Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[excaza]

So, the LIRR was actually placed on the Moon for the....exact reason everyone has been saying it was placed on the Moon. To find the distance from the Earth to the Moon.


Ground-breaking.

 

[matt.tansy]

The AU, is approximately the mean Earth-Sun distance, 92,955,807 miles. It was the International Astronomical Union's 1976 revision/redefinition of this parameter that give it today's, as of 1976, more precise form. With units comprised of length, mass and time, it is known as k, the Gaussian Gravitational Constant.

What??? You are trying to paraphrase things you read so we can't Google it to see where you got it but you failed to understand what you read so you end up adding hilarious mistakes.

So defined, it is the radius of perfect circular motion/Newtonian around the sun of a particle will infinitessimal mass.

That is the AU, not k.

Its angular frequency is 0.017 202 098 95 radians per day.

That is k, not the AU.

They are related, but you keep messing up their specifics because you don't understand them.

Again, the AU is of course, roughly equal to the mean earth-sun distance.

Kepler was the first to get the number pretty right. He was intelligent, had good tools/telescope and of course his laws of planetary motion.

Truly modern measurements of this parameter began with the LRRR studies. Electromagnetic radiation, radar/telemetry/laser photons are bounced off objects such as was done in the LRRR case.

Telemetry is bounced off objects??? No, telemetry from space probes are used to measure the distance to planets, thereby increasing the accuracy of refining the AU. Space probes, which you intentionally neglected to mention because it would refute your claims about the LRRR.

Measured positions of celestial bodies like the moon are matched with the corresponding calculated positions as derrived by classical laws in most cases, though relativistic approaches have obviously been developed, and themselves are an area of intensive research. The calculated positions consitiute an "ephemeris". When the measured and calculated positions are matched up, the speed of light, believe it or not, can be so derrived. The speed of light of course is a constant itself. This then gives us the AU, as the speed of light is 173.144 632 6847 AU/d.

LOLWOT??? You found something related to astronomical measurements, didn't quite understand it, but it looked fancy, so you thought you would throw it out here and dazzle us with your brilliance, except that last sentence exposed you for the scientifically illiterate you are.

So the first "matching" and truly modern determination of the AU, in the sense of genuine accuracy, was by way of the LRRR,

No, that would be bouncing radar off of Venus and Mars in the early 1960s.

with those measured positions matched to the calculated classical law positions, thereby giving us the speed of light and a precise number for the AU, or k in its alternative representation, the Gaussian Gravitational Constant.

As we saw, above, a satisfactory number for k, in terms of its providing for the most accurate ICBM targeting did not exist until the LRRRs were placed and the moon was ranged.

So the military aspect of Apollo is certainly undeniable. And again, this is not a secret. Any country with marginally decent science and intelligence/investigate services, would know this; Russia, China, India, Brazil, Israel, Germany...., and on and on.

Yet these intelligence agencies wouldn't know if man actually walked on the Moon?

 

[Patrick1000]

YES!!!!

So, the LIRR was actually placed on the Moon for the....exact reason everyone has been saying it was placed on the Moon.

To "range the moon" in various and complex ways so that, should the need arise, Beijing and Moscow would find themselves square under a several megaton "how do you do" from Uncle Sam.

Apart from this and a few other details, the whole thing was an utterly "peaceful" and very much "civilian" type operation. You know, Neil Armstrong was a civilian after all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

One can get bored on these space missions.

Doubly so if it's a fake and you don't even get to see the moon closeup. I expect that was what was happening - Borman probably said "hey guys, wanna see the moon?" dropped his pants and then it all went horribly wrong...

But really, this argument from incredulity is self-debunking. Patrick says the mission was "proven" fake merely because he regards the reported events as unbelievable. If the mission was faked, then the account of what happened is a fiction. If it's a fiction, then why make it unbelievable?

Patrick's circular argument requires the astronauts to make up a story in which they claim to do things which they would not have done, and therefore would never have claimed they did. So it must be fake because it's unbelievable, but it can't be fake... because it's unbelievable.

 

[Patrick1000]

Leave it Matt, it is not working, I know this stuff inside and out.

What??? You are trying to paraphrase things you read so we can't Google it to see where you got it but you failed to understand what you read so you end up adding hilarious mistakes.


That is the AU, not k.


That is k, not the AU.

They are related, but you keep messing up their specifics because you don't understand them.



Telemetry is bounced off objects??? No, telemetry from space probes are used to measure the distance to planets, thereby increasing the accuracy of refining the AU. Space probes, which you intentionally neglected to mention because it would refute your claims about the LRRR.


LOLWOT??? You found something related to astronomical measurements, didn't quite understand it, but it looked fancy, so you thought you would throw it out here and dazzle us with your brilliance, except that last sentence exposed you for the scientifically illiterate you are.


No, that would be bouncing radar off of Venus and Mars in the early 1960s.


Yet these intelligence agencies wouldn't know if man actually walked on the Moon?

Matt, it is not working, I know this stuff inside and out. Let's keep it simple. For your sake, we'll exclude the telemetry concern. Let's just say photons are bounced. The first time this was done, and done well as far as we know, was in the case of the ruby red photons bouncing off the "Apollo 11 LRRR". These experiments could be used in determining a value for both k and AU to a much greater accuracy than had ever previously been achieved.

 

[excaza]

To "range the moon" in various and complex ways so that, should the need arise, Beijing and Moscow would find themselves square under a several megaton "how do you do" from Uncle Sam.

Sorry, despite your repetition of this, it still doesn't follow. Feel free to keep failing hilariously though.

You know, Neil Armstrong was a civilian after all.

sigh...

 

[Patrick1000]

k is critical for ICBM trajectory calculations.

k is critical for ICBM trajectory calculations. The LRRR helped to make ICBM trajectiory calculations better than ever before. They provided a measured value for k and for AU as well.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Definitly time for a straw poll: Everyone shout out if you think Patrick really does "know this stuff inside and out".

 

[Patrick1000]

You will catch on

Sorry, despite your repetition of this, it still doesn't follow. Feel free to keep failing hilariously though.


sigh...

You'll catch on. It is not hard. To better blow up Shanghai, better numbers for k, j and K were needed. The LRRR experiments provided this and much more.

 

[dafydd]

Definitly time for a straw poll: Everyone shout out if you think Patrick really does "know this stuff inside and out".

A definite no to that.

 

[excaza]

k is critical for ICBM trajectory calculations. The LRRR helped to make ICBM trajectiory calculations better than ever before. They provided a measured value for k and for AU as well.

You can calculate k and AU perfectly fine without even having a moon. I don't know why you've got it in your head that knowing the Moon's orbital characteristics is even remotely necessary. Especially since they had a wonderfully accurate number for k by the late 1800s.

ETA: Same goes for G.

 

[Patrick1000]

Same to you Jack by the hedge

Definitly time for a straw poll: Everyone shout out if you think Patrick really does "know this stuff inside and out".

Same to you Jack by the hedge, best of luck challenging me on this. It is the air I breath.

 

[dafydd]

Doubly so if it's a fake and you don't even get to see the moon closeup. I expect that was what was happening - Borman probably said "hey guys, wanna see the moon?" dropped his pants and then it all went horribly wrong...

But really, this argument from incredulity is self-debunking. Patrick says the mission was "proven" fake merely because he regards the reported events as unbelievable. If the mission was faked, then the account of what happened is a fiction. If it's a fiction, then why make it unbelievable?

Patrick's circular argument requires the astronauts to make up a story in which they claim to do things which they would not have done, and therefore would never have claimed they did. So it must be fake because it's unbelievable, but it can't be fake... because it's unbelievable.

Young Pat has vastly overestimated his own intelligence.

 

[dafydd]

You can calculate k and AU perfectly fine without even having a moon. I don't know why you've got it in your head that knowing the Moon's orbital characteristics is even remotely necessary.

That is because he knows nothing about the subject,as he has shown here time and time again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Same to you Jack by the hedge, best of luck challenging me on this. It is the air I breath.

OK. My challenge to you is to demonstrate that you understand what you claim to understand, when it appears that you merely regurgitate technical-sounding material as fast as you can Google it.

You seem unaware that this 50-page trail is littered with questions you have avoided answering.

 

[matt.tansy]

Matt, it is not working, I know this stuff inside and out.

Then why do you make so many elementary mistakes?

Let's keep it simple. For your sake, we'll exclude the telemetry concern.

No, we shall not exclude telemetry because that is how the most accurate measurements of AU and k are made! Not by measuring the distance to the Moon.

Let's just say photons are bounced. The first time this was done, and done well as far as we know,

As far as you know because you ignored the comment I made about radar measurements to Venus and Mars.

was in the case of the ruby red photons bouncing off the "Apollo 11 LRRR". These experiments could be used in determining a value for both k and AU to a much greater accuracy than had ever previously been achieved.

Wrong. You have not cited anything that would support your claim that measuring the distance to the Moon refined our knowledge of the AU or k.

 

[excaza]

Those are not the same type of satellites. My point was not that they could not get a satellite orbiting at 19,000 miles, they had no satellite mountable laser reflector at the time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg

 

[matt.tansy]

Definitly time for a straw poll: Everyone shout out if you think Patrick really does "know this stuff inside and out".

He knows nothing.

 

[excaza]

Same to you Jack by the hedge, best of luck challenging me on this. It is the air I breath.

You apparently know it so well that you're cleverly disguising it as rapid Googling and copypasta of anything related to 'satellite' and hoping nobody notices.

 

[excaza]

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.

Good grief...