Cosmored said:
Yes. I meant to say "Horizontal" distance.
Don't we need precise measurements? When I look at it, it looks closer to 45 degrees. The path of trajectory starts moving away from the original angle as soon as an object is launched.
I just calculated the angle using trigonometry, you didn't and yet you say it looks "closer to 45 degrees". Now I find that kind of thing a little irritating. If you wish to disprove my figures, here is the graph I used:-
[PLAIN]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8438/gridq.jpg
A 45 degree angle is the same distance along as up, so it clearly isn't that.
This doesn't make the other footage go away though.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3084003&postcount=31
In those other two videos the movements look exactly like movements on Earth when the speed is doubled. We can't just ignore this.
Why would we need to ignore it? Why wouldn't double speed sometimes look normal on the astronaut when he is moving fairly slow. The actual factor is 2.45, so it is going to be close sometimes. If the surface is visible however, the dust won't look normal. This was Buzz Aldrin testing motion on the Lunar surface, and they have cherry picked bits that look reasonable. To me it still looks odd, the arms aren't moving right.
The point of the clips that don't look normal, is that whenever the astronaut moves a little quicker, the motion stops looking normal.If this double speed looks too fast, it may be in fact more than double speed.
Are you reading my posts? I analysed that clip, the time stamps match footage doubled in speed. If you think otherwise, then you need to prove it.
This may or may not be true. Anyway, we'd have to do an experiment with a standard flag before we could arrive at any conclusions.
Indeed. Yet you already have a conclusion, and I disagree with it at every level.
At that narrow angle of movement dampening is negligible if the fabric is not extremely light. I've experimented with several different fabrics. The super-light ones come to a stop almost immediately. The heavier they are, the longer they keep moving. Slow-motion would account for the length of time it moves and the speed at which it moves.
Do you have footage of your experiments? Do they use a telescopic pole and a replica United States Apollo flag? The motion has zero atmospheric dampening. Not slight, not a little, it has none. That only occurs in a vacuum. The time it takes to come to a full stop is excessive, even if you were to half the time.
It falls to a hanging position exactly the way the corners of this guy's jacket do.
It has a clear tendency to go downward. The fabric is obviously too loose to be able to push the corner back down.
The conditions here are obviously very different.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
The movement is nothing to do with gravity. Just because you see it do that in gravity, does not mean gravity is the force, this is strawman arguing.
I don't see any object near his hip floating around.
I meant groin.
What is it exactly about the tube attached to his chest that makes you say it's zero-G?
The tube on the other astronaut.
I don't see what you're referring to about the sleeves. As soon as Armstrong and Collins stop moving their arms, their cuffs immediately rest on the upper side of their wrists; that looks like behavior in gravity to me.
There is no reason why it would or wouldn't. It largely depends on how tight it is and how it stretches and pulls at the elbow.
This whole gravity theory is an absurd contention, where did you get it from? You do realize that physics graduates all around the world view this and have no problem with it? I think your desire to believe in this phantom hoax is severely swaying your judgement.
I watched your video.
All you did was put forward an alternative explanation.
No, I showed clearly the whole flag shifting right in a unified motion.
This doesn't disprove the atmosphere explanation's being the correct one. Now we have two plausible explanations.
There
is no atmosphere explanation. A body in motion will not push air in front of it to any degree, it pushes it mainly to the sides. If you know of some new science I am not aware of please cite some references for this.
The way it continues moving after the initial movement is consistent with the way it started moving.
No. The first apparent motion is the whole frame, the actual motion is a swinging to and fro of the corner only.
Are you saying the rest of the movement is caused by vibration as Mentallic said in post #29? The movement of the bottom of the flag is not consistent with its having been caused by movement from above as would be the case if vibration from the ground had caused the pole and rod to move. However, it is consistent with the atmophere explanation.
I already stated the astronaut brushed it with his arm, I have seen a few demonstrations of this. The camera is a wide angle lens, and distorts the perspective, he is much closer to the flag than it appears. The idea that the motion could be caused by ground vibration is a plausible alternative, but one I don't agree with. I do think that out of all the theories that abound as to the anomaly and movement, the "wall of air" in an Earth atmosphere is the one that is easily dismissed, since it is physically impossible.
...the air from a passing person will make it move the way it does in the Apollo footage. I tried it at home.
Emphasis on a "passing" person. There are numerous other instances where astronauts pass by flags with no movement. They walk all around the flag during Apollo 16, yet it doesn't show any "air" motion as they pass by.
This video makes things pretty clear.
Not as clear as my video showing not just only the corner move as has been suggested but the vertical part to the left of the flag as well, and by the same amount. The whole flag has the same movement.
The flag moves away because of the pressure wave caused by the approaching astronaut. It then moves in the other direction to fill the void caused by his passing.
I must insist you cite your references for this statement. Pressure wave, from a human being? It is neglible in the extreme.
Your two visor references. The ISS is a camera shot and the exposure is perfect. The Apollo references are shot on a TV camera and the bright light tends to bleech out.
When a camera is used on Apollo, the sun is the same as the ISS photo:-
[URL]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-114-18388.jpg[/URL]
I want to make myself clear here. I am not the least bit interested in debating this ludicrous hoax theory. This post is it as far as I am concerned. I was happy to do some mathematics and film analysis. The end result being that your speeded theory is very much untenable.
I would remind you that this is a physics forum, not one of the many conspiracy sites where people with very little understanding exchange ideas without substance.