A blob, isolated by you on probably the crustiest copy available where he is nowhere near apex. How very deceptive.

One of your other "caveats" was some comedy-physics about suction cups. I'm glad you've dropped that particular howler.

So we're at full-circle here.

No we are not, the forum awaits your attention to the only point that matters:



A nice little 1.62m s^2 parabola. Perfect sync. Irrefutable.

You also seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid the other points also:

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.

[najak]

You have admitted that the nice little parabola goes up with his boot. That is an irrefutable aspect of physics. It means for him to do the rising part it has to be at terrestrial freefall speed that is x245% - this is the real reason why you are diverting and obfuscating. Nobody needs to see the second part, the first part does the trick. That tiny little segment of footage proves he is in lower gravity.

For your whole claim here, I'd like to know who on this site agrees with your logic.  Or if any physicists agree with your logic.

"Time up = Time down", only applies in a vacuum, and where there isn't a force helping it go up as it goes (e.g. "adhesion" + "low pressure").  The fact that we see the dust fall FASTER, means "this physics principal is broken!" -- On the moon is SHOULD BE LIKE THIS.. but our footage shows that it's not.  Thus your own principle is violated/broken.

I believe the best answer for what causes the dust to rise so high is from @bknight, which is more like "adhesion" effect...  the dust is packed tight (pushing the air pockets out), and has to come loose from the boot as he jumps...  So if the dust is carried along in part by "adhesion", this explains the "Full rise"......  but when the dust then falls so much faster, this indicates 2 gravities.... Fakery.

[Mag40]

For your whole claim here, I'd like to know who on this site agrees with your logic.  Or if any physicists agree with your logic.

No logic it is gravitational motion.

"Time up = Time down", only applies in a vacuum

To millimetric accuracy but it still does it on Earth over short times.

and where there isn't a force helping it go up as it goes (e.g. "adhesion" + "low pressure").

Repeating your junk about the pressure that a five-year old can disprove by pulling their hand up from 5mm above the sand very quickly!  And adhesion is a attractive force that merely holds some of the wave together. If you seriously think it is some propelling force then you ain't no physicist.

The fact that we see the dust fall FASTER

No fact, just you lying again. You've had it pointed out to you, ignoring that and repeating becomes a lie. The sand shown on the beach "falls faster" and on a clearly high resolution video. The issue that an honest person would see is how the regolith is grey against a grey background, it's mostly kicked forward and dissipating, video quality is very grainy and there is clear evidence of a shadow moving forward followed by the ground on the right (faintly) but noticeably darkening as he lands.

means "this physics principal is broken!" -- On the moon is SHOULD BE LIKE THIS.. but our footage shows that it's not.  Thus your own principle is violated/broken.

Chronic circular reasoning based on you repeating your lie and ignoring the lovely parabola rising all on its own - effectively IN FREE FLIGHT.

I believe the best answer for what causes the dust to rise so high is from @bknight, which is more like "adhesion" effect...  the dust is packed tight (pushing the air pockets out), and has to come loose from the boot as he jumps...

This tells me a number of things. You don't know what friction is. You don't know what free flight is. It doesn't matter a jott what force enabled the parabola to reach apex in perfect harmony! It could have been fired by a cannon for all I care. You don't understand gravitational motion.

So if the dust is carried along in part by "adhesion", this explains the "Full rise"

Chronic circular reasoning again.

but when the dust then falls so much faster, this indicates 2 gravities.... Fakery.

Repeating the lie. Repeating the same response:

The issue that an honest person would see is how the regolith is grey against a grey background, it's mostly kicked forward and dissipating, video quality is very grainy and there is clear evidence of a shadow moving forward followed by the ground on the right (faintly) but noticeably darkening as he lands.

Why are you not responding to the other 2 issues?

[najak]

Why are you not responding to the other 2 issues?

Like I said, you and I have come to our end of debate here.  If we wanted to take this to the next level, we'd need an fairly unbiased audience of preferably Physicists to present our cases too - and see how it turns out.

Maybe they could help iron out the various forces at work that cause sand to rise as high as the volleyball player.

I have a Volleyball player jump that is closer to moon examples -- and you see the dust ALL THE WAY down.

Your far away sideways jumping players that start with less dust -- are simply less pertinent to the moon examples.   Mine is much more apples to apples, and demonstrates the my point with clarity.

Why does the sand rise?  I still think it's mostly an "Adhesion factor" but also facilitated by "low air pressure" (as WAFTING REALLY DOES MOVE AIR... so the moving air, reduces air resistance in the wake of the boot).

I'm sure you disagree.... that's fine.  I care what the physicists would say... too bad we don't seem to have any here.  Do you know of any you can summon?

[Mag40]

Like I said, you and I have come to our end of debate here.  If we wanted to take this to the next level, we'd need an fairly unbiased audience of preferably Physicists to present our cases too - and see how it turns out.

Yeah you run away when the evidence doesn't fit your daft theory.

Maybe they could help iron out the various forces at work that cause sand to rise as high as the volleyball player.

How about we ask AI?

Friction plays a crucial role in the sand rising alongside a person jumping on the beach. Here's how:

Downward Force and Compression: When a person jumps, their weight exerts a downward force on the sand. This force compresses the sand beneath their feet, displacing it downwards.
Friction Between Sand Particles: As the sand is compressed, friction between the individual sand particles resists this displacement. This resistance causes some of the sand particles to be pushed upwards and outwards, creating a small cloud around the person's feet.
Rebound and Upward Force: The compression and subsequent release of pressure due to the jump create a rebound effect. This upward force, combined with the frictional resistance, propels the sand particles upwards.
Air Resistance: As the sand particles rise, they encounter air resistance. This resistance slows down the upward motion of the particles, causing them to eventually fall back to the ground.
Therefore, friction plays a crucial role in both the initial displacement of the sand and its subsequent upward motion. It's the interplay between the downward force, the frictional resistance between sand particles, the rebound effect, and air resistance that results in the sand rising alongside the person's jump.

I have a Volleyball player jump that is closer to moon examples -- and you see the dust ALL THE WAY down.

So what. I have a volleyball player where you don't. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. You're still lying when you say it goes too fast.

Your far away sideways jumping players that start with less dust -- are simply less pertinent to the moon examples.   Mine is much more apples to apples, and demonstrates the my point with clarity.

Anyone can see how the regolith is grey against a grey background, it's mostly kicked forward and dissipating, the video quality is very grainy and there is clear evidence of a shadow moving forward followed by the ground on the right (faintly) but noticeably darkening as he lands.

Why does the sand rise?  I still think it's mostly an "Adhesion factor" but also facilitated by "low air pressure" (as WAFTING REALLY DOES MOVE AIR... so the moving air, reduces air resistance in the wake of the boot).

You are clearly not a physics expert. The force is friction.

[najak]

You are clearly not a physics expert. The force is friction.

Don't use AI as your proof.  AI can give you some hints, but often those hints are entirely wrong.  Depending upon how I ask the question, I can end up with the same Google AI giving me OPPOSITE answers - contradicting itself. 

I googled "can you trust Google AI answers?", and Google told me THIS about itself:
"No, you should not completely trust Google AI answers as they can sometimes be inaccurate, misleading, or even dangerous"

So when you are trying to make physics proofs, get a real source.

You keep claiming that "airborne dust is hard to see" -- that's just not the case.   If it disperses a LOT, then yes.  This is why the one example I have, close up, with LOTS of DUST, going nearly straight up BENEATH the boot the whole way -- is a good example.   Just as with the similarly framed Volley ball player -- the sand for him ALSO did not disperse, and remained VERY VISIBLE all the way down.

We're done with this, because we're just going in circles.

Perhaps I'll throw you this bone -- there's a thing called "static friction" which is likely a component of the "Adhesion" factor that I think explains a good deal of the dust rising beneath a boot.... so sure -- "static friction provides some part of the adhesion effect".   See now we agree, and can end this debate.

But not, this "Static friction" (if it's happening) acts on the dust AFTER IT LEAVES THE GROUND...  so as it's rising, still "stuck together" (i.e. adhesion effect, caused in part by static friction) -- this static friction force is still applying a lifting force AS IT RISES with the boot.

In the "fake scenario" that I believe in -- the dust WANTS TO FALL SOONER -- but this adhesion / static-friction effect is keeping it moving with the boot.

At the Apex, once the dust fully breaks free from this adhesion -- now it falls under earth gravity... while the astronaut descends more slowly because he's partly suspended by a wire.

[Mag40]

Don't use AI as your proof.  AI can give you some hints, but often those hints are entirely wrong.  Depending upon how I ask the question, I can end up with the same Google AI giving me OPPOSITE answers - contradicting itself.

You can lead a horse to water. I didn't use AI as my proof! I already know the answer, it was an increasingly vain attempt to reach somebody who is rude and patronising, keeps telling everyone how "smart" they are but fails to convincce. 

You keep claiming that "airborne dust is hard to see" -- that's just not the case.

A lie! I keep claiming that circumstances were not favourable to do so. That you have repeatedly not addressed.

If it disperses a LOT, then yes.  This is why the one example I have, close up, with LOTS of DUST, going nearly straight up BENEATH the boot the whole way -- is a good example.   Just as with the similarly framed Volley ball player -- the sand for him ALSO did not disperse, and remained VERY VISIBLE all the way down.

Such a poor method of debate. You are wasting my time now. I demonstrated with a clear example how sand against sand can cause the same thing and you played stupid games trying to hand wave it away.

We're done with this, because we're just going in circles.

Your pathetic refusal to admit the obvious and address all points is the issue here.

Perhaps I'll throw you this bone

You don't know what you are doing.

-- there's a thing called "static friction" which is likely a component of the "Adhesion" factor that I think explains a good deal of the dust rising beneath a boot.... so sure -- "static friction provides some part of the adhesion effect".   See now we agree, and can end this debate.

"which is likely" / "that I think".

But not, this "Static friction" (if it's happening) acts on the dust AFTER IT LEAVES THE GROUND...  so as it's rising, still "stuck together" (i.e. adhesion effect, caused in part by static friction) -- this static friction force is still applying a lifting force AS IT RISES with the boot.

I know now for a fact that you are flannelling and do not understand Newtonian Physics. On both jumps that you are running away from, there is a visible dust wave - in independent flight! - that is all that is necessary.

In the "fake scenario" that I believe in -- the dust WANTS TO FALL SOONER -- but this adhesion / static-friction effect is keeping it moving with the boot.

I'm seeing enough from you that confirms you are out of your depth.

At the Apex, once the dust fully breaks free from this adhesion -- now it falls under earth gravity... while the astronaut descends more slowly because he's partly suspended by a wire.

A claim that ignores every single point raised.


John Young - a clear parabolic arc in independent flight that matches his jump perfectly.
Regolith is grey against grey, dispersing and moving forward. Makes it difficult to see.
Video is very grainy and not ideal for viewing. Makes it difficult to see.
On the surface we see (on the left) a shadow moving away from him and shaded areas on the surface very faintly on the right.

Gene Cernan - a clear wave of dust matching his jump height, again  in independent flight.
On 3 successive jumps as he lands, we see clearly the dust wave impacting the surface.
On the last jump it is clearly the dust striking the surface.

On The dust wave being flicked it is an absurd distance and force for Earth and the height on its own is crazy.
Your replies were bare-assertion with nothing but denial and a deceptive claim that "it looks normal".
You also alluded to an unsubstantiated bare assertion about variable video speed.

[LunarOrbit]

I googled "can you trust Google AI answers?", and Google told me THIS about itself:
"No, you should not completely trust Google AI answers as they can sometimes be inaccurate, misleading, or even dangerous"

As opposed to answers from conspiracy theorists which are always inaccurate, misleading, or even dangerous.

How about you show us why that specific answer is wrong instead of just dismissing it?

[najak]

How about you show us why that specific answer is wrong instead of just dismissing it?

It's Mag40's theory - and he proof was a Google AI response, known to be very flawed, especially for niche science.   If there are actual articles/studies presented online about this - I'd like to see them.  I myself couldn't find any, otherwise I'd be sourcing them myself.   I'd love to see some legit studies of this phenomenon... I just haven't found any yet.

For me, I see the dust rise with the boot, but then falls way faster.  This is a close up with lots of dust and no sidewards motion, nor air/wind to disperse..    So there should be less dispersion on the moon... and in this case we see either "Full immediate dispersion to invisible" or "the dust falls way faster than the astronaut" indicating the fakery (i.e. Astronaut on earth suspended by a cable).

So "why it rises" is currently "unexplained" in this debate.   Mag40 wants us to "take his word for it"... or "Google AI".

[najak]

I'm seeing enough from you that confirms you are out of your depth.

In the past, I have spent many months in debate with Fundamentalist Christians over their core belief that "everyone who doesn't believe as I do about Jesus, is going to Hell, because Jesus is the only way" - about the authenticity/history/nuances/corruptions/authority of their Bible.  And their posture was much like yours now.  I had a great many lower IQ people telling me how stupid I was.

Why?  Because in their mind, the Bible was 100% God's word, and anyone who said otherwise was either Evil or Stupid.   Cognitive Dissonance is painful for most.  And Confirmation Bias runs strong in us all - including me.  This is why I MUCH prefer to hang out here with opposition, to put my own confirmation bias under fire, and prevent me from believing unsupported or exaggerated beliefs.

My goal is to present 100% integrity here.   As I go, I am increasing my own understanding of a great many things - because Iron Sharpens Iron, and Airplanes get their lift from resistance.