Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
R.A.F. said:
On Tuesday, NASA will be releasing higher resolution images of 3 Apollo sites. I imagine those images will be posted here. Is it your intent to completely ignore those images?

No matter...I hope you post some outrageous "explanation" so that we may all have a good laugh at your expense.

Good times indeed. :)
Click to expand...

I predict ignore.
 
Study the sun's influence on trajectories through local space-time too

Of course, any object traveling through the Earth's local space-time, whether being driven by a rocket engine, or in free fall, will experience not only the moon's, but the sun's gravitational effects/space-time bending as well. Trajectories of photons in the form of ultra coherent monochromatic laser light, passing from the earth to the moon and back, could be studied providing useful information to both civilian and military personal with respect to how things pass, how they "curve" through the space-time around us.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Think of it this way. As far as the planet Earth goes, astronauts in orbit, or an ICBM in semi orbit/coasting, are more or less in free fall, a la Einstein's equivalence principle. So we can effectively ignore the Earth. The moon is left to pull on things. So for objects in "free fall" with respect to the Earth, the moon will pull to a greater or lesser degree, bend space-time to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the free falling object's relative position, the object free falling with respect to the earth's position relative to the moon.

The concern of those involved in the Apollo program was to range the moon and study this lunar pull on objects in relative terrestrial free fall. Understand the moon's varying position dependent influence, and missiles could be more accurately targeted.

The laser light itself flies through the space-time being studied.
Click to expand...

Orbits ignore the Earth? Then what, pray tell, are you in orbit about?
 
c'mon guys - he's not even trying now. It's just straight out trolling. It was a good Poe/troll whilst it lasted.
 
Kid Eager said:
c'mon guys - he's not even trying now. It's just straight out trolling. It was a good Poe/troll whilst it lasted.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and it's getting more and more blatant. I suppose it's some kind of hobby of his.
 
Tidal Force Differential not Gravitational Difference the Solution

Got to thinking that the moon's influence on ICBM and other trajectories is better thought of as a straight forward tidal force, given we are looking at the moon's gravitational gradient from 2 sides of the planet Earth. Tidal forces drop off as the cube of the distance. So instead of a gravitational force being 6.8% stronger on the side of the earth facing the moon, we have instead 240 X 240 X 240 (earth-moon distance in thousands of miles)= 13,824,000. On the far side of the Earth, the side away from the moon, we'll cube the distance, but add the Earth's diameter of 8,000 miles and get; 248 X 248 X 248 = 15,252,992. From this latter figure we will subtract the former to get the cubed difference, and we get 1,428,992. We divide this by 13,824,000 to get a percentage in the drop off of the tidal force a rocket driven ICBM or free falling warhead would realize floating in the sea of space-time about the Earth. We get 10.3%. The moon's tidal force will be 10.3% weaker on the far side of the Earth. The side without the moon. Big difference when it comes to the precise targeting of ICBMs and so forth. And we can clearly see, the "tidal solution" as opposed to the simpler gravitational one is appropriate with our needing to evaluate a gravitational gradient, tidal force differential across the Earth's diameter.
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
You are so wrong ......
Click to expand...

And Patrick knows it. He seems to be 'winding down' from utterly wrong but superficially plausible scientific claims and moving into the realm of the instantly and laughably absurd. A bit like Bill Smith over in 9/11 CT who has become a much-loved resident comedian. But Bill is refreshingly brief.

Now, a good troll (a really determined and cunning troll) would revert to plan A and keep people guessing. That way he'd maximise the attention he gets.

I wonder if anyone has done a Doctoral thesis on internet trolling? ;)
 
Damn, for a while I thought he actually believed the nonsense he was spouting, but nobody can possibly be this wrong and still be able to operate a computer. He makes wrong into an art form. Even small children just starting to learn physics don't demonstrate that level of wrongness. He's wronger than Lord Wrongity McWrong, 19th Baron of Wrongness.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Just to make the point here with regard to my claim that Apollo 11 was an unmanned military Mission,
Click to expand...

A military mission that was announced to the world by several previous missions? A military mission with live radio and TV coverage, just to make sure that nobody knew about it?

Or a manned, non-military, mission that was the culmination of years of effort, and a logical progression from the Mercury and Gemini missions.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon, while Michael Collins orbited the moon. There was no fakery, no military mission.
 
Agatha said:
Damn, for a while I thought he actually believed the nonsense he was spouting, but nobody can possibly be this wrong and still be able to operate a computer. He makes wrong into an art form. Even small children just starting to learn physics don't demonstrate that level of wrongness. He's wronger than Lord Wrongity McWrong, 19th Baron of Wrongness.
Click to expand...

Say what you like about Patrick. I won't hear a word against Professor Wampner
 
Patrick1000 said:
We now can say in very concise terms what Apollo was.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can. Apollo 11 was the first time in recorded history that men left the earth, landed safely on the moon and returned home. It was a magnificent engineering achievement that inspired billions of people.
 
Actually, for what its worth, Prof. Wampler does agree with Pat on one aspect.

http://news.ucsc.edu/2009/07/3111.html

The team installed two lasers and optical equipment to shoot a beam of light up through the telescope, as well as light-detecting equipment and an advanced timer to record the precise instant when the beam returned to earth.

"At the beginning, we thought it was a bit iffy whether we'd get a return signal," said Miller, describing events on that hot summer day atop Mount Hamilton. "Until we actually got that return signal, we were nervous."

After some trial and error--astronomers joke that locating the moon through a telescope is harder than finding a galaxy five billion light years away, said Miller--the first signals beamed back to earth on August 1, completing the round trip of 245,000 miles in about three seconds. "It was an exciting time," said Miller, who retired in 2005 as director of UCO/Lick Observatory.
Click to expand...

Miller was busy fielding questions from television and newspaper reporters who'd gathered at the observatory for the historic moon landing. Ironically, he was not allowed to answer the question on every reporter's mind because of national security concerns.

"The Russians knew very accurately the distance between Russian cities and between cities within the United States, but they didn't know the distance between the U.S. and Russia," explained Joe Wampler, professor emeritus of astronomy, who coordinated the experiment for the observatory. "Having an accurate measure of the distance to the moon at a moment in time would've given them that information. I was kind of upset about that, because we went into this as a scientific experiment. We weren't doing it for national security."

In the weeks before the lunar landing, Wampler prepared the telescope to accept the laser beam. On July 20, he calculated the precise position on the moon where the laser would be aimed, based on information from NASA about the location of the astronauts.[/quote]

Then again

Other details of July 20, 1969, were more frivolous, including a visit to the observatory by a tarantula. "I remember some graduate students from the East Coast had never seen a tarantula before, and Joe (Wampler) had to shoo it out," recalled Robinson. Miller recalled the landing of a fly on the telescope just as the laser fired. "It was a spectacular explosion," he said. "The fly was vaporized instantly."
Click to expand...

Oh really? Oh well, beware of falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus
 
Toke said:
A 6.8% difference in lunar gravity, really.
Click to expand...

The gravity from the Moon facing side of Earth is 0.002025852m s2The gravity from the Moon opposite side of Earth is 0.001897225m s2

So yes. That is about right.

eta: a stunningly neglible effect on a ballistic missile though!
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000

I'd like to return to your important post, No. 1178, if I may.

Many of us have considerable difficulty understanding your walls of words, and so I can fully appreciate your understanding of FIDO David Reed and what he did, please briefly answer these simple questions in your own words. As few words as possible. One word for questions 1 and 2 and three lines maximum for No. 3 would be excellent, but I'll grudgingly tolerate five lines if really necessary.

1. You consider that Reed's testimony about Apollo 11, is excellent, right?

2. He is honest, he has no reason to lie and he can be relied on?

3. What exactly was the important thing that Reed accomplished on the morning of 21 July 1969?

Remember, do not quote Reed. Use only your own words and be as brief as possible – three lines should be plenty. Forget about him being told to take his pick of various coordinates, forget about a 25,000 foot-plus difference, forget about him taking off his headphones to talk to the flight director, etc. They are all minor. Just your understanding of the one most important thing that was Reed's responsibility and that he accomplished that morning, according to his account in your post.

By the way, regarding the book to which Reed contributed, in that post you give it three different names:
"From the Trench of Mission Control..."
"From the Trenched of Mission Control..."
"From the Trenches of Mission Control..."
Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Got to thinking that the moon's influence on ICBM and other trajectories is better thought of as a straight forward tidal force, given we are looking at the moon's gravitational gradient from 2 sides of the planet Earth. Tidal forces drop off as the cube of the distance. So instead of a gravitational force being 6.8% stronger on the side of the earth facing the moon, we have instead 240 X 240 X 240 (earth-moon distance in thousands of miles)= 13,824,000. On the far side of the Earth, the side away from the moon, we'll cube the distance, but add the Earth's diameter of 8,000 miles and get; 248 X 248 X 248 = 15,252,992. From this latter figure we will subtract the former to get the cubed difference, and we get 1,428,992. We divide this by 13,824,000 to get a percentage in the drop off of the tidal force a rocket driven ICBM or free falling warhead would realize floating in the sea of space-time about the Earth. We get 10.3%. The moon's tidal force will be 10.3% weaker on the far side of the Earth. The side without the moon. Big difference when it comes to the precise targeting of ICBMs and so forth. And we can clearly see, the "tidal solution" as opposed to the simpler gravitational one is appropriate with our needing to evaluate a gravitational gradient, tidal force differential across the Earth's diameter.
Click to expand...


:jaw-dropp

Did you bother to find out what a tidal force was before posting that nonsense?

But don't let that distract you; please, tell us more about spacetime!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom