It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 412
377
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

And on a side note, Jarrah has been on a tear getting various videos removed from Youtube.

I think this is VERY relevant, to character and purpose, of this thread's subject and TOPIC!!!
FAIR GAME.
What say ye, else???
edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: friend's computer SpaceBar is junk....!

Personally I think character is irrelevant and only facts relating to the topic should be discussed..

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
And I think the math is flawed..
IMO gravity would have a much larger impact on speed in a vertical situation..

Then show us the calculations to support your point. If our maths is flawed, then you can show it and we will acknowledge this and correct ourselves.

BTW, where exactly did I insult you//

Here

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

I'm not going to bemoan this point, as it's a pretty minor insult, but just claiming that we can't calculate and then not providing the actual correct calculations is insulting in itself.

It's not too much to ask is it?

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:42 PM

Not quite sure why you think they could jump 'too high'. They hit the ground with the exact speed they left it. In order to get into trouble they'd have to reach escape velocity, which is somewhere around 2,000m/s.

I didn't see many other legitimate questions in your post, perhaps you could use less youtube videos to make your point easier to understand?

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:55 PM

Does F=Mg ?
Does W=Mg ?

I'll have to look into it, I haven't studied gravity equations much..
But I think the error in Nat's and you equations may be the way you are subtracting the force of gravity..

IMO it's not a simple subtraction, it should be multiplied..

edit:To me it seems logical as I stated before..
A 6 x heavier ball would WEIGH the same in the pitchers hand as a normal ball on earth..
Therefore why could he not throw that same ball vertically with the same velocity as the lighter ball on earth..

This debate is actually getting off topic..
We are not debating a hoax, just math...
edit on 1-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
IMO it's not a simple subtraction, it should be multiplied..

I don't want to sound offensive here, but it is a very simple calculation that most people here should be able to do, wikipedia has an excellent page on the common motion equations: en.wikipedia.org...

We consider gravity to be uniform because the difference in gravity over the height of any throw is insignificant, and I can do the calculations to show that to you if you'd like.

edit:To me it seems logical as I stated before..
A 6 x heavier ball would WEIGH the same in the pitchers hand as a normal ball on earth..
Therefore why could he not throw that same ball vertically with the same velocity as the lighter ball on earth..

Because weight is not mass. Weight is the force applied by gravity, ie m * g, mass is an intrinsic quantity to a material, which does not change under different gravity. Gravity accelerates things regardless of mass, wheras throwing a ball is applying a constant force, rather than a constant acceleration. The 6x increase in mass, results in a 6x decrease in acceleration.

This debate is actually getting off topic..
We are not debating a hoax, just math...

There was little genuine debate going on anyway, I am still of the opinion that new threads should be created, so I don't mind what topic we're on really.

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:35 PM

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by weedwhacker

And on a side note, Jarrah has been on a tear getting various videos removed from Youtube.

I think this is VERY relevant, to character and purpose, of this thread's subject and TOPIC!!!
FAIR GAME.
What say ye, else???
edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: friend's computer SpaceBar is junk....!

Personally I think character is irrelevant and only facts relating to the topic should be discussed..

Character is very relevant when Jarrah is asking for money.

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:56 PM

Because weight is not mass. Weight is the force applied by gravity, ie m * g, mass is an intrinsic quantity to a material, which does not change under different gravity. Gravity accelerates things regardless of mass, wheras throwing a ball is applying a constant force, rather than a constant acceleration. The 6x increase in mass, results in a 6x decrease in acceleration.

If I put that 6 x heavier ball on scales on the moon it would weigh 1/6..right?
Is that not force being applied to the scales ?

Would that 1/6 force not also apply to the pitcher's arm and thus he could throw a 30oz ball vertically on the moon at the same velocity as a 5oz ball on earth??

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:58 PM

Character is very relevant when Jarrah is asking for money.

No it's not, unless he asked for money in this thread and I don't seem to recall that..

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by backinblack

Because weight is not mass. Weight is the force applied by gravity, ie m * g, mass is an intrinsic quantity to a material, which does not change under different gravity. Gravity accelerates things regardless of mass, wheras throwing a ball is applying a constant force, rather than a constant acceleration. The 6x increase in mass, results in a 6x decrease in acceleration.

If I put that 6 x heavier ball on scales on the moon it would weigh 1/6..right?

It would weight 1x...is that what you mean - 1/6 of it's "earth weight" = 1

Is that not force being applied to the scales ?

Yes...it is its weight, as indicated in the quote you provided.

Would that 1/6 force not also apply to the pitcher's arm and thus he could throw a 30oz ball vertically on the moon at the same velocity as a 5oz ball on earth??

No - because the 1/6 force is what is provided by the moon's gravity - not by the pitchers arm.

The moon's gravity - the force it applies to the ball - is completely independent of the pitcher's ability to generate a force to accelerate he ball

The force the pitcher can provide depends upon his muscles, and it is the same whether he is in 1 gravity, 1/6 gravity, 0 gravity or 10x gravity.

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:13 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
If I put that 6 x heavier ball on scales on the moon it would weigh 1/6..right?
Is that not force being applied to the scales ?

Correct and correct, the mass remains the same, the weight is 1/6th.

Would that 1/6 force not also apply to the pitcher's arm and thus he could throw a 30oz ball vertically on the moon at the same velocity as a 5oz ball on earth??

It would, but he also has to accelerate the mass of the ball, which does not change due to gravity. If we use the numbers from before of a 0.1kg ball and 44.7m/s, swung over a period of one second, we know that the pitcher has to accelerate the ball at 44.7m/s/s and because F=ma we know the force is 4.47N.

Gravity also has an effect on the ball, on earth it accelerates it downwards at a constant 9.81m/s/s, during the pitcher's throw, as the ball weighs 0.1kg, this applies a force of 0.91N. This means that 3.56N was required to accelerate the mass of the ball, and 0.91 to overcome gravity, this is about 20%

On the moon however, gravity accelerates things downwards at about 1.63m/s/s, and so assuming the pitcher can apply the same force, 4.31N goes into accelerating the mass of the ball, and only 0.163N into overcoming gravity, this is about 3.7%

In fact, in order for them to be equal on the moon, the final velocity of the ball would have to be 3.26m/s, or a pretty poor 7.3mph.

In summary: Gravity has an effect, but for any reasonable speed or mass, it is a pretty small effect.

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:16 PM

Oops - yes - I forgot about having to overcome gravity when throwing straight up - mea culpa.

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 01:57 AM

OK, so how much thrust/force was required by the LM compared to a similar situation on earth?

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
First you have to prove those rocks came from the moon and not from antarctica or other places on Earth.

What makes you think that someone has to prove the rocks came from the moon, but you don't have to prove they came from Antarctica?

Assuming your preferred conclusion is the default conclusion is faulty logic.

Because only about 30 rocks have ever been found in Antarctica.
The Apollo missions brought back 800+ pounds of lunar rocks.

Its an unsubstantiated claim.
Can you show proof that such an amount was brought back?

edit on 2-4-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 02:45 AM

Originally posted by backinblack

If so, were not the moon rocks exposed to O2 the minute they went into the LM?

Were the sample bags sealed?
I know in a vid about moon rocks they were studying them in an airtight chamber..

Apollo Moon Rocks: NASA's Dirty Little Secrets

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 04:17 pm ET
26 March 2001

"It was quite alarming," said Andrew Steele, an astrobiologist at NASA’s JSC from the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom, who thought he was looking at hairs from an astronaut. But they turned out to be brush fibers, he said.

Working with lunar sample curators, Steele is part of a team using powerful instruments to eye the condition of select Moon materials. He not only found brush bristles, but bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon, as well as a few earthly organisms having a picnic within lunar samples.

"Some of them are pretty snotty," Steele told SPACE.com.

Schmitt said that the lunar sample containers were unable to retain a vacuum and most samples came back in bags without sample box protection. Spacecraft atmosphere and EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLES at that point, he said.

the original article is no longer there:

www.space.com...

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:12 AM
FoosM, did all the Apollo camera negatives go through NPIC? I think NASA and NPIC had an agreement about camera negatives. We have seen only NASA pictures after they have been processed by the CIA.
edit on 4/2/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: creative license

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Facefirst
The Lunokhod Rovers were piloted by remote control on Earth in the Soviet Union.
Not pre-programed.
www.nasa.gov...

That was the Soviet Union sending the rover, not Nasa. Unless you're saying Soviet Union help stage the moon landing by aiding technology? lol.

en.wikipedia.org...

Lunokhod 1 was the first of two unmanned lunar rovers landed on the Moon by the Soviet Union as part of its Lunokhod program... Lunokhod was the first roving remote-controlled robot to land on another celestial body.

The Soviet's were the first. And that was in the 70's. During Apollo 11 in 69 we got 22 kg of moon rock.

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by FoosM
First you have to prove those rocks came from the moon and not from antarctica or other places on Earth.

Easy!!!!!!!!!

Whats funny, is the reason for the second space race that's going on now, is because of the very fact we have moon rocks in the first place.

edit on 2-4-2011 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:28 AM

FoosM, did all the Apollo camera negatives go through NPIC? I think NASA and NPIC had an agreement about camera negatives. We have seen only NASA pictures after they have been processed by the CIA.

Shouldn't you have researched that question before you made this statement?

BTW, NASA's Apollo era films were enhanced by Hollywood production contractors. And FYI, all Apollo mission camera negatives were first screened through NPIC/CIA.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One of the Moon Hoax propagandist's strongest tools is that so many people have misconceptions about the space program to begin with. NASA is not part of the Defense Department. NASA does not investigate UFOs. NASA does not operate spy satellites. NASA does not run every observatory on Earth People's misconceptions allow Moon Hoax propagandists to make statements that seem plausible but have nothing to do with reality, It allows them to wave their hands and say: "NASA claims," when NASA never said anything of the sort, and it allows them to throw a cloud of suspicion over perfectly reasonable activities that NASA never denies.

I believe this is what you were thinking of:

Despite NASA's astronaut photography benefiting a wide range of civilian interests, it occasionally conflicted directly with the critical national security requirement to protect the National Reconnaissance Program from public disclosure or compromise. The Intelligence Community consequently imposed a number of restrictions, from reviewing the photography before public release to limiting the capabilities of NASA's image-forming sensors. At the same time, beginning in the Mercury program the Intelligence Community acquired and analyzed some of the photography as a possible source of intelligence data that otherwise was not being collected.

Astronaut photography and the intelligence community: Who saw what?

Naturally, the high quality photos taken by the Gemini astronauts were reviewed to make sure they did not reveal anything that might provide intelligence to the Soviet military. Do you have a problem with that? And yes, the Apollo missions included experiments done for the military and intelligence communities that are still classified. Why would the Air Force and CIA want to run experiments on a "fake" spaceflight?

Two factors improved the quality of the television still more on the last Apollo missions. NASA's using the 210-foot dish stations of the Deep Space Network, which increased the signal strength by almost 8 dB, brought about the first improvement.

Image Transform, then a startup company in North Hollywood, brought about the other improvement. They demonstrated to NASA, using Apollo 15 footage, their new proprietary system for enhancing video. NASA had them bring their system online for Apollo 16. Now the converted video from all EVA's was shipped to California, enhanced, returned to Houston, and then distributed to the network pool, all in real time.

Russell and Company

The live video feed of the last two Apollo missions was processed by an outside contractor. (Wouldn't they do it all "in house" if they were up to no good?) As usual, we've been through all this before on this thread, starting here.

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:39 AM

Originally posted by backinblack
OK, so how much thrust/force was required by the LM compared to a similar situation on earth?

You've repeatedly accused me of being incapable of basic maths, so lets see yours.

The calculations are incredibly simple, and we've listed everything for you, so I don't see that there's anything stopping you.

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:57 AM

Apollo Moon Rocks: NASA's Dirty Little Secrets

As usual, we've been through this one before, starting here.

new topics

top topics

377