Author Topic: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith  (Read 19273 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3413
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2019, 01:38:04 PM »
With all due respect, you have not once attempted to answer the question I posted.

That's because I've been waiting for you to resume your prior thread regarding the stability of the lunar module, a topic which you say you did not abandon as a flounce, but were merely detained from addressing because of external concerns.  Your renewed activity here suggests those circumstances no longer hold.  Therefore it seemed advisable not to multiply the posts in this thread that you would have to answer, in the hopes you would find time to resume the discussion you abandoned before.  Now that it's clear you did abandon that other thread because you could not continue it, I'm faced with what that says about the likelihood you will respond to meaningful criticism in this thread.

And in this thread, as in prior threads, you have simply adopted the same strategy of ignoring replies that attempt to correct your misunderstanding of common physical principles and further foisting your ignorant intuition and suppositions in place.  That limits my willingness to address you in any depth or detail.  You have proven yourself to be almost entirely refractory to carefully-prepared responses, so you have lost the privilege of demanding them.  As I recall, you even complained that my responses before, in the other thread, contained too much detail.  You don't get to have your cake and eat it to.  Want more substantive responses?  Then prove you're worthy of them.  Continue the other thread regarding the lunar module, and address the arguments made by everyone in this thread with something more substantial than protest and denial.

Quote
I get it, because the moon landings are real, what I am asking is obviously wrong and stupid.

Your claim here is based on an incorrect understanding of the principles that apply to projectile physics.  You have resisted efforts to correct your understanding.  You really deserve little more attention if you are unwilling to accept the corrections by the people whose feedback you have ostensibly come here to solicit.

I will not coddle your willful ignorance.

Quote
But to dismiss others with contempt because it doesn't fit your view of things...

Your claims have been dismissed not because they disagree with "[my] view of things," but because they disagree with basic principles of Newtonian physics.  You are receiving what you view as contemptuous answers because you are following the same process here as you did in your abandoned thread:  you are frantically trying to dismiss learned correction as "irrelevant" and insisting that your ignorance be validated in its place.  Since you have resisted ongoing reasonable efforts to educate you, criticism that sounds in contempt is really the only appropriate attitude that remains.  You beg the question that your behavior on this forum to date is acceptable.

Quote
I think I have asked a reasonable question and have been courteous.

No.  Dismissing others' provably correct knowledge of basic physics as something you can simply sidestep in favor of your own ignorant intuition is the opposite of courtesy.

Quote
But I don't believe anyone has came up with a reasonable answer to why there is an absence of regolith on rocks and boulders.

You have been given a reasonable answer which you dismiss as "irrelevant," and you have further demonstrated a fairly glaring ignorance of the physical principles that apply to your question.  Further, you've been asked point-blank why you think your concerns regarding the authenticity of the photos in question remain valid given your ignorance, and given other circumstantial evidence that flatly contracts your claims.  You have ignored those entirely.  To maintain that your approach here has been "courteous" is laughable.  As with your other thread, your argument rises no higher than dismissing the actual science and insisting on the basis of your personal incredulity that you must still somehow have a valid point.  Ignorance is not the problem here; willful ignorance is.

Quote
It makes sense, if the photos are real, there should be a logical explanation.

There is a logical explanation, and it has been given.  That you feel I haven't delivered it personally is irrelevant; this is not a personalized debate.  Jason Thompson, for example, has presented you with a well-reasoned rebuttal that you have largely ignored.  You have rejected the logical explanation because that explanation has focused on refuting the incorrect premises on which you based your claims.  If you are waiting for logical explanation that doesn't entail you admitting your mistakes, then you will be waiting a long time.  Your expectations are based on misconceived or made-up principles of projectile behavior.  You are not entitled to an explanation that leaves those errors intact, nor to weary your critics by asking for one.

Quote
Using Chinese photos or a "sandblasting" analogy as answers really doesn't explain this phenomena despite what people might think.

Yes, they do, despite your increasingly desperate protests to the contrary.

You argue that the Apollo photos depict a landscape that is improbable according to projectile physics.  You hypothesize that this means they were not taken in an actual lunar environment, but must have been prepared somehow by other means to approximate what the public could reasonably expect from such photos.  But photos purporting also to be of the lunar landscape, taken by other agents, depict a landscape substantially similar in all relevant detail to Apollo photos.  This undermines your hypothesis because the agent in this case has no credible reason to defy physics or cover for NASA.  If two separate data sets are consilient on the appearance of the lunar surface, then it becomes more parsimonious to consider that your expectations are in error for what it should look like, more so than if you are simply trying to explain one data set with a hypothesis that invokes other antecedents particular only to that data set.  That's how parsimony works, and you clearly don't get it.

The sandblasting analogy is apt because it deals with particles that have a ratio of kinetic energy to mass that is more congruent with the behavior of impact ejecta than your "settling snowfall" expectation based the behavior of aerosols.  It is also more apt because it reduces the magnitude of the effect of air resistance on the particles in a way that would more closely resemble the behavior of projectiles in the complete absence of fluid resistance.  That you refuse to take them into account does not give you grounds simply to ignore them or sweep them aside.  You can't explain why it's irrelevant; you just don't seem to want to have to deal with it.

This closely mimics your inability to address the actual study of the lunar module flight dynamics, as revealed in your own sources.  You can't deal with the notion of free-body dynamics as a set of behaviors that has a highly predictive and tractable mathematical model, and so can't realize that people can conclusively dismiss your various theories.  You will never succeed in this forum if your arguments boil down simply to asking members to ignore scientific facts they know, but which you simply refuse to acknowledge and then get all butthurt over being repeatedly corrected about.  No one here will coddle willful ignorance.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3413
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #61 on: April 01, 2019, 02:08:06 PM »
Energy is lost with each impact.

Principally, a portion of the kinetic energy is converted to heat.  This was something I was hoping Jr Knowing would go look up himself.  But don't feel bad; it merely demonstrates that many people here have the appropriate knowledge to understand and explain why his expectations don't hold.

Quote
Since impacts are random, debris is eventually evenly distributed over the surface...
[...]
That rock is part of the regolith, ejected by an earlier impact.  Regolith isn't just dust.

If we consider mineral particles of roughly uniform size -- say, 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm -- and we consider a projectile of the same diameter and composition, having a kinetic energy commensurate with a velocity of many meters per second, then consider the difference between that projectile striking a 1 kg mineral rock and 1 kg aggregation of those mineral particles.  The collision mechanics are substantially different there, although the magnitude of energy transfer, considered as a scalar whole sum, will be roughly equivalent between the two cases.  The single projectile striking a single rock at ballistic velocity will simply bounce off elastically in a direction we could probably predict with some accuracy given the incident angle.  Impacting the particulate aggregation results in many small subcollisions instead, the net result of which would be difficult to predict beyond a few rounds.

Here too we have the matrixing principle.  This is something I was privileged to explain to a potential History Channel audience in a pilot that sadly did not air.  Because the small particles in lunar soil are jagged, they interlock with each other in aggregation to form a fairly strong matrix.  They are mechanically connected, much the way we engineer "rip rap" to protect coastlines, quays, and jetties from wave action.  They are further chemically cemented under abrasion in ways that Earth minerals (coated with oxides, sulfides, and hydrides) are not.  This is why lunar fines have a much higher angle of repose than traditional earth aggregates.  What this means in terms of collision mechanics is that the lunar regolith is much more likely to retain an impacting projectile and absorb its energy through elastic subcollisions with neighboring particles according to "interesting" geometries, not like billiard balls so much as like jacks.  Lunar particles are "tangled" with each other, and this very much matters in how they receive projectiles compared to rocks.

Quote
Some particles will hit the top of the rock, some percentage of those will simply bounce off.

Most rocks in the lunar environment simply have no "top" in the sense that would provide for a final repose of projectiles.  You're more likely to find particles at rest in crevices and other convex geometries that provide for multiple terminal collisions in directions that would result in containment in multiple directions.  Horizontal expanses of surface don't help.  Even a particle traveling at less than 1 meter per second on a near vertical trajectory is apt to strike the side of a rock and bounce elastically off of it rather than be retained on it.  I'd venture to say that would happen at velocities even one-tenth that amount.  Given that such particles would not wind up far from the rock, this handily explains why spent projectiles accumulate near the bases of large obstacles.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1572
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2019, 03:07:41 PM »
Hi Guys, What you guys are saying is correct but mainly not relevant.

It certainly is relevant. Your failure to understand how is the problem here.

Quote
I also question posters suggesting that the speed an object goes up is the same speed it comes back down at. I believe (and I could be wrong :) ) if you shoot something straight up off the moon (less than escape velocity) it will eventually fall back to the moon surface at the rate of gravity which may or may not be as fast as its original speed (especially since there is no terminal gravity velocity on the moon).

This is incorrect on every level, and mathematically provably so. I learned this in school. Did you skip that class, or have the intervening years dulled your memory of basic physics? Gravity is not a speed, it is an acceleration. If you shoot something straight up then gravity will act to slow it down until its velocity is zero, after which it will speed it up in the opposite direction. The time taken and the change in velocity are the same on both sides. If it goes up at 100m/s and takes 10 seconds to slow to zero due to gravity, it will be accelerated back down at the same rate and be at the same speed when it hits the ground. The fact that there is no terminal velocity on the Moon actually makes this a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Quote
As far as the relevance goes, I am not quite sure why no one seems to suggest there will not be a localized debris/dust field from an impact.

Of course there will be. That's not the same as a dust field that evenly coats everything in the vicinity, though.

Quote
What some posters are suggesting is almost like a never ending loop of impacts.

No, that's your incorrect interpretation. Energy is lost at each stage of the process, so a field of progressively smaller impacts occurs. The point is that there is a very small percentage of particulates that will hit a solid rock and stay there rather than bouncing off, whereas the regolith surface is a good absorber of the energy of impact because of its particulate nature. Particles that will bounce off rocks will disturb the regolith a bit and stop. This disturbance also evens out the surface, so if the rock landing on the regolith did leave a small impact crater that would be lost over time, leaving a rock apparently sitting on or in a bed of regolith.

Quote
The issue I am trying to address here is why there is a layer of regolith on the surface but not on top of a five inch rock (for instance) in which its base is completely buried in regolith.

Yes, we all understand the issue, and we are addressing it. But because the answers don't make immediate sense to you you dismiss them. Why are you here?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1572
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2019, 03:17:52 PM »
I get it, because the moon landings are real, what I am asking is obviously wrong and stupid.

No, don't try and accuse us of calling you stupid. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, especially when it comes to things like space travel and other moons and planets which are not so easily understood by everyday experience. That you see something that does not match your expectations is fine, but you have demonstrated no willingness to concede that the problem is your expectations, not the thing you are looking at.
 
Quote
But to dismiss others with contempt because it doesn't fit your view of things is not right.

THen why do you do it so much? You have been given, here and in your other thread (which I assume you have no intention of rejoining since you evidently cannot actually follow the mathematics of your own evidence to see how it utterly fails to support your argument) a lot of reasoned answers, and you have simply dimissed them as irrelevant and maintained your own incredulity. Why?

Quote
I think I have asked a reasonable question

Yes, the original question was reasonable.

Quote
But I don't believe anyone has came up with a reasonable answer

And what is a 'reasonable' answer, to you? I am serious. You have been given sound physics in the answers. You refuse to accept them. Why? The answers given are reasonable. Your unwillingness to accept them is not.

Quote
It makes sense, if the photos are real, there should be a logical explanation.

There is, and you've been given it. Several times.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1417
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2019, 03:55:53 PM »
Here's a simple thought experiment for you.

Turn a bucket upside down. Take another bucket, fill it with marbles. Empty that bucket above the other one from a height. Where do you think most of the marbles are going to end up?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3413
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2019, 05:34:28 PM »
No, don't try and accuse us of calling you stupid. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, especially when it comes to things like space travel and other moons and planets which are not so easily understood by everyday experience. That you see something that does not match your expectations is fine, but you have demonstrated no willingness to concede that the problem is your expectations, not the thing you are looking at.

This is really the problem.  One one hand he tries to tell us he's just asking innocent, reasonable questions about something he doesn't understand and can't explain.  And he wants to be given credit for this legitimate behavior.  The premise behind such a question -- if it is truly innocent as proffered -- is, "I don't understand what's going on here."  But then when the explanation is given, the behaviors that would logically follow a correct response to an honest, innocent question fly away completely.  In their place, we're told that the answers we've given are irrelevant to the problem, or contrary to natural law.  The premise behind such a response has to be, "I do know what's going on here, and that's not it."  Those are fundamentally contradictory positions.  Jr Knowing wants to be given credit both for being curious and innocent, but then later also for being knowledgeable and erudite -- even "woke."

The reader has to decide which of these two disparate characters is the real Jr Knowing.  I believe the latter is.  Why?  Because the motte-and-bailey approach is common in the conspiracy world.  The desired line of reasoning is that there is something legitimately wrong with the Apollo record that can only be explained by the hoax hypothesis.  That's the motte.  But when cornered, the proponent retreats back to the bailey argument, which is that he's just an innocent person asking reasonable, innocent questions and why is everyone treating him so shabbily?  It's a fairly threadbare method of trading a reasoned argument for an optimistic stab a social engineering.  He's shaming people away from attacking the motte argument.  He hopes it will still be somewhat convincing as long as no one pokes at it too sharply.

Quote
You have been given sound physics in the answers. You refuse to accept them. Why? The answers given are reasonable. Your unwillingness to accept them is not.

Because under no circumstances can the acceptable refutation to a conspiracy theory be that the theorist doesn't know what he's talking about.  Conspiracy theorists are "woke" individuals with an enhanced worldview, and anyone who sticks with the moldy old narratives must just be ideologically impaired, lacking the enlightenment of forward thinkers.  The notion that there "must" be a logical explanation is a rhetorical feint.  The point being attempted is that there isn't a logical explanation, but only if Jr Knowing's premises are taken entirely at face value.  There being no logical explanation under the "don't-look-too-hard-at-these" premises -- the motte argument -- we must accept the possibility of a hoax -- you know, just to keep an "open mind."

Of course there was a reasonable explanation for the RCS plume deflectors and the placement of the RCS jets themselves on the service module.  When his motte argument on that front became untenable, and the bailey was breached, he just teleported away.  The same thing will happen here.  I predict that he'll try a few more times to shame his critics, insist for a few more rounds that everything his critics have pointed out cannot possibly be true or relevant, and then flounce from this thread too without ever acknowledging a single error on his part.

He's made some clangers this time round.  The rock-solid principles of ballistic physics have been around since 1687, yet for some reason he doesn't think they're true.  This is a principle I would literally expect a reasonably intelligent 14-year-old to grasp.  Ninth grade is when we start teaching the pre-calculus version of Newtonian physics.  And projectile motion is the introductory problem.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2019, 09:49:21 PM »
Hi Jay,

"Most rocks in the lunar environment simply have no "top" in the sense that would provide for a final repose of projectiles.  You're more likely to find particles at rest in crevices and other convex geometries that provide for multiple terminal collisions in directions that would result in containment in multiple directions.  Horizontal expanses of surface don't help.  Even a particle traveling at less than 1 meter per second on a near vertical trajectory is apt to strike the side of a rock and bounce elastically off of it rather than be retained on it.  I'd venture to say that would happen at velocities even one-tenth that amount.  Given that such particles would not wind up far from the rock, this handily explains why spent projectiles accumulate near the bases of large obstacles."

Your explanation above is a reasonable explanation of the buildup of regolith at the base of rocks. I would still question why the regolith still seems uniform in depth even away from the rock. But it does make sense the rocks would be "obstacles" for atleast some of the disbursement.

As far as my "clanger" goes, you are correct. All I can say, for whatever reason, in my head, initial force, initial velocity, velocity between A and B (zero velocity) got all jumbled up in my thinking.

And as far as your posts go, I understand your passion for this overall subject. But you don't need to waste your energy, writing reams, dissecting every sentence I write. I have already said you are probably 99 percent right that the moon landings are real. Yes I have questions (with many still to ask) but isn't this what this website is all about? Please don't take things so seriously. To be quite honest you are reading too much into things. I am not employing any "motte and Bailey" approach. And I am not here to yank your chains. Believe me I have better things to do. I am literally here because my buddy, who is a staunch NASA supporter, doesn't have the depth of knowledge to answer many of my questions. He led me to this site. And as I have already mentioned in a previous thread, it wasn't till after I started posting did I realize who some of you were and the hornets nest I walked into :) .

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3413
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #67 on: April 01, 2019, 10:32:20 PM »
I would still question why the regolith still seems uniform in depth...

I would question why you think you can determine that by looking at photos.  If you've done more than look at photos, then you would surely have run into the records of observations made by the people who were there.  When you've come up to speed on that, we can have that discussion.  Until then, nice try at changing the subject to distract from your roundabout admissions of error.

Quote
But you don't need to waste your energy, writing reams, dissecting every sentence I write.

This morning you were complaining that I hadn't answered you thoroughly enough.  Now you're back to complaining that I'm too thorough.  It seems there's no pleasing you.

Quote
I am not employing any "motte and Bailey" approach.

You clearly are.  If you believe otherwise, then you can address the relevant argument in detail instead of just waving it off vaguely.  I gave you a detailed rationale for that characterization using examples from your own arguments.  Do me the same courtesy in rebuttal.  It's a pretty common approach among conspiracy theories.  And every one of them thinks he is unique in using it, and everyone of them thinks he's getting away with it.

Quote
...the hornets nest I walked into :) .

Other people have found this site to be a fount of good information and expertise.  You find it a "hornets nest" only because you knee-jerkedly reject all the answers you don't like, for no good reason, and because you are being held to a reasonable standard of intellectual honesty for your own behavior, which you are clearly unaccustomed to.  If these are things you equate with hornet-like antagonism, you are not equipped to debate in the real world.

Write off my standards-keeping as "passion" as much as you like.  These are the standards that prevail in the sciences you're trying to practice here.  If you're not up to the task, I won't coddle you.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2019, 10:41:35 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline VQ

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2019, 11:12:39 PM »
Your explanation above is a reasonable explanation of the buildup of regolith at the base of rocks. I would still question why the regolith still seems uniform in depth even away from the rock. But it does make sense the rocks would be "obstacles" for atleast some of the disbursement.

You do realize lunar regolith averages 5-15 meters thick depending on the age of that portion of the moon's surface, right?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1572
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #69 on: April 02, 2019, 01:26:05 AM »
I would still question why the regolith still seems uniform in depth even away from the rock

I would question how you think you can tell the depth of regolith from looking at a photo. The regolith layer is several metres thick. Geologically the rocks are recent arrivals on the surface. Plenty more are entirely buried under it.

Quote
But it does make sense the rocks would be "obstacles" for atleast some of the disbursement.

Which is what several of us have been saying all along. What was it that finally got you to understand?

Quote
As far as my "clanger" goes, you are correct. All I can say, for whatever reason, in my head, initial force, initial velocity, velocity between A and B (zero velocity) got all jumbled up in my thinking.

Thank you for conceding that point. Now perhaps you'll go back to your original thread about LM instability and offer the same.

Quote
But you don't need to waste your energy, writing reams, dissecting every sentence I write.

Clearly Jay (and others) do need to do that, since you complain when answers are not in-depth enough and it has apparently taken all these 'reams' of answers to get you to understand where the flaws in your reasoning are.

Quote
Yes I have questions (with many still to ask) but isn't this what this website is all about?

As has been pointed out several times, the questions are not the issue, your reactions to the answers you get is. If you are 'just asking questions' then stop dismissing all the answers offhand until you are cornered.

Quote
To be quite honest you are reading too much into things.

To be quite honest you are displaying all the typical conpiracy theorist tactics that lead to those conclusions, as has been explained already. And as with all conspiracy theorists using those patterns of behavour you act surprised when called on it.

Quote
I am not employing any "motte and Bailey" approach. And I am not here to yank your chains. Believe me I have better things to do.

Fine, then get back over to your other thread and address the responses there. Just off the top of my head I can think of:

Insisting it is suspect that the LM looks different between stacking and landing, despite being shown the apparatus and documentation relating to work done on the pad after stacking.

Insisiting it is suspect that the RCS quads on the service module are exposed even after being informed of why they were not at risk of being damaged by airflow during take-off.

Failing to acknowledge the difference between a paper and a memo

Failing, after several times of saying you had it, to provide a 'more detailed' paper that you say proves the RCS system required perfect balance to operate correctly.

Failing to address the clear and evident fact that the memo you used to support your argument that the plume deflectors introduce instability actually says exactly the opposite for all but one very unlikely scenario.

Getting mixed up between LM and CSM RCS systems used on Apollo 13.

When do you plan to go back and either continue the arguments or else concede you were mistaken? Walking out of the discussion, for whatever reason, does not free you of any obligation to it.

Quote
I am literally here because my buddy, who is a staunch NASA supporter, doesn't have the depth of knowledge to answer many of my questions. He led me to this site.

And is your buddy here reading? Why does he not contribute and ask his own questions?

Quote
And as I have already mentioned in a previous thread, it wasn't till after I started posting did I realize who some of you were and the hornets nest I walked into :) .

This site is not a hornet's nest, except for those who insist on treating it like one. If you want to discuss, do it honestly and with a willingness to concede you might be wrong in your expectations of what the Apollo missions 'should' look like. You only stir up a nest if you refuse to engage honestly in the conversation.
[/quote]
« Last Edit: April 02, 2019, 01:29:02 AM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1417
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #70 on: April 02, 2019, 03:00:08 AM »

Your explanation above is a reasonable explanation of the buildup of regolith at the base of rocks. I would still question why the regolith still seems uniform in depth even away from the rock.


It doesn't take much effort to find many studies of regolith depth based on analysis of visual imagery and radar from orbit, and to find from the results of those studies that regolith depth is variable.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #71 on: April 02, 2019, 06:55:23 AM »

Your explanation above is a reasonable explanation of the buildup of regolith at the base of rocks. I would still question why the regolith still seems uniform in depth even away from the rock.


It doesn't take much effort to find many studies of regolith depth based on analysis of visual imagery and radar from orbit, and to find from the results of those studies that regolith depth is variable.

Indeed.

The problem lies not with how regolith is formed and distributed. The problem lies with jr Knowing's belief.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3413
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #72 on: April 02, 2019, 09:00:40 AM »
]
The problem lies not with how regolith is formed and distributed. The problem lies with jr Knowing's belief.

Indeed.  It only took five pages to drag him to a cognition that expecting ejecta to settle like snowfall has no basis in science.  And now we're off and running on the next variation of "Something in these photos just doesn't look right to me."  Just like in his other thread where he flitted from one variation to another on, "The LM just doesn't look right to me."  And now we'll have to do another round of getting our posts just the right length and depth to meet his capricious standards, only to be reprimanded again for treating him so shabbily.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline benparry

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 257
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #73 on: April 02, 2019, 11:25:12 AM »
]
The problem lies not with how regolith is formed and distributed. The problem lies with jr Knowing's belief.

Indeed.  It only took five pages to drag him to a cognition that expecting ejecta to settle like snowfall has no basis in science.  And now we're off and running on the next variation of "Something in these photos just doesn't look right to me."  Just like in his other thread where he flitted from one variation to another on, "The LM just doesn't look right to me."  And now we'll have to do another round of getting our posts just the right length and depth to meet his capricious standards, only to be reprimanded again for treating him so shabbily.

Jay

do you remember when you once told me that answering people was better than ignoring them in case newbies came looking for info.

do you still hold that opinion with JR :)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3413
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #74 on: April 02, 2019, 11:37:05 AM »
do you still hold that opinion with JR :)

It's still better to provide answers than not to provide answers.  The cheerfulness with which I do so, however, is greatly affected by what kinds of shenanigans each individual tries to pull.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams