Did we actually land on the moon?
- Thread starter We TaRdED
- Start date
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
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
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
mrbuzzsaw
Well-Known Member
For years no one questioned the fact that astronauts went to the moonthen 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
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.
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
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!
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!
Last edited:
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
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........
t=sqrt(2d/g)
t=sqrt(9.6/1.6)
t~2.5
once again........
Last edited:
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
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?
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
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
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
thanks bro
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
Well-Known Member
....................
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
acceleration is 6 times slower.
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
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
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
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
PoseidonsNet
Well-Known Member
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?????
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?????
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
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?
Last edited:
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
here I'll post this again incase you missed it, I have already proved that the formulas give you the same answer