Hoax? - Apollo 12 Lunar Rendezvous, Dish Falls with Gravity

[najak]

But make no mistake, the LM depressurization moved the flag.

If this stood alone, I could possibly agree.   This is what "breaking physics" looks like.  We should shop this around to the smartest minds in the world, and see what they can come up with. So far, we got ZILCH.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

But make no mistake, the LM depressurization moved the flag.

If this stood alone, I could possibly agree.   This is what "breaking physics" looks like.  We should shop this around to the smartest minds in the world, and see what they can come up with. So far, we got ZILCH.

This isn't what "breaking physics" looks like. The flag was acted on by moving gas from a depressurizing LM. That is physics. The movements only occur during depressurization events, which leaves that as the only viable cause.

Your problem is you assume you know what that should look like, and your faith in your own knowledge is badly misplaced.

I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.

[onebigmonkey]

This is off topic, but I can't let these go unanswered:

Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous.  Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.

Simply not true.

2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo),

Not true, it was reported.

15' deep unconsolidated regolith.

Citation required and (you'll be amazed to hear this}, material depth has been known to vary.

Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??

Yes. There was.

3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).

No sound was transmitted in a vacuum. Plenty of sounds were transmitted via solid objects (including the ground) to the astronaut's suit microphones.

4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear.  This one deserves it's own thread.

I've lost track of what you mean by POC, but you'll need to demonstrate that the 'auto-pilot/balancing tech' disappeared. Apollo guidance technology merely advanced existing techniques for targetting ballistic missiles. It was tested, it worked. It continues to work in its modern descendents.

[TimberWolfAu]

HB Remix Volume XXXXXXXXX

It's like a greatest hits compilation of HB claims, how original our new friend is.

The bit I find interesting, there are plenty of well educated scientists and professors out there, quite happy to discuss their research, especially when it relates to these areas.

On the sound one, I bounced an idea of a professor from the UK (found a paper on theirs about sound in space), which was basically the sound of hammering transmitting via either directly via the glove/suit or through the ground then suit, since sound is a mechanical wave, went a bit like this;

"Essentially, assuming the box is a vacuum (or extremely low pressure, such as space for example), object A would be struck and the vibrations would travel down, across, and back up to B, which could be a pressurised ball containing water for example. I would expect to see a ripple/disturbance on the water, kind of like the scene from Jurassic Park where the water in the cups ripples from the approaching T-Rex footsteps.
If object B contained something that could interpret those vibrations as sound (microphone, actual person's ear or such), then would we expect to hear the sound of object A being struck? I think we would, although I would expect the sound to be muted or changed in some way due to travelling through the other mediums rather than the 'pure' air that might otherwise be there (if this analogy makes sense). Naturally, I imagine the actual composition of the surfaces, the force being used on object A and variables of that sort would impact the final result."

Response;

"It's just standard physics actually. Sound waves travel through objects. So what you describe is correct. You could feel the vibrations of the sound waves by touching the object but to hear them you'd either have to be in contact with the object or there would have to be some sort of atmosphere in the gap."


I'd love to build something like this, but out of my reach though.

[najak]

I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.

@JayUTAH should know this in detail.  So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."

I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts.  (thermo and fluid dynamics)   Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?

This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess.  He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.

[onebigmonkey]

I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.

@JayUTAH should know this in detail.  So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."

I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts.  (thermo and fluid dynamics)   Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?

This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess.  He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.

Your first problem here is that you have decided that you're the one who gets to dictate what is viable, and you're not.

Your second problem is that it isn't up to you whether Jay bothers to spend his time replying to you. You should not infer that his lack of will to pander to your demands is approval of your stance. It's far more likely that he just can't be arsed with you.

[Jason Thompson]

@JayUTAH should know this in detail.

Should he? Why?

So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."

You can but that won't carry any weight. You have singled one out who may or may not be able to answer your question, but that doesn't mean the answer is not known to anyone. And in any case, your ongoing inability to separate what is viable from what you can understand or will accept remains a huge problem in your conclusions.

I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts.  (thermo and fluid dynamics)

Except you have argued with such people at every turn. It took you pages upon pages of guff to finally understand that rockets don't balance on their thrust.

This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess.  He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.

No, you are not in a position to decide if the problem is simple and what the viable possibilities are that may need to be assessed. You cannot in one post say both that you will accept the responses from those more experienced than you in the subject AND dictate that it must be simple for them. Plenty of people have already told you that the problems you're arguing are not as simple as you want them to be but you continue to argue.

[Zakalwe]

I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.

@JayUTAH should know this in detail.  So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."

I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts.  (thermo and fluid dynamics)   Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?

This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess.  He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.

Despite being warned several times, it's clear that you haven't dropped your obsession with Jay.

Also, look up the logical fallacy of Appeal From Authority.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts.  (thermo and fluid dynamics)

Would you though? You're on the record here over and over arguing with rocket scientists about their field. You're on the record here over and over insisting that scientists and engineers with more experience than you have were wrong in the way they developed the LM, for no better reason than it isn't the way you would have done it. There is zero indication that you would rely on someone else's expertise when it contradicts your preconceived notions, gladly or otherwise.

Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?[/b]

Do whatever you want. The question is answered to my satisfaction. Once you accept that the LM depressurization is responsible, the actual mechanics of what happened are inconsequential beyond just satisfying curiosity. But shop it to whoever you want, what's stopping you and why do you think you need other people to be on board with you?