Doubts about the moon landings

Talk about mental lights! Truly amazing!

I give up trying to explain it to you. It is strange that it is just the one side of this argument who fully believe in Apollo that don't seem to be able to understand what is actually very clear. Funny that. I believe my premise predicted this outcome to the letter.

The tangential component of gravity (Fgrav-tangent) is unbalanced by any other force. So there is a net force directed along the other coordinate axes. It is this tangential component of gravity which acts as the restoring force. As the pendulum bob moves to the right of the equilibrium position, this force component is directed opposite its motion back towards the equilibrium position.

Can't anyone read?

u10l0c2.gif
Can't anyone see?

8930e31a26ee7b528a36587d044560b2.jpg
 
Last edited:
What the paper is citing is that my Ff factor needs to be reduced (improved) to a Padé approximation - combining rolling friction and sliding moment friction introduced by the air resistance (which averages to a horizontal vector over one full single direction swing) - which is below the level of discrimination of this whole drawing to begin with.

So, which of the Padé approximation equations in that paper did you use? Those of 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27, or 2.28? Because I don't recognise any of them in your calculations.

The drawing is a model, a guess, as to the type of attachment to begin with, so I am not sure valuable knowledge can be derived from quibbling to this level of physics? My model is not pretending to dip to this level of precision to begin with. I would need the actual schematics of the bag and its hanging mechanism, then the actual materials as well and their surface lattice structures - then apply the particular Ff for that exact design.

Are you now asking me to run the integral calculus and derive a combined function for the modulus of rolling and sliding friction... to replace my Ff factor so that it is uber accurate...?

No, I'm not asking that, and nor am I merely quibbling either. I'm asking how you justify why you are multiplying that which you refer to as a "Fulcrum friction" quantity, related to one part of a body, and with the units of newtons, by that which you refer to as an "Aerodynamic drag" quantity, related to other parts of the body, and with the units of pascals, to end up with a quantity with the units newton-pascals, which you refer to as an "entropy effect". What underlying physics does this calculation represent? How is it valid, and what does its result even represent in meaningful terms? This calculation makes no sense to me. What is its basis? Put it in simple terms for us.

Entropy literally has thousands of expression calculations.

However, your "entropy effect", the outcome of the calculation, has the units of newton-pascals, whereas entropy, where it even has units at all, actually has the units of joules per kelvin (see Wikipedia's Entropy article). So, what relationship does your "entropy effect" have to actual entropy?

One form of entropy is friction. The force of friction in a compound machine = entropy. I gave you the recitation on this. How can I reduce it any lower than that? You have a scientific paper outlining this very mathematical instance of force of friction upon a combined fulcrum calculation in your hands.

If we are dealing in forces, then why does one of the quantities in your final calculation have the units of pascals rather than newtons? Why does the final result have the units of newton-pascals?

A skydiver is not a compound machine. He IS the fulcrum. In a compound machine the force is DELIVERED to a fulcrum. This fulcrum is the point at which a system engineer measures system entropy.

Are you contending that air resistance has no direct effect on a pendulum's motion, and only affects a pendulum's motion via friction at its fulcrum?
 
Last edited:
I give up trying to explain it to you. It is strange that it is just the one side of this argument who fully believe in Apollo that don't seem to be able to understand what is actually very clear. Funny that.



Can't anyone read?

u10l0c2.gif
Can't anyone see?

8930e31a26ee7b528a36587d044560b2.jpg

"The tangential component of gravity (Fgrav-tangent) is unbalanced by any other force. So there is a net force directed along the other coordinate axes. It is this tangential component of gravity which acts as the restoring force. As the pendulum bob moves to the right of the equilibrium position, this force component is directed opposite its motion back towards the equilibrium position."


It's difficult to understand what you're not getting... You know "equilibrium position" is not the same as "stationary" right?
 
It's difficult to understand what you're not getting... You know "equilibrium position" is not the same as "stationary" right?

I think the problem is that that quote only represents half of the mechanics, and LoneShaman has glommed onto it without realising as much. The half it deals with is when the pendulum bob "moves to the right of the equilibrium position". It is true that during that stage of its motion, when it first moves to the right and up until it reaches its maximum height to the right, as the page points out, the "restoring" force (due to gravity) "is directed opposite [the pendulum's] motion back towards the equilibrium position".

What LoneShaman is missing is that when the bob reaches the end point of its arc to the right, it begins moving leftwards, and towards the equilibrium position, and, were the page to have commented on this half of the mechanics, it would have had the opposite to say: that the "restoring" force (due to gravity) is directed in the same direction as the pendulum's motion back towards the equilibrium position.

As I've already explained in as simple terms as I can, the opposite effects (one accelerative, one decelerative) during these two halves of motion on the right side (and the same thing happens on the left side) exactly cancel each other out, such that the net effect of gravity on increasing or decreasing the pendulum's amplitude is zero. This is totally consistent with and totally supported by the page. LoneShaman just doesn't seem to realise this.

LoneShaman, it would be really great if you could read and respond to the explanations and questions that you are getting. Please, man.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not asking that, and nor am I merely quibbling either. I'm asking how you justify why you are multiplying that which you refer to as a "Fulcrum friction" quantity, related to one part of a body, and with the units of newtons, by that which you refer to as an "Aerodynamic drag" quantity, related to other parts of the body, and with the units of pascals, to end up with a quantity with the units newton-pascals,

Ahhhhh, gotcha. I see the confusion. You are going back to thinking this is a derivation of a specific formulaic number again - it is not. That is what was making me so puzzled. This is the same reason I used n/a and not '0' - this is not a formulaic calculation in the sense you are ascribing to it. I thought we had gotten past that issue with the n/a discussion. But I can understand the confusion.

I don't end up with newton-pascals, that is the whole point. I end up with a dimensionless entropy effect ratio between the Moon and the Earth for this hanging flat bag performing as a compound machine. I cannot use dimensions and calculations here in the manner you are suggesting because I do not have the speed, axial length of the pendulum, coefficent of friction of the hanging hooks, nor weight, surface area, surface coefficient of drag, and weight distribution of the bag. So I cannot run a classic calculation of 'specific entropy', which would reduce by dimensions down to the equivalent of a decay-force (kg-m/s^2) per given instant (state) of the system.

Instead, given that there are a critical mass of unknowns, I must use a relative ratio, derived from an index of the three components which make up entropy in this system:

Force of static friction (assuming a reasonable coefficient of friction)​
Coefficient of drag of a flat bag face on, into the wind (assuming a reasonable coefficient of drag)​
Atmospheric pressure of each situation​
(the Padé approximation would only serve to combine the three into one coefficient - and would not have a relevant impact on the argument)​

Then I use these three things to create an entropy effect index - and compared that index between the Earth and the Moon to show a ratio of comparative scale. This approach was valid in showing the following about the pendulum run-to-stop time:

1. Not linear 1:1 direct proportional to the pendulum periodicity (as was claimed here)​
2. Not linear proportional to the 6:1 ratio of gravity (because we factor in a drag coefficient on Earth)​
3. Would be much longer than our gut-instinct might have us suppose about the moon - making the video much more reasonable and no longer an anomaly. The bag apparently swinging just as vigorously after 49 seconds is CORRECT, and​
4. Finally to show that the Moon does not create perpetual motion pendulums. Entropy still rules there, as it does everywhere and in everything.​
(It is also why I gave the answer in a range...) The run-to-stop time ratio is NOT 9.8 over 1.62 or 6 times longer. It is much greater than that.
 
Last edited:
whereas entropy, where it even has units at all, actually has the units of joules per kelvin (see Wikipedia's Entropy article). So, what relationship does your "entropy effect" have to actual entropy?

Your 'actual entropy' is only one expression of entropy - thermodynamic and/or astrophysical. That is entropy too, but mechanics uses a deceleration decay effect per a given system state, not chaos and heat.
 
Last edited:
Then I use these three things to create an entropy effect index

This is how your procedure looks to me, framed in terms of the sort of thought-processes I imagine went into it:

"We have several factors that serve to dissipate energy in a pendulum, notably, friction at its fulcrum, and air resistance. Now, how can we represent these factors? I know - let's represent friction as a force, which can be calculated as a fraction of the gravitational force acting on the pendulum's bob - and let's say that the fraction is represented as a coefficient of friction equal to 0.43, so we just multiply that by the gravitational force on the bob. No need to consider the nature of the fulcrum - whether it's a ball bearing, a tied-up string, or metal grating on metal. No need to try to work out exactly how the gravitational force is related to friction at the fulcrum. Whatever. This will do. Nice. We now have one value to play with.

"Next, let's say that we represent the effect of air friction as "aerodynamic drag", and calculate it as what we'll call a drag coefficient (of 1.45) for a burlap bag multiplied by atmospheric pressure. Sounds about right. Why choose atmospheric pressure? Why multiply it by a drag coefficient? What does this have to do with the effect of air friction on a pendulum? Who knows? Who cares? It's another number to play with.

"Great. Now we have two numbers. But we need to combine them in some way. How to do that? One has the units of force, newtons, and the other has the units of pressure, pascals. Hmm. That's a bit awkward. But we must be able to develop some sort of overall result out of these two numbers, despite that they have different units and relate to different parts of the pendulum. Meh, whatever. Let's just multiply them together and call it an 'index'. That'll do! But wait, there's a snag: one of those numbers is zero. Meh, let's just make an exception for that and call it "n/a", which in effect means we've converted a zero into a one. Seems legit! Nobody will notice!"

I admit though that it's a creative procedure and attractively presented in a neat diagram, which superficially seems very sciencey!
 
Last edited:
This is how your procedure looks to me, framed in terms of the sort of thought-processes I imagine went into it:

Well done - you do realize you have slammed me for not solving an equation that cannot be solved? No, actually you don't realize that, it was just a nice opportunity to do your normal thing... trying to force people to prove the impossible so you can feel better about yourself by demeaning others.
 
Last edited:
You know I'm right, TES. You pretty much just made it all up. It was classic pseudo-intellectualism - but admittedly creative pseudo-intellectualism.

I doubt that much of what you tell us about yourself is true. Do you really run a lab? Have you really created and managed multiple businesses? Are you really coincidentally meeting with the German scientists behind the technology I posted in the global warming thread, even though the scientists behind the technology are actually US scientists, which you realised I was implicitly calling you out on, such that you hastily tried to cover your tracks?

So much bullshit from you. You're probably a narcissist, which is probably why you don't like it when people get personal like this and call you out on the pseudo-intellectual facade that you present to us.
 
I realize it is a lot of stuff, but everything I have said is true. I will tone that down.

Yes, I scanned your article too fast as I was headed to bed. But I corrected that the next morning, not you.
Mistakes are different from malicious intent, which is where you come in. This darkness you spewed here is your internal struggle, not ours. Please leave it off the forum.
 
Last edited:
The most interesting thing about both your responses is that you don't deny that you just made up your calculations. Your responses are in that sense deflections.

As for your challenge, several of my posts in this very thread show that I can produce value other than critique: I have explained in detail in several posts why it is that gravity does not affect the run-to-stop time of a pendulum.
 
"The tangential component of gravity (Fgrav-tangent) is unbalanced by any other force. So there is a net force directed along the other coordinate axes. It is this tangential component of gravity which acts as the restoring force. As the pendulum bob moves to the right of the equilibrium position, this force component is directed opposite its motion back towards the equilibrium position."


It's difficult to understand what you're not getting... You know "equilibrium position" is not the same as "stationary" right?

An object in motion keeps moving unless there is a force to make it stop.

let's call this inertia the moving force.

There is another force, the restoring force.

The restoring force acts continuously on the moving force.

Now for the pendulum.

Look at the diagram, the restoring force is not pulling the pendulum back to toward the original beginning point! It is directed downward.

Once again, The restoring force acts continuously on the moving force.

So the moving force becomes less and less as the restoring force works on the moving force.

The swinging continues until the moving force is not stronger than the restoring force.

Bringing the state to rest in the equilibrium position.

The conservation of energy is preserved through the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy.

Can you not understand this?
 
Last edited:
An object in motion keeps moving unless there is a force to make it stop.

let's call this inertia the moving force.

There is another force, the restoring force.

The restoring force acts continuously on the moving force.

Now for the pendulum.

Look at the diagram, the restoring force is not pulling the pendulum back to toward the original beginning point! It is directed downward.

Once again, The restoring force acts continuously on the moving force.

So the moving force becomes less and less as the restoring force works on the moving force.

The swinging continues until the moving force is not stronger than the restoring force.

Bringing the state to rest in the equilibrium position.

The conservation of energy is preserved through the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy.

Can you not understand this?





What’s providing the moving force?

(Hint: it begins with “g”)

The moving force (by definition) offers no damping.

You need to talk to an engineer or physics grad (of your choosing) about this and get back to us. It’s getting cringey.
 
Got it! Ok. The bob is ‘at rest’ momentarily at the point of maximal potential energy - the highest point of each period. Maybe this is your confusion?
 
What’s providing the moving force?

(Hint: it begins with “g”)

The moving force (by definition) offers no damping.

You need to talk to an engineer or physics grad (of your choosing) about this and get back to us. It’s getting cringey.

Sigh!

A person provides the potential moving force by lifting the bob to one side against the restoring force of gravity.

We then have the force of tension from the bob to the pivot point, that is constantly changing in direction and magnitude as opposed to the constant restoring force that is directed downward.

Because they are not equal in magnitude or direction, they ultimately come to balance, as I described.

It is called a restoring force because it restores back to the original state.

I am not the one who is confused Malf.
 
Sigh!

A person provides the potential moving force by lifting the bob to one side against the restoring force of gravity.

We then have the force of tension from the bob to the pivot point, that is constantly changing in direction and magnitude as opposed to the constant restoring force that is directed downward.

Because they are not equal in magnitude or direction, they ultimately come to balance, as I described.

It is called a restoring force because it restores back to the original state.

I am not the one who is confused Malf.

Something or someone lifts the bob up but the bob moves down on release. This is gravity starting the motion: providing the moving force from the potential energy imparted. No gravity = no potential = no swing.

Assuming perfect conditions (no air resistance, no friction etc) we then have a perfect system for converting potential energy into kinetic energy, then back again, with 100% efficiency. It will swing forever. There is no energy leakage (but feel free to describe some?)

The ’restoring force’ restores the potential energy to the system, having been momentarily lost to kinetic energy as the bob traversed from one side to the other. At maximal potential, kinetic is zero. The bob stops, and returns on its journey.

Please find an independent qualified opinion before you double down any further.
 
Something or someone lifts the bob up but the bob moves down on release. This is gravity starting the motion: providing the moving force from the potential energy imparted. No gravity = no potential = no swing.

Which direction does it move? It moves in a arc defined by the length of the tether, not toward the restoring force.
Then we have what I have already described and is blatantly obvious. Two forces of tension and gravity.

Assuming perfect conditions (no air resistance, no friction etc) we then have a perfect system for converting potential energy into kinetic energy, then back again, with 100% efficiency. It will swing forever. There is no energy leakage (but feel free to describe some?)

Only if you ignore basic physics. There is no energy leakage. I have already described this. I can't help it if you are not equiped to understand it. I can't simplify it any more than I already have.

The ’restoring force’ restores the potential energy to the system, having been momentarily lost to kinetic energy as the bob traversed from one side to the other. At maximal potential, kinetic is zero. The bob stops, and returns on its journey.

The restoring force does not return the potential energy. It is not lost momentarily. It is not a closed system.

The restoring force is not returning the bob to the original position because it is directed directly downward and not in the the varying direction and force of tension from the bob to the pivot.

{QUOTE]Please find an independent qualified opinion before you double down any further.[/QUOTE]

Here you go. :)

Gravity works on the pendulum while it is moving. The moving force becomes less as the force of gravity acts on the pendulum. The pendulum slows and then returns to the starting point. This swinging-back-and-forth force continues until the force that started the movement is not stronger than gravity, and then the pendulum is at rest again.

https://sciencing.com/pendulum-swing-5280650.html

Please get an education before you argue any further. That goes for all of you that are standing on your soap boxes and stating what I don't understand and don't realize. All the while you are all completely ignorant showing absolutely no comprehension of basic principles or critical thinking skills. Waiting for the mental lights to turn on indeed!

Just get over yourselves for f*cks sake and take a big slice of humble pie, there is plenty to go around.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top