Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[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%

The 100% no integrity responses continue as you run away from the entire content of my post.

What physicist thinks adhesion is some propellant force? The dust sticking to his boot isn't being propelled. You quote my statement showing your claim to be false and you just don't acknowledge it

Answer this, point for point and address the things you keep running away from.

[najak]

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.

I've presented my case that for ONE FOOTAGE EXAMPLE (the leaping astronaut) "the dust falls faster than the astronaut" - that's it.   I will note the counter-claim that "it just dissipated that fast", but I don't find that plausible because of how close we are, and how much dust there is.   Both cases have been presented fully.

Now just let the Readers can decide.   Are you scared they won't side with you?

This topic has come to completion.

[Mag40]

I've presented my case that for ONE FOOTAGE EXAMPLE (the leaping astronaut) "the dust falls faster than the astronaut" - that's it.   I will note the counter-claim that "it just dissipated that fast", but I don't find that plausible because of how close we are, and how much dust there is.   Both cases have been presented fully.

You lie. You have evaded rebuttal and come up with nonsensical "physics" to hand wave away evidence. I also am convinced you doctored your AI response, having typed that exact phrase in 20 times I have not got anything to even come close to it.

The dust "not being visible" and you continue to cowardly evade the points I raised concerning this. Points 4/5 in that list + grainy grey on grey video.

Are you scared they won't side with you?

How do you figure they'll let us know?

This topic has come to completion.

Run away. Typical HB behaviour. I can't force you to answer the large post of mine just above, but if you are here for the reasons you claim, I shouldn't bloody well have to!

[bknight]

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.

I've presented my case that for ONE FOOTAGE EXAMPLE (the leaping astronaut) "the dust falls faster than the astronaut" - that's it.   I will note the counter-claim that "it just dissipated that fast", but I don't find that plausible because of how close we are, and how much dust there is.   Both cases have been presented fully.

Now just let the Readers can decide.   Are you scared they won't side with you?

This topic has come to completion.

How did you measure that?  Because the regolith touched the ground first?, Weli some of the regolith departed the boot early, some later and finally the last.  The earlier regolith will most assuredly hit the surface prior to the astronaut.  Simple physics time up = time down.  Or hadn't you considered that?

[najak]

How did you measure that?  Because the regolith touched the ground first?, Weli some of the regolith departed the boot early, some later and finally the last.  The earlier regolith will most assuredly hit the surface prior to the astronaut.  Simple physics time up = time down.  Or hadn't you considered that?

My concern is that the dust that was JUST BENEATH THE BOOT, at the top of the apex.... ALSO disappears very quickly.

There is also a HUGE chunk of dust that only makes it up half-way -- yet still is as high as his right-boot, but falls way quicker than his Center of Mass, or the right foot.

Downloading the MP4 and viewing with Media Player - is a good way to step through this.

Projectile Parabola math, dictates that it wakes about 71% of the time to fall HALF the distance.

At frame 12 you can see this mass of half-height dust... at least even with his right foot.  By frame 17 it's already on the ground, while the astronauts center-of-mass (body) don't hit reach ground level until frame 25....   So this dust fell in 5 frames, vs. 13 frames, which equates to the 2.6x faster...

[najak]

Run away. Typical HB behaviour. I can't force you to answer the large post of mine just above, but if you are here for the reasons you claim, I shouldn't bloody well have to!

There is nothing more to present here.  We are simply RE-PRESENTING THE EXACT SAME ARGMENTS -- repeatedly.    This specific topic is has reached it's terminal phase.

[Mag40]

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]

...

Write me up something that you'd like to appear in the KB document as your rebuttal, and I can include it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing

[Mag40]

...

Write me up something that you'd like to appear in the KB document as your rebuttal, and I can include it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing

OK, " The owner of this document doesn't understand physics. They have equated a non-propelling force involving boot adhesion to an example of free-flight that clearly has none of that. They refuse to address this because it proves the footage is in lower gravity.

A half dozen times, they have ignored significant statements and questions:

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 post at the top of this page has not had any credible reply - most of it has been simply ignored.

[Mag40]

Najak, the forum can see you weaselling out of answering these points, whilst you studiously stick to your stupid strawman about adhesion. The parabola is not near his boot, not sticking to anything and is in free independent flight.

Your worst claim is that you are going to show 100% integrity, when you are showing close to zero. Every point raised is resulting in your scant refusal to accept it under any circumstances

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. Itemised at the top of this page.

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.

[Mag40]

My debate time with you is a lot like time spent with an old friend of mine, who didn't do so well in school, but he was convinced that I was boneheaded for telling him my reasons for not accepting the Bible as God's One True Word.   No matter what I said, I was "boneheaded".  It was fruitless.

Keep your snidey inaccurate crap to yourself. You are running away from evidence that disproves your whole position.

#1: Only on earth can the "suction" force add to the "adhesion"... Suction vs. propulsion produces the same result - in cases like this, is easier on the brain to simply deal with suction/adhesion as a "pulling force"...

What a load of old bollocks. Adhesion is a multi-direction attractive force. There is virtually zero "suction" - your dumb water analogy lifts virtually no water ( a far denser material). Your insistence on stating this inept strawman is diversion, given that the parabola is nowhere near the sole of his boot.

#2: On earth, where astronaut is being partially lifted by a cable, while the dust is not -- Therefore, on earth, the dust is trying to fall away from the boot the WHOLE TIME -- but if adhesion holds it tight, this force is "pulling it" along AFTER Launch - -therefore not a plain/vanilla parabola.

Blah, blah, blah. The parabola is not near the sole of his boot.

#3: For John Young's case, IF we assume that the video you have is legit (given that it does NOT match that of the one NASA links to) -- we HAVE OBVIOUS PROOF that at the START of the jump, there is a thick cloud of dust that is LEADING THE BOOT -- it was LAUNCHED FASTER....  so it would be expected to rise more.  The other factor at work, if on earth, is atmosphere... perhaps the reason that it's so faint (and NOT VISIBLE AT ALL ON THE NASA LINK) -- is that it's just the lighter/smaller dust particles!... this too can only happen on Earth.

It's on every single version of this event, notably on the HB Bible film by David Percy! The obvious, visible parabola is not faint, very distinctive and rises in a smooth and synchronised motion with the jumper.

Footage   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59stz-Qe7Lw

This is from page 1 - his own link!

[onebigmonkey]

I've copied najak's post from the thread where LunarOriber asks it be discussed in the correct one:

#1: Only on earth can the "suction" force add to the "adhesion"... Suction vs. propulsion produces the same result - in cases like this, is easier on the brain to simply deal with suction/adhesion as a "pulling force"...

#2: On earth, where astronaut is being partially lifted by a cable, while the dust is not -- Therefore, on earth, the dust is trying to fall away from the boot the WHOLE TIME -- but if adhesion holds it tight, this force is "pulling it" along AFTER Launch - -therefore not a plain/vanilla parabola.

#3: For John Young's case, IF we assume that the video you have is legit (given that it does NOT match that of the one NASA links to) -- we HAVE OBVIOUS PROOF that at the START of the jump, there is a thick cloud of dust that is LEADING THE BOOT -- it was LAUNCHED FASTER....  so it would be expected to rise more.  The other factor at work, if on earth, is atmosphere... perhaps the reason that it's so faint (and NOT VISIBLE AT ALL ON THE NASA LINK) -- is that it's just the lighter/smaller dust particles!... this too can only happen on Earth.

Small particles in Earth are more likely to be affected by atmoshpere: their movement will be impeded more effectively and would be dispersed by that resistance. We do not see that in the Apollo footage. Ever. There are no billowing clouds. Ever.

You have focused exclusively on the upward trajectory of particles, whose size you do not know and whose relation to the front of Young's boot you also do not know, and conveniently ignored the dispersal of material as Young approaches the spot where he jumps, and also by Duke as he moves into position. You need to explain where the film set is, who crewed it, where the alleged harnesses were attached and who operated them, and how the live broadcast of this EVA showed a correct view of Earth.

You are also making a big deal out of the fact that different video resolutions of the live TV exist for the same event when it means nothing. Use whichever source is best.

[najak]

#1: There are no billowing clouds. Ever.
#2: You have focused exclusively on the upward trajectory of particles...
#3: You are also making a big deal out of the fact that different video resolutions....

#1: ... that we notice.  Just as they said "there are no signs of dust, or we'd know it was filmed!" - but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce.   The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".

#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS....  I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall.   And I switched my main case over the CLOSE-UP of an astronaut jumping sideways, so that we could better witness/verify that the Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.

#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.

The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there?  Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust?  And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?

The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.

[Mag40]

#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS....  I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. 

Oh, poor you having to defend counter claims! Now quit with this cowardly evasion, posts 143-145

[najak]

#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS....  I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. 

Oh, poor you having to defend counter claims! Now quit with this cowardly evasion, posts 143-145

Those have been answered many times already.  We disagree.  Without a neutral physics nerd to weigh in - there's simply nothing else to say.  I've agreed to include your responses as "the best that Apollogists can muster" in their defense.  So your words/defense will reach my readers/audience as well.  I don't think your arguments hold water - because I've debunked them cleanly.   But you seem incapable of realizing it.