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: 419
377
<< 416  417  418    420  421  422 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by backinblack
 


How about you answer some of the many questions put to you, instead of arrogantly insulting your opponents who turn out to be right, then failing to educate yourself so you understand it.

Might be a fun exercise, you can actually participate in debate perhaps!


lol, that last question, which wasn't even addressed to you, a bit hard huh??

BTW, I don't think you were right before..
I did say it was irrelevant to the thread debate and if you still think you're right then so be it




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
lol, that last question, which wasn't even addressed to you, a bit hard huh??

Not particularly, I just don't see the point in this one sided questioning. Foos is the main one but you both ask a series of questions, ignore the responses, post something different and come back to the same topic just 200 pages later.

It's helping nobody.


BTW, I don't think you were right before..

Then go take a physics lesson, go talk to a physics teacher. Go talk to anyone you trust that's remotely educated and they will tell you you are wrong. I would be out of a job if I was not aware of these simple facts.


I did say it was irrelevant to the thread debate and if you still think you're right then so be it

I find it offensive how you've continually demanded answers, but provide none when called on it. I think that's a childish attitude to take and that is why I refuse to participate in it.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



I find it offensive how you've continually demanded answers, but provide none when called on it. I think that's a childish attitude to take and that is why I refuse to participate in it.


I answer relevant questions..
That debate was off topic and irrelevant to the thread..

I do NOT continually jump from one topic to the next..
You are the one talking childish IMO...
Oh, and it seems you ARE participating..



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I answer relevant questions..
That debate was off topic and irrelevant to the thread..

Funny, you were pretty involved with it when you thought I was wrong. Now it's become obvious that you are wrong and are apparently incapable of doing the calculations, you're trying to avoid it entirely.

Could you be more obvious? I mean you could have apologised for saying people couldn't do basic math if you are incapable of it, but you seem more insistent on trying to deflect.


I do NOT continually jump from one topic to the next..

You already have and are continuously trying to get away from a topic you cannot discuss.


You are the one talking childish IMO...
Oh, and it seems you ARE participating..

Patiently explaining every part of an unintuitive physical system so the person you're talking to can understand it and stop making ridiculous claims without logical backing? That's not acting childish, that's how adults act towards children.

If my nephews called me stupid and it turned out they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, I would scold them in exactly the same way.

I don't mean it to be offensive, but this is the reality of the situation. You demanded that you knew the truth, refused to participate in the discussion, and are now pretending as if you never really wanted to discuss it anyway.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Funny, you were pretty involved with it when you thought I was wrong. Now it's become obvious that you are wrong and are apparently incapable of doing the calculations, you're trying to avoid it entirely.


You are like a hungry dog with a bone..
I DID say long long ago that it was off topic and we should stop the discussion..
You can go back and check my posts..

I still think you are wrong and I said I'd look it up..
I will, when I have time and can find the right equations..



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


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


Tell me, if I can bench press 100kgs on earth then what could I bench press on the moon?
By your theory it would still be 100kgs or just a tad more because I would not need to just overcome the initial effects of gravity but I would also have to accelerate the full mass...



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Facefirst
 



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


Really??
There's a thread on ATS today from NASA..
Fascinating read..
Did you know they found the first meteorites there in 1969 ??
What a freaky coincidence huh?

Oh and NASA went on to say that since then they have recovered 40,000 specimens..
Just a tad more than the thirty you mention???

As a result, the United States and Japan conducted systematic follow-up searches for meteorites in Antarctica that recovered more than 40,000 specimens, including extremely rare Martian and lunar meteorites.

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Tell me, if I can bench press 100kgs on earth then what could I bench press on the moon?
By your theory it would still be 100kgs or just a tad more because I would not need to just overcome the initial effects of gravity but I would also have to accelerate the full mass...


With a bench press, your final velocity is zero (arms extended, holding the weight in place).

Let's say you bench press 100kg here on earth. You start with the bar against your chest and push up until your arms are fully extended, a distance of about 0.5 m. And let's say it takes you 5 seconds to do it. We'll say you spend the first half of the lift accelerating the bar upwards, until it reaches peak velocity at the midway point, and you let the bar decelerate during the second half of the lift until the final velocity is zero at the top of the lift. Let's find how much acceleration it took during the first half of the lift.

We know with a starting velocity of zero, that distance (d) is equal to acceleration (a) multiplied by time (t) squared, divided by two, or d=(at^2)/2. So that means acceleration is equal to the distance times two divided by time squared, or a=2d/t^2. We know the distance covered in the first half of the lift is 0.25 m. And the time is half of the total time, or 2.5 s.

a = 2(0.25)/2.5^2
a = 0.08 m/s^2

Because F=ma, we know that to generate this acceleration we have to apply a force equal to the mass times the acceleration. We just found the upwards acceleration during the first half of the lift to be 0.08 m/s^2. And we know the mass is 100kg. So:

F = 100*0.08
F = 8 N

And because this force is a vector, and has a direction, we can say that this force of 8 N is directed upwards.

We also know that the force of gravity (also called weight, or W) is constant, and equal to mass (m) times acceleration due to gravity (g). The mass is still 100kg, and acceleration due to gravity on the earth is 9.8m/s^2.

W = mg
W = 100*9.8
W = 980 N

And again, being a vector, we can say that the force of gravity is directed straight down.

So it would take 980 N of force directed straight up to counter the 980 N of force from gravity directed straight down. That would be how much force you'd need to generate just to hold the bar in place. To actually accelerate the bar upwards during the first half of the lift, you'd need the additional 8 N of force we calculated before. That means the total force you'd have to apply to the bar would be 988 N during the first half of the lift.

On the second half of the lift, it would take the same amount of acceleration to slow the bar down from its peak speed at the halfway point to the stopping point at the top of the lift. But that acceleration would be in the opposite direction, since we're now slowing down the bar instead of speeding it up. So during the second half of the lift, the acceleration would be 8 N directed straight downwards.

Since the force of gravity is constant, during the second half of the lift, we still have 980 N of force directed straight down due to gravity. So you'd have to still counter that to keep the bar up. But because we have to slow down the bar as it reaches the top of the lift, we'd have to apply 8 N less force. That means during the second half of the lift, the total force we have to apply is the force of gravity, or 980 N, minus the force it takes to slow the bar down, or 8 N, for a total of 972 N.

So here's the summary of the forces required:

At the start of the lift, with the bar near your chest, it would take 980 N to just hold the bar in place against the force of gravity.

During the first half of the lift, it would take 980 N to counter the force of gravity, plus an additional 8 N to accelerate the bar upwards, for a total of 988 N.

During the second half of the lift, it would take 980 N to counter the force of gravity, minus the 8 N to slow the bar back to a stop, for a total of 972 N.

At the top of the lift, it would again take 980 N to just hold the bar still against the force of gravity.


So, as we can see, the peak force you'd need is 988 N.

Now let's try it on the moon.

During the first half of the lift, it's still going to take the same amount of force to accelerate the bar upwards, since this force is proportional to the mass, which hasn't changed, and the distance of our lift hasn't changed. So we still need 8 N directed straight up.

But the force of gravity has changed on the moon, since it's 1/6th that of earth. On the moon, the acceleration due to gravity is 1.63 m/s^2, so:

W = mg
W = 100*1.63
W = 163 N

Ah, so during the first half of the lift, we'd only need to apply a force of 163 N to counter gravity, plus the 8 N we calculated earlier to accelerate the bar upwards. That's only a total of 171 N. But we've already found that you're capable of generating 988 N of force, as was the case during the first half of the lift back on earth. So what mass could you lift on the moon if you applied 988 N of force, but kept the acceleration the same, so that it still took you 2.5 seconds to cover the first half of the lift?

Well, we know the force needed during the first half of the lift (we'll call it Fm) is equal to the force of gravity (Fg) plus the force to accelerate the mass upwards.(Fa), or Fm=Fg+Fa.

We know the force of gravity (Fg) is equal to the mass (m) times the acceleration due to gravity (1.63 m/s^2 on the moon), or Fg=1.63m.

And we know that the force required to accelerate the mass upwards (Fa) is equal to the mass (m) times the acceleration upwards (0.08 m/s^2), or Fa=0.08m.

So the total force needed during the first half of the lift (Fm) is equal to 1.63m plus 0.08m, or Fm=1.71m. And we know that you can generate 988 N of force, so let's set that equal to the total upwards force and solve for mass:

988 = 1.71m
m = 577.8 kg

So we've just found that if you can bench press 100 kg over a distance of 0.5 m in 5 seconds on earth, you would be able to bench press 577.8 kg over a distance of 0.5 m in 5 seconds on the moon.
edit on 6-4-2011 by nataylor because: Formatting



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 



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


Really??
There's a thread on ATS today from NASA..
Fascinating read..
Did you know they found the first meteorites there in 1969 ??
What a freaky coincidence huh?

Oh and NASA went on to say that since then they have recovered 40,000 specimens..
Just a tad more than the thirty you mention???

As a result, the United States and Japan conducted systematic follow-up searches for meteorites in Antarctica that recovered more than 40,000 specimens, including extremely rare Martian and lunar meteorites.

www.sciencedaily.com...

They've recovered over 40,000 meteorites total. Facefirst was talking about lunar meteorites recovered in Antarctica. The vast majority of meteorites are not lunar meteorites, making lunar meteorites very rare (as the quoted bit of the article says).



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Facefirst
 



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


Really??
There's a thread on ATS today from NASA..
Fascinating read..
Did you know they found the first meteorites there in 1969 ??
What a freaky coincidence huh?

Oh and NASA went on to say that since then they have recovered 40,000 specimens..
Just a tad more than the thirty you mention???

As a result, the United States and Japan conducted systematic follow-up searches for meteorites in Antarctica that recovered more than 40,000 specimens, including extremely rare Martian and lunar meteorites.

www.sciencedaily.com...



That's 40,000 meteorites, not lunar rocks. Moon rocks are much, much rarer, hence the 30 or so found.
And there have only been two ever lunar meteorites ever found. Just a tad less than the 40,000 you mention.
www.astronomy.com...

Again, if Apollo was a hoax. why hasn't the world's scientific community disputed the claims of NASA? Why does the world's scientific community back NASA's claims? Why didn't the Soviets dispute NASA's claims?
But White, Sibrel and Rene know more than the world's entire scientific community? I find it extremely unlikely that some untrained kid in Australia knows more than ever major scientist, physicist, geologist and aerospace engineer in the entire world.

Can you show me ANY accredited scientists or physicists that dispute NASA's claims? Any.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Ummmmm....you'll just believe any old claim that happens to go with the preconceived bias you you already are prone to?


There's a thread on ATS today from NASA..
Fascinating read..
Did you know they found the first meteorites there in 1969 ??
What a freaky coincidence huh?



Instead of writing reams of text.....the UTube actually has a good use, here. NOT ONLY does it give facts regarding the actual collection of, and WHAT was discovered in Antarctica. But, this has a wonderful DUAL USE.....to expose Jarrah White for the con artist, and LIAR that he is.

(Sorry, there are a few audio clips of JW's voice.....grating and annoying as ever. Fortunately, the clips are brief.....)

Follow this video carefully, (and take notes. SOURCES are provided....sources that YOU, or anyone, can also review. FOLLOW the link in the video, or the repeat I include below)......as it shows his duplicity, and twisting and skewing in his "video" presentations:



Link to above video, for access to the author's sources he provided
(Clicky on "Show more....")


Now, after the JW LIES are clearly uncovered, this one follows on the topic, with some focus on the science:



Link, yet again.....read the UTube author's links


When it comes to a person like "Jarrah White"......


....DENY IGNORANTS!!!






edit on 6 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Really??
There's a thread on ATS today from NASA..
Fascinating read..
Did you know they found the first meteorites there in 1969 ??
What a freaky coincidence huh?


That's nice, but the first Lunar meteorite wasn't discovered until around 1982. And guess what helped them identify it as a Lunar meteorite... by comparing it to the samples brought back from the Apollo missions.

alha81005
ALHA81005 (.pdf)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
This is all really laughable.
Prove which meteorites found in Antarctica are from the moon.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
This is all really laughable.
Prove which meteorites found in Antarctica are from the moon.



You can take it up with the geologists that found them.
blog.case.edu...
meteorites.wustl.edu...
I'll take their word over Jarrah White's any day.

meteorites.wustl.edu...



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
This is all really laughable.
Prove which meteorites found in Antarctica are from the moon.



The post directly above yours discusses it: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by FoosM
This is all really laughable.
Prove which meteorites found in Antarctica are from the moon.



You can take it up with the geologists that found them.
blog.case.edu...
meteorites.wustl.edu...
I'll take their word over Jarrah White's any day.

meteorites.wustl.edu...


How Do We Know That They Come From the Moon?

Chemical compositions, isotope ratios, mineralalogy, and textures of the lunar meteorites are all similar to those of samples collected on the Moon during the Apollo missions.


Circular argument.
How do we know those meteors come from the moon?



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


So we've just found that if you can bench press 100 kg over a distance of 0.5 m in 5 seconds on earth, you would be able to bench press 577.8 kg over a distance of 0.5 m in 5 seconds on the moon.


You know what natalor?
The way you conduct yourself in this thread puts almost everyone else to shame and that certainly includes me..
We could all learn a lot just by watching the way you conduct an argument..


Now, your conclusion above can be reasonably summed up by saying, given equal force you can create the same velocity/acceleration on a roughly 6 times heavier object on the moon.

So why wouldn't the same principle apply to a ball thrown vertical??



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



That's nice, but the first Lunar meteorite wasn't discovered until around 1982. And guess what helped them identify it as a Lunar meteorite... by comparing it to the samples brought back from the Apollo missions.


They supposedly gathered, was it 800lbs, of samples from 5 small areas on the same side of the moon..
I hardly think that equates to knowing exactly what is or isn't from the moon..
Narrow speculation at best..
IMO it would be akin to getting samples from 5 small areas of Australia and then saying you know every thing about earth rocks..



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
You know what natalor?
The way you conduct yourself in this thread puts almost everyone else to shame and that certainly includes me..
We could all learn a lot just by watching the way you conduct an argument..
Thank you, I appreciate that.


Originally posted by backinblack
Now, your conclusion above can be reasonably summed up by saying, given equal force you can create the same velocity/acceleration on a roughly 6 times heavier object on the moon.

So why wouldn't the same principle apply to a ball thrown vertical??
It does apply to a ball being thrown vertically.

The same principle and the same math apply to the vertical baseball throw. Let's look at it.

So it took a peak of 988 N of force to do the bench press on the moon. We found out the mass of the bar was 577.8 kg. And since the force of gravity is mass times acceleration due to gravity (which is 1.63 m/s^2 on the moon), we know that force to counter gravity was 577.8*1.63 = 941.8 N. The force you needed to add to the bar to accelerate it upwards is equal to the mass (577.8 kg still) times the acceleration, which we said was a fixed rate of 0.08 m/s^2. So that would be 577.8*0.08 = 46.2 N. And to double-check, yes the force you need to apply to counter gravity (941.8 N) plus the force to accelerate the bar upwards (46.2) does add up to the 988 N of peak force we came up with.

In summary, the forces required during the first half of the lift total 988 N broken down like this:

Force to counter gravity: 941.8 N
Force to accelerate bar upwards: 46.2 N

So let's move on to the pitch. We said we had a pitcher who could throw a 100 mph (44.7 m/s) horizontal throw here on earth. We know the baseball weights 5 ounces, or 0.14 kg. And we said his pitch took a reasonable 1 second.

So how much force is he applying to the ball? We come back to F=ma. The mass is 0.14 kg. The acceleration is 44.7 m/s^2. So the force the pitcher applies to the ball is 0.14*44.7 = 6.258 N. This is the peak force that the pitcher can apply to the ball.

Now if we orient him so he's throwing straight up, the total force he's capable of applying is the same. But now he has to deal with the force of gravity on the ball. Since that force is equal to the mass (still 0.14 kg) times the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s^2 here on earth), we get 0.14*9.8 = 1.372 N. That's the force he has to constantly apply to the ball just to hold it up against the force of gravity. So if he throws the ball straight up, and he can generate a peak force of 6.258 N, 1.372 N of that force goes just into countering gravity. The rest of the force, or 6.258-1.372 = 4.886 N, goes into accelerating the ball upwards.

If 4.886 N of force goes into the ball, and F=ma, then the acceleration will be equal to that force divided by the mass (still 0.14 kg), or 4.886/0.14 = 34.9 m/s^2 of acceleration. And since it takes him 1 second to throw his pitch, the final velocity of the ball is 34.9 m/s.

Now let's look at the throw on the moon.

The pitcher can still generate a peak of 6.258 N of force. But on the moon, the force of gravity on the ball is much less than on earth, equal to the mass of the ball (still 0.14 kg) times the acceleration due to gravity on the moon (1.63 m/s^2), or 0.14*1.63 = 0.228 N. That's the amount of force it takes for the pitcher just to hold the ball up against the force of gravity. So of the peak 6.258 N of force he can generate, 0.228 N goes into countering gravity. The rest, 6.258-0.228 = 6.03 N goes into accelerating the ball upwards.

If 6.03 N goes into accelerating the ball, the ball still has a mass of 0.14 kg, and we know a=F/m, then the acceleration is 6.03/0.14 = 43.1 m/s^2. And since the pitch is 1 second long, the final velocity of the ball is 43.1 m/s.

But what mass ball would he throw at the same speed as a regular ball on earth?

Well, he throws at 34.9 m/s on earth. The speed on the moon is equal to the acceleration he gives the ball (thanks to his pitch being 1 second long). We know the total force he's applying to the ball (Fm) is the force needed to counter gravity (Fg) plus the force that goes into accelerating the ball (Fa), or Fm=Fg+Fa. We know the force of gravity is mass (m) times acceleration due to gravity (1.63 m/s^2), or Fg=1.63m. And the force he's putting into the ball is mass (m) times acceleration (34.9 m/s^2), or Fa=34.9m. So Fm=Fg+Fa, then Fm=1.63m+34.9m, or Fm=36.53m. We know his peak force is a fixed 6.258 N, so the mass is equal to that divided by 36.53, or 6.258/36.53 = 0.1713 kg.

Yup, if he can throw a 0.14 kg ball straight up at 34.9 ms on earth, he would throw a 0.1713 kg ball straight up at 34.9 m/s on the moon.

So if he accelerates this 0.1713 kg ball at a rate of 34.9 m/s^2, we know the force is equal to those values multiplied, or 0.1713*34.9 = 5.978 N. That's the force going into accelerating the ball. The force required to counter gravity is equal to the mass (0.1713 kg) times the acceleration due to gravity, 1.63 m/s^2, or 0.1713*1.63 = 0.279 N. And yup, those two forces, the force required to counter gravity (0.279 N) plus the force needed to accelerated the ball upwards (5.978 N) equals 6.257 N, which is right at the peak force we know our pitcher can generate.

Summing up, the forces required to throw the ball upwards total 6.257 N, broken down like this:

Force to counter gravity: 0.279 N
Force to accelerate ball upwards: 5.978 N

Bringing it all together:

Why, if you can bench press 5.77 times the mass on the moon that could on the earth, at the same speed and acceleration, can you only throw a baseball with 1.22 times the mass at the same speed and acceleration?

The answer lies in these numbers:

For the bench press,
Force to counter gravity: 941.8 N
Force to accelerate bar upwards: 46.2 N

For the throw,
Force to counter gravity: 0.279 N
Force to accelerate ball upwards: 5.978 N

As we can see, the force needed to counter gravity is the dominant force in the bench press. In the ball throw, the force required to accelerate the ball is the dominant force.

The difference in gravity between the earth and moon only affects the force needed to counter gravity. Thus, the larger the mass, the bigger the difference in mass you can accelerate at the same rate on the moon compared to earth.
edit on 6-4-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



The difference in gravity between the earth and moon only affects the force needed to counter gravity. Thus, the larger the mass, the bigger the difference in mass you can accelerate at the same rate on the moon compared to earth.


Thank you for the lesson..

So if I had of chosen a 120kg weight instead of a baseball in my original question then I would have been correct..


Math does beat logic sometimes though I suppose it's also perception..



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 416  417  418    420  421  422 >>

log in

join