At sceptimatic's request...

  • 678 Replies
  • 129168 Views
?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #150 on: February 24, 2014, 01:04:05 PM »
I still do not understand how on the moon a man will fall at a slower rate than here on earth and dust will fall at a faster rate on the moon than it does on earth.
I reckon you guy's are taking the piss.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #151 on: February 24, 2014, 01:18:59 PM »
I still do not understand how on the moon a man will fall at a slower rate than here on earth and dust will fall at a faster rate on the moon than it does on earth.
I reckon you guy's are taking the piss.
Like I said on the previous page.  Mass, and the weak force trying to accelerate it.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #152 on: February 24, 2014, 01:42:59 PM »
You do realise that when I watch one video of the moon with dust dropping at a much, much, much faster rate than it would on earth, then watch another video with men bouncing and floating around becoming lighter and you say this is what happens on the moon I can only assume you are taking the piss or delusional.

*

glokta

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #153 on: February 24, 2014, 01:49:41 PM »
You do realise that when I watch one video of the moon with dust dropping at a much, much, much faster rate than it would on earth, then watch another video with men bouncing and floating around becoming lighter and you say this is what happens on the moon I can only assume you are taking the piss or delusional.
Can you post up a video to draw a comparison from? I would be interested in looking into this too.
Quote from: sceptimatic
Use your brain. There is no sun in space. You are simply duped.

*

glokta

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #154 on: February 24, 2014, 01:51:43 PM »
Oh and not that I am suggesting you are ignoring it but -
Quote
would you admit that your "lunar rover still stowed on lem" photo was
proven wrong? We can agree the
second photo of tyre tracks cant be
proven one way or the other. If you
can admit the first photo has been
debunked it would prove you are not brainwashed after all and we can
move on in this debate.
Quote from: sceptimatic
Use your brain. There is no sun in space. You are simply duped.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #155 on: February 24, 2014, 02:31:24 PM »
You do realise that when I watch one video of the moon with dust dropping at a much, much, much faster rate than it would on earth, then watch another video with men bouncing and floating around becoming lighter and you say this is what happens on the moon I can only assume you are taking the piss or delusional.

Get a small BB and a glass of water. Drop the BB on the table/bench. Pick it back up. Drop it in the glass of water. Notice that it falls slower through the water. This is a very basic approximation of what is happening with dust on the moon (the BB dropped in air), and dust on earth (the BB dropped in water). Air resistance will slow small, light objects such as dust particles quite drastically. Make sure you watch the vacuum tube video posted earlier, it helps explain this too.

Oh, and as for the astronauts being lighter and bouncing about, this is due to the reduced gravity. Not as easy to demonstrate on earth unless you have access to a vomit comet. :)

Now, you are probably still thinking "but how can the reduced gravity make the dust fall so much faster than it does on earth?" Well, I'll say it again: air resistance. It really slows it down a lot on earth, but there is no air on the moon to slow the dust, so it just drops at the same rate as a large stone would in the same environment which, if you take notice, is a good bit slower than a large stone falls on earth.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #156 on: February 24, 2014, 02:38:39 PM »
You do realise that when I watch one video of the moon with dust dropping at a much, much, much faster rate than it would on earth, then watch another video with men bouncing and floating around becoming lighter and you say this is what happens on the moon I can only assume you are taking the piss or delusional.
Can you post up a video to draw a comparison from? I would be interested in looking into this too.

I wasn't sure which one you wanted to compare to. So I have covered both.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clouds of Dust from RC Cars Ft. Barbarian NXL, Trooper, Magnet, Monster T
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jumping Up and Down
The first video shows dust on earth, the second is of people jumping now study them closely.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #157 on: February 24, 2014, 02:43:07 PM »
You do realise that when I watch one video of the moon with dust dropping at a much, much, much faster rate than it would on earth, then watch another video with men bouncing and floating around becoming lighter and you say this is what happens on the moon I can only assume you are taking the piss or delusional.

Get a small BB and a glass of water. Drop the BB on the table/bench. Pick it back up. Drop it in the glass of water. Notice that it falls slower through the water. This is a very basic approximation of what is happening with dust on the moon (the BB dropped in air), and dust on earth (the BB dropped in water). Air resistance will slow small, light objects such as dust particles quite drastically. Make sure you watch the vacuum tube video posted earlier, it helps explain this too.

Oh, and as for the astronauts being lighter and bouncing about, this is due to the reduced gravity. Not as easy to demonstrate on earth unless you have access to a vomit comet. :)

Now, you are probably still thinking "but how can the reduced gravity make the dust fall so much faster than it does on earth?" Well, I'll say it again: air resistance. It really slows it down a lot on earth, but there is no air on the moon to slow the dust, so it just drops at the same rate as a large stone would in the same environment which, if you take notice, is a good bit slower than a large stone falls on earth.
What would happen if I dropped dust on water?

*

glokta

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #158 on: February 24, 2014, 02:43:42 PM »
You do realise that when I watch one video of the moon with dust dropping at a much, much, much faster rate than it would on earth, then watch another video with men bouncing and floating around becoming lighter and you say this is what happens on the moon I can only assume you are taking the piss or delusional.
Can you post up a video to draw a comparison from? I would be interested in looking into this too.

I wasn't sure which one you wanted to compare to. So I have covered both.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clouds of Dust from RC Cars Ft. Barbarian NXL, Trooper, Magnet, Monster T
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jumping Up and Down
The first video shows dust on earth, the second is of people jumping now study them closely.
  ;D Thanks for your response but I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant that lunar dust falls faster than astronauts do on the lunar surface.
Quote from: sceptimatic
Use your brain. There is no sun in space. You are simply duped.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #159 on: February 24, 2014, 03:21:24 PM »
Thought scepti might like this nice long video showing the rover fender repair. They even mention the mesa module and I'm sure you know what that is now :) Also notice that the camera pans around 360 degrees several times. Notice the lack of cranes/soundstage/movie lights/film crew etc :) #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">APOLLO 17 ....... fixing the Lunar Rover 'fender'
What exactly is this proving? Take a look at the video I put up. The one picture I showed you is just one of many.

I refer you back a previos comment.. FOOTPRINTS..

As you can see from the video, they did a significant amount of work around the Rover fr at least 40 minutes (more probably), particularly behind and in front of the rear wheel, covering the tracks.

It is quite obvious. I'm not sure why it seems so amazing to you...

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #160 on: February 24, 2014, 03:31:39 PM »
What would happen if I dropped dust on water?

Try it and see. :)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #161 on: February 24, 2014, 03:52:00 PM »
We know how the sun 'appears' to rotate round the earth as we know sun rise and set times and they are consistent with a round earth.

Discuss.
They are consistent with how you are told the Earth acts in rotation. That's it. If I was to show you a Duck moving across a big window and told you that once it disappears, it will come back around to pass along the window again, you could accept that, right?

What if I was lying and the Duck went past the window and fell off the sill but there were other Ducks timed to start at specific times to follow the other poor Ducks path.

No real Ducks were used in this explanation.
I see the sun rise and set as does everyone else in the world following a pattern that is consistent with a round earth.   The model matches exactly.
The model matches exactly because you are told that it does and shown why this happens. Your own eyes and mind, see what they want you to see.
Please provide your full explanation.
The full explanation is that you have been carefully coaxed into what you believe to this very day.
If someone calls you a nut, you can brush it off. If people call you a nut, it becomes a problem, because you start to question your own sanity. If they carry on calling you a nut for long enough, it's very possible that you will believe they are correct.
It works both ways. As in. I'm the nut to many because that's how people perceive me, because it's been said time and time again and more people have joined into verify it. Thankfully, I'm a nut and I know it. There's people out there that are nuts and they don't know it.

I believe you are extremely naive. Not nuts. Just very naive and extremely manipluated into beliving anything. A soft touch. Easily indoctrinated by those you feel inferior to.
That's not a dig at you, it's an observation of the likes that I see with many, just as they see me as a clown or tin foil hat lunatic.
If I was a weakling and a follower, I could easily say, " Oh, I follow the masses now, they are right." The point is, I'm not weak and I can think for myself like a good few others can.
Most people cannot in terms of falling to pieces under peer pressure.

The really weak ones are those that will take my quote and attempt to use it against me. That's what I call fully diluted weak.

You see, the thing is Skepti, you call us Naïve.. because we don't buy into your weird theories....  yet the evidence you produce is comedic at best..

The 'proof' you've used to debunk the moon landings was a photo of the landing module and the buggy... because you have an extremely limited understanding of the Landing Module, you misinterpret the photo and scream PROOF!

The fact is, that all of the conspiracy theorists that say they have proof it was faked, actually don't have any - all their 'proof' are just misinterpretations through total ignorance, or a limited ability to comprehend.

If you have spent a minute researching the design of the Luna module, you'd have seen that the rover was stowed on the other side, and what you were in fact misidentifying as the packed up rover, was the MESA.  So there was nothing at all out of order in the photo, just your understanding of it..

Same with....

-Moon dust
-Low gravity and human motion on the moon
-Tyre tracks being covered by footprints
-the flag flapping
-and many other things... others can add to the list.

Just because you have a limited understanding of something, doesn't mean its fake.. What upsets me is that people like you that are ignorant, claim not to be, they claim to know what they are talking about (they never do) and they accuse very accomplished people of being frauds - right from their armchair.

I suspect that you as a person, and your conspiracy mates have never done anything extraordinary in your lives.. I'd wager you've probably not done much at all.

You seem to be an ultra paranoid person and people like you see monsters around every corner or in every photo.. Like a child... just last night I was attacked by a gargantuan spider which I had to get my wife to kill for me (yep, I'm totally terrified by the stupid things)..  She was looking on the net to work out what breed it was, but our little 4 yo son saw the photos of the spiders and for the next 3 hours he was seeing them all over the bloody house...in his imagination... getting out of bed every 10 minutes yelling SPIDER!!!   most of us grow out of that, but people like you clearly do not.

Your lack of education, or capacity to understand these things is NOT proof or evidence that the moon landings were fake, or that the earth is flat. 

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #162 on: February 24, 2014, 04:19:11 PM »
SirSpankalot, being a car and motorcycle man as yourself. Don't you think that the moon buggy with its Detroit Locker diff shooting rooster tails out the back should have the front wheels coming off the ground over the bumps in that reduced gravity environment. Being on the moon I would have thought wheel stands would have been a must. As you would know a moto x bike has plenty of suspension travel and here on earth the front wheel comes up easily enough.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 04:39:46 PM by tappet »

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #163 on: February 24, 2014, 04:37:38 PM »
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LRV on the Moon - Apollo 16 - HD Video Stabilized
Is it the case that only a round earther does not have the ability to see the front wheels should be bouncing off the surface of the moon to match the astronaut's bouncing off the surface?

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #164 on: February 24, 2014, 04:46:26 PM »
Look, I have watched this video quite a few times now and every time I watch it  gets more ridiculous, my mouth is sore from laughing. Are all of these moon video's going to be like this?

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #165 on: February 24, 2014, 04:46:37 PM »
SirSpankalot, being a car and motorcycle man as yourself. Don't you think that the moon buggy with its Detroit Locker diff shooting rooster tails out the back should have the front wheels coming off the ground over the bumps in that reduced gravity environment. Being on the moon I would have though wheel stands would have been a must. As you would know a moto x bike has plenty of suspension travel and here on earth the front wheel comes up easily enough.

Erm no, not at all.

First, they'll only stand up under acceleration, which the buggy has bugger all of.

The dust on the moon is very, very fine, that with limited gravity, yes it will kick a lot of dust around..

Next time you empty your vacuum cleaner out.. watch what happens to the fine dust.. it doesn't behave in the same way 'normal' dust does.. and NOTHING behaves normally in low gravity..

The best analogy I can think of is this.. American's are not very good at making fast cars.  To make horsepower, they need to make their engines massive.. yet my Alfa GTA makes 300 hp, and it's only a 3.2 litre V6 - and its 10 years old.  It also goes around corners pretty damn well!  Not something a yanky car is great at.. Now the Euro's are making 2 litre, 4 cyl engines producing 300 hp!! I mean seriously!  The American's with their 8 litre engines producing 500 hp - a total joke. 

Then - look at bikes. My 2001 fireblade puts out 170hp (at the crank).   it's only 929cc and 13 years old!  That's less than a litre.  That's 170hp/litre..  <--- automotive engineering at its best.. and we haven't touched on racing yet.

Having said that, Amercans are amazing at other things.. like say, science, or.. the space program. I just wouldn't touch any of their cars or bikes with a 100 foot barge pole.

I know this isn't a car forum, but it goes to my point:-

Just because something doesn't make sense to you.. doesn't mean it isn't so! :)

Sorry for the off topic ramble.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 04:49:22 PM by SirSpankalot »

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #166 on: February 24, 2014, 04:54:29 PM »
I would be interested to see a picture of your Alfa do you think maybe you could put one up in the lounge?

*

glokta

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #167 on: February 24, 2014, 04:57:46 PM »
This video goes a long way to explaining the effect of the lunar rover on moon dust. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs
Quote from: sceptimatic
Use your brain. There is no sun in space. You are simply duped.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #168 on: February 24, 2014, 05:02:02 PM »
I would be interested to see a picture of your Alfa do you think maybe you could put one up in the lounge?

yeah for sure :)

Is there a car section there or something?  ??? ???

Maybe it would be better to pm you a pic?

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #169 on: February 24, 2014, 05:03:15 PM »
In the video I just posted.
 Look at those front wheels over the bumps the momentum should throw them into the air.
I think by the way the dust comes down so quickly and the way that buggy sticks like shit to a blanket that there must be a stronger source of gravity on the moon. Everything in that video suggests I am correct. That video supports nothing I have heard about the moon.

*

glokta

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #170 on: February 24, 2014, 05:04:56 PM »
And something that always seems to get passed over, but is apparent in all of the footage, is just how would they get dust on earth to react like this to being kicked up? #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 11 Buzz Aldrin Kicking Moon Dust
Quote from: sceptimatic
Use your brain. There is no sun in space. You are simply duped.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #171 on: February 24, 2014, 05:08:26 PM »
I would be interested to see a picture of your Alfa do you think maybe you could put one up in the lounge?

yeah for sure :)

Is there a car section there or something?  ??? ???

Maybe it would be better to pm you a pic?
Yeh' I just spotted a section in the lounge.

?

SirSpankalot

  • 601
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #172 on: February 24, 2014, 05:11:50 PM »
I would be interested to see a picture of your Alfa do you think maybe you could put one up in the lounge?

yeah for sure :)

Is there a car section there or something?  ??? ???

Maybe it would be better to pm you a pic?
Yeh' I just spotted a section in the lounge.

here you go..

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61060.0#.UwvtmulWF_s

but I just noticed the pics are huge.. let me shrink them a bit.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #173 on: February 24, 2014, 05:16:31 PM »
This video goes a long way to explaining the effect of the lunar rover on moon dust. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs
I watched half of that video then stopped I realised if I kept going I would end up dumber than I am now.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #174 on: February 24, 2014, 05:31:09 PM »
And something that always seems to get passed over, but is apparent in all of the footage, is just how would they get dust on earth to react like this to being kicked up? #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 11 Buzz Aldrin Kicking Moon Dust
That's how it looks if you kick sand.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #175 on: February 24, 2014, 05:35:54 PM »
This video goes a long way to explaining the effect of the lunar rover on moon dust. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs
I watched half of that video then stopped I realised if I kept going I would end up dumber than I am now.

Perhaps you should watch the rest of it, there are some very good points made throughout, and the bloke talking at the start debunks himself quite thoroughly when he points out that it is impossible to get dust and dirt to behave on earth the way it did in the Apollo footage (that would have something to do with the 1/6th gravity and lack of atmosphere on the moon...).
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #176 on: February 24, 2014, 05:47:58 PM »
This video goes a long way to explaining the effect of the lunar rover on moon dust. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs
I watched half of that video then stopped I realised if I kept going I would end up dumber than I am now.

Perhaps you should watch the rest of it, there are some very good points made throughout, and the bloke talking at the start debunks himself quite thoroughly when he points out that it is impossible to get dust and dirt to behave on earth the way it did in the Apollo footage (that would have something to do with the 1/6th gravity and lack of atmosphere on the moon...).
You see here is the problem. You watch a video and see something and what you see is influenced by what you are told.
I take people into the bush that's my job. I can get them to lick ants butts. The ants butts excrete formic acid. Today they will enjoy the ants butts because I told them they taste like sherbet. The next day I tell them its a tingle like a nine volt battery on the tongue and you know what, they scream I got an electric shock.

?

tappet

  • 2162
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #177 on: February 24, 2014, 05:58:23 PM »
How come the moon buggy wheels are not affected like this:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FREE FOOTAGE - Astronaut Jumping On The Moon HD
And I will say it again, those buggy wheels really do stick to that moon surface like shit to a blanket.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
  • +0/-0
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #178 on: February 24, 2014, 06:08:04 PM »
I am going to go out on a limb and say
1) The moon buggy is moving like at 10 miles per hour
2)The moon buggy has suspension that helps dampen the bouncing, just like cars on earth.
3)The moon buggy has little upward momentum.  The astronaut is actively jumping.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: At sceptimatic's request...
« Reply #179 on: February 24, 2014, 06:23:37 PM »
You see here is the problem. You watch a video and see something and what you see is influenced by what you are told.

But it is impossible to get dust and dirt to behave the same way on earth as it does in the Apollo footage, you've seen it yourself, and so have I. What is the explanation? Were they using special dirt that would fall faster through air without creating dust clouds, and special tires that picked it up and threw it in the air more effectively than normal tires? Were they inside a giant vacuum chamber doing the filming? Or were they actually on the moon?

As for the bouncing moon buggy and the jumping astronaut, BJ1234 makes good points.

Also, an understanding of physics would be useful when viewing all of these videos. I'm not talking about an understanding gained solely from textbooks, but one gained from actual experimentation and experience, just so that we're clear on that.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."