Space suits... the "nail" in the coffin?

[Kaon]

I so appreciate your level of craft.
Thank you for your patience with my ignorance. You have taken the time to explain things to me when I've found a good question to ask.

You are not ignorant at all.

For the longest time this forum was basically just me and katsung against every anti-conspiracy nut who thought they could waltz in here and debunk anything with only a snarky hip shot.

I noticed. However, there is an interesting paradigm shift coming that will dissolve that old way of thinking, yet bring about another Beast. You and Katsung stick to the convictions you chose, which will be one of the few ways to determine a genuine human soon.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

True..

So, if you had a suit and it is under 7 pounds per square inch and you put it in a vacuum.... what would it look like?

The air that was in the suit would expand, under zero pressure and maybe look like this.

View attachment 230052

Or what happens when a China man gets really angry
foward to 1:59 mark

.................................

 

[tas8831]

LOL twice as many can take psychotropic pharmaceuticals, drink neurotoxic fluoride in their tap water, and watch some innocent entertainment on TV.

Lol and more and more people are gobbling up conspiracy theory nonsense. Sad.

 

[tas8831]

Can you tell me why the gravity of the moon in the video of post 814 is measured to be twice that of the theoretical moon gravity?

Must be because gravity is fake. Or the moon is not real. Or the moon landing is a hoax. Or chemtrails.

What do you think your crude estimate means, exactly?

 

[Kaon]

Must be because gravity is fake. Or the moon is not real. Or the moon landing is a hoax. Or chemtrails.

What do you think your crude estimate means, exactly?

No, don't behave flippantly and create a strawman. I said nothing about chemtrails or hoaxes.

I calculated the gravity from the video using very simple physics. The model is not crude; crude would be +/-30% error. The calculated gravity (or theoretical gravity) is wrong. The gravity calculated in the video is 2x larger than the theoretical value. I gave you my estimates and assumptions.

Calculate it for yourself, and lets practice real science - comparing our results of a analytical experiment.

 

[Kaon]

If no one has an answer, then that is fine. I just figured those who have so much to say about science, and other's misunderstanding of the subject would have no problem volleying error analysis with respect to parameters clear, and verifiable.

The results I came up with are easy to reproduce; I would like to know (especially of those who had so much to say to others about their lack of scientific knowledge) how one explains this very large discrepancy in the theoretical value. If this was a laboratory analysis, the theoretical result would be thrown out, or further investigation of the experimental process would need to occur.

 

[tas8831]

No, don't behave flippantly and create a strawman. I said nothing about chemtrails or hoaxes.

Right, moon gravity off by 200% as calculated from a youtube video and stopwatch, but no hoax. Got it.

I calculated the gravity from the video using very simple physics. The model is not crude; crude would be +/-30% error. The calculated gravity (or theoretical gravity) is wrong.

I would say your calculated gravity is wrong, for I would suppose that we might have heard about NASA and the other space-faring nations that have sent things to the moon having to re-calculate their approaches and the like due to the 200% greater than expected moon gravity. Or is our not hearing about this part of the conspiracy?

The gravity calculated in the video is 2x larger than the theoretical value. I gave you my estimates and assumptions.

In your assumptions - did you assume a real-time frame rate in the original footage? How did you estimate the time of descent - by eye? I tried to use the stopwatch feature on my phone and found that too crude to be of any use. What kind of timing device did you use? Was it manual set up?

Calculate it for yourself, and lets practice real science - comparing our results of a analytical experiment.

See above.

Real science consisting of looking at 45 year old footage on youtube and trying to calculate the moon's gravity with an estimate...

Had you considered frame rate issues? Had you considered shortcomings in your timing protocol?

 

[tas8831]

If no one has an answer, then that is fine. I just figured those who have so much to say about science, and other's misunderstanding of the subject would have no problem volleying error analysis with respect to parameters clear, and verifiable.

The results I came up with are easy to reproduce; I would like to know (especially of those who had so much to say to others about their lack of scientific knowledge) how one explains this very large discrepancy in the theoretical value. If this was a laboratory analysis, the theoretical result would be thrown out, or further investigation of the experimental process would need to occur.

I think your experimental process and the assumptions that went into it are the problem.

Of course, I do not claim to be an expert in physics. I have an interest in spaceflight and flight in general, but my education and experiential background is in anatomy/cell biology/evolutionary biology. I note, on the other hand, that pretty much every creationist, regardless of their education or experience, fancy themselves expert enough on ALL topics to be able to defeat any and all actual experts.

Odd how that works.

So no more youtube/stopwatch disproofs of gravity/whatever your point is, and show some real evidence that the moon's gravity is 200% higher than it should be. Like some emergency calculations by NASA during the Apollo 8 flight (followed by alterations of original calculations for all other lunar flights).

 

[tas8831]

True..

So, if you had a suit and it is under 7 pounds per square inch and you put it in a vacuum.... what would it look like?

The air that was in the suit would expand, under zero pressure and maybe look like this.

View attachment 230052

Providing space suits were made of rubber or something similar.

 

[Kaon]

Right, moon gravity off by 200% as calculated from a youtube video and stopwatch, but no hoax. Got it.

I would say your calculated gravity is wrong, for I would suppose that we might have heard about NASA and the other space-faring nations that have sent things to the moon having to re-calculate their approaches and the like due to the 200% greater than expected moon gravity. Or is our not hearing about this part of the conspiracy? In your assumptions - did you assume a real-time frame rate in the original footage? How did you estimate the time of descent - by eye? I tried to use the stopwatch feature on my phone and found that too crude to be of any use. What kind of timing device did you use? Was it manual set up?
See above.

Real science consisting of looking at 45 year old footage on youtube and trying to calculate the moon's gravity with an estimate...

Had you considered frame rate issues? Had you considered shortcomings in your timing protocol?

You said a lot, but can you quantitatively show why the gravity would be calculated as 2x the theoretical? It is a simple kinematics problem. The assumptions I made can be discussed as error analysis, but you don't get 100% error by making well-reasoned assumptions unless something is wrong with the physics.

 

[Kaon]

I think your experimental process and the assumptions that went into it are the problem.

Of course, I do not claim to be an expert in physics. I have an interest in spaceflight and flight in general, but my education and experiential background is in anatomy/cell biology/evolutionary biology. I note, on the other hand, that pretty much every creationist, regardless of their education or experience, fancy themselves expert enough on ALL topics to be able to defeat any and all actual experts.

Odd how that works.

So no more youtube/stopwatch disproofs of gravity/whatever your point is, and show some real evidence that the moon's gravity is 200% higher than it should be. Like some emergency calculations by NASA during the Apollo 8 flight (followed by alterations of original calculations for all other lunar flights).

I am not trying to disprove gravity; read what I am asking. I am asking people (the same ones who profusely talk about others who allegedly have no appreciation for science) to calculate the gravity of the moon from the video, and we can compare the results.

You do not get 100% error from well-reasoned assumptions. It is a simple kinematics problem, but I can even use numerical analysis to get a more precise and accurate answer - still based on the video. The video isn't the problem. If we are expected to look at the hammer and feather, and gather that they fall at the same time because of the lack of air resistance on the moon, then we should also be able to take parameters we know within a certain margin of error, and we should be able to determine most all of the most basic characteristics of the gravity.

Why is it 100% off? The error in time and height are within 5%.

 

[Kaon]

I'll even give my calculations, error analysis and details behind my calculation (privately) - if I have some assurance I am actually speaking to people who know physics (preferably beyond the undergraduate/quantum level). Those who honestly do not have that kind of background have been honest about it, and have been asking questions - trying to make conclusions (scientific process). This hypocrisy is rampant in academia; it needs to stop because it is BLEEDING into the pedestrian psychology at an exponential rate, retarding the intellect of the population. That, and ego.

 

[JacksBratt]

Providing space suits were made of rubber or something similar.

Providing they were made of anything other than solid plastic. Any suit would expand, as much as it could, under the internal pressure compared to the external vacuum.

 

[tas8831]

Providing they were made of anything other than solid plastic. Any suit would expand, as much as it could, under the internal pressure compared to the external vacuum.

Yeah... OK.

"The innermost layer is made up of a Nylon tricot material. Another layer is composed of spandex, an elastic wearable polymer. There is also a layer of urethane-coated nylon, which is involved in pressurization. Dacron—a type of polyester—is used for a pressure-restraining layer."

 

[JacksBratt]

Yeah... OK.

"The innermost layer is made up of a Nylon tricot material. Another layer is composed of spandex, an elastic wearable polymer. There is also a layer of urethane-coated nylon, which is involved in pressurization. Dacron—a type of polyester—is used for a pressure-restraining layer."

Thanks for posting the materials that make up the suits..

This does not make them unaffected by a drastic pressure change from the 7 PSI we live in here and must be maintained for the astronots to survive, and the zero PSI of space.

Even the tires on your car will bulge and even rupture if too great of a pressure difference is applied.

The only suit that would have allowed them to survive and work, in a complete vacuum... would have been solid suits. Anything even slightly elastic... would expand to it's limit... example: