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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

#393634

I'm so sorry that you feel that way. I find it productive when one is not feel well to take a break and take deep breaths. Please do not take what I say personally but I have an addition argument that makes your previous argument moot since this argument is much more easier to understand or maybe I been tricking you since it is closed to Halloween and its so funny to play with you. This new assessment is based on the fact that there is a limit to the power of the Hubble. Example, if one was to climb a large mountain and from the top of the mountain with a pair of binocular one cannot read the words of a book 200 miles away since a pair of binocular has a finite power that limits the range. Now for the Hubble regarding the lunar lander experiment one cannot tell based on your one photon assumption if that one photon originated from the lunar lander or the lunar reflector since the view a detectable point on the surface of the moon, using the Hubble, would require a illuminated object that has a diameter of more than 200 meters.  I hope this answers your question and you are more happy because of it. Your thoughtful and compassionate comments are appreciated and adored. Love, hugs and kisses--- Big Ben.

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

#393678

No, I keep trying to point out the difference between detecting light from
something and being able to image it.  You just respond with the same post
about the Hubble being unable to image the Apollo landers or anything
smaller than 200 meters, again and again. That's irrelevant, we're talking
about detecting light from it, not imaging it.  Remember, the night sky is
full of stars that Hubble also can't image, but people can see with their
naked eyes.

I'm not going to respond to such threads again just to have you repost the
very thing I responded to, yet again.  You do the same thing in many posts
such as pointing out that magnets can't accelerate a proton beam at CERN.  
That's true, which is why they use electric fields to accelerate the
protons, and that has been pointed out to you.  You respond by reposting
the same statement about the magnets, yet again.

So again, bye.

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

#393899

To use the lunar reflector to measure the distance to the moon requires being able to determine where the photon originated.  Since the Hubble requires a illuminated object that is more than 200 meters in diameter at the surface of the moon to detect a point, based on your single photon assumption, it is not physically possible to determine where the photons near the lunar lander originated from.  The photons that originate within the 200 meter diameter around the lunar lander that is represented with your ostensible illuminated point could have originated from the lunar lander or the MIT Lunar reflector; this ambiguity proves that the MIT lunar lander experiment is a scientific hoax.  Furthermore, to determine the distance to the moon requires the precise time the photon was emitted by the source (laser) but in your explanation you stated that the photons were being emitted by the source for an extended period of time which would not fulfill the time measurement requirement in the determination of the distance to the moon.

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

#393939

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:13:51 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> To use the lunar reflector to measure the distance to the moon requires
> being able to determine where the photon originated.

We KNOW where it originated, ignorant one.  It originated at the reflector
they pointed the beam at.

> Since the Hubble requires a illuminated object that is more than 200
> meters in diameter at the surface of the moon to detect a point,

The Hubble is NOT used for LLR experiments, dunce brain.

> based on your single photon assumption, it is not physically possible to
> determine where the photons near the lunar lander originated from.

COmplete baloney.  Only the corner reflector returns an significant light.
Apparently, you are too ignorant to know what a corner reflector does.

> The photons that originate within the 200 meter diameter around the lunar
> lander that is represented with your ostensible illuminated point could
> have originated from the lunar lander or the MIT Lunar reflector;

And what difference would it make if they did, brainless one.  All the
area around the reflector is the SAME distance from the earth.

> this ambiguity proves that the MIT lunar lander experiment is a scientific
> hoax.

Nope.  It proves that you are stupider than lunar dirt.

> Furthermore, to determine the distance to the moon requires the precise
> time the photon was emitted by the source (laser) but in your explanation
> you stated that the photons were being emitted by the source for an
> extended period of time which would not fulfill the time measurement
> requirement in the determination of the distance to the moon.

The pulse length is 100 picoseconds.  Do you even have a clue as to what
that means?  No, I didn't think so.  It's just over an inch.  Do you even
have the wisp of an idea how they can determine distances to even less
than an inch with a 100 picosecond pulse?  No, I didn't think you did. 

You are an ignorant crank and an arrogant troll, and you make a fool of
yourself every time you make a post.

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

#393923

To use the lunar reflector to measure the distance to the moon requires being able to determine where the photon originated. A telescope has a limit to the ability to view an object.  Example, climbing to a tall mountain and using a pair of binoculars to view a book 200 miles away one cannot read the words printed on the book, using the binocular 200 miles away since a binocular has a limit to it's power in veiwing an image of a word in a book; conversely, the Hubble requires a illuminated object that is more than 200 meters in diameter at the surface of the moon to detect a point, on the surface of the moon, based on your single photon assumption, it is not physically possible to determine where the photons near the lunar lander originated from since the photons that originate within the 200 meter diameter around the lunar lander that is represented with your ostensible illuminated point could have originated from the lunar lander or the MIT Lunar reflector; this ambiguity proves that the MIT lunar lander experiment is a scientific hoax since to determine the distance to the moon using the MIT lunar reflector requires that the photon reflected by the reflector is being detected by the Hubble.  In addition, to determine the distance to the moon, using the lunar reflector, requires the precise time the photon was emitted by the source (laser) but in your explanation you stated that the photons were being emitted by the source for an extended period of time which would not fulfill the specific time measurement requirement in the determination of the distance to the moon.

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

#394007

The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters! A 3mW laser forms a beam width of 3 mm that width increases to 4 mm after propagating a distance of 10 meters; consequently, a 30 W laser with a beam with of 4 mm, pointed at the new moon, would form a beam width of more than 50 km at the surface of the moon yet only a one square meter of intensity is reflected back, by the MIT lunar reflector, to the earth. The reflected intensity would not form a threshold intensity of a photomultiplier of the Hubble which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a scientific hoax but the MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is the closest physicists have come to measuring the velocity of light but the result is no different from Newton's lanterns. Also, the distance to the moon is determine by the angular velocity of the moon and the period; consequently, the distance to the moon was determine before the MIT lunar reflector experiment was initiated.

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

#394151

THE Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters! A 3mW laser forms a beam width of 3 mm that width increases to 4 mm after propagating a distance of 10 meters; consequently, a 30 W laser with a beam with of 4 mm, pointed at the new moon, would form a beam width of more than 50 km at the surface of the moon yet only a one square meter of intensity is reflected back, by the MIT lunar reflector, to the earth. The reflected intensity would not form a threshold intensity of a photomultiplier of the Hubble which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a scientific hoax but the MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is the closest physicists have come to measuring the velocity of light but the result is no different from Newton's lanterns. Also, the distance to the moon is determine by the angular velocity of the moon and the period; consequently, the distance to the moon was determine before the MIT lunar reflector experiment was initiated.

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

#394350

On 2016-09-09 05:25:08 +0000, numbernumber1964@gmail.com said:

> 
> 
> The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently

[snip repeats]
FYI, ypur myth has been busted.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA>

Jan2

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

#394532

Use some common sense, if you cannot see the lunar lander on the surface of the moon, using the Hubble, that is more powerful than any land based telescope then you cannot see the lunar reflected that has a smaller surface area. If NASA does not no the difference between an asteroid and a comet what do you expect.

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

#394533

I was looking at another video closed to your site and they were questioning if NASA landed on the moon and what was compelling to me was that around the lunar lander's rocket nozzles the dust was not disturbed yet there were boot prints a couple of feet away.

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

#394767

The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters! A 3mW laser forms a beam width of 3 mm that width increases to 4 mm after propagating a distance of 10 meters; consequently, a 30 W laser with a beam with of 4 mm, pointed at the new moon, would form a beam width of more than 50 km at the surface of the moon yet only a one square meter of intensity is reflected back, by the MIT lunar reflector, to the earth. The reflected intensity would not form a threshold intensity of a photomultiplier of the Hubble which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a scientific hoax but the MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is the closest physicists have come to measuring the velocity of light but the result is no different from Newton's lanterns. Also, the distance to the moon is determine by the angular velocity of the moon and the period; consequently, the distance to the moon was determine before the MIT lunar reflector experiment was initiated.

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

#395130

fdfd

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

#395219

Gary Harnagel Sep 26 

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:13:51 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:. 

> The photons that originate within the 200 meter diameter around the lunar 
> lander that is represented with your ostensible illuminated point could 
> have originated from the lunar lander or the MIT Lunar reflector;. 

And what difference would it make if they did.  All the area around the reflector is the SAME distance from the earth.. 

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

#395224

Gary Harnagel Sep 26 


On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:13:51 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: 

> The photons that originate within the 200 meter diameter around the lunar 
> lander that is represented with your ostensible illuminated point could
> have originated from the lunar lander or the MIT Lunar reflector;.. 

And what difference would it make if they did.  All the area around the reflector is the SAME distance from the earth.

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

#395286

The Apollo lander cannot be viewed using the Hubble telescope; consequently, a laser beam, that originates from the earth and reflected by the lunar reflector that has a surface area of approximately one square meter cannot form a measurable intensity viewed by the Hubble since using the Hubble space telescope would require a illuminated object, on the surface of the moon, that has a diameter of 200 meters! A 3mW laser forms a beam width of 3 mm that width increases to 4 mm after propagating a distance of 10 meters; consequently, a 30 W laser with a beam with of 4 mm, pointed at the new moon, would form a beam width of more than 50 km at the surface of the moon yet only a one square meter of intensity is reflected back, by the MIT lunar reflector, to the earth. The reflected intensity would not form a threshold intensity of a photomultiplier of the Hubble which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a scientific hoax but the MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is the closest physicists have come to measuring the velocity of light but the result is no different from Newton's lanterns. Also, the distance to the moon is determine by the angular velocity of the moon and the period; consequently, the distance to the moon was determine before the MIT lunar reflector experiment was initiated.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

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

csiph-web