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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 407
377
<< 404  405  406    408  409  410 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001
 



On the other hand, if there were extensive reports of your leprechaun infestation from all of your neighbors, abundant photographs, live television coverage and living leprechauns sent to leading scientists all over the world who were able to examine them and confirm that they were leprechauns, I'd have to be a close minded bigot to reject the possibility completely, don't you think?


And what evidence actually came from anybody but the original source, NASA???


You beat me to it.

Yes if I wrote a autobiography about it, took a photos, made videos, got some friends of mine to testify as eyewitnesses, and presented a few gold coins for the public to look at from those pots of gold... would I be believed?

Im quite sure I would get a following of people who would want to believe me, because they themselves believe in leprechauns. Im sure that there will be people who would say, "why would I lie about it?" and believe me on good faith. But I wouldn't blame people being skeptical. As a matter of fact, I would expect it.




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
You MUST take into account ALL forces acting on the mass...
Gravity is a force which is opposing the upward force and thus MUST be included in your F=MA..

If gravity is 1/6 then it WILL affect the resulting acceleration/velocity..

He already showed you all the correct equations. This really isn't something up for debate, the motion equations are so incredibly simple they're very well understood.

Either I've misunderstood JW's claim, or he genuinely thinks that if you increase the volume of a rock, it becomes easier to blow away, which is utter rubbish. Assuming it's regular, then the pressure force is opposed by the frictional force, and the mass increases to the cube of your measurement, rather than the square, so it will become actually harder.

I don't know what part of this you don't understand, so perhaps we could start again.

JW is wrong if he believes this, it's hard to get a good handle because there are so many videos and he expects you to have watched them all.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



He already showed you all the correct equations. This really isn't something up for debate, the motion equations are so incredibly simple they're very well understood.


The equation may not be up for debate but I will happily guarantee that, although simple, Nat is wrong....
You MUST consider all forces acting in the equation F=MA..
Not just one......



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
And what evidence actually came from anybody but the original source, NASA???

You mean other than the amateur radio tracks, the geologists from many countries who've seen the moon rocks, the countries that are involved in going to the moon right now etc etc?

What apollo deniers typically say is that the evidence came from places that involved NASA, because apparently it's plausible to think that if anyone includes anyone from NASA or any advice in any way, then there's no way they could be legitimate.

It won't be many years before someone sends a probe that can bring back surface photos of a quality sufficient enough to see the LEM etc. When this happens, are you going to claim it's faked because NASA will probably have an experiment or two onboard?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
The equation may not be up for debate but I will happily guarantee that, although simple, Nat is wrong....
You MUST consider all forces acting in the equation F=MA..
Not just one......

He was not wrong, he simplified the question in a way that is very very common at high school teaching levels. You were wrong originally.

I hate to be so forceful, but the fact of the matter is that he gave quite a good physics explanation, and while you are also correct in that you do need to consider every force, he gave a good analysis, and corrected you in terms of inertia/weight.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You mean other than the amateur radio tracks, the geologists from many countries who've seen the moon rocks, the countries that are involved in going to the moon right now etc etc?

What apollo deniers typically say is that the evidence came from places that involved NASA, because apparently it's plausible to think that if anyone includes anyone from NASA or any advice in any way, then there's no way they could be legitimate.

It won't be many years before someone sends a probe that can bring back surface photos of a quality sufficient enough to see the LEM etc. When this happens, are you going to claim it's faked because NASA will probably have an experiment or two onboard?


Radio waves could be beamed from satellites..
Who the hell knows what a moon rock is ?
NO country has taken pics that isn't NASA affiliated..

Really, it's NASA's word that we landed man on the moon..
Nothing else....



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



He was not wrong, he simplified the question in a way that is very very common at high school teaching levels. You were wrong originally.

I hate to be so forceful, but the fact of the matter is that he gave quite a good physics explanation, and while you are also correct in that you do need to consider every force, he gave a good analysis, and corrected you in terms of inertia/weight.


Sorry but BS..
Vertical velocity/acceleration MUST take into account gravity..
Nat refused to accept that..
They were WRONG..period!!



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Radio waves could be beamed from satellites..
Who the hell knows what a moon rock is ?
NO country has taken pics that isn't NASA affiliated..

This is just ignorance, you didn't even bother reading your post or you'd see that I already preempted your point. People know what moon rocks are because they are geologists. Their whole expertise is in rock, pretty sure they'd realise if a rock came across their microscope that was entirely different to anything terrestrial.

You're not offering any good arguments anymore, just denying it could possibly happen, even though we have excellent evidence to show that not only was it possible, it did happen.

There are still people alive you can go ask about the surface of an alien world, that is truly and legitimately amazing.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
How would JW be treated if he actually came here to defend his videos?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Sorry but BS..
Vertical velocity/acceleration MUST take into account gravity..
Nat refused to accept that..
They were WRONG..period!!

What has happened to you this morning? You're simply not reading posts and just demanding that you're correct, no matter what.

You were wrong, and here's a quote from nat showing him taking into account gravity with no problem:

Originally posted by nataylor
On earth, g is 9.8 m/s^2. 100mph is 44.704 m/s. So on earth, the height of a ball thrown upwards at 100 mph would be (44.704^2)/(2 * 9.8) or 101.96 m.

On the moon, g is 1.63 m/s^2. So the height would be (44.704^2)/(2 * 1.63) or 613.02 m.

You'll notice that the height is 6 times as high on the moon, exactly as we'd expect. And the initial velocity of the ball was the same in both cases.

Enough said.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How would JW be treated if he actually came here to defend his videos?


We would be polite with him until he started calling people dullards or idiots or 'apollo propagandists' etc. Just like we are with everyone else.

People are still polite to you Foos.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



This is just ignorance, you didn't even bother reading your post or you'd see that I already preempted your point. People know what moon rocks are because they are geologists. Their whole expertise is in rock, pretty sure they'd realise if a rock came across their microscope that was entirely different to anything terrestrial.


Seriously, who apart from NASA knows the truth?
So called moon rocks could be nothing but meteorites that were collected..

And were moon rocks that different to compounds found on earth??
Any new elements we were unaware of??



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by backinblack
Sorry but BS..
Vertical velocity/acceleration MUST take into account gravity..
Nat refused to accept that..
They were WRONG..period!!

What has happened to you this morning? You're simply not reading posts and just demanding that you're correct, no matter what.

You were wrong, and here's a quote from nat showing him taking into account gravity with no problem:

Originally posted by nataylor
On earth, g is 9.8 m/s^2. 100mph is 44.704 m/s. So on earth, the height of a ball thrown upwards at 100 mph would be (44.704^2)/(2 * 9.8) or 101.96 m.

On the moon, g is 1.63 m/s^2. So the height would be (44.704^2)/(2 * 1.63) or 613.02 m.

You'll notice that the height is 6 times as high on the moon, exactly as we'd expect. And the initial velocity of the ball was the same in both cases.

Enough said.


Again BS...
Nat assumes the initial velocity/acceleration is the same on the moon and earth..
That is WRONG..
The opposing force of gravity on the moon is 1/6 that of earth so the initial velocity/acceleration would be greater..

Please learn basic math and get back to me..



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Seriously, who apart from NASA knows the truth?
So called moon rocks could be nothing but meteorites that were collected..

When you say NASA, you mean the tens of thousands of civilians that work for various parts of their agencies and the tens of thousands of people contracted by them right? Who exactly are you targeting when you accuse NASA of being the only ones to know the truth?


And were moon rocks that different to compounds found on earth??
Any new elements we were unaware of??

Yes moon rocks were quite different to earth rocks, although they all have the same original source so I don't know what you're expecting. Here's a quick url that I have which may be suitable: www.psrd.hawaii.edu...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


We would be polite with him until he started calling people dullards or idiots or 'apollo propagandists' etc. Just like we are with everyone else.


You mean like Weedwhacker does in every post?
Everyone that doesn't believe is a stupid moron in his eyes..



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Yes moon rocks were quite different to earth rocks, although they all have the same original source so I don't know what you're expecting. Here's a quick url that I have which may be suitable:


I asked a simple question..
Is there any element in moon rocks that isn't found on earth??
Skip the links and just answer yes or no...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
The questions was posed to Cernan, why didnt the LM make craters on the moon?
@ 5:55


Is he wrong or is he right?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Again BS...
Nat assumes the initial velocity/acceleration is the same on the moon and earth..
That is WRONG..
The opposing force of gravity on the moon is 1/6 that of earth so the initial velocity/acceleration would be greater..

He's talking about accelerating an object under the power of someone's arm. If you really want to work this out then it's simple. We'll make some easy simplifying assumptions.

Earth
Force = 0.1kg x 44.7 m/s/s
Assuming it takes the person 1s to throw it, and they do so perfectly vertically
Force = 4.47N

Gravity accelerates the 0.1kg mass at 9.81m/s/s, so it exerts a downward force of
Force = 0.1kg x 9.81m/s/s
Force = 0.981N

Resultant upward force total: 3.489N, this is the maximum force the astronaut can
possibly put in opposing gravity. The resultant upward velocity is 34.9 m/s/s after
one second.

Moon
Force = 4.47N (the same as on the earth)
acceleration = Force / mass
acceleration = 4.47 / 0.1
acceleration = 44.7m/s/s

gravity's acceleration on the moon is 1.63m/s/s so:
Force = 0.1kg * 1.63m/s/s
Force = 0.163N

Resultant upward force: 43.07N
Resultant upward velocity: 43.07m/s

So the upward velocity of an identical object on the moon, thrown with identical force, is around 9m/s faster in this example

The reason we haven't discussed this is that it was irrelevant to correcting your misunderstanding, and just leads to more complex maths and more annoying oneupsmanship.


Please learn basic math and get back to me..

This is pretty offensive. I haven't taken you to account for any obvious errors, and we've been perfectly polite in explaining it to you. I am very much capable of doing simple SUVAT style motion equations, but you clearly did not have a good understanding of Mass/Weight, so you're not in a great position to be arrogantly telling others to take lessons.
edit on 1/4/11 by exponent because: cleaned up miscopy

edit on 1/4/11 by exponent because: I missed out a whole series of equations lol, this is what you get when you wake up and start posting at 1pm



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
You mean like Weedwhacker does in every post?
Everyone that doesn't believe is a stupid moron in his eyes..

I've never seen him attack a poster, only the garbage the poster comes out with


Originally posted by backinblack
I asked a simple question..
Is there any element in moon rocks that isn't found on earth??
Skip the links and just answer yes or no...

Very unlikely, the Moon was made from the Earth, and they all have the same ultimate source, the stars.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



This is pretty offensive. I haven't taken you to account for any obvious errors, and we've been perfectly polite in explaining it to you. I am very much capable of doing simple SUVAT style motion equations, but you clearly did not have a good understanding of Mass/Weight, so you're not in a great position to be arrogantly telling others to take lessons.


We were discussing throwing an object vertically on the moon..
If you think gravity will not affect that equation then it is not me being arrogant..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 404  405  406    408  409  410 >>

log in

join