Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

If you go to the Moon carrying say, one half of your weight on the Moon, that proportion remains exactly the same on the Moon. Or are you claiming it's suddenly not half your weight, whether on the Moon or Mars.

Having your weight reduced to 1/6g has no effect on the strength of your muscles.

If the argument that you appear to be (clumsily) putting forward were true, it would work when multiplied as well as when divided. A 180 lb. astronaut could go to a body where his weight was tripled, and pick up something that's ¼ his weight and it would be no different than lifting 45 lbs. on earth, even though it weighs 135 lbs. where he is, simply because their weight ratios are the same.

In addition, suddenly the Moon has buoyancy instead of gravity, according to FosterZygote.

Don't lie, Vixen. You've had that analogy explained to you. You're just showing how frustrated you are about losing yet another argument in favor of a half-baked conspiracy theory, like when you insinuated nonexistent misogyny in order to deflect questions regarding an obvious lie of yours regarding photography.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I saw a post from a guy who said he KNEW the landings were fake because he had been in that area at that time and didn't see Eleven anywhere.

I nominated him for the Chutzpah Award.

Astral projection beats astronauts.

 

[Foster Zygote]

We are not talking about muscles. Here's a poser for you: Two men are on the Moon. One man weighs 200lbs on Earth. Would he still be twice as heavy as the one who weighs100lbs on Earth? Yes or no will suffice.

The answer is 'yes', but it doesn't suffice until you explain where you think you're going with this. So, where do you think you're going with this?

 

[Foster Zygote]

A 10kg weight is also subject to the same 1/6th gravity.

Yes, meaning that it has a lunar surface weight of just 1.6... kg. Holding it on the moon would be exactly like holding 1⅔ kg on earth.

Like heat and temperature, weight and mass have distinct meanings in physics.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Which it sometimes is.

Yes, which was a steel tape antenna, like the steel tape used for a tape measure, so it could be easily strapped down against the top for exiting and entering the LM. Very reflective at the right angles, and never seen anywhere but just above the left side of the PLSS.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So, where do you think you're going with this?

Well, not to the moon, obviously.

 

[Steve]

JFC. I don't think I've ever seen anybody so completely ignorant on a subject be so utterly dogmatic in defense of that ignorance.

FYI it is not merely one subject. There are a number of threads where this remarkable lack of knowledge is on display.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Now she's back repeating the weight ratios claim but without any mention of why that might be significant. Because it isn't.

The Soviets didn't know enough about physics back in the 1960s to understand how weight works on the moon.

 

[Thermal]

JFC. I don't think I've ever seen anybody so completely ignorant on a subject be so utterly dogmatic in defense of that ignorance.

And the burning ITT is far beyond what the Van Allen belts could produce.

 

[JesseCuster]

Had there been a satellite geopositioned (=at the same speed of orbit as the Moon so that in effect, it is stationary to it, per position) nil problemo.

Your use of the phrase "geopositioned" is gibberish. The phrase you were looking for originally for is "geostationary" (I'm not sure what you're describing here, and I'm not sure you do either). The only reason you continue to use this made up gibberish is because you've been caught making the mistake, and you can't admit error.

It is fun watching you have to insert this nonsense term you know is nonsense, into your posts, rather than just admit you used the wrong phrase.

"Geopositioned" does not mean geostationary, it never has, and it never will, so please explain why you continue to use such a nonsense phrase?

edit: you seem very confued now, earlier you were talking about something being in an earth geostationary orbit and that's what you meant by "geopositioned", now you seem to be talking about something in the "same speed of orbit as the Moon".

How about an operational definition, in your own words, of what you mean by "geopositioned".

 

[Mojo]

Had there been a satellite geopositioned (=at the same speed of orbit as the Moon so that in effect, it is stationary to it, per position) nil problemo.

What do you mean by a satellite "at the same speed of orbit as the Moon"? What orbit would this satellite be in?

 

[JesseCuster]

A 10kg weight is also subject to the same 1/6th gravity.

Therefore is weighs 1/6 as much as it would on earth, and requires 1/6 as much force to lift. Can you not follow your own basic logic?

You're a scientist, you're studied physics for 5 years, how can you be so clueless as to the utter fundamentals of these subjects?

 

[JesseCuster]

A 10kg weight is still pro-rata your weight, whether on Earth, Mars or the Moon. There is no 'buoyancy' on the Moon. Gravity is gravity.

Gravity is gravity. And gravity on the moon is about 1/6 that on the earth. So an object that weights 180lb on earth weighs about 30lb on the moon.

Do you genuinely not understand this?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Your use of the phrase "geopositioned" is gibberish. The phrase you were looking for originally for is "geostationary" (I'm not sure what you're describing here, and I'm not sure you do either). The only reason you continue to use this made up gibberish is because you've been caught making the mistake, and you can't admit error.

It is fun watching you have to insert this nonsense term you know is nonsense, into your posts, rather than just admit you used the wrong phrase.

"Geopositioned" does not mean geostationary, it never has, and it never will, so please explain why you continue to use such a nonsense phrase?

edit: you seem very confued now, earlier you were talking about something being in an earth geostationary orbit and that's what you meant by "geopositioned", now you seem to be talking about something in the "same speed of orbit as the Moon".

How about an operational definition, in your own words, of what you mean by "geopositioned".

"Geopositioned" doesn't mean geostationary, but perhaps 'geopositioned' does?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

"Geopositioned" doesn't mean geostationary, but perhaps 'geopositioned' does?

"Geopositioning" is using satellites (GPS) to identify an object's geographic position

Geopositioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[catsmate]

I'm off out to get some biscuits, as this thread has taken care of the stuff in the cupboard.

Any requests? But if anyone says bourbons or jaffa cakes, I may kill...

Custard creams. The good ones....

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Custard creams. The good ones....

I just remembered that I still have one of those left in the fridge.

ETA: I used to have one of those in the fridge. So do pick up more, please.

 

[junkshop]

I'm off out to get some biscuits, as this thread has taken care of the stuff in the cupboard.

Any requests? But if anyone says bourbons or jaffa cakes, I may kill...

Garibaldis, please.

 

[junkshop]

I just remembered that I still have one of those left in the fridge.

ETA: I used to have one of those in the fridge. So do pick up more, please.

I suspect a US custard cream is not the same as a UK custard cream. Either that, or you do weird things with your biscuits, and you should stop that.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Garibaldis, please.

Have you ever noticed how many biscuits are named after revolutionaries? You've got your garibaldis, your bourbons and your Peek Freans Trotsky Assortment.