THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - MOON LANDINGS -> Lunar landings? | Start A New Topic | Reply |

Post Info | TOPIC: Lunar landings? |

Posted By: Bill CooperPosted On: Aug 13, 2006Views: 2200 | Lunar landings?At the end of the day I can look intelligent only because it is a relative term. The more people who do not believe the moon landings occured the happier and more intelligent I am. Like the Author I too watched it and at 15yrs old. And to date the ONLY evidence I have that the whole thing was faked is the hammer and feather issue. Everybody knows the hammer would hit the deck first even without an atmosphere - look closely at the maths, simply put Gravitational pull is proportional to the product of their masses...... No matter how much I slow down the video tape the Fakers missed it! |

Posted By: andrew meyerPosted On: Aug 13, 2006Views: 2197 | RE: Lunar landings?Didn't do to well in Physics did you. On earth the accleration due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/s^2 no matter what the mass is. So all things acelerate to the ground at the same rate, no matter if it weighs 2 lbs or 22 lbs. |

Posted By: Bill CooperPosted On: Aug 14, 2006Views: 2194 | RE: Lunar landings?Look a bit more closely at the formula. They appear to fall at the same rate simply because the mass product of moon and hammer is almost (but definately NOT) the same as the Moon and feather product. It is incorrect to say that they will 'fall' at the same rate, It is correct to say they will 'fall' at similar rates. |

Posted By: Keith MayesPosted On: Aug 14, 2006Views: 2185 | RE: Lunar landings?Amazing! How wrong can you be? Isaac Newton demonstrated how objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass and you come along and say he was wrong! Einstein, and every scientist and school kid on the planet knows Newton was right. I am incredulous. Go back to school and try again. |

Posted By: Bill CooperPosted On: Aug 15, 2006Views: 2182 | RE: RE: Lunar landings?Keith, Well it's like this the correct formula is: F = g (m1 * m2)/ r2 Now m1 and m2 are the respective mass's of the the two objects, in this case moon and hammer or moon and feather. r2 is the radius (distance) squared. THis does NOT suggest to any mathematician that gravity is independant of (either) m1 or m2. What has been said since is that when the mass ratio of the two objects is so high the mass of the smaller object may be ignored for all practical purposes and this is done for schoolboys. For engineers it's different, more precise like pi is 22/7 to schoolboys. The difference is that if you and I were to plot individually the course of sending a 100Kg probe to Aldabaran mine would have a 10% chance of achieving a sustained orbit - Yours would miss orbit by a factor of upto 236AU. I am always open to be corrected - But please do it with a proof NOT 'every schoolboy knows' That sounds very much like the comment a mooon hoax believer might make! Rgds, BC |

Posted By: Bill CooperPosted On: Aug 15, 2006Views: 2178 | RE: Lunar landings?Addenda, I just know you will all come back and say "Ah but A=F/M therefore the smaller mass can cancel resulting in A=GM/r^2 and this is indeed true BUT you now need to consider the gravitational pull put upon the earth by the feather - ie as the feather has mass it to has a gravitational pull upon the earth, the earth will move towards the feather as well as the feather towards the earth - The resultant equation for the 'closing' or sum acceleration is therefore given as A = (Gm1/r^2)+(Gm2/r^2) and there you have it. Consider if the mass of the hammer were say equal to the mass of the sun then the hammer would 'fall' toward the earth at around 9.81 M/s whilst at the same time the earth would 'fall' toward the hammer at a considerably greater rate. What Newton said was correct It's what he didn't say that's the fascinating part! |

Posted By: Keith MayesPosted On: Aug 15, 2006Views: 2163 | RE: Lunar landings?So you are saying that the hammer and the feather should have fallen at the same rate on the moon? Is that it? Or that they did but shouldn't have? |

Posted By: Bill CooperPosted On: Aug 16, 2006Views: 2159 | RE: Lunar landings?If dropped individually they would have moved toward the moon BOTH at the same rate. But the moon would have moved toward them at a different rate. When dropped together they would have would have moved towards the moon again at the same rate BUT in this case, the moon would have moved at a rate determined by the pull of the combined mass of both objects. However the hammer would still have hit first - puzzled? it's like this if the moon were a perfect sphere it would have moved toward the hammer in almost a direct line causing the feather to land further around the circumference. Consider dropping two marbles onto an orange with one of the marbles landing on the very tip of the orange, the second would land further around the circumference and therefore land after the other. My whole point in this is NOT everybody who seems at first to be a crackpot should be so easily dismissed, and that had newton put the whole story into his paper ie the earth will move toward the hammer he would have been dismissed - Einstein did the same with his two relativity theories. As a further point Einstein did NOT agree with newton on his gravitational laws. Newton put forward a theory which 'appeared' to expain the phenomina of 'falling' which in his time was brilliant Einstein replaced this theory with a completely different one. We simply use Newton's theory today because it is much simpler and does not fail until we approach the speed of light. My initial note was to say the least tongue in cheek but neverless very accurate - The actual difference ?? I have not worked it out as my calculator has only 12 significant digits and the difference would be lost. Now have I convinced you the hammer would hit first? |

Posted By: bill cooperPosted On: Aug 16, 2006Views: 2157 | RE: RE: Lunar landings?Addenda, Here's the mathematical proof (of the different rates of closing speed if dropped individually) for the hammer: Ah = G(Mm + Mh)/r^2 for the feather: Af = G(Mm + Mf)/r^2 Difference: Ad = Ah - Af SO the whole thing becomes: Ad = G(Mh - Mf)/r^2 (since +Mm-Mm cancels) Assume mass of hammer (Mh) = 10.001 Kg and Mass of Feather (Mf) = 0.0001 Kg r (radius of moon + drop height) = 1737450 metres, and G = 6.672 * 10^-11 Now multiply it all out gives a Difference in acceleration of 2.21 * 10^-22 (to 3 figures) Metres/second/second between the hammer and feather. The second part (ie if dropped together) is pure pi. I am not about to turn and say "Now I'll disprove the lunar landings" and you are welcome to use my input for your next book or paper, (of which I'd like a gratis copy if you do) it will at least show that you are willing to alter your views in the light of further study (if that proves to be the case). As to the moon landings I have no doubt whatever they took place - As the lead engineer in a small team I was responsible for the design of a small part of the Space Shuttle Project (a non-orbital part) - subsequently used also to increase rail safety. I have never seen/heard or discovered in 30 years any remotely credible evidence of a conspiracy. NOw I'm going back to designing and builing my radio telescope. Thanks for the chat! |

Posted By: BIll CooperPosted On: Aug 17, 2006Views: 2143 | RE: Lunar landings?Hmm, Still no input from Keith, either checking up, unwilling to admit defeat or on holiday.... |

Posted By: Keith MayesPosted On: Aug 19, 2006Views: 2135 | RE: Lunar landings?Sorry about the huge two day delay, I have had other things to do, other messages on other boards to reply to and emails to reply to. On top of that I have a life to live. Sorry. To clarify. You said that the only thing you could find wrong with the moon landings was the experiment dropping the hammer and feather. You said that no matter how much you slowed down the video you could see they landed at the same time, therefore it was false. I responded by saying that they would in fact hit the surface at the same time. You went on to say that they should hit at different times and gave a formula to prove it. If you wish to be pedantic you could argue that theoretically they would land at different times. This is explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. Fair enough, that is correct and I have no argument with that. However, and this is my point, you could neither see nor measure the difference, it is so theoretically small it would be totally impossible to detect by any known means. As a matter of passing interest the hammer will strike the ground first by the order of a few hundreths of a billionth of a trillionth of a second. That is my point. The difference cannot be measured, every test taken will show that the objects hit at precisely the same moment. The difference, if it exists, is completely undetectable and purely theoretical. Your statement that you were unable to spot the hammer landing first, therefore it must be fake, is rather silly seen in this light. However, I am aware that you are NOT a hoax believer and only raised the matter for debate, and it is an interesting one. Thanks for your input. |

Posted By: Bill CooperPosted On: Aug 19, 2006Views: 2125 | RE: Lunar landings?It was said tongue in cheek, since (US) TV pictures are 30FPS slowing down the tape would not show anything anyway, it was a dig at the hoax believers in that it is just the sort of 'crap' like argument they would use, ie no foundation in fact (seeing the difference on TV that is). It is the discovery of anomaly that leads to the improvement in our science, e.g. the apparent 'loop' in the orbit of the outer planets as seen with the eye. leading to the sun being elevated to the centre of the planets. Einstein's proof that Newton was not quite correct was based on a margin of error of magnitude similar to the one I describe between the hammer and feather. You will no doubt know that using Keplar and Newton combined does not explain the Mercury anomaly whereas Einstein's equations at least get close - which to me means Einstein may in turn be proven incorrect. B.C. |

Posted By: Keith MayesPosted On: Aug 19, 2006Views: 2123 | RE: Lunar landings?I think it a bit harsh to say that Einstein may be shown to be wrong, and history shows us why. Newton was close enough for his time. His calculations were accurate to within the limits of detection of the times thus were 'correct'. Same with Einstein. As you say, the orbit of Mercury was at odds with Newton's calculations but Einstein came along and all was well again. It may well be that at even further extremes flaws will begin to appear in Einstein's theory, and some say they already have. This may require some refinement to the equations, or like the quantum leap from Newton to Einstein perhaps an entirely new theory will arise. Thus is science. We can never know when we have got it right. |

Posted By: Bill CooperPosted On: Aug 19, 2006Views: 2121 | RE: Lunar landings?Einsteins calculations do not totally account for the Mercury Anomaly. His predictions come close to, but not exactly the star shift at the eclipse. I guess what I am saying is that Formula, hypothesis, and mathematics do NOT appear naturally in nature, they are merely man's attempts to describe his environment. Think of the example of pi there are countless formulae some are totally different to others to calculate it, just so with the universe there may be many possible formula, some close some not so close. Take eggs in a box, you could weigh the box and knowing the weight of an individual egg calculate the total quantity, ie N = W/E (not competely accurate - Newton) or you could do a rows, columns N=xy (better Einstein)or even how long it took to fill the box, or number of eggs in (the packing plant) to number of boxes out. Maybe not the best example but you get the gist. SO yes at present Einstein seems the closest, his hypothesis may last as long as Newton's - I have no idea, I just think there is a good chance it will not last forever - something you and I will never know. It is a belief I hold. I've now had the chance to visit much of your site, and compliment and agree with much you have written - Now remember all while your mind is open, old things can go out, new things can come in! (I see re-reading the last line it looks rather patronising, it was however intended as a compliment). |

Posted By: benPosted On: Sep 19, 2006Views: 2084 | RE: Lunar landings?mmm you should realy do phisics.... the only reason that lighter things fall slower is due to (in simple terms) wind resistance and terminal velocity (due to wind resistance) for which there is none on the moon i dont think that we did go to the moon and sure it will be hard to thell unless u go there yourself and see the evidence but i think that NASA had the funding and the motive to fake it... thnk of haw much mony they had!!! |

Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page -> |

Theories with Problems