Did we actually land on the moon?

PoseidonsNet said:
following on from the way you did this math
i will use your method to prove your method is wrong


so put your numbers back into the formula to see if the distance covered
returns the same amount.ie 2m.
g=m.s^-2
9.8=m.(.64)^2
therefore m =.4/9.8
which means m = 0.04

which is obviously wrong. as you already assumed m was 2m

now lets do the same for the moons gravity.



1.6 = m * (1.57)^-2
m =1.6/(1.57)^2
m therefore must equal 1.54m
which is also obviously wrong.

therefore your method is wrong
Click to expand...

so your saying it takes over half a second for an object to fall 4cm on earth, why dont you do a lillte experiment and tell me how it works out :roll:
 
from your wiki link:

Instantaneous velocity vi of a falling object after elapsed time t:
4be0def18e19983900b0de94bd5a5425.png


Thus v = 10*1 which equals 10 !

ok
 
ok so does it take over half a second for an object to fall 4cm, did you do that little experiment for me?
 
so your saying it takes over half a second for an object to fall 4cm on earth, why dont you do a lillte experiment and tell me how it works out :roll:
Click to expand...

i said that it was obviously wrong

did u not c that?
 
ok then if it was wonrg, then how did you prove my method wrong...my method was a given equation
 
Last edited:
no sorry it does not add up completely


10 is still 6 *1.6

if i am accelerating 6 times faster than you
then i will have a velocity 6 times faster than you.

this follows directly from the wiki link


Instantaneous velocity vi of a falling object after elapsed time t:
4be0def18e19983900b0de94bd5a5425.png


Thus v = 10*1 which equals 10 !

which is something you disputed earlier

i'm sorry the others got pd off. but i think this is fascinating whoever wins or loses. but i can only see that the use of square roots is the problem because they r not reversible as u cannot have the sqrt of a negative. (tentatively - guessing a bit)
 
I am no physics expert by any means, Ive been looking this shit up myself and aside from finding several pages with real physics experts saying that indeed things move 2.64x slower on the moon......the falling bodies equation I found proves it....you can not dispute it, it is a given formula, any numbers you put in there are going to bring about the same answer
 
10 is still 6 *1.6

if i am accelerating 6 times faster than you
then i will have a velocity 6 times faster than you.

this follows directly from the wiki link


Instantaneous velocity vi of a falling object after elapsed time t:
4be0def18e19983900b0de94bd5a5425.png


Thus v = 10*1 which equals 10 !
Click to expand...

and on the moon v = 1.6*1 which equals 1.6

thus my velocity is six times faster when we use this equation
and if my velocity is 6 times faster i must have travelled six times further

if my velocity is 6 times yours then i travel the same distance in 1/6th of the time!!!

its fucking weird

if u calculate it one way you get one answer
and if you use the formula wiki showed you

there is a different result?
i just cannot see which is right and which is wrong

those gravity progs like the solar system sim actually use more complex math
than this as it involves angles and g is calculated differently over long distances

it annoys me that people who cannot make such things
try and make out that i dont get maths

dave thinks that 2008-1969= 48

like the lunar landings were 10 years out. eish!
 
an object falls further in one second on earth than it does on the moon, that is why you have to use distance, not time
 
it is a given formula
Click to expand...

so is mine. that does not mean they are being used correctly at all.

but they give dif answers!!!!

nobody can explain y?

where is my error?

i use one of the wiki formulae (the simple v=gt) one i get one answer
i use the sqrt answer its a dif answer

when i program a pc to do the work millisecond by millisecond
i get my answer

it is a given formula
Click to expand...
and its being used wrongly somehow

its one thing to throw numbers into a formula and get an answer
but you have to get the same answer from all the methods to be certain

which is why i trust the pc more, because it is real time
 
that is why you have to use distance, not time
Click to expand...

those formulas allow for using both distance and time
when i used the very simple formula i get a different result.

don't blame the formula - its how its being applied that is the issue

my formula is just as standard as the one you used. in fact mine is more obvious, simpler and therefore used more frequently.

your invovles the assumption that sqrt is the opposite of a square
which is not always true
 
the given formula from wiki does give differing answers!!!

Instantaneous velocity vi of a falling object after elapsed time t:
4be0def18e19983900b0de94bd5a5425.png


Thus v = 10*1 which equals 10 ! and on the moon v = 1.6*1 which equals 1.6

thus my velocity is six times faster when we use this equation
and if my velocity is 6 times faster i must have travelled six times further

if my velocity is 6 times yours then i travel the same distance in 1/6th of the time!!!


plz show me the error b4 i eat my flipping kepyboard!!!!
 
u cannot deny this

v=gt

v=10*1 = 10 (earth)
v=1.6*1 = 1.6 (moon)

4be0def18e19983900b0de94bd5a5425.png

use this formula and see the answer!
show me how u use this to calculate velocity that is not 6 times????

use this formula
4be0def18e19983900b0de94bd5a5425.png
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scuba
It wasn't Muslim who caused 9/11
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
7K
robert 14617
robert 14617
Back
Top