cosmicdave, let's start with the basics...

[sts60]

cosmicdave,

Regarding the roostertails from the lunar rover's wheels, you said:

The dust that emerges from the wheels should not shoot in an arc at all as we see in the footage because of the absence of air and atmosphere. It should have in fact dropped straight down after the wheel had expelled the dust.

Do you stand by this? If so, how do you reconcile it with the kinematics of particles expelled up and out from under the wheels, i.e., with both vertical and horizontal components to their motion? If not, do you care to retract that statement?

Looking forward to your answer.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-11 10:55 ]</font>

[pvtpylot]

Heck, I'm looking forward to seeing if he even understands your question! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Seriously, in true cd fashion I expect never to hear any explanation of the reasoning behind his statement.

[Donnie B.]

I think we may have seen the last of our old buddy CD.

Really, this quote is the smoking gun. If nothing else, it proves that we haven't got the slightest chance of convincing Mr. Cosnette of anything. How could anyone with even the most elementary grasp of Newton's Laws make such an absurd claim? And if CD doesn't even comprehend Newton (elementary-school science, these days), what hope is there?

Not that we should stop; there's always the lurker and newbie to be enlightened (and they, at least, may have a few functioning brain cells).

If CD does come back, I'd like to see a set of N separate threads, each devoted to one specific claim. That would help to keep the discussion focused. Same goes for any other HB who shows up to try his luck here vs. Jay and the gang... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Silas]

Not that we should stop; there's always the lurker and newbie to be enlightened (and they, at least, may have a few functioning brain cells).

But this is also why we should be as polite as possible and not crow in our victory, as that tends to deter people who haven't been down in the trenches as long as we have...

We should preserve, as long as possible, the comforting cozy illusion that science is good clean fun and that scientific rivalries are those between gentlemen. The best way to do that is to act like gentlemen (and gentlewomen.) Not only does it show the moral high ground, but it is also more persuasive to newcomers.

Silas

[Donnie B.]

I agree -- just as we should keep our tempers (regardless of the provocation). If my previous post sounded like crowing, I apologize and will try to keep it in check.

[JayUtah]

Gentlemanly conduct should prevail in all aspects of the discussion, and I fear I'm one of the worst offenders. If for nothing else, the discussion should be kept civil because incivility provides an opponent with plausible grounds for dismissing an otherwise refutory argument. As you can see, many conspiracy theorists will look to any means to avoid dealing head-on with the arguments against them.

I am not so much concerned with whether Dave Cosnette returns as I am with what he should have taken away. It is one degree of honesty to say, "Based on what I know, this is what I believe." It's a higher level of honesty to say, "Based on what I know I don't know, I can no longer defend that proposition." Mr. Cosnette should have learned by now that there are many more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy. If he wants to persist in his claims for the benefit of his little UFO club, that's his business. But if he has learned anything from this discussion it is that his theories do not survive in the larger environment were actual expertise persists.

[Donnie B.]

Temperamentally, it would seem that the cosmicdaves of the world are more suited to fields like Philosophy and Theology, where clever individual ideas can stand with little empirical support, than to the rough-and-tumble, put-up-or-shut-up world of science (or professional gambling).

Speaking of which, that's one expression I think we'd do better to avoid. "Put up or shut up" is a bit too in-your-face for a reasoned discussion, don't you think? After all, there are alternatives:
-- "Can you point out any flaw in my argument?"
-- "Do you have any evidence that contradicts my interpretation?"
-- "Can you explain why your view is more likely to be true than mine?"

[cosmicdave]

Actually, I'll admit that I got that totally wrong and in fact should have said that the dust 'should' have looked like an arc of dust rather than just dropping off. The dropping off proves that it was in an atmosphere... Must have been the beer...lol

[Firefox]

Talk about some stout alcohol. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]


Adam

[Jim]

On 2002-06-11 14:53, cosmicdave wrote:
Actually, I'll admit that I got that totally wrong and in fact should have said that the dust 'should' have looked like an arc of dust rather than just dropping off. The dropping off proves that it was in an atmosphere... Must have been the beer...lol

Are you now saying that the rooster tail is right and proves the rover was in a vacuum? Or are you saying the film of the rover with a rooster tail is a fabrication?

(BTW, you get a similar rooster tail effect on earth; the details are different as the earth's atmosphere interferes with the parabola causing billowing. The dust doesn't just drop off.)

[JayUtah]

Actually, I'll admit that I got that totally wrong and in fact should have said that the dust 'should' have looked like an arc of dust rather than just dropping off.

Perhaps you should refer to a specific film clip which you believes demonstrates what you believe is incorrect soil behavior. I will suggest the "Grand Prix" footage from Apollo 16, but I will discuss whatever footage you present. I would ask you to be as specific as possible in describing which portions of soil behave "incorrectly" and why, exactly, you believe it to be incorrect.