• 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?

Anders Lindman said:
One guess...
Click to expand...

So if you're guessing, that means you haven't tested this conclusion at all. The scientists in the article you mention tested their theory. Instead, you're guessing. Explain again, please, why your approach is so enlightened compared to the rest of us sheep.

....is that the reflectivity of the bright spot on the moon's surface depends on how much the sun is shining on it...
Click to expand...

You're claiming that the normalized optical properties of your hypothetical bright spot change as a function of solar influx!? How is this simply not an appeal to magic? Can you really say you're not just making all this up as you go?

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...
Click to expand...

...which would never reach the detector, as it is focused on a very small solid angle of the lunar surface, not receiving light from wherever.

You really have no clue how any of this stuff works, do you?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
I'm sure there are still some people here who advocate taking Anders at face value. Maybe they're the subculture.
Click to expand...

Yeah. There are two possibilities: Either he is a troll, or he is completely delusional and willfully ignorant. Either way, he should not get any more attention.
 
JayUtah said:
You're claiming that the normalized optical properties of your hypothetical bright spot change as a function of solar influx!?
Click to expand...

Yes! I do. Think of it as a signal-to-noise ratio. When the sun is shining on the bright spot, then the 'noise' (photons from the sun reflected in all kinds of angles against the sand or rock or whatever the bright spot is) increases, and the maximum noise level is reached when the sun is shining straight at the moon as observed from Earth. When no light from the sun is shining on the spot then the noise is basically gone and the signal-to-noise ratio at its maximum.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yes! I do. Think of it as a signal-to-noise ratio.
Click to expand...

You confuse the optical properties (e.g., reflectivity) with the optical behavior (radiometry). Those are different physical properties and physical values.

The laser uses a specific wavelength and measures only that specific wavelength. You'd know that if you had studied the apparatus used to illuminate the LRRR.

The receptor measures raw numbers of photons, not photons relative to some baseline. You'd realize that if you had read and understood the article you cite.

The amount of hogwash you will make up simply to avoid having to recant is phenomenal. Explain again why you're so much more enlightened. (Pun intended.)
 
JayUtah said:
You confuse the optical properties (e.g., reflectivity) with the optical behavior (radiometry). Those are different physical properties and physical values.

The laser uses a specific wavelength and measures only that specific wavelength. You'd know that if you had studied the apparatus used to illuminate the LRRR.

The receptor measures raw numbers of photons, not photons relative to some baseline. You'd realize that if you had read and understood the article you cite.

The amount of hogwash you will make up simply to avoid having to recant is phenomenal. Explain again why you're so much more enlightened. (Pun intended.)
Click to expand...

But even when measuring raw numbers of photons of a specific frequency, the photons from the sun cause interference with the photons from the laser. Here is an illustration of cancelling of a wave property by interference: http://optics.mbhs.edu/bubbles/interference.gif

And the light from the sun covers a large spectrum that most likely includes the wavelength of light from the laser used.
 
Macht nichts. The detector measures total photons in bandwidth. If anything, the signal would get STRONGER when the sun was at the right angle to reflect towards the observatory.

And interference patterns are a different issue. You have to be not only in the right frequency, but at the right phase...it would be as likely for the interaction to be additive as for it to be subtractive (and far more likely to be more-or-less neutral).
 
JayUtah said:
What evidence is there that Anders believes anything he's saying?
Click to expand...

Granted. I guess I've encountered so many such people, I automatically placed Anders among them. He may just be trolling.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
But even when measuring raw numbers of photons of a specific frequency, the photons from the sun cause interference with the photons from the laser. Here is an illustration of cancelling of a wave property by interference: http://optics.mbhs.edu/bubbles/interference.gif
Click to expand...

It's golden moments of stupidity like this that make Anders's posts worth occasionally glancing at. It's a kind of cargo cult rhetoric, in that he's seen people presenting good arguments, and he's trying to do the same thing himself. He emulates the form very nicely, except for the bit that involves actually having a good argument to present.

Dave
 
nomuse said:
Macht nichts. The detector measures total photons in bandwidth. If anything, the signal would get STRONGER when the sun was at the right angle to reflect towards the observatory.

And interference patterns are a different issue. You have to be not only in the right frequency, but at the right phase...it would be as likely for the interaction to be additive as for it to be subtractive (and far more likely to be more-or-less neutral).
Click to expand...

No, there would be more cancellation of photons from the laser than additive interference. For additive interference to work the direction of the photons must be precisely from the moon towards the tiny detector on Earth. The chance for that is very slim. The cancellation on the other hand mostly takes place at the surface of the reflective material by photons with all kinds directions, so the subtractive interference is far greater than the additive interference in this case.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, there would be more cancellation of photons from the laser than additive interference. For additive interference to work the direction of the photons must be precisely from the moon towards the tiny detector on Earth. The chance for that is very slim. The cancellation on the other hand mostly takes place at the surface of the reflective material by photons with all kinds directions, so the subtractive interference is far greater than the additive interference in this case.
Click to expand...

I realise that the rest of you may not be finding this as amusing as me, but for someone who's been working in optics for over a quarter of a century this is pure comedy gold. I've never seen anyone try so hard to speak authoritatively from a position of such tragic ignorance.

Constructive interference is more directional than destructive interference. Priceless.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute. Now I read the article a bit more carefully. This thread is about Einstein's theories but anyway, check this out:

"But their instrument detects only a tenth as much light returns most nights. And when the moon is full the results are ten times worse." -- http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-15MoonLight.asp

The reflected light is 100 times less than expected when the moon is full! :eek: Some people may buy the explanation about dust warming the mirror and things like that, I don't.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I realise that the rest of you may not be finding this as amusing as me, but for someone who's been working in optics for over a quarter of a century this is pure comedy gold. I've never seen anyone try so hard to speak authoritatively from a position of such tragic ignorance.

Constructive interference is more directional than destructive interference. Priceless.

Dave
Click to expand...

At the surface of the reflective material effects of quantum electrodynamics must be taken into account. Instead of sticking to only rudimentary schoolbook optics, you could take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
 
Anders Lindman said:
Wait a minute. Now I read the article a bit more carefully. This thread is about Einstein's theories but anyway, check this out:

"But their instrument detects only a tenth as much light returns most nights. And when the moon is full the results are ten times worse." -- http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-15MoonLight.asp

The reflected light is 100 times less than expected when the moon is full! :eek: Some people may buy the explanation about dust warming the mirror and things like that, I don't.
Click to expand...

Because you have direct experience with heating powdered regolith in a vacuum environment, right?

How does your alternate explain the observation better? Does your alternate satisfy ALL the facts -- no highly reflective spots have been located outside of the known LRRR's, the reflector is observed to act as a RETRO-reflector (not as a simple mirror), the total reflectivity is calculated as being close to that of a perfect mirror (and well above anything observed on the lunar surface, with an average albedo of .12)

Just to save you some wasted Google time, yes, the lunar surface does have mild retroreflective qualities. Better to say it is not a Lambert surface, as the illumination is also influenced by the surface relief. But this is very, very far from saying the Moon resembles in any way a precision-ground array of corner reflectors!
 
nomuse said:
no highly reflective spots have been located outside of the known LRRR's
Click to expand...

If that is true, then the chances that it's actually a mirror put there and not just some reflective moon rock increase, but how much has this really been tested?
 
Dave Rogers said:
I realise that the rest of you may not be finding this as amusing as me, but for someone who's been working in optics for over a quarter of a century this is pure comedy gold. I've never seen anyone try so hard to speak authoritatively from a position of such tragic ignorance.

Constructive interference is more directional than destructive interference. Priceless.

Dave
Click to expand...

Your observation is correct, but I am not even sure that is what Anders is saying, I'm not even sure what Anders is saying at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom