|
Post by blackstar on Jul 23, 2009 18:45:53 GMT -4
More stupid tricks with net video, no dimensions and of course no real meaning.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 23, 2009 17:32:48 GMT -4
That a HB loves the uncertainty as it can be twisted to fit their argument. If it was easily measured then it would not crop up, it would be avoided. In that case, I would surely appreciate it if johnsmith would stop flailing about on the uncertainty, and get along with presenting his argument. I mean, I think we can all agree, as of Page 1 of this thread, that the video is uncertain. So what? johnsmith, to what interesting and useful result do you expect from this 8-page discussion of the uncertainty of this video footage--an uncertainty that most of us were already well aware of before the thread even began? I think Johnsmith was quite certain that the numbers didn't match, and despite being asked to offer his view on what was actually going on numerous times he has declined repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 23, 2009 16:28:14 GMT -4
The problem is that with so many people listening to radio shows and watching TV shows where the loudest, most aggressive voices win out reasoned argument doesn't stand a chance...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 23, 2009 14:18:19 GMT -4
During my lunch break at work I wondered about the question of how accurately you could actually determine the moment the hammer was released and started falling. Firstly taking the MOV frame rate as 29.47 1 frame = 1/29.47 = .03393s(to five places, I used the full number of digits my calculator could handle for this calculation. Plugging this into the appropriate equation and taking lunar gravity as 1.63 gives a value of:
0.00094m or slightly less than 1mm.
After two frames the distance dropped is:
0.00375m or 3.75mm
Now given the quality of the video I can't see how you could see spot a 3.75mm drop let alone a 1mm drop.
Of course you have to wonder how much difference 1 or 2 frames is going to make. Well Johnsmith's longest estimate for the drop is 1.1s, giving a total drop height of 0.98615m.
Taking the value for time as 1.13393s gives a drop height of:
1.04792m
Adding two frames to the original time value makes it 1.16786s, which gives a drop height of:
1.11158m
Now if you're expecting me to claim the latter value as the true one I'm going to disappoint you. All I'm trying to show here is that given the margin of error in trying to analyze such a low res video there really is no way you can claim that it contains anomalies that require any other explanation than the fact that it is a low res video.
Edited because I pressed the wrong button on my calculator!
|
|
|
Reentry
Jul 22, 2009 17:24:55 GMT -4
Post by blackstar on Jul 22, 2009 17:24:55 GMT -4
Thank you all for those references, this was something that I had just never heard of before, I guess thats the thing with real events, the more you look the more there is to learn.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 22, 2009 16:29:46 GMT -4
Something that occurred to me earlier is that we are watching a feather and a hammer dropping at the same speed in a vacuum in a gravity field that allowing for the rough quality of the video is 1/6th g; if it isn't a video from the moon what the heck is it! If you are going to argue that the errors and approximations that are bound to creep in when working with web video as a source mean something shouldn't you propose a viable alternative for people to weigh in the balance of evidence?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 22, 2009 15:28:45 GMT -4
I think if you wrote this guy into a movie script the director would ask you to tone it down because no one is that dumb in real life...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 22, 2009 15:14:36 GMT -4
One thing though, when BaleL calculated the drop time as 1.2s approx he used the MPEG, when Johnsmith came back with 1.08 he referenced the MOV. BaleL? ;D Sorry, in my defence I did realize my mistake and correct it, eventually.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 22, 2009 14:46:53 GMT -4
Okay I've learned some important lessons form jumping into this thread: Firstly when someone starts a thread with some numbers that show a 'contradiction', ask them how they came up with those numbers. Secondly do not try and work data on the equations of motion after 11 at night. And finally if someone clams to be able to take accurate measurements form a compressed web video back away slowly and carefully.
One thing though, when BertL calculated the drop time as 1.2s approx he appeared to be referencing the MPEG, when Johnsmith came back with 1.08 he referenced the MOV.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 19:17:17 GMT -4
Okay, the astronaut is 132 pixels high, the hammer and feather are 86 pixels up on the astronaut. 86/132=.651515 recurring. The height quoted by johnsmith for the astronaut in his suit was 1.86 metres. 0.651515x1.86=1.2118179. So call it 1.2-1.3m metres(allowing for the graininess of the footage) as opposed to Johnsmith's original estimate of 1.5-1.6.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 19:03:41 GMT -4
You can argue about the exact level on the suit at which Scott drops the hammer and feather from, and to me he looks slightly bent forward but its subjective, I also think the pauses in his speech before he drops and after the landing renders issues of audio synchonisation impossible to determine, again my subjective take. You have a piece of video that has been compressed for web use and wasn't especially hi res to begin with I suspect. It's also hard to determine the drop height with the precision needed to calculate the drop time. All you can say with any certainty is that the two are released at the same time and land at the same time, and that given the limitations of the video that time is broadly within what one would expect for 1/6th g and a vacuum. If you find the explanations you have been offered unsatisfactory then please, please, give us your take on what actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 18:43:03 GMT -4
Oh for %^&* sake! I mean there's Rodionh's really nice series of images from the sim in the previous post and the man still posts that garbage. I had read other people's comments about Jack White but this is the first time I've actually seen his work, if one can dignify it with that word. Are we sure he isn't a mole trying to discredit the HB's? I mean no one can be that stupid, oh what am I say of course they can it's just so depressing...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 18:31:09 GMT -4
Well that's 15 minutes of my life I'm never getting back; I downloaded the 8Mb and the 80Mb files to view. Yes the 80Mb file is better quality but its still not very good, you seriously can't be trying to take accurate timings for the drop from that can you? The original was clearly a TV broadcast and not great quality to start with and after its been through Quicktime conversion its nothing more than a nice illustration of Gallileo's observation. Again if you have an alternate explanation please just save a lot of time and just lay it out.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 17:09:41 GMT -4
One can assume that the video rate has been altered after converting the video from analog tape to digital format. However, this does not explain why the audio rate remains unaltered. Sorry but on what do you base the assumption that the audio rate is unaltered? Also if you accept the video rate has been altered then why try and make detailed measurements from this, find a high quality uncompressed source and take measurements from that, surely the sensible approach? There is nothing alleged here. The whole point of formats such as Quicktime is to compress video for the web, information is lost in the process, that's just the way it works, find a high res source and take your measurements there. If on the other hand you have an alternate theory about the 'discepancy' then please just come out and state it.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 16:40:02 GMT -4
The video has been converted from its original form to Quicktime, which would involve a degree of data compression and loss of information, you cannot take any useful measurements from this sort of online video.
|
|