DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon

Doesnt this assume a round earth in the first place?

The experiment:
1: Wait for a clear night with a clear view of the moon.
2: Stand still.
3: Find a friend, a hooker will work if you don't have any friends, and tell him/her to move several hundred miles away from you.
4: Measure the distance between the two of you, and the angle that the moon is from both of you.  You will need to measure the angles at the same time.  Use a telescope and a protractor to measure the angle if needed.
5: Using the below formulas, calculate the distance between the earth and the moon.

Explanation:
A = your standing point.
B = the hooker's standing point.
a = your angle to the moon.
b = the hooker's angle to the moon.
d = the absolute value of the sum of the distance between A and B.
h = the distance between the earth and the moon.

So you can find the distance to the moon. So what?

Quote from: grogberries on February 20, 2009, 06:58:35 PM

So you can find the distance to the moon. So what?

Because the result has already been confirmed to be over 3000 miles away, proving Rowbotham wrong.

Quote from: avsfan987 on February 20, 2009, 08:38:36 PM

Quote from: grogberries on February 20, 2009, 06:58:35 PM

So you can find the distance to the moon. So what?

Because the result has already been confirmed to be over 3000 miles away, proving Rowbotham wrong.

I demand evidence.

Quote from: Anteater7171 on February 21, 2009, 06:50:52 PM

Quote from: avsfan987 on February 20, 2009, 08:38:36 PM

Quote from: grogberries on February 20, 2009, 06:58:35 PM

So you can find the distance to the moon. So what?

Because the result has already been confirmed to be over 3000 miles away, proving Rowbotham wrong.

I demand evidence.

From the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation) web site:
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/norm_pts.html

Raw data files can be found here: http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/080928_apollo_np.txt
and here: http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/080501_apollo_np.txt

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results.

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2009, 07:06:16 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on February 21, 2009, 06:50:52 PM

Quote from: avsfan987 on February 20, 2009, 08:38:36 PM

Quote from: grogberries on February 20, 2009, 06:58:35 PM

So you can find the distance to the moon. So what?

Because the result has already been confirmed to be over 3000 miles away, proving Rowbotham wrong.

I demand evidence.

From the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation) web site:
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/norm_pts.html

Raw data files can be found here: http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/080928_apollo_np.txt
and here: http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/080501_apollo_np.txt

From http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html :

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results.

Your point is...

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2009, 07:21:45 PM

Your point is...

My point is that your evidence is invalid because it's coming straight from the horses mouth.

Then why ask for raw data if you're just going to dismiss it only because the organization that collected the data has a connection with NASA?

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2009, 07:48:53 PM

Then why ask for raw data if you're just going to dismiss it only because the organization that collected the data has a connection with NASA?

We ask for raw data because the raw data often demonstrates that it originates from NASA and should therefore be thrown out with the trash, invalid as anything which might act as verification of NASA's claims.

Ah Tom, now your agenda is quite clear.  NASA can't be trusted so any data that says that NASA can be trusted can't be trusted either. 

Not if that source is funded and puppetted by NASA behind the scenes, no.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2009, 08:10:13 PM

Not if that source is funded and puppetted by NASA behind the scenes, no.

Well how about from now on we just throw out Rowbotham's evidence in every debate then.

If you guys do it I guess we can too.

NASA isn't all bad; we can at least agree that they are pretty good and inventin' stuff.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Quote from: Pongo on February 21, 2009, 09:06:18 PM

NASA isn't all bad; we can at least agree that they are pretty good and inventin' stuff.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Creating patents has a two pronged benefit:

- It proves to congress that they are actually making progress and doing something with the money.

- It's something they can license out to corporations and make huge profit from. Imagine making one dollar for every smoke detector in existence.

Tom, even though you are usually right; you are wrong here. Anything patented by NASA becomes public domain and can be used by anyone for free.

If they are in the public domain and can be used for free, why are they selling them?

http://gcn.com/articles/2008/09/15/nasa-patents-to-be-auctioned.aspx

Quote from: Anteater7171 on February 21, 2009, 10:46:08 PM

Tom, even though you are usually right; you are wrong here. Anything patented by NASA becomes public domain and can be used by anyone for free.

If they are in the public domain and can be used for free, why are they selling them?

http://gcn.com/articles/2008/09/15/nasa-patents-to-be-auctioned.aspx

NASA's "evidence" is blatant and obvious propaganda. We should not bring such illegitimate tripe into these respected forums.
[/quote

You are just confirming what I thought.

The only reason that you choose to discard NASA's evidence is because of your opinion.

Opinions and biases have no place in science when condicuting experiments and reviewing data.

Do you understand how a patent works? It allows one person or group to have rights over an invention, meaning other people can't use it without the person or groups permission. It's in the public domain, so that people can see who they need to get permission from if their invention incorporates the ideas of others.

NASA is selling the ability to have control over the use of an invention, not the ability to see the patent.

Quote from: NTheGreat on February 22, 2009, 06:27:47 AM

Do you understand how a patent works? It allows one person or group to have rights over an invention, meaning other people can't use it without the person or groups permission. It's in the public domain, so that people can see who they need to get permission from if their invention incorporates the ideas of others.

NASA is selling the ability to have control over the use of an invention, not the ability to see the patent.

I never implied that NASA's patents weren't viewable by the public through the patent office. I stated that NASA's patents were propitiatory and could not be used for free.

Read more. Post less.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2009, 12:31:21 PM

Quote from: NTheGreat on February 22, 2009, 06:27:47 AM

Do you understand how a patent works? It allows one person or group to have rights over an invention, meaning other people can't use it without the person or groups permission. It's in the public domain, so that people can see who they need to get permission from if their invention incorporates the ideas of others.

NASA is selling the ability to have control over the use of an invention, not the ability to see the patent.

I never implied that NASA's patents weren't viewable by the public through the patent office. I stated that NASA's patents were propitiatory and could not be used for free.

Read more. Post less.

Are you ready to answer my concerns about transparent celestial bodies yet Mr. Bishop?

Quote from: reyo on February 22, 2009, 12:34:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2009, 12:31:21 PM

Quote from: NTheGreat on February 22, 2009, 06:27:47 AM

Do you understand how a patent works? It allows one person or group to have rights over an invention, meaning other people can't use it without the person or groups permission. It's in the public domain, so that people can see who they need to get permission from if their invention incorporates the ideas of others.

NASA is selling the ability to have control over the use of an invention, not the ability to see the patent.

I never implied that NASA's patents weren't viewable by the public through the patent office. I stated that NASA's patents were propitiatory and could not be used for free.

Read more. Post less.

Are you ready to answer my concerns about transparent celestial bodies yet Mr. Bishop?

I don't recall anything about transparent celestial bodies.