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: 416
377
<< 413  414  415    417  418  419 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



I have never disputed it, I used that calculation in the equations you seem to think are wrong. Why are you so insistent that I don't understand basic physics, when you can't even demonstrate why.


Your's and the others math was wrong because you merely subtracted the effect of gravity rather that subtracting it as a multiple as the equation implies..

1/6 gravity implies 1/6 force..Not a mere subtraction but a division..




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Your's and the others math was wrong because you merely subtracted the effect of gravity rather that subtracting it as a multiple as the equation implies..

1/6 gravity implies 1/6 force..Not a mere subtraction but a division..

We subtracted the force, not the gravity.

Earth:
F = m * 9.81

Moon:
F = m * 1.63

The resulting force already includes the effects of gravity, and these can happily be subtracted.

Which part of this don't you understand, and do I get an apology for your insults yet?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by backinblack
Your's and the others math was wrong because you merely subtracted the effect of gravity rather that subtracting it as a multiple as the equation implies..
1/6 gravity implies 1/6 force..Not a mere subtraction but a division..

We subtracted the force, not the gravity.
Earth:
F = m * 9.81
Moon:
F = m * 1.63
The resulting force already includes the effects of gravity, and these can happily be subtracted.
Which part of this don't you understand, and do I get an apology for your insults yet?

What insults?
If you agree with F=MG then I was right in saying a ball 6 times heavier could be thrown with same force/velocity as a 6 times lighter ball on earth in a vertical throw..



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



The resulting force already includes the effects of gravity, and these can happily be subtracted.


See that's where you fail basic math..
You continually subtract when you should be dividing..

Does Weight not equal Mass X gravity ?? W=MG...



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
What insults?

Accusing me of being incapable of basic math, when we see that in fact it is the other way around.


If you agree with F=MG then I was right in saying a ball 6 times heavier could be thrown with same force/velocity as a 6 times lighter ball on earth in a vertical throw..

You are ignoring the effects of mass, which I have repeatedly calculated for you. In case you have forgotten, F=ma, and so as long as the ball is thrown in any sense then acceleration is not 0, and the resultant force is not 0.

Newton is spinning in his grave, and the equations describing this also require mass.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
See that's where you fail basic math..
You continually subtract when you should be dividing..

Does Weight not equal Mass X gravity ?? W=MG...

Haha oh my god you're still insulting me when you've just illustrated how little you know explicitly.

Yes, W=mg, F=ma, please tell me how you can throw something without imparting it with momentum.

I'll wait.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by backinblack
See that's where you fail basic math..
You continually subtract when you should be dividing..

Does Weight not equal Mass X gravity ?? W=MG...

Haha oh my god you're still insulting me when you've just illustrated how little you know explicitly.

Yes, W=mg, F=ma, please tell me how you can throw something without imparting it with momentum.

I'll wait.


No mate, I'll wait for you to explain why you are subtracting rather than dividing..



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
There was nothing in any moon pic to suggest ANY dust was blown away by descent engines..
That's not true. Take a look at AS11-40-5921. Notice the radial striations under the engine:



Or look at AS12-46-6781, where you can see the trail of disturbed soil the descent engine made as it passed over the surface:




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
No mate, I'll wait for you to explain why you are subtracting rather than dividing..

Because I have taken physics classes and I understand the difference between weight and mass.

I'll do what I can to explain them to you here, but you will never find an educated person to agree with you on this, as you are wrong and your arrogance is blinding you to this fact.

Gravity applies a constant force to every object by deforming space, the mass of that object wants to 'slide down' towards the gravitational centroid. This is why the force is dependent upon the mass, as the more mass, the greater the force it applies against whatever is resisting it.

Force is a general concept used to explain how objects interact. A force represents a potential transfer of energy from one form to another. They are vector values measured in Newtons.

A mass sitting statically on the earth applies a force of m*g to whatever it is sitting on, this is 'Weight', and as you know W=mg

A mass being accelerated under no gravitational influence experiences an increase in energy due to the force applied. The force is as F=ma, and the acceleration in this case is what determines the amount of force.

To throw an object upward on the moon, one must apply a force sufficient to overcome the weight of the object (W=mg) which is actually required just to hold it statically. Once that force has been overcome, additional force must be imparted to provide the acceleration we're looking for.

In no situation there is any additional subtraction or division needed. The equation W=mg incorporates the effects of local gravity and provides the amount of Force needed to overcome it. This force does not change if you accelerate the ball, it is always W=mg. Gravity has no place in F=ma, as you are modelling only the acceleration of the mass of the ball. The resulting force on the ball is W + F, Weight, plus the upward force applied to accelerate it. Nothing more.

Hopefully this is a reasonably quick summary. Please don't just ignore it because I disagree with you.
edit on 5/4/11 by exponent because: s/scalar/vector/



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



This force does not change if you accelerate the ball, it is always W=mg. Gravity has no place in F=ma, as you are modelling only the acceleration of the mass of the ball. The resulting force on the ball is W + F, Weight, plus the upward force applied to accelerate it. Nothing more.


The weight is 1/6...Not a subtraction, a division..
Thanks for proving my point..



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
The weight is 1/6...Not a subtraction, a division..
Thanks for proving my point..

The weight is 1/6th earth weight, not a value of '0.167'. That's due to the 'g' in W=mg being 1/6th [earth weight]. As I showed you in the calculations.

Thanks for proving your own insults against me were uncalled for. You are literally exposing your ignorance of the most basic mathematics and physics for everyone to see.

Why not just admit you don't understand this? There'd be no shame in it if you had not insulted anyone who opposed you? Perhaps we could get someone you trust to tell you you're wrong, as anyone with a basic physics education will.

Would you like to nominate someone?
edit on 5/4/11 by exponent because: Added "earth weight" to make 100% sure it's not confusing.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Seriously. the equation says it all..
It's 1/6....Not minus 1/6...
I'm really over this BS...
Prove me wrong..
The equations speak for themselves..



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
1/6 gravity implies 1/6 force..Not a mere subtraction but a division..


The force of gravity on a mass acts straight down. If something else (like a pitcher) is producing a force on that mass going straight up, how do you find the cumulative force acting on the object? It would be the force of the pitcher minus the force of gravity. Hence, a subtraction.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Seriously. the equation says it all..
It's 1/6....Not minus 1/6...
I'm really over this BS...
Prove me wrong..
The equations speak for themselves..

I did prove you wrong, repeatedly. Three other people have proven you wrong, and nobody has supported you at all.

Here it is again, very simply.

Acceleration on earth: 9.81m/s/s, for this equation we will represent this as 'E'
Acceleration on the moon: 1/6th above value

W=mg so:

Earth
W=mE

Moon
W=1/6mE

The hypothetical ball we discussed was 0.1kg, and so:

Earth
W = 0.1E = 0.981N

Moon
W = 1/60E = 0.164N

There we go, the forces applied are calculated, 1/6th gravity is taken into account, and those forces can then be subtracted from any upward force to give the non-gravitational component.

Would you like me to link you to a child's educational textbook that proves you wrong too?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by exponent
 



Who knows, or cares? They were throttling the engine down and began the shutoff process as the contact prongs hit the regolith. Whether they would have produced a crater if they had not throttled down is irrelevant, as they also would not have landed.


Damn relevant point that you wish to pass over without a definitive answer..
Transcripts show they did NOT turn the engines off till after landing..

Facts are facts, answer them...



And how!

Where are you DJ? What are you waiting for exponent?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Nothing, I answered it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 5/4/11 by exponent because: added second answer



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by FoosM
 


Nothing, I answered it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



All you did was state the opposite.
That is an answer not backed proof.
That amounts to:

Yahuh
Na-uh
Yahuh
Na-uh

Back up your statement.




www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 5/4/11 by exponent because: added second answer



I asked if Cernan lied.
You have not answered that question.
Cernan said the LM would have made a crater.
Did he lie, yes or no?


edit on 5-4-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
[
I found alternate sources for the power of the LM engine at 4700N to 28000N. This is a measure of force rather than energy, and so taking the same assumption the force on the ground would be 4700N / 3120 in² or 1.5N/in², or about 0.33 psi.

Significantly lower than was estimated. This was also biased high.


Source.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
All you did was state the opposite.
That is an answer not backed proof.

I linked you to a video of it occurring. Here, I'll embed it this time, maybe that will help.



I asked if Cernan lied.
You have not answered that question.
Cernan said the LM would have made a crater.
Did he lie, yes or no?

No, why would he lie?

Going to answer any of the questions I've asked you anytime soon? It's getting pretty tedious endlessly answering trivial questions.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Source.

apollo.spaceborn.dk...

It's not a particularly authoritative site, I just couldn't be bothered to convert the ft-lbs given. Let me know if you have any better information, this looks quite reasonable: www.apolloartifacts.com...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 413  414  415    417  418  419 >>

log in

join