rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 3, 2007 15:20:50 GMT -4
You're really impressing the viewers here. I can't do anything without a clear frontal shot in which everything is easy to measure. All I can do is compare the throw to throws I've seen on earth. This looks quite like earth conditions to me. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1702944.mpgThe difference between the two gravities is sixfold; there should be a glaringly obvious difference in the speed and range of the object thrown. It is nowhere near glaringly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 3, 2007 15:31:03 GMT -4
You're really impressing the viewers here. Your imaginary friends don't count. If the viewers want their opinions to matter they will have to join the forum and verify that they actually exist outside of your imagination. What kind of behaviour does a piece of cloth demonstrate when you throw it on Earth? Does it flutter and collapse into a ball when you throw it, or does it remain open and flat? I guess they forgot to add a rope to the hammer to make it fly further.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 15:33:22 GMT -4
I'm currently compiland and converting those six clips into something rocky can watch. I think YouTube will do, but to make sure I'll try and make a QuickTime clip too (you can look at things frame-by-frame with the QuickTime player) although I haven't tried that before.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jul 3, 2007 15:37:55 GMT -4
What are you talking about? He throws it off-camera. You can't see how far it goes. He didn't even throw it, he tossed it. There's absolutely nothing you could calculate from that clip.
I'll ask you yet again. How is it physically possible that the astronauts could have spent many hours at a time running and hopping at top speed in their heavy spacesuits without a break and in earth gravity?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 3, 2007 15:48:38 GMT -4
You're really impressing the viewers here.
According to them, I am.
I can't do anything without a clear frontal shot in which everything is easy to measure.
The point is that these are clips you said didn't exist. Do you acknowledge that they exist and that you were once again wrong?
This looks quite like earth conditions to me.
Begging the question.
The difference between the two gravities is sixfold...
And is only one of several variables to consider. Further, the 6X difference in gravity does not equate to a 6X difference in every derived observable quantity.
It is nowhere near glaringly obvious.
But elsewhere you showed that you weren't a good judge of what is obvious and what isn't.
You were presented with clips illustrating thrown objects, clips that you said did not exist. You are claiming they are no different from Earth experience, but have provided absolutely no proof -- simply your error-prone opinion. If you can't perform any computations on the clips you were given, you can either supply your own clips and computations, or admit that your claims cannot be proven quantitatively.
What did you expect in return, Rocky? Applause?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 3, 2007 15:53:10 GMT -4
The first part of the trajectory can be seen. It's enough.
They had wire supports.
The object he threw had some distinct folds in it; it might have been something like cardboard but a little heavier.
Nobody would be impressed by the position you people are taking. Objective truth-seeking scientists would just prove it to settle the issue instead of avoiding proving it.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 3, 2007 16:02:19 GMT -4
I haven't been able to watch the clips in post #497. I've told you what I think of the ones I've been able to watch. According to the range of trajectory formula here everything is divided by gravity. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.htmlThat means there's a sixfold difference in height and range between objects thrown on the moon and on earth. Those objects in the two clips I was able to watch did not have the trajectories with those six-fold increases--that footage was filmed on earth and shown at about seventy percent speed.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 3, 2007 16:05:21 GMT -4
Nobody would be impressed by the position you people are taking. I want to hear from your alleged supporters. If they don't exist then stop pretending they do. They are your claims, it is up to you to prove them! Why can't you grasp that?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 16:08:35 GMT -4
I haven't been able to watch the clips in post #497. I've told you what I think of the ones I've been able to watch. I've compiled them and uploaded them to YouTube, it's currently processing. If you stay on for another 15 minutes you'll be able to watch it for yourself. I've also uploaded a QuickTime version here (warning: direct link and large file, right click and Save to download), but as you're in an internet cafe you are probably not able to play it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 3, 2007 16:16:23 GMT -4
If there is a clear frontal shot of a throw... You don't need a clear frontal shot. Any shot that shows both the apex of the trajectory and the object hitting the ground is enough to calculate the gravitational acceleration, assuming of course that you are watching the video at the correct speed. Your proposed exercise is pointless, Rocky. It has already been explained to you that pure ballistic motion on the Moon is 2.46 times slower than on Earth and vice versa. Pure ballistic motion on the Moon and Earth can be made to look indistinguishable from each other just by speeding up or slowing down the video speed by a factor of 2.46. Therefore measuring the trajectory and calculating the acceleration of gravity by itself tells you nothing particularly useful. For instance, if you calculate an acceleration of 1.62 m/s 2 then you may be looking at authentic lunar video, or you may be looking at Earth video slowed down 2.46 times. If you calculate an acceleration of 9.81 m/s 2 then you may be looking at video shot on Earth, or you could be looking at authentic lunar video sped up 2.46 times. To know which is which you need to look at other evidence; the ballistic motion by itself is not enough. This is particularly true since you've made accusations of all sorts of monkey business with the film speeds. Any result that is not to your liking you'll just claim has had the speed altered. When one looks at the sum total of all the evidence observable in the video, the most likely explanation is that the video was shot on the Moon. There is nothing inconsistent with this conclusion in anything I see in the Apollo video. On the other hand, your hypotheses are filled with problems and inconsistencies.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 16:19:18 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 3, 2007 16:19:27 GMT -4
Those objects in the two clips I was able to watch did not have the trajectories with those six-fold increases--that footage was filmed on earth and shown at about seventy percent speed. Please provide your analyzes and calculations for our review.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 3, 2007 16:21:13 GMT -4
And your evidence of this is what?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 3, 2007 16:22:27 GMT -4
Rocky,
Why couldn't Apollo land astronauts on the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 16:23:07 GMT -4
Those objects in the two clips I was able to watch did not have the trajectories with those six-fold increases--that footage was filmed on earth and shown at about seventy percent speed. Rocky, sorry for the question, but which clip are you referring to here? EDIT: Nevermind, found it.
|
|