Did we actually land on the moon?

surely now you see?

u completely missed what i was saying
completely

subsituting the sqrt in just does the same thing again

u r still using the sqrt formula, which has something to do with the discrepency

just use

v=gt
velocity = gravity * time

then do the arithmatic yourself step by step.

the pc still gives a different answer
but i think thats bcos
the astronaut is jumping up then falling back, not just falling, so the distance travelled is different as the velocity changes. (not sure exactly)



r u still disputing that after 1 second our velocity is not 6times different?
surely you can see your error here when you use the simple formula
v=gt???

if u rely on the calculator then you cannot actually see the numbers changing
like the pc, when u use the simple formula its the same.


do you program vb at all?? (know anyone?)
if u did then u would see exactly what i mean

kronicsmurf said:

For years no one questioned the fact that astronauts went to the moon then all of a sudden theres this conspiracy that says its a lie and it didn't happen. i think conspiracy theorist read way to much between the lines in other words they make shit up because they know there are gonna be people on both sides of the issue who will argue that they're right. peace

Click to expand...

i think if you look at scientific fact and nothing else the answer is clear.
No way in hell did we go .
Van allen belts would be like swimming in the Chernobyl water for a week.

When asked why russia did not go they simply said Van allen belts would kill you.

one thing is 100% clear dispite any theories. 12 months before we landed? we could not reliably get a fucking rocket off the ground without it either going lawn dart or simply turning into a massive ball of fire.

if you think for a second that russia would allow us to Stake an uncontested claim to the moon your Crazy.
and that is exactly what planting our flag is!

It is my understanding that Japan is shooting the moon via Orvating Satilite i would like to see what the Sea looks like. will we be there? or will they fake it??
time will tell.
eventually we will find out.

look

v=gt

after 1 second what is the diff in velocity?

10 * 1 = 10
1.6 *1 = 1.6

after 1 second the velocity is six times different
(do u still dispute this?)

i agree that your formula appears to give a correct result.
but i think its is either out of context slightly or some other calculation
is missing
doing the same thing again changes nothing. plz dont do it again with the sqrt formula.

it has to be proven by both methods
your assumptions in the previous post already start by using the sqrt formula

i don't think you're reading my threads that carefully
as your formula keeps you happy

when i stated an obvious error u thought i was not doing so.

u still think that after 1 sec the velocity is not six times different. which it very clearly is.

when i use the standard normally used formula on the pc the spaceman
is in the air for 6 times longer!

ok, we've established that the acceleration due to gravity is 6 times greater on earth...yes after one second the instantaneous velocity is 6 times greater thatn the velocity after one second on the moon...as I have stated a hundred and fifty times now that does not mean that things fall 6x slower, it means that you have to drop an object on the moon 6x higher than you would on earth for it to equal the same drop time...you would have to drop an object about 4.8m for it to take 1 sec to hit the ground, you would have to drop an an object .8m on the moon for it to take 1 sec to hit the ground....so lets see how long it would take an object on the moon to fall 4.8m

t=sqrt(2d/g)
t=sqrt(9.6/1.6)
t~2.5
once again........

you cant argue with the facts

you are wrong period, post your theory on a physics forum and they will most definitely laugh at you...its like I said earlier, dont you think the physicists that work for nasa wouldve figured this out and slowed it down to 1/6 speed instead of 1/2, or do you think they overlooked that?

i can yes

bcos u ignore my point totally AGAINNNNNNNN fuck

USE THE OTHER FORMULA prettttyyyyy pleeeeeaseeeee

i specifically asked this 10 times.
and gave my reasons too
its much easier to use

i wish u could see what i can see.

moonwalker is nearly ready

do u know anyone with vb?
its very easy to program something like this with a tutor

u just refuse to even try see what i am saying
u refuse to use the other given formula
which is the one everybody uses bcos its simpler
faster

and u don't need a calculator

at least u admitted the one error u made.

you are an idiot, I just said that after one second the instaneous velocity is indeed 6x greater on earth, however, this does not mean that things fall 6x slower on the moon and I have proved that several times now....

they will most definitely laugh at you

Click to expand...

if u cannot take my point seriously then don't bother. a personal attack again?

just bcos u had to concede that after 1 sec the velocity is 6 times diff?
i bet you cannot get the others to conced this error

please find one physicis that says things move 6x slower on the moon, cause I can post a bunch that say things move 2.64x slower

idiot

Click to expand...

thanks bro

after one second the instaneous velocity is indeed 6x greater on earth

Click to expand...

so if i am travellling 6 times faster than you i will cover the same distance as you in 1/6th of the time?

i know the sqrt formula says otherwise. i give u great respect for that.
much much respect

but the simple formula does not!

y?

when the simple formula is use 1000times more often than the sqrt formula?

and the sqrt formula is never used in programming bcos time has to be a constant when programming

u couldn;t use that formula in a program very effectively at all

it would be terribly long-winded

hom36rown said:

you are an idiot, I just said that after one second the instaneous velocity is indeed 6x greater on earth, however, this does not mean that things fall 6x slower on the moon and I have proved that several times now....

Click to expand...

PoseidonsNet said:

just bcos u had to concede that after 1 sec the velocity is 6 times diff?

Click to expand...

....................

things move 2.64x slower

Click to expand...

acceleration is 6 times slower.

things move 2.64x slower

Click to expand...

previously it was 2.5x to cover the same distance.
but that excludes the initial force of the jump
which we have taken to be the same on earth as moon

and i think thats the missing variable
that will ultimately prove us both right in differing contexts

btw

did you know that sqrt(6.25) = 2.5

you cant argue with given formulas, I have already proved sqrt(2d/g) is the exact same thing as gt

PoseidonsNet said:

previously it was 2.5x to cover the same distance.
but that excludes the initial force of the jump
which we have taken to be the same on earth as moon

and i think thats the missing variable
that will ultimately prove us both right in differing contexts

btw

did you know that sqrt(6.25) = 2.5

Click to expand...

we are not both right, I am right, and you are wrong....I have mathematically proved this several times now

FACE THE FACTS....YOU ARE WRONG

u will only convince me

when u use the formula without the sqrt (as i have stated 20 times)

it is not as reliable bcos

when g - is a negative number u get a square root of a negative number
which is impossible

ok?

if u cannot do more than punch numbers in a calculator
and give the same answer over and over again without
even considering what i am saying (or even reading it)
then i am obviously an idiot

so y bother responding??? go parrot to someone else instead?

leave the space for someone who takes the time to read
the other guys thread

and who doesn't have a vendetta against me bcos of my religious views

and i can asure you

NO physicist worth anything would EVER laugh at someones questions like this

they would POINT to the error
or try and find it if they could not

do u really think that an idiot can make such a program as this?
Solar System Simulator :-OG2

do u not realise that the math in that is much more complex than this?

have u ever even tried to write a pc program?

do u know how to admit you are wrong
(after 1 sec we are going faster on earth by 6 times)
without insulting them?

so you are wrong. proven. admitted.

your formula (for the fucking 20th time) is not in dispute dimwit

its the way its being applied that is disputed.
can u get that without parroting what you read elsewhere

and its obvious that if u can use the formula wrongly then so can others.

if i am traveeling at 6 times your speed is it not true that you are 6 times slower than me???

or does it magically just become 2.5 times?????

PoseidonsNet said:

u will only convince me

when u use the formula without the sqrt (as i have stated 20 times)

Click to expand...

Both formulas give you the same answer

if a=b, and b=c, then a=c....either you are saying this simple property is wrong or you saying that these given formulas are

v=sqrt(2dg)
v=gt
gt=sqrt(2dg)

you refuse to listen to the facts, you just stick your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalal I cant hear you.....

so which is it poseidon, it the basic substitution property wrong, or are these time tested formulas that arent disputed by any physicist in the world and are printed in physics books around the world wrong...Im sure einstein encountered these equations, even he didnt notice they werent equivalent?

here I'll post this again incase you missed it, I have already proved that the formulas give you the same answer

hom36rown said:

I dont see why I should have to go any further than the simple substitution property
v(i)=gt
v(i)=sqrt(2dg)
therefore gt=sqrt(2dg)

but ok, lets plug in some numbers and see what we get, we already know that an object on earth falls 2m in .64s, and 1.6s on the moons so lets use those numbers

so for the earth
v=gt
v=9.8*.64
v=6.3

v=sqrt(2dg)
v=sqrt(4*9.8 )
v=sqrt(39.2)
v=6.3

for the moon
v=gt
v=1.6*1.6
v=2.5

v=sqrt(2dg)
v=sqrt(4*1.6)
v=sqrt(6.4)
v=2.5

see, they are exactly the same, and what do you get when you divide 6.3 by 2.5....whaddya know, 2.5

Click to expand...