It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
My logic is perfectly reasonable. Apparently only NASA have the ability to "prove" one way or the other, so I and many others are asking them to do so. No point asking my mum. She does not have a vacuum chamber...
As a final point, it is important to note that, in the experiments I ran in my study, air drag and air currents contributed to the decreasing amplitude of successive swing. On the Moon, which has virtually no atmosphere, the decrease in amplitude of the Apollo 14 pendulum is necessarily due to other factors. Looking carefully at the video clip, notice that, for the first several swings to the left, the tape does not remain straight, but that the tip flips up. This happens because there is relatively little weight at the bottom of the tape to keep it taut. This suggests a mechanism that would produce damping. Specifically, the 'flip' of the end of the tape will necessarily send wave-like disturbances up the tape and, at both B and A, flexing of the tape and/or tiny motions induced in the LM will dissipate energy. It seems significant that, by the time that the period reaches its steady value of 4.7 seconds, the 'flip' has virtually disappeared and, thereafter, the amplitude no longer decreases. In other words, whatever the precise mechanisms responsible for the observed damping, they are not signficant after about period 10.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MrN9k
My logic is perfectly reasonable. Apparently only NASA have the ability to "prove" one way or the other, so I and many others are asking them to do so. No point asking my mum. She does not have a vacuum chamber...
Much as I hate to bump this thread, the fact of the mater is that it would be impossible for NASA to prove that they sent men to the Moon to your satisfaction. You clearly reserve the right to reject any evidence that NASA provides on the grounds that it was provided by NASA!
On the other hand, you can prove some of the physics of the situation to your own satisfaction by doing some simple experiments yourself. All you need is a large mason jar, the air pump for an aquarium and some Portland cement or even talcum powder. Do I need to provide a drawing of the obvious protocol? If you are not willing to do this easy and inexpensive experiment yourself, you have no reason to criticize NASA for not doing it for you, given that you would not believe them anyway!
Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by eriktheawful
I asked you a question. Please answer it. How much do YOU think it would cost NASA to perform the pendulum experiment I suggested?
Approximately?
Originally posted by Kryscent
ok, guys, tell me something:
when you look at the moon, at night, using a telescope -well, those of you who own one that is, and there is a full moon - did you ever see a US flag out there? if NASA landed and put the US flag there, we would be able to see it, right? unless winds or other things flew it away, and now it just floats in the universe.
i believe a good telescope would be able to show the flag, after all they didnt go to the dark side of the moon, but they stayed on the lit one.... am i wrong?
and as far as the videos go -- why in some there's shadows on the soil and there aren't in others?
Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by eriktheawful
Why do you say it would be futile when MrN9k says that with one experiment he would be in the "real" camp (and it sounds like he's not a hoaxer, but a questioner of data, so he's probably a scientist or a satirist or something). The cost of the experiment he suggests seems very minimal, and could be done over someone's lunch hour. Maybe NASA should take a look at doing this one thing, invite MrN9k to participate, and let him dress up in a space suit too.