• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

JayUtah said:
Please provide a citation for that article.
Click to expand...

"Light bounced off reflectors on the moon is fainter than expected and mysteriously dims even more whenever the moon is full. Astronomers think dust is a likely culprit, they report in a forthcoming issue of the journal Icarus.

“Near full moon, the strength of the returning light decreases by a factor of ten.” said first author Tom Murphy, associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego who leads an effort to precisely measure the distance from earth to moon by timing the reflections of pulses of laser light." -- http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-15MoonLight.asp
 
Ahem.

If sunlight-heated dust is really to blame, the effect should vanish during a lunar eclipse. That is, light should bounce back while the moon passes through Earth’s shadow, then dim again as sunlight hits the arrays.

“Measurements during an eclipse – there are just a few – look fine. When you remove the solar flux, the reflectors recover quickly, on a time scale of about half an hour,” Murphy said.
Click to expand...
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, but does it really test the claim that the speed of light cannot be exceeded? That's what the experiments I proposed test, such as the claim that c + 1000 m/s = c. And that's what I'm interested in finding out.
Click to expand...

Yes, it tests the claim with a base velocity thirty times higher than your suggestion, making the experiment thirty times more sensitive. So what you're suggesting is that somebody should try a very much harder experiment that will give very much poorer experimental results than we already have.

Dave
 
JayUtah said:
Thank you. The article poses a theory to account for it, and reports on the empirical validation of that theory.

Can you explain why your explanation explains the phenomenon so much better, and what you did to test it?
Click to expand...

Because so many things about the moon landings look like hoaxes.
 
Why are you bothering the interwebz with such nonfacts??

Start a new thread. Einstein did not go to teh moonz.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, it tests the claim with a base velocity thirty times higher than your suggestion, making the experiment thirty times more sensitive. So what you're suggesting is that somebody should try a very much harder experiment that will give very much poorer experimental results than we already have.

Dave
Click to expand...

The problem with that test is that it doesn't test the speed of light as from a moving source relative to the observer. Relative to the observer the frame of reference is zero (if an absolute aether is ruled out). With the kind of experiments I proposed there is a moving frame of reference relative to the observer, such as a laser moving in a tube at 1000 m/s. And as one source mentioned (that I posted earlier), no such experiment has been done! I find that almost shocking. Why no such experiment?
 
Last edited:
Are you trying to post humorous nonsense? If so, you are winner. If not you are TEH FAIL>.

Because I'm laughing my socks off!! At you!
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Why are you bothering the interwebz with such nonfacts??

Start a new thread. Einstein did not go to teh moonz.
Click to expand...

You could be right. And the Apollo project has already been discussed in other threads on this forum. Including the weak reflection from the supposed mirror on the moon.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Because so many things about the moon landings look like hoaxes.
Click to expand...

Only because you're willfully ignorant of the relevant sciences. Can you explain why people who know more about the Apollo missions than you tend to believe they were real?

Your "bright patch of moonscape" nonsense doesn't explain why the reflectivity improves during an eclipse. Nor does it explain why the reflectivity drops only at full moon (i.e., when the sun is directly over the landing site).

The data to which you pointed me clearly shows an inverse correlation between the amount of sunlight falling on the lunar surface and the reflectivity of the LRRR. You misrepresented the data, as I suspected you would, which is why I asked for the reference. You omitted the correlation, which doesn't fit your theory.

When we asked you why you don't research your Apollo claims, you said it was because NASA wasn't truthful. Guess what: you're the liar.
 
JayUtah said:
When we asked you why you don't research your Apollo claims, you said it was because NASA wasn't truthful. Guess what: you're the liar.
Click to expand...

I think "liar" may be too strong a word here. Anders could very well believe everything he is saying. There is an entire subculture devoted to the proposition that NASA always lies, and not just about the Moon landings. Anders may just be part of that subculture.
 
Chris L said:
I think "liar" may be too strong a word here. Anders could very well believe everything he is saying. There is an entire subculture devoted to the proposition that NASA always lies, and not just about the Moon landings. Anders may just be part of that subculture.
Click to expand...

I agree. But, I don't think he's completely honest either.
 
Chris L said:
Anders could very well believe everything he is saying.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that Anders believes anything he's saying?

There is an entire subculture devoted to the proposition that NASA always lies, and not just about the Moon landings. Anders may just be part of that subculture.
Click to expand...

There's an entire subculture on this thread enamored of the proposition that Anders makes up whatever he needs from moment to moment to avoid accountability for any of his claims, and that he's largely just a very prolific troll. I'm part of that subculture.
 
JayUtah said:
Your "bright patch of moonscape" nonsense doesn't explain why the reflectivity improves during an eclipse. Nor does it explain why the reflectivity drops only at full moon (i.e., when the sun is directly over the landing site).
Click to expand...

One guess is that the reflectivity of the bright spot on the moon's surface depends on how much the sun is shining on it in relation to Earth. When the light from the sun is max the reflection would be at the lowest value because drowned by all of the 'noise' of all the photons from the sun, and when that area on the moon is in complete darkness relative to Earth the reflection would be the strongest.
 
JayUtah said:
What evidence is there that Anders believes anything he's saying?



There's an entire subculture on this thread enamored of the proposition that Anders makes up whatever he needs from moment to moment to avoid accountability for any of his claims, and that he's largely just a very prolific troll. I'm part of that subculture.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's to avoid accountability, it's simply that the troll is a troll. He has never shown any intention of ever carrying on an honest discussion. This goes to why I think nothing he ever says should be nominated for a Stundie. He's trying to write stupid, so that should disqualify him.
 
What amazes me is how much time (and effort? eh) he puts into it. That's the only evidence, in my mind, against him being a troll.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
What amazes me is how much time (and effort? eh) he puts into it. That's the only evidence, in my mind, against him being a troll.
Click to expand...

Time, yeah. But it probably keeps him entertained.

Effort? Not much. It's simply a matter of saying, "well this sounds like it could be a hoax. It's possible that <insert wild assertion> happened." Ignoring inconvenient things and willfully misinterpreting other things takes very little effort.
 
JayUtah said:
There's an entire subculture on this thread enamored of the proposition that Anders makes up whatever he needs from moment to moment to avoid accountability for any of his claims, and that he's largely just a very prolific troll. I'm part of that subculture.
Click to expand...

I'm no sociologist, but can an overwhelming majority of the population realistically constitute no more than a subculture?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom