#1: Please source this. Google AI or Chat GPT conclusions are flawed.
It even gave you indirect avenues to fill in your knowledge vacuum. AI isn't always accurate. But when you repeat it across multiple versions and the same answer is provided, it clearly is in this case. Besides those answers are bloody obvious to anyone with basic physics.
#2: Your conclusions are muddied -- apparently AI doesn't know what it is describing... Rising or Landing. Here it SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS LANDING.
A totally inept and deliberate piece of obfuscation. The article is digressing on something it clearly explains.
"Resulting Movement of Sand
As a result of these interactions—force from jumping and friction—the upper layers of sand become agitated and can rise or scatter outward from where the jump occurred. This effect is often visually noticeable as small clouds or plumes of sand that appear when someone lands heavily on a beach."
This illustrates the flawed nature of Google AI.
You are just bullshitting now. This illustrates your inability to be educated on things you don't know. It shows how even basic Newtonian physics are not understood by you.
The parabola is in free flight, how can you not know this!Everything else you are typing is evading this.
My Google AI response claims it's ALL ABOUT AIR PRESSURE... so there.
I have typed this into a dozen AI engines, I have duplicated that exact phrase many times. You are lying. You have doctored your text.
You need a real source. AI, currently, makes far too many mistakes with flawed conclusions. In your case, the result appears "CONFUSED", at best.
I need nothing except an honest response from somebody who seems incapable of such. As I said I'm not even a heavy hitter. JayUtah hasn't even got going on you yet and many of the regulars haven't shown up yet - better things to do than go through this bollocks with yet another "smart person" who doesn't know the subject.
You ignored all the incident-relevant items in my last post and still continue to ignore the Cernan example given and the enormous wave from a simple boot flick.
Repeating:
After all your patronising/codescending statements and insults, you don't even know simple stuff like this. It speaks volumes about your level of education and worse still about the likelihood of you admitting this. I knew and understood this before I used AI to provide an answer for you. When given the answer that you still don't know, you just deny it!
EVERYONE on this forum knows why you cannot admit this one. The tiny little parabola between John Young's boots spells the end of the road for you. Time up = time down. The parabola is in free flight. There's no idiotic suction cup or magic vacuum - any honest, logical, critical thinking person can see it and see what it means.The role of air pressure contributes in a tiny way to the initial force. It's not some magic suction cup crap.
However - now I know for certain that you do not understand Newtonian physics.
Once the dust/sand is in flight it is independent of any initial force! How can you not know this!
You have so lost this debate and lack the "100% integrity" to 1) admit your mistakes 2) admit your lack of understanding and 3) concede the blindingly obvious.
Your "argument" is this:
1. You don't know why sand rises during a jump, therefore nobody does and everything they say must be wrong because it doesn't work for your claim. All attempts to explain it are met with your inept understanding of physics.
2. You claim it falls too fast when examples have been given for it dispersing rapidly sand against sand (grey against grey) making it harder to see.
3. You haven't even acknowledged the grainy nature of the Apollo video that reduces such post-jump visibility.
4. You haven't even acknowledged the clear moving dust shadow in front of Young as he falls or the faint but noticeable ground discolouration as he lands.
5. You continue to ignore Gene Cernan's jump where he is jumping forwards. The free flight wave rises to boot height. Time up= time down.
6. Your ridiculous hand waving reply to the marks where he lands simultaneously hitting the surface and you haven't even acknowledged that this occurs on the two previous jumps!
7. Your reply to the sideways boot flick is an absurd piece of hand waving. You claim the height of the wave would occur on Earth when you know, yes, you KNOW, that it is absurdly too high and too far.
8. The wave needs to be kicked with a sideways boot flick at >7m a second and it's a metre high. Where the hell is your reasoning here?
The bottom line is this - you're wrong, you know you're wrong but you have invested too much in this to concede these. They are game-over clips. They show low gravity and vacuum.