Moon Walkers.

[LibreEnergia]

I think you will find that you have not read the situation that myself and MH are talking about.
So before making comments,perhaps spend some time reading the thread first,as what you just described has nothing to do with what we are talking about--that being the difference of an astronauts weight and impact he has on the moon--nothing to do with earth at all.

Brad

Ive read and understood it perfectly well. The fact that you cant understand why  what ive described is related to the situation you describe is evidence for your complete ingnorance of basic physics.

[tinman]

Ive read and understood it perfectly well. The fact that you cant understand why  what ive described is related to the situation you describe is evidence for your complete ingnorance of basic physics.

Are you sure your not MH in desguise?,as you seem to be just as confused as he is.

What astronaut will make an impact on the moons surface that is greatest while, bouncing along in the same way as they do in the video's
1-an astronaut that weights 130KG's on the moon
2-an astronaut that weighs 21.45KG's on the moon

Lets see if you pass basic physics

[LibreEnergia]

Are you sure your not MH in desguise?,as you seem to be just as confused as he is.

What astronaut will make an impact on the moons surface that is greatest while, bouncing along in the same way as they do in the video's
1-an astronaut that weights 130KG's on the moon
2-an astronaut that weighs 21.45KG's on the moon

Lets see if you pass basic physics

Firstly, a kg is a unit of mass, not a weight, so obviously a mass of 130 kg will have more impact compared with a 21.45 kg one. However, if an astronaut with a mass of 130 kg on earth were to go to  the moon he would weigh 6 times less. Were he to jump up and down on a spot he would have have exactly the same impact on earth as he does on the moon, assuming he used the same amount of energy for each jump. The thing that would change is he would jump higher on the moon.

[tinman]

Firstly, a kg is a unit of mass, not a weight, so obviously a mass of 130 kg will have more impact compared with a 21.45 kg one. However, if an astronaut with a mass of 130 kg on earth were to go to  the moon he would weigh 6 times less. Were he to jump up and down on a spot he would have have exactly the same impact on earth as he does on the moon, assuming he used the same amount of energy for each jump. The thing that would change is he would jump higher on the moon.

Only he dose not jump higher on the moon,as can be clearly seen in the video in question,and as we are dealing with the astronauts motion on the moon(with no relativity as to what he dose on earth),then we use his weight as it is on the moon.
Quote MH
Because the 170-pound astronaut and the 120-pound space suit form a 290-pound "ground thumper" that hits the ground for every bounce.  That makes the ground shake, a small portion of the energy from the bounce makes the flag pole rattle.

So as you can see,it was MH that chose to use weight in stead of mass to describe his ground shaking theory--not me. So i corrected him on his mistake,and converted his incorrect !!weights!! to the correct weight the astronaut and his suit would weigh.
The correct paragraph would read--
Because the 28.05-pound astronaut and the 19.8-pound space suit form a 47.85-pound "ground thumper" that hits the ground for every bounce.  That makes the ground shake, a small portion of the energy from the bounce makes the flag pole rattle

So,can you now see,when the astronauts motion is the same in both cases,as to how MH's incorrect weight makes a huge difference in supporting his theory as to how the astronauts would cause the ground to shake,and the flag to waver,while bouncing on past. So now MH's small portion of the impact energy that makes the flag !rattle! is now 600% smaller.


Brad

[MileHigh]

So as you can see,it was MH that chose to use weight in stead of mass to describe his ground shaking theory--not me.

I doesn't make sense that you can pull up quotes from all over the thread and miss what I said:

<<< I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense.  You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't.   What's the "m" in f = ma? >>>

Definition:  Colloquial language, colloquial dialect, or informal language is a variety of language commonly employed in conversation or other communication in informal situations.

<<< I intentionally switched from pounds to kilograms because pounds is a wishy-washy English unit that can mean weight or mass, whereas kilograms is universally understood to mean MASS ONLY.  Clearly you were not aware of that, as in, "The combined weight is 21.45kg's(now that you have gone metric)." >>>

I have probably told you about 20 times in the thread so far that it is the mass that counts and not the weight.   Just a few posts earlier I said it again:

<<< In all three cases the impact energy will be the same.  It's not about weight, it's about mass.  >>>

I have seen you pull this silly "selective memory" stunt before.