• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
That could actually explain the instant stops, if it's true, but it doesn't look like 6 frames per second in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q27ABpa-UA

And from about 4:00 there is another of those instant stops.
Click to expand...

So the astronaut movement reflected in the window looks perfectly normal to you, then?

{eta}
What about the antenna movement at 3:20? Does that "look like" 6fps to you?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
By showing that vast conspiracies do exist, people will more easily accept that Einstein's theories too can be a Big Lie conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Well, you really picked the wrong fake conspiracy.

The Moon landings are historical fact, that is the reality here.

If you think differently, the onus is on you to provide evidence they did not.


Your ignorant opinions do not constitute evidence.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Momentum and inertia still remain in zero gravity.
Click to expand...

Correct. Please show us your moment-of-inertia computations.

And the lunar module would not have been able to stop rotations instantly...
Click to expand...

No, that's your supposition. Why do you think engineers who watch those films don't have the same problem with it as you do?

Admit that it's a direct proof of a hoax.
Click to expand...

No, direct proof of a hoax would be direct proof of a hoax. At best this would be indirect proof of a hoax, but only if you were to then go on and find, say, the special effects studio that made the film.

Instead this is direct proof that you don't ever do your homework, and you think that your uninformed guesswork ought to be a suitable standard against which to judge reality.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Momentum and inertia still remain in zero gravity. And the lunar module would not have been able to stop rotations instantly like that in space using thrusters to control it. Admit that it's a direct proof of a hoax.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you admit you don't understand orbital mechanics, nor rendezvous, nor frame rates, nor RCS, nor navigation.

Is there anything further you would like to admit?
 
And from about 4:00 there is another of those instant stops.
Click to expand...
Your mistake, anders, is expecting a multi-million dollar vehicle with state-of-the-art computer controlled fly-by wire systems in the hands of a fully type-qualified fighter-jet pilot to flail around like a fat kid on a tire swing.

I've seen the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds do "those instant stops" -- at 300mph.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Your mistake, anders, is expecting a multi-million dollar vehicle with state-of-the-art computer controlled fly-by wire systems in the hands of a fully type-qualified fighter-jet pilot to flail around like a fat kid on a tire swing.

I've seen the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds do "those instant stops" -- at 300mph.
Click to expand...

That's entirely different, because of the enormous air pressure around the wings. Here is an example of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtX1Cf69nU#at=40

In empty space the thrusters have to stop the momentum, and even with computer controlled thrusters it will take some time for the momentum to be stopped. Not like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazzYgghQD4#at=240
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, the frame rate may be 6 frames per second. Still it looks very artificial.
Click to expand...

Compared to what? Do you have first-hand experience watching small craft being maneuvered in space?

I have to go with Jay on this - if you want to make a strong argument here, show us the math. It would be something like:

"The LEM's longitudinal MOI is assumed to be ~X kg-m^2 based on X and X assumptions.
The thrusters provided X newtons of force at a moment arm of X meters for a torque of X n-m.
Thus, the thrusters could cause the LEM to spinup/spindown at a maximum rate of X radians/sec^2 or X deg/sec^2.

Around time X in the video, the LEM's rotation went from X to X deg/sec in no more than X frames (= X/6 seconds), so the spinup rate had to be at least X deg/sec^2, which is well beyond the maximum spinup rate of X deg/sec^2 calculated above."

I hope you can see why the above argument is not compelling (or even interesting) until the Xs are filled in.
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
I love the "you may be right but that doesn't make me wrong" argument. It makes me laugh everytime.

So why, in your subjective opinion, does 6fps "look very artifical?"
Click to expand...

The movements of the lunar module still look artificial even at that frame rate (167 milliseconds per frame). Even at that slow frame rate the rotation stops should not be immediate like that.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Sorry about that rude remark. But seriously though, some of the members here may be a part of the very shadow powers this thread is about! :eek: If the conspiracy theory is true, that is. :D
Click to expand...

You know, one way to deal with that problem would be to learn enough about the basic physics so that you could work out the truth behind a lot of these claims by yourself, without having to take anyone's word.
 
dasmiller said:
Compared to what? Do you have first-hand experience watching small craft being maneuvered in space?

I have to go with Jay on this - if you want to make a strong argument here, show us the math. It would be something like:

"The LEM's longitudinal MOI is assumed to be ~X kg-m^2 based on X and X assumptions.
The thrusters provided X newtons of force at a moment arm of X meters for a torque of X n-m.
Thus, the thrusters could cause the LEM to spinup/spindown at a maximum rate of X radians/sec^2 or X deg/sec^2.

Around time X in the video, the LEM's rotation went from X to X deg/sec in no more than X frames (= X/6 seconds), so the spinup rate had to be at least X deg/sec^2, which is well beyond the maximum spinup rate of X deg/sec^2 calculated above."

I hope you can see why the above argument is not compelling (or even interesting) until the Xs are filled in.
Click to expand...

The precision of the thrusters must also be taken into account for the calculations. And the precision of the control system regulating the thrusters. So it's much more complicated than just some simple calculations.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The precision of the thrusters must also be taken into account for the calculations. And the precision of the control system regulating the thrusters. So it's much more complicated than just some simple calculations.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, it's not.

I'm not suggesting that you design an autonomous control system, I'm just suggesting that you provide the math to back up your claim that the rotations couldn't start and stop suddenly like that. And that comes down to torque, MOI, and omega-dot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom