little_roundtop
Well-Known Member
I think VO5 should be applauded for introducing "civil, nautical and astronomical twilight" and thus keeping this thread barely nautical in nature.
The Moon.
- Thread starter VO5
- Start date
I think VO5 should be applauded for introducing "civil, nautical and astronomical twilight" and thus keeping this thread barely nautical in nature.
VO5
Well-Known Member
I think VO5 should be applauded for introducing "civil, nautical and astronomical twilight" and thus keeping this thread barely nautical in nature.
Well, I am pursuing this topic because I am naturally inquisitive and no other reason.
These three intensities of twilight follow sunset, the time at which the sun sets on the horizon, which incidentally, on earth has different inclinations.
In high latitudes the sun slopes as it approaches sunset and in low latitudes (such as the tropics) it comes down vertically. It causes sunset to occur slowly or quickly depending on the latitude of the observer.
The progression thereafter to the sky above the earth darkening develops at different rates dependent upon the combination of rotation of the earth and the seasons.
It would be interesting to know if this gradual progression does not occur on a planet which does not revolve and to what degree or if indeed the transition from light to dark is replicated on the moon and what semblance it might have to the progression on earth.
Another interesting point is that the moon is one quarter the size of the earth.
Therefore the natural horizon proportionately is a much shorter distance, and also consequently so is the semicircumference and therefore the two points diametrically disposed at which light becomes dark and vice versa.
When we look at the night sky from the dark side of the earth what we are in is a cone of shadow that embraces the sky above.
I would think that the corresponding cone of darkness on the dark side of the moon, although smaller by virtue of its mass, ought not to present a view very different from ours.
Yet, the lunar module orbited the dark side before landing on the lit side.
But when questioned about what is to be seen in the darkened sky behind the moon the reply has consistently been that the sky is black, that's all, and nothing else was noticed.
I find it very curious that effort was not made to investigate what is visible skywards during the transit in darkness. It was once in a lifetime opportunity to observe, photograph and report what is visible.
Yet, to this day only vaguely evasive answers are offered.
wklein
Well-Known Member
This is great stuff, ill be sure to include it in my new book: "yachties and the moon" available at Christmas for 19.99.
dt4134
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't occur on a planet that is square (or even cylindrical for that matter).
I think you've got something there. The surface of the moon in the footage shot on the moon clearly looks like grated Parmesan. If they'd really been there they'd have known it was Wensleydale, so that footage is obviously faked.
That's probably why none of the clips show Neil Armstrong's evasive answer to the question from Hedley Eckenthwaite of t'Yorkshire Post.
VO5
Well-Known Member
Hummmm...
If Wallace and Gromit had been sent to the moon I am sure they would have carried out some tests.
They would have measured gravity in comparison to gravity on eath, they would have checked for radioactivity, and lots of other tests borne out of curiosity and interest and given less importance to just sticking a flag in the ground.
As Wallace and Gromit were not sent, we are left in the dark about all these mysteries.
If Wallace and Gromit had been sent to the moon I am sure they would have carried out some tests.
They would have measured gravity in comparison to gravity on eath, they would have checked for radioactivity, and lots of other tests borne out of curiosity and interest and given less importance to just sticking a flag in the ground.
As Wallace and Gromit were not sent, we are left in the dark about all these mysteries.
dt4134
Well-Known Member
IIRC, they just had a picnic.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Didn't they play golf as well?
Definitely no scientific measuring at all though, oh no!
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
- W
little_roundtop
Well-Known Member
Didn't they play golf as well?
Definitely no scientific measuring at all though, oh no!
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
- W
That's the sad thing about Apollo, it was never intended to be a scientific expedition, it was really just about getting there - first. Only one geologist was ever sent to the moon and he was on the very last mission.
Oh, I almost forgot the scuppers. Nothing to do with the moon but it keeps it boaty
bbg
Well-Known Member
You're kidding, right? I mean you ARE writing all of this tongue-in-cheek? Please tell me you are, because if you aren't I worry about whether your command of physics is sufficient to command a boat.
The different "phases of twilight" has almost nothing to do with the rotation of a planet (or moon) except to the extent of how quickly they change. It has everything to do with the fact that the earth has an atmosphere. So those different phases won't occur AT ALL on the moon, regardless of whether it spins on its axis once every 24 hours (like the earth) or once every 27.something days (like it actually does).
When we look at the night sky from the dark side of the earth what we are in is a cone of shadow that embraces the sky above.
I would think that the corresponding cone of darkness on the dark side of the moon, although smaller by virtue of its mass, ought not to present a view very different from ours.
Yet, the lunar module orbited the dark side before landing on the lit side.
But when questioned about what is to be seen in the darkened sky behind the moon the reply has consistently been that the sky is black, that's all, and nothing else was noticed.
I find it very curious that effort was not made to investigate what is visible skywards during the transit in darkness. It was once in a lifetime opportunity to observe, photograph and report what is visible.
Yet, to this day only vaguely evasive answers are offered.
As I recall, the lunar module was facing the moon. Did they have any windows that would have allowed them to even see the heavens when they were on the dark side?
As for these "vaguely evasive answers", please post a link to an unedited video of a question and answer session so we can determine for oursleves.
I take it you are a moon-landing denier based on your posts. What I find interesting is that a lot of (all?) conspiracy theorists approach these questions exclusively by questioning the generally accepted facts in order to assert that those facts did not occur, but without positing their own theory as to what exactly happened. To do so, of course, would leave them open to precisely the same kind of critical review that they purport to carry out, and that would expose their theories for what they are: fantasies.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Hmmmmm . . . now what other kind of conspiracy theorist denier does that remind me of?
- W
Moonshining
Well-Known Member
Hummmm...
If Wallace and Gromit had been sent to the moon I am sure they would have carried out some tests.
They would have measured gravity in comparison to gravity on eath, they would have checked for radioactivity, and lots of other tests borne out of curiosity and interest and given less importance to just sticking a flag in the ground.
As Wallace and Gromit were not sent, we are left in the dark about all these mysteries.
You really are the least-informed conspiracy theorist, ever.
This site has a list of the science experiments done on each mission.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/
This experiment is still ongoing and measuring the gradual increase in the distance between the earth and moon away at the rate of a couple of centimetres a year.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/
VO5
Well-Known Member
You're kidding, right? I mean you ARE writing all of this tongue-in-cheek? Please tell me you are, because if you aren't I worry about whether your command of physics is sufficient to command a boat.
Reply:
I am writing all this for you to discuss among yourselves. Command of a boat has nothing to do with it.
The different "phases of twilight" has almost nothing to do with the rotation of a planet (or moon) except to the extent of how quickly they change. It has everything to do with the fact that the earth has an atmosphere. So those different phases won't occur AT ALL on the moon, regardless of whether it spins on its axis once every 24 hours (like the earth) or once every 27.something days (like it actually does).
Reply:
"phases of twilight" have nothing to do with the atmosphere. The presence or absence of an atmosphere has nothing to do with light being able to travel.
As I recall, the lunar module was facing the moon. Did they have any windows that would have allowed them to even see the heavens when they were on the dark side?
Reply:
Now isn't that convenient ?
As for these "vaguely evasive answers", please post a link to an unedited video of a question and answer session so we can determine for oursleves.
Reply:
Just search and you will find.
I take it you are a moon-landing denier based on your posts. What I find interesting is that a lot of (all?) conspiracy theorists approach these questions exclusively by questioning the generally accepted facts in order to assert that those facts did not occur, but without positing their own theory as to what exactly happened. To do so, of course, would leave them open to precisely the same kind of critical review that they purport to carry out, and that would expose their theories for what they are: fantasies.
Reply:
I am not a moon landing denier. I am impartial. But I am very intriguiged as to why a venture of this sort costing thousands of millions of dollars can overlook such simple tasks as ascertaining whether the stars can be seen, whether radioactivity exists on the moon, whether there is any wind up there, and why basic tests were not carried out to determine what the gravitational pull (gravity) exists in comparison to what exists on earth, and instead, importance being given to the planting of a flag.
Neither can I suppress my curiosity as to why the moon walks were not taken one step further, allowing jumps and leaps to take place with the jumping astronaut securely fastened to the moon's surface by a long tether.
Equally, I cannot understand the resistance of the temptation to throw the odd rock in the air just to observe its behaviour, since, after all, people pay a lot of money to be taken up really high in aircraft for them to experience weightlessness.
Now here is another puzzling fact:
Photographs of the moon surface taken by a Hasselblad camera show shadows pointing in different directions. This is very peculiar considering the light source (the sun) is so far away.
It would be understandable if the light source were only a few feet away, but not from a light source at (for all practical purposes) infinty.
As I said before, I remain impartial. I am not driven by denial as you accuse me of. I am driven by curiosity. I am not here for you to try to engage me in silly circular argument.
This thread has been created and these posts made for your benefit, and for you to discuss among yourselves.
Reply:
I am writing all this for you to discuss among yourselves. Command of a boat has nothing to do with it.
The different "phases of twilight" has almost nothing to do with the rotation of a planet (or moon) except to the extent of how quickly they change. It has everything to do with the fact that the earth has an atmosphere. So those different phases won't occur AT ALL on the moon, regardless of whether it spins on its axis once every 24 hours (like the earth) or once every 27.something days (like it actually does).
Reply:
"phases of twilight" have nothing to do with the atmosphere. The presence or absence of an atmosphere has nothing to do with light being able to travel.
As I recall, the lunar module was facing the moon. Did they have any windows that would have allowed them to even see the heavens when they were on the dark side?
Reply:
Now isn't that convenient ?
As for these "vaguely evasive answers", please post a link to an unedited video of a question and answer session so we can determine for oursleves.
Reply:
Just search and you will find.
I take it you are a moon-landing denier based on your posts. What I find interesting is that a lot of (all?) conspiracy theorists approach these questions exclusively by questioning the generally accepted facts in order to assert that those facts did not occur, but without positing their own theory as to what exactly happened. To do so, of course, would leave them open to precisely the same kind of critical review that they purport to carry out, and that would expose their theories for what they are: fantasies.
Reply:
I am not a moon landing denier. I am impartial. But I am very intriguiged as to why a venture of this sort costing thousands of millions of dollars can overlook such simple tasks as ascertaining whether the stars can be seen, whether radioactivity exists on the moon, whether there is any wind up there, and why basic tests were not carried out to determine what the gravitational pull (gravity) exists in comparison to what exists on earth, and instead, importance being given to the planting of a flag.
Neither can I suppress my curiosity as to why the moon walks were not taken one step further, allowing jumps and leaps to take place with the jumping astronaut securely fastened to the moon's surface by a long tether.
Equally, I cannot understand the resistance of the temptation to throw the odd rock in the air just to observe its behaviour, since, after all, people pay a lot of money to be taken up really high in aircraft for them to experience weightlessness.
Now here is another puzzling fact:
Photographs of the moon surface taken by a Hasselblad camera show shadows pointing in different directions. This is very peculiar considering the light source (the sun) is so far away.
It would be understandable if the light source were only a few feet away, but not from a light source at (for all practical purposes) infinty.
As I said before, I remain impartial. I am not driven by denial as you accuse me of. I am driven by curiosity. I am not here for you to try to engage me in silly circular argument.
This thread has been created and these posts made for your benefit, and for you to discuss among yourselves.
Moonshining
Well-Known Member
What, like this, for example?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/experiments/s_band/
VO5
Well-Known Member
No.
These measurements do not require a manned landing to take place. They are measurements of the variation of the signal, caused by the doppler effect.
Additionally, the idea that craters cause variations in the gravity above them seems fatuous to me, far fetched.
Perhaps my long deceased Aunt Lottie was ultimately right....she argued to her dying day with all the family that the moon landing was just a film and that it was impossible, and never took place, LOL.
Last edited:
Moonshining
Well-Known Member
Additionally, the idea that craters cause variations in the gravity above them seems fatuous to me, far fetched.
That's because you don't understand the physics. You're well out of your depth here, and rolleye emoticons won't change that.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
VO5
Well-Known Member
. . . just don't mention the series drogue conspiracy . . .
- W
Listen, I made a mistake. My mistake was to consider your persistent contradiction just for the sake of it. I should have ignored you altogether, as by comparison, the management of a vessel at sea in really heavy weather is a serious topic. My mission was not to engage in silly circular agument that you are so fond of, but to lay out the facts, and to do my best to save lives.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
And I can assure you that I take your views on lunar exploration every bit as seriously as I take your views on drag devices
- W
VO5
Well-Known Member
And I can assure you that I take your views on lunar exploration every bit as seriously as I take your views on drag devices
- W
Webbed one, this is a fun thread, in case you haven't noticed.
Your problem is the inability to determine non flippancy from flippancy.
You seem to view the world from the wrong end of your particular anatomy.
bbg
Well-Known Member
You might want to explain your interesting theory to photographers who say:
And also perhaps to those crazy, uninformed "scientists". This guy even calls himself a "Dr" and seems to be a professor at a university. But what would he know?
Undoubtedly you will say the moon photos don't show stars. But neither do my photos taken at twilight or at night with brightly lit foreground subjects when the camera is exposed for the foreground subject and not the stars. Do your photos somehow miraculously act differently?
You are the one who asserts that those who landed on the moon have given "vaguely evasive" answers when asked about stars. Can you back up that statement with anything other than "find it for yourself"?
