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

#407561

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:35:49 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-350/ch-12-3.html

The entire Moon rang like a gong, vibrating and resonating for almost on hour after the impact. The best guess was that the Moon was composed of rubble a lot deeper below its surface than anybody had assumed. The internal structure, being fractured instead of a solid mass, could bounce the seismic energy from piece to piece for quite a while. 

The same phenomenon was observed at two ALSEP stations when the Apollo 14 crew jettisoned their lunar module Antares and programmed it to crash between the Apollo 12 and 14 sites. 

With every mission after Apollo 12, additional seismic calibrations were obtained by aiming the Saturn S-IVB stage to impact a selected point on the Moon after separation from the spacecraft. The seismic vibrations from these impacts lasted about three hours.

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

#407536

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/moon/5Page19.pdf


This NASA site uses a method to measure the mass of the moon using G.

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

#407624

Sylvia,



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


This derivation requires the mass of the earth which is derived using F = ma and F = G m1m2/r^2. Hence, the value of G is required in determining the gravity .16 g on the surface of the moon.

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

#407636

On 3/02/2017 6:37 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Sylvia,
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
>
>
> This derivation requires the mass of the earth which is derived using
> F = ma and F = G m1m2/r^2. Hence, the value of G is required in
> determining the gravity .16 g on the surface of the moon.
>
>
>

The equation relates the barycentre to the ratio of the masses. If you 
know the ration of the masses you can calculate the barycentre.

But if you know the barycentre already, from astronomical observations, 
then you can use it to calculate the ratio of the masses. As I've shown, 
once you have that ratio, you can use it to calculate the trajectory of 
objects near the moon.

Your assertion that the value of G is required is false.

Sylvia.

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

#407641

Sylvia, 

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


The barycenter is one of the foci of the elliptical orbit of each body. This is an important concept in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics. If a is the distance between the centers of the two bodies (the semi-major axis of the system), r1 is the semi-major axis of the primary's orbit around the barycenter, and r2 = a − r1 is the semi-major axis of the secondary's orbit. When the barycenter is located within the more massive body, that body will appear to "wobble" rather than to follow a discernible orbit. In a simple two-body case, r1, the distance from the center of the primary to the barycenter is given by:

r1   = a ⋅ (m2 /(m1   + m2) = a /(1 + m1 m2)    
    
where :

r1 is the distance from body 1 to the barycentera is the distance between the centers of the two bodiesm1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies.

____________________________________________________________


It looks to me that the barycenter method requires the mass of the earth.

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

#407654

On 3/02/2017 10:22 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
>
>
> The barycenter is one of the foci of the elliptical orbit of each
> body. This is an important concept in the fields of astronomy and
> astrophysics. If a is the distance between the centers of the two
> bodies (the semi-major axis of the system), r1 is the semi-major axis
> of the primary's orbit around the barycenter, and r2 = a − r1 is the
> semi-major axis of the secondary's orbit. When the barycenter is
> located within the more massive body, that body will appear to
> "wobble" rather than to follow a discernible orbit. In a simple
> two-body case, r1, the distance from the center of the primary to the
> barycenter is given by:
>
> r1   = a ⋅ (m2 /(m1   + m2) = a /(1 + m1 m2)
>
> where :
>
> r1 is the distance from body 1 to the barycentera is the distance
> between the centers of the two bodiesm1 and m2 are the masses of the
> two bodies.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
> It looks to me that the barycenter method requires the mass of the
> earth.
>
>
You've omitted a division sign.

r1 = a / (1 + m1/m2)

The value of r1 can be determined separately, by means of astronomical 
observations. So we get a value for r1 independently of this equation.

Then we can rearrange that equation to give m1/m2 in terms of r1, as I 
showed previously.

As I've also shown previously, knowing m1/m2 for the Earth and Moon 
pair, together with the acceleration due to gravity near the Earth (or 
indeed, at its surface), is enough to determine the acceleration of 
objects nears to the Moon without any reference to G.

This is really basic algebra, and I do not understand your persistence 
with the view that the value of G is required, beyond that conceding 
this point undermines your original claim regarding Apollo 11.

Do you actually understand the math at all?

Sylvia.

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

#407741

Sylvia,


"knowing m1/m2 for the Earth and Moon 
pair,"


In the derivation of the earth's mass using F = ma and F = G m1 m2/r^2 requires the use of Newton's constant G that was obtained using Cavendish's experiment 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 derive Newton's gravity constant G, is physically invalid. Example, in 2017, if a child said that she/he was 13 years old but also stated that she/he was born in 2010 is analogous to Cavendish measuring a gravitational force of 2 μg that is less than the 1797 measurement uncertainty of 1 mg.


Ben

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

#407785

On 4/02/2017 6:55 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
>
> "knowing m1/m2 for the Earth and Moon pair,"
>
>
> In the derivation of the earth's mass using F = ma and F = G m1
> m2/r^2 requires the use of Newton's constant G that was obtained
> using Cavendish's experiment 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 derive Newton's gravity constant G, is
> physically invalid. Example, in 2017, if a child said that she/he was
> 13 years old but also stated that she/he was born in 2010 is
> analogous to Cavendish measuring a gravitational force of 2 μg that
> is less than the 1797 measurement uncertainty of 1 mg.
>
>
> Ben
>

You keep coming back to this need for the constant G despite the fact 
that I've shown you how m1/m2 for the Earth Moon pair can be derived 
without reference to the constant.

I can only conclude that you have no understanding of the math at all.

Your repeated postings have all the hallmarks of the musings of a crank.

Sylvia.

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

#407779

The Apollo 11 mission's lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon. A lunar Surveyor 3  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 the rover tire tread marks on the surface of the moon which proves the photographs of the Surveyor probe are fake since the surface of the moon lacks an atmosphere required in producing the moisture that forms tire tread marks of the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon. NASA is using Newton's gravity equation to determine the mass earth that is used to determine the mass of the moon using the Barycenter method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter to calculate the density of the moon which resulted in the moon gravity of .16 g but Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid since like masses do not attract. Cavendish's experiment is used to derive Newton's constant G but Cavendish's experiment is physically invalid. If the moon has the same density of 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. NASA's gravity of .16 g at the surface of the moon is based on the moon that has the density of one third the density of the earth yet the moon rocks have similar densities as rocks found on the surface of the earth. The NASA's lunar gravity of .16 g was arbitrarily calculated using Newton's physically invalid gravity equation since Newton's gravity equation is based on Cavendish's experiment that measured experimental force that is 1000 times less than the weight (force) measurement uncertainty in 1797. Nonetheless, the .25 g or .16 g gravities at the surface of the moon would be beyond the fuel capacity of the lunar lander for a successful lunar landing which proves the Apollo missions to the surface of the moon were faked. 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 right control thruster to produce the horizontal motion of the lander would cause the lunar lander to tip down ward and result in the spin of the lunar 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 smoke cloud caused by the primary thruster engine upon landing on the surface of the moon and the roar of the decent primary 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 (more than 2000 lbs) of the primary engine disturbing the one half inch deep of fine particle matter on the surface of the moon during the lunar landing. The most important factor in disputing the Apollo lunar landing is that the photographs of the lunar lander do not show a blast crater which 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. 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 represent a one half inch deep 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. Also, 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 were fakes. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe from the surface of the moon and in an on camera interview with the Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong, after the Apollo 11 mission, 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 from 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 all of the Apollo photographs, taken at different times, that include the stellar universe represents the celestial universe as black which would result in the formation of images of stars in the lunar photographs of the Apollo mission yet none of the Apollo photographs show stars. A black celestial universe would result in the formation of illuminating stars in a photograph of the stellar universe. The Apollo ll mission astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the question regarding the absents of the stars of the celestial universe was asked. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his first initial interview that included the question regarding why no stars appear in any of the Apollo photographs. The gravity (.16 g) of the moon is based on Newton's gravity equation that is used to determine the mass of the earth that is subsequently used to calculate the mass of the moon but Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid since Cavendish's experiment is used to determine the value of the constant G of 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 derive Newton's gravity constant G, is physically invalid. Example, in 2017, if a child said that she was 13 years old but also stated that she was born in 2010 is analogous to measuring a gravitational force of 2 μg that is less than the measurement uncertainty of 1 mg.  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 since the described like masses do not attract. The mass of the moon is derived using the mass of the Earth using F = ma and F = G m1m2/r^2; the earth's mass is used to calculate the mass of the moon that is used to determine the gravity at the surface of the moon. Newton's gravity equation that is based on Cavendish's value of G which proves the calculation of the moon's gravity is physically invalid. Furthermore, the total weight of the Apollo 11 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 using a gravity of .16 g would required 26,000 lbs of fuel (fuel + oxidizer) yet the lunar lander decent stage contains two fuel tanks and two oxidizer tanks of approximate volumes of 1,000 gallons each (fig 1 & 2) since the lower half of the lunar lander (decent stage) is approximately the height of an astronaut (fig 2) which represents approximately 1,000 gallons (fig 3) for the approximate volume of each tank which represents a total fuel weight (fuel + oxidizer) of approximately 16,000 lb  that is 10,000 lbs less than the fuel weight  of 26,000 lbs required in the landing.




Figure 1 lander schematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#/media/File:LM_illustration_02.jpg




Figure 2 astronaut and lander https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+11&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbnKuP0_TRAhVrqVQKHaCFAJ0Q_AUICSgC&biw=1280&bih=907#imgrc=Y0sq5ZZacwCt9M:




Figure 3 water tank  https://www.google.com/search?q=1,000+gallon+water+container&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjei-fD0vTRAhVJxVQKHbhEDl8Q_AUICSgC&biw=1280&bih=907#imgrc=Qo2vtZny17uicM:




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's gravity is .16 g the weight of the accent module would be comparable to 1648 lbs being launch from the surface of the earth. The TD-2 that has a payload weight of (~1,550 - 2,200 lbs) uses 12,912 lbs of fuel to launch out of the earth's gravity; conversely, for the lunar lander to launch out of the moon's gravity would require approximately 12,000 lbs of fuel but the accent module contains 5560 lb of fuel (fuel + oxidizer) which is 7,000 lbs less fuel than is required to launch the accent module out of the moon's gravity; plus, the accent film does not include of the primary engine burn (flame) or the resulting exhaust.  The combustion of the fuel (aerozine) and oxidizer produces a  visible flame.  Also, how is the accent film of the lunar accent module launch obtained since the launch film was taken on the surface of the moon, during the launch. In memorie of Thomas Ronald Baron and family. 

 

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

#407874

.


Sylvia,


"I've  shown you how m1/m2 for the Earth Moon pair can be derived 
without reference to the constant (G)."


That's real nice but can you determine the mass of the earth using the ratio m1/m2?


Ben


.


.

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

#407915

On 5/02/2017 7:49 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> .
>
>
> Sylvia,
>
>
> "I've  shown you how m1/m2 for the Earth Moon pair can be derived
> without reference to the constant (G)."
>
>
> That's real nice but can you determine the mass of the earth using the ratio m1/m2?
>

You don't need to. You only need the ratio, as I demonstrated.

Sylvia.

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

#408006

Sylvia,


Really, please indicate the day and time when you demonstrated the calculation of the earth's mass using the said mass ratio m1/m2. Better yet, repost this ostensible demonstration. Thank you.


Ben

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

#408015

On 6/02/2017 7:16 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
>
> Really, please indicate the day and time when you demonstrated the
> calculation of the earth's mass using the said mass ratio m1/m2.
> Better yet, repost this ostensible demonstration. Thank you.
>
>
> Ben
>

I never said you could calculate the Earth's mass that way. I've said 
that you don't need to, because you can calculate acceleration due to 
the Moon's gravity without it.

Sylvia.

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

#408137

Sylvia


How do you determine the value of r1? Thank you.



Ben

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

#408164

On 7/02/2017 6:49 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia
>
>
> How do you determine the value of r1? Thank you.
>

 From astronomical observations.

Sylvia.

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

#408278

Sylvia,

Could you elaborate more regarding  "From astronomical observations" in the derivation of the value of r1. Please show the derivation in determining the value of r1. Thank you.


Ben.

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

#408329

On 8/02/2017 8:32 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
> Could you elaborate more regarding  "From astronomical observations"
> in the derivation of the value of r1. Please show the derivation in
> determining the value of r1. Thank you.
>
>
> Ben.
>


One approach is to note that it is the barycentre that moves around the 
Sun in an elliptical orbit, with the Earth either leading that point, or 
lagging it, depending on the position of the Moon.

When the Moon is directly ahead of the Earth in the orbit, the Earth is 
lagging, and the sunrise times will be a bit earlier than would be the 
case of the centre of the Earth were at the barycentre. Similarly, when 
the Earth is leading, sunrise times will be a bit later.

The amount by which the sunrise times differ from what they'd have been 
if the Earth's centre were at the barycentre can be used to calculate 
how far the Earth's centre has been offset, thus giving r1.

But if that's too complicated, consider that before any manned craft was 
sent to the Moon, a number of unmanned craft were. Their trajectories 
can be used to calculate their accelerations. Since the acceleration is 
inversely proportional to the distance to the centre of the moon, the 
acceleration at any other distance can be calculated directly, without 
reference either to G or to the Moon's mass.

Lastly, I note that you're adopting a typical "nutter" position of 
questioning the results obtained by some experimenter in the past, 
without acknowledging that the experiments have been repeated and 
improved many times since, giving more accurate results. If Apollo had 
actually needed the value of G (which they didn't), they'd have used the 
most current value available, not the value obtained by Cavendish, so 
the accuracy of his value would have been irrelevant.

Sylvia.

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

#408425

Sylvia,


Good, what value of r1 did you come up with? 


Sincerely,


Ben

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

#408494

On 9/02/2017 6:13 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
>
> Good, what value of r1 did you come up with?
>
>

I didn't say I came up with a value. I said that value could be 
determined that way.

The value of r1 is known to be 4,670 km.

Sylvia.

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

#408652

Dear Sylvia,                                   February 9, 2017



Greeting, do you concede (Y/N)? Thank you.



Sincerely yours,



Ben

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

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

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

csiph-web