Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406986 > unrolled thread

Apollo 11

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 10:57 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:05 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 00:18 +0000
        Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:41 -0800
          Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 01:14 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:33 -0800
              Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:22 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:34 -0800
              Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:19 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 17:21 -0800
                  Re: Apollo 11 Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-30 12:33 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 16:46 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-28 12:48 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:16 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:04 +1100
      Re: Apollo 11 John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:08 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:24 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:34 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 07:36 +0100
      Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 03:20 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 20:16 +0100
          Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 12:07 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-02-01 06:24 +0100
          Re: Apollo 11 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 22:43 +0100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 12:05 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 15:27 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 15:40 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 12:37 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:18 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 15:58 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:18 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:22 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:42 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 12:13 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 10:01 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-01 12:14 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 14:51 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 12:24 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-02 12:11 +1100
      Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 21:35 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:05 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 15:39 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 11:37 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 09:40 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 15:22 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 11:52 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 11:55 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 11:44 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:25 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:49 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-05 12:07 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:16 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-06 08:35 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:49 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 10:58 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 13:32 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:49 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:13 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:34 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 11:11 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:53 +1100
      Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-12 11:09 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:52 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 11:01 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 11:42 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:21 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-12 12:00 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:44 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:51 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 13:43 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 10:23 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 09:54 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 14:26 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:49 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:52 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#407134

Am 29.01.2017 12:20, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 27.01.2017 19:57, schrieb numbernumber1964@gmail.com:
>>>
>>> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon. If the
>>> moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been first sent to
>>> the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon.
>
> They did, in 1966 through 1968:
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/
>
> But it was not necessary to land a probe first.  Apollo 8 and 10 went into
> orbit around the moon and returned to earth, so the mass of the moon was
> known from the characteristics of those orbits.
>
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html


Well. I have some doubts.

I have for instance once figured out, how much fuel is required for 
landing of the lunar lander 'Eagle' and how much the return ascend would 
require, to catch up with the orbiter.

My calculation showed, that the lander had enough fuel to decelerate 
from orbit velocity  to zero velocity in respect to the Moon and to 
safely sink with stop at zero sinking velocity at the surface.

But obviously the lander had to do the opposite, too. This would require 
ascent from the surface and acceleration to orbit velocity (to catch up 
with the orbiter).

Besides the formidable difficulty of this rendezvous in the middle of 
nowhere, it also required more fuel the ascent stage could carry.

That fuel was also necessary for the descent phase.

So, in my opinion, they could not do it with such a craft.

But if they have been on the Moon, they must have used something else:

the 'Haunebu' (for instance).


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407147

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 29.01.2017 12:20, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > But it was not necessary to land a probe first.  Apollo 8 and 10 went into
> > orbit around the moon and returned to earth, so the mass of the moon was
> > known from the characteristics of those orbits.
> >
> > http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html
> 
> 
> Well. I have some doubts.
> 
> I have for instance once figured out, how much fuel is required for 
> landing of the lunar lander 'Eagle' and how much the return ascend would 
> require, to catch up with the orbiter.
> 
> My calculation showed, that the lander had enough fuel to decelerate 
> from orbit velocity  to zero velocity in respect to the Moon and to 
> safely sink with stop at zero sinking velocity at the surface.

But you're not a rocket scientist, so your calculations are meaningless.

> But obviously the lander had to do the opposite, too. This would require 
> ascent from the surface and acceleration to orbit velocity (to catch up 
> with the orbiter).
> 
> Besides the formidable difficulty of this rendezvous in the middle of 
> nowhere, it also required more fuel the ascent stage could carry.
> 
> That fuel was also necessary for the descent phase.
> 
> So, in my opinion, they could not do it with such a craft.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed
opinion.  No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison

“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha

> But if they have been on the Moon, they must have used something else:
> 
> the 'Haunebu' (for instance).
> 
> 
> TH

Either they used a different fuel than you assumed, or your calculations
are baloney.  I bet on the latter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407467

Am 29.01.2017 21:07, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 29.01.2017 12:20, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>>>
>>> But it was not necessary to land a probe first.  Apollo 8 and 10 went into
>>> orbit around the moon and returned to earth, so the mass of the moon was
>>> known from the characteristics of those orbits.
>>>
>>> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html
>>
>>
>> Well. I have some doubts.
>>
>> I have for instance once figured out, how much fuel is required for
>> landing of the lunar lander 'Eagle' and how much the return ascend would
>> require, to catch up with the orbiter.
>>
>> My calculation showed, that the lander had enough fuel to decelerate
>> from orbit velocity  to zero velocity in respect to the Moon and to
>> safely sink with stop at zero sinking velocity at the surface.
>
> But you're not a rocket scientist, so your calculations are meaningless.

Tsiolkovsky's 'rocket equation' is not that difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

To find the correct data to plug into it, is actually a little tricky.


And I have only dim memories about the specific factors to use in case 
of the Apollo lander. And since I'm a little too lazy now, to search for 
such information, you can calculate it yourself (or whoever might be 
interested).

The lander was kind of two-staged rocket, where the decent used one 
stage and the other was for the ascent.

So the ascent stage was a one staged rocket and had to reach Moon's orbit.

Some extra fuel for additional changes of hight, velocity and direction 
was certainly needed, to catch up with the orbiter.

But about - say - 80 % of the fuel in the ascent stage could be used for 
ascent to orbit and acceleration to orbit velocity.

Since gravity is low on Moon, the ascent is relatively easy.

More challenging is the high orbit velocity, since inertia does not change.

But REALLY difficult was the required precision of all the maneuvers of 
that craft - literally on the dark side of the Moon..

There were no ground stations to assist and certainly nothing like GPS 
or similar.




TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407155

On 29.01.2017 20:16, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.01.2017 12:20, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>>> Am 27.01.2017 19:57, schrieb numbernumber1964@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon. If the
>>>> moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been first sent to
>>>> the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon.
>>
>> They did, in 1966 through 1968:
>>
>> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/
>>
>> But it was not necessary to land a probe first.  Apollo 8 and 10 went
>> into
>> orbit around the moon and returned to earth, so the mass of the moon was
>> known from the characteristics of those orbits.
>>
>> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html
>
>
> Well. I have some doubts.
>
> I have for instance once figured out, how much fuel is required for
> landing of the lunar lander 'Eagle' and how much the return ascend would
> require, to catch up with the orbiter.
>
> My calculation showed, that the lander had enough fuel to decelerate
> from orbit velocity  to zero velocity in respect to the Moon and to
> safely sink with stop at zero sinking velocity at the surface.
>
> But obviously the lander had to do the opposite, too. This would require
> ascent from the surface and acceleration to orbit velocity (to catch up
> with the orbiter).
>
> Besides the formidable difficulty of this rendezvous in the middle of
> nowhere, it also required more fuel the ascent stage could carry.
>
> That fuel was also necessary for the descent phase.
>
> So, in my opinion, they could not do it with such a craft.
>
> But if they have been on the Moon, they must have used something else:
>
> the 'Haunebu' (for instance).
>
>
> TH
>

Quite.
Of course they used a Haunebu running on free energy.
It is obviously much more plausible that they used
a flying saucer based on technology unknown to engineers
and physicists, than that they used spacecrafts based
on conventional technology known by NASA.
NASA must have hired a Haunabu from the secret organization
of Nazis at Area 52.

http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HAUNEBU.htm

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407145

You are in denial similar to the Barbie complex. Ask yourself is Maxwell's equations based on Faraday's induction law and is induction luminous. Then the CERN accelerator is comprised of a 27 km circumference vacuum tube that the proton beam propagates through but a magnet can only change the direction of the proton beam; consequently, it is questionable the purpose of the 27 km circumference CERN vacuum tube since the proton (hadron) beam cannot be accelerated while propagating through the  27 km circumference CERN vacuum tube. In gravitational physics, Weber detected gravity waves that have the frequency of 1662 Hz using the vibration of a 750 pound aluminum beam to justify the existence of gravity waves yet the vacuum of celestial space does not transmit sound nor does sound propagate at the velocity of light. Everything in physics is a Hoax yet you cannot see any of it because of your Barbie and Ken mental conditioning.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407159

The Apollo 11 mission lunar lander did not land on the moon. If the moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been initially sent to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon. NASA is using Newton's gravity equation to determine the mass and density of the moon but Newton's gravity equation is invalid since masses do not attract and Newton's gravity equation does not represent the planets orbiting the sun or the moon orbiting the earth. The moon has a radius of approximately one quarter of the earth's radius which would form a gravity at the surface of the moon of .25 g if the moon has the same density of the earth. The .25 g gravity would be beyond the fuel capacity of the lunar lander for a successful moon landing which is the reason that an initial probe would have been vital to determine the gravity of the moon. In the film that depicts the decent of the lunar lander to the surface of the moon, the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction yet the reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage. A thrust from the thruster located on the accent stage would cause the lunar lander to tip down ward which would result in the spin of the lander. The varying center of gravity of the lunar lander caused by the reduction of the fuel weight, during the decent, would making the lunar lander propagating in the horizontal direction highly unlikely. In the  film of the decent of the lunar lander there is no dust cloud caused by the primary thruster engine upon landing and the roar of the decent thruster rocket would be extremely loud (156 db) and not allow for the audio feed that is presented in the decent film. The close up photographs of the lunar lander's landing pads do not have any lunar particle matter on the landing pads that would be expected after the intense thrust of the primary engine disturbing the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon. The most important factor in disputing the moon landing is the photographs of the lunar lander do not show a blast crater that would be produced by the more than 2,000 pound thrust of the primary thruster during the decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. The surface of the moon does not contain an atmosphere. There is no moisture on the surface of the moon yet the photographs taken on the surface of the moon that represents an astronaut's boot print but to form a boot print of the lunar fine particle matter would require moisture to clump the lunar surface particular matter in the formation of a boot print. In the photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadow in the moon surface photographs are in different directions. The ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronaut were never on the surface of the moon since the extremely intricate pattern of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe from the surface of the moon and in an interview with the Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular view form the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars. The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the star question was asked. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his first initial interview that included the star question. The gravity of the moon .16 g is based on Newton's equations that is used to determine the mass and density of the moon but Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid since masses do not attract. Kepler (1619) proved that the planets that orbit the sun are propagating in an elliptical path (Kepler, p. 408). Newton's gravity equation that is physically invalid is used with Kepler's law to determine the mass and density of a planet but masses do not attract and Newton's equation cannot be applied to the moon orbiting the earth. Cavendish's experiment is used to justify Newton's gravity equation but Cavendish detected a gravitational force of 2 μg which is equivalent to the weight of a single dust particle but the weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg. Cavendish is measuring a force 1,000 times smaller than the weight (force) measurement uncertainty in 1797 which proves Cavendish's experiment is physically invalid. In an experiment, a 73 kg lead sphere is suspended using a thin titanium wire and place .3 mm from a larger lead sphere (15,008 kg). A laser is used to detect the change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere. As the 15,008 kg lead sphere is moved away (d = 2 m) from the smaller suspended lead sphere no measureable change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere is detected which Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. The lunar lander mission to the moon would verify Newton's gravity equation but the physical evidence contradicts NASA claim that the Apollo mission successfully landed on the moon. Furthermore, the total dry weight of the accent module is 4,187 lb and the fuel weight is 10,000 lb but if the moon gravity is .25 g the weight of the accent module would be comparable to 1300 lb being launch from the surface of the earth which would require approximately 20,000 lb of fuel which proves that the lunar lander mission is physically invalid since Newton gravity law is based on masses that do not attract and Newton's gravity equation does not apply to planets or the moon. The attraction of the planets to the sun that cause the rotation of the planets is caused by the velocity of the planets, the magnetic field and rotation of the planets. 





"we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. ............they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407164

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 4:27:15 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [regurgitated baloney]

Repeating lies does not make them true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407271

The Apollo 11 mission lunar lander did not land on the moon. If the lunar landing was performed, a test probe would have been initially sent to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon. The photograph of the Surveyor 3 probe does not include a blast crater formed by the 1000 lb thrust of the primary rocket engine that is used to land the Surveyor probe onto the surface of the moon which proves the photographs of the Surveyor probe are fake. NASA is using Newton's gravity equation to determine the mass and density of the moon to calculate the gravity (.16 g) of the moon but Newton's gravity equation does not represent charged or magnetic masses and therefore, Newton's gravity equation does not represent the earth orbiting the sun or the moon orbiting the earth. The moon has a radius of approximately one quarter of the earth's radius which would form a gravity at the surface of the moon of .25 g if the moon has the same density of the earth yet the Apollo lunar mission is based on a gravity of .16 g, using Newton's gravity. The .25 g gravity would be beyond the fuel capacity of the lunar lander for a successful moon landing which is the reason that an initial probe would have been vital to determine the gravity of the moon. In the film that depicts the decent of the lunar lander to the surface of the moon, the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction yet the reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage. A thrust from the thruster located on the accent stage would cause the lunar lander to tip down ward which would result in the spin of the lander. The varying center of gravity of the lunar lander caused by the reduction of the fuel weight, during the decent, would result in the lunar lander propagating in the horizontal direction highly unlikely. In the film of the decent of the lunar lander there is no dust cloud caused by the primary thruster engine upon landing and the roar of the decent thruster rocket would be extremely loud (156 db) and not allow for the audio feed that is presented in the Apollo lunar landing decent film. The close up photographs of the lunar lander's landing pads do not have any lunar particle matter on the landing pads that would be expected after the intense thrust of the primary engine disturbing the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon. The most important factor in disputing the moon landing is that the photographs of the lunar lander do not show a blast crater which would be produced by the more than 10,000 pound thrust of the primary thruster during the decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. Furthermore, the surface of the moon does not contain an atmosphere. Consequently, there is no moisture on the surface of the moon yet the photographs taken on the surface of the moon that represents an astronaut's boot print but to form a boot print of the lunar fine particle matter would require moisture to clump the lunar surface particular matter in the formation of a boot print. In the photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadow in the lunar surface photographs are in different directions. The ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronaut were never on the surface of the moon since the extremely intricate pattern of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken. Every hour the pattern of the stellar universe would shift which would be extremely difficult to reproduce if the lunar photographs where fake. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe from the surface of the moon and in an interview with the Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular view form the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars. The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the star question was asked. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his first initial interview that included the star question. The gravity (.16 g) of the moon is based on Newton's gravity equation that is used to determine the mass and density of the moon but Newton's gravity equation does not represent magnetic mass of the moon and earth. Kepler (1619) proved that the planets orbit the sun in an elliptical path (Kepler, p. 408). Newton's gravity equation is used with Kepler's law to determine the mass and density of a planet but Newton’s gravity equation cannot be applied to the earth and the moon that have a magnetic field; consequently, Newton's gravity equation cannot be applied to the moon orbiting the earth. In addition, Cavendish's experiment is used to justify Newton's gravity equation but Cavendish detected a gravitational force of 2 μg which is equivalent to the weight of a single dust particle but the weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg. Cavendish is measuring a force 1,000 times smaller than the weight (force) measurement uncertainty in 1797 which proves Cavendish's experiment, that is used to justify Newton's gravity equation, is physically invalid. In an experiment, a 73 kg lead sphere is suspended using a thin titanium wire and place .3 mm from a larger lead sphere (15,008 kg). A laser is used to detect the change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere. As the 15,008 kg lead sphere is moved away (d = 1 m) from the smaller suspended lead sphere no measureable change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere is detected which proves Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. The lunar lander mission to the moon would verify Newton's gravity equation but the physical evidence (films and photographs) contradict NASA's claim that the Apollo mission landed on the moon. Furthermore, the total dry weight of the lunar lander accent module is 4,187 lb and the fuel weight is 5560 lb but if the moon gravity is .25 g the weight of the accent module would be comparable to 1300 lb being launch from the surface of the earth. The TD-2 that has a payload weight of (~1,550 - 2,200 lbs) which would require 12,912 lb of fuel to launch out of earth's gravity which proves that the lunar lander mission is physically invalid if the gravity on the surface of the moon is .25 g. The attraction of the earth to the sun is caused by the velocity of the earth (67 Mach), the earth's magnetic field and rotation of the earth on its axis. The earth is propagating around the sun at Mach 67 which is more than three times the velocity of the fastest HTV-2 rocket that propagates with the velocity of Mach 20. Physics are ignoring the earth's yearly velocity on the affect on the formation of the gravity effect.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407294

On 31/01/2017 7:37 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The Apollo 11 mission lunar lander did not land on the moon. If the
> lunar landing was performed, a test probe would have been initially
> sent to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon. The
> photograph of the Surveyor 3 probe does not include a blast crater
>

I see - another post truth poster.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407291

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:57:11 AM UTC-8, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407293

Why is that relevant? 

Da....

_______________________________________


Cavendish was using lasers in 1797? 

One method that physicists used when their stuck in a box or in a hole or cornered is they like to play dumb but Sylvia you don't have to pretend do you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407295

On 31/01/2017 11:18 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is that relevant?
>
> Da....

Well, you apparently think it's relevant - explain why.


> _______________________________________
>
>
> Cavendish was using lasers in 1797?
>
> One method that physicists used when their stuck in a box or in a
> hole or cornered is they like to play dumb but Sylvia you don't have
> to pretend do you?
>

Ad hominem now?

Perhaps you're working your way through the list.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407297

Sylvia, here's an example, say that I asked you how old you were and you said you were 12 years old but when I asked you when you were born you said in 2010 which is the same as Cavendish detecting a gravitational force of 2 μg but the weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg. This may be an extremely hard principle to grasp but certainly even a person such as yourself that is a rocket scientist could come to terms that the weight of 1 mg is greater than 2 μg.  You are cornered and you cannot get out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407300

On 31/01/2017 11:42 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia, here's an example, say that I asked you how old you were and
> you said you were 12 years old but when I asked you when you were
> born you said in 2010 which is the same as Cavendish detecting a
> gravitational force of 2 μg but the weight measurement uncertainty in
> 1797 was 1 mg. This may be an extremely hard principle to grasp but
> certainly even a person such as yourself that is a rocket scientist
> could come to terms that the weight of 1 mg is greater than 2 μg.
> You are cornered and you cannot get out.
>

I've consistently asked why you think this is relevant.

I say it has no bearing on the Apollo 11 mission.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407382

Sylvia, the gravity of the moon is calculated using Newton's gravity equation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407445

On 1/02/2017 5:01 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia, the gravity of the moon is calculated using Newton's gravity equation.
>

That calculation requires the mass of the moon. How is the mass of the 
moon determined?

You'll find that if you replace the mass of the moon in the gravity 
calculation by the expression used to calculate the mass of the moon, 
then G cancels out.

So G does not actually appear in the calculations of the moon's gravity, 
and its value, whether accurate or not, is irrelevant.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407433

The Apollo 11 mission's lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon. A test probe was initially sent to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon yet the photograph of the Surveyor 3 lunar probe does not include a blast crater formed by the 1000 lb of thrust produced by the rocket engine that is used to land the Surveyor probe onto the surface of the moon. In addition, the Surveyor photographs show tire tread marks on the surface of the moon which proves the photographs of the Surveyor probe are fake. NASA is using Newton's gravity equation to determine the mass and density of the moon to calculate the gravity (.16 g) of the moon but Newton's gravity equation does not represent charged or magnetic masses and therefore, Newton's gravity equation does not represent the moon orbiting the earth since the earth and the moon are magnetic objects. In addition, Newton's gravity equation is invalid since two mass do not attract. The moon has a radius of approximately one quarter of the earth's radius which would form a gravity at the surface of the moon of .25 g if the moon has the same density of the earth yet the Apollo lunar mission is based on a gravity of .16 g, using Newton's gravity equation. The .25 g gravity of the moon would be beyond the fuel capacity of the lunar lander for a successful lunar landing. In the film that depicts the decent of the lunar lander to the surface of the moon, the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction yet the reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage. A thrust from the left or right control thruster located on the accent stage to produce the horizontal motion of the lander would cause the lunar lander to tip down ward which would result in the spin of the lander.  Also, the varying center of gravity of the lunar lander caused by the reduction of the fuel weight, during the decent, would make the lunar lander propagating in the horizontal direction highly unlikely. In the film of the decent of the lunar lander there is no particle matter cloud caused by the primary thruster engine upon landing and the roar of the decent thruster rocket would be extremely loud (156 db) and not allow for the audio feed that is presented in the Apollo lunar landing decent film. Plus, the close up photographs of the lunar lander's landing pads do not have any lunar particle matter on the landing pads that would be expected after the intense thrust of the primary engine disturbing the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon. The most important factor in disputing the moon landing is that the photographs of the lunar lander do not show a blast crater which would be produced by the more than 10,000 pound thrust of the primary thruster during the decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. It appears that the lunar lander photographs were staged. Furthermore, the surface of the moon does not contain an atmosphere. Consequently, there is no moisture on the surface of the moon yet the photographs taken on the surface of the moon that represents an astronaut's boot print but to form a boot print of the lunar fine particle matter would require moisture to clump the lunar surface particular matter in the formation of a boot print. Example, when sand is completely dried, the dried sand cannot produce a boot print or a tire tread.  In the photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadows in the lunar surface photographs are in different directions. The ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronauts were never on the surface of the moon since the extremely intricate and exact pattern of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken. Every hour the pattern of the stellar universe would shift which would be extremely difficult to reproduce if the lunar landing photographs are fakes. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe from the surface of the moon and in a camera interview with the Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular view form the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars. NASA justifies the absents of star in the Apollo photographs using the explanation that the extremely high intensity of light on the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo photographs but the Apollo photographs that include the stellar universe represents the celestial universe as black which would result in the formation of images of stars in the photographs of the Apollo mission on the surface of the moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the star question was asked. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his first initial interview that included the star question. The gravity (.16 g) of the moon is based on Newton's gravity equation that is used to determine the mass and density of the moon but Newton's gravity equation does not represent magnetic mass of the moon and earth nor do like masses attract. Kepler (1619) proved that the planets orbit the sun in an elliptical path (Kepler, p. 408). Newton's gravity equation is used with Kepler's law to determine the mass and density of the moon but Newton’s gravity equation cannot be applied to the earth and the moon that have a magnetic field nor do like masses attract; consequently, Newton's gravity equation cannot be applied to the moon orbiting the earth. In addition, Cavendish's experiment is used to justify Newton's gravity equation but Cavendish detected a gravitational force of 2 μg which is equivalent to the weight of a single dust particle but the weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg. Cavendish is measuring a force 1,000 times smaller than the weight (force) measurement uncertainty in 1797 which proves Cavendish's experiment, that is used to justify Newton's gravity equation, is physically invalid. In an experiment, a 73 kg lead sphere is suspended using a thin titanium wire and place .3 mm from a larger lead sphere (15,008 kg). A laser is used to detect the change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere. As the 15,008 kg lead sphere is moved away (d = 1 m) from the smaller suspended lead sphere no measureable change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere is detected which proves Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. The lunar lander mission to the moon would verify Newton's gravity equation but the physical evidence (films and photographs) contradict NASA's claim that the Apollo mission landed on the moon. In addition, the total weight of the lunar lander is 33,083 lbs , using the moon gravity of .16 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to launching a 5293 lb payload into the earth's orbit; consequently, to descend the lunar lander with a weight of 33,083 lbs to the surface of the moon that has a gravity of .16 g would required 26,000 lbs of fuel yet the lunar lander decent stage contains approximately 10,000 lbs of fuel which represents 2,500 gallons that would be greater than the total volume of the fuel tanks of the decent stage of the lunar lander which proves the Apollo 11 mission was a hoax .Furthermore, the total weight of the lunar lander accent module is 10,300 lb and the fuel weight is 5560 lb but if the moon gravity is .16 g the weight of the accent module would be comparable to 1648 lb being launch from the surface of the earth. The TD-2 that has a payload weight of (~1,550 - 2,200 lbs) which would require 12,912 lbs of fuel to launch out of earth's gravity. Conversely, it would require 13,000 lbs of fuel for the accent lunar module to reach the orbital distance of the moon yet the accent module contains 5560 lb of fuel which proves that the lunar lander mission is physically invalid since each fuel tank of the Apollo lunar lander has approximately 1000 gallon capacity. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407522

Sylvia,

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/37-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-and-the-earth/28-how-do-we-know-the-mass-of-the-earth-and-the-moon-advanced

Once you know Fgrav/m, G, and R, you can rearrange equation (1):

M = (R2)*Fgrav / G*m

where M is the mass of the Earth, and plug in the numbers.

If you did not know G beforehand, you would need to determine it experimentally. The simplest way to do this is through the Cavendish experiment, in which a torsion balance is used to measure the attraction between pairs of lead weights. It actually works, too!

The Moon is a much trickier problem. The trouble is, that since in both equations (1) and (2) m appears in the same relation to F, it's not possible to use just those two equations to solve for m (the body being accelerated. Try it! The acceleration just doesn't depend on the mass of the accelerated body.). You can estimate it roughly by assuming that the Moon is just as dense as the Earth and then scaling the mass of the Earth down to the volume of the Moon:

Mmoon ~ (Vmoon/Vearth)*Mearth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407542

On 2/02/2017 7:24 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/37-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-and-the-earth/28-how-do-we-know-the-mass-of-the-earth-and-the-moon-advanced
>
>  Once you know Fgrav/m, G, and R, you can rearrange equation (1):
>
> M = (R2)*Fgrav / G*m
>
> where M is the mass of the Earth, and plug in the numbers.
>
> If you did not know G beforehand, you would need to determine it
> experimentally. The simplest way to do this is through the Cavendish
> experiment, in which a torsion balance is used to measure the
> attraction between pairs of lead weights. It actually works, too!
>
> The Moon is a much trickier problem. The trouble is, that since in
> both equations (1) and (2) m appears in the same relation to F, it's
> not possible to use just those two equations to solve for m (the body
> being accelerated. Try it! The acceleration just doesn't depend on
> the mass of the accelerated body.). You can estimate it roughly by
> assuming that the Moon is just as dense as the Earth and then scaling
> the mass of the Earth down to the volume of the Moon:
>
> Mmoon ~ (Vmoon/Vearth)*Mearth
>

Some things really shouldn't have to be explained in detail.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter

Using the definitions of r1 and a, as given there, and taking me to be 
the mass of the Earth, and mm the mass of the Moon, we have

r1 = a / (1 + me/mm)

1 + me / mm = a / r1

me / mm = a / r1 - 1

Since we know a and r1, that gives us the ratio between me and mm, even 
though it doesn't tell us what me and mm are. Let that ratio be K. We have

me / mm = K

mm = me / K

The acceleration towards the Earth or a small mass in terms of the 
gravitational constant G, and some orbital distance r is

me * G / r^2

Since we can directly measure the acceleration of a satellite in orbit 
around the Earth, we can calculate the value of me * G, even though it 
doesn't tell us what either me or G are.

The acceleration towards the Moon in terms of the gravitational constant 
G, and some orbital distance r is

mm * G / r^2

But mm = me / K

so mm * G = me * G / K.

So the acceleration towards the Moon is

me * G / K / r^2.

Since we know what me * G is, what K is and what r^2 is, we can 
calculate the acceleration towards the Moon without ever knowing the 
values of either mm, me or G.

Your entire thesis is thus based on the false premise that we need to 
have an accurate value for G to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft 
near the Moon.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407558

numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Sylvia,
> 
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/37-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-and-the-earth/28-how-do-we-know-the-mass-of-the-earth-and-the-moon-advanced
> 
> Once you know Fgrav/m, G, and R, you can rearrange equation (1):
> 
> M = (R2)*Fgrav / G*m
> 
> where M is the mass of the Earth, and plug in the numbers.
> 
> If you did not know G beforehand, you would need to determine it experimentally. The simplest way to do this is through the Cavendish experiment, in which a torsion balance is used to measure the attraction between pairs of lead weights. It actually works, too!
> 
> The Moon is a much trickier problem. The trouble is, that since in both equations (1) and (2) m appears in the same relation to F, it's not possible to use just those two equations to solve for m (the body being accelerated. Try it! The acceleration just doesn't depend on the mass of the accelerated body.). You can estimate it roughly by assuming that the Moon is just as dense as the Earth and then scaling the mass of the Earth down to the volume of the Moon:
> 
> Mmoon ~ (Vmoon/Vearth)*Mearth


"the Moon is just as dense as the Earth"????


i heard somewhere that when they landed on the moon it made the sound of
a bell...
like if it was hollow or something..

but i don't know if it is true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web