Moon's Gravity (This is another silly question)

[martinrlaw]

Did astronauts bother to measure the effect of gravity on the moon, when they had the opportunity, to try to ascertain / prove the ratio of mass to G force.

[comingfrom]

I wondered the same thing myself, about the Martian rovers, whether they have a kilogram on a scale on board, to compare the weight with predicted calculations.

[querious]

Did astronauts bother to measure the effect of gravity on the moon, when they had the opportunity, to try to ascertain / prove the ratio of mass to G force.

What exactly are you asking about? To safely land men on the moon, they probably had SOME idea of the "mass to G" ratio, whatever that is.

[D_Archer]

I do know they tested a light object and a heavy object and they fell down at the same rate...

Regards,
Daniel

[comingfrom]

This question was also asked about Mars.

I searched and got so many hits telling how much the lander weighs. All I could think was, sure, the lander's weight was important when lifting it off the earth, but I bet they don't know how much it actually weighs when it's on the Moon, or Mars.

As querious stated, "they probably had SOME idea".

Can we even make a scale that works away from Earth? I imagine ordinary scales might not give a meaningful reading while operating in an unmeasured gravity. Or our kilo might still be a kilo, when both the weight and scale are in one sixth gravity. It's interesting to think about how we could even do direct gravity comparison measurements.
~Paul

[SDK]

I do know they tested a light object and a heavy object and they fell down at the same rate.

I never thought of it at the time, but!

According to Newton, this experiment should mean, that weight and inertial mass are equal on the moon, same as on the earth, as I have long suspected, making both, weight and inertial mass dependent on the gravitational field. Thank you Archer for reminding me.

With kind regards, Slavek.

[querious]

I do know they tested a light object and a heavy object and they fell down at the same rate.

I never thought of it at the time, but!

According to Newton, this experiment should mean, that weight and inertial mass are equal on the moon, same as on the earth, as I have long suspected, making both, weight and inertial mass dependent on the gravitational field. Thank you Archer for reminding me.

With kind regards, Slavek.

SDK,
You really should google "weight vs mass". They are not the same thing, and inertial mass doesn't depend on the local g-field.

[martinrlaw]

Gravity is not as simple as most people think. What is gravity, how does it work, why is it not bipolar like other forces, is it a force at all,could it just be an effect of mass? Whatever it is we are all familiar with it's effects

Wal Thornhill proposed that it is a bipolar force possessed by all bodies having intrinsic mass. The positive, attractive force acts outwards, away from the centre of mass (gravity) while the negative (repulsive) force acts inwards towards towards the centre of mass (gravity) pushing against the much stronger forces holding the body together,thus,we will only ever be able to observe the positive, attractive, effects of gravity.

While this is still only a theory, it's a better theory than anything that the Standard Cosmology camp have been able to produce.

My reason for asking the question is to find out whether any measured proof of the Moon's gravitational effect exists.

Martin

[querious]

Gravity is not as simple as most people think. What is gravity, how does it work, why is it not bipolar like other forces, is it a force at all,could it just be an effect of mass? Whatever it is we are all familiar with it's effects

Wal Thornhill proposed that it is a bipolar force possessed by all bodies having intrinsic mass. ...

While this is still only a theory, it's a better theory than anything that the Standard Cosmology camp have been able to produce.

Martin

Martin,
Since you think it's a better theory, hopefully you can be the first person on this forum to explain why a charged foil doesn't react differently when charged positively vs negatively in the Earth's dipole field?

[SDK]

SDK,
You really should google "weight vs mass". They are not the same thing, and inertial mass doesn't depend on the local g-field.

Hi Querious. I know, I know. And if we were on a Christian forum and I dared to question the existence of a devil, someone would certainly point me to say Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." And I could turn right back and point out that this "Satan" is an allegoric expression representing a fall of a comet, first circling our planet like Phaeton was said to do, then coming down to the earth in several chunks of which one was a relatively major piece, with "deceit" being again an allegoric expression of such a heavenly body wreaking havoc into the long established environment of the earth. Then they might even shut me off their site.

Querious, if I were not familiar with the now standard concept of mass and weight, I could have hardly questioned it. Right? It is all about assumptions.

When I look at the mighty Saturn 5 and compare it with what got those Apollo guys off the moon, assuming that the scarce visual documentation of the module takeoff from the moon is genuine, I have no other choice but to again question the universal applicability of the current mass/weight paradigm, and unless I find some sensible experimental evidence, I have no choice, but to stick to my hesitation to accept the sacred word of the "bible", which after all is all this site is about.

With kind regards, Slavek.

[querious]

SDK,
You really should google "weight vs mass". They are not the same thing, and inertial mass doesn't depend on the local g-field.

Hi Querious. I know, I know. And if we were on a Christian forum and I dared to question the existence of a devil, someone would certainly point me to say Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." And I could turn right back and point out that this "Satan" is an allegoric expression representing a fall of a comet, first circling our planet like Phaeton was said to do, then coming down to the earth in several chunks of which one was a relatively major piece, with "deceit" being again an allegoric expression of such a heavenly body wreaking havoc into the long established environment of the earth. Then they might even shut me off their site.

Querious, if I were not familiar with the now standard concept of mass and weight, I could have hardly questioned it. Right? It is all about assumptions.

When I look at the mighty Saturn 5 and compare it with what got those Apollo guys off the moon, assuming that the scarce visual documentation of the module takeoff from the moon is genuine, I have no other choice but to again question the universal applicability of the current mass/weight paradigm, and unless I find some sensible experimental evidence, I have no choice, but to stick to my hesitation to accept the sacred word of the "bible", which after all is all this site is about.

With kind regards, Slavek.

It sounds like you're suggesting NASA used a different set of physical assumptions that only THEY are privy to? Am I right?

[SDK]

Your assumption appears to me entirely puzzling. May be try to reread my post and take it at its face value. Reading between the lines is a dangerous proposition.

[martinrlaw]

Hi All,

I didn't mean to stir up all this hostility, please watch "WALLACE THORNHILL: Understanding The Long Path To Gravity" and see what it means to you. See youtube address below

Proving the Moon's gravity, by simple means that everybody can understand, seems to me to be logical but like I said this was a silly question. Silly question or not, understanding gravity is of paramount importance.

Martin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

[querious]

Hi All,

I didn't mean to stir up all this hostility, please watch "WALLACE THORNHILL: Understanding The Long Path To Gravity" and see what it means to you. See youtube address below

Proving the Moon's gravity, by simple means that everybody can understand, seems to me to be logical but like I said this was a silly question. Silly question or not, understanding gravity is of paramount importance.

Martin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

Hi Martin,
Regarding the video, what it means to me is that Wal doesn't know what he's talking about. A dipole-based gravity field would drive a charged foil in one direction and a completely opposite direction when charged with the opposite polarity. How do you get around that?

What test EXACTLY would you propose to "prove the moon's gravity"?

With kind regards,
Querious

[SDK]

Now that i think about it they have not done any test, but they did jump around lighter than on earth but did not bring any scales. Regards, Daniel

I don't know Daniel. From what I have seen, they jumped in slow motion, but no higher than could be expected on the earth. At the same time, the sand they kicked up also wouldn't fly any higher and farther, than what could be expected on the earth. In one scene, one of them goes down and his buddy is helping him up, yet within the context of slow motion, it again did not appear, that the falling guy was "feather" light.

And of course, I also never caught anything on experimentation which would establish, what is the exact force of gravity on the moon, never mind the inertial mass of acceleration. That is very strange. I would have suspected, that NASA would be all gaga to give an undeniable proof of these values as they are on the moon, not even mentioning, that such data should have come handy for the future.

With kind regards, Slavek.