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.

 

NVIDIA Simulation Debunks Apollo 11 Moon Landing Hoax

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21


All the non believers are asking for is to show us some definitive evidence.

There is no proof that will convince a skeptic. Which is okay…

Just so you know, I don't hold much for religion either.

Spirituality is a different matter.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

It's not the landing, it's the docking of the ALM with the orbiting CSM.

The chances of failure were very, very large. The ALM had to go from zero to 14,000 mph in the space of one orbit of the Moon and reach an altitude of 62 miles.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ObsidianEclipse
(New member here - but I've been watching for a while)

In regards to physics and mass. A 20kg (44lbs) rock on earth would weigh 3.3kg (7lbs) on the moon and would be incredibly easy to pick up. However, regardless of what it weighs if you were to give it a kick as hard as you could you'd probably smash your foot to smithereens because it would still have a mass of 20kg, if you look at newtons laws of motion (newtons 3rd law) you will see the 20kg mass would impart an equal and opposite force to the kickers foot.

Now considering the mass of the astronaut is constant regardless of the weight he experiences it may be 'easy' to push away from the lunar surface but the thump upon returning is still proportional to the astronauts mass. Think of an astronaut in a zero g environment for a moment holding a 500kg mass, pushing off from one wall and colliding with another.. As that astronaut I would much prefer to be the other side of that mass rather than between it and the wall. It may seem easy to get that mass moving but the energy is gradual in acceleration but he would likely be crushed to death trying to stop it.

So, on the moon, falling with the mass of the suit and body weight is dangerous still even if the moon was 1/100g or 1/6 g. Mass is constant and the forces required to halt (or move) is still the same (in a simplified manner). Pushing, lifting and jumping are slow increases in momentum whereas hitting the lunar surface is rather sudden.


Well said about kicking 20kg.

A less than maximal effort would still show the effect of 1/6G.

And something visible would have just happened if they had really filmed in 1/6G over several astronaut days.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Mass = Weight X Constant. They are directly proportional and are effectively the same.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass and weight are two different things. The mass does not decrease simply because it's on the moon. You just failed physics again. An astronaut who weight 60 pounds on the moon has about 163 kg of mass.
en.wikipedia.org...

And by the way, yes they did show a slowed descent rate. You're just lying now.


I never said mass decreases, I said weight,

You said they were "effectively the same." Wrong. Dead wrong. You failed physics. Mass matters, inertia matters. They weigh 0 pounds relative to their spacecraft while in orbit, but it still requires energy for them to push themselves around because they have MASS. It's easier because they don't have to fight against gravity, yes, but it still takes a fair bit of strength to get objects with a lot of mass moving, and the same energy to get them to stop. Same goes for an astronaut who's loaded down with a massive life support backpack which will throw off his center of gravity. And we're back to the same discussion we were at before. See above for the calculations on why they CANNOT do the ridiculous things you suggested without likely killing themselves.


Falling bodies are smashed by the force of gravity, not the amount of mass. Gravity affects all mass the same.

Mass is part of the equation, but mass doesn't move anything, Force does. The predominant force on the moon is 6 times weaker and nothing in the film showed that.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Ove38

I challenge you to jump as high (and fall back as slowly), while wearing the EVA suit, as it happens in this video: www.youtube.com...


The dust kicked up in front of his feet is moving too low, and maybe too slowly, as less gravity means less friction between particles on the surface.

and why is he out of breath from his exertion?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: eightfold

It's not the landing, it's the docking of the ALM with the orbiting CSM.

The chances of failure were very, very large. The ALM had to go from zero to 14,000 mph in the space of one orbit of the Moon and reach an altitude of 62 miles.


Argument from incredulity noted.
For starters, your figure of 14,000 mph is completely and egregiously out-to-lunch. That's more than 3 times faster than lunar escape velocity. Orbital velocity for the LM & CSM were generally less than 3,200 mph. Accelleration was ~0.5 gee. Early missions rendezvoused in 2 orbits, not 1. Later missions did it in 1.

Note that 1 orbit of the Moon takes 2 hours, whereas 1 orbit of the Earth takes 1.5 hours at ~17,000 mph.

Note that on September 12, 1966 (nearly three years before the first Apollo landing) Gemini XI launched and achieved rendezvous and docking in one orbit at a speed of ~17,000 mph at an altitude of 180 miles.

Ascent & rendezvous in lunar orbit was easier than doing it in Earth orbit, both from a dynamics standpoint and because, by the time Apollo flew, both the astronauts and ground controllers had a lot of experience performing this task.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Falling bodies are smashed by the force of gravity, not the amount of mass. Gravity affects all mass the same.

Mass is part of the equation, but mass doesn't move anything, Force does. The predominant force on the moon is 6 times weaker and nothing in the film showed that.



Gravity affects all mass the same. Well, that's true. You can demonstrate this with a simple experiment:

Semicollegiate, please hold a tennis ball in one hand and a shot-put in the other. Drop the tennis ball on your left foot and the shot-put on your right foot. Gravity will accelerate both and they will hit at the same time.

Why are you limping like that? Could it possibly be that the mass of the shot-put gave it proportionally more inertia, and therefore applied more crushing force to your foot upon impact?
edit on 20-9-2014 by Saint Exupery because: spelling correction



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Mass = Weight X Constant. They are directly proportional and are effectively the same.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass and weight are two different things. The mass does not decrease simply because it's on the moon. You just failed physics again. An astronaut who weight 60 pounds on the moon has about 163 kg of mass.
en.wikipedia.org...

And by the way, yes they did show a slowed descent rate. You're just lying now.


I never said mass decreases, I said weight,

You said they were "effectively the same." Wrong. Dead wrong. You failed physics. Mass matters, inertia matters. They weigh 0 pounds relative to their spacecraft while in orbit, but it still requires energy for them to push themselves around because they have MASS. It's easier because they don't have to fight against gravity, yes, but it still takes a fair bit of strength to get objects with a lot of mass moving, and the same energy to get them to stop. Same goes for an astronaut who's loaded down with a massive life support backpack which will throw off his center of gravity. And we're back to the same discussion we were at before. See above for the calculations on why they CANNOT do the ridiculous things you suggested without likely killing themselves.


Falling bodies are smashed by the force of gravity, not the amount of mass. Gravity affects all mass the same.

Sophistry. I already demonstrated in cold hard terms that it would be lethal.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: eightfold

It's not the landing, it's the docking of the ALM with the orbiting CSM.

The chances of failure were very, very large. The ALM had to go from zero to 14,000 mph in the space of one orbit of the Moon and reach an altitude of 62 miles.

That's not difficult (and as pointed out your velocity figure is wrong). The ascent module had the fuel necessary to do so. All they had to do was launch on the right heading within the launch window, all of which is imminently knowable and can easily be calculated. The rest is just orbital ballet which had already been perfected and again is completely knowable and calculable.
edit on 20-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery
Ascent & rendezvous in lunar orbit was easier than doing it in Earth orbit, both from a dynamics standpoint and because, by the time Apollo flew, both the astronauts and ground controllers had a lot of experience performing this task.

No weather to worry about or crosswinds either. A clear launch window was a guarantee. On a trip to mars it won't be quite as simple due to the occasional sandstorm.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Ove38

I challenge you to jump as high (and fall back as slowly), while wearing the EVA suit, as it happens in this video: www.youtube.com...


The dust kicked up in front of his feet is moving too low, and maybe too slowly, as less gravity means less friction between particles on the surface.

and why is he out of breath from his exertion?

He's still carrying a lot of mass. Inertia escapes you apparently. And actually the dust proves we went.
www.popsci.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold


Good Thread for some, however, It does NOT Debunk any hoax. @8:52 Minutes in the guy even says "It's tough to prove a negative.Can I prove that they didn't shoot this thing on some holly wood sound stage? Nope.I can't prove that...."
By the title I was hoping to come here and find out that my assumption of a lot of anomalies are proven to be some kind of a misunderstanding of what I have seen and thought odd. I leave disappointed...... Syx.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: SyxPak

This simulation does not try to debunk every aspect of the hoax claims what it debunks is the lighting aspect of the hoax claims. That is the only segment they set out to debunk and successfully did.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: eightfold


Good Thread for some, however, It does NOT Debunk any hoax. @8:52 Minutes in the guy even says "It's tough to prove a negative.Can I prove that they didn't shoot this thing on some holly wood sound stage? Nope.I can't prove that...."
By the title I was hoping to come here and find out that my assumption of a lot of anomalies are proven to be some kind of a misunderstanding of what I have seen and thought odd. I leave disappointed...... Syx.


Actually you can prove if they shot it on a hollywood sound stage. The mythbusters showed this with simple models. The lit up astronaut in the shadow is a true image. the lunar surface is very reflective. otherwise the moon would not light up at night correct?

Also light pollution will block out weaker starlight due to the proximity of the cameras to the moons surface. I propose we send a rover to go find the flag.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The dust kicked up in front of his feet is moving too low,

Rejected. His feet aren't doing anything to kick the dust upward.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
...and maybe too slowly, as less gravity means less friction between particles on the surface.

"Maybe"? Rejected. Aside from the fact that the flying particles aren't on the surface, you fail to quantify how much friction there is or should be. This depends intimately on (among other things) the material involved and the degree of compaction - neither of which you have quantified. On Earth, for example, silica sand tends to have rounded particles. Lunar regolith, on the other hand, has much finer particles that are basically ground glass.

I have watched hours & hours of lunar EVAs. The behavior of the lunar dust is literally like nothing seen on Earth. Small foot motions kick dust surprisingly far, and it never, ever, ever billows. If you think that it's possible to get that effect anywhere except 1/6th gee in vacuum, then please demonstrate it here. I look forward to your video.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
...and why is he out of breath from his exertion?


Because he's singing while exerting. I just did an experiment. My son (on Earth) weighs about the same as an astronaut in a spacesuit does on the Moon. I just had him skip around the room while singing the same song at the top of his lungs, and he did indeed have to catch his breath afterwards.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Once?

Something fell on camera once?

Lots more than once, if you would bother to sit down and watch the actual lunar footage from the various missions. There are hours upon hours of footage. And lots of footage of various things being thrown away, falling, dropping, etc. Try actually doing some real research and crunch some real numbers before spouting off. You won't though, like I said, this arguing is pointless.







posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




the lunar surface is very reflective. otherwise the moon would not light up at night correct?


No, the Lunar surface is very dull, and if they ever would, then taking a picture of the Moon from the ISS, when looking AWAY from Earth, would prove it.

Nobody stops to think about why there has never been, and never will be, a HIRISE type camera orbiting the Moon. Well, you don't send a HIRISE-type camera to a planet with no atmosphere, you send spectral imagers that detect IR and UV, along with laser altimetry to create those images they show us.
On this page is an R-G-B filtered view of Earth and the Moon from the EPOXI probe, showing the colour of the Moon when there is no atmosphere. What colour is it?
Not silver/grey for sure, that is only what we see due to Earths atmosphere.
www.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
At the 0:33 second mark, we see Neil Armstrong makes a prepared, braced jump of ~4 feet vertically.
All of the astronauts had to make this jump to re-board the Lunar Module.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: yuppa




the lunar surface is very reflective. otherwise the moon would not light up at night correct?


No, the Lunar surface is very dull, and if they ever would, then taking a picture of the Moon from the ISS, when looking AWAY from Earth, would prove it.

Nobody stops to think about why there has never been, and never will be, a HIRISE type camera orbiting the Moon. Well, you don't send a HIRISE-type camera to a planet with no atmosphere, you send spectral imagers that detect IR and UV, along with laser altimetry to create those images they show us.
On this page is an R-G-B filtered view of Earth and the Moon from the EPOXI probe, showing the colour of the Moon when there is no atmosphere. What colour is it?
Not silver/grey for sure, that is only what we see due to Earths atmosphere.
www.nasa.gov...


The moons reflectivity

The above link contradicts your attempt to state th emoon is not reflective. its albedo rating is .12 btw.
Bright enough to reflect enough light onto a astronaut in a shadow and light him up. Do some research.

Debunking Hoaxers of moon landing

The link above this text also refutes alot of moon landing deniers.
edit on 14upppm by yuppa because: educating



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Ove38

I challenge you to jump as high (and fall back as slowly), while wearing the EVA suit, as it happens in this video: www.youtube.com...


The dust kicked up in front of his feet is moving too low, and maybe too slowly, as less gravity means less friction between particles on the surface.

and why is he out of breath from his exertion?

He's still carrying a lot of mass. Inertia escapes you apparently. And actually the dust proves we went.
www.popsci.com...


You have proved that, to you, appearance is reality. You are a believer, or you would have better proof than this article.


Tracking the movement of the dust cloud clearly shows characteristic rooster tails and not the simple parabolic arc of a dust cloud we would see ... on Earth.


False. The article says that chaotic atmospheric air makes particles more likely to move in a parabolic path. That is oxymoronic. The particles on the moon would more likely move in a parabolic path because there is no force other than gravity accelerating all of them.


Air resistance on Earth drags particles down fairly quickly whereas on the Moon the lack of air
resistance gives particles a longer trajectory.


Air also tends to hold small particles up, giving the appearance of weaker gravity.

Maybe this film proves moon gravity, by timing the rate of fall of the dust, but the article is wrong. It only shows the accent of the particles, not the descent.

The timing from up to down of the visible dust appears to be about right, approximately 1 meter per second up to a height of about one meter and then one meter per second down, but air resistance could account for that as well.

edit on 20-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join