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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360730 > unrolled thread

Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters

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

Contents

  Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-14 16:05 +0000
    Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 11:20 -0500
      Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-14 16:33 +0000
        Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:45 -0500
          Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 16:43 +0000
            Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 12:08 -0500
            Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 17:18 +0000
              Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 19:49 +0000
                Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 20:15 +0000
                  Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 20:55 +0000
                    Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 21:58 +0000
                      Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 22:18 +0000
                        Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 22:20 +0000
                        Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 22:40 +0000
                          Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 23:12 +0000
                            Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-15 23:21 +0000
                Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-15 16:18 -0400
                  Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 20:57 +0000
        Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 04:54 -0700
      Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-14 16:36 +0000
        Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:47 -0500
          Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-15 16:43 +0000
    Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-14 16:40 +0000
    Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-14 17:31 +0000
    Re: Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 23:59 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#360730 — Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters

The relativists with another proof supporting Relativity inside its domain 
of applicability. Not bad.

Moon Hoax Retroreflectors: Hoax Busters Busts the Mythbusters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnnm1ztNO_I

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#360732

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment


> The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance
> between the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth
> are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo
> program (11, 14, and 15), and the time for the reflected light to
> return is determined.
>
> The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from
> the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing
> laser pulses reflected from moon's surface using a laser with a
> millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later
> the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical
> Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[1] Greater accuracy was
> achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on July
> 21, 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, and two more retroreflector
> arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also
> contributed to the experiment. Successful lunar laser range
> measurements to the retroreflectors were first reported by the 3.1 m
> telescope at Lick Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research
> Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona, the Pic du Midi
> Observatory in France, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, and
> McDonald Observatory in Texas.

> Lunar laser ranging measurement data is available from the Paris
> Observatory Lunar Analysis Center,[8] and the active stations. Some
> of the findings of this long-term experiment are:
>
> The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per
> year.[6] This rate has been described as anomalously high.[9]

> The Moon probably has a liquid core of about 20% of the Moon's
> radius.[3]

> The universal force of gravity is very stable. The experiments have
> constrained the change in Newton's gravitational constant G to
> (2±7)×10−13 per year. [10]

> The likelihood of any "Nordtvedt effect" (a differential acceleration
> of the Moon and Earth towards the Sun caused by their different
> degrees of compactness) has been ruled out to high precision,[11][12]
> strongly supporting the validity of the Strong Equivalence
> Principle.

> Einstein's theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity)
> predicts the Moon's orbit to within the accuracy of the laser ranging
> measurements.[3]



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#360735

Sam Wormley wrote:

> Lunar Laser Ranging experiment
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
> 
> 
>> The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance
>> between the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are
>> aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program
>> (11, 14, and 15), and the time for the reflected light to return is
>> determined.
>>
>> The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from

Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both use it 
as a proof and dismiss it same time.

Pay attention to what that expert of a person has to say. Filtering out 
the signal reflected, the photons reflected by the mirror, out of the 
natural photons emitted by the Moon, is close to impossible. 

Also the strength of the Laser used has to be something enormous. The spot 
on the Moon will stretch over killometers AND the lights coherency will be 
lost anyway. Hence the question is, how much light those mirrors will 
reflect anyway, at what strength and in which direction?

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

#360806

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:33:06 +0000, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
> Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both use
> it as a proof and dismiss it same time.

The first experiments simply bounced laser pulses off the surface of the 
moon.  No retroreflectors involved in those.  Ruby lasers, even the old 
ones, pack some punch, and a good filter will pull the faint return pulse 
out of an awful lot of optical noise.

Retroreflectors were placed on the moon later, during the Apollo 
missions.  They provided a lot stronger return pulse, easier to detect.

Work on reading comprehension just a bit.  It's a worthwhile effort.

-- 
Goat

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

#360894

Lofty Goat wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:33:06 +0000, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
>> Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both use
>> it as a proof and dismiss it same time.
> 
> The first experiments simply bounced laser pulses off the surface of the
> moon.  No retroreflectors involved in those.  Ruby lasers, even the old
> ones, pack some punch, and a good filter will pull the faint return
> pulse out of an awful lot of optical noise.

You know this by yourself or you read it from some others. What the heck 
is a "retroreflector" anyway? Can a reflector reflects not retro? I 
thought it must be about some perfect mirrors. (close to perfect), in 
order to reflect back the most of that speckle. In any case, the 
integration of the strength over that area MUST be LESS than the strength 
of the emitted.

You need to learn a lot about light scattering science, my friend.

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

#360904

On 8/15/15 11:43 AM, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
> What the heck is a "retroreflector" anyway?


   Retroreflector
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

> A retroreflector (sometimes called a retroflector or cataphote) is a
> device or surface that reflects light back to its source with a
> minimum of scattering. In a retroreflector an electromagnetic
> wavefront is reflected back along a vector that is parallel to but
> opposite in direction from the wave's source. The angle of incidence
> at which the device or surface reflects light in this way is greater
> than zero, unlike a planar mirror, which does this only if the mirror
> is exactly perpendicular to the wave front, having a zero angle of
> incidence.


> Astronauts on the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions left retroreflectors
> on the Moon as part of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. The Soviet
> Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers also carried smaller arrays.
> Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no
> return signals were detected from 1971 until 2010, at least in part
> due to some uncertainty in its location on the Moon. In 2010, it was
> found in Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographs and the
> retroreflectors have been used again. Lunokhod 2's array continues to
> return signals to Earth.[3] Even under good viewing conditions, only
> a single reflected photon is received every few seconds. This makes
> the job of filtering laser-generated photons from naturally-occurring
> photons challenging.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#360917

In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
> Lofty Goat wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:33:06 +0000, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
>>> Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both use
>>> it as a proof and dismiss it same time.
>> 
>> The first experiments simply bounced laser pulses off the surface of the
>> moon.  No retroreflectors involved in those.  Ruby lasers, even the old
>> ones, pack some punch, and a good filter will pull the faint return
>> pulse out of an awful lot of optical noise.
> 
> You know this by yourself or you read it from some others. What the heck 
> is a "retroreflector" anyway? Can a reflector reflects not retro? I 
> thought it must be about some perfect mirrors. (close to perfect), in 
> order to reflect back the most of that speckle. In any case, the 
> integration of the strength over that area MUST be LESS than the strength 
> of the emitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#On_the_Moon

Yet another babbling, half witted, kook.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#360918

jimp wrote:

> In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
>> Lofty Goat wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:33:06 +0000, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
>>>> Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both
>>>> use it as a proof and dismiss it same time.
>>> 
>>> The first experiments simply bounced laser pulses off the surface of
>>> the moon.  No retroreflectors involved in those.  Ruby lasers, even
>>> the old ones, pack some punch, and a good filter will pull the faint
>>> return pulse out of an awful lot of optical noise.
>> 
>> You know this by yourself or you read it from some others. What the
>> heck is a "retroreflector" anyway? Can a reflector reflects not retro?
>> I thought it must be about some perfect mirrors. (close to perfect), in
>> order to reflect back the most of that speckle. In any case, the
>> integration of the strength over that area MUST be LESS than the
>> strength of the emitted.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#On_the_Moon
> 
> Yet another babbling, half witted, kook.

Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid wikipedia 
link, idiot! 

Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror, idiot. 
What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to integrate 
the strength over surface (2d integration). 

You babbling idiot, and that surface is likely LESS than 1 ppm of the spot 
project on moon surface, due to laser beam divergence. Learn and shut up.
http://vlab.amrita.edu/?sub=1&brch=189&sim=342&cnt=1

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

#360920

In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
>>> Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:33:06 +0000, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
>>>>> Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both
>>>>> use it as a proof and dismiss it same time.
>>>> 
>>>> The first experiments simply bounced laser pulses off the surface of
>>>> the moon.  No retroreflectors involved in those.  Ruby lasers, even
>>>> the old ones, pack some punch, and a good filter will pull the faint
>>>> return pulse out of an awful lot of optical noise.
>>> 
>>> You know this by yourself or you read it from some others. What the
>>> heck is a "retroreflector" anyway? Can a reflector reflects not retro?
>>> I thought it must be about some perfect mirrors. (close to perfect), in
>>> order to reflect back the most of that speckle. In any case, the
>>> integration of the strength over that area MUST be LESS than the
>>> strength of the emitted.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#On_the_Moon
>> 
>> Yet another babbling, half witted, kook.
> 
> Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid wikipedia 
> link, idiot! 
> 
> Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror, idiot. 
> What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to integrate 
> the strength over surface (2d integration). 

No one in their right mind ever said a retroreflector was a perfect
reflector, kook.

To get the power reflected, you measure it, kook.

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100413-apollo15-LRRR.html#.Vc-dUcoaPqg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/153
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576510003371

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#360922

jimp wrote:

>> Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid wikipedia
>> link, idiot!
>> 
>> Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror,
>> idiot.
>> What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to
>> integrate the strength over surface (2d integration).
> 
> No one in their right mind ever said a retroreflector was a perfect
> reflector, kook.
> 
> To get the power reflected, you measure it, kook.

Hey wikipedia freak, you can't change it. You proved you are a brainless 
wikipedia freak. 

Only uneducated amateurs and inexperienced freak idiots may think that 
they can just measure it or something. The profs first of all are 
CALCULATING it. Otherwise that measurement may mean anything, irrelevant 
garbage included.

You know nothing jimp, you just have a big mouth. You don't even know how 
a 2d integration looks like.

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

#360926

In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>>> Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid wikipedia
>>> link, idiot!
>>> 
>>> Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror,
>>> idiot.
>>> What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to
>>> integrate the strength over surface (2d integration).
>> 
>> No one in their right mind ever said a retroreflector was a perfect
>> reflector, kook.
>> 
>> To get the power reflected, you measure it, kook.
> 
> Hey wikipedia freak, you can't change it. You proved you are a brainless 
> wikipedia freak. 

Hey babbling kook, I gave you 7 links, not just wikipedia.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#360927

jimp wrote:

> In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
>> jimp wrote:
>> 
>>>> Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid
>>>> wikipedia link, idiot!
>>>> 
>>>> Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror,
>>>> idiot.
>>>> What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to
>>>> integrate the strength over surface (2d integration).
>>> 
>>> No one in their right mind ever said a retroreflector was a perfect
>>> reflector, kook.
>>> 
>>> To get the power reflected, you measure it, kook.
>> 
>> Hey wikipedia freak, you can't change it. You proved you are a
>> brainless wikipedia freak.
> 
> Hey babbling kook, I gave you 7 links, not just wikipedia.

You are the kook and the freak, jimp. What's your point with those seven 
links. Google gives you a million. I don't read to read anything when I 
know it needs to be done for certain.

You've been proved the freak by saying that "you just measure it". This is 
NOT how things are done in the field of science. Is obvious that you don't 
know.

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

#360928

Eteocles Panagakos wrote:

> jimp wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org>
>> wrote:
>>> jimp wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid
>>>>> wikipedia link, idiot!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror,
>>>>> idiot.
>>>>> What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to
>>>>> integrate the strength over surface (2d integration).
>>>> 
>>>> No one in their right mind ever said a retroreflector was a perfect
>>>> reflector, kook.
>>>> 
>>>> To get the power reflected, you measure it, kook.
>>> 
>>> Hey wikipedia freak, you can't change it. You proved you are a
>>> brainless wikipedia freak.
>> 
>> Hey babbling kook, I gave you 7 links, not just wikipedia.
> 
> You are the kook and the freak, jimp. What's your point with those seven
> links. Google gives you a million. I don't read to read anything when I
> know it needs to be done for certain.

To be read "I don't need to read anything, once I know how it needs to be 
done for certain."

> 
> You've been proved the freak by saying that "you just measure it". This
> is NOT how things are done in the field of science. Is obvious that you
> don't know.

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

#360929

In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
>>> jimp wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid
>>>>> wikipedia link, idiot!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror,
>>>>> idiot.
>>>>> What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to
>>>>> integrate the strength over surface (2d integration).
>>>> 
>>>> No one in their right mind ever said a retroreflector was a perfect
>>>> reflector, kook.
>>>> 
>>>> To get the power reflected, you measure it, kook.
>>> 
>>> Hey wikipedia freak, you can't change it. You proved you are a
>>> brainless wikipedia freak.
>> 
>> Hey babbling kook, I gave you 7 links, not just wikipedia.
> 
> You are the kook and the freak, jimp. What's your point with those seven 
> links. Google gives you a million. I don't read to read anything when I 
> know it needs to be done for certain.

Now there is your problem, kook: "I don't read".

Perhaps if you had read and understood the total of 8 links I gave you,
you would understand why what you've posted is utter, babbling nonsense,
kook.


<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#360932

jimp wrote:

>>>>>> Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror,
>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>> What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to
>>>>>> integrate the strength over surface (2d integration).
>>>>> 
>>>>> No one in their right mind ever said a retroreflector was a perfect
>>>>> reflector, kook.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To get the power reflected, you measure it, kook.
>>>> 
>>>> Hey wikipedia freak, you can't change it. You proved you are a
>>>> brainless wikipedia freak.
>>> 
>>> Hey babbling kook, I gave you 7 links, not just wikipedia.
>> 
>> You are the kook and the freak, jimp. What's your point with those
>> seven links. Google gives you a million. I don't read to read anything
>> when I know it needs to be done for certain.
> 
> Now there is your problem, kook: "I don't read".
> 
> Perhaps if you had read and understood the total of 8 links I gave you,
> you would understand why what you've posted is utter, babbling nonsense,
> kook.

Hey stupid hairy ape, stop posting nothing. You didn't contribute to this 
discussion in any way, but stupidly assumed whatever false thought 
bouncing inside your stupid skull, in something that looks like Brownian 
motion. You are a total, entirely complete moron.

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

#360933

In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
 
>> Now there is your problem, kook: "I don't read".
>> 
>> Perhaps if you had read and understood the total of 8 links I gave you,
>> you would understand why what you've posted is utter, babbling nonsense,
>> kook.
> 
> Hey stupid hairy ape, stop posting nothing. You didn't contribute to this 
> discussion in any way, but stupidly assumed whatever false thought 
> bouncing inside your stupid skull, in something that looks like Brownian 
> motion. You are a total, entirely complete moron.

If it upsets you so when people call you a kook, then stop making
kook posts, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#360921

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:49:34 +0000 (UTC), Eteocles Panagakos
<eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:

>jimp wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> wrote:
>>> Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:33:06 +0000, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
>>>>> Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both
>>>>> use it as a proof and dismiss it same time.
>>>> 
>>>> The first experiments simply bounced laser pulses off the surface of
>>>> the moon.  No retroreflectors involved in those.  Ruby lasers, even
>>>> the old ones, pack some punch, and a good filter will pull the faint
>>>> return pulse out of an awful lot of optical noise.
>>> 
>>> You know this by yourself or you read it from some others. What the
>>> heck is a "retroreflector" anyway? Can a reflector reflects not retro?
>>> I thought it must be about some perfect mirrors. (close to perfect), in
>>> order to reflect back the most of that speckle. In any case, the
>>> integration of the strength over that area MUST be LESS than the
>>> strength of the emitted.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#On_the_Moon
>> 
>> Yet another babbling, half witted, kook.
>
>Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid wikipedia 
>link, idiot! 
>
>Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror, idiot. 
>What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to integrate 
>the strength over surface (2d integration). 
>
>You babbling idiot, and that surface is likely LESS than 1 ppm of the spot 
>project on moon surface, due to laser beam divergence. Learn and shut up.
>http://vlab.amrita.edu/?sub=1&brch=189&sim=342&cnt=1

        The stupid name changing troll has ceased to be funny.

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

#360923

kefischer wrote:

>>Yet another babbling wikipedia freak idiot. Read your stupid wikipedia
>>link, idiot!
>>
>>Does not matter what is it. It can never become a perfect mirror, idiot.
>>What you need is to know the power reflected, hence you need to
>>integrate the strength over surface (2d integration).
>>
>>You babbling idiot, and that surface is likely LESS than 1 ppm of the
>>spot project on moon surface, due to laser beam divergence. Learn and
>>shut up. http://vlab.amrita.edu/?sub=1&brch=189&sim=342&cnt=1
> 
>         The stupid name changing troll has ceased to be funny.

Funny? I not gonna be your monkey, but anyway, do you have the slightest 
idea on how a surface 2d integration looks like, in reality? Not links, in 
reality Kef, this is what it counts, reality. Whithout which you are just 
a piano mover. Which is cool!

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

#360864

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 11:33:12 AM UTC-5, Eteocles Panagakos wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> > Lunar Laser Ranging experiment
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
> > 
> > 
> >> The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance
> >> between the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are
> >> aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program
> >> (11, 14, and 15), and the time for the reflected light to return is
> >> determined.
> >>
> >> The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from
> 
> Are you crazy? That was before manned Moon landing. You can't both use it 
> as a proof and dismiss it same time.

(sigh)
Those early tests to determine the ability to receive return signals
reflected from THE MOON'S SURFACE were performed with lasers with 
MILLISECOND duration, or about 10^8 times the duration of the pulses
being directed towards the retroreflectors on the Moon. The distance
of the Moon would therefore have been determined to about 300 km.

The retroreflectors make a huge difference in the precision with 
which the distance to the Moon can be measured.

> Pay attention to what that expert of a person has to say. Filtering out 
> the signal reflected, the photons reflected by the mirror, out of the 
> natural photons emitted by the Moon, is close to impossible. 
> 
> Also the strength of the Laser used has to be something enormous. The spot 
> on the Moon will stretch over killometers AND the lights coherency will be 
> lost anyway. Hence the question is, how much light those mirrors will 
> reflect anyway, at what strength and in which direction?

Enough that Apache station retrieves on average about one photon for
every pulse. Other, smaller telescopes around the world sited in less
favorable locations with poorer "seeing" may retrieve one photon per 
every several dozen pulses.

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

#360736

Sam Wormley wrote:

>> The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year.[6]
>> This rate has been described as anomalously high.[9]

This is in support of the theory of Divergent Matter.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web