|
|
Post by catch22blog on Sept 9, 2009 4:09:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by catch22blog on Sept 9, 2009 12:09:18 GMT -4
It's a bit hazardous to post a suggestion like that, without effectively working the numbers in advance. My figuring was that, the influence of gravity being in time squared, the time to fall between heights would not be consistent.
After messing with the numbers a bit, embarrassingly, I have to admit that a slow down of 2.46 times would look like Moon's gravity. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused to this forum.
It would be interesting though, to see the Moon footage accelerated by 2.46 times, according to deniers, that being the true speed of the motion. In particular I suggest (again perhaps putting a foot in my mouth) that astronauts driving the Lunar Rover would be hard pressed to hang on to the vehicle, or perhaps being spit out.
Again, my apologies, my bad.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 9, 2009 14:08:14 GMT -4
It would be interesting though, to see the Moon footage accelerated by 2.46 times, according to deniers, that being the true speed of the motion. The deniers generally say the footage was slowed down to one-half speed because they don't understand the physics well enough to calculate for themselves that the real ratio is 0.407. To reverse the effect of this alleged slowdown, the HBs double the film speed to show what they claim is the actual motion. There are many examples of this sped up footage posted all over the Internet. The problem is that it doesn't look anything like the real thing, though the HBs convince themselves that it does. Speeding up the footage can simulate the Earth-like appearance of ballistic motion, but other motions are all wrong. Most obvious to me when looking at sped up footage is that men on Earth are simply not capable of performing the observed acrobatics. A man cannot give a gentle push off his back foot and then travel a meter through the air before landing, yet this is what the astronauts are seen doing. When an HB claims the astronauts' motions look "natural" when sped up, I just shake my head in disbelief. The HBs don't bother to examine the footage critically; instead they see only what they want to see. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Sept 9, 2009 14:24:19 GMT -4
I concur with Bob B. Here is a YouTube video I made. It shows six clips of stuff being thrown by astronauts, only sped up 2x. While the gravity of the objects looks pretty natural (although not completely natural), the movements of the astronauts are way too fast and simply look sped up (I wonder why). Here's a clip with the original six videos. |
|
|
|
Post by catch22blog on Sept 9, 2009 14:42:52 GMT -4
You probably noticed that Bob B's figure of 0.407 is simply 1 / 2.46, so using one or the other depends if we consider the factor multiplying or dividing time.
Thanks Bertl for your links. That's exactly what I was talking about. Do you think there's sped up footage of the Lunar Rover? Perhaps with the vehicle we would get the Keystone Cops look to really stick out. To be honest (and I'm not playing Devil's Advocate here) in the examples you give, on first examination, the astronauts look like they have 80 kg on their backs, which indeed they do. But of course those clips focus on the motion of objects thrown away, not in astronauts motion, or vehicle motion.
I will be looking for crystal clear sped up footage, undeniably unnatural, but hints will be welcome. A rover leisurely cruising at 20 mph will look like its going 50 mph, which should really stick out.
Thx.
|
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 9, 2009 14:49:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by catch22blog on Sept 9, 2009 15:52:39 GMT -4
Oh, yes. In the Apollo 15 footage at the 9:32 mark, the astronaut further away, facing us, makes an almost unnoticeable motion with his left foot, sending dust a long way beyond the other astronaut. Only vacuum and low gravity would do that. Analysis of most of the motion is complicated by the fact that we have to assume "could this be slow motion?"
In the previous clip, a factor of 245% is used, correct by both mine and Bob B's figuring. Yes, the pendulum would have to be slowed by the atmosphere in the reconstruction.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by catch22blog on Sept 10, 2009 9:11:43 GMT -4
All these seem very unnatural at least in some point if they are supposed to show people on Earth performing the actions: www.youtube.com/watch?v=39I1rqO-l7owww.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-Ewww.youtube.com/watch?v=lkLjVw-a9w0www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9p444euxEThe problem in YouTube is that unless you know the person that uploaded the video, it's hard to ascertain how the footage was processed if at all. The second video, with the astronaut jumping seems to be at normal speed; In the third video, the astronaut efforts in trying to get up on his feet, is as unnatural on Earth as it can get; In the fourth video the Lunar Rover seems to be at normal speed (I can't see much difference with footage at true speed) and the astronauts around the LM are sped up but by an unknown factor. Trying to examine evidence in YouTube, without a good reference guide, gets entangled in the fact we do not know exactly if, for instance the poster is being deliberately deceptive, or playing a prank, or what-not. I will have to modify the post in my blog though. All help was and is appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Sept 10, 2009 10:49:10 GMT -4
The motion of the dust he kicks up is the oddest bit in that one, it seems incredibly fast. Like the motion of the arms in this one. The trouble with the all the sped up clips is that any motion which is not entirely dependant upon gravity suddenly becomes too fast. |
|
|
|
Post by catch22blog on Sept 10, 2009 13:17:41 GMT -4
I have a problem here.
To update my post, I got into timing the Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather experiment, with a stopwatch widget. The surface for the drop is not entirely level, as can be seen by the exact spot the hammer falls to. In any case it should be about 1.60 meters, perhaps a bit more. Timing it 20 times I got an average of 0.96 seconds, with results varying between .76 and 1.29, but the avg should be good, as we notice that some results are a bit higher, and some a bit short.
The thing is that the computed moon gravity acceleration would then be 3.41 m/s2, twice the accurate value.
For moon's gravity to be 1.62 m/s2, the hammer would be falling 0.75 m, or alternatively to fall 1.60 meters it would need 1.39 seconds (a noticeable error in timing).
As usual, I'm probably putting a foot in my mouth, but what is it exactly that I am getting wrong?
Thx.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Sept 10, 2009 13:37:10 GMT -4
I have a problem here. To update my post, I got into timing the Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather experiment, with a stopwatch widget. The surface for the drop is not entirely level, as can be seen by the exact spot the hammer falls to. In any case it should be about 1.60 meters, perhaps a bit more. Timing it 20 times I got an average of 0.96 seconds, with results varying between .76 and 1.29, but the avg should be good, as we notice that some results are a bit higher, and some a bit short. The thing is that the computed moon gravity acceleration would then be 3.41 m/s 2, twice the accurate value. For moon's gravity to be 1.62 m/s 2, the hammer would be falling 0.75 m, or alternatively to fall 1.60 meters it would need 1.39 seconds (a noticeable error in timing). As usual, I'm probably putting a foot in my mouth, but what is it exactly that I am getting wrong? Thx. Check out the thread below which beat this subject to death: apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2479 |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Sept 10, 2009 14:07:36 GMT -4
Also, timing it with a stopwatch widget is pretty inacurate by nature. A better idea would be counting the amount of frames the hammer falls and dividing it by the framerate to get the number of seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 10, 2009 14:34:18 GMT -4
Check out the thread below which beat this subject to death: A quick rehash. We have no way of knowing what inaccuracies may have cropped up through the processing from the original signal to get to the video uses here. So even a frame count will have significant error bars. This comes into play for both measures of the height of the feather drop and its time of fall. Timing it 20 times I got an average of 0.96 seconds, with results varying between .76 and 1.29, but the avg should be good...Oh, why should the average be good. Have you compared your average response time to some known source to see if it really does average out? ...as we notice that some results are a bit higher, and some a bit short. That is a property of averages, not a argument for accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Sept 13, 2009 18:14:03 GMT -4
The last video in that link is the most amusing. Anybody care to comment about the two most glaringly obvious issues in the video which prove that it is not any sort of NASA training footage? |
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Sept 14, 2009 17:54:08 GMT -4
I am sure there are short clips that work when speeded up, it's making it work for hours of unbroken footage that is the problem.
|
|
