The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

page: 4
114
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I am asking the question, not stating any fact, but if an metorite crashes to the moon without atmosphere, then there is no friction/burning. And we would see no explosion from earth. But if the moon had atmosphere, then there should be a friction affect and an explosion I would assume visible from earth with any of the numerous telescopes that watch the moon. My question is, why haven't any of the people watching and filming the moon ever recorded an explosion on the moon? Or maybe they have and thought it insignifigant. Nice thread Mike. You do amazing work with your presentation.
Mike




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Could you please explain why only erosion and weather can cause a mountain to look round from many many miles away. This is not rhetorical, please answer. I value your input.


edit: Wait, someone else already did.


As for high jumps:

"Who says they couldn't? Just because they generally didn't doesn't mean they weren't able to.

Neil Armstrong reported that he was able to jump to the third step of the lunar module ladder, which he estimated to be five or six feet from the lunar surface [Reports11b, 89]. "I did some fairly high jumps," said Armstrong, "and found that there was a tendency to tip over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that" [Ibid., 76]. Falling over backward would risk damaging the PLSS."

[edit on 11-9-2008 by newagent89]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Wow interesting read mike

its also what John Lear has been claiming for years though...

I remember the argument that John had with richard hoagland on c2c where he said if he could get on the next craft to the moon richard could wear his suit and john wouldnt and then they would see who would have the last laugh when they opened the door and stepped onto the surface !!!
(that was assuming that the moon could hold a very thin oxogen atmos !)




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike Shackled
For people to say that there is no atmosphere on the moon seems kind of weird to me.


Be as it may, laws of physics, should you elect to study those, will prove to you that indeed the Moon cannot sustain a sizeable atmosphere over an extended period of time. Some may find this weird.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by scepticsRus
 


Yeah, I thought about that too.

But see, a smart way to go about it would be to use your onboard sensors first, to measure the atmospheric density and composition, and check for any pathogens.

Also, if the pressure differential was very extreme, it could hurt your ears if it was a sudden large change (although most ear pain comes from going from thinner to thicker air, unless you equalize (ask any Scuba diver).

Anyway, after the sensor readings I'd look out the porthole, and determine whether I saw people walking around in their shirtsleeves....all of that would convince me to "Go Boldly" with no EVA suit.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I'm a bit puzzled at the idea that you can only have rounded sculptured hills if you have an atmosphere! Since the earth does have an atmosphere can someone explain to me how come we have huge jagged topped mountain ranges? After all, going by what I've heard here, these mountain ranges should have had there peaks and ridges removed by our atmosphere millenia ago. . . Doesn't make any sense!
The reason the moon has rounded flowing mountains and hills is because of the incessant meteoric rain. This simply couldn't happen if the moon had an atmosphere as they would burn up.


jra

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Were there any extraordinary feats performed by the astronauts on the Moon having a gravity of just 1/6th that of Earth’s? No. Well, there should have been considering that a 180-pound man would weigh a mere 30 pounds on the Moon!


What kind of "extraordinary feats" are you looking for? Jumping high? They did that. Armstrong jumped up from the ground to the third step of the LM ladder. That's about 5 to 6 feet. He also stated that there was a tendancy to tip over backwards (due to the PLSS on the back) and decided that it wasn't worth risking ones life. An astronaut on a different mission (I forget which one at the moment) did some free standing jumps. He got up to about 4 feet, but again, due to the PLSS on his back which affects ones center of mass. He tipped over and landed on his back. He was very lucky that no damage happened to his PLSS.

Also, astronauts weighed more than 180lbs. With a fully loaded space suit they were about 300lbs which is about 50lbs on the Moon. And don't forget that they still have 300lbs of mass regardless of the amount of gravity. And when you're comparing how high some one jumps on Earth to that of the astronauts on the Moon. Are you comparing it to some one wearing the same space suit on Earth? It would only be fair, since those suits are heavy, bulky and stiff.


With 1/6th gravity, the dust plumes should have gone some 60 feet high and floated off behind for a considerable distance, but they’re less than 10 feet high and hit the surface almost immediately! And dust ‘waves’ produced in the wake of the buggy can only be produced in an environment having an atmosphere!


What leads you to believe that the plumes should have been 60 feet high? What calculations lead you to that conclusion?

The fact that the dust returned to the ground shows that there is indeed no atmosphere (or not enough of one) to affect the particles of dust. If there were an atmosphere, the dust would have remained suspended in it, like it would on Earth. But it all falls with no atmospheric resistance. The dust "waves" have nothing to do with an atmosphere. They're caused by the rover bouncing up and down as it drives over the bumpy surface.

You can clearly see that the rover is bouncing as it's moving and the tires kick up more dust when they dig into the ground more, creating "waves". Have you ever witnessed a car driving down a dirt road? The dust clouds and billows and remains suspended in the air for a while. It looks nothing like what's shown in the video of the Rover.


It would have been impossible to have a water cooled space suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water, there would be no where for the heat to dissipate. But water cooled suits are a viable proposition in an environment where atmosphere is present!


Wow... where to begin...

When you say the outside temperature is already at the boiling point of water. What are you referring to exactly? Surely not the vacuum of space, which has no temperature. Were you referring to the surface temperature Moon? If so, how does surface effect the water cooled suits?

The water cooled suits worked by sublimation. The water in the suit is allowed to seep through a pourus metal plate into the vacuum of space, where it freezes onto some coils of tubing. Water that's pumped through the coils is cooled by the ice and the ice sublimates (going directly from a solid to a gas) into the vacuum of space, taking the heat away with it.

This method of cooling is a space standard. To deny that the Apollo water cooling system doesn't work. You'd also have to be denying that Russian space suits, the MIR space station, the Space Shuttle and any other vehicle that uses this cooling method, ever worked.

Anyway, my time is limited, I'll leave it at that for now.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsRus
Wow interesting read mike

its also what John Lear has been claiming for years though...

I remember the argument that John had with richard hoagland on c2c where he said if he could get on the next craft to the moon richard could wear his suit and john wouldnt and then they would see who would have the last laugh when they opened the door and stepped onto the surface !!!
(that was assuming that the moon could hold a very thin oxogen atmos !


No one would be laughing as John lay there gasping for breath, dying.

This is exactly the kind of thing that bad facts endorses.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Very thoughtfully put together, but I doubt the idea that the gravity is higher than they say it is and ejected dust by meteoroid impacts could linger due to the moon's gravity for a long enough time to reflect light in a similar way to that of an atmosphere.

The variance in the gravitational center point between the moon and earth may be questionable as you say, but I also thought the moon's orbit had a bit of a wobble to it, so were any possible changes in total distance between the earth and moon as well as the mass of the spacecraft being flow get taken into the equation as well?

I can't explain the alleged reflections off of the astronaut's suspension cables, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that they weighed around 300lbs total with the suit on(and not 180).
The backpacks on the suits look fairly top-heavy also which could explain the peculiar center of axis during some of the suspect-looking low gravity clips chosen for analysis.

Trying to say the moon buggy is suspect because of what looks like an air valve on the rear tire in a photo(without confirmation that it is) still doesn't explain why we see moon dust passing through the screen mesh that the wheels are really made of.

Moon dust is also not like earth dust and I would imagine is closer to gravel and most visible particulate would return to the lunar surface in the observed time frame in the clips and not much later as is being suggested. Remember we have organic materials like pollen and lighter particles that tend to stay airborne due to many factors including air turbulence and resistance(none of which exist on the moon).

Duct taping the fender with gloves on and the lack of a tire track in the dirt doesn't mean as he was working on the fender, he didn't kick dirt over the track left by the buggy. Is there another after pic from further back? Also, if the duct tape was held onto the buggy by simply pulling out some tape and sticking it to the shelf the tape roll was on, it wouldn't be hard to work with the tape using bulky gloves.

Not saying you are wrong, but these are the questions I found asking myself and unwilling to research fully.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by 4N6310]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 4N6310
 


"
Moon dust is also not like earth dust and I would imagine is closer to gravel and most visible particulate would return to the lunar surface in the observed time frame in the clips and not much later as is being suggested.
"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the moon dust was described as being like talcum powder not like gravel. I think its because everything on the moon has been finely beaten and smashed by meteors.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
First off, great post Mike!

Second, I don't agree nor disagree with your post, clearly we have un-answered questions here that simply adds to more questions with regards to the Moon landing and the videos/pics at play.

I do agree though that we may have landed on the Moon but the videos and pictures shown to the public is not of what really happened. As we already know, NASA and the Military will NEVER disclose their findings. Why this is? No idea, and choose not to speculate on this matter.

I do have respect for a lot of members who may themselves be physicists or at least understand physics to a higher degree than the average people (like myself). The only ones that actually hold the truth to the Moon's mysteries is NASA and the Military. Those who have knowledge in physics can only speculate on what is and what is not based on theories brought by physics and our genius physicists.

Like I said on a previous thread, I hope that Russia gets to the Moon before the U.S. does again and put an end to this whole mystery moon we all know about. I hope they will not withhold the truth from us like the U.S. have been for many many years and more to come.

Thanks for your post Mike!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEnlightenedOne
 


Enlightened, nice thoughts there. Thing, is seems more likely nowadays that the Chinese might get there before 2020.

But, remember....there is a secret Corps of US military astronauts.

We certainly don't want to start a war in space....



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hi. I thought India (I'm not joking!) were due to get there by 2015?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TheEnlightenedOne
 


Enlightened, nice thoughts there. Thing, is seems more likely nowadays that the Chinese might get there before 2020.

But, remember....there is a secret Corps of US military astronauts.

We certainly don't want to start a war in space....


I didn't mean it in the way of starting a space war. What I meant to say was to disclose the truth about pretty much 'space'. If Russia or any other country goes there before 2020, then if there is or was life there I am hoping they will come out and say so, rather than hide it from us.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
---- This is a basic question but i never sen it addressed ------------

The moon has no gravity and has no atmosphere.
Theres no friction to.

So, why the astronauts, can run and jump well, without constantly falling?
Imagine you running and try to stop without friction and with a low gravity environment. How they get the balance without air?

---- Can someone explain it to me ? ----------------------------------



[edit on 11-9-2008 by Tuga_Truther]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Nicely puy together post and I commend your ability to dig through all of the chatter.
I don't know what went on up there, and I have questions.
The exploding tire scenario doesn't work for me . If your postulate were correct, the aluminum craft would never make it. I think we can all agree that a tire is more resiliant than an aluminum spaceship skin. Also, I was in grade school during the eaarly Apollo missions and remember clearly the tires were of a banded metal covered with a wire mesh type of construction.
Also, the vid where the astronaut seems to lift up on wires would be explained by inertia taking over once the upward motion was established. No wires there. As stated in the vid, they were well rehearsed, but not to act. I would expect no less.
My major question is, the landers were equipped with large discs at the terminus of the pins that were on the ends of the landers legs, the supposed function of these pads was to give the lander more surface area to rest upon, thinking at the time being that the lander would land on extremely fine dust and sink ala quicksand.
If the Moon had a higher gravity than we're told, wouldn't the dust be more compacted so as to preclude this possibility?
So, if there is a higher gravitation force on the Moon than we've been told, theee would also need to be a bit of moisture to help compact these grains of dust that supported the lander. As I recall, one of the astronauts (or somebody) has since stated that the pads were un-necessary.
Why, is the Lunar dust more compacted than was believed or are there varying degrees of compaction, or is there some moisture and a higher gravity that comacts the Lunar surface in a manner comparable to a terrestrial shoreline?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Tuga_Truther
 


Tuga....firstly, the Moon does have gravity. The discussion posed by Mike is, just what percentage of Earth's is the Moon's??

OK...regardless, the surface of any planet will provide friction as any other object interacts. Air is not required to stop you....obviously, or else you wouldn't be able to walk through air.

You can walk through water, but since it's more dense, it exerts more resistance.

In a vacuum (assuming you're in a vacuum) the friction of your feet, on the ground, will stop your motion. Either you will fall down, and stop....or, if you know how to walk, you will use your sense of balance you've acquired, and the muscles in your legs to stop. Simple, really.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tuga_Truther
 


Tuga....firstly, the Moon does have gravity. The discussion posed by Mike is, just what percentage of Earth's is the Moon's??

OK...regardless, the surface of any planet will provide friction as any other object interacts. Air is not required to stop you....obviously, or else you wouldn't be able to walk through air.

You can walk through water, but since it's more dense, it exerts more resistance.

In a vacuum (assuming you're in a vacuum) the friction of your feet, on the ground, will stop your motion. Either you will fall down, and stop....or, if you know how to walk, you will use your sense of balance you've acquired, and the muscles in your legs to stop. Simple, really.


Ok. Maybe you are right, but for me i expect more dificulty in walkin without friction. The astronauts don't seem to have difficulties in moving.
And the mon rovers should jumping more than they jump and more dificulty in manouvers. But it dont seem. For me when they when did a curve, the rover should go ahead more than they did.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


From the OP:


Newton could not determine accurately the Moon's mass to predict the Moon's force of attraction on other objects. Its mass was later calculated to be about 1/82 of the Earth's. In turn, the Moon's derived mass and the Earth's predicted mass were used to calculate the Moon's surface gravity which came out to be one-sixth of Earth's. Since the Moon is a much smaller body than Earth, it did not seem unreasonable to scientists that it should have a correspondingly smaller surface gravity.





The moon is a nearly spherical body, of a radius of about 1,081.5 miles, from which I calculate its volume to be approximately 5,300,216,300 cubic miles. Since its mean density is 3.27, one cubic foot of material composing it weighs close to 205 pounds. Accordingly, the total weight of the satelite is about 79,969,000,000, 000,000,000,000 and its mass 2,483,500,000,000,000,000 terrestrial short tons.



From:
www.rastko.org.yu...


That's the closest I found in a quick search to compare numbers, so
far its like comparing potatoes to radishes.

ED: I didn't see what the resultant gravity was determined to be
but NASA will not tell us gravity is the same every where will they.

ED+: The problem with NASA is that gravity is top secret.
They do not have access to Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity.
Mass might just be an ether or dark matter hole.

[edit on 9/11/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 9/11/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 9/11/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   


Lunar probes from both the United States and the Soviet Union were more successful after this. This cannot most likely be attributed to some sudden advance in the quality of the hardware or telemetry methods of both space programs, whereas it is much more likely to be a result of recalculation of the lunar gravitational gradient.


Speculation. It might as well be that the first probes were not good enough (from various perspectives) and that's why they did not make it to the moon.

Actually, Luna 2 and Luna 3 were successful.



In any case, the range of neutral point distances to the Moon's center is between 22,078 and 25,193 miles with the assumption that the Moon has one-sixth of Earth's surface gravity. But do note that these neutral point distances are based upon Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.


Wrong. Actually, it is Kepler's laws that help us define the moon's mass.

Therefore the neutral point is at 23900 miles.



Let’s now take a reputable source, the Encyclopedia Britannica that stated the following in the 1973 printing within the topic, "Space Exploration":


I don't see how an encyclopedia can be trusted more than NASA.



If an astronaut were to jump vertically in one-sixth gravity with the same effort expended on Earth, the initial velocity would be greater than on Earth. Therefore, the astronaut would reach more than six times higher. Here we see astronauts jump just about one foot, whereas they should have attained a height of at least six feet! There’s not even one pic that shows this! Have a look at this now….


You forgot to account for the weight of the spacesuits.

The Apollo spacesuits weighted 180 pounds, i.e. 82 kilos. That's like currying a second person on your shoulders. It's no wonder the astronauts could not jump six times higher.



Check out the dust trail. With 1/6th gravity, the dust plumes should have gone some 60 feet high and floated off behind for a considerable distance


If there was an atmosphere on the moon, then yes: the dust would be 60 feet high. Since there is no atmosphere, the dust can't go high enough.

Furthermore, what kind of dust is on the moon? as we can see, it is dry and has no air in it. Thus, it is heavier from Earth dust. It's also electrically charged and sticks to anything. Thus it can not go high up 60 feet, as you claimed.



The Moon buggy had inflatable tires


No, it did not.



It would have been impossible to have a water cooled space suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water, there would be no where for the heat to dissipate. But water cooled suits are a viable proposition in an environment where atmosphere is present!


Not really. Water absorbed the heat and was cooled again by the PLSS (see the section PLSS:back pack in the above link).



The few lunar excursions indicated that the moon was a very dry world. One lunar expert said that it was "a million times as dry as the Gobi Desert." The early Apollo missions did not find even the slightest trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts were stunned when a cloud of water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on the moon's surface.


Do you happen to have any links? I searched for that but I could not find anything.


BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BUGGY’S TIRE MARKS?


Covered by the electrically charged dust. Perhaps the buggy was a long time there for dust to settle and cover the tracks.

Nice try, but nothing you said stands under scientific scrutiny.





new topics
top topics
 
114
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join