Retroreflectors on the Moon

Tom.
If we would give you the source code would that be enough to convince you that the device actually measures the distance to the moon?

Why should we provide evidence for your claim that the measurement devices provide wrong results?

And here's the winner right here.

Tom, you are the one pushing us to provide evidence for our claim that satellites exist.

So it's your turn, where is your evidence for your claim that the source code is faulty?

And here's the winner right here.

Tom, you are the one pushing us to provide evidence for our claim that satellites exist.

Well duh. You need to provide evidence for your claim that satellites exist.

You can provide evidence for your claim of laser ranging and the integrity of the source code while you're at it.

Quote

And here's the winner right here.

Tom, you are the one pushing us to provide evidence for our claim that satellites exist.

Well duh. You need to provide evidence for your claim that satellites exist.

You can provide evidence for your claim of laser ranging and the integrity of the source code while you're at it.

So I take it you don't have any evidence that the source code is faulty then?

You're the one who made the claim.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 05, 2009, 09:54:50 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2009, 08:33:54 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 05, 2009, 04:51:56 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 05, 2009, 04:35:51 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 05, 2009, 04:19:16 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 05, 2009, 04:15:34 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on January 05, 2009, 04:11:06 PM

The observatories could be running code to dupe people. This is the argument at hand. You have no proof and are talking in circles.

Another win for FE!

So why would you write code to dupe people? I thought you were looking for the truth

I am, conspirators are not.

So after you write the code and perform the experiment and totally shake the foundations of the entire scientific community you may get a nobel prize or you will get the same results as they did

Why would I waste my money when all I have to do is look at the source code?

Do you honestly believe that you could make heads or tails of the source code of you had access to it?

I know c++ thank you very much.

Why would you assume that the source code was written in C++?  Why couldn't it have been written assembly or some obscure 30 year old language like APL?

Once you know one language you can figure out what other languages are doing.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2009, 11:48:31 AM

Quote

And here's the winner right here.

Tom, you are the one pushing us to provide evidence for our claim that satellites exist.

Well duh. You need to provide evidence for your claim that satellites exist.

You can provide evidence for your claim of laser ranging and the integrity of the source code while you're at it.

So I take it you don't have any evidence that the source code is faulty then?

You're the one who made the claim.

Thats like telling us we need to prove the stabilizing program for a flying car is faulty.

Quote from: avsfan987 on January 06, 2009, 12:29:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2009, 11:48:31 AM

Quote

And here's the winner right here.

Tom, you are the one pushing us to provide evidence for our claim that satellites exist.

Well duh. You need to provide evidence for your claim that satellites exist.

You can provide evidence for your claim of laser ranging and the integrity of the source code while you're at it.

So I take it you don't have any evidence that the source code is faulty then?

You're the one who made the claim.

Thats like telling us we need to prove the stabilizing program for a flying car is faulty.

One of the posters said earlier just ask and they will show you the code.  If you know the language you should have no problem spotting anything suspicious.

So I take it you don't have any evidence that the source code is faulty then?

You're the one who made the claim.

The honesty of the laser ranging software and the equipment is your claim to prove. Not mine. I'm the skeptic here.

The honesty of the laser ranging software and the equipment is your claim to prove. Not mine. I'm the skeptic here.

I'm particularly skeptic about the claim that someone managed to fiddle around with all this stuff while nobody was looking, and nobody has stumbled across it during any maintenance of the code or machinery. Isn't this your claim to prove?

Quote

The honesty of the laser ranging software and the equipment is your claim to prove. Not mine. I'm the skeptic here.

I'm particularly skeptic about the claim that someone managed to fiddle around with all this stuff while nobody was looking, and nobody has stumbled across it during any maintenance of the code or machinery. Isn't this your claim to prove?

In this thread you guys already linked me to a program where NASA distributes laser ranging software and materials to observatories. That sure sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

Quote

So I take it you don't have any evidence that the source code is faulty then?

You're the one who made the claim.

The honesty of the laser ranging software and the equipment is your claim to prove. Not mine. I'm the skeptic here.

Hmm...  Tom, I thought it was the skeptic's job to do the investigation, not the believers.

Quote

And here's the winner right here.

Tom, you are the one pushing us to provide evidence for our claim that satellites exist.

Well duh. You need to provide evidence for your claim that satellites exist.

You can provide evidence for your claim of laser ranging and the integrity of the source code while you're at it.

We have, but you won't ecognize the evidence because you don't agree with it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2009, 11:48:31 AM

Quote

And here's the winner right here.

Tom, you are the one pushing us to provide evidence for our claim that satellites exist.

Well duh. You need to provide evidence for your claim that satellites exist.

You can provide evidence for your claim of laser ranging and the integrity of the source code while you're at it.

We have, but you won't ecognize the evidence because you don't agree with it.

Where is the evidence of satellites?

Where is the source code? Where is the proof the laser ranging is legit?

Quote from: NTheGreat on January 06, 2009, 05:14:18 PM

Quote

The honesty of the laser ranging software and the equipment is your claim to prove. Not mine. I'm the skeptic here.

I'm particularly skeptic about the claim that someone managed to fiddle around with all this stuff while nobody was looking, and nobody has stumbled across it during any maintenance of the code or machinery. Isn't this your claim to prove?

In this thread you guys already linked me to a program where NASA distributes laser ranging software and materials to observatories. That sure sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

It is actually a news report from nasa talking about a meeting where the observatories agreed on the algorithms to use and it had a link to download them

Hmm...  Tom, I thought it was the skeptic's job to do the investigation, not the believers.

The burden of proof is always on the believers who are making the claim. It's never on the skeptics.

 Just like in a debate on religion.

It is actually a news report from nasa talking about a meeting where the observatories agreed on the algorithms to use and it had a link to download them

Really? http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov doesn't look like a "news report" to me.

On the first line of the About Us section NASA admits that they're selling lunar ranging data, software, and equipment to observatories:

"The International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS) provides global satellite and lunar laser ranging data and their related products to support geodetic and geophysical research activities as well as IERS products important to the maintenance of an accurate International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF)."

Quote

Hmm...  Tom, I thought it was the skeptic's job to do the investigation, not the believers.

The burden of proof is always on the believers who are making the claim. It's never on the skeptics.

So I am sceptical about your claim that the laser ranging software provides wrong results. Is the burden of proof now on you?

Usually the the burden of proof falls to person that questions the generally accepted view. It this case it is you.

Usually the the burden of proof falls to person that questions the generally accepted view. It this case it is you.

The burden of proof falls on the person who questions the generally accepted view? Really?

The existence of God is a generally accepted view. Is the burden of proof on believers to prove that God exists, or is the burden of proof on the skeptics to prove that God *doesn't* exist?

Quote from: jargo on January 07, 2009, 01:41:12 AM

Usually the the burden of proof falls to person that questions the generally accepted view. It this case it is you.

The burden of proof falls on the person who questions the generally accepted view? Really?

The existence of God is a generally accepted view. Is the burden of proof on believers to prove that God exists, or is the burden of proof on the skeptics to prove that God *doesn't* exist?

The difference between existence of God and this debate is that in this case both skeptics and believers can actually provide evidence for their claim. We can for example show you the Mythbusters measuring the distance to the moon and it is your job disprove that evidence. Or you could provide us some evidence that the measurement devices provide wrong results.

The difference between existence of God and this debate is that in this case both skeptics and believers can actually provide evidence for their claim.

There's no difference. Believers should be able to provide evidence for their claims just fine, what with all the people He talks to on a daily basis and all the maricles He creates."He" is said by the believers to be doing a lot of stuff.

The burden of proof is on the believers to prove their claims, not the skeptics to disprove them. The same applies to all other debates.

See: Russel's Teapot

Quote from: jargo on January 07, 2009, 01:41:12 AM

Usually the the burden of proof falls to person that questions the generally accepted view. It this case it is you.

The existence of God is a generally accepted view.

Really?  According to who?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

The burden of proof is on the believers to prove their claims, not the skeptics to disprove them. The same applies to all other debates.

That works both ways though.  In these forums there is a group of people who believe in a roughly spherical earth, and they should provide evidence and proof of this if they want their beliefs to be accepted by non-believers.  There is also a group of people who believe in a flat earth, and they should provide evidence and proof of this if they want their beliefs to be accepted by non-believers.  The fact that neither side will accept the evidence of the other side only makes things more interesting.

Quote

The difference between existence of God and this debate is that in this case both skeptics and believers can actually provide evidence for their claim.

There's no difference. Believers should be able to provide evidence for their claims just fine, what with all the people He talks to on a daily basis and all the maricles He creates."He" is said by the believers to be doing a lot of stuff.

The burden of proof is on the believers to prove their claims, not the skeptics to disprove them. The same applies to all other debates.

See: Russel's Teapot

"intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

Russels teapot does no apply to this debate because the claim: "NASA is not tampering with the measurement devices" is not unfalsifiable".

It is pointless to argue with Tom about burden of proof (and many other FEers too as one held that because this site was promoting FE, then it was the other people that had to provide proof, but when a RE site was started, that user demanded still that the burden of proof was on us at that new site).

They have become expert at putting words into your mouth about burden of proof. Frankly they cling to the "Burden of Proof" rules like a drowning man clutches at a life preserver, but, when they are confronted with scenarios that they themselves said would require the burden of proof to be on them, they drop it without hesitation.

They are just as good as any politician at avoiding questions (Tom are you actually a politician  ) and derailing threads with trivialities.

Arguments about burden of proof are irrelevant. What is relevant is proof from sources that you can trust. As has been stated in other threads, nothing that comes from someone that accepts a RE can ever be trusted by a FEer. So although the burden of proof is irrelevant, the only source for this proof is the FEers and so these experiments can only be done by the FEers regardless of who the burden of proof lies on.

That is nowhere near detailed enough to build one. Also it is not the one used at observatories. Also there is no code.

It is plenty detailed enough for you to build your own.

But, as you claim, you can't trust wither the devices that these observatories have or their code (and really, even if you got a hold of their code, you will only claim that this a a faked one that has the code that allows them to fake the readings taken out). So, it is far better for you to build your own and write your own code.

Ther eis a common cry that it costs million (if not billions) of dollars to do these things.

No it does not.

It might take a few thousands to set yourself up properly, but that is well within the realms of most people, especially if they collaborate and get the donations from many sources.

And here is proof that there is a retroreflector on the moon and pointing a laser to it you can measure the distance to the moon.
Now it is your job to either disprove this evidence or provide your own evidence about the distance to the moon. I know the evidence I provided isn't perfect, but it is still more than you have and if you can not come with better evidence pointing othewise the logical conclusion would be that moon is 382500 km away and there is retroreflector there.

Russels teapot does no apply to this debate because the claim: "NASA is not tampering with the measurement devices" is not unfalsifiable".

It doesn't just apply to unfalsifiable claims. It applies to all claims.

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove his claim. It's never on the skeptic to "prove him wrong."

And here is proof that there is a retroreflector on the moon and pointing a laser to it you can measure the distance to the moon.
Now it is your job to either disprove this evidence or provide your own evidence about the distance to the moon. I know the evidence I provided isn't perfect, but it is still more than you have and if you can not come with better evidence pointing othewise the logical conclusion would be that moon is 382500 km away and there is retroreflector there.

Do they go into deep analysis of the source code and equipment in that video and document its origin and history? Do they even make an attempt to verify that NASA and its affiliate software and equipment is honest and verifiable?

If not, they haven't provided acceptable standards of evidence to "prove" anything.

Quote from: jargo on January 07, 2009, 04:07:01 AM

And here is proof that there is a retroreflector on the moon and pointing a laser to it you can measure the distance to the moon.
Now it is your job to either disprove this evidence or provide your own evidence about the distance to the moon. I know the evidence I provided isn't perfect, but it is still more than you have and if you can not come with better evidence pointing othewise the logical conclusion would be that moon is 382500 km away and there is retroreflector there.

Do they go into deep analysis of the source code and equipment in that video and document its origin and history? Do they even make an attempt to verify that NASA and its affiliate software and equipment is honest and verifiable?

If not, they haven't provided acceptable standards of evidence to "prove" anything.

It does not matter how crappy the evidence is it is still more than you have and therefore the logical conclusion would be that moon is 382500 km away and there is retroreflector there.

Edit. If you have two conflicting theories and the some evidence supporting the theory A and none the theory B which of these theories would do you think to be true? 

Quote

Russels teapot does no apply to this debate because the claim: "NASA is not tampering with the measurement devices" is not unfalsifiable".

It doesn't just apply to unfalsifiable claims. It applies to all claims.

Proof? Evidence?

Quote

Russels teapot does no apply to this debate because the claim: "NASA is not tampering with the measurement devices" is not unfalsifiable".

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove his claim. It's never on the skeptic to "prove him wrong."

If thousands of people would have allready flown the aerocar would the burden of proof still be on Moller ?

I just had a little poke around the ILRS site, and I can't help but notice that the French Lunar ranging site, C?te d'Azur Observatory, isn't part of it. Isn't this then a 3rd party who are getting similar results without anything being supplied by NASA?