Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: Latest Apollo Hoax Proof

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    14

    Latest Apollo Hoax Proof

    Look at this.

    Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    "Physics of the Moon Flag"

    Watch as the swinging gets narrow before it stops.

    It looks a little faster than the Apollo flag which could be explained by the slow-motion at which the Apollo footage is shown (sixty seven percent according to Jarrah White).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
    (2:37 time mark)

    The Apollo flag is moving much faster than the speed at which the video shows it should be moving at the 18:50 time mark.

    This guy should speed up the footage to what Jarrah White says is normal and do the calculations again. It would probably turn out to be pretty close to the earth gravity figures he arrived at. His figures already clearly show that the motion isn't consistent with moon gravity.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    Look at this.

    Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    "Physics of the Moon Flag"

    Watch as the swinging gets narrow before it stops.

    It looks a little faster than the Apollo flag which could be explained by the slow-motion at which the Apollo footage is shown (sixty seven percent according to Jarrah White).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
    (2:37 time mark)

    The Apollo flag is moving much faster than the speed at which the video shows it should be moving at the 18:50 time mark.

    This guy should speed up the footage to what Jarrah White says is normal and do the calculations again. It would probably turn out to be pretty close to the earth gravity figures he arrived at. His figures already clearly show that the motion isn't consistent with moon gravity.
    Please identify where he has ascertained the correct spring constant from Hooke's law.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...336/Hookes-law

    He seems to have also applied the full flag weight to the pendulum, when we have a horizontal suspension arm that spreads the load. Why are you starting another thread when you still have unanswered questions in your last failed thread!

  3. #3
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,238
    The flag? Seriously?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    Look at this....
    I did...just another typical "the flag isn't moving as I believe it should be moving" video...this one by "steve the chemist"

    ...all I can say is, he shouldn't quit his day job, because he'll never make it as a physicist.


    ... according to Jarrah White...what Jarrah White says is normal...
    Do you understand that JW has been thoroughly debunked, and "dropping" his name, here, is counter-productive if you want to be taken seriously?
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2014-Jan-21 at 04:50 PM. Reason: changed "think" to "believe"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    3,075
    Is the motion consistent with being in a vacuum?

    Fred
    Hey, you! "It's" with an apostrophe means "it is" or "it has." "Its" without an apostrophe means "belongs to it."

    "For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
    -- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

    Earth's sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    I would like to also point out that this is not a simple pendulum as is claimed and there are things not factored in. The vertical rod has springiness, the horizontal support bar adds to this. The vertical drop may well be correct, but the pivot point is the diagonal from bottom left to top right. This dramatically affects weight distribution and how it would be affected by oscillations. There is also a whole area oscillating not a single suspended point. There is no scientific rigour in this whatsoever.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,441
    Cosmored,

    This is your second thread on this topic (LINK). After a warning from a moderator to address unanswered questions, you abandoned that thread. Do not do that again. You will actively participate in this thread, and answer all questions put to you. If you abandon this thread, you will be infracted.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    I would like to also point out that this is not a simple pendulum as is claimed and there are things not factored in. The vertical rod has springiness, the horizontal support bar adds to this. The vertical drop may well be correct, but the pivot point is the diagonal from bottom left to top right. This dramatically affects weight distribution and how it would be affected by oscillations. There is also a whole area oscillating not a single suspended point. There is no scientific rigour in this whatsoever.
    Let's add the stiffness of the material, and friction at any points of connection.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    I would like to also point out that this is not a simple pendulum as is claimed and there are things not factored in. The vertical rod has springiness, the horizontal support bar adds to this. The vertical drop may well be correct, but the pivot point is the diagonal from bottom left to top right. This dramatically affects weight distribution and how it would be affected by oscillations. There is also a whole area oscillating not a single suspended point. There is no scientific rigour in this whatsoever.
    Including the material stiffness and friction. As a whole, where in the video is any of this factored in? If it isn't, what steps have you yourself taken to factor these points in? Your title presupposes there is ANY hoax proof - there is none.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    14
    Please identify where he has ascertained the correct spring constant from Hooke's law.
    Doesn't that just apply to things that can be stretched?

    Hooke's Law and Young's Modulus - A Level Physics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvcpeA5pBH0

    He seems to have also applied the full flag weight to the pendulum, when we have a horizontal suspension arm that spreads the load.
    I don't see how that can affect the speed at which it swings. Tell us how.

    Do you understand that JW has been thoroughly debunked, and "dropping" his name, here, is counter-productive if you want to be taken seriously?
    I disagree. Viewers should look at his research and decide for themselves.
    http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

    Most of his videos have just been deleted from YouTube.
    http://www.moonfaker.com/videos.html

    Here are some of the survivors.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yQedoG1Jv8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7JY_zGnM4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAktZ5OlDHQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHH8d93D9PI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev9-dN-O7jw

    Is the motion consistent with being in a vacuum?
    Once the swinging angle gets very narrow just before it stops swinging, isn't that negligible then?

    The vertical rod has springiness
    I can't see how that can affect the speed of the swinging.

    Let's add the stiffness of the material, and friction at any points of connection.
    When I watch the movement here...
    Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    "Physics of the Moon Flag"
    ...it doesn't look like that would be a significant factor. The swinging is simply too slow for that to be causing the slowness.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    WA state, USA - Seattle area
    Posts
    2,900
    I'm still curious as to how a general misunderstanding of how a flag behaves in a vacuum is proof positive that the moon landings were faked. Seems like a lot of other aspects of the program would need to be proven as fakes as well (telemetry, radio communications, photos, recent photos of the landers themselves, etc. etc.). Not just youtube fakes, but providing actual evidence and all that.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    Doesn't that just apply to things that can be stretched?
    Nylon isn't stretchable? Neither of the poles has recoil?

    I don't see how that can affect the speed at which it swings. Tell us how.
    It doesn't affect the speed per se, but by weight distribution across the rod we get more friction which does affect the speed. We also have the weight spread out across a bigger area increasing drag.

    I disagree. Viewers should look at his research and decide for themselves.
    That is so not good enough. I guarantee not one viewer here will decide you are correct.

    Once the swinging angle gets very narrow just before it stops swinging, isn't that negligible then?
    How does that matter? It is completely consistent with a swing in a vacuum.

    I can't see how that can affect the speed of the swinging.
    Minimal effect, more of a damping issue on the total swing time I would say.

    There are two main factors. The pivot point being somewhere between the vertical and the diagonal of the flag is one. This dramatically alters the main equation he uses to establish the oscillation speed. The other is the presence of air as a major damping field for motion on Earth. The flag has a big area affected by this, on the Moon it has none whatsoever.
    Last edited by Clanger; 2014-Jan-21 at 11:44 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    I disagree.
    With what?...that he has been thoroughly debunked?


    Viewers should look at his research and decide for themselves.
    Are you to be his "champion" here?, because I don't have the time or inclination to argue JW ideas with anyone but JW.


    If Jarrah is so sure he is correct, then let him come here...a level playing field, and let him defend his ideas, here...
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2014-Jan-22 at 12:15 AM. Reason: added an "if"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    Most of his videos have just been deleted from YouTube.
    http://www.moonfaker.com/videos.html
    I see he is being "endorsed" by Joe Rogan...and I think that is very, very funny.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    If Jarrah is so sure he is correct, then let him come here...a level playing field, and let him defend his ideas, here...
    A very fair call, in my opinion.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,342
    Isn't he the kid who said Apollo spacecraft hid in a "polar orbit" that was a circle above the pole? Hilarious.

    Hey, cosmored/rocky/DavidC/FatFreddy88, why do you routinely lap up the claims of demonstrably inept hoax believers, and routinely reject the verifiable information provided you by actual experts - to the point of saying we're lying about even thinking Apollo actually worked?

    You've mentioned this stuff repeatedly here and in other forums, and had plenty of counters, so I'll just ask: which do you think is more likely, that you misinterpret part of the motion imagery, or that hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and technicians worldwide are uniformly deluded or incompetent or lying?

    Heck, since you have previously said you live in Madrid, why don't you visit the Madrid Tracking Station and present some of your "crushing" evidence? I've asked you this many times, and you've never answered.

    Please note that general and unsupported appeals to "they might be lying" will be pointed and laughed at, and taken to be an admission that you have no evidence whatsoever for such a claim.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,441
    Everyone,

    Can we keep the conversation focused on the specific topic of this thread, and drop the discussion of Cosmored's possible other identities on the Internet, his behavior elsewhere, and any other side issues? It is rude and distracting.

    Thank you.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,342
    I guess I prompted that, and apologize. My concern with the relevant likelihoods of cosmored's scenarios is, I think, relevant, as is my impeachment of his trusted source's reliability. I will cease and desist forthwith from the rest (although just to be clear I am not accusing cosmored of concealing his other identities).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    Look at this.

    Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    "Physics of the Moon Flag"
    If that guy is using all sorts of fancy displays and math to show how a flag on Earth should behave, then how come he isn't reproducing a flag behaving that way on Earth?

    My guess is because he can't. He's only using ideal models without all the factors that actually cause a flag to swing.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    The swinging is simply too slow for that to be causing the slowness.
    Yes, that is what you are asserting, but can you tell us just how you arrived at that conclusion???


    Be very specific.....thanks...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,848
    Cosmored:

    It seems to me that "Steve the Chemist" is analyzing the flag's motion as if it were a rod pendulum whose length is 90 cm. Therefore, he is assuming the material is stiff, rather than being flexible as one would expect from a piece of fabric or a thin sheet of plastic.

    Question T1: Do you agree that Steve is making this simplifying assumption?

    Question T2: Do you agree that the bottom of the flag is attached to pole, and therefore cannot oscillate there with respect to the horizontal support directly above it?

    Question T3: Where is the pivot point around which the bottom of the flag oscillates, half way from the pole to the free end?

    Clanger has said that because the flag is attached to the pole, the pivot axis must be a line running from that point to the end of the horizontal support.

    Question T4: Do you understand Clanger's point? If not that straight line, then might it be a more complicated series of pivots that follow creases in the flag material, or that the material is flexible enough to show differential motion between the pole and the free hanging end?

    Question T5: If you accept that the pivot axis must at least approximate a line between the bottom of the flag at the pole and the end of the horizontal support, what is the appropriate value for the length of the pendulum? Please show your derivation.

    I think you'll need to incorporate the moment of inertia for a triangle whose rotational axis is one of its sides, and that side is not perpendicular to the gravity field. It's beyond me to work out.

    ETA: This whole thing, even consideration of the triangular part behaving as a rigid planar feature rotating around an axis without resistance, is a gross oversimplification of the behavior of fabric that has peculiar attachments and it's own unique physical characteristics. Sheesh.
    Last edited by Torsten; 2014-Jan-22 at 11:00 PM. Reason: better define rotational axis of triangle and add ETA comment

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    14
    Seems like a lot of other aspects of the program would need to be proven as fakes as well (telemetry, radio communications, photos, recent photos of the landers themselves, etc. etc.). Not just youtube fakes, but providing actual evidence and all that.
    A lot of them have been shown to be fakes.
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...01#post2148901
    (post #3)

    (Some of the links were to Jarrah White's analyses and they lead to nowhere now.)

    I've seen no proof that the missions were real and lots of proof that the missions were faked. Photos of the landers aren't proof of anything because photos are fakable.

    Nylon isn't stretchable? Neither of the poles has recoil?
    Watch this at the 21:25 time mark...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA

    ...when the angle of the sway is about the same as the Apollo flag.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
    (2:26 time mark)

    I see no force that significantly stretches the Apollo flag. It would take something really noticable to change the speed of the Apollo flag to the speed that's shown in Steve's video at the 21:25 time mark. Do you see anything noticable that I'm missing?


    It doesn't affect the speed per se, but by weight distribution across the rod we get more friction which does affect the speed. We also have the weight spread out across a bigger area increasing drag.
    When you refer to drag, the only thing I can identify is the stiffness of the upper part of the flag where it's attached to the rod. That looks like it would be almost negligible at the bottom corner of the flag. In order to cause the drastic difference in speed between the Apollo flag and the speed that's shown in Steve's video, a much stronger force than that would be needed. This is pretty obvious.




    Once the swinging angle gets very narrow just before it stops swinging, isn't that negligible then?
    How does that matter? It is completely consistent with a swing in a vacuum.
    If the angle of the swing is small and the air factor is negligible, it would also be consistent with being in air. What's important here is whether the speed of the swing is consistent with moon or earth gravity. According to Steve's video at the 21:25 time mark the speed of the Apollo flag is too fast to be in lunar gravity.




    The vertical rod has springiness
    I can't see how that can affect the speed of the swinging.
    Minimal effect, more of a damping issue on the total swing time I would say.
    It would take a very noticable force to cause such a drastic change in speed. I can't see how the vertical rod's slight movement would cause the speed of the swing to change the way it does. Could you explain?


    The pivot point being somewhere between the vertical and the diagonal of the flag is one. This dramatically alters the main equation he uses to establish the oscillation speed.
    Still, the difference between the swinging speed of the Apollo flag and what it should be wouldn't be that drastic. That wouldn't change the swinging speed from moon speed to something slightly slower than earth speed.


    If that guy is using all sorts of fancy displays and math to show how a flag on Earth should behave, then how come he isn't reproducing a flag behaving that way on Earth?

    My guess is because he can't. He's only using ideal models without all the factors that actually cause a flag to swing.
    None of the factors you people are putting forth would cause the drastic change he's pointing out. A change from two seconds to four seconds would require a very obvious force. The flag's being attached to the bottom of the pole affects the movement but it would make it go more slowly, not faster. The point is that the flag is moving too fast.






    Let's add the stiffness of the material, and friction at any points of connection.
    When I watch the movement here...
    Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    "Physics of the Moon Flag"
    ...it doesn't look like that would be a significant factor. The swinging is simply too slow for that to be causing the slowness.
    Yes, that is what you are asserting, but can you tell us just how you arrived at that conclusion???
    There's other footage of the flag waving when it's being handled and it's obviously not very stiff. It's certainly not stiff enough to change the oscillation time from two to four seconds


    he is assuming the material is stiff, rather than being flexible as one would expect from a piece of fabric or a thin sheet of plastic.
    Would it matter that much in a vacuum? If it would, please explain.


    Do you agree that Steve is making this simplifying assumption?
    The biggest factor I'd say he's leaving out is the bottom of the flag's being attached to the pole. That would affect the way the flag swings at a wide angle but not at a small angle. I'm addressing the way it moves at the same angle at which the Apollo flag swings.

    Do you agree that the bottom of the flag is attached to pole, and therefore cannot oscillate there with respect to the horizontal support directly above it?
    Of course. That's obvious but it's negligible at the angle at which the Apollo flag swings and it would make the flag swing more slowly, not faster. The point here is that the flag is swinging too fast.


    Where is the pivot point around which the bottom of the flag oscillates, half way from the pole to the free end?
    I'm really not sure how to calculate that. If you know how, could you just show us to save time?


    Do you understand Clanger's point? If not that straight line, then might it be a more complicated series of pivots that follow creases in the flag material, or that the material is flexible enough to show differential motion between the pole and the free hanging end?
    At the narrow angle at which the Apollo flag swings any effect this might cause would be negligible.

    If you accept that the pivot axis must at least approximate a line between the bottom of the flag at the pole and the end of the horizontal support, what is the appropriate value for the length of the pendulum? Please show your derivation.
    I don't know how to calculate that. If you know, just tell us what it is and why it would cause a change that's not negligible.

    This whole thing, even consideration of the triangular part behaving as a rigid planar feature rotating around an axis without resistance, is a gross oversimplification of the behavior of fabric that has peculiar attachments and it's own unique physical characteristics.
    All the points you people say that Steve isn't considering are negligible at the narrow angle at which the Apollo flag is swinging. They would only be significant at a very wide swinging angle.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    I've seen no proof that the missions were real and lots of proof that the missions were faked. Photos of the landers aren't proof of anything because photos are fakable.
    Please explain exactly how the photos were faked (in your own words, not just a link to some website) using 1960s technology. Please explain how the videos and films were faked.

    Please explain exactly how the returned lunar samples, including rocks, core samples, and regolith were faked. Remember they have fooled geologists from around the planet for over 40 years.

    Please estimate the size of the labor force that was used to produce all this fake material and propose means to have kept them all quiet for 40+ years.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    I've seen no proof that the missions were real and lots of proof that the missions were faked.
    You seem to use the word "proof" quite liberally.

    There is "Evidence". You may not see all of it, but a few ramblings of the same stuff hashed and rehashed from a scant few people is far outweighed but the amount of documentation, footage, leftover facilities, eyewitnesses of related events and actual transmissions, hundreds of thousands of people that worked on the program, situations that can't be reproduced anywhere but the moon.

    Are you just as convinced that most everything else in history has been faked because they are only rumors handed down and possibly faked pictures and drawings?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    14
    Please explain exactly how the photos were faked (in your own words, not just a link to some website) using 1960s technology. Please explain how the videos and films were faked.

    Please explain exactly how the returned lunar samples, including rocks, core samples, and regolith were faked. Remember they have fooled geologists from around the planet for over 40 years.

    Please estimate the size of the labor force that was used to produce all this fake material and propose means to have kept them all quiet for 40+ years.
    What does it matter who explains it. Click on the link that's in this post.
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...01#post2148901
    (post #3)

    Most of the hoax-believer explanations are there. Whether I summarize what it says, or if you read what it says it's the same info. It won't be any different if I summarize it.

    You may not see all of it, but a few ramblings of the same stuff hashed and rehashed from a scant few people is far outweighed but the amount of documentation, footage, leftover facilities, eyewitnesses of related events and actual transmissions, hundreds of thousands of people that worked on the program, situations that can't be reproduced anywhere but the moon.
    Everything you refer to is fakable and none of it makes the anomalies in the footage and pictures go away.
    Last edited by Cosmored; 2014-Jan-23 at 09:14 PM.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    What does it matter who explains it.
    Because it shows you understand what is being said rather than just blindly repeating something that sounds good to you.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    14
    Because it shows you understand what is being said rather than just blindly repeating something that sounds good to you.
    Let's talk about another anomaly.
    -------------------------------------

    Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
    (00:52 time mark)

    The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

    Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

    That is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.

    The movement of Collins' jacket corner is very different from that of the straps in this clip which is in zero-G.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
    (3:17 time mark)

    It looks the same as the movement of this guy's jacket corners in gravity.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

    They are obviously in strong gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon. One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    What does it matter who explains it. Click on the link that's in this post.
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...01#post2148901
    (post #3)

    Most of the hoax-believer explanations are there. Whether I summarize what it says, or if you read what it says it's the same info. It won't be any different if I summarize it.


    Everything you refer to is fakable and none of it makes the anomalies in the footage and pictures go away.
    Now I am putting on my Administrator hat.

    You will answer all questions put to you here, on this forum. You will not address questions from anyone here with "look at this link and go find the answer for yourself somewhere here".

    If you do not, you will be infracted.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    I see no force that significantly stretches the Apollo flag. It would take something really noticable to change the speed of the Apollo flag to the speed that's shown in Steve's video at the 21:25 time mark. Do you see anything noticable that I'm missing?
    Air.

    When you refer to drag, the only thing I can identify is the stiffness of the upper part of the flag where it's attached to the rod. That looks like it would be almost negligible at the bottom corner of the flag. In order to cause the drastic difference in speed between the Apollo flag and the speed that's shown in Steve's video, a much stronger force than that would be needed. This is pretty obvious.
    AIR!! In addition, you have ignored the MASSIVE mistake he has made with the drop being the pivot point, it isn't. It is close to a point at the dead centre of the flag. Way less and dramatically altering the equation.

    Why haven't you factored in either of these?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored View Post
    None of the factors you people are putting forth would cause the drastic change he's pointing out. A change from two seconds to four seconds would require a very obvious force. The flag's being attached to the bottom of the pole affects the movement but it would make it go more slowly, not faster. The point is that the flag is moving too fast.
    Hand waving. Where are your numbers? I am specifically trying to get you to understand that the rod pendulum model you've accepted is completely inappropriate to the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmored
    Quote Originally Posted by Torsten
    he is assuming the material is stiff, rather than being flexible as one would expect from a piece of fabric or a thin sheet of plastic.
    Would it matter that much in a vacuum? If it would, please explain.
    The vacuum is not the issue here. The issue is that Steve is assuming the end of the flag behaves as a rod pendulum that is 90 cm long. That means he assumes it is stiff. But if you move from the end of the flag half way to the pole, the effective length of the pendulum at that point is 45 cm because of the flag's attachment to the pole. That is, at this location, it must pivot around a point in the center of the flag. The period for that location, if it were indeed able to behave as a rod pendulum, is 71% of that at the end. And as you move closer to the pole, it becomes even shorter, until it equals zero. But the flag is a continuous sheet, with each portion of it affecting its neighbour. This will create a stress in the flag by which any part of it that is close to the pole will act to slow the oscillation rate of any part further from the pole. The net result is that the flag must oscillate more slowing than what you'd expect for a rod pendulum.

    Put another way, how does the flag, in aggregate, respond? Half of the surface area of the flag is constrained from oscillating because it is attached to the pole and the horizontal support. The part that is able to oscillate is the triangular half located below a diagonal line running from the bottom of the flag at the pole to the outer end of the horizontal support. Do the substantial areas of the flag, whose "local" period is much shorter than the end of the flag not count for anything? If the flag is rigid, then the period measured by observing its free hanging end is a function much different than a rod pendulum. If the flag is not rigid, and the various parts of it are trying to behave as if they are a series of rods, yet attached to each other, then there will be internal resistance. It's up to take this into account and apply the proper analysis here, and neither Steve or you have done that.

    The biggest factor I'd say he's leaving out is the bottom of the flag's being attached to the pole. That would affect the way the flag swings at a wide angle but not at a small angle. I'm addressing the way it moves at the same angle at which the Apollo flag swings.
    You have not answered whether you believe that Steve's simplifying assumption is to treat the flag as a rod. You are right that he has missed its being attached to the pole, but the rest is more handwaving. Even the small angle must have an axis around which it rotates. By attaching the bottom of the flag to the pole, the actual axis of rotation changes from the horizontal support to the diagonal running from the bottom attachment to the end of the horizontal support. And if the flag is assumed to be rigid (and yet capable of rotating around this diagonal line!), you must redefine the problem to one involving a swinging triangle, and that is a much different modeling problem.

    Of course. That's obvious but it's negligible at the angle at which the Apollo flag swings and it would make the flag swing more slowly, not faster. The point here is that the flag is swinging too fast.
    If it's so obvious, then it should also be obvious that a rod pendulum is not the way to model this problem. The flag is swinging faster, in accord with an object whose average length is shorter than 90 cm. The fact that the fabric is not rigid and can bend, or ripple as it transfers forces within itself, makes the conclusion about the right oscillation period even more difficult.

    I'm really not sure how to calculate that. If you know how, could you just show us to save time?
    I purposely chose that halfway point so that you would think about the problem. It's the center of the flag. Take a pencil and paper and sketch it out. It doesn't get much more obvious. And it means that the length of the pendulum (if you can call it that) at that point is only 45 cm.

    At the narrow angle at which the Apollo flag swings any effect this might cause would be negligible.
    I really hope that by now you realize that the point of this is that it shows Steve has improperly modeled the problem.

    I don't know how to calculate that. If you know, just tell us what it is and why it would cause a change that's not negligible.
    I'm not sure from your response whether you believe the pivot axis is the diagonal line. Surely you can see all of the flag that is free to swing, except for the very outside edge, has a length less than 90 cm. I think I've demonstrated that the rod pendulum is not the way to model this. I also think that it is up to you to figure out what the correct model and inputs should be if you are trying to use the flag as evidence of a hoax. And modeling it as a rod pendulum of "average length" 45 cm won't be right either. That diagonal axis, the shape of the triangle, and the orientation of the gravity field all affect it.

    All the points you people say that Steve isn't considering are negligible at the narrow angle at which the Apollo flag is swinging. They would only be significant at a very wide swinging angle.
    Wrong, for reasons given above.
    Last edited by Torsten; 2014-Jan-23 at 11:57 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •