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.
 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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Moon Walkers.  (Read 78680 times)

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #195 on: January 30, 2016, 06:09:33 AM »

MileHigh
[/quote]

Quote
I said this, "A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second."
And i agreed with that MH--we all know this. But the velocity of the astronauts is set by the video in question,and this velocity is set by the acceleration of G on the moon--not earth. We are talking about the moons acceleration of G MH,as we are debating as to how the flag wavered on the moon. So your weights that are associated with that velocity are incorrect--and you know it. You tried to use the earth acceleration of G to describe the weight of an astronaut on the moon-->and that's the bottom line-->you got it wrong.

Quote
You are making yourself look beyond stupid.  How many times does it have to be pounded into your head that when you use kilograms you are talking about mass?  I am talking about the MASS of the astronaut.  Let it sink in.  Even though he weighs less on the moon the impact energy will be the same.

It will not be the same MH,as the velocity on the moon dose not relate to the weight's you posted-regardless of there mass. Who is looking beyond stupid MH?. Surely you can work out your mistake MH-that you are making over and over. The weights you posted are for the acceleration of G on earth--not the moon. Earth 9.8m/sec squared-->moon 1.625m/sec Squared.
Velocity of 130kg Astronaught & suit dropped from 2 meter height on the moon is the same as astronaut & suit weighing 21.45kg's dropped from a two meter height on the moon. Impact energy of astronaut weighing 130kg's on the moon is 606.06% more than astronaut weighing 21.45kg's on the moon. To state that your astronaut and suit weighs 130 kg's on the moon,and the moons gravitational acceleration is 1.625m/sec squared,would mean that your astronaut would weigh 787.87kg's here on earth due to the earths gravitational acceleration being 9.8m/sec squared. There for,your astronaut that weighs(as you stated) 130kg's on the moon,has a mass of 787.87kg's--not 130kg's. If you cannot see your error MH,then maybe you need to slow down a little,and think for a while about what you are going to write.

Quote
That's total bullshit because you are getting frustrated and angry so you need to make up stories about me that are false.  I will just remind you that I am the one that has no problem admitting when I am wrong and you are the one that says nothing, turns blue, and runs away.

I am running now where MH,as i have spent !!how much time!!? trying to show you your error.
Your astronaut ans suit that has a weight of 130kg's on the moon(that you have stated on many occasions now) has a mass of 787.87kg-not 130kg's as you continue to use as your example. If your astronaut weighed 21.45kg's on the moon(as i have corrected for you),!then! he would have a mass of 130kg's.

Quote
You are quoting me again so I will say it again and we will see if it sinks into your head:  When I posted that I was using colloquial English and I meant 290 pounds of mass.  Subsequent to that I switched to kilograms so there would be no ambiguity.  Now can your brain process that or is it going to pass right through you again like you are not even there and you are going to repeat it again?

Once again,you posted the weight of the astronaut and his suit on the moon,and your were referring to weight when putting forth your theory. The weight you posted dose not reflect the correct mass for that weight on the moon,and now you have spent!!how long!!? trying to tell me that i am the one that has made the mistake,when it is clearly you that has made the mistake. So stop trying to turn your mistake around on me.

Quote
Here is your moment of lucidity where you are making sense and agreeing with me.  And you are also contradicting yourself as evidenced by your other statements.

I agreed with you when you used mass(that is calculated here on earth as kg's),i do not agree with your claim as to what the astronauts weigh on the moon. Weight on the moon is not the mass of the object. I have not contradicted my self at all,you just have your weights and mass all screwed up.

Quote
WHO SAID THAT?   You said that but I didn't.  Here you are showing your limitations one more time.  I only said that a 130 kg astronaut hitting the surface of the moon would cause a tremor.  I said nothing about velocity.  But your brain cannot cope with taking what I said at face value and you have to rewrite the statement in your head and change what I am saying.

I have changed nothing to what you said-- Quote:
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.
You chose to use weight that relate to the astronaut and his suit on the moon--not mass.
My brain was working quite well at the time thank you,and i corrected your mistake. From then on in,you have done nothing but try and twist it all around,so as you can save face.

Quote
You are not going to change what I am saying to make it fit into a scenario that only you can cope with and understand.  You have to take what I said at face value, period.  I know it's hard for you, you feel compelled to twist what I am saying into your own scenario because that's the only thing you can understand.  The answer to that is NO, take what I am saying to you at face value WITHOUT CHANGING IT.  Can you cope with that?

As you can see above,i have change nothing of what you said MH.
I will also not allow you to post incorrect weights of the astronaut and his suit to try and make your silly moon quake theory sound better. You insist that all the rest of us be accurate,and word things correctly--so you !will! do the same.

Quote
I am going to pound it into your head until you get it.  In my example I don't care about the velocity and I never said anything about the velocity.

The velocity is set by that in the video in question,the video where as you are trying to put together a theory to explain as to why the flag wavers. You do not get to choose the velocity MH,when trying to explain the events in the video that sets that velocity.

Quote
I just said that an 130 kg astronaut hitting the surface of the moon will cause a tremor that that might be able to make the flag shake.

And this is the bit you just do not understand MH.
Your astronaut either weighs 130kg's on the moon,and has a mass of 787.87kg--or he ways 21.45kg's on the moon,and has a mass of 130kg's--which is it MH?

Quote
Beyond that, when an astronaut that is on Earth and jumps up with 500 joules of energy, he will hit the ground with 500 joules of energy in the impact when he lands.  If the same astronaut is on the moon and jumps up with 500 joules of energy then he will hit the moon's surface with 500 joules of energy when he lands.  In both cases he hits the ground with the same speed but he has more air time on the moon.  Myself and LibreEnergia have already told you this.

Not only dose this have nothing to do with your weights used,or the velocity that is set by the video in question,it is already something i(and most others) already know,and if you go back and read the thread,you will see on a number of occasions i have agreed with that. But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about,and that was just a sad attempt by you to side track the real issue--which is the weights of the astronaut and his suit on the moon you used ,were incorrect,and do not represent the actual mass of that astronaut and his suit.
130kg's on the moon MH,is a mass of 787.87kg. Weight and mass on the moon MH are two different values--weight and mass on earth(which we were not discussing) are the same value.

Quote
And you are back in your Twilight Zone again.  One more time you are saying that it's astronaut's equivalent weight on the moon that determines his impact energy when it's his mass that determines his impact energy.

No MH,you are saying his weight on the moon is his mass--which it is not. His weight on the moon is 1/6th that of his actual mass as measured here on earth.

Quote
You seemingly cannot understand that it's the astronaut's mass that determines the impact energy and not his effective weight.  And yet in the same posting you say, "We all know that MH-we all know that the same mass with the same velocity will impact any surface with the same energy."   You have got scrambled brains.

Another lie MH?. I fully understand that it's the astronauts mass and velocity that determines the impact energy,so what you wrote above is a lie. What you do not seem to grasp MH,that the astronauts !weight!(as you specified)on the moon, is not the astronauts mass. This is why it is important to use correct terms MH--isnt it-as you demand in nearly every other thread on this forum-->be accurate with measurements and use correct terms. You need to adhere to your own demands MH.

Quote
I will tell you again, I did not mention the velocity in my example.

And i will tell you again,that the velocity is set by the motion of the astronaut in the video in question--you know MH,the one we were trying to theorize about.

Quote
You still cannot understand that the magnitude of the impact is determined by the mass and not the weight.

Once again-another lie,and i am glad everyone here can see it all.
And once again MH-i know the magnitude of the impact is determined by the mass and Velocity(which you keep leaving out),and not the weight. What you dont understand MH, is that the astronauts weight on the moon,is not his mass.

Quote
The energy in the impact is one-half the mass times the velocity-squared.

And?. I know this MH.

Quote
The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it.I said I favoured PW's explanation over the moon quake theory but they were both viable candidates.And that shows you how serious your issues are.  You can be told stuff straight to your face multiple times and it doesn't register with you or it does resister with you but you like to spin the "truth" just as bad or even worse than the politicians that you despise.  Either way, it's a serious issue with you.

Lol. Never in the history of this forum ,have i seen you put your self in it as much as you have in this thread MH.
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.

Now who has the serious issues MH?.

Stop bullshitting .

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #196 on: January 30, 2016, 06:33:37 AM »
The answer is you have serious issues.

I said this, "A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second."

How many times does it have to be pounded into your head that when you use kilograms you are talking about mass?  I am talking about the MASS of the astronaut.  Let it sink in.  Even though he weighs less on the moon the impact energy will be the same.

It will not be the same MH,as the velocity on the moon dose not relate to the weight's you posted-regardless of there mass. Who is looking beyond stupid MH?. Surely you can work out your mistake MH-that you are making over and over. The weights you posted are for the acceleration of G on earth--not the moon. Earth 9.8m/sec squared-->moon 1.625m/sec Squared.
Velocity of 130kg Astronaught & suit dropped from 2 meter height on the moon is the same as astronaut & suit weighing 21.45kg's dropped from a two meter height on the moon. Impact energy of astronaut weighing 130kg's on the moon is 606.06% more than astronaut weighing 21.45kg's on the moon. To state that your astronaut and suit weighs 130 kg's on the moon,and the moons gravitational acceleration is 1.625m/sec squared,would mean that your astronaut would weigh 787.87kg's here on earth due to the earths gravitational acceleration being 9.8m/sec squared. There for,your astronaut that weighs(as you stated) 130kg's on the moon,has a mass of 787.87kg's--not 130kg's. If you cannot see your error MH,then maybe you need to slow down a little,and think for a while about what you are going to write.

So tell me, what's the issue?

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #197 on: January 30, 2016, 09:47:46 AM »
The answer is you have serious issues.

I said this, "A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second."

How many times does it have to be pounded into your head that when you use kilograms you are talking about mass?  I am talking about the MASS of the astronaut.  Let it sink in.  Even though he weighs less on the moon the impact energy will be the same.

It will not be the same MH,as the velocity on the moon dose not relate to the weight's you posted-regardless of there mass. Who is looking beyond stupid MH?. Surely you can work out your mistake MH-that you are making over and over. The weights you posted are for the acceleration of G on earth--not the moon. Earth 9.8m/sec squared-->moon 1.625m/sec Squared.
Velocity of 130kg Astronaught & suit dropped from 2 meter height on the moon is the same as astronaut & suit weighing 21.45kg's dropped from a two meter height on the moon. Impact energy of astronaut weighing 130kg's on the moon is 606.06% more than astronaut weighing 21.45kg's on the moon. To state that your astronaut and suit weighs 130 kg's on the moon,and the moons gravitational acceleration is 1.625m/sec squared,would mean that your astronaut would weigh 787.87kg's here on earth due to the earths gravitational acceleration being 9.8m/sec squared. There for,your astronaut that weighs(as you stated) 130kg's on the moon,has a mass of 787.87kg's--not 130kg's. If you cannot see your error MH,then maybe you need to slow down a little,and think for a while about what you are going to write.

So tell me, what's the issue?

The issue is,you used the weight that the astronaut weighs on the moon--which is not his mass. His weight is only his mass when you state his weight on earth. As we are talking about happenings on the moon,then post there weight that is relevant to the moon-not there weight(mass) that is relevant to the earth(a place where they are not).
Or- state that you are using mass weight,and not lunar weight.
You MH-->you got it wrong. You have lied throughout this thread ever since you screwed up with your weights,and then trying to make your self look like you got it right by presenting things that had nothing to do with the issue at all.

Anyway--all is here to read by every one now,and they can all make up there own mind.
I will no longer be distracted by your unjustifiable babble.

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #198 on: January 30, 2016, 02:32:33 PM »
The issue is,you used the weight that the astronaut weighs on the moon--which is not his mass. His weight is only his mass when you state his weight on earth. As we are talking about happenings on the moon,then post there weight that is relevant to the moon-not there weight(mass) that is relevant to the earth(a place where they are not).
Or- state that you are using mass weight,and not lunar weight.
You MH-->you got it wrong. You have lied throughout this thread ever since you screwed up with your weights,and then trying to make your self look like you got it right by presenting things that had nothing to do with the issue at all.

Anyway--all is here to read by every one now,and they can all make up there own mind.
I will no longer be distracted by your unjustifiable babble.

You are unwittingly proving my point and I am not surprised that you believe that I am lying.

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #199 on: January 31, 2016, 01:54:18 AM »

#### Magluvin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5886
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #200 on: January 31, 2016, 08:30:42 AM »

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #201 on: January 31, 2016, 08:48:02 PM »

Quote
Stop bullshitting .

You are accusing me of being a liar because I said this, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it."

So you took my very first statement after I learned about PW's explanation and quoted me out of context.  Then you take my last quote where I denied that I dropped the moon quake theory and accused me of being a liar.

I said this early on in the thread, "I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation," and then I said this at the end of the thread, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it" so I must be a liar according to you.

You are not going to accuse me of being a liar.  You are the one that is lying because you are playing a silly immature selective memory game and we are going to straighten this out.

Quoting myself from post #124:

Quote
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.  I was hedging my bets by going with the "ground thump" explanation because that's the only one that I was aware of that solved the mystery.

Here is how you quoted me in post #124:

Quote
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.

You intentionally left out the last sentence because you wanted to spin it your way like a sleazy lying politician.

More importantly, quoting myself from post #127 the next day:

Quote
Off-gassing from the space suit and a small localized moon tremor from the astronaut's impact on the lunar surface are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the waving flag.  I learned something the other day and changed my view and you seem to think there is something wrong with that.

Here is what I said in post #136:

Quote
I simply said that an astronaut and his space suit hitting the surface of the moon could create a localized tremor in the surface material and that could make the flag move.

Here is what I said in post #142:

Quote
The earth quake theory is not "utter rubbish."   If you drop a mass of one kilogram onto the surface of the moon from a height of one meter, where does that energy go?

Here is what I said in post #150:

Quote
Yes, and the flag is planted in that moon.  But I suppose you have a bionic eye like the six million dollar man and it calculated exactly how much energy impacted onto the flag pole and you are "sure" that your bionic eye is right when it said that the flag should not shake....  You have superpowers.

Here is what I said in post #163:

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.

Here is what I said in post #181:

Quote
With respect to the flag pole planted in the moon's crust, there is a distinct possibility that when a sound wave traveling through the crust hits it from the astronaut's impact something interesting happens.

It's possible that the low-frequency sound wave from the "thump" is close enough to a resonant frequency mode of the flag pole system - the vertical flag pole, the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and the flag itself.  A small amount of energy in the sound wave travels up the vertical flag pole and then into the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and then the energy gets dumped into the flag itself and dissipates in the wavering flag.

You are accusing me of being a liar and that crossed a line for me, when it's really you that's the liar.  I am saying that you are a liar because you made it a point of going back through this thread multiple times to pull up quotes and it would clearly be impossible for you to miss all of my quoted statements above.  You really hit a low.

Anyway, I am no liar and take my advice and wait two weeks and reread this thread at a slow calm pace.

MileHigh

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #202 on: February 01, 2016, 12:36:56 AM »

You are accusing me of being a liar because I said this, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it."

So you took my very first statement after I learned about PW's explanation and quoted me out of context.  Then you take my last quote where I denied that I dropped the moon quake theory and accused me of being a liar.

I said this early on in the thread, "I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation," and then I said this at the end of the thread, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it" so I must be a liar according to you.

You are not going to accuse me of being a liar.  You are the one that is lying because you are playing a silly immature selective memory game and we are going to straighten this out.

Quoting myself from post #124:

Here is how you quoted me in post #124:

You intentionally left out the last sentence because you wanted to spin it your way like a sleazy lying politician.

More importantly, quoting myself from post #127 the next day:

Here is what I said in post #136:

Here is what I said in post #142:

Here is what I said in post #150:

Here is what I said in post #163:

Here is what I said in post #181:

You are accusing me of being a liar and that crossed a line for me, when it's really you that's the liar.  I am saying that you are a liar because you made it a point of going back through this thread multiple times to pull up quotes and it would clearly be impossible for you to miss all of my quoted statements above.  You really hit a low.

Anyway, I am no liar and take my advice and wait two weeks and reread this thread at a slow calm pace.

MileHigh

MH
You are welcome to make comments here,but when you start to put together theories to explain anomalies,then you will be accurate and correct when you post the data to explain that anomaly.
E.G-as we are talking about events that !apparently! took place on the moon,then you will use weights that are associated with the moon-not weights associated with earth. Or simply put -the mass weight,or the lunar weight--just describe what weight you are referring to-it's that simple.
Through out this forum,you have post's all over the place that insist the people here use accurate wording and data,but here,when discussing some so important,you decide to just throw in weights that could have many different value's.

In regards to saying that you are dropping your explanation,and going with PW's in stead,and then saying that you did not drop it--regardless of you saying that your explanation was legit and plausible ,you still said you are going to drop it. You are right,i did pull out a direct quote,but that is the only way to give a direct answer--you do this very often your self. Even on this thread alone,you oull out simple little mistakes of mine,and place the comer mark where it should be,and correct spelling when i miss spell something--this is how critical you are of other peoples writing's MH,and so now that you are getting some of your own medicine back,you don't like it. What go's around,comes around MH--you need to stick to your own protocols MH.

When dealing with great claim's (like an OU device), sound theories do not cut the cake--as you so often point out. So now that you have one of these sound theories about the flag wavering in an environment that has no atmosphere,and where no physical contact was made with the flag,all you have to do now is prove your theory--as you would ask of everyone else on this forum putting up a theory to explain the impossible. If you still like PW's theory,then all you have to do is find out where the out gassing vent is for the suit,and then explain as to how it manages to penetrate the outer micrometeorite proof outer skin of the suit that covers any vents that would be on that side of the suit. TK him self pointed out that the astronaut's bounce past the flags in many other video clip's,and that the flags don't move. I am guessing that he was trying to disprove my theory,but what he has done is to disprove your moon quake theory,as your theory should be present in all the video's--but we see that it is not.

So now you have to either prove your theory MH,or you have to prove PW's theory(as it would seem he has taken leave of this thread).
After that is done,then you could have a crack at explaining as to where all these blisters and damaged skin has gone from all the astronaut's hand's-post moon walk's. No one picture in any of the apollo missions shows any of the astronauts having damaged hand's as they claim in the mission video's-not one.

A quote from wiki
Many conspiracy theorists insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax;[59] however, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did indeed occur.
Where is this empirical evidence ?. There is not one shred of solid evidence that clearly shows man went to the moon. Look at the picture below--dose this prove that i went to the moon?-if not,why not?. One landing you believe is real because NASA and the American government told you it is real,and the other landing is fake--because you know that it is fake just from the simple fact that i told you it is. It took me a mere 3 minutes to place my lunar lander and extra rover tracks in there with the very basic window paint program.

Do you know how many craft with high res cameras have been to the moon MH?-

Hiten (Japan)
Lunar Prospector (USA
SMART-1 (ESA
SELENE (Japan
Chang'e 1 (China
LCROSS (USA-LRO carrier
GRAIL (USA
Chang'e 3 (China

Not one of these space craft has managed to take just one clear picture of any of the Apollo landing sites--not one. The best we have is the likes of the picture below. Do you really believe that it  is impossible to get just one(just one) clear picture of any of the equipment that was !suppose! to have been left behind by the apollo missions. We seem to have no trouble at all taking high res pictures of people walking around on earth from over 400KM's away,and through the earth's atmosphere,but one clear picture of a lunar lander from as little as 25KM's away with no atmospheric interference seems impossible--yea right

#### Magluvin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5886
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #203 on: February 01, 2016, 01:56:33 AM »
Them rover tracks look added in.

Mags

Edit.  Wrong image was posted.

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #204 on: February 01, 2016, 05:58:26 AM »

Quote
You are welcome to make comments here,but when you start to put together theories to explain anomalies,then you will be accurate and correct when you post the data to explain that anomaly.
E.G-as we are talking about events that !apparently! took place on the moon,then you will use weights that are associated with the moon-not weights associated with earth. Or simply put -the mass weight,or the lunar weight--just describe what weight you are referring to-it's that simple.
Through out this forum,you have post's all over the place that insist the people here use accurate wording and data,but here,when discussing some so important,you decide to just throw in weights that could have many different value's.

Your first place to start is to learn how to express yourself properly when talking about mass and weight in different environments like the Earth, the moon, and in orbit.  Here is a simple fact:  I was expressing myself correctly the whole time and you weren't.  It's true Brad and you need to deal with this issue for yourself.  The first time I mentioned pounds there was a little bit of wiggle room for ambiguity but not really if you make a reasonable assumption that the reader will understand the context.  Subsequent to that everything I said with respect to mass and weight was correct.

I was expressing myself properly - this is a fact that you need to come to terms with.  So you need to roll up your shirtsleeves and do some more research on your own and then understand what I said for starters, and then undertake to learn to express yourself properly about the same thing.

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #205 on: February 01, 2016, 08:06:10 AM »

Your first place to start is to learn how to express yourself properly when talking about mass and weight in different environments like the Earth, the moon, and in orbit.  Here is a simple fact:  I was expressing myself correctly the whole time and you weren't.  It's true Brad and you need to deal with this issue for yourself.  The first time I mentioned pounds there was a little bit of wiggle room for ambiguity but not really if you make a reasonable assumption that the reader will understand the context.  Subsequent to that everything I said with respect to mass and weight was correct.

I was expressing myself properly - this is a fact that you need to come to terms with.  So you need to roll up your shirtsleeves and do some more research on your own and then understand what I said for starters, and then undertake to learn to express yourself properly about the same thing.

MH
It is you that failed to express your self correctly -and that is a fact.
I have not disagreed with anything you said about mass and velocity-that is a fact.
We were talking about astronauts on the moon, and you presented weights that represent mass amounts in lb,s here on earth-not the moon-that is a fact.
When you post weights that are associated with events on the moon, how do you expect any one to know whether those weight are what the astronaut weighs on the moon, or what they weigh on earth (there mass). As we are discussing events on the moon, then it would be very reasonable to assume you were refering to what they weigh on the moon, and not what they weigh on earth. So how you ever came up with it being me that is not expressing myself correctly, I will never know, as it is clearly you that has posted data that could have multiple versions.

Now-what you have to do is verify your theory as a reality. I will accept any video or data you can find that shows enough energy being returned to the ground by some one that has a mass of 130kg, making a flag pole rattle enough to cause a flag to waver, as they skip on past.
OR- show evidence that PWs theory is correct, and that some how, the exausted water vapor can pass through the tough skin of the PLSS unit--right after you first show that the exaust vent is actually on the left side of the PLSS unit.

In the mean time, can you explain as to why there is no sign of injury as stated in the videos by the astronauts, to the astronauts hands?.

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #206 on: February 01, 2016, 11:23:46 AM »
We were talking about astronauts on the moon, and you presented weights that represent mass amounts in lb,s here on earth-not the moon-that is a fact.
When you post weights that are associated with events on the moon, how do you expect any one to know whether those weight are what the astronaut weighs on the moon, or what they weigh on earth (there mass). As we are discussing events on the moon, then it would be very reasonable to assume you were refering to what they weigh on the moon, and not what they weigh on earth. So how you ever came up with it being me that is not expressing myself correctly, I will never know, as it is clearly you that has posted data that could have multiple versions.

Well, the simple truth is that you are mixed up, and my instincts are telling that you have invented your own strange set of spontaneous rules because you are not aware of simple conventions.

I have almost exclusively referred to the astronaut as being 130 kilograms.  That means the astronaut has a mass of 130 kilograms.  It could be on Earth, it could be on the moon, or it could be in orbit, it doesn't matter where the astronaut is located at all.  Every single time that I state kilograms I am talking about the astronaut's mass and I am never talking about the astronaut's weight.  I am not really that concerned with the astronauts weight because his weight is self-evident when you state the astronaut's mass based on where he is located.  I have tried to get this point across to you many times.  I have told you repeatedly that when you use the term "kilograms" you are referring to mass and not weight.  I have told you repeatedly that people do not state "kilograms of weight" ever.  You are not ever supposed to state "kilograms of weight" when you are having a scientific discussion and you are doing it all the time.

Quote
We were talking about astronauts on the moon, and you presented weights that represent mass amounts in lb,s here on earth-not the moon-that is a fact.

You look over what I said above and you read it as many times as are necessary until you come to the conclusion that your statement quoted immediately above is wrong.  You have to understand and realize for yourself that I never talked about the weight of the astronaut because I always used kilograms and when you use the term "kilograms" you are only talking about mass, and you are not talking about weight.  You get it through your head that when you quote kilograms that it can be on Earth, on the moon, in orbit around the Earth, in orbit around the moon, or floating in space, it does not matter because kilograms are the same everywhere.  Likewise, only at the very beginning of the discussion did I discuss "mass in pounds" and I never referred to it after that.  I have already explained why I did that just one single time.

Quote
So how you ever came up with it being me that is not expressing myself correctly, I will never know, as it is clearly you that has posted data that could have multiple versions."

Only in your head have I "posted data that could have multiple versions."  You need absorb what I am saying here and understand it completely.  If you can do that and then go back and reread what I have posted in this thread you will realize that I have been consistent in what I have been saying the whole time.

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #207 on: February 01, 2016, 11:29:03 AM »
Them rover tracks look added in.

Mags

Edit.  Wrong image was posted.

Well i could spend a little more time on them,but what about my lander?--looks good for windows paint -dosnt it
Notice how the original rover tracks are a zigzag pattern lol.'

#### MileHigh

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7600
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #208 on: February 01, 2016, 11:41:41 AM »
Quote
Now-what you have to do is verify your theory as a reality. I will accept any video or data you can find that shows enough energy being returned to the ground by some one that has a mass of 130kg, making a flag pole rattle enough to cause a flag to waver, as they skip on past.
OR- show evidence that PWs theory is correct, and that some how, the exausted water vapor can pass through the tough skin of the PLSS unit--right after you first show that the exaust vent is actually on the left side of the PLSS unit.

In the mean time, can you explain as to why there is no sign of injury as stated in the videos by the astronauts, to the astronauts hands?.

I asked you what happens when you drop a rock on the surface of the moon and you said the energy in the impact goes into the moon's crust.  I don't have any data that shows that the thumping astronaut puts enough impact energy into the surface of the moon to make the flag rattle.  The only thing I have is the video, which suggests that possibility.  Likewise, you don't have any data that shows that the impact of the astronaut didn't make the flag rattle.  So we are both lacking data, except for what inferences that we can make by looking at the video clip.  I am not prepared to research the way the moon's crust responds to impact energy.

Nor am I prepared to dig into all of the details of the ice sublimation system that cools the astronaut.  There are so many variables and unknowns that it is way beyond my time and expertise to comment on that with any clarity or degree of certainty or accuracy.  A real answer would require a full-blown computer simulation to answer the question.  So for that one I am just assuming that there is a reasonable possibility it is true also.  Even if you knew where the venting orifice on the space suit was, that doesn't give you the answer at all.  All that does is give you one small step towards defining the problem.

For the astronaut's hands, please read the YouTube comments on the clip.  There are some interesting postings from people that claim they know details about the timeline of the mission and from people that claim they have medical backgrounds.  There is what appears to be credible information in the YouTube comments that could explain the issue about the state of the astronaut's hands.  I was not aware of the issue at all, so I simply spent 15 minutes reading comments by others.

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Moon Walkers.
« Reply #209 on: February 01, 2016, 12:46:51 PM »

Quote
Well, the simple truth is that you are mixed up, and my instincts are telling that you have invented your own strange set of spontaneous rules because you are not aware of simple conventions.

I have almost exclusively referred to the astronaut as being 130 kilograms.  That means the astronaut has a mass of 130 kilograms.  It could be on Earth, it could be on the moon, or it could be in orbit, it doesn't matter where the astronaut is located at all.  Every single time that I state kilograms I am talking about the astronaut's mass and I am never talking about the astronaut's weight.  I am not really that concerned with the astronauts weight because his weight is self-evident when you state the astronaut's mass based on where he is located.  I have tried to get this point across to you many times.  I have told you repeatedly that when you use the term "kilograms" you are referring to mass and not weight.  I have told you repeatedly that people do not state "kilograms of weight" ever.  You are not ever supposed to state "kilograms of weight" when you are having a scientific discussion and you are doing it all the time.

We are going to have this argument for some time- arnt we MH. You simply will not accept the fact that you got it wrong,and continually try to reverse the mistake onto me. Weight is not a measure of mass MH-weight is the measure  of the gravitational pull between two objects--you need to understand or learn that MH-->weight is not a measure of mass-weight is a measure of the gravitational pull between two objects. The only place where weight is directly related to mass is here on earth MH--not the bloody moon. The only time weight can be used to determine mass amount,is on earth-or any other planet or moon that has a gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/sec Squared. You clearly quoted weight when referring to the astronauts and there suits on the moon--first in LB's,and then in KG's.
Weight is !!NOT!! mass MH--it is the gravitational pull between two objects<--do you understand this?. So when you stated that the astronaut and his suit had a combines !!weight!! of 290-pounds,and i corrected you,and gave you the correct !weight! of 47.85 pounds--you got your knickers in a twist. We are on the moon MH-not earth. Weight is not mass MH-weight is the gravitational pull between two objects. Please go and learn what weight is,before incorrectly saying it is mass. I will help you out some.

Quote Hyperphysics : The weight of an object is the force of gravity on the object and may be defined as the mass times the acceleration of gravity, w = mg. Since the weight is a force, its SI unit is the newton.

Quote Wiki : In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.[1][2] Weight is a vector whose magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g;[3] thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI)

So MH,how much dose your astronaut weigh again on the moon-in regards to your big ground thumper ?,and what is his mass?
So you see MH,now that you know that mass is not weight,can you see how you need to be correct when stating weights regarding theories based on lunar activities.

Quote
You look over what I said above and you read it as many times as are necessary until you come to the conclusion that your statement quoted immediately above is wrong.

It would be far better for you to understand the difference between mass and weight

Quote
You have to understand and realize for yourself that I never talked about the weight of the astronaut because I always used kilograms , and you are not talking about weight.

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
and when you use the term "kilograms" you are only talking about mass

Mass is not weight MH-->i hope this is sinking in. The weight of an object on the moon-or any other planet or moon that dose not have a gravitational acceleration value of 9.8m/sec squared,is not the mass of that object.

Quote
You get it through your head that when you quote kilograms that it can be on Earth, on the moon, in orbit around the Earth, in orbit around the moon, or floating in space, it does not matter because kilograms are the same everywhere.

Yes-but KG's (weight) is not mass. And the weight of an object only represents it's mass here on earth,where as the weight of an object on the moon dose not represent it's mass.

Quote
Likewise, only at the very beginning of the discussion did I discuss "mass in pounds" and I never referred to it after that.  I have already explained why I did that just one single time.

Ah yes-just after i corrected you

Quote
Only in your head have I "posted data that could have multiple versions."  You need absorb what I am saying here and understand it completely.  If you can do that and then go back and reread what I have posted in this thread you will realize that I have been consistent in what I have been saying the whole time.

Yes-consistently wrong in assuming that mass is weight-which it is not. We know that weight(which is what you posted)is not an objects mass on the moon. So for your weights to be correct!!as measured on the moon!,it should be as follows
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.
Now we see that your ground thumper that makes pole rattle,causing flags to wave,dosnt sound so good now .

So try and describe either the astronaut and his suit's weight,or his mass MH,as the two are not the same.

Cheers