|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 15, 2007 11:36:59 GMT -4
So it is impossible, all must be equally considered: 44 frames = 1+(14/30) s = 1.47s Inaccuracy*: (1/30) * 2 = (2/30)s = 0.07s Wrong. The first and last frame are chosen on the moments the astronaut is still in the air. Therefore, the time the astronaut is in the air is at least 44 frames, or 1.47 seconds. That is why 1.47 seconds is the lowest bound, and not 1.4 seconds. This is a strange american count of inaccuracy. Inaccuracy is given usually with sign (±). Example: for mechanical watch ? (± 15 seconds in day). I think - you try to enlarge time of the fall of sand and enlarge mistake a calculation. You want to get the reason for the further your statement. Again, wrong. I've just explained why your lower bound is wrong. Your upper bound is also wrong, as you need to add in the possible inaccuracy of both the beginning and the end of the astronaut being in the air. Because our actual framerate is 15FPS, one needs to use 2/15 = 0.13 seconds of inaccuracy, and not 0.07. This is can only be added to our 44/30 = 1.47 seconds time, and not subtracted (as the astronaut is in the air for at least 1.47 seconds). Video device indicates 30FPS! You just enlarge the inaccuracy under your statement. But this is not main distortion of a fact. I see your point, but I disagree. The astronaut kicks the dust up. The dust is not stuck to the astronaut's leg: the astronaut kicked it so that it gets an upwards force (and speed). I not agree with you. I strive to purity of the experiment. Let's refuse from additional factor: legs, hands and UFO. But, let's say you are right. That means we have the astronaut's upwards speed for an unknown number of time, then a downwards speed for another unknown number of time. We are basing it all on a bad picture quality, low resolution, low framerate file, so measurements are unreliable as they are. There are so many variables it's impossible to accurately calculate. I have no a claim to astronaut. He jumps with approximately moon speedup (1.78 m/c2). This is well calculated, not review on bad quality video. Let's focus attention on the sand. Your 'gravity' calculations are so inaccurate the difference between the moon's gravity and and your calculated gravity means nothing. It's simply not based on accurate enough measurements. You are not right absolutely. My calculations is enough exact. This proves the calculation of speedup of the fall of the astronaut. Height of the jump h=0.5m; time of the fall t=0.75sec.; 2h/t*t = 1.78m/s2. The value -1.78 vastly closer to value -1.62 them to value - 9.8.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 15, 2007 11:47:07 GMT -4
The astronauts brough back several hundred pounds of soil and rocks from the Moon, which has been studied by scientists around the world. Where did they get it? How did they get it. The scientists all agree it is not from the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 15, 2007 11:49:03 GMT -4
*slaps forehead*
- The inaccuracy can only go upwards because I chose the frames where the astronaut is in the air. Chosing less frames is illogical, as the astronaut could not have gotten on the ground earlier than 44 frames. I am not trying to make things 'look right' a bit better. You can't use 1.4 seconds as a lowest bound, as the astronaut is in the air for at least 1.47 seconds. Do you understand? This is why my lowest bound is 1.47 seconds, and not 1.4 seconds. - While the framerate of the video is 30FPS, all of the frames are doubles, sometimes triples. This means the actual framerate is 15FPS, or actually even less. This means the time inaccuracy per frame is not 1/30, but 1/15. Because the time inaccuracy occurs both at the beginning and the end of the 44 frame sequence, the inaccuracy is 2/15, 0.13. Do you understand?
Let's see. In order to calculate the apparent gravity using d = .5gt² --> g =2d / t², you will need to know the time t, and distance d. How did you determine the distance?
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Oct 15, 2007 15:35:34 GMT -4
He jumps with approximately moon speedup (1.78 m/c2). This is well calculated, not review on bad quality video. Let's focus attention on the sand. I showed, on page one of this discussion, that the sand falls at the same rate of acceleration as the astronaut.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 15, 2007 16:25:30 GMT -4
Inaccuracy is given usually with sign (±).
It can be noted that way, but it is not required. When computing quantization error, it is acceptable to give the error in terms of "no less than" and "no more than."
Video device indicates 30FPS!
You're using a video obtained from a convenience source. The video clip you are using is not suitable for photographic analysis, and NASA does not purport that it is. You cannot be assured that the frame rate you see in your version is preserved back to the original frame rates. You must account for frame-rate conversion in your analysis.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 3:41:12 GMT -4
The astronauts brough back several hundred pounds of soil and rocks from the Moon, which has been studied by scientists around the world. Where did they get it? How did they get it. The scientists all agree it is not from the Earth. Okay. I answer on your message, but I shall not develop debate. Yes, they speak that brought the hundreds a kilogram moon soil, but only several groups of ten gram walk on the world. The rest off the soil is hidden from curious scientists. NASA speaks this soil is intended for future generations. But NASA "has forgotten" indicates when these "future generations" appear! Why do NASA is sure that future generations will not be have a possibility to fly on the Moon and carry the soil? It is next nonsense of NASA.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 16, 2007 5:54:21 GMT -4
If I may chime in here as well...the source footage has additional characteristics which need to be addressed when computing frame rate. It is a kinescope recording of a TV video signal. The method involved looses fields in the process of converting to film (the Dr Who vidFire techniques reacreates the missing fields in kinescope material). If the mpg file presented here has been converted to 30fps, then it will _also_ have the 2:3 pulldown artifacting which also makes reliable frame calculations difficult.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 16, 2007 7:03:03 GMT -4
Why do NASA is sure that future generations will not be have a possibility to fly on the Moon and carry the soil? It is next nonsense of NASA. If I'm reading this correctly, you're asking "why is NASA keeping samples for future investigations?, after all, they can go back to the Moon and get more samples." Why would you think that samples taken from different locations on the Moon would be the "same"?? Given the fact that they wouldn't be, we would have to go back to old Apollo landing sites to aquire the "same" material. ...and I see no reason why we should return to places we have already visited.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 7:54:28 GMT -4
*slaps forehead* - The inaccuracy can only go upwards because I chose the frames where the astronaut is in the air. Chosing less frames is illogical, as the astronaut could not have gotten on the ground earlier than 44 frames. I am not trying to make things 'look right' a bit better. You can't use 1.4 seconds as a lowest bound, as the astronaut is in the air for at least 1.47 seconds. Do you understand? This is why my lowest bound is 1.47 seconds, and not 1.4 seconds. - While the framerate of the video is 30FPS, all of the frames are doubles, sometimes triples. This means the actual framerate is 15FPS, or actually even less. This means the time inaccuracy per frame is not 1/30, but 1/15. Because the time inaccuracy occurs both at the beginning and the end of the 44 frame sequence, the inaccuracy is 2/15, 0.13. Do you understand? Let's see. In order to calculate the apparent gravity using d = .5gt² --> g =2d / t², you will need to know the time t, and distance d. I understand your calculate. I not agree with your determine of jump time. First: You consciously reduce the amount of the frames of the jump, "hanging up" astronaut in air. You reduce accuracy of the calculations, reducing amount of the frames in sample for calculation (there is such notion in statistics). Start and stop of the astronaut jump is well look on his left foot. Your method of the measurement does not add accuracy absolutely. Secondly: You increase inaccurate of time in two times, decreasing amount of the frames with 30 FPS to 15 FPS. Because video time is divided on all frames. It increases inaccurate in two times. How did you determine the distance? I did determine the height of the jump on leg of astronaut, from foot to knee.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 8:39:09 GMT -4
He jumps with approximately moon speedup (1.78 m/c2). This is well calculated, not review on bad quality video. Let's focus attention on the sand. I showed, on page one of this discussion, that the sand falls at the same rate of acceleration as the astronaut. Excuse me. But I can not "wage war on two fronts". I have many difficult in communicate on foreign language. "BertLs" turned out to be first, so was got. You understand me, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 8:40:39 GMT -4
Why do NASA is sure that future generations will not be have a possibility to fly on the Moon and carry the soil? It is next nonsense of NASA. If I'm reading this correctly, you're asking "why is NASA keeping samples for future investigations?, after all, they can go back to the Moon and get more samples." Why would you think that samples taken from different locations on the Moon would be the "same"?? Given the fact that they wouldn't be, we would have to go back to old Apollo landing sites to aquire the "same" material. ...and I see no reason why we should return to places we have already visited. Why you can not return on place of "Apollo" boarding once again and once again? Or do you are afraid that we see there not that on photo and video of NASA? Ha-ha-ha ...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 16, 2007 9:04:24 GMT -4
The rest off the soil is hidden from curious scientists.
Can you name even one qualified scientist who has desired lunar samples for study and been denied access?
Why do NASA is sure that future generations will not be have a possibility to fly on the Moon and carry the soil?
We have not had any new lunar samples for 30 years. Clearly it is prudent to ration the samples we already have.
You've shifted the question to the samples held in reserve. What about the samples that are not in reserve and have been studied extensively? Where did those come from, if not from the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 16, 2007 9:07:10 GMT -4
Because video time is divided on all frames. It increases inaccurate in two times.
No. In these downloaded clips you may not assume the frame rate represents constant time increments, or even what the time increment is if it's a kinescope.
I did determine the height of the jump on leg of astronaut, from foot to knee.
And how did you determine the astronaut's height from foot to knee?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Oct 16, 2007 9:12:07 GMT -4
Why you can not return on place of "Apollo" boarding once again and once again? Or do you are afraid that we see there not that on photo and video of NASA? Ha-ha-ha ... Because we already know about those areas and want to explore areas that haven't been previously explored. Though that said there may well be visits to at least one of the Apollo sites to gather data of the effects of long term exposure to the Lunar environment on materials.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 16, 2007 9:12:43 GMT -4
I have many difficult in communicate on foreign language.
You certainly have sufficient command of the language to ridicule us and imply that our arguments are not sincere. If you wish us to be patient with your difficulty communicating in a foreign language, then please be judicious in how you use that language.
You are making many of the errors amateurs commonly make in trying to analyze the Apollo video. Your computation is based on guesses and assumptions, and taken from poor video. You really cannot study authenticity that way.
|
|