It could also be an issue of scale.
Don’t forget the pissed off armies who overheard an insult through an interdimensional warp field. They flew to wage war against the perpetrators when the entire army was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.
An atom could be a universe for a species so small and so fast that we could never interact with it. Or our solar system could be a mere atom in a much larger and slower universe. Or other trite philosophy 101 examples that could, nonetheless, be true.
A bit of a hijack, but for the cosmologists: is there any reason to suppose that globular star clusters/nebulas might have more earthlike planets than the priral arm galaxies?
No attempt to comment about any of the people I mentioned, or the fact that Nasa releases 1% of its moon images with many having been altered before release. Classic.
Crackpot allegations based upon gross misinterpretation or lack of understandings of basic physics, baseless claims of altered or redacted imagery, and references to the complete lineup of Coast to Coast AM conspiranoist all-stars. Classic.
Stranger
Cite? What do you mean by release, and what do you mean by altered?
We took 300 pictures on our trip to Europe, and only showed about 50 to our friends. We didn’t not show some because there were aliens by the pyramids. Do you have any evidence that NASA refused to release any pictures to anyone with a specific request?
As I understand it, less likely. Stars in globular clusters are older metal-poor Population II stars so they are less likely to have planets of any sort.
Since nobody’s mentioned it by name:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia…bolding mine]
Determining where Ediacaran organisms fit in the tree of life has proven impossible. The morphology and habit of some taxa (e.g. Funisia dorothea) suggest relationships to Porifera or Cnidaria.[2] Kimberella may show a similarity to molluscs, and other organisms have been thought to possess bilateral symmetry, though this is controversial. Most macroscopic fossils are morphologically distinct from later life-forms: they resemble discs, tubes, mud-filled bags or quilted mattresses. Due to the difficulty of deducing evolutionary relationships among these organisms some paleontologists have suggested that these represent completely extinct lineages that do not resemble any living organism. One paleontologist proposed a separate kingdom level category Vendozoa (now renamed Vendobionta)[3] in the Linnaean hierarchy for the Ediacaran biota. If these enigmatic organisms left no descendants their strange forms might be seen as a “failed experiment” in multicellular life with later multicellular life independently evolving from unrelated single-celled organisms.[4]
[/QUOTE]
It may go in and out of fashion as more evidence and/or grant money accumulates, but I’ve definitely heard speculation by informed individuals in the field (paleontology & evolution) that Ediacaran life may have been a “first draft” supplanted by an entirely separate creation. How about Stephen Jay Gould?
.
Neither Gould nor Wikipedia is suggesting that these organisms represented an independent origin of life. They’re merely suggesting that they represented an independent evolution of multicellularity.
Cite what? That those people existed? That Nasa is doing what I said? What exactly do you need cited? Do you not see smudges on any moon pics?
Do you want to talk about anything specific? The gravity of the moon? Or do you have any more adjectives describing me or my posts? You are coming with nothing, sir.
for mr. stranger that uses too many adjectives and no facts whatsoever:
[ex]“At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant.” - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)[/ex]
The Bullialdus/Newton inverse/square law states that any physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
So knowing only the size of the 2 bodies, Earth and the Moon, and the neutral point we can determine the relative gravitational pull. No need to speculate about density.
Therefore we can state that using the following parameters:
Re = radius of the Earth = 3,960 miles
Rm = radius of the Moon = 1,080 miles
X = distance from the Earth’s center to the neutral
Point = 200,000 miles
Y = Distance from the Moon’s center to the neutral point = 43,495 miles
Ge = Earth’s surface gravity
Gm = Moons surface gravity
Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point, the inverse- square law yields:
Ge (Re2/X2) = Gm(Rm2/Y2)
Gm/Ge = Re2Y2/Rm2X2
= (3,960)2 (43,495)2
(1,080)2 (200,000)2
= .64
Therefore, Gm = .64 Ge
So the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity or almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were making those pitiful 6 inch hops on the moon. It should also be obvious why they tired so quickly.
Hey, you want to argue 38,000 miles? It still comes out 55% of earth’s gravity.
If the moon’s gravity was in fact, one-sixth that of earth or approximately 16.66% we could work the problem in reverse and come out with a neutral point from the moon of about 24,000 miles.
If the Moon’s gravity is only one sixth Earth’s why did Apollo orbit at 60 to 70 miles? Why did the Lunar Orbiter series only * once * get as low as 25 miles?
-----So are you telling me this Wernher von Braun has no idea what he’s talking about and is also making “crackpot allegations”? lolz
(MGTE)–Page 32
“The point where a spacecraft enters the predominant attractive zone of the Moon’s gravity is called the neutral point. It is the region in space where the Earth’s force of attraction equals the Moon’s force of attraction. Since the Moon is smaller and SUPPOSEDLY has a smaller surface gravity, the neutral point should be quite close to the Moon. In fact, if it is assumed that the Moon has one-sixth of the Earth’s surface gravity (which is what we are all taught in school), the neutral point is calculated to be about nine-tenths of the distance between the Earth and the Moon. The average distance to the Moon is about 239,000 miles, hence this places the neutral point approximately 23,900 miles from the Moon’s center.”
(MGTE)–Page 45
“At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant.” (‘Time’ magazine, July 25, 1969.)
(MGTE)–Page 45-46
“At a distance of 43,495 miles from the Moon, Apollo 11 passed the so-called ‘neutral’ point, beyond which the lunar gravitational field dominated that of Earth.” (‘History of Rocketry & Space’–1969.)
(MGTE)–Page 48-49
“…since the Earth’s pull equals the Moon’s at the neutral point, the inverse-square law enables the pull of gravity at the Moon’s surface to be determined…The result is that the Moon’s surface gravity is 64% of the
Earth’s surface gravity, not the one-sixth (or 16.7%) value predicted by Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation!”
(MGTE)–Page 61
“In one-sixth gravity everything would weigh one-sixth, or 16.7%, of its Earth weight. A 180lb. man would weigh a mere 30lbs. Writers were speculating on the athletic abilities of men on the Moon long before the
space program and Apollo. They based their calculations on one-sixth gravity. The public was anticipating some of these spectacular athletic feats when astronauts explored the Moon, but none were ever performed.”
(MGTE)–Page 63
“…even with the astronaut gear, (spacesuit, etc.)…(Apollo astronaut John Young)…should have been able to jump over six feet off the ground if the Moon had one-sixth of the Earth’s gravity. In actuality, his efforts lifted him at most 18” off the ground. …observations (of the NASA video tapes, and television broadcasts) indicated that Young made several attempts to jump as high as he could but with no success in achieveing a height of more than 18 inches."
MGTE???
Did I miss something?
You are one hilarious cat. You go through an entire calculation to “prove” your outlandish claims about the Moon’s gravity differing by a factor of 4 from the value every physics and astronomy learns to calculate in Phys 1a, and in doing so you demonstrate an utter ignorance of orbital mechanics and indeed, basic physics. You are correct about one thing in that entire diatribe, specifically that the density doesn’t matter in terms of determining the libration points; the bodies can treated as point masses. This of course means that the radii of the Earth and the Moon also don’t belong in this calculation. What does belong, however, is the masses of the two bodies and a consideration of their co-orbital motion. Here is a concise derivation of the libration points.
I don’t know what “MGTE” is except that MgtE is a protein transporter in the HB8 strain of Thermus thermophilus. I do know that the A7L Extravehicular Pressure Garment Assembly used in the Apollo lunar excursions massed around 200 lbm, was extremely restrictive, and that the astronauts were reluctant to do anything that would cause them to fall on their side or turtled due to the difficulties encountered in righting themselves based testing with the lightweight simulator suits.
You are correct that ad hominem is not a valid argumentation technique. However, that criticism assumes that there is a valid argument to be debated. All that is apparent here is a reiteration of poorly understood concepts in mechanics and a Who’s who list of conspiracy theorist yahoos who claim to have seen the antimatter-powered cocktail shakers that the aliens brought from Zeta Reticuli to make cosmic martinis.
Stranger
Mr reef shark: I think it’s worth drawing to your attention that Mr Stranger knows of which he speaks. To paraphrase a much missed departed mod: he is the fucking science monitor.
Thanks Stranger, we’ve all been waiting for you to tear this guy up.
John Young was indeed wearing a spacesuit. A bad landing from a six foot jump could have punctured it, and he would have died. Given the strong emphasis NASA had on safety, if anyone did jump that high it would have been a sure sign of fakery.
Let me put this in question form. Do you agree with Wernher von Braun’s “claim” about the neutral point or not? Is he full of crackpot allegations as well?
Note that, as you’d expect, there is little need to consult a 1969 Time Magazine quote attributed (perhaps accurately, perhaps not) to Wernher von Braun to determine the gravity at the Moon’s surface. All you need is the moon’s mass and radius, which were known well before 1969 (and subsequently confirmed when various devices were put into lunar orbit).
Relating this to Earth’s surface gravity is easily done by the formula below, wherein:
G[sub]me[/sub] = ratio of acceleration due to gravity at Moon’s surface to that at Earth’s surface
M[sub]me[/sub] = Ratio of Moon’s to Earth’s mass
R[sub]me[/sub] = Ratio of Moon’s to Earth’s radius
Values:
M[sub]me[/sub] = 7.349 × 10[sup]22[/sup] kg / 5.974 × 10[sup]24[/sup] kg = 0.0123
R[sub]me[/sub] = 1737.1 km / 6371.0 km = 0.2727
Formula:
G[sub]me[/sub] = M[sub]me[/sub] / R[sub]me[/sub][sup]2[/sup] = 0.1654 = 16.5%
I haven’t read the article and therefore don’t know the context of the claim. I don’t know if von Braun misspoke in an off-the-cuff discussion, or was misquoted, or was just plain wrong. And furthermore, I don’t care. It doesn’t change the fact that the method you have used to “prove” your claim about the Moon’s gravity is fundamentally flawed. I’m capable of calculating the location of the libration points and gravity based upon equations derived from first principles of Keplerian and Newtonian mechanics, and the answers are in agreement with the conventional and widely agreed upon values. I can also look at the propellant mass and performance of the Apollo LM ascent and descent engines with the module and payload mass and say definitively that it could not have have either successfully soft-landed nor ascended from the Lunar surface in a 0.64 G gravity field.
Stranger