Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[Jason Thompson]

If you think the dust is going to far in this video - then it's also going to far for the moon, at 1/2 this speed.

No, that's a non-sequitur. For any given projectile, such as a regolith particle kicked up by a boot, on Earth its distance is affected by gravity and air resistance. Lower the former and remove the latter and the distance any object can travel given the same initial impulse is significantly increased. The fact it travels so far is actually evidence of low gravity and vacuum, conditions that are expected if this was shot on the Moon. That's physics. You know, that thing you claim to have such a great understanding of you can identify when stuff in Apollo breaks it?

[Mag40]

Now look at this 0.1 of a second later- the dust is all on the ground, while Cernan is still at his apex.

Wow, did you just do that? Completely ignoring the grey on grey making it harder to see! let's take a snapshot of that area before and during and see if the "dust is all on the ground":


No, it isn't.

LunarOrbit has sentenced me to unending debates with someone who doesn't understand physics.

Says the man who claims suction-cups/vacuum lifts the dirt and then suggests an attractive force is doing the lifting. You just cannot stop the snide comments. 

He might as well put me in a room with a 3 year old and tell me to debate Santa Claus until I concede that Santa is real.

The 3 year-old would win.
Not sure what your worse trait is, misguided arrogance, your persistent need to post snide comments or just your absurdly dishonest obfuscation. You will be the only one dishonest enough to claim they can't see this descending dust wave.

1. Tell everyone why you ignore the same splash marks on the two preceding jumps.

2. Then show this 100% integrity and tell us where the ground splatter has gone in the second John Young jump image!

What do you think this is?

Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet.  The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering.

Here is a screen-print from the second jump where Young's launch has virtually no displacement.


Splatter? What splatter? Where did it go?

Answer my post please!

[TimberWolfAu]

Otherwise he could have bent down the same as all the rest of the times they bent down.

Because the A-7L, and later A-7LB, was a pressurised suit, and so would resist bending (plus, it's thick, so it's literally getting in the way of itself). Even with the convolutes at the main areas of movement, as the suit bent, it would require more and more effort, especially as the resistance from the restraint cables would then kick in. The legs in particular, were difficult to get to bend at angles approaching 90°, the sort of angle you would need to kneel down and pick up an object. John Young damaged, and even broke, his training suit several times whilst performing the sort of manoeuvres seen in the clip, in order to bend the knees and hips enough to touch the ground. It's why, in order to reach an object lying flat on the ground, like a hammer or other tool, the astronauts would perform a small leap, in order to increase the amount of force they can apply to the legs of the suit, and bend them further. Even in the 'jump salutes' the astronaut only bends their knees to around 45°.

[LunarOrbit]

@LunarOrbit - since you are playing the Salem magistrate - holding me hostage to this thread forever and ever (or until I concede?).

Perhaps you can explain to me how my physics and physiology is factually flawed/wrong?

If we only have people debating something - and there is a unending disagreement -- what else is there to do?

You are forcing a situation that this thread cannot be ended until I concede.

Physics is not my area of expertise. All i can say is that it looks like the astronauts are in 1/6th gravity on the airless moon to me, and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

[najak]

#1: ...any object can travel given the same initial impulse is significantly increased.
#2: That's physics.

#1: If you just speed it to 2X, you'll see that the IMPULSE ALSO is DOUBLED.   And air impedance of rock-based sand/dust - for short distances at 15 mph, doesn't have much impact on the result during the 0.3 second trajectory.

#2: Yes, this is physics.  Do you disagree with #1?  It seems you missed this very crucial concept in your judgement.

[najak]

Physics is not my area of expertise. All i can say is that it looks like the astronauts are in 1/6th gravity on the airless moon to me, and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

Even MLH agrees with you -- Nearly 100% of what is presented to us at the frame rates presented accurately-enough (for 99% of human eyes) models the Lunar environment.  That was their intent, and all they needed to do, to keep people believing -- for 50+ yrs.

It's when you delve into the physics, that we see the "Equations/Laws are seemingly being broken"..   Fortunately for Apollo, this is a rare skillset among Americans, which prevents people from "seeing the breakage".

It's hard to emulate it "exactly" for so many hours in a row.  And so mess-ups are frequently -- but as we've seen, even these scattered mess-ups will not hinder the momentum of Apollo Faith -- because it's a "Great Story where everyone wins", especially for Americans.

===
For sake of my overall thesis - I'm willing to let this "sand falls to fast" argument drop to the bottom of my list.  Reduce it from "smoking gun" to something "harder to prove - too much chaos/ambiguities involved" -- due to the ambiguities over the various source evidence -- too many grains of sand in the air, and hard-to-prove conclusively "which grains should show on the video frames, vs. which ones could still be there even though non-visible on the video frame".

I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light.  We're just circling dead horses now.

[LunarOrbit]

Physics is not my area of expertise. All i can say is that it looks like the astronauts are in 1/6th gravity on the airless moon to me, and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

Even MLH agrees with you -- Nearly 100% of what is presented to us at the frame rates presented accurately-enough (for 99% of human eyes) models the Lunar environment.  That was their intent, and all they needed to do, to keep people believing -- for 50+ yrs.

And yet somehow you... and only you... are able to see through the hoax. 

It's when you delve into the physics, that we see the "Equations/Laws are seemingly being broken"..   Fortunately for Apollo, this is a rare skillset among Americans, which prevents people from "seeing the breakage".

There's that Najak arrogance again. Everyone is too stupid and/or blind to see what you see. Nobody in the last 50 years has had as much knowledge of physics as you do. All bow down to Najak's giant brain.

It's hard to emulate it "exactly" for so many hours in a row.  And so mess-ups are frequently -- but as we've seen, even these scattered mess-ups will not hinder the momentum of Apollo Faith -- because it's a "Great Story where everyone wins", especially for Americans.

Here's an idea... maybe it's you who is wrong, not everyone else.

I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light.  We're just circling dead horses now.

Nope. How many times do I have to tell you that you don't get to self-declare victory here?

[Mag40]

[I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light.  We're just circling dead horses now.

Stop lying! Post 180 details how appalling your answers have been. The following have systematically been evaded by you with no response or diversion.

It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video. 

1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif!
https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif

2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands!


3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".
https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif

4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in.

5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683

6. In that John Young gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif

7. You are the only one who can't see the Gene Cernan jump's wave of dust hitting the ground in a nice neat event! That is pure dishonest evasion.
https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif

8. Your insistence that somebody could kick a wave of dust 1.25m high at 7.22 m per second on Earth, with a sideways flick of their foot is so absurd it becomes pure evasive obfuscation.
https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif

I've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education.

[najak]

#1: And yet somehow you... and only you... are able to see through the hoax. 
#2: There's that Najak arrogance again. Everyone is too stupid and/or blind to see what you see. Nobody in the last 50 years has had as much knowledge of physics as you do. All bow down to Najak's giant brain.
#3: Here's an idea... maybe it's you who is wrong, not everyone else.
#4: Nope. How many times do I have to tell you that you don't get to self-declare victory here?

#1: There are plenty of us.  I didn't start to see it until a respected college buddy of mine explained why he thought it was a hoax, which got me thinking and took 2 years to START to sink in.

#2: Sure, I'm intellectually arrogant.   But no more than a body builder could be arrogant about him saying "I'm stronger than most."  Is this arrogance?  You are Apollogetically arrogant, looking down on any argument or person who believes differently about Apollo than you.   I'd rather most people simply believe "the truth" and that we have unbiased forums for such discussions.

#3: Yes, that's a good idea.  Maybe I'm wrong.  So let's keep discussing it in a forum without biased admin.  Until I get to "test my evidence" against scrutiny - how can we make a fair judgement?

#4: You've declared "defeat" for me unilaterally...  like a Salem Witch Trial magistrate.  No matter the arguments, you dismiss them and declare 100% uncontested victory for your side - even misrepresenting the true nature/content of the debate.

==
I've made some claims that are awaiting rebuttals.   The 8 Flag movements is one of them..   But you closed it out with a dishonest summation, not acknowledging, honestly the inability of Apollogists, so far, to present a viable comprehensive explanation for these 8 flag movements.

If your theory is so strong - you shouldn't be threatened by this Truth.   Your dishonesty, indicates that you come from a position of weakness, not strength.

[Jason Thompson]

If you just speed it to 2X, you'll see that the IMPULSE ALSO is DOUBLED.

No. If you double the speed the energy imparted is significantly more than doubled. If you can't understand why then perhaps your grasp of physics is not as good as you think.

And air impedance of rock-based sand/dust - for short distances at 15 mph, doesn't have much impact on the result during the 0.3 second trajectory.

No, air resistance and gravity are in play the very instant an object is in free flight. You cannot dismiss them. Air resistance may be small for a grain of regolith, but it also has a low mass. Since F=ma, a small mass only need a small force to effect significant acceleration. On the Moon, air resistance is zero, so there is nothing impeding its flight. Gravitational acceleration is perhaps the more significant factor but I notice you didn't mention that.

Dust kicked up on the Moon will travel further than dust kicked up on Earth because of the different environments. The fact that it appears to be travelling too far for dust kicked up on Earth is precisely what you would expect for dust kicked up on the Moon, and speeding up the footage does not produce equivalence. You cannot therefore say that if something is wrong for one it is also wrong for the other.

[najak]

If you just speed it to 2X, you'll see that the IMPULSE ALSO is DOUBLED.

No. If you double the speed the energy imparted is significantly more than doubled. If you can't understand why then perhaps your grasp of physics is not as good as you think.

Your statement is confused.  Yes it's 4x the Energy, but STILL only DOUBLE the IMPULSE.  Impulse is proportionate to MOMENTUM, not energy.  If you double the speed, the impulse is only doubled.  And the distance traveled will also double.   If you filmed something on earth, e.g. someone kicking sand, then simply played it back at 40% - it would almost EXACTLY look the same as on the moon -- except for the impact of atmosphere....

Air resistance is an acceleration force, and so it's overall impact on distance is a function of Time-Squared - but on earth, the dust travels to it's destination in 0.3 seconds total, and so the T-squared factor at the termination of the motion is 0.09.  It doesn't have much time to have much impact on the final distance.

With Dust, the matter of figuring air resistance is trickier, because it's a cloud of dust -- the front particles break wind for the back particles.... so the back particles experience less resistance.

For the dust to travel 2 meters in 0.3 seconds, the average speed only needs to be about 6.7 m/sec or about 15 mph (4 minute mile pace, not even a sprint).  Nothing about this is "non-feasible" for Duke to kick this dust 2 meters. 

You are welcome to do some image analysis here, to try and prove your point.

Your misunderstanding of the relationship between Impulse and Speed - indicates you don't have the grasp on physics that you thought.

[Jason Thompson]

Your statement is confused.  Yes it's 4x the Energy, but STILL only DOUBLE the IMPULSE.  Impulse is proportionate to MOMENTUM, not energy.

I stand corrected.

Air resistance is an acceleration force, and so it's overall impact on distance is a function of Time-Squared - but on earth, the dust travels to it's destination in 0.3 seconds total, and so the T-squared factor at the termination of the motion is 0.09.  It doesn't have much time to have much impact on the final distance.

It acts for the same time as gravity. It's an acceleration just as gravity is. I don't see how you can discount one but not the other on that basis. It's a force that can't just be ignored, because it is present in one environment and not the other. Yes, no doubt it is small. However, so are the particles it acts on.

[najak]

It acts for the same time as gravity. It's an acceleration just as gravity is. I don't see how you can discount one but not the other on that basis. It's a force that can't just be ignored, because it is present in one environment and not the other. Yes, no doubt it is small. However, so are the particles it acts on.

Correct - same time as gravity.   The highest dust is under 1 foot off the ground.  So if the average deceleration from air impedance matched gravity during this time - then it would have a TOTAL impact of reducing the final distance by 1 ft, so instead of going 7.5' it went 6.5'...   Given we're dealing with a cloud particles smaller than the resolution of the camera -  this "14% unexpected variation" is hard to even show...  We aren't dealing with a rigid-well-defined singular object.  Here we have about a million dust particles of various sizes, where the front ones get more resistance than the ones trailing...  lots and lots of particles, chaos, and variation.

ALSO - yes the particles are small-- but the air resistance ALSO reduces per particle based on it's size.   Even play sand, very fine, has a terminal velocity of about 6 m/sec...  But within a cloud -- the leading dust experiences this full resistance, while the trailing dust benefits from being drafted along -- to some degree.

Because of this, I've decided to declare this whole "Sand Falls too Fast" point as "hard to prove - too much ambiguity and chaos".  Even though I still clearly see a "cloud of dust at boot level, close to the camera - fall way faster than Duke...  I'll drop this - because I'm not able to point to specific reference objects... it's a cloud".

I dropped a point that has a LOT LESS AMBIGUITY than the point you are trying to make (14% variation is your point, where as mine was 100%+ variance) .

Shall we drop this, so that we can move on?

[Mag40]

Post 217 @najak. You make this noise about JayUtah not being here for a few days, but you're here and still deliberately avoiding things. 
The now expired gif in that post is from here, watch full screen:

Where is the splatter on the John Young image? Some bloody integrity you've got!

[najak]

Where is the splatter on the John Young image? Some bloody integrity you've got!

Try to explain your hypothesis in better detail.  Are you saying that all of the sand Cernan kicked forward also had an upward velocity that approximately matched Cernan?  There was no added vertical velocity from the launching of dust?   If it wasn't "match Cernan's upward velocity" - you have no proof.  Learn physics and logic, or please quit your rather pointless repetitive weary barking.

Also are you saying that dust flung horizontally at a high velocity doesn't scuttle, bounce or roll?  It's just lands and stick on first impact?

There is a lot of chaos involved here -- LOTS of ambiguity.  You don't seem to realize this.

It's like you are pointing up to the clouds and saying "Look at that dragon... it's definitely a dragon.  It's clear, it's fact."  And you simply cannot see that there are ambiguities involved, due to the chaos of the large variance in dust launch velocities from the onset.

Show me a more complete science proof.  I'm not even sensing our capacity to do this.