|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2007 13:04:58 GMT -4
...against the darkness of political technology!
You're the only one speaking politically. The rest of us are attempting to be impartial and scientific. It is clear that your aim is to refute NASA at all costs, not to provide a defensible analysis of the video footage.
The First piece!
You have once again used the data set that has been rejected as too coarse for your purpose.
The Red arrow points to upper edge of sand.
Irrelevant. You have no basis on which to conclude that some portion of dust in one frame is identical to another portion of dust in another frame. You're begging the question.
...on the light dust (the green arrow) which hinging in midair.
Describe the basis by which you concluded that the dark patch identified by the green arrow is, in fact, suspended dust. Your case rests on that identification; and you have simply begged the question.
I have taken the vertical size of astronaut?s knapsack...
As has been shown, your scale reference fails checks on accuracy. Your subsequent inferred measurements and computations are therefore incorrect.
Let's consider with inaccuracy of the measurement of time ± 0.03 sec.
In fact you have no reliable time base. You were given one, but you ignored it.
Please explain why you have simply repeated the attempt in which we have already pointed out the flaws.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2007 13:22:04 GMT -4
I have taken the vertical size of astronaut?s knapsack (beside 0,8 meters)
No. Your arrows delineate the PLSS portion only, without the OPS. Hamilton-Standard drawings indicate a height dimension of 26.44 inches (0.67 meter) for this component. At the resulting scale of 60 pixels per meter, BertLS's check value computes a height for the astronaut of 2 meters.
Further, your estimation of 40 pixels is considerably inset from the actual image of the PLSS in the relevant frame. And because the PLSS is tilted forward and to the side in this image, you must correct for that in your image-space measurement. If, for example, the actual measurement of unprojected height were 45 pixels, the scale would be 0.015 meter per pixel, which is considerably different than the figure you used.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Oct 19, 2007 13:48:44 GMT -4
for the third time, was my analysis on page 1 completely off-base??
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2007 13:55:38 GMT -4
for the third time, was my analysis on page 1 completely off-base??
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. The computation of the astronaut's movement is reasonably defensible. It would pass muster in a relevant paper. But you'd never get away with estimation based on the visible "top of cloud" method. There's simply no basis to conclude that the top of the cloud from frame to frame indicates the same body of particles in each frame, so it's no more defensible than picking any arbitrary point in the middle of the cloud.
(ETA:) I take some of that back. I've come to a better understanding of perhaps what you mean with the dust cloud. If you mean the top of the cloud to indicate the highest point likely reached by any dust, then that's somewhat valid. You would still have a hard time correlating that to your estimate of its landing point, because you can't be sure that the dust at the global apex is the same dust that hits the designated landing point.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 19, 2007 14:15:42 GMT -4
Okay, a test for conspiromaniac: What does 'поннимания' mean? You have done mistake in russian word "understanding" much letters "n". You're right. I purposely misspelled the russian word for 'understanding'. Well, either you're Russian or you know someone who understands Russian. ;D Wait a second, how did you other guys figure it out? I thought I was being quite clever! I downloaded Dwights higher res version of the video. Did conspiromaniac look at it? Doesn't look like earth gravity to me. I kind of don't know what all the fuss is about. Why would anybody persist in using the crappier version for analysis?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 19, 2007 14:39:02 GMT -4
You have done mistake in russian word "understanding" much letters "n". You're right. I purposely misspelled the russian word for 'understanding'. Well, either you're Russian or you know someone who understands Russian. ;D I had 1 semester of college Russian over 12 years ago, and barely passed. But I caught it. Proves nothing. More telling is maniac's repeated references to heavy drinking. That, and other things, reminds me of another poster. I think he was before your time here. He was a character-actor in several incarnations. In fact, for a long time, I suspected Lionking of being the same user. Really, how unlikely is it that a woman in med school in Lebanon would end up reading here? In the end, I've given Lionking the benefit of the doubt, just because she's polite and intelligent. Not at all like the angry english truck driver/scuba instructor/sponge that lives in a pineapple. On the other hand, the user in question has several different modes of conversation on other sites, many of which are very combative, but not exclusively. I think it relates to work/time-off patterns, and recreational drinking. I haven't bothered corroborating posting times for pony-mania boy with the other sites. I'm trying to do my job at work these days. So I should log off now and get back to it!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 19, 2007 14:55:47 GMT -4
You're right. I purposely misspelled the russian word for 'understanding'. Well, either you're Russian or you know someone who understands Russian. ;D Wait a second, how did you other guys figure it out? I thought I was being quite clever! Well the on-line translators spit it out again because of the spelling mistake (although they put it in Roman characters so I could tell reasonably well what it was supposed to sound like). I reasoned it was either mis-spelled or a proper name. So I looked for similar Russian words on-line, and came up with "ponimat" which means "to understand". From "to understand" the leap to "understanding" was pretty obvious.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 19, 2007 15:04:33 GMT -4
The Ladies and gentlemen! The Conspiromaniac continues holiday of the victory of the light of the knowledge against the darkness of political technology!
Not with such poor calculations and failure to sanity-check your results.
Your numbers and diagrams indicate that the astronaut in the picture is over seven feet tall - over a foot taller than the Apollo height limit.
Try again. And use the better imagery, provided to you for free, next time.
You also might want to consider the fact that surface material is kicked up with a distribution in the vertical velocity component. You have invalidly assumed - well, you didn't even really think about it - that all the dust is kicked up with the same initial conditions; that's wrong.
Moreover, there is no evidence of billowing, as would occur in the presence of air.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 19, 2007 15:19:30 GMT -4
I have invited a friend of mine to join the conversation here. If conspiromaniac is willing to converse directly in Russian, we might be able to learn a thing or two.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Oct 19, 2007 16:31:58 GMT -4
If you mean the top of the cloud to indicate the highest point likely reached by any dust, then that's somewhat valid. yes, that's what I meant. I thought it would be a reasonable upper bound to look at highest point vs. last apparent movement. There are too many inaccuracies to use this method to prove a conspiracy, and I think there are too many unknowns to calculate G, but it does seem possible to rule out conspiromaniac's theory, because I do think I was able to calculate pixels per second, and they seem to be equal for dust and astronaut. If his theory was correct then there should be a considerable difference, which I think would be obvious, even given the inaccuracies of the method.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2007 17:00:49 GMT -4
I thought it would be a reasonable upper bound to look at highest point vs. last apparent movement. There are too many inaccuracies to use this method to prove a conspiracy...
I agree. There really aren't any good aggregate distribution models for reasoning about dynamics in this situation, simply because the problem displays essential ambiguity. So while your method isn't really good, it's not much worse than the best ones.
If you time from surmised departure to visible apex to surmised rest, you have a reasonable upper bound. You can say, "This is the longest path for the dust that the evidence allows." But that's not really the question you want to ask, because from that (using a reasonable time scale) you can know only about the weakest gravity that applies. That is, given the maximum ballistic trajectory and a duration, you can find the gravity that allows the trajectory to fit the time.
What you want (and probably can't get from the evidence) is the strongest gravity that applies, which translates into analyzing the evidence for the shortest ballistic path. If you can show that the shortest evidenced path, combined with the appropriate duration, does not allow for an Earth gravity magnitude (i.e., it still takes too long), then you will have pretty clearly falsified the Earth-gravity hypothesis.
But I think I see the wisdom in your approach. If you say that the astronaut's motion is wire-assisted and not governed strictly by gravity, then you can falsify that based on comparing astronaut motion to gross dust motion, so long as you make a case that your plot of dust motion cannot reasonably be off by a factor of more than about 2.5. That's because if the astronaut is wire-assisted but the dust falls free, and this is all done in Earth gravity, then your measurement should fit the square-root-of-gravity-ratio law. If there isn't at least a factor of 2 difference, then you can say the evidence doesn't fit the Earth-gravity hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2007 17:19:16 GMT -4
Moreover, there is no evidence of billowing, as would occur in the presence of air.
I think this bears emphasis. The proper scientific approach tries to falsify one's conclusion. If one argues that something was shot in air and not in a vacuum, then one can't simply say that the evidence doesn't fit one's expectation of what motion in a vacuum would look like, and therefore that it "must" be in air by default. If the evidence also fails to fit what would be expected in air, then your experiment is poorly designed and doesn't test the actual hypothesis.
You can't say that your hypothesis must be true simply because some other hypothesis appears false.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 19, 2007 17:24:32 GMT -4
So far, no comments on the giant astronaut? I measured him up the exact same way conspiromaniac measured up the height of the dust.. cloud, thingie.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 19, 2007 17:44:23 GMT -4
Moreover, there is no evidence of billowing, as would occur in the presence of air.
If 'rockydust' was used, it wouldn't billow because it would have been sifted separated from the smallest dust particles.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2007 17:50:08 GMT -4
Curses! Foiled again by magic sand.
|
|