Retroreflectors on the Moon

Proof? Evidence?

Russel's Teapot applies to verifiable claims because the analogy of Russel's Teapot is itself a verifiable claim.

Russel claims that between the Earth and Mars there is a small china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. It might be possible to verify his claim, but it doesn't matter. The burden of proof is still on Russel as the claimant. Under absolutely no pretense is the burden of proof on his skeptics to "prove him wrong."

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?

Perhaps they're getting their materials and supplies from the ESA.

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?

First of all, there is evidence for the moon's altitude in the library of literature in my signature link.

Secondly, even if there wasn't, the idea that if one theory has more "evidence" it is somehow more proven is a fallacy. Here's an example of a similar one -

Theory 1a: God Exists.

Evidence: Uncounted claims of maricles, happenings, and personal relationships with God. A two thousand page book full of claims and true stories about God and his son.  Hundreds of thousands of people who claim that God speaks to them personally.

Theory 1b: God Does Not Exist.

Evidence: None.

Conclusion by your logic: God must exist.

Quote

Proof? Evidence?

Russel's Teapot applies to verifiable claims because the analogy of Russel's Teapot is itself a verifiable claim.

Russel claims that between the Earth and Mars there is a small china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. It might be possible to verify his claim, but it doesn't matter. The burden of proof is still on Russel as the claimant. Under absolutely no pretense is the burden of proof on his skeptics to "prove him wrong."

It was not possible to verify that claim when Russell published the Russell's teapot analogy. The whole point of the analogy is that it is not possible to verify the claim.

Quote

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?

First of all, there is evidence for the moon's altitude in the library of literature in my signature link.

Secondly, even if there wasn't, the idea that if one theory has more "evidence" it is somehow more proven is a fallacy. Here's an example of a similar one -

Theory 1a: God Exists.

Evidence: Uncounted claims of maricles, happenings, and personal relationships with God. A two thousand page book full of claims and true stories about God and his son.  Hundreds of thousands of people who claim that God speaks to them personally.

Theory 1b: God Does Not Exist.

Evidence: None.

Conclusion by your logic: God must exist.

It is not possible to prove that God does not exist. It is possible to prove that NASA tampers with measurement instruments.

RET would win any debate with a bipartisan audience hands down, simply because most FE'ers don't follow the simple rules of debate.  In a debate it is two equally opposing sides presenting an argument.  That is it, it's that simple.  Tom/Johannes have presented no argument in this particular debate, only shown that they really don't trust the source so they don't accept the results of the findings.  If this debate were decided by a bipartisan audience they would be forced to give the victory to RE simply because FE has presented no evidence to counteract the evidence that RE has presented.  If there is a burden of proof in debate, that burden rests on both sides of the debate.  RE has presented their evidence.  They have shown that anyone can experience this for themselves.  They have given first hand accounts of conducting this experiment on their own time.  FE has only questioned those results and has presented that in a single case, the materials to conduct the experiment came from a group that they simply don't trust.

It really makes no sense.  The heading on the forum section is debate and discussion.  There is burden of proof on both parties.  Drop it already FE.  When we present evidence of a particular view, the burden rests with you to present evidence to the opposite view or debunk the evidence we have presented as falsified.  It's really a very simple concept this debate thing.

Quote

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?

First of all, there is evidence for the moon's altitude in the library of literature in my signature link.

Secondly, even if there wasn't, the idea that if one theory has more "evidence" it is somehow more proven is a fallacy. Here's an example of a similar one -

Theory 1a: God Exists.

Evidence: Uncounted claims of maricles, happenings, and personal relationships with God. A two thousand page book full of claims and true stories about God and his son.  Hundreds of thousands of people who claim that God speaks to them personally.

Theory 1b: God Does Not Exist.

Evidence: None.

Conclusion by your logic: God must exist.

Tom,

That's a completely bogus comparison.  The "god does not exist" is untestable because you would have to look in every place in the entire universe.  (i.e it's a negative argument).

Conversely, it's easy to falsify "the moon is 3000 miles away" because all you have to do is either:

1. Bounce radio waved off it and time the delay.
2. Observe that its apparent size does not change as you would expect if it were 3000 miles away.

These arguments stand up because to get round them you have to wheel-in bendy light, and the DEF, which are untested, unproven and unobserved.

How do you know what is between the moon and the earth? Waves slow down in mediums.

How do you know what is between the moon and the earth? Waves slow down in mediums.

Which would create refraction and separation of frequencies (ie some frequencies would travel slightly faster or slower). As none of this occur, we can rule it out because if light really did slow down, then it would have to produce these effects and we would have detected then.

You have been talking about how refraction bends light for a whuile now, so I don't think you are so stupid that you would not have known that these effect would occur, which raises the question as to why you proposed it in the first place?

It was not possible to verify that claim when Russell published the Russell's teapot analogy. The whole point of the analogy is that it is not possible to verify the claim.

Russel's Teapot still applies then as it does now. Falsifiability or unfalsifibility has nothing to do with it.

If someone claimed that a china teapot existed 14 miles below the surface of the earth, is the burden of proof on the claimant, or is the burden of proof on the skeptic?

Anyone can see that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Quote

It was not possible to verify that claim when Russell published the Russell's teapot analogy. The whole point of the analogy is that it is not possible to verify the claim.

Russel's Teapot still applies then as it does now. Falsifiability or unfalsifibility has nothing to do with it.

If someone claimed that a china teapot existed 14 miles below the surface of the earth, is the burden of proof on the claimant, or is the burden of proof on the skeptic?

Anyone can see that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

And you claim the earth to be flat, so prove it

cbarnett97, unless you have the source code and detailed technical diagrams there is nothing more to discuss.

cbarnett97, unless you have the source code and detailed technical diagrams there is nothing more to discuss.

Source code does not exist! so there is no source code to provide this is not a piece of software that an abservatory goes to best buy and buys, one of their engineers writes it to work with their setup. I am sure if you contach the observatory and tell them that you are interested in conducting an experiment but you need help with the software they will help you out

tl;dr

pm when you have evidence

tl;dr

pm when you have evidence

That Mythbusters video is more evidence than you have. Now you have to either disprove that evidence or come up with better evidence that supports your view.

 Falsifiability or unfalsifibility has nothing to do with it.

Oh yes it does it is the whole point of it. It says so right in the wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

"proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religion".

Perhaps you can find some proof for you claim that proves that Russels teapot also applies to falsiable claims ?

If someone claimed that a china teapot existed 14 miles below the surface of the earth, is the burden of proof on the claimant, or is the burden of proof on the skeptic?

Anyone can see that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Yes it is, but we are not discussing about if there is a teapot 14 miles below the surface of the earth or other unfalsifiable claim.


Edit.
I agree with you that it is polite for the claimant provide some proof for his/hers claim such as we have. But then it is the job of the opposing side to offer better evidence that supports their claim.

Perhaps they're getting their materials and supplies from the ESA.

I can't see any evidence that they're getting materials from the ESA, either.

How do you know what is between the moon and the earth? Waves slow down in mediums.

Do you have any proof or evidence that there is some other medium besides air between moon and earth? It is your job to prove at least according to Tom.

Quote

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?

Perhaps they're getting their materials and supplies from the ESA.

Proof? Evidence?

RET would win any debate with a bipartisan audience hands down, simply because most FE'ers don't follow the simple rules of debate.  In a debate it is two equally opposing sides presenting an argument.  That is it, it's that simple.  Tom/Johannes have presented no argument in this particular debate, only shown that they really don't trust the source so they don't accept the results of the findings.  If this debate were decided by a bipartisan audience they would be forced to give the victory to RE simply because FE has presented no evidence to counteract the evidence that RE has presented.  If there is a burden of proof in debate, that burden rests on both sides of the debate.  RE has presented their evidence.  They have shown that anyone can experience this for themselves.  They have given first hand accounts of conducting this experiment on their own time.  FE has only questioned those results and has presented that in a single case, the materials to conduct the experiment came from a group that they simply don't trust.

I haven't seen you present evidence for your argument beyond insisting that the data is true and that the equipment is accurate. Accuracy and verifiability is your burden to prove.

Tom,

That's a completely bogus comparison.  The "god does not exist" is untestable because you would have to look in every place in the entire universe.  (i.e it's a negative argument).

That's not what believers claim. God talks to millions of them directly, and constantly grants maricles. It doesn't seem like finding some evidence for his existence would be very hard.

Quote

That's a completely bogus comparison.  The "god does not exist" is untestable because you would have to look in every place in the entire universe.  (i.e it's a negative argument).

That's not what believers claim. God talks to millions of them directly, and constantly grants miracles. It doesn't seem like finding some evidence for his existence would be very hard.

That would be 'proving god', not 'disproving god'. Nor is a lack of proof, a disproof.

Quote

RET would win any debate with a bipartisan audience hands down, simply because most FE'ers don't follow the simple rules of debate.  In a debate it is two equally opposing sides presenting an argument.  That is it, it's that simple.  Tom/Johannes have presented no argument in this particular debate, only shown that they really don't trust the source so they don't accept the results of the findings.  If this debate were decided by a bipartisan audience they would be forced to give the victory to RE simply because FE has presented no evidence to counteract the evidence that RE has presented.  If there is a burden of proof in debate, that burden rests on both sides of the debate.  RE has presented their evidence.  They have shown that anyone can experience this for themselves.  They have given first hand accounts of conducting this experiment on their own time.  FE has only questioned those results and has presented that in a single case, the materials to conduct the experiment came from a group that they simply don't trust.

I haven't seen you present evidence for your argument beyond insisting that the data is true and that the equipment is accurate. Accuracy and verifiability is your burden to prove.

Read my post again slower and maybe you will understand it.

Once again RE has no disproof of RE and distracts from the weakness of the op...

Once again RE has no disproof of RE and distracts from the weakness of the op...

We have provided proof for our claims but you haven't for yours. Why we have to prove our claims but you don't have to prove your claims?

Why we have to prove our claims but you don't have to prove your claims?

Because you're the claimant and we're the skeptic.

Quote from: jargo on January 08, 2009, 11:59:14 PM

Why we have to prove our claims but you don't have to prove your claims?

Because you're the claimant and we're the skeptic.

We have made claims and provided evidence for them so we are a claimant. But you are also a claimant you have for example claimed that NASA tampers with measurement devices so you'll also have provide evidence for your claim, if not I would like to hear a explanation why you are not a claimant even if you have made a claim.

We have made claims and provided evidence for them so we are a claimant. But you are also a claimant you have for example claimed that NASA tampers with measurement devices so you'll also have provide evidence for your claim, if not I would like to hear a explanation why you are not a claimant even if you have made a claim.

Questioning the validity or accuracy of a source or subject isn't a claim. It's a question.

Quote

We have made claims and provided evidence for them so we are a claimant. But you are also a claimant you have for example claimed that NASA tampers with measurement devices so you'll also have provide evidence for your claim, if not I would like to hear a explanation why you are not a claimant even if you have made a claim.

Questioning the validity or accuracy of a source or subject isn't a claim. It's a question.

Questions have question marks behind them. You are for example claiming that the French Lunar ranging site, C?te d'Azur Observatory are getting their materials and supplies from the ESA. the fact that you are not 100 % sure does not change the fact that it is a claim.

Perhaps they're getting their materials and supplies from the ESA.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2009, 07:32:06 AM

Quote

Can you please cite your source where they claim to be firing gigawatt lasers at the moon?

From http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Moons/TheMoon/Retroreflectors.html :

"The laser beam. How powerful does the light beam have to be? One laser generator in use with a 3.5-meter telescope operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium at Apache Point, near Sunspot, New Mexico, generates a peak power of a one billion watts (1 gigawatt) for a short time, but just long enough to fire off a one-inch bullet of light aimed through the telescope at the lunar surface."

Tom: "One laser generator in use"

That is one of them, not all of them. You seem to keep getting "one" and "all" mixed up. They are not the same word, even though they ahve the same number of letters.

Not all laser range finders that use the retro reflectors on the Moon are that powerful. Many are much, much weaker. 1500mJ is much less powerful than 1MW, and that 1500mJ laser is used to range find to the Moon.

Tom, I can find the specs for a Car that has over 1000HP, does that mean that the scooter my nephew has (which has a motor on it) have 1000HP? no. Even you know that. You are just Strawmaninng again and thus weakening the position of any FEer. If I were a FEer, I'd be disowning any thing you say.

Actually, a laser that generates a 1500 mJ pulse for 200 ps is a 7.5 gigawatt laser. The sum is fairly simple: (1500x10^-3)J/(200x10^-12)s = 7.5x10^9 W or 7.5 gigawatts.

That being said, Tom's laser that generates a 1 gigawatt pulse 1 inch long is in fact only an 85 milliwatt laser. A 1 inch pulse of light takes 84.7 picoseconds to propagate [2.54x10^-2 m (length of pulse)/3x10^8 m/s (speed of light)]. Therefore the actually power output of the laser is 1x10^9 (the energy of the pulse) x 84.7x10^-12 (duration of the pulse) = 0.085 watts (the power of the pulse).

Kinda wierd how when you stop and do the sums, it turns out you're both arguing the wrong side of the argument.

Tom why don't you just tell us your definition of debate?  Hell why don't all FE'ers tell us their definition of debate?

energy x time != power