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

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

MIT Lunar reflector experiment

Started bynumbernumber1964@gmail.com
First post2016-09-08 22:25 -0700
Last post2016-10-09 11:41 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 115 — 14 participants

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

#392872

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-09-19 01:02 +0000
Message-ID<nrndeh$jao$4@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#392846
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

<snip babbling>

I'm sorry, but it's been over 100 years since the puzzle why the
photoelectric effect doesn't have any intensity threshold (but does have a
frequency threshold) was solved by Einstein with his concept of the
photon.

The puzzle was that Red light, no matter the intensity, could not knock
out a single electron from the photosensor, yet the dimmest violet light,
down to a single photon of it, could.

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

#392892

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-18 19:33 -0700
Message-ID<6c52ccaa-aaff-4200-854b-b4e66618f470@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
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]

#392936

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-09-19 14:21 +0000
Message-ID<nros9f$p6k$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#392892
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

<snip same old false statement>

We already know the photoelectric limit is one photon producing one electron,
which can be multiplied by a variety of methods.  The photographic limit of
the Hubble telescope is about magnitude -30, which requires an 18 hour
exposure and detecting incoming photons one by one until it has enough to
form a clear image.

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

#393005

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-19 15:18 -0700
Message-ID<71fef6e2-69e4-463c-8205-4a0e93f2c56b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
"It is also possible, on the same view, that when the intensity of the light drops below a certain value, the electric force in the wave fronts is insufficient to break the bonds holding the electron to its equilibrium position, indicating a kind of a photoelectric "threshold" in intensity." (Hughes, p. 29).

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

#393039

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-09-20 02:53 +0000
Message-ID<nrq8c0$5i5$5@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#393005
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>"It is also possible, on the same view, that when the intensity of the 
>light drops below a certain value, the electric force in the wave fronts 
>is insufficient to break the bonds holding the electron to its 
>equilibrium position, indicating a kind of a photoelectric "threshold" in 
>intensity." (Hughes, p. 29).

Now read the next two sentences (after the phrase in parentheses).

"The conclusion to which the most reliable experiments all lead is that
the photoelectric current is accurately proportional to the intensity of
the light. Moreover, there is not the slightest trace of any evidence for
any deviation from this relation, either for the weakest light that can be
used (so weak that the eye cannot detect it) or for the strongest light
available (sunlight)."

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

#393112

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-20 09:15 -0700
Message-ID<098aae2a-8a2d-44ce-aaf0-f7df035009b6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
Read this "threshold intensity".

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

#393130

FromGary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date2016-09-20 12:24 -0700
Message-ID<a7a4be94-c99e-4740-91fd-15b9070b2aaa@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#393112
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:15:57 AM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Read this "threshold intensity".

Got it!  YOU can't read.

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

#393135

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-20 13:08 -0700
Message-ID<78b1e6dd-18d8-4519-b125-9d0dc3a7990d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
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. A very small intensity light beam does not produce the photoelectric effect since the threshold intensity is not produced.


"It is also possible, on the same view, that when the intensity of the light drops below a certain value, the electric force in the wave fronts is insufficient to break the bonds holding the electron to its equilibrium position, indicating a kind of a photoelectric "threshold" in intensity." (Hughes, p. 29).

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

#393148

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-09-20 21:36 +0000
Message-ID<nrsa5a$mbo$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#393135
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

<snip false crap>

Go ahead and babble the same crap over and over again.
Meanwhile, the Hubble will continue to collect really cool
photographs of extremely dim objects, one photon at a time.

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

#393144

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-20 14:17 -0700
Message-ID<2ecec52f-3926-47ad-a1d9-97e8130e9c82@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).

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

#393152

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-20 15:22 -0700
Message-ID<fcafb1f2-ad34-4372-8704-94b6bdfe6a43@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
The Hubble cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble to view a object requires that the illuminated object has a diameter of 200 meters. The lunar reflected has a surface area of one square meter.  If Hubble can see the lunar lander using one photon emitted over an extended period then show me a picture of the lunar lander using the Hubble without a computer enhancement.

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

#393261

FromGary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date2016-09-21 14:57 -0700
Message-ID<2756e4d8-7aa3-44fd-9ed7-fda928432bc0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#393152
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 4:22:38 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The Hubble cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon.

Irrelevant.  The HST has more important things to look at.

> [Remaining babbling deleted for sanitary reasons]

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

#393243

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-21 11:35 -0700
Message-ID<731dd8f5-51ad-42f4-abaa-6bcf55f4910c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
Are you licking your wounds with Tom. You know what's coming next. Tell your friends at MIT I said Hello.

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

#393379

Fromakashaheights@gmail.com
Date2016-09-22 12:27 -0700
Message-ID<cc5045e1-3ff6-4590-9d9f-4481fd5fe58c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
Dear Mr or Ms Morney

The Hubble cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble to view a object requires that the illuminated object has a diameter of 200 meters. The lunar reflected has a surface area of one square meter.  If Hubble can see the lunar lander using one photon emitted over an extended period then show me a picture of the lunar lander using the Hubble without a computer enhancement.

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

#393382

Fromakashaheights@gmail.com
Date2016-09-22 12:33 -0700
Message-ID<61e9f50e-d7c5-48a8-a4be-3fc5b86f6626@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+telescope+pictures+of+the+moon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ-6TJ2qPPAhUC-2MKHQCRB1cQ_AUICSgC&biw=1024&bih=726#imgrc=xT2VB-SL16RiFM%3A

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

#393384

Fromakashaheights@gmail.com
Date2016-09-22 12:34 -0700
Message-ID<98ed297c-798f-4437-aa51-b39c2370701c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
This is a photo by the Apollo



https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+telescope+pictures+of+the+moon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ-6TJ2qPPAhUC-2MKHQCRB1cQ_AUICSgC&biw=1024&bih=726#imgrc=4eq_kQWONC1u2M%3A

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

#393385

Fromakashaheights@gmail.com
Date2016-09-22 12:36 -0700
Message-ID<55f43051-88f4-48aa-882f-86351fb99960@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
Those little spots on the Apollo photos do not even appear on the Hubble photos.

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

#393526

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-23 14:18 -0700
Message-ID<4c360172-7161-47ef-9a21-3de5f5c980b6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
Moroney got is butt kicked similar to when Trump kick that FL senator in the debate when he stated that he didn't vote in the last 4 elections.

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

#393599

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2016-09-24 15:24 +0000
Message-ID<ns65qp$pme$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#393526
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>Moroney got is butt kicked similar to when Trump kick that FL senator in 
>the debate when he stated that he didn't vote in the last 4 elections.

I am not going to play your stupid game where you post some false crap,
I reply how it's wrong, and you autistically repost the exact same
discredited statement in response, over and over, again and again.

Bye.

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

#393528

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2016-09-23 14:22 -0700
Message-ID<36e47cfa-2769-4bde-be44-7bcf5c5da00b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#391847
Tell me what's it like getting a face rub?

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

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

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

csiph-web