Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391847 > unrolled thread

MIT Lunar reflector experiment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 22:25 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-09 13:53 +0000
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 10:03 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-09 10:31 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 11:43 -0700
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:06 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-10 11:46 +0200
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-10 06:53 -0700
              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-11 09:03 +0200
                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 05:57 -0700
                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-11 10:04 -0500
                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 10:32 -0700
                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:52 -0500
                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 01:23 -0700
                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 04:51 -0700
                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 10:39 -0700
                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 16:10 -0700
                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-14 06:05 -0700
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 06:22 -0700
                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 00:14 -0700
                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:52 -0700
                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 05:48 -0700
                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 06:29 -0700
                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 13:42 -0700
                                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:57 -0700
                                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-16 10:34 -0700
                                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:53 -0500
                                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:21 -0700
                                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-17 10:37 -0500
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 10:21 -0700
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:36 -0700
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:37 -0500
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-21 23:18 -0500
                                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-09-25 16:01 -0400
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:47 -0700
                                                What does "classical" mean? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-16 22:35 -0500
                                                  Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 05:13 +0000
                                                    Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 08:31 +0000
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:04 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:33 +0000
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-11 22:32 +1000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:36 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-09 20:20 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:37 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:40 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:38 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:46 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:41 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:52 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 14:48 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:35 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:48 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:55 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:38 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 00:05 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 19:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:56 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 04:35 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:58 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:24 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 13:54 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:56 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 14:38 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:34 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 17:50 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 11:51 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 02:50 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:26 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:40 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 00:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:02 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:33 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:21 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 02:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:15 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 12:24 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 13:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 21:36 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 14:17 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 14:57 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:27 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:33 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:34 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:36 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 15:24 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 12:06 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 01:19 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 11:13 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 19:04 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:48 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 12:15 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Jan2 - 2016-09-30 11:20 +0200
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:13 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:51 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 16:00 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:05 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 16:03 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:41 -0700

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#392017

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold 
>intensity

Threshold FREQUENCY, not intensity.  This was well known a hundred years
ago.  Einstein was able to explain WHY there was no threshold intensity
(until you reach 1 photon, anyway) and WHY there was a threshold 
frequency.

>There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect 
>that describes a threshold intensity.

Threshold FREQUENCY.  You need to READ some of those books some day.

>  The lunar lander experiment is a 
>hoax since for the Hubble telescope to recognize an object requires an 
>object of 200 meter in diameter and the MIT lunar lander reflector has a 
>surface area of 1 m squared.

The lunar range scientists never try to image the lunar lander reflector.
There is no need to.  They only get back only about 1 photon per laser 
pulse on average anyway.

The fact that Hubble can not image the reflector is irrelevant.  Do
you know the size of the lens needed to image the disk of Sirius? Yet
we can still see it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392006

I'm running a long-term experiment right now that uses a photomultiplier 
tube to detect very short light PULSES and I get nice pulses of electrons 
out of it.  It works just fine, thank you. 

__________________________________________________________


Hi Troll. What is the length of the light pulse and the distance the light pulse travels less than 138,900 miles? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392072

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog Sep 10 (16 hours ago) 

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: 
> Dispersion is insignificant using lasers.----------Prokaryotic 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> 
> Using a 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3mm. At a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm. At the surface of the moon the beam's width would be over 5,000 miles! 

That is DIFFRACTION, not DISPERSION. 

Two different terms, two different effects. 

____________________________________________________ 

A 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3 mm after propagating a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm and also does not produce fringes a is representative of diffraction; consequently, a 30 W laser beam that has an initial diameter of 4mm form a beam with of over 59 km at the surface of the moon and is also not a diffraction effect since the little beam does not produce a diffraction effect after propagating the distance of 30 ft. To from a diffraction effect require the interaction of light with a diffraction object without the diffraction object there is not diffraction effect.  In the case of the 3 mW laser there in no diffraction object between the laser apparatus and the screen that the laser beam is projected onto to measure the dispersion of a laser beam. If you think that a laser beam does not disperse maybe you should go see a doctor or better yet go to a massage parlor. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392077

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:24:41 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog Sep 10 (16 hours ago) 
> 
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > Dispersion is insignificant using lasers.----------Prokaryotic 
> > 
> > _____________________________________________________________________ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Using a 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3mm. At a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm. At the surface of the moon the beam's width would be over 5,000 miles! 
> 
> That is DIFFRACTION, not DISPERSION. 
> 
> Two different terms, two different effects. 
> 
> ____________________________________________________ 
> 
> A 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3 mm after propagating a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm and also does not produce fringes a is representative of diffraction; consequently, a 30 W laser beam that has an initial diameter of 4mm form a beam with of over 59 km at the surface of the moon and is also not a diffraction effect since the little beam does not produce a diffraction effect after propagating the distance of 30 ft. To from a diffraction effect require the interaction of light with a diffraction object without the diffraction object there is not diffraction effect.  In the case of the 3 mW laser there in no diffraction object between the laser apparatus and the screen that the laser beam is projected onto to measure the dispersion of a laser beam. If you think that a laser beam does not disperse maybe you should go see a doctor or better yet go to a massage parlor.

The term "dispersion" has a precise technical meaning in optics. 
It does not mean what you think it means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392083

Like gravity waves and the velocity of light?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392084

New meaning for a new physics. Yours is an old an broken one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392338

The ostensible general and special relativity assumptions are based on Maxwell's equations that represent a dispersing electromagnetic field; henceforth, the reflected laser beam, of the MIT lunar reflector experiment, represented with Maxwell's dispersing EM field structure cannot produce an detectable intensity using the Hubble's photomultiplier detector since for the Hubble to detect an object on the surface of the moon requires an illuminated object that has a diameter of at least 200 meters; consequently, since the lunar reflector has a surface area of approximately one square meter it is diametrical that an intensity cannot be observed using a land based or Hubble telescope since the Hubble's photomultiplier requires a threshold intensity and an object with the diameter of at least 200 meter to form a detectable intensity of the object observed using the Hubble since the Hubble space telescope cannot view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. Example, in a completely darken airplane hanger a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the hanger 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the said minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulsed beam; the single pulsed beam produced by the Kerr shutter cannot form the threshold intensity of the photoelectric effect of the photomultiplier which is experimental proof MIT is perpetuating a fraud since two physical requirements, a minimum size and intensity, of the object observed, is required in the formation a detectable intensity using a telescope that are ignore by MIT and NASA scientists that competence is in question. In addition, as the laser beam propagates to the moon the dispersion of the laser beam would form a beam width of over 50 km at the surface of the moon and only one square meter of this beam is reflected. Physicists completely ignore the dispersion of the laser beam's width and assume that the laser beam's width is unaffected after propagating a distance of 180,000 miles then completely reflected by the lunar reflected, without dispersion, and propagates another 180,000 miles back to the earth without the beam's width dispersing, to the earth forming an intensity that is detected by a land base telescope which is a completely ludicrous scientific hoax. It's no wonder that the USA space rockets blowup 50% of the times in their launches in the past year.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392386

Don't be a college professor that drolls!!????????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392491

Dispersion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392500

Stick with the topic which is the MIT reflector experiment. Certainly, used SR but related it to the LLRE.



For a laser beam to propagate the distance of 180,000 mile to the moon, the laser beam's width expands and at the surface of the moon is more than 500 mile wide which would result in a large reduce in the intensity that is reflected. Someone on this section stated that a laser beam's width does not disperse which is the justification of the lunar reflector experiment.  That is just one of the problem with this experiment, the second problem is that to view an object on the surface of the moon require that the object has a diameter of 200 meter, using the Hubble; therefore, it would not be possible to view a one square meter reflector's intensity using the Hubble.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392597

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>For a laser beam to propagate the distance of 180,000 mile to the moon, the
>laser beam's width expands and at the surface of the moon is more than 500
>mile wide which would result in a large reduce in the intensity that is
>reflected.

And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every
laser burst.

>That is just one of the problem with this experiment, the second problem is
>that to view an object on the surface of the moon require that the object
>has a diameter of 200 meter, using the Hubble; therefore, it would not be
>possible to view a one square meter reflector's intensity using the Hubble.

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,
they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance.

I can easily see the star Sirius with the small lenses in my eyes.  Lots of
photons are arriving here from Sirius.  But there is no way for me to
_image_ the star as a disk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392652

"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE 
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every 
laser burst. 

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the 
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector, 
they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance." 



______________________________________________________________________


The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons. Example, in a completely darken room a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the room 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the described minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulse; the few photons of the laser pulse produced by the laser and Kerr shutter cannot form the threshold intensity of the photomultiplier required in forming an intensity which proves your argument is physically invalid.



=========================================================================




"I can easily see the star Sirius with the small lenses in my eyes.  Lots of 
photons are arriving here from Sirius.  But there is no way for me to 
_image_ the star as a disk." 



____________________________________


Good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392729

"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE 
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every 
laser burst. 

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the 
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector, 
they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance." Moroneny


______________________________________________________________________ 


The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons. Example, in a completely darken room a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the room 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the described minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulse; the few photons of the laser pulse produced by the laser and Kerr shutter cannot form the threshold intensity of the photomultiplier required in forming an intensity which proves your argument is physically invalid. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392785

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE
>scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every
>laser burst.

>No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the
>Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,
>they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance." Moroneny


>______________________________________________________________________


>The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier
>of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons.

First as others have pointed out, the Hubble wouldn't receive photons from
the LLRE lunar reflector as it is out of line of the return beam. However,
the Hubble uses something called a digicon detector, which uses the
photoelectric effect and silicon diodes to count individual photons. This
type of detector was used for especially faint image sources. More modern
instruments use CMOS pixel detectors to record individual photons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392763

"And the same thing happens on the return trip, so that is why the LLRE 
scientists have to deal with a signal of only one or two photons with every 
laser burst. 

No, to _image_ the reflector would require a lens much larger than what the 
Hubble has. But the LLRE scientists have no need to image the reflector,
they just want to receive photons from it to measure the distance." Moroneny 

______________________________________________________________________ 


The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons since the photomultiplier is based on the photoelectric effect that requires a threshold intensity. Example, in a completely large darken room a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the room 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the described minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulse; the few photons of the laser pulse produced by the laser and Kerr shutter does not produce a signal of the photomultiplier since the fews photons that reach the p-multiplier cannot form the threshold intensity required in forming a detectable signal which proves your argument, based on the assumption that a few photons can form an signal of the light reflect by the MIT lunar reflector, is physically invalid. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392793

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:22:21 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Hubble produces a signal using a photomultiplier but the photomultiplier of the Hubble cannot detect the intensity of a few photons since the photomultiplier is based on the photoelectric effect that requires a threshold intensity. Example, in a completely large darken room a photomultiplier is placed at the end of the room 25 meters from a photomultiplier. The laser beam is adjusted to produce a minimum intensity to form a signal of the photomultiplier. Next, a Kerr shutter is used with the described minimum laser beam intensity to produce an single pulse; the few photons of the laser pulse produced by the laser and Kerr shutter does not produce a signal of the photomultiplier since the fews photons that reach the p-multiplier cannot form the threshold intensity required in forming a detectable signal which proves your argument, based on the assumption that a few photons can form an signal of the light reflect by the MIT lunar reflector, is physically invalid.

Has anybody ever told you that HST is not used for lunar laser ranging? Its
position is not known to sufficient accuracy. Only ground stations can have
their positions evaluated to millimeter accuracy.

Again, there is no threshold *intensity* for the reflected light. Ground-based
photomultipliers *easily* detect single photons of reflected laser light. They 
use narrow bandpass filters to reject all light that does not match the expected
wavelength, they attempt ranging only for retroreflectors that are on nighttime
regions of the Moon, and after many years of experience, they know to within fractional nanoseconds when a return photon *should* be arriving. All of these 
factors enable scientists to distinguish photons returning from a retroreflector
from background noise.

Your posts are based on ignorance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392844

First as others have pointed out, the Hubble wouldn't receive photons from 
the LLRE lunar reflector as it is out of line of the return beam. However, 
the Hubble uses something called a digicon detector, which uses the 
photoelectric effect and silicon diodes to count individual photons. 

________________________________________________________________________



I'm extremely sorry but I cannot understand what you are saying since the statement that you are making implies that light from Mars is forming the light that is used in the Lunar lander experiment. Is this your attempt at abstract experimental physics? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392845

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:26:35 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> First as others have pointed out, the Hubble wouldn't receive photons from 
> the LLRE lunar reflector as it is out of line of the return beam. However, 
> the Hubble uses something called a digicon detector, which uses the 
> photoelectric effect and silicon diodes to count individual photons. 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I'm extremely sorry but I cannot understand what you are saying since the statement that you are making implies that light from Mars is forming the light that is used in the Lunar lander experiment. Is this your attempt at abstract experimental physics? 

How in the world do you conclude THAT from Michael's statement that you have
quoted above the horizontal line?

BTW. It would be nice if you followed standard indentation practices...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392871

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>First as others have pointed out, the Hubble wouldn't receive photons from 
>the LLRE lunar reflector as it is out of line of the return beam. However, 
>the Hubble uses something called a digicon detector, which uses the 
>photoelectric effect and silicon diodes to count individual photons. 

>________________________________________________________________________



>I'm extremely sorry but I cannot understand what you are saying since 
>the statement that you are making implies that light from Mars is forming 
>the light that is used in the Lunar lander experiment. Is this your 
>attempt at abstract experimental physics? 

You're babbling gibberish. I never mentioned Mars. I described a device
used on the Hubble that was able to detect single photons so as to be
able to image very dim sources with long exposure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392846

OK, in a experiment a Kerr shutter is used to form an intensity but after the light pulse propagates a distance of 8 km no intensity is detected. If one thousand pulses are formed using the Kerr shutter, separated by the time of say 38 minutes eventually a single photon would have interacted with the photomultipler detector yet no intensity is ever detected which proves the photoelectric effect has a threshold intensity.  This is experimental physics not theoretical physics. Would you like some citations regarding the threshold intensity regarding the photoelectric effect? I will gladly supple them to you if you would like but if I do then will you agree that the photoelectric effect is based on the threshold intensity?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web