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: 410
377
<< 407  408  409    411  412  413 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Ir0nM0nkey
 


Thanks mate...
I'm truly amazed that these self professed moon experts really have no concept of basic math..




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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..


But here is the thing. Aren't we always in a continuous state of falling? Except we have ground to stop us?

If gravity suddenly increased by 6x here on Earth, how many of us would be able to move forward?

Or here is another analogy, lets say I had a flat plane and a steel marble to roll it on without any problems. But then I put a powerful magnet, representing gravity, under the plane and under the marble. Would I be able to move the marble as easily? Wouldn't the marble stay in place?

I dont know, maybe Im not talking about the same thing you guys are talking about.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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..

No, moon rock and regolith (the moon soil) is incredibly valuable. There's only a few hundred pounds of it on Earth, most brought back by the Apollo missions, a bit returned to Earth by unmanned Russian probes. You can't buy it. Only a bit of it is on public display (I saw a moon rock at the Smithsonian encased in glass or Lucite, or something). If anyone says they've bought moon rock, they are usually lying. Supposedly some of the Apollo Astronauts might have sneaked out some Moon rock for themselves to keep, but IIRC that is much debated (and they certainly wouldn't cop to it since they'd get into huge trouble for it).

I read once where less than a gram of lunar dust from the Russian probe was sold for like half a million dollars, so it's not utterly impossible to buy them, and some small samples have been stolen so there is probably a black market for that stuff. Also, Lunar meteors can be bought for much less money, but again, these are meteors found on Earth, not stuff actually collected on the Moon.
edit on 4/1/2011 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by backinblack
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..

No, moon rock and regolith (the moon soil) is incredibly valuable. There's only a few hundred pounds of it on Earth, most brought back by the Apollo missions, a bit returned to Earth by unmanned Russian probes. You can't buy it. Only a bit of it is on public display (I saw a moon rock at the Smithsonian encased in glass or Lucite, or something). If anyone says they've bought moon rock, they are usually lying. Supposedly some of the Apollo Astronauts might have sneaked out some Moon rock for themselves to keep, but IIRC that is much debated (and they certainly wouldn't cop to it since they'd get into huge trouble for it).

I read once where less than a gram of lunar dust from the Russian probe was sold for like half a million dollars, so it's not utterly impossible to buy them, and some small samples have been stolen so there is probably a black market for that stuff. Also, Lunar meteors can be bought for much less money, but again, these are meteors found on Earth, not stuff actually collected on the Moon.
edit on 4/1/2011 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)


I dont think anyone is saying JW bought the actual thing, he bought a simulant.
But thanks for noting that only a bit of it is on public display.
And thats the problem I have.
On the one hand I understand why only a bit is publicly available, on the other hand its a convenient excuse to hide the fact they have not gotten those samples from the moon.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



On the one hand I understand why only a bit is publicly available, on the other hand its a convenient excuse to hide the fact they have not gotten those samples from the moon.


Speculation.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



If gravity suddenly increased by 6x here on Earth, how many of us would be able to move forward?


The question is: if gravity suddenly increased sixfold, how far could we throw a ball? The answer is, since our strength is the same and the mass of the ball is the same we could exert the same force on it, but since gravitational acceleration is greater, it will fall faster and hence not travel as far. If we attempted to roll it, it would travel the same distance, less a little due to increased friction.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ir0nM0nkey
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


I'm not that well versed in the ways of physics, but even I can see that it was a typo.

Here he forgot to move the decimal point:
Resultant upward force: 43.07N
Resultant upward velocity: 43.07m/s

When it should have said (based on 4.47N - 0.163N):
Resultant upward force: 4.307N
Resultant upward velocity: 43.07m/s

Also:
The resultant upward velocity is 34.9 m/s/s after
one second.

should be:
The resultant upward velocity is 34.9 m/s after
one second.

Theres nothing wrong with the calculations themselves and they do show that the effect of gravity on the velocity of the ball thrown upwards when leaving the hand is quite small (43.07m/s vs 34.9 m/s).


Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Ir0nM0nkey
 


Thanks mate...
I'm truly amazed that these self professed moon experts really have no concept of basic math..

No, it was a typo. The math is still correct.

I love the way you either ignore or are highly suspicious of mathematics posted by people who are arguing against you, but when someone posts something that you perceive to support your ideas, you immediately agree without even bothering to check what's going on. And even manage to throw a couple of insults in to the mix.

Really shows how unbiased you are.
edit on 1-4-2011 by MacAnkka because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2011 by MacAnkka because: small addition



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



If gravity suddenly increased by 6x here on Earth, how many of us would be able to move forward?


The question is: if gravity suddenly increased sixfold, how far could we throw a ball? The answer is, since our strength is the same and the mass of the ball is the same we could exert the same force on it, but since gravitational acceleration is greater, it will fall faster and hence not travel as far. If we attempted to roll it, it would travel the same distance, less a little due to increased friction.


I doubt anybody would be able to even lift their arms to throw the ball in first place.
And why would there be an increase in friction?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ir0nM0nkey
Hi,

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

Yeah sorry about that, I had a heavy night last night and had just gotten up. I'll go fix them in a minute.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacAnkka
I'm not that well versed in the ways of physics, but even I can see that it was a typo.

Here he forgot to move the decimal point:
Resultant upward force: 43.07N
Resultant upward velocity: 43.07m/s

When it should have said (based on 4.47N - 0.163N):
Resultant upward force: 4.307N
Resultant upward velocity: 43.07m/s

Also:
The resultant upward velocity is 34.9 m/s/s after
one second.

should be:
The resultant upward velocity is 34.9 m/s after
one second.

This is exactly why it's good to post maths if it can back up your claim, because people paying more attention than me will fix it for me!


Thanks MacAnkka, I appreciate it. I will edit the original post to link to yours as the 'official' correction, and backinblack can wonder why it is that he still doesn't seem to have posted any of this 'basic math' to correct me.

edit: Can't edit original, ah well.
edit on 1/4/11 by exponent because: added 'edit'



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I doubt anybody would be able to even lift their arms to throw the ball in first place


Correct. In the real world the blood would rush from our heads and we would all pass out. Gravity does not simply increase sixfold, so I assumed you were posing a hypothetical question. Hypothetically, if a particularly dedicated ball player were to use his final moments of consciousness to throw a ball, it would leave his hand at the usual speed but fall more rapidly.


And why would there be an increase in friction?


As far as I can tell, we're still working on mass/weight/momentum/inertia. I'm sorry I said anything.


edit on 1-4-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001



And why would there be an increase in friction?


As far as I can tell, we're still working on mass/weight/momentum/inertia. I'm sorry I said anything.


edit on 1-4-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.


No not at all, Im just trying to learn.
Im considering everyone's posts on the subject.
Im not trying to debunk anyone on this, just looking at all the angles.

The main point here is if JW applied the wrong formula.
He might well have. And its a good question to ask him about it.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by MacAnkka
I'm not that well versed in the ways of physics, but even I can see that it was a typo.

Here he forgot to move the decimal point:
Resultant upward force: 43.07N
Resultant upward velocity: 43.07m/s

When it should have said (based on 4.47N - 0.163N):
Resultant upward force: 4.307N
Resultant upward velocity: 43.07m/s

Also:
The resultant upward velocity is 34.9 m/s/s after
one second.

should be:
The resultant upward velocity is 34.9 m/s after
one second.

This is exactly why it's good to post maths if it can back up your claim, because people paying more attention than me will fix it for me!


Thanks MacAnkka, I appreciate it. I will edit the original post to link to yours as the 'official' correction, and backinblack can wonder why it is that he still doesn't seem to have posted any of this 'basic math' to correct me.

edit: Can't edit original, ah well.
edit on 1/4/11 by exponent because: added 'edit'



Yep, you are right MacAnkka - I really should have spotted that !

Apologies 'exponent'...

Kind regards,



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by backinblack
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..

No, moon rock and regolith (the moon soil) is incredibly valuable. There's only a few hundred pounds of it on Earth, most brought back by the Apollo missions, a bit returned to Earth by unmanned Russian probes. You can't buy it. Only a bit of it is on public display (I saw a moon rock at the Smithsonian encased in glass or Lucite, or something). If anyone says they've bought moon rock, they are usually lying. Supposedly some of the Apollo Astronauts might have sneaked out some Moon rock for themselves to keep, but IIRC that is much debated (and they certainly wouldn't cop to it since they'd get into huge trouble for it).

I read once where less than a gram of lunar dust from the Russian probe was sold for like half a million dollars, so it's not utterly impossible to buy them, and some small samples have been stolen so there is probably a black market for that stuff. Also, Lunar meteors can be bought for much less money, but again, these are meteors found on Earth, not stuff actually collected on the Moon.
edit on 4/1/2011 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)


I dont think anyone is saying JW bought the actual thing, he bought a simulant.
But thanks for noting that only a bit of it is on public display.
And thats the problem I have.
On the one hand I understand why only a bit is publicly available, on the other hand its a convenient excuse to hide the fact they have not gotten those samples from the moon.


Do a little research:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
dblepost
edit on 1-4-2011 by FoosM because: epic fail posting reply



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
[

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.


Other choices, do tell.
What are they?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   



Originally posted by Facefirst

I dont think anyone is saying JW bought the actual thing, he bought a simulant.
But thanks for noting that only a bit of it is on public display.
And thats the problem I have.
On the one hand I understand why only a bit is publicly available, on the other hand its a convenient excuse to hide the fact they have not gotten those samples from the moon.


Do a little research:
www.youtube.com...



Please point out
where was I wrong.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ir0nM0nkey
Yep, you are right MacAnkka - I really should have spotted that !

Apologies 'exponent'...

Kind regards,

No apology needed, I'd much prefer it got caught and corrected than went unseen.

Still waiting for backinblack's maths I think?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I cant believe people still think we didn't go to the moon, real ignorance displayed here. Im now going to destroy all hoax believers in one single post. We went to the moon - we got rock samples. FACT 1, the robots of the time could not be engineered to pick up rocks and return them to earth. FACT 2, only sending people could we retrieve rocks. (we're talking about machines that would have had to drive without assistance from ground control, search, dig, scoop up, put in container, return to ship, oh and plant 7 mirrors in specific areas. Could not be done back then)

check and mate.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted 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..


My bad (what I get for posting while on ambien instead of trying to sleep). You are absolutely right that gravity would play a part in how fast the ball would leave the hand when thrown vertically. I was assuming the initial velocity to be the same (and it would be in a horizontal throw, but not a vertical one).

Let's assume a pitcher can throw a straight 100mph (44.7 m/s) horizontal pitch here on earch, and his pitch takes 1 second. That means the acceleration is 44.7 m/s^2. This is the most force he can put into a pitch, and the maximum acceleration he can deliver to the ball over his 1-second pitch.

Now lets say that he's throwing the ball straight up. Since the motion is parallel to the force of gravity, he also has a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration going down. Subtracting that from the maximum acceleration we know he can generate (44.7 m/s^2), we get a vertical acceleration of 34.9 m/s^2. So, since his pitch takes 1 second, the initial velocity of the ball going straight up would be 34.9 m/s.

So we know with a regular baseball, the pitcher can generate a maximum of 44.7 m/s^2 acceleration. On the moon, gravity is 1.63 m/s^2. So subtracting that from 44.7 m/s^2 gives us a total of 43.07 m/s^2 acceleration over the 1 second pitch on the moon, and an initial velocity of 43.07 m/s.

Lets look at the resultant heights. Again, the maximum height is equal to the initial velocity squared (v^2) over 2 times the acceleration due to gravity (2g).

On the earth, that would be (34.9^2)/(2*9.8), or 62.1 m. On the moon, it would be (43.07^2)/(2*1.63), or 569.0 m. That means the picture can throw the ball 9.2 times higher on the moon.

But the maximum height of an object varies with the square of the initial velocity. So let's look at what he could do if we increased the mass of the ball by 6 times and he was throwing on the moon.

We know the pitcher can generate 44.7 m/s^2 of acceleration with a ball that weights 5 ounces (0.142 kg). If F=ma, then the force he's generating is 6.35 N. If we increase the mass of the ball 6 times (to 0.852 kg), and use a=F/m to find the acceleration, we get 6.35/.852, or 7.45 m/s^2. If he was throwing straight up, we subtract 1.63 m/s^2 from that to get an acceleration of 5.82 m/s^2. Again, since the pitch is 1 second, the initial velocity is the same as the acceleration)

So with this 30 ounce ball, he could throw it (5.82^2)/(2*1.63), or 10.4 m high on the moon. This is, in fact, one sixth the height he could throw the normal ball on earth. So no, as you suggested, he would not have the same arm speed (or initial velocity imparted to the ball) with a ball on the moon that was 6 times the weight of a regular ball. Nor would he be able to throw a ball that was 6 times the weight to the same height on the moon as a regular ball on the earth.

However, all of this is only when dealing with a straight vertical throw. Because gravity has no horizontal component, it would not effect any horizontal throws.
edit on 1-4-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 407  408  409    411  412  413 >>

log in

join