/sci/ - Science & Math

Don't believe me? Watch Mythbusters accidentally BTFO themselves then. Watch from 39:53 to 41:32: https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/
>Lasers had already been reflected off the moon in 1962, six years before the Apollo missions
Yeah, because the entire surface of the moon is, get this, REFLECTIVE!

>>11308131
>they put a 2 foot wide reflector on the moon, and we can fire a laser at it, while Earth spins at 1,028 MPH, and the moon orbits the earth at 2,388 MPH, and we know the angle of the mirror will precisely be what it needs to reflect perfectly back to our location, even though a 0.0001 degree angle difference would reflect the laser missing earth entirely, and even though the angle of the moon from our position is changing by miles per second, and the mirror is 238,000 miles away, but the laser will come right back to where we fired it?

Retards like throwing out big bombad numbers but bizarrely never explain exactly why exactly the feat they’re discussing is so hard to do. Did you forget to mention the part about how the laser beam used for this is multiple kilometers wide when it hits the Lunar surface?

> and even though the angle of the moon from our position is changing by miles per second

Angles aren’t measured in miles. They’re measured in degrees. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and I’m surprised I wasted time replying to this thread that ought to be deleted.

>>11308131
>even though the surface of the moon is naturally reflective
It is more like fresh asphalt. It is just the contrast with the utter darkness of space and the logarithmic sensitivity of our eyes that makes it comparatively bright.

>>11308154
>Did you forget to mention the part about how the laser beam used for this is multiple kilometers wide when it hits the Lunar surface?
thanks, because this only creates more problems. because how the actual FUCK do the 2 foot wide moon mirrors prove the moon landing, if the laser is going to be miles wide and reflect from LITERALLY ANY PART OF THE MOON by the time it reaches it?

>>11308154
>Angles aren’t measured in miles. They’re measured in degrees. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and I’m surprised I wasted time replying to this thread that ought to be deleted.
Yeah obviously I was using short hand so people would actually read it. How can you handle a 0.0001 degree error on a mirror whose relative angle is constantly changing because it's moving at 3502 feet per second?

>>11308154
>this thread that ought to be deleted.
This thread objectively disproves the entire mirror thing and so did you when you said the beam would be miles wide by the time it reaches the moon. I would say that's one of the greatest discoveries in science.

>>11308185
>It is more like fresh asphalt. It is just the contrast with the utter darkness of space and the logarithmic sensitivity of our eyes that makes it comparatively bright.
"you can reflect lasers off literally every part of the moon but its not reflective bro"

>>11308190
>because how the actual FUCK do the 2 foot wide moon mirrors prove the moon landing, if the laser is going to be miles wide and reflect from LITERALLY ANY PART OF THE MOON by the time it reaches it?

The installed reflectors are absurdly more reflective than the surrounding regolith, and most lasers are aimed at the Apollo 15 reflector, triple the size of the reflector you posted as the OP image.

>>11308192
>How can you handle a 0.0001 degree error

Exaggeration. The beam is kilometers wide.

> on a mirror whose relative angle is constantly changing because it's moving at 3502 feet per second?

Very easily, because the actual change in degrees per second of the Moon in respect to earth is minuscule.

https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/288113/azu_td_7401993_sip1_w.pdf

you must be one of those idiot Flat Earthers huh? not even worth responding to. sage.

>>11308195
>This thread objectively disproves the entire mirror thing

No it doesn’t. You’ve disproven nothing in this whole thread.

> and so did you when you said the beam would be miles wide by the time it reaches the moon. I would say that's one of the greatest discoveries in science.

It really isn’t. There is nothing new about beam divergence. You can observe it with a laser pointer yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence

Thanks for proving yet again that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

>>11308206

Not sure why i bother replying, but: they used retroreflectors. Light is always bounced exactly towards the source. This is not some magical cosmic technology, road signs do the same.

>>11308228
noooo.... stop making sense.

>>11308228
Oh, that’s cool.

Inb4 OP disappears

>>11308248
If only

>>11308131
>>11308142
>>>/x/
>>>/b/
>>>/plebbit/

>>11308199
>The installed reflectors are absurdly more reflective
No they're not, barely any light is detected back on earth when they're supposedly hitting them. Lasers have got more powerful over time, that's the main reason why bouncing them is easier than before.

>>11308131
>>11308142
You can tell when someone isn't a scientist because when they hear "they bounced lasers off the Moon as proof of the moon landing" they don't instinctively interpret that as: they did statistical analysis of the results of an experiment designed to test the validity of the hypothesis that there is a retroreflector in the location of the Apollo landings.

>>11308131
OP BTFO

/thread

>>11308374
Having done less than 10 minutes of digging here are some of the experiments. The first one is from 1969 when the only mission to have put a retroreflector on the moon was Apollo 11.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17769756
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/182/4109/229
https://cddis.nasa.gov/lw17/docs/presentations/session14/02a-Murphy_LLR.pdf

>>11308391
Not peer reviewed.

>>11308361
>No they're not

Yes they are. A mirror is more reflective than asphalt, and the surrounding regolith isn’t a retroreflector either, so you wouldn’t even expect to get a return signal from the surrounding regolith in the first place.

> barely any light is detected back on earth when they're supposedly hitting them.

The moon is 200,000 miles away.

>>11308391
>The first one is from 1969 when the only mission to have put a retroreflector on the moon was Apollo 11.

Most lasers are bounced off the Apollo 15 reflector.

>>11308131
It's a retroreflector, it reflects light back to the location it was sent from

>>11308410
Educate yourself. Even the NASA scam artists say that they might get back 10 photons at best from sending a thousand million billion out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpjbdH1y_ds

>>11308405
Science is a peer-reviewed journal

>>11308437
>Even the NASA scam artists say that they might get back 10 photons at best from sending a thousand million billion out

I didn’t say otherwise.
You’re extremely confused, and possibly lying on purpose.
Which is it?

>>11308439
Not the paper you linked.

>>11308449
How many photons would come back off of regolith?

>>11308511
Another tell for someone who isn't a scientist: can't spot and follow a DOI
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.166.3901.99

>>11308519
Yep, not peer reviewed.

>>11308513
>How many photons would come back off of regolith?

I don’t know, why don’t you watch more NASA videos? The regolith isn’t a mirror retroreflector.

>muh moon hoax
http://www.clavius.org/

>>11308530
>I don’t know
Pick up an science book.

>>11308131
>firstly the moon always presents us with the same face, which makes the task significantly easier furthermore they placed a retro-reflector meaning any incoming laser light is reflected back at the same angle with minimal scattering. now a laser fired from earth to the moon would have a sufrace area of about 6.5kms with a greatly reduced intensity due to the inverse square law.

now the task of aiming such a laser is no-doubt difficult, but very much possible given the numerous technniques that exist which allow us high precision when working with lasers. the real question is why do you question this but not the numerous similar technologies like your tv satellite dish? because you're a retarded faggot

>>11308566
>the real question is why do you question this but not the numerous similar technologies like your tv satellite dish?
Because he wants people to think that the retro reflector was the only proof of the moon landings when there's actually an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

>>11308575
you're right but this retardation muddies the waters by seeming to cast doubt onto high quality evidence. which, for a moron, is enough for them to throw the rest out the window

After witnessing both sides of this arguments its pretty clear the reflectors on the moon was highly questionable at best.
Especially this:
>>11308437
>>11308449
>>11308513
Basically NASA and this /sci/ admitting that anywhere they shine a laser on the moon they're going to get photons reflected back at them.

>>11308566
>the real question is why do you question this but not the numerous similar technologies like your tv satellite dish?
Satellites don't exist. It's all done with land based towers and weather balloons. (unironically)

>>11308625
That's one weirdly shaped weather balloon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjLNcPRHrw
Wow! That's one speedy weather balloon! Must be traveling faster than an SR-71!

>>11308622
Every surface reflects photons, so by your "logic" everything has the same brightness and is indistinguishable.

>>11308131
>of the moon is naturally reflective and that's why it shines so brightly in the sky and that any given point on it would reflect anything we shine on it?

I will call this the "moon-mirror" hypothesis

>>11308627
>That's one weirdly shaped weather balloon.
Erm brainlet, balloons can be different shapes.
>Wow! That's one speedy weather balloon!
Erm brainlet, of course it looks fast when you're zoomed in like that.

>>11308667
>Erm brainlet, balloons can be different shapes.
My point was that the satellite in the picture matches the shape of the ISS.

>Erm brainlet, of course it looks fast when you're zoomed in like that.
Look at the video again. It's crossing the Sun. The Sun has a near constant angular diameter. Knowing this and the time it took for the ISS to cross the Sun, the angular speed can be calculated. With this angular speed, the actual speed can be calculated using some basic trigonometry if the altitude of the ISS were known. Fortunately it is known (~410 km) and the speed will come out to about 7.7 kilometers per second, which matches what is expected if it were in low Earth orbit and is much faster than the SR-71 (~1 km/s).

The speed if the ISS based on these calculations will increase if the altitude were lowered to that of where weather balloons are, which shows that it would be impossible to fake the ISS using weather balloons.

>>11308131
>Earth spins at 1,028 MPH, and the moon orbits the earth at 2,388 MPH

Have you ever looked up on the moon at night, retard?

>>11308682
>My point was that the satellite in the picture matches the shape of the ISS.
Erm brainlet, they still put satellites up in weather balloons, pic related.
>Look at the video again. It's crossing the Sun. The Sun has a near constant angular diameter. Knowing this and the time it took for the ISS to cross the Sun, the angular speed can be calculated. With this angular speed, the actual speed can be calculated using some basic trigonometry if the altitude of the ISS were known. Fortunately it is known (~410 km) and the speed will come out to about 7.7 kilometers per second, which matches what is expected if it were in low Earth orbit and is much faster than the SR-71 (~1 km/s).
Erm brainlet, you don't actually know the size of the sun.

>>11308131
>angle
>changing by miles per second
Based retard

>>11308685
>Erm brainlet, they still put satellites up in weather balloons, pic related.
Some do, but not all.

>Erm brainlet, you don't actually know the size of the sun.
Yes, I do. The angular size of the Sun can be easily measured to about 0.5 degrees in apparent diameter. This is a well understood measurement.

>>11308695
>Some do, but not all.
Erm brainlet, all do.
>Yes, I do. The angular size of the Sun can be easily measured to about 0.5 degrees in apparent diameter. This is a well understood measurement
Erm brainlet, no only do you know the size of the sun, you don't even know what it actually is.

>>11308695
>Some do, but not all.
Erm brainlet, all do.
>Yes, I do. The angular size of the Sun can be easily measured to about 0.5 degrees in apparent diameter. This is a well understood measurement
Erm brainlet, no only do you not know the size of the sun, you don't even know what it actually is.

>>11308625
>Satellites don't exist. It's all done with land based towers and weather balloons. (unironically)
Buy a $20 SDR, install some open source signal processing software and go and try to locate your 'land based tower' that transmit any satellite signal. Pro-tip: you can't. While I can easily receive known signals from multiple GNSS satellites at any location on Earth and precisely calculate my location using simple math that requires the satellites to orbit the globe.

>>11308705
what exactly is your point, if the balloon iss would fly lower it would fly even faster. my question is, if balloons can apparently fly at several times the speed of sound, why are we wasting money on fancy aircrafts which can barely even reach that?

>>11308748
He's just gonna claim that its all weather balloons, because apparently those can travel almost 8 times faster than the fastest aircraft.

Pretty soon, tons of people will go to the Moon and they will be able to see that all of the stuff on the surface of the Moon that you could see in the videos during the Apollo missions is present, including subtle details of rocks and soil features. I cant wait.

>>11308763
I get it know, the government spent all money on millions of towers and billions of weather balloons to cover the whole flat Earth with satellite signals and after that there weren't enough money left to get a decent internet and cell phone coverage in rural areas.

>>11308775
Funny, a bunch of private companies were having a competition to do just that, each one would send a probe.
...Then NASA blocked them and told them they were barred from getting close to the landing sites.

>>11308775
NASA has taken legal action to prevent anyone from being allowed near the Apollo landing sites should private companies ever send a probe to the moon.
It's in this documentary somewhere but I can't be fucked to find the timestamp: https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

>>11308786
source?

>>11308752
Erm brainlet, it's just in the jet stream.

>>11308790
A bunch of private companies were having a competition to send their own probes to check out the landing site, and NASA blocked them.
>source?
here: >>11308790 its in there somewhere i just watched it today

i'm starting to think i may be retarded.

>>11308794
sure buddy. jet streams going several times the speed of sound. that sounds reasonable.

>>11308801
Erm brainlet, it's not going that fast. They're much closer than you think.

>Balloontard and clamper show up in the same week
What the fuck is happening

>>11308794
The fastest jet stream recorded was about 0.1 km/s, that is short of the 7.7 km/s needed.

>>11308807
Did you completely miss >>11308682? It states that in order to match what we see with the ISS crossing the Sun the ISS would have to be traveling faster the lower it's altitude is. If the ISS were "closer than you think", then it would be traveling well in excess of 8 km/s. That is ridiculously fast for anything traveling through the atmosphere, much less a jet stream.

>>11308228
ok it leaves at the same angle but shifted over a bit, but the earth has rotated and revolved by then. how is that accounted for?

>>11308813
Rotation once per day is not going to affect something which takes a fraction of a second. And the moon is tidally locked with the Earth so revolution has no effect.

>>11308809
>>11308812
Erm brainlets, you need read up on how perspective works. If you zoomed in on a plane transiting the sun, it'd go a similar speed.

>>11308828
>you need read up on how perspective works
No. You need to. That's not how perspective works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DASn3Lp9Z4g

>>11308813
yes i am sure the earth rotates very much during that one second

>>11308828
The only way ISS could move that fast across the sky at lower altitude is if it were as tiny as your penis.

>>11308834
Erm brainlet, that footage looks slowed down, and the plane is also moving towards the observer slightly, further slowing it down.

>>11308845
The footage hasn't been slowed down.

>>11308845
Jesus fucking Christ, have you ever seen a plane in the sky?

>>11308848
>>11308850
Erm brainlets, explain this then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuRiCFW2Chg

>>11308853
Explain what, that a plain flying closer to the observer travels faster across the view? Now compare the size of that plane and the size of ISS.

>>11308853
That's still slower than the ISS crossing the Sun in >>11308627.

>>11308131
retroreflector much?

>>11308861
>>11308862
Erm brainlets, you just got pwned.

>>11308870
Such advanced technology is beyond primitives like moon hoaxers.

>>11308820
>Rotation once per day is not going to affect something which takes a fraction of a second
Light takes 2.6 seconds to go from earth to moon then back to earth.

>>11308853
so do you believe the moon is a light in the sky?
because i can see the moon with my own fucking eyes, even without a teleskope and see the rocky landscape and even the biggest craters.
do magical lights in the sky have craters anon?

>>11308838
it rotates 460 m/s at the equator. the round trip of light to the moon and back takes 2.6 seconds. It'd be off by 1 km if the observatory is at the equator, less at higher latitudes but still significant, unless light has some kind of inertia

>>11308882
Don't forget that light does scatter and spread out over great distances, so the 1km difference would still fall within the area where the return signal impacts the Earth.

>>11308705
>>11308685
>>11308794
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting you colossal faggot

>>11308790
It would still be nice to see the sites while on the moon, even if I had to view them with binoculars.

>>11308790
If you can't be bothered to find a timestamp for your own claim why do you think anyone else will be?

>>11308881
Erm brainlet, I don't know what the moon is, and neither do you.

>>11308896
>I don't know what the moon is
Here you go, buddy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

>>11308890
Erm brainlet, satellites are on weather balloons, get over it.

>>11308898
Erm brainlet, that's all theoretical. None of us have been there, we don't even know if it's even a physical thing that can be landed on.

>>11308131
>while Earth spins at 1,028 MPH, and the moon orbits the earth at 2,388 MPH

This is completely extraneous information because the Earth and the moon are tidally-locked. They are stationary in Earth's rotational frame of reference.

But what isn't redundant info is the fact that OP is, once again, a faggot.

>>11308895
He's just forcing you to watch through a tinfoil video that he probably made himself

>>11308905
>that's all theoretical
No. Much of it has been experimentally confirmed.

>None of us have been there
http://www.clavius.org/

>we don't even know if it's even a physical thing that can be landed on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_probes

>>11308923
>that he probably made himself
Probably not. Most conspiratards just copy videos off each other.

>>11308929
>No. Much of it has been experimentally confirmed.
>http://www.clavius.org/
Erm brainlet, the moon landings weren't real.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_probes
Erm brainlet, NASA is a scam organisation. Anything they do regarding "space travel" is fake.

>>11308947
>Erm brainlet, the moon landings weren't real.
Look at some of the details of the site again. Or do you have a specific point as to why you think the landings were faked?

>Erm brainlet, NASA is a scam organisation. Anything they do regarding "space travel" is fake.
http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

>>11308952
Erm brainlet, no reason why, they were just faked.

>>11308895
>If you can't be bothered to find a timestamp for your own claim why do you think anyone else will be?
Its before the 1 hour mark I remember that. That documentary is the best Moon Hoax documentary ever made. Ya'll should just watch it so at least you'll know both sides of the argument.

>>11308952
Erm brainlet, pic related, they fake Mars as well.

>>11308667
bait, an iq so low is impossible

>>11308984
Give his special needs handler some credit. He's working extra hard to make sure that anon can shitpost.

>>11308967
>Ya'll should just watch it so at least you'll know both sides of the argument
I've already heard pretty much every failed talking point from moon landing deniers. Let's hear what you think are the three best pieces of evidence the video puts forward so I can tear them apart.

>>11308984
>>11308988
Erm brainlets, why do you trust NASA?

>>11309001
i forgot all the points

>>11309001
Why is there no blast crater in this pic?

>>11309010
Why would you expect one?

>>11309010
that guy isn't even in his space suit lmao

>>11309058
>he things vacuum is real and not just another Jewish lie

>>11309030
Because the lunar lander would blow the lunar regolith away and scorch the surface.
>that guy isn't even in his space suit lmao
Someone from NASA said he only took it off temporarily.

>>11309067
>the lunar lander would blow the lunar regolith away
No it wouldn't.
http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html
>scorch the surface
It did though. See the above linked page

>>11309088
Oh, the moon landings did happen then.

>>11309111
Glad you agree

>>11309010
I swear I saw this question answered in one of those, what do you call them, ah yes, books, read a book

>>11308813
it's shifted over the width of the mirror so basically nothing in comparison to the distance moon-earth

>>11308131
Did you realize the moon always faces the same side to earth.
Man, die in a fire you fucking doofus.

>>11309125
Glad to be on board.
>>11309144
You've never read a book in your life.

>>11309150
>Never read a book in your life
Your Wrong but as it is a free country you are entitled to your beliefs, no matter how incorrect they are.
Also the fact is the subject matter being discussed has been discussed in books about the moon landing

>>11309165
Okay brainlet, answer this. Why are the shadows in pic related different angles?

>>11308905
everyone can fucking SEE the rocky landscape with their own eyes. why wouldn't i be able to land on a rocky surface?
or is the moon made out of human eating space cheese?

>>11309188
pic

>>11309200
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrdanbeaumont/16223633006

>>11309221
Yes I know Wernher von Braun supposedly landed on the moon, but can you explain the shadow angles?

>>11309230
?

>>11309338
Why are the shadows pointing in different directions on the moon in pic related?

>>11309200
>>11309403
wow, now I'm convinced that moon landings were fake.

>>11309420
Yep, same.

>>11309403
>>11309420
>>11309423
?

>>11309436
Don't worry, most people aren't intelligent enough to understand.

>>11308970
NASA absolutely BTFO!!

>>11309444
>>11309459
?

>>11309459
oh no some brainlet compared martian stones with earth-stones and bones. how will NASA ever recover?

>>11308228
Oh cool

>>11308131
1) You do realize "I'm too stupid to understand how something is possible, therefore it's wrong" is bad argumentation... right?
2) This isn't even the strongest bit of evidence.

>>11309010
>Landing simulation conducted on Aug. 28, 1969 shows the simulated lunar surface installed under the gantry to make the practice landings more realistic.
what the hell is wrong with these flat earthers, are they just intellectually lazy?

>>11308875
A further irony is that all of those who are being hoaxed into the hoaxer theory, are being taken for a ride by conscious frauds in matters other than this one: It's the same idiots who make demagoguery such easy work, if one can stomach the company it attracts.