Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83639
  • *Latest: sneak

  • *Total Posts: 514794
  • *Total Topics: 15356
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 8

Author Topic: Moon Walkers.  (Read 49477 times)

Offline PIH123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #165 on: January 28, 2016, 01:46:08 AM »
There is also the fact that the flags first motion is toward the astronaut. If ejected gas was hitting the flag,causing it to move,then it's first motion should be away from the astronaut.

Wouldn't that also be true if filmed on Earth with an atmosphere ?

The moving air would push the flag away first ?

So  the logical conclusion is that it was neither filmed in an atmosphere or in a vacuum :(

But what ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #165 on: January 28, 2016, 01:46:08 AM »

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #166 on: January 28, 2016, 06:22:37 AM »
The impact energy is related to mass, not weight. If you can't comprehend the difference then do us a favour and learn the difference before making such ridiculous assertions.

Obviously you (like MH) cannot grasp the fact that the acceleration of G is far less on the moon,nor have you bothered to go back and read what we are talking about.
So perhaps you go do some learning first,before trying to make your self look good-which you failed at this time.

Brad

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #167 on: January 28, 2016, 06:25:45 AM »
Due to much less gravity you would probably want to move slow, or inertia may take you farther than intended. :o ;D

Mags

Exactly Mags
Now go watch the lunar rover in action,and tell me what you see wrong there?.

Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #167 on: January 28, 2016, 06:25:45 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #168 on: January 28, 2016, 08:22:56 AM »
 author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472492#msg472492 date=1453941818
"


Quote
The problem is that you are taking my statement and re-spinning it so that it fits inside your head and works the way you want it to work and that is not going to fly because I described the situation and not you.  I made the statement.  I never said anything at all about "hitting the moon's surface from the same height.

Whats not going to fly MH,is your incorrect calculated weights--which make a very big difference.
Once again,the weight of the astronaut and his suit is NOT 130kg's on the moon-and we are talking about what kind of impact the astronaut will have on the moons surface in order to cause the flag to waver. If you cannot put forth the correct weights when making up some sort of theory as to why the flag wavers on the MOON,then do not place your theory on this thread,as it is flawed right from the start, due to incorrect weights being stated. On earth we calculate mass in way of KG's.

So once again,the astronaut and his suit do not weigh 130KG's on the moon-they weigh 21.45KG's.
I dont give two squirts of duck sh-t if the mass is the same on earth as it is on the moon,the fact remains that the astronaut and his suit has a combined weight of 21.45KG's-not 130KG's. So the impact the astronaut and his suit has on the moon will be far less when the correct weight is used,rather than your incorrect weight of 130KG's is used. Like i said,you tried to slip this through to make your idiotic theory sound more plausible-but i caught you out.
Post correct data-or post non at all. I will not have you (once again) turn this thread into some sort of bullshit dribble thread,just because you have a bias view on the moon landings. In any other thread,you would be the one calling bullshit data,and yet here you are posting it your self.

Quote
I will say it to you again to see if it sinks in.  I simply stated that when the astronaut hits the moon's surface it could create a tremor that makes the flag shake.  I did not talk about dropping from a certain height.  I did not even mention the final velocity.

What you did(once again) is post incorrect mass weights-in excess of over 600% of the actual mass weights.

[quote]Because the 170-pound astronaut and the 120-pound space suit form a 290-pound "ground thumper" that hits the ground for every bounce.  That makes the ground shake, a small portion of the energy from the bounce makes the flag pole rattle.[/quote]

Right there highlighted in red.
A blatant misconception clearly inferring that the impact was going to be from a mass with a weight of 290lb's,when the actual truth is the impact will be from a mass with a weight of only 47.85lb's. So the impact energy (when the correct mass weight is used) will be far less than the one you tried to use.

Quote
You have to look at the situation from the way I am describing it and not the way you want to describe it.

How do you ever think i would do that,when the way you have described it is totally wrong.
The way i want you to describe it is with correct value's--not the incorrect values you tried to sneak in there.

Quote
There is no comparison taking place between Earth's gravity and the moon's gravity.

Yes there is--by you MH.
You decided to use the mass weight of the astronaut and his suit here on earth to put forth a theory of something that you thought may be happening on the moon-->and that is just bull shit- period.

Quote
When the astronaut and his space suit hits the surface of the Earth, or if he hits the surface of the moon, the energy dissipated in the impact is a function of the mass and the final velocity, and you can ignore the strength of the gravitational field.  For sure in the moon's gravity the final velocity will be less, but that's not the point.

No-the point is the impact energy is determined by the !!correct!! mass weight on the moon,and the gravitational acceleration--1.62519 m/s2.
So MH,which will deliver the greatest impact energy when impacting the moon surface-something that weighs 130KG's on the moon,or something that weight 21.45KG's on the moon.

Quote
What's the formula for the energy in the impact?  It's energy equals one-half of the mass times the square of the velocity.
You notice that there is no gravitational acceleration in the formula for the energy in the impact.
You notice that they use mass in the formula and not weight.

The formula for GPE is M x G x H, Where as the GPE is converted to kinetic energy,and then to the displaced energy upon impact.
What is the angular velocity of your space man MH?

Quote
If the only way that my example is going to fit into your head is by modifying my example and answering in the only way you are capable of answering it then you have some real limitations.  You are also failing to realize that you don't have the slightest clue if the astronaut's impact will make the flag shake or not.

The only way your example is going to be true,is if you use the value of the moons gravitational force(and not earths) when making up theories of events that are taking place on the moon.
Now it is up to you to prove that your moon quake theory is sound--and i can tell you right now,it is not--so prove me wrong. Show me just one example that exist on the WWW to prove your theory-as you would ask of us-and do all the time.

Quote
It's the same thing where you fail to realize that it would be impossible from just a photograph to know if you are looking at a flag made out of nylon or cotton or rayon.  Yet you claim that you can which is ridiculous.

And yet,i got it right.
Like i said,if you cant tell what the nylon material looks like that !off the shelf! flags are made from by looking at a close up of a very clear picture,then you need glasses. Dose it not make sense to you that you have a pretty good chance at getting it right by looking at a picture of a material that you have seen many times before,and know that almost all !off the shelf! flags are made of that material.

Quote
Ultimately this is a debate about nothing because we are not disagreeing with each other, we are simply talking about different things.  Nonetheless, if you can't agree that a statement that says, "the energy of the impact an astronaut will make on the moon's surface is a function of his mass and his velocity" is true, then you have some serious problems.

No MH. The impact energy from something that weighs 21.45kg's on the moon is going to be far less than something that weights 130kg's on the moon ,when in reference to the same motion of the astronaut and suit--and thats a fact. If you are going to disagree with that,then you need to go back to school.
The hammer and feather is thrown at the same velocity at the same 45* angle. They impact the moons surface at the same time--which is going to impart the greatest amount of energy when they hit the moons surface?.


Brad

Offline LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #169 on: January 28, 2016, 08:34:43 AM »
Obviously you (like MH) cannot grasp the fact that the acceleration of G is far less on the moon,nor have you bothered to go back and read what we are talking about.
So perhaps you go do some learning first,before trying to make your self look good-which you failed at this time.

Brad

Consider the folowing two scenarios.
1. An astronaut stands on a one metre high platform on the earth and jumps off. He does the same from a one metre high platform on the moon. He hits the moon with less energy than he does on the earth.

2. He stands on the earth and jumps into the air. He does the same on the moon using the same amount of effort for the jump. In this situation , whenhe comes back down the energy that he impacts both the moon and earth is exactly the same.

I think youll find I understand the dynamics of this perectly well.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #169 on: January 28, 2016, 08:34:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #171 on: January 28, 2016, 09:40:12 AM »
Consider the folowing two scenarios.
1. An astronaut stands on a one metre high platform on the earth and jumps off. He does the same from a one metre high platform on the moon. He hits the moon with less energy than he does on the earth.

2. He stands on the earth and jumps into the air. He does the same on the moon using the same amount of effort for the jump. In this situation , whenhe comes back down the energy that he impacts both the moon and earth is exactly the same.

I think youll find I understand the dynamics of this perectly well.

I think you will find that you have not read the situation that myself and MH are talking about.
So before making comments,perhaps spend some time reading the thread first,as what you just described has nothing to do with what we are talking about--that being the difference of an astronauts weight and impact he has on the moon--nothing to do with earth at all.

Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #171 on: January 28, 2016, 09:40:12 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #172 on: January 28, 2016, 09:46:10 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/science/energy_electricity_forces/forces/revision/3/

Thank you hoppy.
Now maybe MH will understand as to how more weight equates to more newtons of force,and thus more impact energy when the astronaut lands,where as mass has nothing to do with it in this case,as mass is the same everywhere.

Brad

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #173 on: January 28, 2016, 10:01:50 AM »
Thank you hoppy.
Now maybe MH will understand as to how more weight equates to more newtons of force,and thus more impact energy when the astronaut lands,where as mass has nothing to do with it in this case,as mass is the same everywhere.

Brad

In fact Hoppy was trying to show you something to support what I have been saying to you.  He was finding you an example on the web just like you asked for.

Suppose that you are an astronaut in training on Earth, and you fall and hit the ground at 2 meters per second.
Suppose that you are an astronaut on the moon and you fall and hit the surface of the moon at 2 meters per second.
Suppose that you are an astronaut and are weightless out on a space walk servicing the International Space Station and something happens you hit the side of the station at 2 meters per second.

In all three cases the impact energy will be the same.  It's not about weight, it's about mass.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #173 on: January 28, 2016, 10:01:50 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #174 on: January 28, 2016, 10:05:36 AM »
Quote
So once again,the astronaut and his suit do not weigh 130KG's on the moon-they weigh 21.45KG's.

I will just tell you one more time that you never say "kilograms of weight."  That is cringe worthy.  Ignore it if you want but be aware that it makes people cringe.

Offline LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #175 on: January 28, 2016, 10:11:22 AM »
I think you will find that you have not read the situation that myself and MH are talking about.
So before making comments,perhaps spend some time reading the thread first,as what you just described has nothing to do with what we are talking about--that being the difference of an astronauts weight and impact he has on the moon--nothing to do with earth at all.

Brad

Ive read and understood it perfectly well. The fact that you cant understand why  what ive described is related to the situation you describe is evidence for your complete ingnorance of basic physics.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #175 on: January 28, 2016, 10:11:22 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #176 on: January 28, 2016, 11:13:03 AM »
Ive read and understood it perfectly well. The fact that you cant understand why  what ive described is related to the situation you describe is evidence for your complete ingnorance of basic physics.

Are you sure your not MH in desguise?,as you seem to be just as confused as he is.

What astronaut will make an impact on the moons surface that is greatest while, bouncing along in the same way as they do in the video's
1-an astronaut that weights 130KG's on the moon
2-an astronaut that weighs 21.45KG's on the moon

Lets see if you pass basic physics ;)

Offline LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #177 on: January 28, 2016, 11:51:08 AM »
Are you sure your not MH in desguise?,as you seem to be just as confused as he is.

What astronaut will make an impact on the moons surface that is greatest while, bouncing along in the same way as they do in the video's
1-an astronaut that weights 130KG's on the moon
2-an astronaut that weighs 21.45KG's on the moon

Lets see if you pass basic physics ;)

Firstly, a kg is a unit of mass, not a weight, so obviously a mass of 130 kg will have more impact compared with a 21.45 kg one. However, if an astronaut with a mass of 130 kg on earth were to go to  the moon he would weigh 6 times less. Were he to jump up and down on a spot he would have have exactly the same impact on earth as he does on the moon, assuming he used the same amount of energy for each jump. The thing that would change is he would jump higher on the moon.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5231
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #178 on: January 28, 2016, 01:04:11 PM »
Firstly, a kg is a unit of mass, not a weight, so obviously a mass of 130 kg will have more impact compared with a 21.45 kg one. However, if an astronaut with a mass of 130 kg on earth were to go to  the moon he would weigh 6 times less. Were he to jump up and down on a spot he would have have exactly the same impact on earth as he does on the moon, assuming he used the same amount of energy for each jump. The thing that would change is he would jump higher on the moon.

Only he dose not jump higher on the moon,as can be clearly seen in the video in question,and as we are dealing with the astronauts motion on the moon(with no relativity as to what he dose on earth),then we use his weight as it is on the moon.
Quote MH
Because the 170-pound astronaut and the 120-pound space suit form a 290-pound "ground thumper" that hits the ground for every bounce.  That makes the ground shake, a small portion of the energy from the bounce makes the flag pole rattle.

So as you can see,it was MH that chose to use weight in stead of mass to describe his ground shaking theory--not me. So i corrected him on his mistake,and converted his incorrect !!weights!! to the correct weight the astronaut and his suit would weigh.
The correct paragraph would read--
Because the 28.05-pound astronaut and the 19.8-pound space suit form a 47.85-pound "ground thumper" that hits the ground for every bounce.  That makes the ground shake, a small portion of the energy from the bounce makes the flag pole rattle

So,can you now see,when the astronauts motion is the same in both cases,as to how MH's incorrect weight makes a huge difference in supporting his theory as to how the astronauts would cause the ground to shake,and the flag to waver,while bouncing on past. So now MH's small portion of the impact energy that makes the flag !rattle! is now 600% smaller.


Brad

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #179 on: January 28, 2016, 02:47:46 PM »
Quote
So as you can see,it was MH that chose to use weight in stead of mass to describe his ground shaking theory--not me.

I doesn't make sense that you can pull up quotes from all over the thread and miss what I said:

<<< I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense.  You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't.   What's the "m" in f = ma? >>>

Quote
Definition:  Colloquial language, colloquial dialect, or informal language is a variety of language commonly employed in conversation or other communication in informal situations.

<<< I intentionally switched from pounds to kilograms because pounds is a wishy-washy English unit that can mean weight or mass, whereas kilograms is universally understood to mean MASS ONLY.  Clearly you were not aware of that, as in, "The combined weight is 21.45kg's(now that you have gone metric)." >>>

I have probably told you about 20 times in the thread so far that it is the mass that counts and not the weight.   Just a few posts earlier I said it again:

<<< In all three cases the impact energy will be the same.  It's not about weight, it's about mass.  >>>

I have seen you pull this silly "selective memory" stunt before.

 

OneLink