|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 13, 2007 3:18:40 GMT -4
The charter from labor days, I has solved to emotional repose in saturday soiree - admire the american video of astronauts on the Moon, enjoying chinese tea with greek lemon, cuban sugar and armenian cognac. All were splendid; tea smelled sweet the aroma, 160 kg. american men flitted as birds, something tweeting on english, I was crowded pride for USA, NASA and all progressive mankind, as suddenly? - A Devil! - That for sh*t! - In the sense of, not sh*t, but soil! - In the sense of, not soil, but the land!! - Phooey that, I want to say, why moon soil behaves as the land!!! Evening spoiled, terrible mood. Usually, in such condition I begin to change, as werewolf... So and there is, I again change in maniac! - NASA, you decedent! ___________________________________________________________________ And so, jury gentlemen, open our public, lawsuit! The inculpated side - an american organization "NASA". The accusing side - a russian person "maniac". Exposing NASA material - video "ap16_salute.mpg".
The sequence of criminal law action:
- The astronaut rises approximately before level of its knee in the first jump. This height is beside 50-55 sm. - Fix time of the first jump of the astronaut (from push before landing). On Windows Movie Maker jump derives from 0,27 sec. before 1,77 sec. The difference of time will be 1,5 sec. - Calculate time of the free fall of the astronaut: 1,5/2 = 0,75 sec. - Check, with what heights will fall the astronaut under moon G=1.64 for time 0,75 sec.: (0,75*0,75)*1,64/2 = 0,46 m - it is wholly reliable result, considering foul quality video.
The Conclusion: astronaut has jumped on the Moon.
Hereinafter we shall consider the behavior of the soil. - Fix time of the fall to last portion of the soil with legs of the astronaut, with maximum height of the jump: from 0,73 sec. before 1,07 sec. The difference of time will be 1,07 - 0,73 = 0,34 sec. - Shall calculate the speedup of the free fall of the soil: G = 2* the height of the fall / square of time of the fall, get G = 2*0.5/(0,34*0,34) = 8,7 that, considering bad quality video, practically is 9,8.
The Conclusion: ...but to song rope will not attach, ha-ha-ha... THE GO-O-O-OAL!!!!! NASA to do on soap!!! And so, jury gentlemen, let's listen the attorney of the inculpated. We listen...
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Oct 13, 2007 5:10:56 GMT -4
Again, in English please?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 13, 2007 5:21:33 GMT -4
Agree with postie - I have NO idea about what you are talking about. Perhaps it might be a language problem -if so, then we should help conspirioiomaniac find the service of a translator.
Otherwise (ie an English speaker) - I'm at a loss to comment. Not because I am unable to give a proper reply, but that I CANNOT give a reply because I do not understand what you are trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 13, 2007 6:16:50 GMT -4
Hereinafter we shall consider the behavior of the soil. - Fix time of the fall to last portion of the soil with legs of the astronaut, with maximum height of the jump: from 0,73 sec. before 1,07 sec. The difference of time will be 1,07 - 0,73 = 0,34 sec. - Shall calculate the speedup of the free fall of the soil: G = 2* the height of the fall / square of time of the fall, get G = 2*0.5/(0,34*0,34) = 8,7 that, considering bad quality video, practically is 9,8. So bascially you took a horribly-compressed 320x240 video with strong FPS issues into Windows Movie Maker to follow the path of the dust? And instead of looking at it frame by frame to find out the exact frames you used the time WMM gave you? That is begging for inconsistencies. How about using better software (I myself use VideoMach, it's REALLY handy for determining such things) and better source footage, for starters? EDIT: I'll add to that that the compression of the clip you used is worse than the compression used on YouTube. That means a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Oct 13, 2007 6:46:43 GMT -4
Here's what I can decipher, without all the theatrics:
I used to believe in the moon landings until I came across this (Apollo 16 jump salute mpg). From measuring off the poor quality video, I determine: - the time for the man jumping, approx 1.5 sec start to stop, and the estimated height of the jump, 0.5 m, indicates that the jump basically agrees with Lunar gravity
- the time of the sand falling from the high point of the jump to the ground, approx .34 sec for the same 0.5 m, indicates around 0.9 g - close enough to assume it was filmed on Earth
Conclusion: a rope was used to slow down the man, but the sand was affected by normal gravity, therefore proving a hoax.
Ho hum, same old stuff in a different package... That "I used to believe" bit never seems to get old. I see that Bert has already posted a reply on the video quality; yes, the compression is horrible. Most of the sand/dust kicked up does not go as high as the boots, so of course it has settled earlier. The small amount that does go that high is also dispersing outward, so it is pretty much invisible before it lands even on the Spacecraft Films Apollo 16 DVDs, but it is definitely visible quite a bit longer than our poster indicates. The telling point, though, is that some of the sand does go as high as the boots, and does so at the same time the boots are rising. Since gravity affects things rising just as they do those falling, and it was determined that the boots moved according to Lunar gravity, the rising sand is also. Also, as to the idea it was done on Earth with a wire suspension to mimic lower gravity, the sand would have completely settled to the ground well before the astronaut even reached the top of the jump.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 13, 2007 7:00:42 GMT -4
You seem to have used this clip: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ktclips/ap16_salute.mpgMy goodness, that clip you used is worse than I thought. I imported it in VideoMach, and (with a framerate of 30FPS), all frames have been doubled; some even tripled. This gives us a practical framerate of 15FPS (actually even lower). Combined with the horrible, horrible compression (MPEG-1 is outdated, and now considered to be one of the worst compressions out there) I simply cannot say whether the dust stops falling after 23 or 30 frames. But I'll try, nonetheless. Meh. Before I start, it's very important to note the following things that make everything more inaccurate: - Heavy framerate issues (I tried to solve these by calculating an "inaccuracy"; however this does not completely take the problem away. - Low resolution The low 320x240 resolution makes accurate measurements impossible. - Bad compression The horrible, horrible MPEG compression makes the dust into no more than a shady color. We cannot be sure if the dust goes on for longer; it's very likely compression has covered the slightly different colored pixels up. Again, accurate measurements are therefore made impossible. For these reasons, the following calculations (and your calculations) can not be considered more than a very rough approximation. =====================================================Astronaut's calculations:Start: 353 frames into clip End: 397 frames Time for full jump: 44 frames = 1+(7/15) s = 1.47s Inaccuracy*: (1/15) * 2 = (2/15)s = 0.13s Time for full jump: in between 1.47 and 1.6 seconds. d = .5gt² g = 1.622m/s² t = 0.73 (lower bound) 0.8 (upper bound) d_low = 0.44 meter d_up = 0.52 meter Dust fall calculations:Start: 353 frames into clip End: 376 frames Time for full fall: 23 frames = (23/30)s = 0.77s Inaccuracy*: 0.13s (as calculated before) Time for full fall: 0.77s (lower bound) 0.9s (upper bound) d = .5gt² g = 1.622m/s² t = 0.39 (lower bound) 0.45 (upper bound) d_low = 0.12 m d_up = 0.16 m *) The inaccuracy is based on the framerate; as all of the frames are doubles (they're used twice), the actual framerate we should use is 15FPS. The inaccuracy basically means that the actual jump start / end (or dust drop, for that matter) could have happened this amount of seconds longer. Longer, because the "start" and "end" frames I used are based on the first/last frame where something is in the air.=====================================================The part where you, conspiromaniac, went completely wrong (even more than analyzing the frames of bad footage in a bad way), was where you tried to calculate the gravity using measured height distances. Your technique seems to be no more than mere guesswork, and I'm not at all surprised to see results like these. You relied too much on your calculations being accurate, while they were taken from woefully inaccurate measurements. You also didn't even tell us (at least not in understandable English) how you got to these measurements. Bah! As Tanalia just noted, the (on this clip's version) visible dust goes only slightly higher than the boots. Frmo what I measured, the dust goes 25 pixels high, and the boots are 20 pixels high. Of course, these measurements are woefully inaccurate as well. All in all, the point I am trying to make is that the number of inaccuracies from this clip is simply far too high to make accurate conclusions from. With this clip, there is absolutely no way of conclusively determining when the dust hits the ground again. There, I was bored... By the way, am I the only one who can mostly understand conspiromaniac? Must be because most Dutch people's English are just as bad as his... - Spread the Love
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 13, 2007 8:16:51 GMT -4
Hey, that really works. Conspiracy theorist poetry! Well done, conspiromaniac.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Oct 13, 2007 8:46:05 GMT -4
Too bad it's not really comprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 13, 2007 11:43:21 GMT -4
Again, in English please? Ok. Indicate, what place to you not comprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 13, 2007 12:06:42 GMT -4
Ok. Indicate, what place to you not comprehensible. That part was incomprehensible. Are you using Babelfish to translate what you mean, or something? Please, try not to do that.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 13, 2007 12:57:37 GMT -4
Well. First, your message signifies that me to understand possible. Secondly, not correct to compare the results of the study, got on different equipment. The Third, why needs such accuracy in your calculation? Under such low quality video, we can speak only of the first numeral of the speedup of the free fall. Moon - 1,62 m/c2; Earth - 9,8 m/c2 The Fourth, I have not heard from you conclusion: with what speedup falls of the sand. Consider, please. When you will consider, pay attention to my word: "last portion of sand", "first jump of the astronaut" and "left leg of the astronaut". And else, without insults, you take the spectacles, when will look video. From Russia with ...? © conspiromaniac
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 13, 2007 13:02:48 GMT -4
Ok. Indicate, what place to you not comprehensible. That part was incomprehensible. Are you using Babelfish to translate what you mean, or something? Please, try not to do that. This is an old manner protector of NASA to avoid the unpleasant questions. I use the translater "Sokrat".
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 13, 2007 13:11:24 GMT -4
Basically, all of what you say is hard to understand because of the bad use of English.
Using the video we used, there is nothing we can be accurate about; that is why I listed a number of points of why things are not accurate. Let's summon it up: Because of the low quality video, we do not know the exact number of frames the dust took to fall. Because of the low framerate, we do not know how long it took for the dust to fall even if we were to know for sure how many frames it took. Do you agree with this?
However, despite these two systematic mistakes in your analysis, you used accurate measurements of the time the dust took to fall and the height from which it fell, which you used to calculate the apparent gravity. Do you agree that these measurements are not accurate and reliable, given the low quality and low framerate of the video? Do you agree that, therefore, your calculations are not reliable?
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 13, 2007 13:27:35 GMT -4
Hey, that really works. Conspiracy theorist poetry! Well done, conspiromaniac. Thank You for support. Hope, you have understood the general sense my "literary" labor. The mathematician?s language comprehensible for all, it is main.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Oct 13, 2007 18:27:19 GMT -4
I imported the video into Adobe Premiere. Premiere allows me to step forward frame-by-frame, with 30 frames making up each second. I looked at the first jump. It starts at 11.20. That means 11 seconds plus 20 frames, or 11 and 2/3 seconds, plus or minus 1 frame or so (+/- about 1/30th of a second). I put a little arrow on the video to show where I think the right-most edge of the right boot is located when the jump begins. The Y coordinate of this arrow was at 542 pixels. We don't care about the X coordinate, although obviously, if the camera was positioned above the boot, then some of its movement would be seen as translation. I really don't know how to estimate the error of this. I just put an arrow on the video. You can see a screenshot hereI stepped forward through the video. The top of the arch of the astronauts jump occurs at about frame 12.16 (again, plus or minus a frame or two). I used another red arrow to mark this location. This arrow is at Y=476 pixels. 12.16 - top of jump marked by red arrow 2, at 476 pixelsI stepped forward a few frames, and found the point where the astronaut lands. It's at about frame 13.05. The arrow I placed to mark it is at Y=531 pixels. 13.05 - End of jump marked by red arrow 3 at 531 pixelsIt's impossible to see an individual grain of sand, so what I tried to do next is to mark the top-most part of the cloud. I really don't think you can see it in this screenshot, but in Adobe Premiere I could step forward and backwards and I think I got a pretty good mark on the top of the cloud. I put a blue arrow at 487 pixels on frame 12.03. 12.03 - top of dirt marked by blue arrow 2 at 487 pixels (note, blue arrow 1 is even with red arrow 1 just to show where the dirt starts its arch). The last bit of movement of the cloud appears in frame 12.15. I marked it at 523 pixels. 12.15 - Bottom of dirt, marked by blue arrow 3 at 523 pixelsHere's a youtube video (for what that's worth) so that you can see the whole thing in motion. The Adobe Premiere project is 66 megs, but I'd be happy to try and upload it somewhere if someone requests it. So, by my calculation, the astronaut falls from pixel 476 to pixel 531 between frames 12.16 and 13.05. The formula for constant acceleration is (d1-d2)/(t1-t2). The change in distance was 55 pixels over 19 frames. That gives us a constant acceleration of 55/19 = 2.9 pixels/frame. The dirt falls from pixel 487 to pixel 523 between frames 12.03 and 12.15. The change in distance was 36 pixels, and the change in time was 12 frames. That gives an acceleration of 36/12 = 3.0 pixels/frame. Keeping in mind the margins for error, I really don't see any problem here. The sand appears to be under the influence of the same force as the astronaut.
|
|