1/6 Gravity on The Moon -Astronaut's Jumps Should Be Faster up, Then Slowly Down -Apollo Video Always Shows Slower up & Down

26 miles is ALOT different than the 3 miles you stated. Get your shilling facts strait, please.

DO THE MATH!!!!

The average radius of the Earth is 20,902,231ft. The radius of the Earth plus six feet (the eye-height I gave as an example) is 20,902,237ft. Remember the Pythagorean Theorem? A squared plus B squared equals C squared? So, 20,902,231 squared is 436,903,260,777,361ft. 20,902,237 squared is 436,903,511,604,169ft. 436,903,511,604,169-436,903,260,777,361=250,826,808ft. The square root of 250,826,808 is 15,837.5 feet, which is 2.99 miles. That's without factoring in atmospheric refraction.

Wearing a 180 lb space suit and not being able to bend your legs very much because of the space suit. Not high at all.

Look at how much the astronaut bent his leg. Try bending your leg to match and jump; see how high you go. It isn't going to be 30-40 centimeters.

Physics tells us that the velocity just after the jump would be the same as the velocity just before he lands. The time going up is the same as the time coming down. It is conservation of energy and assuming negligible air resistance.

Which videos are you looking at? This one shows the dust going well over the head of the astronaut sitting in the rover:

[link to www.youtube.com]

If they are on they moon in the picture, why is the flag waving like it has wind blowing it? Doesn't it take atmosphere to have wind?

My father was a turret gunner in World War II, and you can bet he did not "horse around" when German fighters were sighted.

Not the glossy full-color photos. They were basically an afterthought, made when NASA was confident that its lie had "won."

What independent evidence do you have that the space suit was actually 180 lb? I don't mean press releases from NASA, or sources who are directly or indirectly quoting NASA, but rather a truly independent researcher who was given access to an actual Apollo space suit, examined its contents, and weighed it?

If no one can find independent evidence of the 180-lb number, we must suspect that the "lunar" space suit weighed no more than the space suit used on earth for practice and simulation, which was probably only about 60 lb.

Distance on earth is perceived by atmospheric occlusion. The further away an object is, the more "stuff" is in the atmosphere for light to scatter off of. Same thing on Mars.

The moon has no atmosphere, therefore a mountain can be 10 miles away and it will look like it's just a hill across the street.

hope that helps.

It's called kinetics.

Careful experimentation reveals that the lunar rover was on the earth's surface when the vehicle was filmed roaming about.

Take a break already yes? google stanley kubrick, he was instrumental in making the forgeries that haunted him for the remainder of his life. specially developed wide angle lenses worth half a million a piece I believe where mounted in the camera's to make the footage seem as realistic as possible. As a gift he later was given one of those lenses which he used to make the film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). don't believe me? try your search engine and do the math



Last Edited by modestly_genius on 05/05/2010 03:18 AM

Dude, the horizon in most of the Apollo photos is too close at an apparent distance measured in feet, not miles or even kilometers, it's that simple. Nomatter how you explain it away. And another thing, isnt that mountain range we always see in the background eroded by geological processes, and why is there one exactly like it in Hawaii?
Why does the lunar surface appear the same color as it does form the earths surface , on the the moon itself/ Why is there no color in the photos other than the artificial materials?

With no air, there's nothing but internal friction within the flag and pole themselves to stop it once it's set in motion.

And I'm pretty sure the astronauts would've been all business if one of them developed a suit leak, or hostile aliens started pouring out of a sublunar base.

That would be like successfully getting people to the moon, but having forgotten to put a rocket motor on the LM's ascent stage.

No, it's eroded by micrometeorites.



Watch the videos. The regolith around this crater is several different colors.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Actually, from a psychological point of view it makes sense for them to be horsing around in a high pressure situation, because it takes their minds off the fact that they could die any second.

The flag "waved" for a long time after it was planted because of inertia. There was no air to cause the flag to stop waving. Remember Newton's second law, a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an external, unbalanced, force. The air provides the frictional force to flag waving and that is why they stop. On Moon the only friction was where the flag attached to the pole and it took a while for that to damp out.

The most importat part of you statement is apparent distance. You have absoluetely no frame of reference on which to base distance. Nothing familar. So your mind plays tricks and tries to interpret a two-dimensional image into a three-dimensional space and fails. Eyes are easily fooled that is why magic and television work so well.

The flag doesn't wave at all unless the astronauts are touching it.

No. In the absence of friction (a fair assumption on earth, an even better one on the moon) the astronaut will come down at the same speed he goes up.

The astronaut did not jump with much force for whatever reason. Maybe he was afraid of going off balance because of his heavy backpack or the unfamiliar environment.

The thing to do is to see how long it took him to jump that high.

h = (1/2) g t^2 so

t = sqrt (2 h / g)

That's the time from ground to top, or top back down to ground. Double it for the total jump time.

Note that t goes as sqrt(1/g). Moon gravity is 1/6 of earth's, so the jump time on the moon should be sqrt(6) times as long, or about 2.5 times as long, for a given height. And that's about what we observe.

This video actually provides evidence that they WERE on the moon.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Okay. Put on a 60lb suit, bend your legs as much as the astronaut did and see how high you can jump.

Conspiracy theorists will not like this post, but I'll try anyway.


Two questions: Why do the astronauts seem to jump slower, and, why do they fall slower.


1. During the jump we've all seen, the astronaut is carrying far more equipment than any of us do when on earth. He has close to twice his mass (notice I did not say he weighed twice as much). To accelerate something requires a force. In this case the force comes from his legs, and for the sake of argument let's assume he can generate the same force on the moon as he can on the earth, since only a few days have passed since he was on the earth. So, the force is constant, but, the astronaut has about twice the mass.

So, F = ma, or a = F/m, therefore the extra mass has limited the acceleration to about 1/2 the acceleration he can generate on the earth.

Since he accelerates over the same distance (bent legs to straightened legs), his initial vertical velocity will be less. The statement in the original message that says he would be jumping at a lot faster speed would only be true if he somehow reduced his mass on the moon.

Once he leaves the ground, with this slower velocity, the force of gravity of the moon will attempt to bring him back down. But that force is about 1/6th that of the earth. So the speed at which he stops moving up and starts moving down will me slower. Hence, the 'slow motion' effect.

The main point is that it is mass that counts for acceleration, not weight. This explains the slower jump speed. However, even with a slower jump velocity, he can typically get a little higher elevation because of the reduced gravity.

RDM

Moon Hoax Apollo 16 : Lunar Rover Engine Muffler Noise is Heard in The Nevada Fake Moon Bay

I see this thought experiment all the time and the premise is incorrect. Planets have many billions of times more mass than either a 33 or a 250 pound weight, and for all practical purposes they fall at the same rate. For the purposes of normal problems that will come up, objects no matter the mass fall at the same rate of acceleration on a given planet.

But not exactly!

The 250 pound weight actually DOES fall slightly faster than a 33 pound weight, because the force of gravity is actually a compounded force of gravity between two masses. In other words although it is an extremely small force, a 33 pound mass has a gravity field as does a 250 pound mass, all mass produces gravity, and this gravity acts on the larger mass.

The force is so small as to be immeasurable for all intents and purposes.

To understand what I am trying to say, imagine two planets accelerating towards each other as a result of gravitational attraction. It is easy to see in this example that the gravity of both planets is involved in this acceleration.

It is no different with smaller masses, it's just that the force is so small that it's not normally necessary to consider. the acceleration due to gravity on a planet IS NOT actually a constant value, and if you've got a mass that is fairly large in proportion to the planet (like for instance a 1.0 X 10^9 kg asteroid would be accelerated measurably faster than a 1.0 x 10^5 kg asteroid by Earth gravity.