|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 23, 2010 18:22:23 GMT -4
Geez, when I used the "magic wand" on the Hi-Res picture, it selected the whole sky in the background (except for two small dots) A closeup on the two small dots in the picture:
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 24, 2010 10:02:45 GMT -4
Well isn't he just a lying xxxx Never attribute to malice what is more easily attributed to incompetence and ignorance. Jack White has both qualities in abundance.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jun 17, 2010 18:46:46 GMT -4
I saw this thread www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120799It started me thinking about the relationship between the Earth and Moon gravity. Moon is 1/6th.......so why does the motion look fairly correct when it is sped up to between 1.5 and 2 times. I'm not saying dust being kicked doesn't look odd, and flags moving quicker etc.....just what is the factor that makes this true? btw. the guy who started the thread actually thinks the slow motion upwards movement is a smoking gun, that no-one in the history of science has noticed!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 17, 2010 19:09:49 GMT -4
Ballistic motion on the Moon will mimic ballistic motion on Earth if the film is sped up by a factor of 2.45, i.e. the square root of 6.
To see this we use the equation d = at2/2 where d is distance, a is acceleration, and t is time. On Earth a = 9.81 m/s2 and on the Moon a = 1.62 m/s2. If we drop an object from a height of 2 meters on Earth, the time it takes to hit the ground is,
t = (2d/a)1/2 t = (2*2/9.81)1/2 = 0.64 s
and on the Moon the time is,
t = (2*2/1.62)1/2 = 1.57 s
So if you speed the Moon video up by 2.45 times, the object would be seen to fall at the same rate as the Earth video.
1.57 / 2.45 = 0.64 s
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 17, 2010 19:19:52 GMT -4
I saw this thread www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120799It started me thinking about the relationship between the Earth and Moon gravity. Moon is 1/6th.......so why does the motion look fairly correct when it is sped up to between 1.5 and 2 times. I'm not saying dust being kicked doesn't look odd, and flags moving quicker etc.....just what is the factor that makes this true? btw. the guy who started the thread actually thinks the slow motion upwards movement is a smoking gun, that no-one in the history of science has noticed! Heh. Here's the short version: Take the square root of the two gravities divided by each other and you have the factor you would technically need to slow down (or speed up) the footage by to get the other gravity. Here's the long explanation: The relation to how long it takes for stuff to go down at the Moon and how long it takes for things to go down on Earth is determined by the following equation. d = 0.5 * g * t^2 Anyone with some basic education in Newtonian physics has this thing burnt in the mind (at least, that's how my teacher did it). But to put it in less mathy terms: the distance d in meters is dependent on half of the gravity g in m/s 2, and by the time t (in seconds) squared. It's the squared part that makes it important. For an object falling the same distance on the Earth and the Moon, we can see the differences with the following equation. 0.5 * 1.67 * t 1^2 = 0.5 * 9.81 * t 2^2 (Where 1.67 represents the Lunar gravity, and 9.81 represents Earth gravity.) To see how much things would need to be slowed down, we need to divide the Earth time t1, and divide it by the Moon time t2. Rewriting the equations gives us t 1^2 / t 2^2 = (0.5 * 9.81) / (0.5 * 1.67) t 1^2 / t 2^2 = 9.81 / 1.67 Working it out a bit more. (t 1 / t 2 ) ^2 = 5.874 Bringing the squared part to the other side, making it a square root... t 1 / t 2 = sqrt(5.874) = 2.424 So basically, to make things on Earth look like they're in the Moon's gravity, things would need to be slowed down to about 40% of the original speed. EDIT: Damn you Bob B with your fast posting in a shorter way. Oh well, at least I didn't use a specific number.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jun 18, 2010 6:16:31 GMT -4
Ok, that's brilliant. So why then does the film look approximately correct at 1.5/2.0.....is it something to do with the movement of people and objects factored in?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 18, 2010 8:15:22 GMT -4
So why then does the film look approximately correct at 1.5/2.0 Obviously that's a very subjective thing. I've never seen a film sped up by 1.5 times, but at 2.0 times it looks "approximately" correct because 2.0 is fairly close to 2.45 - it's just close enough to fool you. The hoax believers have been trumpeting the 2X thing for years. I find is amusing that in all these years not one of them could perform a relatively simple calculation to determine that the real ratio is 2.45. Many years ago somebody just doubled the speed and thought it looked kind of close and the whole HB community has been running with it ever since. It should tell you something when seemingly not one HB knows enough physics to figure this out. This is simply high school level stuff.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 18, 2010 8:30:38 GMT -4
Where 1.67 represents the Lunar gravity Where did you get that number? It's a bit too high. The surface gravity of a body can be easily calculated from the equation g = GM/r 2, where g is the acceleration of gravity, G is the constant of gravitation, M is the mass of the body, and r is the radius of the body. It is actually easier for astronomers to measure the product GM rather than G and M individual, thus many sources give the value of GM, which is sometimes represented by the Greek letter mu. From this webpage we see the value of GM for the Moon is 4.902794x10 12 m 3/s 2 and the Moon's radius is 1,738 km. Therefore, the surface gravity is g = 4.902794x10 12 / 1738000 2 = 1.623 m/s 2Earth's surface gravity is 9.80665 m/s 2, thus the ratio of Earth-to-Moon surface gravity is 9.80665/1.623 = 6.042.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 18, 2010 11:13:06 GMT -4
Actually, the simplest explanation is that it doesn't, in fact, look approximately correct at double speed. Superficially it might, but anyone looking closely will see all sorts of things that are just wrong, and that show that the Apollo films were in fact filmed in a gravity field substantially lower than that on Earth. The Mythbusters tried several methods, including running at 1/2 speed, to duplicate the Apollo footage, and all of them had telltale problems that gave the game away.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 18, 2010 11:23:18 GMT -4
Where 1.67 represents the Lunar gravity Where did you get that number? It's a bit too high. Yeah, I had the incorrect figure in my mind for the Lunar gravity. It's approximately 1.62, not 1.67. I was wondering why my ratio ended in 2.42 instead of 2.45.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jun 18, 2010 12:00:13 GMT -4
The hoax believers have been trumpeting the 2X thing for years. I find is amusing that in all these years not one of them could perform a relatively simple calculation to determine that the real ratio is 2.45. Many years ago somebody just doubled the speed and thought it looked kind of close and the whole HB community has been running with it ever since. It should tell you something when seemingly not one HB knows enough physics to figure this out. This is simply high school level stuff. I did wonder, especially when I see that clip of David Percy, slightly on the smarmy side, saying 'and yes we've done the calculations'! It's easy to be fooled, it just doesn't occur to a non-scientific person to question it, when it odes look approximately right. OK, I have a follow up question. What tell-tale signs indicate it isn't right speeded up? I saw somewhere about a pendulum experiment, dust being thrown up etc. But nothing that would convince an HB with hoax-tinted glasses on.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 18, 2010 12:22:01 GMT -4
What tell-tale signs indicate it isn't right speeded up? The fact that the astronauts' motions which are independent of gravitational acceleration (e.g. the motion of their arms), when sped up by the requisite factor, look anything but natural.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 18, 2010 12:43:01 GMT -4
What tell-tale signs indicate it isn't right speeded up? I saw somewhere about a pendulum experiment, dust being thrown up etc. But nothing that would convince an HB with hoax-tinted glasses on. Well, but that's just it. It could look like it should have "Yakkety Sax" playing in the background, and that wouldn't convince some people of anything.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 18, 2010 13:43:55 GMT -4
What tell-tale signs indicate it isn't right speeded up? I saw somewhere about a pendulum experiment, dust being thrown up etc. But nothing that would convince an HB with hoax-tinted glasses on. When the Moon video is sped up 2.45X, the only motion that mimics what we see on Earth are objects in free-fall. That is, if an object was dropped or thrown, it would appear to fall at the same rate as it would on Earth. All other motion, such as an astronaut moving his arms or legs, looks comically fast. Another thing that looks way out of place is how far an astronaut can jump or hop in relation to the amount of effort put into it. For instance, the HBs like to show videos of an astronaut hopping along at 2X and claim it looks just it was shot on Earth. Who are they kidding? It is simply not possible to loft oneself as high and far as the astronauts do with as little spring as they put into their hops. Try it and you'll see what I mean. The HBs' observations are disconnected from reality.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jun 18, 2010 16:54:17 GMT -4
What tell-tale signs indicate it isn't right speeded up? I saw somewhere about a pendulum experiment, dust being thrown up etc. But nothing that would convince an HB with hoax-tinted glasses on. When the Moon video is sped up 2.45X, the only motion that mimics what we see on Earth are objects in free-fall. That is, if an object was dropped or thrown, it would appear to fall at the same rate as it would on Earth. All other motion, such as an astronaut moving his arms or legs, looks comically fast. Another thing that looks way out of place is how far an astronaut can jump or hop in relation to the amount of effort put into it. For instance, the HBs like to show videos of an astronaut hopping along at 2X and claim it looks just it was shot on Earth. Who are they kidding? It is simply not possible to loft oneself as high and far as the astronauts do with as little spring as they put into their hops. Try it and you'll see what I mean. The HBs' observations are disconnected from reality. I think that's why HBs speed it up less. Things in normal motion start to look more realistic, but things moving faster or slower than the average speed of each piece look bizarre. I wonder if there is a video with a long passage speeded up, the likeliehood of more oddities showing as obvious, rather than easily dismissable? What was that experiment that looks definitely odd when speeded up, when all around is quite normal looking?
|
|