A gathering and discussion area for the Hollywood Investigator's (and Weekly Universe's) hugely vast family of readers to gather and discuss the shocking articles in America's favorite family newspapers!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LUNAR HOAX: "A week to swap out Hubble's mirror"
"The module would produce such miniscule drag it wouldn't even be considered nor enter into the equation of the physics involved."
False. Atmosphere interface is defined as the force of drag on the capsule having reached 0.05 G. This occurs at roughly 400,000 feet of altitude when moving at about 35,000 feet per second.
"Any grade four physics student should know this."
They don't teach physics in grade four, and you have demonstrated absolutely no correct understanding of any physics principle involved in any point you have brought up in your articles. Your comical attempts at professing superiority are wearing very thin. You consistently refuse to put anything more than fist-pounding assertions behind anything you say. The other readers are quite right to dismiss you as a clown.
"Solid objects of this shape fall to earth like a lead ball and as they fall they increase speed not decrease."
Every object moving through a fluid encounters drag proportional to the square of the object's velocity, the mass density of the fluid, and the cross-sectional area of the object's aspect along the axis of motion. Specific adjustments to an object's drag beyond these basic dependencies is an empirical determination expressed as a drag coefficient. Drag always acts opposite the velocity vector. The orbital mechanics that describe the effect of gravity on the object's velocity state produce an additional force vector whose direction is not derived from the velocity vector.
All these forces change over time in complex ways during a typical descent. The nature of the orbital mechanics is altered by the deceleration induced by the object itself. The nature of the drag is altered by the changing geometry of the object as it deploys drag-producing implements, as it slows, and as it encounters changes in fluid density.
"The only drag that could be produced by this dead dart would be parachutes of which again, is at the heart of the issue (of my focus) and of which are impossible to work."
Your ignorant inability to understand how parachutes work is not sufficient proof that they don't work. *All* physical objects produce drag when moving through a fluid.
You simply declare that drogue parachutes will not work, yet you are unable to explain away the many uses of drogue parachutes for purposes other than Apollo.
"...if you plan on replying with nothing more than a rehash of your impossible drag story, I won't respond."
Since you can obviously only respond with insults and whiny expressions of personal disbelief, I think we'd all prefer you not respond.
I keep repeating the same answer because it remains the true answer. You have done nothing to disprove or impeach it, except to insult any who express belief in it and reiterate your own personal disbelief. Clearly your "vast" intellect cannot come up with a good reason why the standard parachute theory doesn't work in this case, so you resort to immature personal attacks.
"I need to know how parachutes could open and hold and if there's a possibility they held, how crushed were the ceramic skulls of the test-dummies inside."
It has been explained to you twice already. You simply refuse to accept even the remote hypothetical possibility that your understanding is wrong. You just sit there with your fingers in your ears saying "No-no-no-no-no!"
If you will research the drag coefficients of different kinds of parachutes and the means by which they are computed and controlled, you will have your answer. Since you have expressed complete unwillingness to examine anything that contradicts your pre-existing belief, I cannot imagine you will be successful.
"I don't enjoy educating grade four students either so let's have someone with an IQ above mine (140). I mean this kindly."
LOL! You really expect us to believe you're some kind of "sooper-genius"? And I *don't* mean that kindly. Based on your performance here, you're easily the most willfully ignorant person I have ever encountered, and undoubtedly the least emotionally mature.
You remind me more every day of Der Voron. He went around bragging about his allegedly high I.Q. but then couldn't fathom even the most basic concepts of the physical world. I'm quite amused that all you can do with your supposedly vast I.Q. is to hurl insults like a petulant child. Do I have the pleasure of addressing Der Voron under yet another assumed name?