Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixens "baby steps" explanation seems to have taken one step and then vanished.

Wasn't even one step really. It was what do you see here and then radio silence. Maybe her satellite is out of position.

 

[JayUtah]

Vixens "baby steps" explanation seems to have taken one step and then vanished.

Wasn't even one step really. It was what do you see here and then radio silence.

It's the same ploy as in the past few hundred pages. She doesn't really grasp the argument, but she knows the names of some of its pieces. In her typical "I know more than everyone" bluff, she's tossing a couple of the pieces on the table and then saying, "What, you can't figure out the rest? You must be obtuse. The answer is obvious." And she'll get ten more pages of attention from everyone's subsequent flailing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's one small step for a baby, one giant bluff for Vixen.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Vixens "baby steps" explanation seems to have taken one step and then vanished.

Wasn't even one step really. It was what do you see here and then radio silence. Maybe her satellite is out of position.

Maybe it's crashed back to Earth and can now be geopositioned.

 

[Mojo]

Vixen, forget the baby steps.

I have a PhD in astrophysics and have worked as a professional astronomer. I know far more about orbital mechanics than you could possibly ever hope to.

Nonsense. Vixen understands perfectly well that they are people who repair satellites.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Nonsense. Vixen understands perfectly well that they are people who repair satellites.

After Counting Crows recover them?

 

[JesseCuster]

Ok, in fairness to Vixen, she did offer something of a definition for “geopositioned”. I searched through the thread hoping to find something relevant.

a non-Geopositioned satellite (i.e., one whose orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet)

Sounds like she’s trying to describe a geostationary or geosynchronous orbit, presumably she means geostationary and seems to be implying that a satellite in a fixed position relative to the moon is needed, but why she insists on repeatedly using the term “geopositioned” when she’s been corrected multiple times and surely knows by now that it’s completely the wrong term is anybody’s guess (well, I think we all know the answer to that, to start using the term geostationary (or selenostationary) would imply she was wrong in the first place and she can’t have that)

The definition is also pretty mangled. In a geostationary or geosynchronous orbit, the orbital period of the satellite equals the rotation period of the parent body, it’s very vague and not very sciencey to say that an “orbit matches a planet’s speed” (if someone mentioned a planet’s speed to me without context, I wouldn’t presume it meant the rotational period, but its velocity relative to a parent body maybe), but Im sure shes going to claim that she’s dumbed it down for us non triple niners, who haven’t studied physics for 5 years, who aren’t scientists, etc.

And we still don’t have any sort of an explanation for why such a satellite is needed, when the earth is visible (always visible in fact) from the near side of the moon where the landings happened, and line of sight communication is available.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Let's do baby steps.

According to a reasonably reliable source:

In general, babies learn to walk in the following stages:

• 3–4 months: Babies may use their arms to push themselves up for brief periods while they’re lying on their stomach.
• 6–7 months: Babies start to sit on their own.
• 6-9 months: Babies start crawling.
• 9 months: Babies start to pull themselves up so they can stand for brief periods.
• 9–12 months: Babies start to cruise, going from one piece of furniture to another.
• 11–13 months: Babies generally start walking on their own.

Most babies learn to crawl before they take baby steps.

At around 9 to 12 months, watch for these signs your baby will walk soon:

• Pulling themselves up to a stand.
• Standing for a few seconds before falling over or standing without support.
• “Cruising” or holding onto furniture to guide them while they’re walking.
• Increased fussiness or sleep changes as a result of growth spurts or feeling tapped out from concentrating.

You've been having a hard time pulling yourself up to take a consistent stand about anything. More solid support might help.

Your arguments have been really good at the falling over part.

It's time to learn how to take advantage of more sophisticated sources of support, such as adults who can guide your progress toward taking those first baby steps.

If the concentration needed to learn new things taps you out, don't worry. That's entirely normal.

 

[Mojo]

Sounds like she’s trying to describe a geostationary or geosynchronous orbit, presumably she means geostationary and seems to be implying that a satellite in a fixed position relative to the moon is needed,

Something like, er, the Earth?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"... orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet" aside from being ungrammatical is intentionally vague. There is no point asking for clarification as there is no underlying concept waiting to be clarified. There is only technobabble. Behind the curtain, only a void.

 

[Thermal]

Vixens "baby steps" explanation seems to have taken one step and then vanished.

Wasn't even one step really. It was what do you see here and then radio silence. Maybe her satellite is out of position.

I think she may be off channeling her inner Tonto again?

 

[JayUtah]

In a geostationary or geosynchronous orbit, the orbital period of the satellite equals the rotation period of the parent body...

But importantly, a geostationary orbit also has the constraint of being circular and at 0º inclination. A geosynchronous orbit has a period of 23h 58′ 4″, but may have a higher inclination orbit or be non-circular. It does not appear motionless in the sky as seen from Earth, but will trace out a path in the sky with a 1-day period.

...it’s very vague and not very sciencey to say that an “orbit matches a planet’s speed”

"... orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet" aside from being ungrammatical is intentionally vague. There is no point asking for clarification as there is no underlying concept waiting to be clarified. There is only technobabble. Behind the curtain, only a void.

Agreed. A planet's "speed" doesn't indicate rotational period to me. In fact, when planning orbits such as for Artemis missions, it always means how fast the planet is scooting along in its own orbit whether it's also rotating or not. But of course what we really want is velocity, because the direction of motion is important for orbit planning.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

After Counting Crows recover them?

It's a lifetime commitment...

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"... orbit matches the speed of that of the relevant planet" aside from being ungrammatical is intentionally vague. There is no point asking for clarification as there is no underlying concept waiting to be clarified. There is only technobabble. Behind the curtain, only a void.

There's some serious black back there.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Also Vixen, what “low pressured” environment on the ISS were you referring to which has something to do with the behaviour of astronauts’ hair?

Well, if you're on the ISS and you hear a hissing sound accompanied by a drop in air pressure, it's liable to make your hair stand on end.

 

[Vixen]

The background stars move wrongly in that AI animation too.

(From the rotation of the Earth, the animation covers a period of about 8 or 9 hours. Moon rotates 360° in about 28 days so should turn about 4.5° in the duration of the video. The diameter of the Earth is a handy 1.9° ruler. Relative to features on the lunar horizon, the Earth should stay still and the background stars should shift to the right by more than two Earth diameters in the course of the video. And of course they don't.)

It's from 'Physics & Astronomy' zone.

Physics & Astronomy Zone (@zone_astronomy) on X

Science Educational Website Welcome to the official page of Physics & Astronomy Zone. This page is primarily Dedicated to physics and astronomy lovers.

x.com

Of course, the Earth spins on its axis far faster than the moon does. But the salient point for Jesse Custer is that both are constantly spinning.

 

[Mojo]

It's from 'Physics & Astronomy' zone.

Physics & Astronomy Zone (@zone_astronomy) on X

Science Educational Website Welcome to the official page of Physics & Astronomy Zone. This page is primarily Dedicated to physics and astronomy lovers.

x.com

Of course, the Earth spins on its axis far faster than the moon does. But the salient point for Jesse Custer is that both are constantly spinning.

How does this cause problems with transmitting TV signals via line of sight?

Do you understand that if you can see something you can receive radio signals from it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wherever it's from, it's wrong. Materially wrong in this case, since transmitting signals from the lunar surface to the Earth doesn't need constant adjustment of the antenna since the Earth doesn't move. It just sits there and spins.

If you happen to be in orbit around the Moon then, sure, you need a method to keep your directional antenna pointing at the Earth. But you would need to do that to keep it pointing at some satellite too, so that's no advantage.

Anyway, what's the next baby step after discovering the Earth rotates and the moon keeps it's same side pointing at Earth all the time?

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, what's the next baby step after discovering the Earth rotates and the moon keeps it's same side pointing at Earth all the time?

Pretending that Australia and Spain are hoaxes.

 

[JayUtah]

It's from 'Physics & Astronomy' zone.

It's still AI slop that doesn't answer any of the questions you've been asked.

Of course, the Earth spins on its axis far faster than the moon does.

But no so fast that it affects telecommunications much.

As I said, go out when the Moon comes up and look at it. Your eyeballs are sensors receiving electromagnetic radiation directly from the Moon. A radio telescope is also a sensor that receives electromagnetic radiation, just in much longer wavelengths for telecommunication purposes. You can stand out there for hours at a time with your eyeballs receiving electromagnetic radiation from the Moon while the Moon slowly makes its way across the sky.

When you there in Finland are done doing that, it's my turn in the United States to do it because Earth has slowly rotated so that my part of the planet can now exchange electromagnetic radiation with the Moon.

The only reason you think it has to be any more complicated is because you don't have the brains to figure out what Allen and Weaver are trying to say. Therefore you're flooding the zone with nonsense and made-up words hoping that you won't have to admit you were wrong.

But the salient point for Jesse Custer is that both are constantly spinning.

Nobody disputes that. What they dispute is your claim that this creates an insurmountable logistics problem.