Moon's Gravity wrong!?

clarky003

Tank
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
6,123
Reaction score
1
you lucky forum folk, another moon thread :D

something for the old noggin here to contemplate from a rather interesting New science book ive been reading.

as we all know the US , and the USSR both wanted to be the first to land a probe on the moon intially. the very first calculations had been based on newtons laws of gravity, which puts the moon at 1/6 gravity of the earth in theory. with this in mind they can calculate where the probes needed to be in order to land on the moon.

they both began sending probes in the late 50's, which met with miserable failiure and alot of head scratching.

Russian Luna 1 on jan 2nd 1959 flew within 4,660 miles, and on out into deep space there where 3 unsuccessful attempts by the US before they attained a flyby of 37,000 miles from the surface with Pioneer 4. Luna 2 was the first to hit the moon, and luna 3 circled the far side within 4,372 miles, and sent back photo's, Strangely Russian moon exploration came to a 4 year stop after these successes., and where intensely secretive about the data they collected.
The US efforts where almost laughable at first. Ranger space probes where designed to hard land on the moon, designed to withstand impacts on the surface. Ranger 3 launched on january 26, 1962, missed its target completely and went into solar orbit. Ranger 4 hit the moon but was crippled. Ranger 5 missed the moon by 450 miles , and then the effort was put off for 2 years while the entire program was reorganised-- something was wrong with their calculations!. Russian Luna 5 , 6 , 7, 8 all either missed or crashed. Luna 9 was the first probe to successfully soft land on the moon. Things got better after then, as allegedly this is because they where able to recalculate the neutral point (gravity neutral point between earth and moons gravity influence, point where an object would not have any tendancey to move toward either object, because the fields have the equal attracting affect)

the neutral point based on Newtons law of universal gravitation, would put it at around 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the center of the moon, the figure came from logical guesses from trained scientist's.However , only observing falling or orbiting bodys could the actual neutral point (la grange point) be determined , and hence thereforth , the moons gravity.

July 25, 1969 issue of Time magazine, stated that the neutral point was 43,495 miles from the center of the moon. Werner von braun in the 1969 edition of ' history of rocketry and space travel' said the neutral point was 43,495 miles from the center of the moon. Other sources from NASA also stated it was between 38,000 and 43,495 miles from the center of the moon, pre Apollo distances where given as 20,000 to 25,000 miles from the center of the moon.

NASA had recalculated the neutral point, which would indicate that the moons gravity is not one sixth. As Newton had stated.

If the neutral point of the moons gravity is 43,495 miles from the center then the moons gravity is infact 64% of the Earths surface gravity, not one sixth, not 1/6 or 16.7% as predicted by newton's law of universal Gravitation!

Bizarrely , NASA and the status quo of science continued to allude that the moons gravity is 1/6 that of the earth's (possibly because saying anything else could put Newtons law under scrutiny, that also brings up questions to the integrity of the science and status quo job of the scientists at the time, not to mention embarassment). If infact the neutral point were more like 52,000 miles, the moons surface gravity would be identical to the earth's!.

so what if in fact the moons gravity is nearly equal to the earth's,

Ill post more concluding to that later, but one of the main assertions to this is the movement of astronaut's on the moon, a 185 pound suit and man combination, would weight only 31 pounds on a 1/6 gravity moon. Theoretically with 1/6 gravity they should of been able to perform high jumps, and slow backflips,They made a number of jumps and only appeared to be making 18 inches off the ground, speeding the video up makes it appear twice as odd. almost earth gravity in normal playback, its all very Interesting.
 
Why don't you just ask the people that walked on the moooon what the gravity was like? From the videos it was pretty clear that the moooooon has gravity of something like 1/6th of ours.
 
Is this another "zomg oh noes we didnt go to the moon, hoax hoax hoax!!2!11~1" thread?
 
it would be nice if we got the chance to test it out oneday, by all rights they should of been able to do high backflips in slow motion quite easily, basketball players can jump upto 3 feet on earth, a small 18 inch jump in a 185 pound earth gravity space suit on a moon 1/6 the gravity of earth. It would require something like a 1100 pound space suit! to move the way they move, and that would nail you to the floor and more in normal gravity.
 
It would be much harder to hoax the moooon landings (and keep it secret) than it would be to do it for real. We've got moooooon rocks... how the hell do you fake them? I don't think faking them with clay would quite cut it under any scientists microscope...
 
im not saying its a hoax lePobz, because I know its not ,you havnt read my post :/ read my post! before you go off on one. Its about the moons gravity, nothing more
 
lePobz said:
It would be much harder to hoax the moooon landings (and keep it secret) than it would be to do it for real. We've got moooooon rocks... how the hell do you fake them? I don't think faking them with clay would quite cut it under any scientists microscope...
Best one for me is that leading up to the moon landings there was such a big race goin on against Russia, Russia had spies in NASA, and if there was any doubt at the landings validity they would have called foul.
 
clarky003 said:
Theoretically with 1/6 gravity they should of been able to perform high jumps, and slow backflips,They made a number of jumps and only appeared to be making 18 inches off the ground, speeding the video up makes it appear twice as odd. almost earth gravity in normal playback, its all very Interesting.
Sorry, that just sounded too much like uncertainty and/or suspiciousness to me :p
 
I understand, pls read more carefully :) I dont want flame's to start randomly.
 
This is gonna be a spanner in the works for the ol' japanese moon base!
 
Read more carefully? I'm reading it again and it still sounds the same ... pls pay more attention to your wording so as not to accidentally create the image of speculation or doubt.

C+. could do better. :thumbs:
 
clarky003 said:
I understand, pls read more carefully :) I dont want flame's to start randomly.

Sorry mate, the last bit sounded a bit hoaxy moony thingy.
It will be much easier to build on the moon, and generally advance things there if it's only 64% of Earths grav, as opposed to 16% (was it?).
 
bliink said:
This is gonna be a spanner in the works for the ol' japanese moon base!

I already have 500 bases on the moon! Now give me that episode!
 
burner69 said:
Sorry mate, the last bit sounded a bit hoaxy moony thingy.
It will be much easier to build on the moon, and generally advance things there if it's only 64% of Earths grav, as opposed to 16% (was it?).

sorry yeh, it was a bit dodgily worded, but the book doesnt intend it like that, must of been me.

yeh easier to build on, but also raises the question if its true, how the f did that little lander get off the moon so easily..? theres hardly any propellant ejection, it just seems to pop off.. one theory is it used the bifield brown propulsion effect.

it has massive ramifications if you use rockets, you need more power and fuel, and if NASA knows about the increased moon gravity, then they probably prepared for it with some weird and wonderful science
 
Astrophysics isn't exactly the most mature of all the sciences. We still don't know why lots of stuff happens.
As for the lander, theres just not really any flame to be seen. The fuel they used didn't lend itself to being a big visible rocket, nor does the lack of the air on the moon. We're not used to how stuff acts in space naturally, so it always looks "wrong" to our eyes.
 
wouldn't it make sense then that the graity of the moon would depend which side of the moon you are on?

so if you're on the normal light side of the moon it could be much less than earth, cause you're being pulled to earth at the same time as the moon.on the dark side, where you're being pulled down by the moon and to a lesser extent by earth, the gravity could be closer to that of earth's.

just using common sense here
 
The man does bring up a good point. If a moon size object can cause the tides here on Earth, then what could an Earth sized object do to the moon?
 
Just to anybody that doubts we landed on the moon. I mean is it that hard to believe? We have jet aircraft, you have seen them fly, do you believe in that? You have seen the space shuttle take off with passengers aboard, so we obviously have gone into space.

Its very complicated to do. but very simple to understand. we get in space ship, fly through space, land on moon.

Its more complicated than going to the airport and flying to hawaii, but people do that every day.

I think space is fascinating. I would love to see more happen with space travel. More broadcasting from the moon to my T.V. would be welcome.
 
The point of this thread isn't to call into question the moon landings. Its about the moon's gravity.
 
If you read the first post, you would see that he posed the question of whether we(USA) ever landed on the moon, at least put some question in some of our minds, that that was what he was getting to. Thus the topic was brought up by several people on this thread.

Ill post more concluding to that later, but one of the main assertions to this is the movement of astronaut's on the moon, a 185 pound suit and man combination, would weight only 31 pounds on a 1/6 gravity moon. Theoretically with 1/6 gravity they should of been able to perform high jumps, and slow backflips,They made a number of jumps and only appeared to be making 18 inches off the ground, speeding the video up makes it appear twice as odd. almost earth gravity in normal playback, its all very Interesting.
 
First off.. Use SI units, base 12 gay-ass imperial is just gay, there's no excuse.

Distance between the Earth and the Moon is approx 3.844x10^8 meters, we know this because those real fly guys at NASA play about bouncing all kinds of lasers and crap off mirrors.
Alledged mass of the Moon = 7.36x10^22 Kg.
Alledged mass of the Earth = 5.9742x10^24 Kg

As any moron should know... the gravitational force between two objects is given by;

F=GMm/r^2

If you want to find the neutral point, where a body is in gravitational equilibrium between the Moon and Earth, then a really simple no-edyookashun-in-maths-required way of doing it is:-

F=G*M_e*M/(r_e)^2=G*M_m*M/(r_m)^2

where M_e = mass of the Earth, M_m = mass of the Moon, r_e=distance from the object to the Earth, r_m = distance from the object to the moon and M is the mass of any object you want to put inbetween the moon and the earth in the equilibrium position.. How about your chavved -up Ford sierra with a motorsport sticker, or if you're Hamerikan, a Hummer will do?

notice the Gs and the Ms cancell and after a bit of magic transposition you get;

(M_e/M_m)^0.5=r_e/r_m

'knowing' the masses of the Moon and Earth you get the ratio;

9.0095*r_m=r_e

which means, the magic position of the neutral point is approx 9 times closer to the Moon than the Earth, and hey... get this... because we know the distance between the Earth and the Moon is 3.844x10^8 meters, we can work out that the distance from the moon is 38440KM, which in Gay language is 23887 Miles! DIG IT!

And get this, that number is in the range given by those QUOTE "guesses from trained scientist's" thought (BTW, when something belongs to something that's plural, the apostrophe goes after a single s... Dig; Scientists')... (It takes trained scientists to come up with it? WTF did they teach them in school?). Since it's TIME (ha!) who came up with some bullshit crap about the neutral point being something other than what it is I think I'll stick with my very own working out... HINT; I'll stick with my numbers until they make a hyoooge-ass weighing scale to weigh the Moon and get me a more accurate figure.

You think NASA is holding something back? Let me just get my balls out for you to suck.

Peace and Love, JDB
 
PvtRyan said:
The man does bring up a good point. If a moon size object can cause the tides here on Earth, then what could an Earth sized object do to the moon?


The force on the Earth due to the Moon is the same as the force on the Moon due to the Earth
 
I think the reason they didn't do backflips and high jumps was because they didn't wanna risk their equipment and with it their lives. I don't think the reason is because a commonly accepted, and well-proven theory, is false.

Newton's formulas have been used to calculate pretty much all space travel to date.
 
JDB said:
The force on the Earth due to the Moon is the same as the force on the Moon due to the Earth
He was probably thinking about acceleration. F=ma... same force on a much smaller mass means much higher acceleration. For example, if you put a tiny fridge magnet next to a 100kg magnet one is going to move a lot faster than the other even though both are feeling a force of the same magnitude. So, the Moon appears to be affected more than the Earth.

Also, the force at both points is the same but the force counteracting it on the Earth's surface is stronger than the force counteracting it on the Moon's surface. So, there would be a more noticeable effect on the Moon if there were oceans there for it to actually have an effect on. Think of the common force between them as a bottle rocket. If you tie the bottle rocket to an RC car (facing backwards so that it will attempt to slow the car down) it's going to have a proportionately stronger effect than if you tied the bottle rocket to a real car. One might slow down significantly but you won't notice any difference in the other. It's the same force but the force it is fighting over an object against (representing the gravitational pull of the planet it is currently on) is different. That is... assuming that the Moon has a lower gravitational pull at its surface.

The post he was commenting on does have some validity. If you're standing on the side of the moon facing the Earth then the Earth's gravitational force is pulling you away from the surface of the Moon while the Moon is pulling you toward the Moon... and on the other side you would have the two forces both pulling you toward the Moon. Now, depending on the magnitude of the Earth's force at that distance compared to the Moon's force at its surface, the difference could be significant or small enough that you wouldn't even notice... and I'm not bored enough to do the work.

mrlangenakker said:
isnt the gravity of a planet determined by the size?
It's mass (not just taking up a lot of space) that causes the gravitational pull... but if it is very dense/small the pull will be stronger on the surface because the surface is closer to the center of mass... and distance is exponential, inversely (half the distance = four times the force... one third the distance = nine times the force... one fourth the distance = 16 times the force... etc). This is why black holes can be small and yet still strong enough, because they are so massive, to stop light.
 
Back
Top