|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 30, 2008 9:31:12 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 30, 2008 10:12:08 GMT -4
What a buffoon! This guy really needs to take a rudimentary physics class. Jarrah obviously has no concept of "initial velocity". John Young begins his fall from zero velocity. The hammer and feather have already built up a velocity by the time they reach knee height, thus they traverse the lower part of their fall in less time. V = Vo + at Velocity = Initial velocity + acceleration X time The video Jarrah claims as anomalous is completely consistent with Newtonian physics.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 30, 2008 10:42:19 GMT -4
I have been having a look at some of that stuff and do I detect a prod or two from the stick of mischief?
Along with some glaring omissions of course.
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 30, 2008 11:49:12 GMT -4
What a buffoon! This guy really needs to take a rudimentary physics class. Jarrah obviously has no concept of "initial velocity". John Young is begins his fall from zero velocity. The hammer and feather have already built up a velocity by the time the reach knee height, thus they traverse the lower part of their fall in less time. V = Vo + at Velocity = Initial velocity + acceleration X time The video Jarrah claims as anomalous is completely consistent with Newtonian physics. Indeed, I'm the LandingApollo on youtube and I put a similar comment up about acceleration due to gravity. I wonder what his response will be
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 30, 2008 12:25:28 GMT -4
He's just flailing at windmills now... It's readily apparent in Youngs leap that his CG was aft, and he (as did all astronauts on the Moon) were rotated backwards in the air...which got Charlie Duke into a bit of a mess later in the mission. The "wired" HBO astronaut shows no such tendency...perhaps also, aside from his support wires stabilizing his CoG, his backpack wasn't "scale" mass either.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 30, 2008 12:39:30 GMT -4
Looking at that clip as well, the comparison with the jump clip, and I appear not to be seeing the release of the hammer and feather?
Edited to add.... oops. Helps with the sound turned up. Must pay more attention.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2008 14:14:00 GMT -4
The "wired" HBO astronaut shows no such tendency...perhaps also, aside from his support wires stabilizing his CoG, his backpack wasn't "scale" mass either.
It most certainly was not. The PLSS props manufactured by Global Effects for the HBO production are almost entirely empty volume. They are manufactured from vacuum-formed polyethylene plastic covered with Beta cloth. They contain only a fan, which blows ambient ventilation air into the suit through the actual PLSS connection hoses, and a 6-volt DC battery to operate the fan. Each prop has a mass of perhaps 10 kg and can be lifted easily with one arm.
|
|
|
Post by zakabog on Jan 30, 2008 14:20:23 GMT -4
Yaaay I can post on these forums now, I don't even know how I got into watching these moon hoax videos on youtube but I've been debunking a lot of claims for a few weeks now. I just happened to find this forum a few days ago looking for some answers to a particular hoax theory (forgot what it was.)
Anyway, I just saw that latest youtube video, I commented while watching it, and I didn't notice the huge whopper till the end (comparing the speed of objects falling from different heights.) It should have been obvious when he compared an actor on wires attached to a helium balloon but I didn't notice it because I was too busy noticing that the actor is falling from much higher than knee height (even the white bar drawn across the image is above knee height, he draws it after the actor jumps.)
This poor kid, I wonder how many times he'll have to screw up so easily the entire basis of his video before he realizes he should outsource all his math and physics to India?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 30, 2008 14:50:40 GMT -4
welcome aboard zakabog. Yeah, Jarrah doe provide us a lot of amusement. At the same time, it sometimes gets us into the books, be they the Mission Reports, astrodynamics texts, or whatever. That's where the fun is for me...countering his claims with facts, and his inaccuracies with real data. Then let the bystanders and lurkers determine where the evidence falls.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 15:15:25 GMT -4
Of course, probably the most amusing aspect of Jarrah "Bond" White and his ridiculous theories is the fact that he staunchly refuses to debate his claims anywhere other than on YouTube. Heaven forbid he should actually come somewhere where he doesn't control who can post and where he can't delete the posts that point to actual evidence that he's wrong...
Cz
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2008 16:13:30 GMT -4
...he staunchly refuses to debate his claims anywhere other than on YouTube.
Which is why I largely ignore him. Jarrah's problem is also that he's been banned from pretty much everywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 30, 2008 16:35:53 GMT -4
Am I to understand that Jarrah, or Mr White as he prefers, is once again blatantly using unauthorised rips from SCF material? Dear oh dear.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jan 30, 2008 17:34:21 GMT -4
I thought you guys couldn't possibly be serious, so I forced myself to watch it... " ....according to Galileo's law of falling bodies, all objects in an airless environment, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at exactly the same time.
Therefore, if we were to play David Scott's experiment, from the point his two items reached knee height, with John Young's video, starting from when he begins to fall, all three of them should arrive at the ground in exactly the same time" Yes, Jarrah White actually said that. I quoted him verbatim from his latest video. I wouldn't have thought (.5)*1.5=1 could be topped. I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 18:01:19 GMT -4
I wouldn't have thought (.5)*1.5=1 could be topped. Did Jarrah actually claim that somewhere?? Cz
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2008 18:37:55 GMT -4
That or something similar; he didn't know about exponential notation, and then tried to argue that exponentiation and multiplication were the same thing. Honestly I don't know how he deludes himself into the appearance of competency. Didn't he end by the standard backpedal, saying he was "just testing" people or something?
|
|