furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 2, 2007 20:42:01 GMT -4
am wondering what the absolute pressure of the atmosphere. completely filling a hangar full of helium to displace the atmosphere would be,
and as helium is such a nice almost ideal gas, that would sort of shag up using the huge lighting systems wouldn't it, as you would now have a sealed environment, necessarily airtight with a giant series of heaters in it producing all sorts of nice convection currents and progressively increasing pressure and temperature. or you could vent the Hot Helium and letting in Cool Heavy atmosphere which would prob. cause a minor tornado.
If the Helium was maintained at stp, I thought Fluid Drag in gasses was due to air pressure (rho) as opposed to viscosity (eta) well until you got to extremes
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 2, 2007 20:48:13 GMT -4
I thought Fluid Drag in gasses was due to air pressure (rho) Rho is density, not pressure. At the same temperature and pressure, helium is 4/29ths as dense as air.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 2, 2007 21:10:00 GMT -4
I thought Fluid Drag in gasses was due to air pressure (rho) Rho is density, not pressure. At the same temperature and pressure, helium is 4/29ths as dense as air. Brain Fart (it is 0200 here) where in the name of kittunz did I get that from, prob mistook my rho for a stray Pascal and vice versa when rummaging through the scrawled notebook of my memory (it also has doodles in as well) *Had to add : Maybe I was looking at the problem through rhos tinted glasses* I know, I am that special kind of special
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 2, 2007 21:10:47 GMT -4
Interesting. Never thought about it in terms of molecular weights. Have to admit it's a creative idea (I can't quite call it a "solution.")
(Now to get the image of a large tinfoil room covered in glitter and filled with helium out of my mind..)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 2, 2007 21:19:33 GMT -4
I expect as systems get better at automating match moves and traveling mats and so forth, it's going to be increasingly possible to send a near-finished comp into the viewfinder during the actual shooting.
Spielberg was able to do this to pre-visualize on A.I. He could walk around the stage with a motion-tracked camera and "film" quickly-rendered virtual sets composited with live action. This allowed him to plan CG-intensive shots as if he were filming a real set.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 2, 2007 21:23:32 GMT -4
Interesting. Never thought about it in terms of molecular weights. Have to admit it's a creative idea (I can't quite call it a "solution.") It's a better idea than lunatic's shotcrete vacuum dome. Now all inconceivable needs to do is figure out a way to eliminate 5/6ths of the Earth's gravity and he might be getting close to a solution.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 2, 2007 21:29:04 GMT -4
(Now to get the image of a large tinfoil room covered in glitter and filled with helium out of my mind..) Now I have to get that image and Astronauts sounding like the Smurfs out of my mind. One small step for a Smurf one Giant Leap for Smurfkind. (Gargamel and Azrael Sblack personing back on earth developing a plot to discredit this great act for the smurfs and line their own pockets as well)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 21:49:57 GMT -4
The Rover would have to be in an enlosed environment or building completely filled with Helium.
Which building? Where? How did the helium get there without being noticed? Is the interior of the building filled with helium to atmospheric pressure? If not, where is the evidence of pressure-bearing construction of that scale?
Dust particles and dirt sinks faster in a pure Helium environment than it does in normal air.
Stuff still aerosolizes in it. Again, there is zero tolerance here, since the black background is seen in other filmmaking to reveal even the slightest aerosolization.
The United States with its vast storages of Helium...
Most of it in private hands. Where is the evidence for the vast orders of helium? The increased production? The shortages in other helium applications?
...at the time and connections with Hollywood would have been the only country in the world to pull off something of this magnitude.
And why is this more plausible than the United States with its demonstrably leading aerospace industry and scientific expertise pulling off something of the magnitude of the lunar landings?
Unless you have evidence we haven't seen, there's none supporting the theory that a building was filled with vast amounts helium and aerosolization thus held to a minimum. No sign anything of the sort was ever done. But there's ample evidence that the U.S. aerospace industry was put to work on the real problem, and their solutions are still available for inspection and pass muster among knowledgeable folks.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 22:20:15 GMT -4
Have to admit it's a creative idea (I can't quite call it a "solution.")
Yes, actually that's the most creative conspiracy argument I've heard in a number of years. It actually employs a relatively obscure physical law.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 2, 2007 22:34:43 GMT -4
Cinematographer on the phone speaking to movie director:
"That's right, Steve, that damn dust billows up and gets into the cameras and everything and spoils the shots...look, I have an idea. My cousin just got back from out west...yeah, those educational films for the government. He said that they had to make shots like ours and they did it by filling the stage with helium...that's right, the balloon stuff...he says it makes the dust fall right down and stay put...Great! I'll place an order with our supplier in the morning..all we need is a way to make the set airtight !"
I can see no evidence in all the Sci-Fi motion pictures made since 1969 that this conversation ever took place.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 2, 2007 22:57:04 GMT -4
Made THAT argument before! The hoax leverages the vast technical experience of Hollywood by; A) doing nothing in the way Hollywood had done it before, or that bore any resemblance to the historical developments of film-making, and; B) causing everything they learned and all the people involved to vanish into obscurity -- again, unlike any major film or leading SFX film in the history of Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jul 3, 2007 0:47:13 GMT -4
Unless you have evidence we haven't seen, there's none supporting the theory that a building was filled with vast amounts helium and aerosolization thus held to a minimum. Nor is there any evidence of a need to even go to such elaborate lengths. Since no one knew lunar regolith was supposed to be the consistency of talcum powder, NASA could've just used some heavy material that doesn't hang in the air and made life much simpler for everyone involved. These grandiose, half-baked "theories" proposed by the HBs are a bit curious, since most of them involve a level of complexity far beyond sending a craft to the moon and touching it.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 3, 2007 8:10:26 GMT -4
I do believe that David C / Rocky may be one of the most willfully ignorant people I have ever encountered. Avoid all testing of claims in which you believe because testing may prove them wrong. Do not research claims in case the knowledge gained may prove them wrong.
Rely only on websites and videos which support your ideas.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 3, 2007 15:06:15 GMT -4
If there is a clear frontal shot of a throw, the speed of a thrown object can be calculated if there is something with a known size in the picture which can be measured such as the astronaut's backpack, can't it? Calculating what the speed and trajectory of a thrown object on the earth and the moon should be easy, shouldn't it? The speed and trajectory of a filmed thrown object would either be consistent or inconsistent with what is easy to calculate, wouldn't it. If there were a clear frontal shot in which everything were easy to measure, it would be easy to know whether the object had been thrown on earth and slowed down or had really been thrown on the moon by comparing what is calculable to the speed and trajectory in the footage, wouldn't it? If footage of an object being thrown on earth were slowed down, it would be obvious to anyone who had taken a semester of trig, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. I tried several different computers in two cybercafes and I can't watch those clips in post #497. I found this though. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1193156.mov This looks like it was shot in earth gravity and played back at about seventy percent speed; the object he threw would have gone further than that on the moon. In order to calculate where this was taken, we need to know the distance it was thrown, don't we? www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1702944.mpgAll we can do is estimate as we don't have a clear frontal shot of the throw. That's why there aren't any clear frontal shots of objects being thrown. It would have given them away. Doing those calculations doesn't look that hard to do if we can see what the range and velocity are with some clear footage of an object being thrown at a right angle to the camera. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.htmlWithout knowing the range, angle, and velocity, all we can do is look at it and compare it with what we've seen on earth. Why don't you prove it was thrown on the moon to settle the issue once and for all. You seem to think it's provable. The viewers would be pretty impressed if you simply proved it--especially the ones with math backgrounds. I can't do anything without a clear frontal shot.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 3, 2007 15:09:20 GMT -4
1. You shifted the goalposts.
2. Your claim, your burden of proof.
|
|