Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

"Why would NASA want or need to lie about the visual properties of light in space? "  Because they depicted the earth and moon as being a certain way when they supposedly went to the moon.

"Why would they pass up an opportunity to reap the glory of discovering something so earth shattering?"  It wouldn't be a discovery, it would be an admission.

"...what benefit would they be harvesting from keeping this "fact" of light secret from the world? "   They would have to explain what the sun REALLY is and that would mean revealing their deceit about the shape of the Earth. 

"Yes, space is dark... but the sources of light in space are NOT. One need only look at them to see them (with the exception of gamma ray bursters, neutron stars, black holes, pulsars, etc..., which we already know to not emit visible light but, instead, UV, X-ray, Gamma and so on.  Light through a dark void leaves said void dark in the absence of a target (wall, dust particles, a love letter to Mother Flat Earth) to reflect light back to our eyes. But it's not that the light is "invisible" in the more general sense. It only means that light is not currently acting upon our retinas."
No.  Visible light literally is INVISIBLE in space.  That is what the word means.  You CANNOT see it.  The light is there but it is invisible.  Human retinas are created to see light at a certain speed.  Just like our ears are created to hear sounds at a certain speed/frequency.  The speed is too fast to detect in space, just like a dog whistle is too fast/high for us to hear.

"Why would NASA want or need to lie about the visual properties of light in space? "  Because they depicted the earth and moon as being a certain way when they supposedly went to the moon.

So NASA must be "lying" simply because they choose to and they can?  Wow.  That's great logic LOL.

"...what benefit would they be harvesting from keeping this "fact" of light secret from the world?"   They would have to explain what the sun REALLY is and that would mean revealing their deceit about the shape of the Earth.

Scientists have already proven what the sun is made up of and how it propagates its photonic energy.  Can you please cite an accredited reference that confirms (or even suggests) that NASA have lied about the shape of the earth?
 

Visible light literally is INVISIBLE in space.  That is what the word means.  You CANNOT see it.  The light is there but it is invisible.  Human retinas are created to see light at a certain speed.  Just like our ears are created to hear sounds at a certain speed/frequency.  The speed is too fast to detect in space, just like a dog whistle is too fast/high for us to hear.

I'll ignore your obvious self-contradiction about "visible" light for the moment.

Again you conflate the "speed" of light with its physical properties.  They have no connection.  Speed is the rate at which an object covers a distance.  We can easily detect the speed of light in space by bouncing a laser beam off the moon and timing how long it takes to return to earth.  There is also no connection between detection of sound, and the detection of a light source.  One relies on a vibration transmitted by the molecules in some medium impinging on our ear drums, and which vibrate in sympathy (and which is why sound is not transmitted through a vacuum).  The detection of light relies either on a photosensitive chemical called rhodopsin—such as in our eyes, or electromagnetic receptors—such as in a digital camera's sensor.

Either method can detect light whether its travelling at 186,000 miles/sec or 86,000 miles/sec.  Its speed has nothing to do with it.

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source. 

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source. 

Thanks for your concern, we've got it covered.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 05:40:52 AM

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source. 

Thanks for your concern, we've got it covered.

Who's the we? Have you personally bounced one off the moon have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used.
Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source.

Uh... nobody said the light "comes back to its source".  You really need to read up on this sort of stuff sceptimatic before making (more) false assumptions.  The round trip time for the light is 2.4 to 2.7 seconds as timed with an atomic clock, and measures the distance from earth to the retroreflectors with a 2cm to 3cm degree of accuracy.

Who's the we? Have you personally bounced one off the moon have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used. Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

Your ignorance of the astrophysical technicalities involved with stuff like this is truly astounding sceptimatic.   No private individual has the money and/or the equipment necessary to do a moon bounce.  NASA has a horde of scientists and millions of dollars at their disposal to set up this sort of experiment.

Incidentally, can you tell me how you—personally—measured the alleged distance to the moon at 3,000 miles?  And if you didn't do this personally, can you tell me why you accept this distance.  Did you simply rely on somebody telling you so, and if so, then who?
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 07:58:16 AM

Who's the we? Have you personally bounced one off the moon have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used. Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

Your ignorance of the astrophysical technicalities involved with stuff like this is truly astounding sceptimatic.   No private individual has the money and/or the equipment necessary to do a moon bounce.  NASA has a horde of scientists and millions of dollars at their disposal to set up this sort of experiment.

Incidentally, can you tell me how you—personally—measured the alleged distance to the moon at 3,000 miles?  And if you didn't do this personally, can you tell me why you accept this distance.  Did you simply rely on somebody telling you so, and if so, then who?

I didn't measure any moon at 3000 miles. I don't subscribe to that theory. My moon is a reflection off the dome. You appear to be very forgetful or purposely forgetful.

Oh and if the laser doesn't come back, then how do they measure it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 05:40:52 AM

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source.

Uh... nobody said the light "comes back to its source".  You really need to read up on this sort of stuff sceptimatic before making (more) false assumptions.  The round trip time for the light is 2.4 to 2.7 seconds as timed with an atomic clock, and measures the distance from earth to the retroreflectors with a 2cm to 3cm degree of accuracy.

If the light doesn't come back to it's source then how do they measure it's accuracy? Simple answer will suffice.

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 10, 2014, 08:08:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 05:40:52 AM

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source.

Uh... nobody said the light "comes back to its source".  You really need to read up on this sort of stuff sceptimatic before making (more) false assumptions.  The round trip time for the light is 2.4 to 2.7 seconds as timed with an atomic clock, and measures the distance from earth to the retroreflectors with a 2cm to 3cm degree of accuracy.

If the light doesn't come back to it's source then how do they measure it's accuracy? Simple answer will suffice.

You're literally quoting his answer while asking for an answer.  He said that the reflection comes back within 2-3cm of the source.

While we're being amused by the notion of the moon being a mere reflection off of some glass dome in the sky, would any FE'ers care to explain the far side of the moon?



How does the reflection hypothesis (NOT theory) cope with this information?

CGI

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 10:14:24 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 10, 2014, 08:08:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 05:40:52 AM

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source.

Uh... nobody said the light "comes back to its source".  You really need to read up on this sort of stuff sceptimatic before making (more) false assumptions.  The round trip time for the light is 2.4 to 2.7 seconds as timed with an atomic clock, and measures the distance from earth to the retroreflectors with a 2cm to 3cm degree of accuracy.

If the light doesn't come back to it's source then how do they measure it's accuracy? Simple answer will suffice.

You're literally quoting his answer while asking for an answer.  He said that the reflection comes back within 2-3cm of the source.

Do you know how far  your Earth would have moved in the 2.7 seconds it took to fire off the laser.

Let's work it out.

Fire the laser and hit the small retro reflector will take approximately 1.4 seconds while the Earth is spinning at 1038 mph.

So by the time the laser hits the retro reflector, the Earth has moved approximately 0.4 miles. By the time is comes back, the Earth would have shifted close to a mile away. Well, 0.8.

So the problem is this. How did they manage to hit the reflector and come back to the source at 2 to 3 cm?

For a start, they will miss the reflector by 0.4 miles or a better thought is to say that the laser shoots into space due to the angle as the Earth spins, so it wouldn't be coming back, anyway.

Of course, some say (in a panic) that the laser somehow widens out like a big trumpet andf covers this distance, yet here we are with a piddly little retro reflector that somehow directs this laser beam, that isn't a laser beam anymore due to this trumpet effect and yet it comes back and hits the source as accurate as 2 to 3 cm.

Can anyone see the absolute load of bullshit in this silly story?

While we're being amused by the notion of the moon being a mere reflection off of some glass dome in the sky, would any FE'ers care to explain the far side of the moon?



How does the reflection hypothesis (NOT theory) cope with this information?

I thought the far side of the moon was the darkside, so who took the picture and what kind of flash did they use. 
I mean was it took during an eclipse?

That just means it is not facing the Earth. It does face the sun though. About as bright a flash as you could want.

The back of the moon is always dark now? Wow scepti, no wonder why you don't get things.

The moon is moving very fast scepti but not so fast relative to an observer on earth. That's what you don't understand. You don't understand any concepts about relativity.

The back of the moon is always dark now? Wow scepti, no wonder why you don't get things.

So this was taken during an eclipse then, right?

Quote from: rottingroom on June 10, 2014, 12:27:06 PM

The back of the moon is always dark now? Wow scepti, no wonder why you don't get things.

So this was taken during an eclipse then, right?

No. We can't see the back of the moon from earth. The back of the moon is at least partially lit any time that we aren't experiencing a full moon, which is most of the time.

Fire the laser and hit the small retro reflector will take approximately 1.4 seconds while the Earth is spinning at 1038 mph.

Why do you continue to use this figure? You've been told multiple times that the earth's rotational speed depends on your latitude.

Have you personally bounced one off the moon have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used.
Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

First of all, not many sibscribe to it. I do and one or two others on here.
The dome is ICE, made up of frozen helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc depending on positition in the natural build of it.
It covers all the solid ground we exist on to a unknown height.

Have you personally tested the composition and structure of the dome have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used.
Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

Hypocritical halfwit.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 10, 2014, 07:47:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 05:40:52 AM

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source. 

Thanks for your concern, we've got it covered.

Who's the we? Have you personally bounced one off the moon have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used.
Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

It's been covered. The astronomical observatories have bounced laser beams off the moon and even amateur radio operators have bounced radio waves off the moon. And sceptimatic - If you call them liars you owe them an apology.

Have you seen any evidence of them bouncing a laser off any other area of the sky that is totally black, no object or light at all?  If not, then this moon bouncing does not prove they are just bouncing light off the IMAGE of the moon on glass sky.

CGI

How did I know you'd go there?

Ask yourself this: If NASA was going to fake a picture of the far side of the moon, wouldn't they make it more similar to the side we see from Earth? Why would they make it so different as to provoke questions of WHY it looks so different in character than the side we see? If NASA was going to fake a moon picture they'd do so to 'answer' questions, not to open up a whole new field of questioning.

Quote from: Big Blue Marble on June 10, 2014, 10:33:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 10:14:24 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 10, 2014, 08:08:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 05:40:52 AM

Good luck with bouncing a laser off your moon from a 1038 mph rotating globe and having the beam come back to it's source.

Uh... nobody said the light "comes back to its source".  You really need to read up on this sort of stuff sceptimatic before making (more) false assumptions.  The round trip time for the light is 2.4 to 2.7 seconds as timed with an atomic clock, and measures the distance from earth to the retroreflectors with a 2cm to 3cm degree of accuracy.

If the light doesn't come back to it's source then how do they measure it's accuracy? Simple answer will suffice.

You're literally quoting his answer while asking for an answer.  He said that the reflection comes back within 2-3cm of the source.

Do you know how far  your Earth would have moved in the 2.7 seconds it took to fire off the laser.

Let's work it out.

Fire the laser and hit the small retro reflector will take approximately 1.4 seconds while the Earth is spinning at 1038 mph.

So by the time the laser hits the retro reflector, the Earth has moved approximately 0.4 miles. By the time is comes back, the Earth would have shifted close to a mile away. Well, 0.8.

So the problem is this. How did they manage to hit the reflector and come back to the source at 2 to 3 cm?

For a start, they will miss the reflector by 0.4 miles or a better thought is to say that the laser shoots into space due to the angle as the Earth spins, so it wouldn't be coming back, anyway.

Of course, some say (in a panic) that the laser somehow widens out like a big trumpet andf covers this distance, yet here we are with a piddly little retro reflector that somehow directs this laser beam, that isn't a laser beam anymore due to this trumpet effect and yet it comes back and hits the source as accurate as 2 to 3 cm.

Can anyone see the absolute load of bullshit in this silly story?

First of all, I made no claims concerning the accuracy of his measurements. Frankly, I don't know the measurements. I was merely pointing out that you QUOTED HIS ANSWER during the same breathe in which you asked, again, for his answer.

That said, considering the moon revolves around the Earth in the same direction as the Earth spins, there is no reason to doubt the claim, especially when the experiment's been done more than once. You're talking as though the moon rotates in the opposite direction, in which case, sure, the beam would return much farther from the source than stated.

Have you seen any evidence of them bouncing a laser off any other area of the sky that is totally black, no object or light at all?  If not, then this moon bouncing does not prove they are just bouncing light off the IMAGE of the moon on glass sky.

Signals were bounced off the moon prior to the Apollo astronauts placing the reflector on the moons surface. It was possible but very difficult. The reflector makes this much easier because it is designed to reflect a signal directly back to its source regardless of the direction in which it originated.

As you said, we were bouncing lasers off the moon before the Apollo missions.  So, we spent billions of dollars to put reflectors on the moon that are totally useless.  Yeah, right.  You think this story is completely true?  How many times could we have bounced a laser off of the moon for that same amount of money? 

Do you know how far  your Earth would have moved in the 2.7 seconds it took to fire off the laser.

Let's work it out.

Fire the laser and hit the small retro reflector will take approximately 1.4 seconds while the Earth is spinning at 1038 mph.

So by the time the laser hits the retro reflector, the Earth has moved approximately 0.4 miles. By the time is comes back, the Earth would have shifted close to a mile away. Well, 0.8.

So the problem is this. How did they manage to hit the reflector and come back to the source at 2 to 3 cm?

For a start, they will miss the reflector by 0.4 miles or a better thought is to say that the laser shoots into space due to the angle as the Earth spins, so it wouldn't be coming back, anyway.

Of course, some say (in a panic) that the laser somehow widens out like a big trumpet andf covers this distance, yet here we are with a piddly little retro reflector that somehow directs this laser beam, that isn't a laser beam anymore due to this trumpet effect and yet it comes back and hits the source as accurate as 2 to 3 cm.

Can anyone see the absolute load of bullshit in this silly story?

This is really sad.  You actually don't have any idea how this all works do you sceptimatic?  I'm amazed that you're apparently so ignorant of the basics of light and optics technology.

When the laser beam hits the moon's surface, its spread is around 6km in diameter.  When it hits the earth its around 13km diameter.  As long as the photoreceptor is within that 13km circle, it'll pick up at least one of the laser's photon streams, and confirm its source against the monochromatic wavelength propagated by the laser.

Incidentally, my original 2cm to 3cm dimension actually referred to the distance of the moon to the earth (not the beam's offset).  Unfortunately Big Blue Marble misinterpreted my distance claim, but... neither did you pick that up in your haste to ridicule us.

It never ceases to amuse me whenever you dismiss scientific evidence as "a load of bullshit" or a "silly story".  Is that really the best you can do?  You never think to actually provide any viable counter-evidence to support your stance?  Just schoolyard putdowns?  Pathetic.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 10:55:06 AM

Do you know how far  your Earth would have moved in the 2.7 seconds it took to fire off the laser.

Let's work it out.

Fire the laser and hit the small retro reflector will take approximately 1.4 seconds while the Earth is spinning at 1038 mph.

So by the time the laser hits the retro reflector, the Earth has moved approximately 0.4 miles. By the time is comes back, the Earth would have shifted close to a mile away. Well, 0.8.

So the problem is this. How did they manage to hit the reflector and come back to the source at 2 to 3 cm?

For a start, they will miss the reflector by 0.4 miles or a better thought is to say that the laser shoots into space due to the angle as the Earth spins, so it wouldn't be coming back, anyway.

Of course, some say (in a panic) that the laser somehow widens out like a big trumpet andf covers this distance, yet here we are with a piddly little retro reflector that somehow directs this laser beam, that isn't a laser beam anymore due to this trumpet effect and yet it comes back and hits the source as accurate as 2 to 3 cm.

Can anyone see the absolute load of bullshit in this silly story?

This is really sad.  You actually don't have any idea how this all works do you sceptimatic?  I'm amazed that you're apparently so ignorant of the basics of light and optics technology.

When the laser beam hits the moon's surface, its spread is around 6km in diameter.  When it hits the earth its around 13km diameter.  As long as the photoreceptor is within that 13km circle, it'll pick up at least one of the laser's photon streams, and confirm its source against the monochromatic wavelength propagated by the laser.

Incidentally, my original 2cm to 3cm dimension actually referred to the distance of the moon to the earth (not the beam's offset).  Unfortunately Big Blue Marble misinterpreted my distance claim, but... neither did you pick that up in your haste to ridicule us.

It never ceases to amuse me whenever you dismiss scientific evidence as "a load of bullshit" or a "silly story".  Is that really the best you can do?  You never think to actually provide any viable counter-evidence to support your stance?  Just schoolyard putdowns?  Pathetic.

Nice explanation. I completely agree that a laser beam does in fact spread wider with distance (contrary to popular conception). I've experienced this in my own observation, as a matter of fact, with lasers I own (with handheld pointers and with a CO2 laser I own). I'm surprised that didn't occur to me within the context of this example.

I do apologize for misunderstanding - then misrepresenting - your 2-3cm statement. Honestly, I'm still confused by that comment though. Are you meaning "cm" as in centimeter or something else?

I do apologize for misunderstanding - then misrepresenting - your 2-3cm statement. Honestly, I'm still confused by that comment though. Are you meaning "cm" as in centimeter or something else?

No problem.  Easy mistake.  But one which sceptimatic didn't even notice LOL.

Yep; cm = centimetre.  NASA reckons they can now determine the mean distance of the moon to the earth within 2cm to 3cm using the retroreflectors on the moon.  Amazing stuff indeed.  But lost on the flat earthers.