ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: miker on November 03, 2016, 02:34:05 PM
-
1. Go to YouTube and watch the "hammer and feather drop on the moon." 2. Count how many seconds it takes for the hammer to hit the ground. I count 1-1&1/2 seconds which would depend on your height. 3. Now go out and drop a hammer or any other object and count how many seconds it takes to hit the ground. 4.It will take 1-1&1/2 seconds depending on your height.
The time is exactly the same whether you're here or on the moon??? Logic dictates the moon drop had to be here on earth because the moon has 1/6 the gravity of earth, so it should have taken 6 or more seconds to hit the ground. I can't believe it took this long for me to realize that!! I think I was focused on the feather which I now believe was made out of a metal.
-
If it takes 1.5 seconds for your hammer to drop here on Earth, you are either impossibly high (as in tall OR high) or standing on a balcony.
A ONE SECOND DROP in Earth gravity will give you almost 5 meters of vertical movement.
-
An experiment I can try myself?
OK...
I dropped my geological hammer from shoulder height. I am 1.96m tall.
Any questions?
-
Firstly you need a much more accurate timer to do the calculation. Secondly, put the numbers into sf=so + v*t + .5 * a t2. With known heights and gravities it is easy to calculate what the times should be. They will match a more accurate timer.
-
For the record it took 0.88s to travel from my shoulder height to the cushion.
-
For the record it took 0.88s to travel from my shoulder height to the cushion.
That's pretty close to 1.5 sec. ::)
-
I'm a little confused by you guys. How long are you saying it takes a rock hammer or carpenters hammer to hit the ground when dropped from chest high?? I'll admit that judging the time is guess work, but I still judge the moon hammer drop and my hammer drop as being very close in time and nowhere close to 6 times different.
-
Logic dictates the moon drop had to be here on earth because the moon has 1/6 the gravity of earth, so it should have taken 6 or more seconds to hit the ground. I can't believe it took this long for me to realize that!! I think I was focused on the feather which I now believe was made out of a metal.
Your so called logic is not good enough. You need to understand the equation for gravity. Six times less gravity equates to 2.45 times the speed. The actual figure is the square root of the difference. ie. sqrt of 6.
This should help you:
-
I'm a little confused by you guys. How long are you saying it takes a rock hammer or carpenters hammer to hit the ground when dropped from chest high?? I'll admit that judging the time is guess work, but I still judge the moon hammer drop and my hammer drop as being very close in time and nowhere close to 6 times different.
Did you bother to watch the video I posted? I didn't have to judge the time, I could count it precisely.
I've done what you suggested - I experimented for myself. Where's yours?
-
For the record it took 0.88s to travel from my shoulder height to the cushion.
Are you 100% sure? That's 3.8 meters.
I count 14 or 15 frames at 25 fps (0.56 to 0.6 s) which correspond to more realistic 1.54 to 1.77 meters.
-
For the record it took 0.88s to travel from my shoulder height to the cushion.
Are you 100% sure? That's 3.8 meters.
I count 14 or 15 frames at 25 fps (0.56 to 0.6 s) which correspond to more realistic 1.54 to 1.77 meters.
I went on Adobe Premiere's timestamps on when it left my hand (03:19) and when it hit the ground (04:07). The original mp4 clip was 29 fps, recorded on the camera I use for my bike, but the exported wmv is 25 fps. Your frame count is correct though. There is going to be a margin of error because the real time event is recorded in tiny segments, so your time estimate is just as valid!
Scott is 6 inches shorter than I am (though wearing thicker soles than my bare feet), held the hammer so that the head was well below his hand (mine was horizontal), and held the hammer well below mine (which was level with my shoulders). All in all his hammer fell a shorter distance.
Meta quibbles aside, my main point really is that it is well under the 1 second claimed by the OP, and my geological hammer hits the ground well before Scott's. Sadly I have no feather available. The nearest available fluffy item was my cat, who resisted attempts to be co-opted into the experiment.
-
1. Go to YouTube and watch the "hammer and feather drop on the moon." 2. Count how many seconds it takes for the hammer to hit the ground. I count 1-1&1/2 seconds which would depend on your height. 3. Now go out and drop a hammer or any other object and count how many seconds it takes to hit the ground. 4.It will take 1-1&1/2 seconds depending on your height.
The time is exactly the same whether you're here or on the moon??? Logic dictates the moon drop had to be here on earth because the moon has 1/6 the gravity of earth, so it should have taken 6 or more seconds to hit the ground. I can't believe it took this long for me to realize that!! I think I was focused on the feather which I now believe was made out of a metal.
The suggestion that an object on the moon should take six times longer to fall than the same an object on the earth is completely wrong. Intuition might tell you that, but as people who know anything about science and mathematics will tell you, intuition is often misleading.
The acceleration due to gravity on the earth (at 1G) is 9.8ms2
The acceleration due to gravity on the moon (at 1/6th G) is 1.6ms2
"Aha!" you say, "that confirms it, 9.8 is about six times 1.6"
Well, you would be wrong. The key word here is "acceleration". Your intuition tells you that it would take six times longer because you don't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. An object falling in a vacuum never stops accelerating while it falls. An object falling on the earth does not fall six times faster than in the moon, it accelerates six times faster.
Lets look at this from a perspective of a car accelerating along a road (lets ignore air resistance for convenience's sake). The formula for displacement is...
½at2+vst-d=0
where
a = acceleration
t = time
vs = starting velocity
d = distance
If the car accelerates at 1G (9.8ms2) from a standing start, it will take 9.06 seconds to do the quarter mile.
If the car accelerates at 1/6G (1.6ms2) from a standing start, it will take 22.43 seconds to do the quarter mile
This is NOT six times longer, it is only 2.5 times longer
-
I'll admit that judging the time is guess work, but I still judge ....
There you have it. You're not running an ACCURATE timer. You're 'judging' and 'guessing'
Film it with a PRECISE timer in shot so you can play it back in slow motion
-
His other problem, of course, is taking that fragment of EVA footage and ignoring the context in which it sits: a very long live TV broadcast featuring countless other examples of low gravity zero atmosphere materials behaviour.
That and not actually having done the experiment he says other people should.
-
4.It will take 1-1&1/2 seconds depending on your height.
If it takes that long, you should be the world's tallest man!
An object on Earth drops 5 m in 1 s and 11 m in 1.5 s.
-
I'm a little confused by you guys.
Clearly.
However your confusion or inability to understand about simple concepts do not mean that those concepts are invalid.
How long are you saying it takes a rock hammer or carpenters hammer to hit the ground when dropped from chest high??
You made an assertion which has been shown to be incorrect. Do you wish to re-evaluate your original post in light of OneBigMonkey's video?
I'll admit that judging the time is guess work, but I still judge the moon hammer drop and my hammer drop as being very close in time and nowhere close to 6 times different.
Your guesswork has been shown to be incorrect. Why don't you take some actual measurements and let us know your results?
but I still judge the moon hammer drop and my hammer drop as being very close in time and nowhere close to 6 times different.
Your judgement has already been shown to be incorrect. And did you not read the posts that clearly showed your error in thinking that a 6 times difference in gravity does not equal a six times difference in the time to fall a certain distance?
-
I'm a little confused by you guys.
No, you're not confused by the guys here (we have intelligent and knowledgeable females here too) -- you are confused by your ignorance of projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, which is something that most hoax-believers have in abundance.
We're all ignorant about far more things than we're knowledgeable about, so it's not shameful to be ignorant about subjects, nor to admit it, but it certainly isn't good form to claim that you have proof of something when, in fact, you don't have proof at all and you're too ignorant to know that you're wrong.
See my favourite quotes below. I've found them very useful for keeping my brain on track since the 1960s. Bob Dylan's quote applied very much here in New Zealand at the time, when there were far too many silly old Victorians who had too much to say. And I'm talking about the bigoted, prejudiced, narrow-minded know-alls, not the thoughtful, educated, intelligent and caring elderly Victorians, of whom there were far too few.
Anyway, welcome to ApolloHoax. Hang around here and learn -- it's is a great place to find out about the truth and magnificence of the moonlandings and everything that led up to them.
P.S. I must admit that there was a brief period of about five days in the 1990s when I thought the moonlandings might have been faked. An acquaintance told me about this book he had which "proved it" so I asked if I could borrow it. Having been an amateur and professional photographer for over 30 years, the first thing I did was look at the photos, and wondered why the author showed so many photos that had lens flare in them. I soon wondered if he thought the flare was evidence of an atmosphere on the moon, and indeed he did. I also knew that his knowledge of photography was appalling, but I knew nothing about his other "proof" regarding the neutral point and lunar gravity. However years later, after joining here, I was able to work out for myself that he was just as wrong about that subject. The author was William L Brian, and his magnum dopus was "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program" (1982)
-
I'm a little confused by you guys. How long are you saying it takes a rock hammer or carpenters hammer to hit the ground when dropped from chest high?? I'll admit that judging the time is guess work, but I still judge the moon hammer drop and my hammer drop as being very close in time and nowhere close to 6 times different.
Nor should it be. The relationship is not linear.
-
I went on Adobe Premiere's timestamps on when it left my hand (03:19) and when it hit the ground (04:07). The original mp4 clip was 29 fps, recorded on the camera I use for my bike, but the exported wmv is 25 fps. Your frame count is correct though. There is going to be a margin of error because the real time event is recorded in tiny segments, so your time estimate is just as valid!
OBM, your mistake appears to be assuming that "3:19" equals 3.19 seconds (i.e., 3 and 19/100) and "4:07" equals 4.07 seconds.
I am not familiar with Adobe Premiere but I would suggest it is much more likely that those timestamps actually mean "3 seconds and 19 frames" and "4 seconds and 7 frames" respectively.
Which means that, assuming 25fps, the interval is (25-19) + 7 = 13 frames. (Or 17 frames if it is 29fps.)
In other words, either 13/25 or 17/29 seconds, i.e. somewhere between 0.5 and 0.6 seconds.
-
I went on Adobe Premiere's timestamps on when it left my hand (03:19) and when it hit the ground (04:07). The original mp4 clip was 29 fps, recorded on the camera I use for my bike, but the exported wmv is 25 fps. Your frame count is correct though. There is going to be a margin of error because the real time event is recorded in tiny segments, so your time estimate is just as valid!
OBM, your mistake appears to be assuming that "3:19" equals 3.19 seconds (i.e., 3 and 19/100) and "4:07" equals 4.07 seconds.
I am not familiar with Adobe Premiere but I would suggest it is much more likely that those timestamps actually mean "3 seconds and 19 frames" and "4 seconds and 7 frames" respectively.
Which means that, assuming 25fps, the interval is (25-19) + 7 = 13 frames. (Or 17 frames if it is 29fps.)
In other words, either 13/25 or 17/29 seconds, i.e. somewhere between 0.5 and 0.6 seconds.
Looking at the timestamp in Premiere that seems correct - in fact having just looked at an example the time count goes from 03:24 to 04:00, so 25 fps it is and the count is in frames :)
I did try repeating the experiment by first chromecasting the stopwatch on my phone to the TV, but it didn't show, then by putting my phone close to the camera, but it was flared out by light from the window. Then I decided to do something more important than satisfying the under-educated's demand for data they weren't willing to produce themselves and went shopping.
I just loaded the raw mp4 file from the camera into Soundforge. While it isn't as precise for video cueing it is designed for audio and works with seconds. On that I got a hammer release to impact of around 0.6 seconds :)
-
Once upon a time we used ';' instead of ':' to clarify that the value to the right was a frame count and not a time count. Did we just stop doing that?
-
Jay, most current editing platforms have indeed done away with ; to indicate frames. Our automation is completely based on : for all Timecode values. However, a TC reading is now usually written out completely, i.e. 00:00:10:04 for a 10 second commercial with 4 frames black.
-
I probably still wouldn't have spotted it :D
I'm no stranger to editing digital video for fun, but I'm focused on what I can see and usually matching it with an audio track rather than the technicalities underpinning it - like this one I did from Glastonbury 2014 :)
(NSFW language in parts)
May as well watch something while waiting for miker to get back to us.
Regardless of the time issue, our protagonist insisted we experiment for ourselves. I did. I found his claims to be wrong.
I see no counter claim on his part.
I win.
-
Jay, most current editing platforms have indeed done away with ; to indicate frames. Our automation is completely based on : for all Timecode values. However, a TC reading is now usually written out completely, i.e. 00:00:10:04 for a 10 second commercial with 4 frames black.
Bah! I scoff at your consistent delimiters!
All seriousness aside, yes I've seen that time code format quite a lot these days. I just idly wondered where the semicolon went and why.
-
Bah! I scoff at your consistent delimiters!
All seriousness aside, yes I've seen that time code format quite a lot these days. I just idly wondered where the semicolon went and why.
Semicolon neglect is by no mean limited to timecodes; its use in prose seems to be declining as well. ;D
-
All seriousness aside, yes I've seen that time code format quite a lot these days. I just idly wondered where the semicolon went and why.
Semicolons have all been requisitioned by the movie industry, for titles such as Return of the Fall of the Revengers: The Next Generation.
-
Semicolons have all been requisitioned by the movie industry, for titles such as Return of the Fall of the Revengers: The Next Generation.
... but that be a colon.
:
This be a semi-colon;
;
-
D'oh! I should know that.
-
It's the only place in Hollywood where a colon comes out of an idea, instead of....
-
It's the only place in Hollywood where a colon comes out of an idea, instead of....
You owe me a new keyboard.
-
Me too! ;D
-
I'm a little confused by you guys. How long are you saying it takes a rock hammer or carpenters hammer to hit the ground when dropped from chest high?? I'll admit that judging the time is guess work, but I still judge the moon hammer drop and my hammer drop as being very close in time and nowhere close to 6 times different.
I understand that this has already been pointed out, but in case Miker is still quietly lingering (or for anyone else interested), here's a simple explanation as to why :
To calculate the time it takes an object to fall, this is the simple equation you can use :
t = √(2d/g) where 'd' is the distance(height) from which you drop the object and 'g' is the acceleration due to gravity
Since 'g' is the denominator of the term (2d/g) and 't' is equal to the SQUARE ROOT of that term, then you can easily deduce that 't' is INVERSELY proportional to the square root of 'g'. That is to say - if you double 'g', then you multiply 't' by the square root of the inverse of 2 - or 1/2. In this case, we are comparing the gravity of the moon to the Earth. This works going both directions. If you start by noting that the acceleration on the moon is 1/6th of the Earth, then the time it takes something to fall on the moon (t(m)) is √6/1 times the time it takes on Earth (t(e)) - or about 2.45t(e). If you start by noting that the acceleration on the Earth is 6 times that of the moon, then t(e) = √(1/6) * t(m) - or about 0.408t(m).
It's funny because there are many videos online that are purposely sped up to "reveal" what the "original speed" looked like, and most of these are sped up by a factor of 2 (because it's a nice easy number??) - and here Miker is suggesting they should be sped up by a factor of 6. It's just another case of hoaxers being unable to agree on anything, and all being wrong.
-
It's the only place in Hollywood where a colon comes out of an idea, instead of....
You owe me a new keyboard.
Jay smash?
-
I'm a little confused by you guys. How long are you saying it takes a rock hammer or carpenters hammer to hit the ground when dropped from chest high?? I'll admit that judging the time is guess work, but I still judge the moon hammer drop and my hammer drop as being very close in time and nowhere close to 6 times different.
I understand that this has already been pointed out, but in case Miker is still quietly lingering (or for anyone else interested), here's a simple explanation as to why :
To calculate the time it takes an object to fall, this is the simple equation you can use :
t = √(2d/g) where 'd' is the distance(height) from which you drop the object and 'g' is the acceleration due to gravity
Since 'g' is the denominator of the term (2d/g) and 't' is equal to the SQUARE ROOT of that term, then you can easily deduce that 't' is INVERSELY proportional to the square root of 'g'. That is to say - if you double 'g', then you multiply 't' by the square root of the inverse of 2 - or 1/2. In this case, we are comparing the gravity of the moon to the Earth. This works going both directions. If you start by noting that the acceleration on the moon is 1/6th of the Earth, then the time it takes something to fall on the moon (t(m)) is √6/1 times the time it takes on Earth (t(e)) - or about 2.45t(e). If you start by noting that the acceleration on the Earth is 6 times that of the moon, then t(e) = √(1/6) * t(m) - or about 0.408t(m).
It's funny because there are many videos online that are purposely sped up to "reveal" what the "original speed" looked like, and most of these are sped up by a factor of 2 (because it's a nice easy number??) - and here Miker is suggesting they should be sped up by a factor of 6. It's just another case of hoaxers being unable to agree on anything, and all being wrong.
His observation is reveals a total lack of understanding simple physics, and you provided them for him to look at and hopefully realize his error.