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: 409
377
<< 406  407  408    410  411  412 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



They didnt have to.
They only had to show to the world a small amount.
That small amount could have came from a meteorite.


Here we go again. Can you guess which of these samples came from Earth?





If you have ever actually seen "moondust" you would know how uncanny it is. It looks a bit like black powder, old fashioned gunpowder, at first, but when examined through a lens it is jagged and, well, unearthly. It is irregular and has razor sharp edges. I could see how alien it looks... I suspect a geologist would find it even more bizarre.
edit on 1-4-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



If you have ever actually seen "moondust" you would know how uncanny it is. It looks a bit like black powder, old fashioned gunpowder, at first, but when examined through a lens it is jagged and, well, unearthly. It is irregular and has razor sharp edges. I could see how alien it looks... I suspect a geologist would find it even more bizarre.


Yes, and doesn't NASA now sell it by the tub load ?
I hear JW bought some for his footprint video..



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



If you can't understand that gravity is a FORCE and thus MUST be taken into account in the equation F=MA then you wasted your time in physics class..


Force is a vector quantity. If you are moving sideways, gravity has a force vector of 0, unless you wish to take friction into account.


How can gravity have no effect on something or someone moving horizontally? Especially if we are traveling on a sphere? Why are objects then attracted downwards? Whats the reason for having weight, if it wasnt for the interaction between gravity and mass?

And what does this have to do with the pressure exerted on the surface of the moon by the LM's engine in the creation of craters? Cernan said it would happen. Did he tell the truth, or did he lie?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Because we were discussing a horizontal throw then..
Do you have a problem with the math in that instance mate???

Yes. You haven't shown any, despite declaring it to be basic and easy. Please show me the maths that says you can throw a ball with 6x more mass and therefore the same weight, horizontally, at the same speed as one on Earth. Then you will convince me completely. If it's that basic and easy then there's no good reason not to post it.


Originally posted by FoosM
My tone is how you interpret it through reading. Thats mostly in your own mind. I could be writing all this in good humor. I dont ignore question, but you tend to repeat questions that I have already answered. And you are not the only one I have discussions with. So questions do get missed or bypassed to keep up with fast moving conversations like the last one between you and BiB.

Your tone is based on the words you use, if you're writing it all in good humour, you make some odd choices.


Originally posted by FoosM
How is what I posted not evidence?
Its evidence through action and behavior.

I see, so it's not actually evidence, it's just a view of actions that you find suspicious. There's nothing I can do to argue against this, because it's not based on empirical fact, just personal suspicion.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



They didnt have to.
They only had to show to the world a small amount.
That small amount could have came from a meteorite.


Here we go again. Can you guess which of these samples came from Earth?

If you have ever actually seen "moondust" you would know how uncanny it is. It looks a bit like black powder, old fashioned gunpowder, at first, but when examined through a lens it is jagged and, well, unearthly. It is irregular and has razor sharp edges. I could see how alien it looks... I suspect a geologist would find it even more bizarre.
edit on 1-4-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



DJ, the better question is, can geologists tell the difference between a moon sample scooped up from a manned mission to the moon or one found from Antarctica?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Sheesh DJW, please read the posts..
We were discussing throwing vertically.


I thought you were referring to the issue of how fast someone could throw balls of differing masses on the Earth and Moon, as Nat had correctly taken gravity into account in the vertical example. Sorry for my confusion.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How can gravity have no effect on something or someone moving horizontally?


Gravity does have no effect on horizontal movement..
But there is NO place with gravity that vertical movement is not relevant..



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent


Originally posted by FoosM
My tone is how you interpret it through reading. Thats mostly in your own mind. I could be writing all this in good humor. I dont ignore question, but you tend to repeat questions that I have already answered. And you are not the only one I have discussions with. So questions do get missed or bypassed to keep up with fast moving conversations like the last one between you and BiB.

Your tone is based on the words you use, if you're writing it all in good humour, you make some odd choices.


What words did I use to convey my tone?





Originally posted by FoosM
How is what I posted not evidence?
Its evidence through action and behavior.

I see, so it's not actually evidence, it's just a view of actions that you find suspicious. There's nothing I can do to argue against this, because it's not based on empirical fact, just personal suspicion.


You are being ambiguous for the sake of dodging the bullet.
What did I present was personal opinion or suspicion?
And why haven't you replied to my question that I have posed to you(all) twice?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



DJ, the better question is, can geologists tell the difference between a moon sample scooped up from a manned mission to the moon or one found from Antarctica?


Absolutely. Meteoric rocks weather, even in Antarctica, and the iron in them will rust.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



I thought you were referring to the issue of how fast someone could throw balls of differing masses on the Earth and Moon, as Nat had correctly taken gravity into account in the vertical example. Sorry for my confusion.

No mate, Nat did not take gravity into account in vertical examples..
He stated quite clearly that velocity would be the same as on earth..
Please learn how to read....
This sticking up for mates regardless pf mistakes is getting boring..



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How can gravity have no effect on something or someone moving horizontally? Especially if we are traveling on a sphere? Why are objects then attracted downwards? Whats the reason for having weight, if it wasnt for the interaction between gravity and mass?

Gravity does have an affect on objects travelling horizontally, but you can break down an objects motion into several vectors in order to separate out the effects.

For example, if you held a gun perfectly horizontal, and shot it at the same time as you dropped a bullet from the same height, negating the curvature of the earth, they hit the ground at the same time. This is because you can split the two vectors and the resulting gravitational vector is identical for the two. Only the horizontal vector is different.


And what does this have to do with the pressure exerted on the surface of the moon by the LM's engine in the creation of craters? Cernan said it would happen. Did he tell the truth, or did he lie?

You know there are other choices right? it's a false dichotomy.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Yes, and doesn't NASA now sell it by the tub load ?
I hear JW bought some for his footprint video..


He should post magnified photos of it so we can compare it to the real deal. My understanding is that it is young volcanic rock from Hawaii that has been pulverized.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Yes, and doesn't NASA now sell it by the tub load ?
I hear JW bought some for his footprint video..


He should post magnified photos of it so we can compare it to the real deal. My understanding is that it is young volcanic rock from Hawaii that has been pulverized.


Why does JW need to post pics?
It was bought from NASA, let them post pics..
Though can we trust them?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***


Ok, we're going to be civil to one another in this thread.

Stop the insults and snide comments.


This is your warning.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



No mate, Nat did not take gravity into account in vertical examples..
He stated quite clearly that velocity would be the same as on earth..


Which it would, as the pitcher's arm would have the same physiological capacities and the ball would have the same mass. Once the ball has been accelerated, gravity determines its trajectory. Think about it instead of automatically gainsaying anything someone says.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
What words did I use to convey my tone?

Do you want me to go through your posts and quote specific examples? It seems a bit pointless, what I am saying is that I have inferred your tone from the words you have used, and your ridiculing of alternate theories or alternate explanations etc.


You are being ambiguous for the sake of dodging the bullet.
What did I present was personal opinion or suspicion?
And why haven't you replied to my question that I have posed to you(all) twice?

The idea that all of the moon rocks could be faked by digging around in Antarctica is personal speculation. The idea that it's a more plausible theory is suspicion.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



The idea that all of the moon rocks could be faked by digging around in Antarctica is personal speculation. The idea that it's a more plausible theory is suspicion.


Did the US have a base in Antarctica prior to the moon landings??



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

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



Hi,

You seem to be out by a factor of 10 in your 'Resultant upward velocity' examples...

Earth:
Resultant upward force: 3.489N
Resultant upward velocity: 34.9 m/s/s

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

So you either have 3.49m/s on Earth and 43.07m/s on the Moon giving 40m/s diff, or 34.9m/s on Earth and 430.7m/s on the Moon giving 396m/s diff, which is wildly different to the 9m/s originally quoted.

Kind regards,
edit on 1-4-2011 by Ir0nM0nkey because: additional text remove



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



No mate, Nat did not take gravity into account in vertical examples..
He stated quite clearly that velocity would be the same as on earth..


Which it would, as the pitcher's arm would have the same physiological capacities and the ball would have the same mass. Once the ball has been accelerated, gravity determines its trajectory. Think about it instead of automatically gainsaying anything someone says.


You really haven't followed the conversation have you??
Nat NEVER once took gravity into account when determining velocity...
Read before you comment next time



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 406  407  408    410  411  412 >>

log in

join