I have read this before. Surely the answer could be established (if not by any other means) by studying the rate of acceleration and deceleration of rising and falling objects in video on the moon. Besides the bunny hoping astronautics there are various other things, the trajectory of the sand kicked up by the lunar buggy if it can be seen clearly enough.
So it should be easy albeit it does require someone with some mathematical skill which I don't have. On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Harvey Norris <[email protected]> wrote: > > When I was a kid in the Cleveland area, we rushed home from school (in the > early 60's) to see Captain Penny and his bullwinkle show and assorted > cartoons. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Penny > Captain Penny would say at the end of every show, "You can fool some of > the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you > can’t fool Mom. (Actually a quote from Little Rascals expunged from a > President Lincoln saying??? > > Remembering this and checking the site out, I have to agree us sheeple > gets hoodwinked everytime, and this is why no planes hit the World Trade > Center. It is positively amazing as to what big brother can do in the terms > of manipulation of beliefs, and the underlying scientific scandal that > comes with the package. After extra review of this problem and the > following info; > > *A closely related concept are the Lagrangian or L points. Joseph-Louis > Lagrange was a mathematician who lived between Jan. 1736 and April 1813. > During this time a considerable amount of work was done on the orbits of > the Moon and planets. One of the key concepts was the mathematical > description of the motion of a three body problem, i.e., the Earth, the > Moon and the Sun. His work showed that there are places 60° in front of and > behind a planet in its orbit where the gravitational forces between the Sun > and the planet cancel each other out. These became known as the Lagrangian > or L points. While Lagrange did not believe these points had any special > significance in the Solar System, astronomers have since discovered several > asteroids in the Lagrangian points for the Earth and Jupiter. The ones for > Jupiter are called the Trojan asteroids. Achilles was the first one > discovered in 1908.* > > *The Lagrangian points also exist in the Earth-Moon system as well. They > move about a central point as the Earth and Moon orbit one another and > rotate on their axes. The Lagrangian points may become important in the > future as they are excellent places to build communication satellites and > potentially even space colonies. Several of the L5 Societies and related > organizations can be accessed through the National Space Society.* > > > *Knowing that the ratio of the masses of the Earth and Moon is > approximately 81:1 and the gravitational forces vary inversely with the > square of the distance, the approximate neutral point can be calculated.* > > ** > > *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.* > > ** > > *That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the > biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.* > > > > http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Neutral_Point.html > > > > Now looking at the graph near the start of article we have a red line that > represents the summation of both the gravitational forces, when in fact if > the object was in between the earth and the moon, we would instead be > subtracting those quantities to obtain a zero result. Why do we need to > know the quantity when those forces are acting together, when actually we > are looking for the quantity acting when they are in opposition? Aha. they > must be referring to the point in the orbit 60 degrees BEFORE that midway > point! In that case then the neutral point would be 43,000 miles from the > moon. And actually only ONE component of each vector would be acting > together, and the remaining ones in cancellation. The issue becomes even > more confusing to say the least because the moons vector angle will be > smaller then the earths vector angle because these are not equidistant > pathways. Even though we specify "60 degrees in the orbit", this does not > imply that the force vectors themselves will be at 60 degrees! {or was this > the original intention of the skeptics viewpoint?}And right now the sun is > setting, but it actually is already behind the earth, (because of light > speed), and I am too tired to think anymore about the issue except to > repeat my assertion that I believe we have been hoodwinked! Why did not > the skeptic say that one case involves vectors and the other does not! > Think about it! > > > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoDP1RaUX3PSxqYNJfJlMLDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120214151338AAL3xme > > > A) What will an object weigh on the Moon's surface if it weighs 170 N on > Earth's surface? > b) How many Earth radii must this same object be from the center of Earth > if it is to weigh the same as it does on the Moon? > > & please EXPLAIN how you found the answer. Thanks! > > - 10 months ago > > my answer; > It was Sir Isaac Newton who had first calculated the Earth-Moon neutral > point using his theory of gravitation. That theory gave him an average > Earth- Moon distance of 238,900 miles, and the neutral point thus occurred > at ~ 23,900 miles from the moon(1). This of course gave the familiar figure > that the Moon's gravitational attraction was about 1/6th that of Earth. > But then came a 1969 edition of Time magazine, an interview with Werner > Von Braun himself, and the beginning of a persisting mathematical mystery > concerning the Earth-Moon dual planetary system. Time reported that "43,495 > miles from the Moon lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of > the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." If this neutral point figure > is correct, then the Moon is much more massive than any standard view of > celestial mechanics will allow. A mere two weeks after the Time magazine > article, Werner Von Braun quite suddenly resigned all his NASA posts and > took a position as Vice President for Fairchild Industries. At minimum it > began a process of "arithmetical obfuscation", that can only be seen as > deliberate, since to view what happened next as NOT being deliberate would > be akin to charging NASA with gross mathematical incompetence. For example, > in the 1981 edition of Baker's Space Technology, the Apollo 11 distance to > the Moon is given as 253,475 miles. But in the book Apollo 11 Moon Landing > gave the distance as just under 250,400 miles. Then in 1996 Baker's > Spaceflight and Rocketry gave the neutral point as 38,925 miles from the > Moon and 214,550 miles from the Earth, giving a total distance to the Moon > of 253,475 miles. To confound matters even further, space experts at NASA > or elsewhere do not state whether they are using surface to surface, or > center to center measurements. Nor do they state whether they are using > nautical miles or statute miles. Nor do they stick to any one system. In > short, "the only consistency in the Earth- Moon measurement scenario is the > inconsistency of the data emanating from official sources." Percy and > Bennet's way out of this impasse is to posit that the 23,900 mile figure, > the Newtonian figure. is correct, and that the figure revealed by Von Braun > to Time magazine is the "experienced" neutral point. Talk about double > talk! In summo with a neutral point 43,495 miles, the gravity of the Moon > would be a whopping 60% that of Earth! So considering celestial mechanics > here my answer would be .6*170N = 102 N > Source(s): > (1) Dark Moon , Mary Bennet and David S Percy, p. 392 > The SS Brotherhood of the Bell; Joseph P Farrell, p. 126,127 > >
