LoneShaman
Member
So your a physicist now? lol.
That is just too funny, maybe I need to pull up a few of your quotes from this thread.
That is just too funny, maybe I need to pull up a few of your quotes from this thread.
You know what? I suspect that I should have just stayed out of this altogether and left it to Bart V. His approach was in all likelihood the most appropriate one in the circumstances, and the most likely to achieve success. All I seem to have done is enrage the beast. Bart was possibly in the process of taming it.
The first site I linked that was quite in depth and also showed this graphic of position over time for the pendulum.
It is decreasing. It seemed clear to me that my interpretation was correct.
Hey, I am willing to admit I may be wrong about gravity slowing the pendulum and that the article saying the same thing is also wrong.
Then I find the article that was saying the exact same thing.
We know that in reality friction will prevent perpetual motion.
I am very nearly at that point again.
Again, and I'm not trying to be cruel, just honest: you misunderstood what the article was saying. I tried (really, man, I tried hard) to explain how and why you were misunderstanding it, but you just ignored me. I don't know whether you even read my explanations, but you sure didn't respond to them.
I am done with arguing.
Joe Rogans opinion after talking to people from both sides and he talked about it further on a separate podcast was both items were true. That is 1) Some scenes were faked but 2) the moon landing still happened. I can’t remember what the proposed supposed motivation for this was. There may be something to this though. I would agree that if it could be demonstrated that even one scene were faked, it would be a terrible blow to their reputation and maybe one would choose to not give them the benefit of the doubt. But if it were demonstrated conclusively that scene A or B was in fact staged, I might still hold the opinion that the moon landing happened, although it would damage my faith that it happened obviously. I really feel that it happened. And the people involved are amazing actors if it didn’t happen regarding later interviews etc. Talk about poker faces. Would it not be something if both sides of this debate were right? Don’t think that isn’t possible.
Yes, I share this opinion. These are two separate questions. Faked footage and photographs do not directly say we never went. I suspect they went by different means (secret space program). This is just a suspicion, I have nothing to show that this is true. There could be reasons why they had to fake the footage. It may be something as simple as the technology of the time was inadequate to document it. Photographic exposure detrimental to radiation? Limits in sending coherent TV signals from the Moon? Maybe it had to be done for appearances. I don't know.
There may be other reasons. Stephen Greer offers the ET hypothesis. I am not saying I believe him. I do find Karl Wolf's testimony quite compelling.
Stephen Greer : We did go to the Moon, but the footage was fake.
ET Structures on the Moon. Sgt Karl Wolf
Dr Mitchell explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.
I responded immediately, expressing how impressive his description had been of the voyage to and from the Moon and specifically the emphasis he placed on the magnificent and intense star field he so passionately portrayed. I then achieved a long-held ambition by asking the 'sixth man' to walk on the Moon why the first moonwalker, Neil Armstrong, had told Patrick Moore that the stars were unobservable whilst voyaging to and from the Moon on Apollo 11.
Dr Mitchell, seemingly surprised, immediately switched the subject of my question. Describing the view from the lunar surface, he stated that 'this required more time for the eye to adjust'. I brought him back to the question which specifically related to the view of the stars during the Earth/Moon/Earth voyage that he had so euphorically dramatised.
'Why would Neil Armstrong deny the visibility of the stars?' I asked, as to do so, obviously contradicted the focal point of Dr Mitchell's lecture. Neil Armstrong is credited as the astronaut with the greatest interest in observing the heavens. He had flown jet fighters at 40,000 feet to observe the clarity of the universe at that rarefied altitude.
'No he wasn't!' was his abrupt and venomous reply. The sixth Moon trekker and holder of an MIT doctorate in astronautics glowered at me, and mystifyingly refuted my historically-corroborated reference. Determined not to give up, I repeated clearly, 'Mr Armstrong stated that he couldn't see stars!'.
This time Mitchell's reply stunned the large audience – many whom were filming this exchange. 'He [Neil Armstrong] didn't know what he was talking about!', Dr Mitchell exclaimed sharply. Immediately I received a number of nodded acknowledgments from fellow audience members who obviously were taken aback by this
Many of the audience would have been aware of Armstrong's interview with Patrick Moore on the BBC’s The Sky at Night in 1970 in which he stated: 'The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from Cislunar space (the space between the Earth and the Moon).
The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen – although there have been some reports of seeing planets. ‘I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they may be visible.' Cislunar space was described by Edgar Mitchell as the place where the stars were 'ten times brighter than if viewed from the Earth'.
I was sure that stellar visibility memory retention should be consistent given the enormous impact it made on Ed Mitchell, so you can guess the question I put to retired Air Force Brigadier General Charles Duke: 'No we couldn't see the stars anytime on the voyage: it was too bright!' he unequivocally stated, before returning to the business of the day, autograph signing for the appropriate fee.
Kathryn C. Thornton, Space Shuttle astronaut has orbited the Earth 256 times and travelled over six million miles. She logged a total of over 40 days in Cislunar space. In October 2011, I asked Kathryn if she could describe the stars from her four shuttle voyages. She stated that they were 'brighter than if viewed from the Earth' and, surprisingly, confirmed that she had never used a telescope or binoculars to aid her view of the stars from the shuttle windows.
I will try to change approach. many pages have been wasted on a abstract principle that does not exist in the real world. I will concede to that argument.
We were indeed discussing a purely theoretical situation, but nobody pretended it was anything else.I will try my hardest not to get sidetracked like that again. I will leave it up to you to decide.
Is this abstract issue of perpetual motion that does not exist in the real world enough to explain why there is absolutely no reduction in the motion of the ETB. Should even the minimized friction of lunar gravity at two points, a bag on hooks have no effect what so ever? You decide.
An all of these could have explanations you did not think of, that is the problem with this kind of argument.There has been much in this thread that has not been targeted for discussion. And what has beyond this one issue of the pendulum is quite lacking.
For example, How the mere tapping of a rock can register in the VOX microphone, and even the closing and opening of the rover seat without contact from the astronaut. All this despite the complete contradiction of modern astronauts in much more extreme examples. It has only happened on the moon apparently and only occasionally as well. There is no justification for this. You decide.
The issue with the flag, we had to dive into fantastic depths to explain it as some sort of video artifact. When it is quite clear it is not.
There are things just left unsaid. The obviously composited picture of the Earth and astronaut taken at a impossible angle and yet perfectly composed without a view finder. As well as the shifting Earth in the other two examples.
You decide.
I did mention this one in my re timed video of the astronauts. At about 1:45 the astronaut is suddenly lifted onto his tippy toes like he is being pulled by a wire. Check out the entire video and just observe. What is wrong here?
Now compare that with NASA original simulations of gravity in a space suit. I guess they were completely wrong about that. This is pretty cool.
Given that these differences are game changing, and an estimated slow down of at least 25 times, the bag would lose no more than a few degrees of swing in the short time we observe it. It is doubtful that that would be observable in the grainy footage we have available.