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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 25
57
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Aside from the point that because it doesn't what you think it should look like doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong,


Actually, I know what it would look like, i.e., they would go up much faster than they come down, provided they put even half the effort of the weakest possible Earth jump into it.


the video you link to demonstrates exactly the point: when you try and put maximum effort into a jump in a bulky suit where the centre of gravity is not where you're used to it being things go wrong. The number of astronaut falls also demonstrate that. That's what why Charlie Duke decided it wasn't a good idea and they abandoned their 'lunar olympics' pretty quickly.


They weren't even coming close to putting maximum effort into a jump, or they weren't on the moon. It takes very little effort to jump on Earth. Try it yourself. You can basically just shrug your shoulders upward and raise your heels a bit and the momentum will get you off the ground slightly, which qualifies as a jump. And the acceleration of any jump on Earth is always at least slightly higher than 1 g acceleration. So if you were to do that same extremely weak jump on the moon, what would the acceleration be?


Does that happen on Earth?


Of course it does, though not to a particularly noticeable degree with jumping humans, because the stronger we get, the heavier we get (increased muscle mass), eventually reaching a point of diminishing returns. However, the higher someone can jump, the faster they had to accelerate upward in order to do so, all else being equal. Their rate of falling will always be the same (1 g), apart from air resistance factors. If you want to see drastic examples of it, just look at a rocket or a rifle bullet. With a human suddenly finding himself in a 1/6 g environment, he already has the strength to accelerate in a jump at over 1 g initial acceleration, and his falling speed will inherently be limited to 1/6 g acceleration, so he will be able to go up much faster than he will come down, or at least, his initial acceleration from the jump will be much faster than his initial acceleration back down to the ground (I don't know if it works out that they eventually reach the same maximum speed in both directions or not. Either way, the initial "going up" part would certainly not look like slow motion "floating".


The laws of physics are exactly the same on the moon as they are here, the only difference is that one of the constants (gravity) has a different value. As someone else has pointed out, you don't continue to accelerate when you leave the ground. You jump, and as soon as your leave the surface you stop accelerating, which means you slow down. You get to a point when your acceleration is cancelled out completely by gravity and you begin to fall, which will get faster as gravity accelerates you. If they jump higher because they put more effort in, their speed when they reach the ground again will also be faster because they have had more time to accelerate due to gravity.


See above.


It's a commonly held fallacy that movement on the moon is in slow motion. It is not. If you watch the TV broadcasts you will see that their speed across the surface is not much different to walking pace on Earth (which is why speeding up the video makes them look wrong, no matter how many times people will insist it doesn't).


It doesn't look anything like a normal walking pace. The drives in the lunar rover (youtu.be...) look like slow motion too; even the dirt kicked up by the tires goes up slowly, and the upward travel in the suspension is slow too. When the camera jitters/shakes while going over bumps and such, from the first person view, that looks like slow motion as well, even though there is no reason a camera should jitter/shake in slow motion, given that it isn't being caused by gravity.


What you see is them moving carefully to compensate for, as you point out, their Earth strength operating in a moon environment. When they move forward they travel further in each step and leave the ground more than they would on Earth.


Yet always in slow motion (unless you know of any counter examples).


Again, you're prejudicing the outcome of your analysis by deciding how you think they should behave. Have you measured the acceleration? Have you tried comparing what you could do on Earth with what they are shown to be doing? Don't know about you, but my jumps from a standing start aren't that hot.


Measure it? I can see that it's slow, very slow; I'd guess in the neighborhood of about half the speed of a jump on Earth. It is impossible for a person to jump up that slowly on Earth; there is a certain minimum acceleration required just to get off the ground.


Air resistance is meaningless in this context - we don't jump high or fast enough for it to make an appreciable difference,


Which is why I said:

"and not even having any atmosphere to offer the slightest resistance?"

In other words, I know that; well, the second part of your assertion anyway. As for the first part, no, it is not meaningless, it is nearly meaningless, i.e., negligible.


and rockets have the slight advantage of a big engine pushing them away from the ground continuously, whereas human feet stop pushing immediately after the jump.


The length of time of acceleration is irrelevant to the analogy, which is why I asked the first guy who mentioned it what it has to do with anything. Substitute an extremely powerful slingshot for the rocket engine if you want; it makes no difference. The fact remains that anything capable of accelerating upward will accelerate faster on the moon than on the Earth, all else being equal.




posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

because the majority of their power has been restricted by the suit.


False. A suit can't restrict muscular power; it can only restrict movement. However, very little movement is required for a small jump on Earth, and the smallest possible jump on Earth translates to a big jump on the moon, and the acceleration would also be faster than on Earth as well; not ~half speed like seen in the video.


if they had were wearing a singlet and shorts they would jump much much higher than any NBA player in history, they would also die after several seconds.


See above.


this is just a lack of understanding basic highschool physics.


Your mere assertion is dismissed.


not to be rude or anything but if cant grasp highschool physics i dont recommend making bold claims about what should happen and what shouldnt when related to physics, a trap that the "knowledgable" Turbonium1 falls into all the time.


Comical irony, coming from the guy who thinks a suit can restrict muscular power.


assuming they jump straight up and land straight back down, the velocity going up as soon as they leave the ground will equal the velocity just as they touch the ground again. laws of physics cant change this fact.


Irrelevant. Their initial acceleration from the jump will be higher than their initial acceleration back down to the ground, thus giving the appearance of "going up fast and coming down slow".


the only way to make your comment true is if they were jumping onto a higher platform.


See above.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: MaximRecoil

You asked "why are they accelerating so slowly after they jump". You would never accelerate whatever after a jump. The force causing the acceleration ends when the boots leave the ground.


I asked no such thing. That sentence you put in quotes, attributed to me, only appears one time in this thread, i.e., in your post. I said:

"Can anyone explain why they are accelerating from a jump at such a slow rate"

And yes, the acceleration does come from the jump.


eta: I think you may also be confusing mass, weight, and inertial effects. Lighter gravity doesn't mean you can accelerate a given mass faster.


Yes, it does, at least in contexts where you are accelerating in opposition to gravity (such as jumping upward). There are things on Earth that I can lift that I couldn't even lift at all on a hypothetical planet with gravity of say, 10 g, and picking something up, no matter how slowly you do it, is faster acceleration than not being able to pick it up at all (which = no acceleration).
edit on 11/22/2015 by MaximRecoil because: Typo



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

False. A suit can't restrict muscular power; it can only restrict movement. However, very little movement is required for a small jump on Earth, and the smallest possible jump on Earth translates to a big jump on the moon, and the acceleration would also be faster than on Earth as well; not ~half speed like seen in the video.


and that restricted movement results in using less power used to jump.

so you are saying that the jumps you see on the moon were not big considering the minimal movement displayed??



Your mere assertion is dismissed.


it remains to be a true observation. if you continue to argue this tripe about how acceleration is supposed to work in your mind.



Irrelevant. Their initial acceleration from the jump will be higher than their initial acceleration back down to the ground, thus giving the appearance of "going up fast and coming down slow".


no it isnt.. learn basic high school physics, you are making yourself look silly, the acceleration during a jump is CONSTANT throughout the ENTIRE JUMP.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Actually, no. For a given force and mass, the acceleration will be the same on the Moon as on Earth. The weight doesn't enter into it. That's why I said you seemed to be mixing acceleration, weight, mass and inertia.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

and that restricted movement results in using less power used to jump.


It may or may not; it depends on how much movement is needed for the jump you are attempting. Either way, the suit allows for enough movement to jump even if wearing it on Earth, which means way more than enough movement for jumping on the moon.


so you are saying that the jumps you see on the moon were not big considering the minimal movement displayed??


I can jump with hardly any visible movement. Try it yourself; it isn't hard, and that is in Earth gravity. A jump on Earth always has acceleration of over 1 g, else you wouldn't leave the ground. The same force on the moon would accelerate you even faster. However, the astronauts are going up slower than any jump on Earth.


it remains to be a true observation. if you continue to argue this tripe about how acceleration is supposed to work in your mind.


This is another baseless assertion; you can consider dismissed as well. Wait until you can actually refute something I've said before typing out another similar assertion.


no it isnt..


Yes, it is.


learn basic high school physics, you are making yourself look silly,


This is not only another baseless assertion, but it is a non sequitur as well.


the acceleration during a jump is CONSTANT throughout the ENTIRE JUMP.


First of all, no, it isn't. Muscles and jumping techniques aren't precisely regulated so as to prove constant acceleration. Constant acceleration comes from something like gravity. Second, this doesn't have anything to do with what I posted. An able-bodied adult human making at least a decent jumping effort on the moon would initially accelerate at far faster than 1/6 g, which means he would start his ascent at a high rate of speed, faster than if he did the same jump on Earth. When he starts to move back downward, it will be at a rate of 1/6 g, thus the appearance of going up fast and coming down slow. That he will eventually reach the same speed as he started out at is beside the point; in fact, the speed of his entire descent in general is beside the point as well.

To illustrate this, here is a more extreme example. Imagine a near-zero g environment, i.e., it takes an object that is 10 feet off the ground 10 minutes to fall to the ground. Suppose someone jumped from the ground in this near-zero g environment as hard as he could. Would he go up at a rate of about a foot per minute, or would he shoot up like a rocket? Obviously the latter. And when he finally came to a stop and started to accelerate back down toward the ground, he would be going extremely slow at first, i.e., it would take him 10 minutes to get 10 feet closer to the ground.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
Actually, I know what it would look like, i.e., they would go up much faster than they come down, provided they put even half the effort of the weakest possible Earth jump into it.


Clearly you don't.


They weren't even coming close to putting maximum effort into a jump, or they weren't on the moon. It takes very little effort to jump on Earth. Try it yourself. You can basically just shrug your shoulders upward and raise your heels a bit and the momentum will get you off the ground slightly, which qualifies as a jump. And the acceleration of any jump on Earth is always at least slightly higher than 1 g acceleration. So if you were to do that same extremely weak jump on the moon, what would the acceleration be?


And you know this how?

Jump as high as you can from standing. How far do you get? How much effort does it take? Did you come down slower than you went up?


Of course it does, though not to a particularly noticeable degree with jumping humans, because the stronger we get, the heavier we get (increased muscle mass), eventually reaching a point of diminishing returns. However, the higher someone can jump, the faster they had to accelerate upward in order to do so, all else being equal. Their rate of falling will always be the same (1 g), apart from air resistance factors. If you want to see drastic examples of it, just look at a rocket or a rifle bullet. With a human suddenly finding himself in a 1/6 g environment, he already has the strength to accelerate in a jump at over 1 g initial acceleration, and his falling speed will inherently be limited to 1/6 g acceleration, so he will be able to go up much faster than he will come down, or at least, his initial acceleration from the jump will be much faster than his initial acceleration back down to the ground (I don't know if it works out that they eventually reach the same maximum speed in both directions or not. Either way, the initial "going up" part would certainly not look like slow motion "floating".


Movement on the moon is not in slow motion. Find us a piece of video that shows an astronaut floating on the moon.

The laws of physics are the same on the moon as they are here. Give us worked examples if you think differently.


It doesn't look anything like a normal walking pace.


In some cases it is considerably faster. Because they are on the moon, where gravity is less and thus slows them down less.


The drives in the lunar rover (youtu.be...) look like slow motion too


They are driving at a relatively slow speed. 8 mph on the moon is the same as 8 mph on Earth


even the dirt kicked up by the tires goes up slowly, and the upward travel in the suspension is slow too.


The dirt is not suspended in anything, there is no air in which to suspend it. it goes up, it comes back down again in arc that matches lunar gravity.


When the camera jitters/shakes while going over bumps and such, from the first person view, that looks like slow motion as well, even though there is no reason a camera should jitter/shake in slow motion, given that it isn't being caused by gravity.


Mass is mass. Newton's laws of motion apply to that mass. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In this case it is the action of a vehicle going over a bump. Nothing is moving in slow motion.


Yet always in slow motion (unless you know of any counter examples)


It is not in slow motion. Insisting that it is slow motion does not make it slow motion. You have seen too many films and TV programmes using slow motion as a cheap and incorrect way of simulating movement in lunar gravity.


Measure it? I can see that it's slow, very slow; I'd guess in the neighborhood of about half the speed of a jump on Earth. It is impossible for a person to jump up that slowly on Earth; there is a certain minimum acceleration required just to get off the ground.


Guessing doesn't cut it. Measure it. Your subjective impressions are not the same as analysis. At least you're conceding that they are not on Earth.


Which is why I said:

"and not even having any atmosphere to offer the slightest resistance?"

In other words, I know that; well, the second part of your assertion anyway. As for the first part, no, it is not meaningless, it is nearly meaningless, i.e., negligible.


Air has no impact on ability to jump on Earth. Its absence would have no impact on the moon.


The length of time of acceleration is irrelevant to the analogy, which is why I asked the first guy who mentioned it what it has to do with anything. Substitute an extremely powerful slingshot for the rocket engine if you want; it makes no difference. The fact remains that anything capable of accelerating upward will accelerate faster on the moon than on the Earth, all else being equal.


Acceleration is a change in velocity over time.

Momentum is mass times velocity.

Where is gravity in those equations?
edit on 22-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: parsing



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: MaximRecoil

Actually, no. For a given force and mass, the acceleration will be the same on the Moon as on Earth. The weight doesn't enter into it. That's why I said you seemed to be mixing acceleration, weight, mass and inertia.


False. I already gave an example which disproves your assertion. In that example, the force is the same (my muscular strength), and the mass of the object I'm trying to lift is the same, yet in one case I can lift it (thus, acceleration of the object) and in the other case I can't lift it at all (thus, no acceleration of the object). The only thing that has changed is the force of gravity.

Without gravity, you only have to overcome inertia to impart acceleration. With gravity, you have to overcome the force of gravity plus inertia to impart acceleration. The stronger the force of gravity is, the greater the force has to be in order to impart a given amount of acceleration.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

It may or may not; it depends on how much movement is needed for the jump you are attempting. Either way, the suit allows for enough movement to jump even if wearing it on Earth, which means way more than enough movement for jumping on the moon.


they do jump on the moon.. and they jump plenty high enough for the given movement involved.



I can jump with hardly any visible movement. Try it yourself; it isn't hard, and that is in Earth gravity. A jump on Earth always has acceleration of over 1 g, else you wouldn't leave the ground. The same force on the moon would accelerate you even faster. However, the astronauts are going up slower than any jump on Earth.


no it doesnt, the movement while on the ground is more than 1g as soon as you leave the ground all acceleration becomes 1g.

also are you able to jump with hardly any visible movement while wearing a suit that heavily restricts movement?? and weighs about a hundred pounds? if you can how high are you able to jump?



This is another baseless assertion; you can consider dismissed as well. Wait until you can actually refute something I've said before typing out another similar assertion.


thats because you dont even understand what is happening.. acceleration during a jump when they are off the ground is always constant. stop trying to act like its not.

your continuance in trying to force feed everyone that you are right about acceleration during a jump varies makes you look silly, so my observation about you so far has been accurate, you dont have to believe me.



First of all, no, it isn't.


ok then let me be more clear so you might understand..

acceleration during a jump when the jumper has left the ground is always constant.. the only thing that varies is velocity.


Muscles and jumping techniques aren't precisely regulated so as to prove constant acceleration. Constant acceleration comes from something like gravity. Second, this doesn't have anything to do with what I posted. An able-bodied adult human making at least a decent jumping effort on the moon would initially accelerate at far faster than 1/6 g, which means he would start his ascent at a high rate of speed, faster than if he did the same jump on Earth.


not entirely true.. will this person have restricted movement?? if he does how will he build up his initial velocity? on earth he can have his full range of motion, on the moon he cant.


When he starts to move back downward, it will be at a rate of 1/6 g, thus the appearance of going up fast and coming down slow. That he will eventually reach the same speed as he started out at is beside the point; in fact, the speed of his entire descent in general is beside the point as well.


great, so you are comparing the velocities of just when they leave the ground and just after reaching the apex, right when the differences in velocities are nearly at their greatest to make your "point" about some moon hoax..

how about you compare the difference in velocites at the same heights going up and going down?


To illustrate this, here is a more extreme example. Imagine a near-zero g environment, i.e., it takes an object that is 10 feet off the ground 10 minutes to fall to the ground. Suppose someone jumped from the ground in this near-zero g environment as hard as he could. Would he go up at a rate of about a foot per minute, or would he shoot up like a rocket? Obviously the latter. And when he finally came to a stop and started to accelerate back down toward the ground, he would be going extremely slow at first, i.e., it would take him 10 minutes to get 10 feet closer to the ground.


and this doesnt prove your point of a hoax?? if his initial velocity is higher than the final velocity of the object it would only mean that the person jumped higher than 10feet..



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

It depends on how they curved the track in the crater.
You would need some kind of key grip technique to seam the shots though.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20061033]

Clearly you don't.


Already refuted, thus dismissed.


And you know this how?


Explained in the very excerpt which you quoted.


Jump as high as you can from standing. How far do you get? How much effort does it take? Did you come down slower than you went up?


Your initial acceleration back down will always be slower than your initial acceleration going up. To go up, the acceleration has to be greater than 1 g (on Earth); coming back down, the acceleration is exactly 1 g, which is obviously less than "greater than 1 g". On Earth, the difference between the two won't be great, thus not particularly noticeable. On the moon, the difference would be very noticeable, because you have the strength to jump at greater than 1 g acceleration, yet your acceleration back down will only be 1/6 g.


Movement on the moon is not in slow motion.


Yes, it clearly is.


Find us a piece of video that shows an astronaut floating on the moon.


Say what? Things don't float on the moon. However, the slow motion in the videos certainly have a "floaty" appearance.


The laws of physics are the same on the moon as they are here. Give us worked examples if you think differently.


Given that I never claimed, suggested, nor even hinted otherwise, this is a non sequitur from you. Consider it dismissed out of hand.


It doesn't look anything like a normal walking pace.



In some cases it is considerably faster.


Or so you say. Feel free to post an example.


They are driving at a relatively slow speed. 8 mph on the moon is the same as 8 mph on Earth


This is another non sequitur, given that I mentioned more than just their forward speed, and I never said anything which warranted a statement of the blatantly obvious.


The dirt is not suspended in anything, there is no air in which to suspend it. it goes up, it comes back down again in arc that matches lunar gravity.


What does that have to do with anything? The dirt goes up into the air slowly. Are you suggesting that the tires always only imparted just enough force to the dirt to allow it to overcome 1/6 g, and never any more force than that? That would be quite a trick.


Mass is mass. Newton's laws of motion apply to that mass. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In this case it is the action of a vehicle going over a bump. Nothing is moving in slow motion.


Except, everything is in slow-motion relative to what happens on Earth. Your mere gainsaying changes nothing.


It is not in slow motion. Insisting that it is slow motion does not make it slow motion. You have seen too many films and TV programmes using slow motion as a cheap and incorrect way of simulating movement in lunar gravity.


I know slow motion when I see it. You see, this comes from a lifetime of seeing the real world in normal motion, and again, your gainsaying changes nothing.


Guessing doesn't cut it. Measure it. Your subjective impressions are not the same as analysis. At least you're conceding that they are not on Earth.


Yes, it "cuts it" just fine. A measurement would give you a precise figure, but that isn't required here. Their ascent when jumping is substantially slower than than any jump on Earth, which is all that matters. And I conceded no such thing. Your assertion that I did indicates a reading comprehension issue on your part.


Air has no impact on ability to jump on Earth. Its absence would have no impact on the moon.


Absolutely false. It has a negligible impact, which is not the same as "no impact".


Acceleration is a change in velocity over time.

Momentum is mass times velocity.

Where is gravity in those equations?


This is another non sequitur, given that we aren't talking about momentum.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

they do jump on the moon.. and they jump plenty high enough for the given movement involved.


If you can see any movement at all involved in the jump, then they should have accelerated faster than they would have on Earth, because it only takes slight movement to make a slight jump on Earth.


no it doesnt


Yes, it does.


the movement while on the ground is more than 1g as soon as you leave the ground all acceleration becomes 1g.


What are you talking about? You always have 1 g pulling you toward Earth, whether you are on the ground or not. The force of your jump has to exceed 1 g to get you off the ground. Once your feet are no longer pushing against the ground, you start slowing down rather than speeding up (technically, slowing down and speeding up are both acceleration, but I'll use the term to just mean "speeding up").


also are you able to jump with hardly any visible movement while wearing a suit that heavily restricts movement?? and weighs about a hundred pounds? if you can how high are you able to jump?


The weight on the moon would be about 63 pounds (180 lb. man, 200 lb. EVA suit, 1/6 g), as I've already pointed out, and why do you think heavily restricted movement is significant when it requires very little movement to jump? You don't even need to bend your knees to jump, and the fact that they can bend their knees somewhat in those EVA suits means they have more than enough freedom of movement for a decent jump. The main impediment to jumping in those suits on Earth would be the weight, not the restricted movement. But on the moon, the weight isn't an issue.


thats because you dont even understand what is happening..


This is comically ironic, given the non sequiturs you've typed, and this is yet another one from you.


acceleration during a jump when they are off the ground is always constant. stop trying to act like its not.


Say what? When they are off the ground it is after the jump, not during it. Acceleration is not constant during a jump, unless the jumper is a precisely programmed robot. Human muscles are not well-enough regulated/controlled to provide 100% constant acceleration during a jump. There is no acceleration after the jump, at least not positive acceleration (i.e., the jumper immediately starts to slow down after the jump). This is because of the force of gravity (which is a constant) acting on the jumper, and it will eventually cause the jumper to accelerate back down to the ground at a constant rate (constant in a perfect vacuum, that is).


your continuance in trying to force feed everyone that you are right about acceleration during a jump varies makes you look silly, so my observation about you so far has been accurate, you dont have to believe me.


It does vary during the jump, so you can consider this another Comical Irony Alert. It will vary more or less depending on the technique of the jumper. Once the jumper leaves the ground (i.e., after the jump), everything becomes constant, assuming gravity is the only force acting on the jumper.


ok then let me be more clear so you might understand..


Comical Irony Alert: Part IV


acceleration during a jump when the jumper has left the ground is always constant.. the only thing that varies is velocity.


Again, once jumper has left the ground, it is after the jump, not during it. Also, I don't know what you think this has to do with anything. The fact is that on the moon, a man will still have the strength to jump at over 1 g acceleration, which means he will start to go up fast, and he will come down at a rate of 1/6 g, which means as he starts to come down, it will look like he's falling slow.


not entirely true.. will this person have restricted movement?? if he does how will he build up his initial velocity? on earth he can have his full range of motion, on the moon he cant.


I've already addressed the range of motion thing, and yes, what I said is entirely true.


great, so you are comparing the velocities of just when they leave the ground and just after reaching the apex, right when the differences in velocities are nearly at their greatest to make your "point" about some moon hoax..

how about you compare the difference in velocites at the same heights going up and going down?


Again, the "coming back down" part isn't even important, i.e., it is beside the point as I already said. The point is, that with even minimal jumping effort, a man would be able to jump at over 1 g on the moon, because he can do so on Earth with minimal effort, despite it requiring much more force. In that video, they are not jumping up at anywhere near 1 g acceleration. Weighing only ~63 pounds, he can only manage what, 0.5 g during his jump?


and this doesnt prove your point of a hoax?? if his initial velocity is higher than the final velocity of the object it would only mean that the person jumped higher than 10feet..


See above.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
False. I already gave an example which disproves your assertion. In that example, the force is the same (my muscular strength), and the mass of the object I'm trying to lift is the same, yet in one case I can lift it (thus, acceleration of the object) and in the other case I can't lift it at all (thus, no acceleration of the object). The only thing that has changed is the force of gravity.


If the force of gravity is higher than the force you can impart, then you will not be able to lift it, as the resulting net force is still going to be down.

However, I'm still totally correct. The acceleration of the object is the same for a given force and mass, no matter what the gravity is.

If you were in orbit, you still couldn't wave a 10 ton weight around like a flyswatter. You could not accelerate it any faster than you could on Earth or Jupiter. Or the moon.

You've never had college physics, have you? Or maybe even high school. You're conflating force, mass, inertia and weight like someone who hasn't done much in the way of solving problems.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

If you can see any movement at all involved in the jump, then they should have accelerated faster than they would have on Earth, because it only takes slight movement to make a slight jump on Earth.


but if they had done this on earth, they would not have reached as high as they did on the moon, if they would have got off the ground at all while wearing a fully pressurised suit.



What are you talking about? You always have 1 g pulling you toward Earth, whether you are on the ground or not. The force of your jump has to exceed 1 g to get you off the ground. Once your feet are no longer pushing against the ground, you start slowing down rather than speeding up (technically, slowing down and speeding up are both acceleration, but I'll use the term to just mean "speeding up").


what am i talking about?? im talking about the jumping part while your feet are still on the ground, you need to accelerate greater than 1g upwards.. but the second your feet leave the ground all acceleration is now 1g downwards.



The weight on the moon would be about 63 pounds (180 lb. man, 200 lb. EVA suit, 1/6 g), as I've already pointed out, and why do you think heavily restricted movement is significant when it requires very little movement to jump? You don't even need to bend your knees to jump, and the fact that they can bend their knees somewhat in those EVA suits means they have more than enough freedom of movement for a decent jump. The main impediment to jumping in those suits on Earth would be the weight, not the restricted movement. But on the moon, the weight isn't an issue.


why would i think heavily restricted movement is significant?? you can surely work that out yourself.. why dont you try jumping as high as you can unrestricted..

now try jumping from your heels and NOT your toes, bend your knees as much as you want i dont care, jump as high as you can and see how high you can jump. ive just restricted one of your movements. if restricting movement is not important then you should be able to jump just as high.


Say what? When they are off the ground it is after the jump, not during it.


being mid jump is still part of a jump. but if you want ONLY the motion of jumping and as soon as you leave the ground something else, then by all means be more clear.

so like when people ask you how high you can jump, your answer is always 0m??


Acceleration is not constant during a jump,


it is while in mid air. which is my point.


There is no acceleration after the jump, at least not positive acceleration (i.e., the jumper immediately starts to slow down after the jump). This is because of the force of gravity (which is a constant) acting on the jumper, and it will eventually cause the jumper to accelerate back down to the ground at a constant rate (constant in a perfect vacuum, that is).


define after a jump.

if by after a jump you mean as soon as the person leaves the ground, then yes there still is acceleration positive or negative acceleration is still acceleration and acceleration due to gravity is still acceleration and will remain constant after a jump.

if by after a jump you mean as soon as the person has landed on the ground again after leaving it, then there still is acceleration due to gravity, but net acceleration will be zero so to speak.



It does vary during the jump,


define during a jump..

if by during a jump you mean that the jumper has yet to leave the ground than acceleration could vary.

if by during a jump you mean in mid-air, acceleration is constant.


Again, once jumper has left the ground, it is after the jump, not during it.


it is still part of the jump. if i ask you how high you can jump it will always be 0m for you in this case, since the more accurate term to ask you is how high can you reach after you jump?


Also, I don't know what you think this has to do with anything. The fact is that on the moon, a man will still have the strength to jump at over 1 g acceleration,


since you have been quite obscure so far.. when you say 1g ill assume its related to earth gravity and not moon gravity. because 1g earth gravity does not equal 1g lunar gravity.


which means he will start to go up fast, and he will come down at a rate of 1/6 g, which means as he starts to come down, it will look like he's falling slow.


so what?? if he jumps up fast he will take longer to slow down at lunar gravity resulting in a higher height reached. he will begin to fall down slowly but his velocity reached just before touching the ground will equal to initial velocity but in the opposite direction as when he left the ground. nothing new.

the thing is, you saying they can reach a higher height and physically being able to are different things.



I've already addressed the range of motion thing, and yes, what I said is entirely true.


no you havent.. try my suggested experiment, two jumps one normal as high as you can, and one by jumping off of the heel of your feet as high as you can, use as much knee bending as you wish.



Again, the "coming back down" part isn't even important, i.e., it is beside the point as I already said. The point is, that with even minimal jumping effort, a man would be able to jump at over 1 g on the moon, because he can do so on Earth with minimal effort, despite it requiring much more force. In that video, they are not jumping up at anywhere near 1 g acceleration. Weighing only ~63 pounds, he can only manage what, 0.5 g during his jump?


ill say it again, not if his movement is heavily restricted. you seem to think they have full freedom of movement.
edit on 22-11-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

If the force of gravity is higher than the force you can impart, then you will not be able to lift it, as the resulting net force is still going to be down.

However, I'm still totally correct. The acceleration of the object is the same for a given force and mass, no matter what the gravity is.


Your backpedaling is noted. Of course it is only a matter of net force and mass; net force includes gravity in the equation if present, obviously, along with any other force acting on the object. And no, you weren't "totally correct", in fact, you weren't correct at all. You said:

"Actually, no. For a given force and mass, the acceleration will be the same on the Moon as on Earth. The weight doesn't enter into it. That's why I said you seemed to be mixing acceleration, weight, mass and inertia."

By saying that "weight doesn't enter into it", you're saying that gravity is not a force which affects acceleration, which is, of course, blatantly false. To calculate net force acting upon an object, you have to take gravity into account, which is taking weight into account by default.


If you were in orbit, you still couldn't wave a 10 ton weight around like a flyswatter.


This is a non sequitur, given that I never suggested otherwise. If you want to change the speed of a 10 ton object in orbit with you, you have to not only overcome its inertia, but the force of gravity from the object it is in orbit around. That will take far more force than human muscles can muster.


You could not accelerate it any faster than you could on Earth or Jupiter. Or the moon.


Assuming you were strong enough to impart any acceleration to it at all (like say, if you were Superman), then yes, your given level of strength would be able to accelerate it faster if there is less gravity to overcome. You're contradicting yourself here. You've already backpedaled, admitting that it is a matter of net force and mass, thus admitting I was right all along (because net force includes all forces acting upon the object, including gravity), and now you're making another claim indicating that gravity is irrelevant.


You've never had college physics, have you? Or maybe even high school.


Comical irony, given your tacit admission that I was right all along, and then your bizarre self-contradiction which followed. The example I gave to you:

"False. I already gave an example which disproves your assertion. In that example, the force is the same (my muscular strength), and the mass of the object I'm trying to lift is the same, yet in one case I can lift it (thus, acceleration of the object) and in the other case I can't lift it at all (thus, no acceleration of the object). The only thing that has changed is the force of gravity.

Without gravity, you only have to overcome inertia to impart acceleration. With gravity, you have to overcome the force of gravity plus inertia to impart acceleration. The stronger the force of gravity is, the greater the force has to be in order to impart a given amount of acceleration."


Is what illustrated the concept of net force to you in the first place, forcing you to backpedal.


You're conflating force, mass, inertia and weight like someone who hasn't done much in the way of solving problems.


This is a non sequitur, given that I'm obviously not conflating anything, thus your assertion that I am obviously doesn't logically follow from anything I've said. Consider your non sequitur dismissed out of hand.
edit on 11/22/2015 by MaximRecoil because: Formatting



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
[snip]


Your entire posts consists of semantic games and mere gainsaying. That constitutes a dead end for an argument.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

originally posted by: choos
[snip]


Your entire posts consists of semantic games and mere gainsaying. That constitutes a dead end for an argument.


comical irony coming from the guy that requires defining what a jump is.

so how about the experiment?? are you able to jump as high off your heels than you can normally??
sorry, i should say: are you able to reach the same height after you jump off your heels than you can after jumping normally?

i havent restricted your knee bending in both jump at all, so as per your belief you should be able to jump just as high..
sorry, i should say: so as per your belief you should be able to reach the same height after you jump using both methods.
edit on 22-11-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Have you considered that they landed on the moon but what was broadcast was pre-recorded because they had a specific mission on the moon that they didn't want to broadcast?



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: WCmutant

No because the Russians could watch the downlink as well.

Plus now we have pictures of the foot traffic for each of the landing sites.
You can match them up spatially with the videos which have been in public domain for decades.

Just wait China will land close to one of our sites and send back video.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: WCmutant

The receiving stations for data and communications (including TV) were all pointed at one place: the moon. That includes not just those in the US but Africa, Spain and Australia. Added to that are those places that were listening unofficially like Jodrell Bank, an observatory in Germany and amateur radio enthusiast.

As pointed out above there are photographs taken from lunar orbit of human activity that match exactly those transmitted live on TV, in still images and 16mm film. Surface features not known about prior to the missions are also confirmed by those satellites, including those from China, Japan and India. Japanese and Indian satellites have also seen evidence of human activity.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join