Lunar Laser Ranging experiment?

1) No. I am not saying sun light reflects from the moon. I am saying it is possible to reflect light off the moon. The two are very different. We both agree the moon is reflective. You say sunlight reflects off the moon. James says it doesn't. But everyone agrees light can be reflected. James undoubtedly disagrees about the sun because the spotlight of the sun is not facing the moon. If it were, it would reflect. but as it does not, he attributes its glowing to something else - Bioluminescence.

2) Well I say you failed to prove that the light wouldn't reflect back and charge you with the same lack of evidence in support of your claims. It seems more logical to me that some light would reflect back, than that it never would. My reasoning is supported by chance. You have not provided a reason why a laser's light would never haphazardly bounce back to earth if fired repeatedly at different locations all over the moon.

1) Yes, you did:

1) If sunlight can maintain enough intensity to bounce off and reach earth, I'm sure a high powered laser would

2) I didn't make any such claim. I simply challenged you to support your outlandish claim. Do pay attention.

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 04:41:17 PM

1) No. I am not saying sun light reflects from the moon. I am saying it is possible to reflect light off the moon. The two are very different. We both agree the moon is reflective. You say sunlight reflects off the moon. James says it doesn't. But everyone agrees light can be reflected. James undoubtedly disagrees about the sun because the spotlight of the sun is not facing the moon. If it were, it would reflect. but as it does not, he attributes its glowing to something else - Bioluminescence.

2) Well I say you failed to prove that the light wouldn't reflect back and charge you with the same lack of evidence in support of your claims. It seems more logical to me that some light would reflect back, than that it never would. My reasoning is supported by chance. You have not provided a reason why a laser's light would never haphazardly bounce back to earth if fired repeatedly at different locations all over the moon.

1) Yes, you did:

Quote

1) If sunlight can maintain enough intensity to bounce off and reach earth, I'm sure a high powered laser would

2) I didn't make any such claim. I simply challenged you to support your outlandish claim. Do pay attention.

1) No I did not. I am saying that for your theories to be consistent, this would have to be the case. You maintain light is reflected from the moon to the earth. Well if that were the case, then laser light must also be able to this - they are both light, they can both be similar intensity of light output, in fact the laser can given more lumens if required. I am saying laser light can also reflect (so we agree on that), but that it does not hold true that the sun must do this as well. As stated, the sun may well follow James theory of being a spotlight, therefore facing earth and not the moon. Therefore any light coming from the moon cannot be attributed to the sun. It must be something else.

2) I am paying attention. I claim that by chance some light will bounce back if you hit an uneven surface like the moon over a prolonged period, millions of times. That is a probability, regardless how small. The light has to bounce somewhere. You however are claiming this not to be the case. You must therefore be stating that the light would never bounce back. That is an outlandish claim, and one that would warrant at least an explanation from you, even if you failed to provide evidence. Thus far you have provided neither.

Perhaps you didn't understand correctly, when aimed at a random spot on the moon's surface, NO photons were reflected back to the detector. A mirror is necessary.

?Why?

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 04:48:19 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 04:41:17 PM

1) No. I am not saying sun light reflects from the moon. I am saying it is possible to reflect light off the moon. The two are very different. We both agree the moon is reflective. You say sunlight reflects off the moon. James says it doesn't. But everyone agrees light can be reflected. James undoubtedly disagrees about the sun because the spotlight of the sun is not facing the moon. If it were, it would reflect. but as it does not, he attributes its glowing to something else - Bioluminescence.

2) Well I say you failed to prove that the light wouldn't reflect back and charge you with the same lack of evidence in support of your claims. It seems more logical to me that some light would reflect back, than that it never would. My reasoning is supported by chance. You have not provided a reason why a laser's light would never haphazardly bounce back to earth if fired repeatedly at different locations all over the moon.

1) Yes, you did:

Quote

1) If sunlight can maintain enough intensity to bounce off and reach earth, I'm sure a high powered laser would

2) I didn't make any such claim. I simply challenged you to support your outlandish claim. Do pay attention.

1) No I did not. I am saying that for your theories to be consistent, this would have to be the case. You maintain light is reflected from the moon to the earth. Well if that were the case, then laser light must also be able to this - they are both light, they can both be similar intensity of light output, in fact the laser can given more lumens if required. I am saying laser light can also reflect (so we agree on that), but that it does not hold true that the sun must do this as well. As stated, the sun may well follow James theory of being a spotlight, therefore facing earth and not the moon. Therefore any light coming from the moon cannot be attributed to the sun. It must be something else.

2) I am paying attention. I claim that by chance some light will bounce back if you hit an uneven surface like the moon over a prolonged period, millions of times. That is a probability, regardless how small. The light has to bounce somewhere. You however are claiming this not to be the case. You must therefore be stating that the light would never bounce back. That is an outlandish claim, and one that would warrant at least an explanation from you, even if you failed to provide evidence. Thus far you have provided neither.

Let me see now... You claim that if RET is right about the Sun reflecting off the Moon, then FET could explain an observation. Let's just agree to your premise and end the debate.

Again, I make no claim. I simply challenge you to provide evidence that we should believe your outlandish claim. Please pay attention.

So there just happens to be a naturally occurring mirror on the moon's surface

So there just happens to be a naturally occurring mirror on the moon's surface

If round earthers would have us believe that the sun's light is reflected to earth, then that would be a yes. If both sides agree light can be reflected from the moon, then yes. The moon is shiny. It reflects light. Is not a mirror per se, but it is capable of reflection like a mirror.

I simply challenge you to provide evidence that we should believe your outlandish claim.

As i have explained this twice and you haven't explained the counter, I suspect we are now at cross-purposes. What outlandish claim. I have made no outlandish claims. what do you find outlandish?

Quote from: General Disarray on October 15, 2010, 05:25:14 PM

So there just happens to be a naturally occurring mirror on the moon's surface

If round earthers would have us believe that the sun's light is reflected to earth, then that would be a yes. If both sides agree light can be reflected from the moon, then yes. The moon is shiny. It reflects light. Is not a mirror per se, but it is capable of reflection like a mirror.

The light from the sun is not a tight-beamed laser.

So there just happens to be a naturally occurring mirror on the moon's surface

Not only that but there are 3 naturally occurring retroreflectors located right where NASA says it left them.

Quote from: Thork on October 15, 2010, 05:45:43 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on October 15, 2010, 05:25:14 PM

So there just happens to be a naturally occurring mirror on the moon's surface

If round earthers would have us believe that the sun's light is reflected to earth, then that would be a yes. If both sides agree light can be reflected from the moon, then yes. The moon is shiny. It reflects light. Is not a mirror per se, but it is capable of reflection like a mirror.

The light from the sun is not a tight-beamed laser.

Correct. However they are both light. They both travel at the same speed. They are both measurable.

Quote from: General Disarray on October 15, 2010, 05:25:14 PM

So there just happens to be a naturally occurring mirror on the moon's surface

Not only that but there are 3 naturally occurring retroreflectors located right where NASA says it left them.

Now that is an outlandish claim.

Correct. However they are both light. They both travel at the same speed. They are both measurable.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 05:55:32 PM

Not only that but there are 3 naturally occurring retroreflectors located right where NASA says it left them.

Now that is an outlandish claim.

It's how we interpret your claim, based on the observed results.

I'd say the moon is already pretty shiny. I'd expect a laser to bounce back anyway if it hit the moon smack in the middle. A laser is light after all and as RErs would suggest sunlight bounces off it, why not lasers? I'm not sure sun-light does bounce of it however, but the principle is the same.

The problem here is that you assume a large percentage of the sun's light reaching the moon bounces towards earth.  This is not true, if it was, the moon would be just as bright as the sun.  It clearly is not.  With a spherical object, that's actually impossible, unless the surface was covered in mirrors angled so all the sunlight is reflected at the earth.  If the laser were shone at the surface of the moon, which is rough and scatters light in all directions, only a very small percentage of the light would actually return to earth, and considering the distance of the moon, that would be an extremely small percentage - probably too small to detect, given the output of the laser.  A mirror would be able to reflect a larger percentage of the laser light back to the earth, making it easier to detect.

Actually I hadn't even considered that, but don't see any problem. So it goes through the atmosphere twice? Its still light. The atmosphere allows light to pass through it. Even if I did know what was going on here, I don't think that would be my starting point.

The problem is that as the laser light is going through the atmosphere, the light is subject to a fair bit of dispersion.  The laser beams from Apache Point and other such observatories is several miles wide by the time it reaches the moon.  The retroreflectors left on the moon are only a few square feet in area so only a tiny fraction of the light that reaches the moon is actually reflected back where it is subject to even more dispersion as it returns through the atmosphere.  In the end, only a few photons of the beam are actually picked up by the detectors.  The fact that the laser light is a very specific wavelength is what allows the system to work at all.

Yes.  The issue is not whether light is returning or not, but how much, and is it enough to detect?  The processes described by markjo disperse quite a bit of light, and only a little bit would actually reach the detector.  If there was not mirror, the surface of the moon itself would disperse the light even more, making what returns to the detector so much less.

FE'er uses Conspiracy!

It's not very effective.

So you deny that the organizations involved in the experiment are all NASA funded?

Quote from: General Disarray on October 15, 2010, 04:09:02 AM

FE'er uses Conspiracy!

It's not very effective.

So you deny that the organizations involved in the experiment are all NASA funded?

So do you claim that the organizations involved in the experiment are all NASA funded, as usual without evidence?

I've already documented this in several threads on this very forum (though I know that a period of years constitutes antiquity to you).  Which organization do you have questions about?

I've already documented this in several threads on this very forum (though I know that a period of years constitutes antiquity to you).  Which organization do you have questions about?

Links please to each organization involved.

Either use the search function or list a specific inquiry.

Either use the search function or list a specific inquiry.

Again the specific inquiry is support your claim with links. You said every organization involved received NASA funding, but you can't even list the organizations involved and the links where you've shown that they received NASA funding. Typical FEer, making claims without evidence.

APOLLO:
"Murphy?s project, dubbed APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), is supported by the National Science Foundation and NASA, and includes scientists at the University of Washington, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Humboldt State University and the Apache Point Observatory."
http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/articles/ucsd-physicists-locate-long-lost-soviet-reflector-on-moon

APOLLO:
"Murphy?s project, dubbed APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), is supported by the National Science Foundation and NASA, and includes scientists at the University of Washington, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Humboldt State University and the Apache Point Observatory."
http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/articles/ucsd-physicists-locate-long-lost-soviet-reflector-on-moon

So you have one done. How long until you'll finish at this rate? Maybe you'd be wise to amend your outlandish claim that all are funded by NASA.

MacDonald Observatory, Apache Point Observatory, and C?te d'Azur are all funded through APOLLO.

Quote from: Ski on October 18, 2010, 03:31:26 PM

I've already documented this in several threads on this very forum (though I know that a period of years constitutes antiquity to you).  Which organization do you have questions about?

Links please to each organization involved.

May I suggest not responding to questions with only more questions?  I find it leads to low-content posts with huge piles of quotes which do get tiresome.  I find it often causes thread derailment.

Wait, moon rays are deadly, yet men risk it all to place mirrors on it? 

And if you're gonna tell me spaceflight is a conspiracy by NASA, how do you explain the soviet space program, and the many other nations who are developing their own? Are they all in on this huge global conspiracy?

Wait, moon rays are deadly, yet men risk it all to place mirrors on it? 

And if you're gonna tell me spaceflight is a conspiracy by NASA, how do you explain the soviet space program, and the many other nations who are developing their own? Are they all in on this huge global conspiracy?

Everybody including EnglshGentleman is in on it.

Berny
Looking over his shoulder