Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[Mag40]

Great.. the adhesion force continues to on the sand as the boot rises.

Somewhat, certainly not with the slam-dunk little parabola that sends you packing.

As layers fall off, it creates this filled-volume.  All the way to the top.

I'm reading the words typed by a "smart" physicist and trying not to laugh. The layers "fall off"? By what mechanism? It's completely irrelevant anyway.

The dust that falls off last, makes it to the peak -- CARRIED BY ADHESION.

Right, so you basically have no idea what free flight is then? When the dust is off the ground there is no force acting on it to make it go higher. If you say adhesion is doing this you are talking complete bollocks. Adhesion may well clump things together and assist in increasing the volume of matter that follows the jumper. But adhesion is an attractive force. The particles attract to stuff above and below.

I always suspected you were bluffing but that last post just confirmed it. You don't know what you are talking about.

Everyone on the forum should read what you just typed.

[Mag40]

The parabola is in free flight, how can you not know this!

Everything else you are typing is evading this.

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 over a metre high. Where the hell is your reasoning here?
Source video:

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.

Your repeated failure to answer things addressed to you is deliberate. You are out of your depth.
Three simple demonstrations of lunar gravity and vacuum and your replies are absurd.

[najak]

Adhesion it is.
</thread>

[Mag40]

Adhesion it is.
</thread>

I'm afraid your goose is cooked. With every post you make on this little piece of footage you show how little you understand physics. And look at you wanting to close this "sand too fast" thread when you get your arse handed to you.

Adhesion is fine, it's what clumps the dust or sand together - it isn't a propelling force, it is an attractive force. It isn't the thing that lifts, it is the thing that makes more of the dust lift.

How can you not know this?

If you think this thread is going away you really have underestimated my resolve. I don't take kindly to misplaced arrogance from people who think they know better, when they prove within a few posts that they don't.

The post you made at the top of the page is not even entry-level Newtonian physics.

When things rise off the surface not connected to anything they are in free flight.

How can you not know this?

Your truly daft suggestion that adhesion is doing some sort of anti-gravity thingy is one of the dumbest things I've read on this subject.

And sadly for you it's there for all to see.

Now, suppose you start playing the 100% integrity card :

1. Provably, both my volleyball videos show the sand "falling too fast" or the reality, sand against sand, difficult to see and dispersing!? Admit it now please.

2. You've already conceded the parabola goes up to boot level, before you understood the implication, so no need to confirm that.

3. You've already confirmed the same for Cernan.

4. Can you see the shadow of the dust dispersal on the Young jump? Can you?

5. Can you see the slight ground discolouration as he lands? Again, can you?

6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.

7. The main tenet of this thread is based on your inability to see grey regolith dispersing against grey regolith on grainy early-70s video! That is an absurd point of view for any scientist to start from.

8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together

I do not believe you don't get the significance of these clips. They prove that the footage must be in low gravity, all 3 of them. The continued absence of dust suspension in every single piece of EVA with astronauts, that shows clearly fine dust being kicked huge distances is, in itself, more than enough for any credible physicist to understand it is lower gravity and  vacuum.

[najak]

...

Adhesion is a "pulling force" for the dust that gets released near the top of the arc.  So the majority of the journey from ground to top, was carried by adhesion forces -- the sand WANTING TO FALL SOONER, but adhesion held on to it forcing it to travel along with the boot of the astronaut.

We should meet somewhere where you aren't within your safety zone echo chamber.  Let's go to a Physics forum... where they aren't influenced by the Apollo context -- but simply enjoy the Physics of it all.  I don't believe they'll be agreeing with your logic, and will wonder why you can't seem to understand the concepts I've repeatedly explained to you.

I get it -- you feel the same way.  You think you are espousing "true physics concepts correctly in context" and that it's me who is being the idiot.    Let's settle this within a neutral context, with a physics focus.

[Mag40]

Adhesion is a "pulling force" for the dust that gets released near the top of the arc.

Nope. The soil it is "pulling" up is "pulling" it down.

How the hell can you not know this!

So the majority of the journey from ground to top, was carried by adhesion forces -- the sand WANTING TO FALL SOONER, but adhesion held on to it forcing it to travel along with the boot of the astronaut.

This is just crazy gobbledygook.

We should meet somewhere where you aren't within your safety zone echo chamber.  Let's go to a Physics forum... where they aren't influenced by the Apollo context -- but simply enjoy the Physics of it all.  I don't believe they'll be agreeing with your logic, and will wonder why you can't seem to understand the concepts I've repeatedly explained to you.

You should just go back to your high school and ask for more tuition!

I get it -- you feel the same way.  You think you are espousing "true physics concepts correctly in context" and that it's me who is being the idiot.    Let's settle this within a neutral context, with a physics focus.

It's settled already. The parabola is in free-flight, you're talking complete bollocks and running away from a large list of issues. I don't feel the same way as you. I know you are flanneling because the implication closes the case, it ends completely the question of where they are. Low gravity, lunar surface.

[najak]

How the hell can you not know this!

That's how adhesion works -- as gravity tries to pull it off of the boot, adhesion "resists" by countering gravity -- pulls up... until it separates, which happens one layer at a time.. until it's all off of the boot.

How the hell can you NOT know this?

You agreed that Adhesion is a primary force causing the dust to rise with the boot.  And this is the conclusion that naturally follows.

[Mag40]

That's how adhesion works -- as gravity tries to pull it off of the boot, adhesion "resists" by countering gravity -- pulls up... until it separates, which happens one layer at a time.. until it's all off of the boot.

This is probably the daftest crap anyone has attempted to foist on me. Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.

How the hell can you NOT know this?

I know that you are flannelling in the worst way possible.

You agreed that Adhesion is a primary force causing the dust to rise with the boot.

No you liar. I agreed the descriptions about it were accurate as part of the jump. I am positive you skewed the results by asking specifically about it.  It is NOT the primary force in any way. It is merely an attractive force between particles. It doesn't eject things upwards!

And this is the conclusion that naturally follows.

This is the diversion that comes form someone who has no understanding of Newtonian physics.

The little parabola is in independent flight. You have nowhere to go and are just digging a big hole of dumb statements.

Rather than offer refutations to this below, you opted for "I don't know"! Now we're being treated to the biggest load of bollocks possible.

How about we ask AI?

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

[najak]

...

How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?

You wrote: "It is merely an attractive force between particles."...

Correct: Top layer of dust sticks to the boot (entrenched in the treads) - the next layer sticks to this dust stuck to the boot, and so on.

As you said it's an "Attractive Force" - which in this case will be an Upward force -- pulling the dust upwards to stay stuck to the boot - for a short period of time.  During that time, it exerts this force that you recognized.

I get that you won't accept any conclusion that implies your precious Apollo was not real.  This is also how religions work.

Lets be done here with THIS TOPIC.   We'll just have to agree to disagree -- which is normal in a debate.  When's the last time you watched a "televised debate" and one of the debaters caved and agreed with the other??

Likewise, we shouldn't be surprised when the end result of a thread between MLH and Apollogist is "continued Disagreement".

However, in the process, I now understand the nature of the opposing views much better.  And Readers of this thread can now decide for themselves which side of the debate seems more compelling.

That's the nature of debates.   Time to end this thread, and move on.

[bknight]

I've played the "revision game" with AI too - and have been able to get it to say stuff that agrees with me.   What I just typed in the simple question "why does sand ruse

Since you want Google AI to be the source, here it is:

Google AI, "why does sand rise with your boot when you jump?"

And it answered:
"When you jump, you create a sudden downward force on the sand. This force pushes the sand grains apart, creating small pockets of air between them. As you leave the ground, the air pressure beneath your boot increases, forcing the sand grains upwards into these pockets. This upward force is what causes the sand to rise with your boot."

Air pressure is the answer.

OR -- Google AI is not a good place for conclusions.

This was FIRST TRY -- I didn't need to give it suggestions or hints at the answer I was looking for - this is what Google AI thinks, in it's immense wisdom.

So, immediately you jumped and substituted vacuum for air to derive your first idea.  This truly shows how little you know about this subject.  My best advice to you is to man up and concede defeat, move onto other threads.

[Mag40]

How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?

The horse isn't dead, only your integrity is. You claim you understand physics and are repeating once more this absurd sticky sand and ignoring clear rebuttal to it!

You wrote: "It is merely an attractive force between particles."...

I also wrote this:
Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.

Correct:

Is this guy suggesting he knows what he is talking about now?

Top layer of dust sticks to the boot (entrenched in the treads) - the next layer sticks to this dust stuck to the boot, and so on.

That is some seriously dumb HB "physics". It is extremely irrelevant given what we are actually seeing. The "next layer" is attracting the layer above downwards in the same way it is attracted upwards. There is NO propelling force here.

Oh the irrelevant bit?

The bloody parabola isn't doing any of that, it is in independent flight with no force acting on it except gravity.

As you said it's an "Attractive Force" - which in this case will be an Upward force

Bollocks. In this case it will be a force pulling in all directions and once off of the ground subject only to gravity. What brainless world do you keep suggesting it is upwards?

pulling the dust upwards to stay stuck to the boot

And equally being pulled the other way by dust below.

for a short period of time.

The adhesive force is an attractive force within the dust, independent of the force that caused it to rise - already identified.

During that time, it exerts this force that you recognized.

Recognized as an attractive force that is in independent flight!

I get that you won't accept any conclusion that implies your precious Apollo was not real.  This is also how religions work.

Your pathetic comparisons with religion again? This is not about my "precious Apollo" is is about getting somebody to understand their repetitive physics blunders. I am positive you understand and are just doing this to avoid concession.

Lets be done here with THIS TOPIC.   We'll just have to agree to disagree -- which is normal in a debate.  When's the last time you watched a "televised debate" and one of the debaters caved and agreed with the other??

You want to cowardly skulk away without acknowledging the obvious.

However, in the process, I now understand the nature of the opposing views much better.  And Readers of this thread can now decide for themselves which side of the debate seems more compelling.

You have demonstrated that you will do anything, post any old bollocks rather than admit something that, all on its own, proves they are in low gravity.

There are numerous points raised that you have weaselled out of answering.
How about we ask AI?

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

[Mag40]

So, immediately you jumped and substituted vacuum for air to derive your first idea.  This truly shows how little you know about this subject.  My best advice to you is to man up and concede defeat, move onto other threads.

He cannot concede defeat, that is the problem. By conceding the totally obvious, it proves low gravity and just that one clip is game over.

Young can be measured and has been many times to be moving close enough to lunar freefall. Since the dust parabola must also be doing this, the footage needs to be speeded up by 245% to equate to terrestrial freefall. That is an irrefutable fact.

[Mag40]

Adhesion it is.
</thread>

I'm afraid your goose is cooked. With every post you make on this little piece of footage you show how little you understand physics. And look at you wanting to close this "sand too fast" thread when you get your arse handed to you.

Adhesion is fine, it's what clumps the dust or sand together - it isn't a propelling force, it is an attractive force. It isn't the thing that lifts, it is the thing that makes more of the dust lift.

How can you not know this?

If you think this thread is going away you really have underestimated my resolve. I don't take kindly to misplaced arrogance from people who think they know better, when they prove within a few posts that they don't.

The post you made at the top of the page is not even entry-level Newtonian physics.

When things rise off the surface not connected to anything they are in free flight.

How can you not know this?

Your truly daft suggestion that adhesion is doing some sort of anti-gravity thingy is one of the dumbest things I've read on this subject.

And sadly for you it's there for all to see.

Now, suppose you start playing the 100% integrity card :

1. Provably, both my volleyball videos show the sand "falling too fast" or the reality, sand against sand, difficult to see and dispersing!? Admit it now please.

2. You've already conceded the parabola goes up to boot level, before you understood the implication, so no need to confirm that.

3. You've already confirmed the same for Cernan.

4. Can you see the shadow of the dust dispersal on the Young jump? Can you?

5. Can you see the slight ground discolouration as he lands? Again, can you?

6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.

7. The main tenet of this thread is based on your inability to see grey regolith dispersing against grey regolith on grainy early-70s video! That is an absurd point of view for any scientist to start from.

8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together

I do not believe you don't get the significance of these clips. They prove that the footage must be in low gravity, all 3 of them. The continued absence of dust suspension in every single piece of EVA with astronauts, that shows clearly fine dust being kicked huge distances is, in itself, more than enough for any credible physicist to understand it is lower gravity and  vacuum.

The horse is dead when the website owner says it is. If you lack the balls to admit the obvious, that's not my problem. You can flounce, but everyone on this forum will know what you are about.

6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.


8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together
Actual lunar speed!

Adjusted 245%

[najak]

Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.

I've already agreed that static-friction is one of the contributors to "adhesion".  But if the "Adhesive forces" do not STOP AT LIFTOFF -- then they continue to provide upward force, AS THE BOOT RISES -- this is no longer "simple projectile math"...

For the Young dust between the feet - You've already seen that from the VERY START there is a cloud of dust that STARTS HIGHER THAN THE BOOT BOTTOM... this means it was launched at a "higher velocity" which is EXPECTED to rise high.   With 2 gravities, this can instead result in SAME height.   This is not apples-to-apples comparison....   because we're dealing with higher velocity projectiles.

Also to note, the scant/thin nature of the dust (that only shows up on the NON-NASA footage) - let's assume it's actually there -- lighter dust is known to "linger in the air" ... and so is another potential sign of an atmosphere.

The part that remains unexplained is "why does dust that rises to the level of the boot bottom fall so much faster??"

Your answer for Young was "it disperses quickly" -- and so I introduced the Side-Leaping example, where the dust is thick and CLOSE-- but goes from THICK to GONE - as it falls to the ground.  I don't think dispersion at the rate you are proposing is reasonable.  I'll note your hypothesis and objections in my document.

We've been THROUGH THIS -- we are beating the dead horse.

Next step - Agree to Disagree.  Move on.   We've both presented our points, and we disagree.   Happens everyday.

[bknight]

Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.

I've already agreed that static-friction is one of the contributors to "adhesion".  But if the "Adhesive forces" do not STOP AT LIFTOFF -- then they continue to provide upward force, AS THE BOOT RISES -- this is no longer "simple projectile math"...

For the Young dust between the feet - You've already seen that from the VERY START there is a cloud of dust that STARTS HIGHER THAN THE BOOT BOTTOM... this means it was launched at a "higher velocity" which is EXPECTED to rise high.   With 2 gravities, this can instead result in SAME height.   This is not apples-to-apples comparison....   because we're dealing with higher velocity projectiles.

Also to note, the scant/thin nature of the dust (that only shows up on the NON-NASA footage) - let's assume it's actually there -- lighter dust is known to "linger in the air" ... and so is another potential sign of an atmosphere.

The part that remains unexplained is "why does dust that rises to the level of the boot bottom fall so much faster??"

Your answer for Young was "it disperses quickly" -- and so I introduced the Side-Leaping example, where the dust is thick and CLOSE-- but goes from THICK to GONE - as it falls to the ground.  I don't think dispersion at the rate you are proposing is reasonable.  I'll note your hypothesis and objections in my document.

We've been THROUGH THIS -- we are beating the dead horse.

Next step - Agree to Disagree.  Move on.   We've both presented our points, and we disagree.   Happens everyday.

However, you are the accuser and thusly bears the burden of truth.  You need to prove your contentions, just repeating them over and over is not sufficient proof.