Thanks for posting the article.
I agree with
Glom's comments about the tone of certain statements. They seem slanted toward the moon landings as hoax position. Comments like the "clinging to" vs "suggest".
I find it neat that they got some nifty software to do some analysis of the film. However,
JayUtah and others have shown some simple (and inexpensive) demonstrations using cameras to duplicate the supposedly impossible effects. These should have been incorporated.
The students did try out their critical thinking and evaluative skills. In that respect, the project was a success. The fact that some remain unconvinced and the debate lingers suggests not enough was done. How much of the evaluation was student led (vs. teacher suggested), and how much time was used are things to consider in that respect.
Quote:
|
· Arguing that the moonwalk did occur is frustrating, as proponents get pelted with questions. Even when they answer them to their own satisfaction, if often won’t satisfy the opponents. Sometimes, the answers add more material for questions rather than resolving issues. Asking as skeptics was more fun than answering.
|
This is a great observation. It shows the difficulty of trying to answer in a thorough manner vs. asking questions without attempting to understand. It shows why technical debates are hard to win on merit vs. on emotionalism, which is slanted to against the science side. This parallels creationism/evolution debates, where the creationists only need to hint at technical findings that the evolution defender hasn't specifically seen.
I think some of them are clinging to the doubting position because it's more fun.
Glom said:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Cody McGinnis asks how a lunar craft with 10,000 pounds per square inch of thrust can leave no visible indentation on the moon surface?
|
Pounds per square inch is a measurement of pressure not thrust. He can't even keep he's statement dimensionally correct. He clearly works for Edexcel.
|
I'm not sure this is a fair criticism. Yes, it is true. However, unless you are technically trained, you won't understand the difference in terminology.
And clearly they didn't research the technical details that closely. We all know about the 10,000 lb/in
2 max rating vs. the throttled down thrust.
From the article:
Quote:
|
· The gravity-produced acceleration rate of an object dropping on the moon surface is 5.4 feet per second squared. The acceleration on earth is –32.3 meters per second squared.
|
Some problems with this statement. First, it's 32.2
feet per second squared, not meters per second squared. It's 9.8 meters per second squared. Second, there is inconsistency in the use of the negative sign. This could be interpreted correctly how stated - comparing acceleration rate (i.e magnatude) vs. acceleration (i.e. vector quantity). However, by switching back and forth, it gives the impression that the Moon's gravity pulls
up. Consistency in usage would be less confusing. Also, technically the
acceleration rate would mean the
rate of acceleration, which would be
jerk (third derivative of position). Semantics.
Still, I'm glad they did the project.