.....

Do you understand how RADAR works?

So, they didn't need retro reflective mirrors after all then, just bounce a radar off the moon and it will come back to Earth right?

I've never heard of this one before.
Can you explain how they managed it?

Why should we care about what you have heard before or not? Markjo has been as accommodating as possible finding the exact answer you asked for, and found out about a project that did exactly what you wanted: measure the distance to the Moon in the most direct way possible.

It cannot be simpler than this: humans have been using radar systems to detect and range enemy planes since the Second World War. Ranging the Moon is just a matter of having a radio emitter that is strong enough, and we have been creating radio waves of the order of megawatts for decades, just to air bad music. Sending a radio beam to bounce off the moon is not such a great feat. And we have enormous radio dishes to detect radio waves from space, for which detecting the radio waves bounced off the Moon is simple enough.

Now, the word game you want to play is that you need a mirror on the Moon to plan a mission to the Moon and you need a mission to the Moon to place the mirror there. This is a total insult to human ingenuity. This is the argument from incredulity taken to such extreme that you are even insulting yourself: "we, the human race, are so stupid that we cannot measure distances without a mirror; if we now use a mirror to measure the distance to the moon it is because that is the only way in Heaven or Earth to measure distances; therefore we are too stupid to go to the Moon".

We use a mirror because it is a lot more precise than the radar, not because we need one. We do need one to bounce off a laser beam off the Moon because it is a lot harder to make huge lasers than it is to make huge radio emitters. But we, as the creators of a civilization, are a lot more intelligent and resourceful than your Average Joe.

Quote from: markjo on November 17, 2012, 01:03:53 PM

Do you understand how RADAR works?

Yep, I know how different types of radar work.
Sonar, doppler, radio, light and sound.

You say you know how a radar works, and immediately afterwards you demonstrate you do not have anything but a clue.

Any kind of wave, such as those you are mentioning, bounces off the target in almost every direction. This is true for planes, submarines, cars on a highway, and, yes, the Moon. The receiver does not have to be in the same place where it was when the wave was produced.

In fact, a fighter plane has moved when the radar signals it sent are being received. That does not mean it has any problems at all receiving the echoes.

Waves are not particles that bounce off in one specific direction. Waves are waves. Can you get any simpler than this?

I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.

Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 09:31:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:52:39 AM

I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.

Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.

Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.

Exactly what is your expertise in lunar surface composition? Which materials do you know on Earth that do not reflect radio waves? Or are you telling us that the Moon is made of magical cheese, the only substance on Earth or Heaven that absorbs radio waves apart from the painting on the F-117?

Every time you are asked to support something about your claims you suddenly become the premiere expert in that subject on this whole planet. And you don't call that trolling?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 09:31:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:52:39 AM

I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.

Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.

Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.

So we (you) don't know what the moon is made of, but we (you) know it absorbs radio signals? how is that possible.

you just have a problem with authority. you think you are just wise because you can rebel against what you are taught. sadly we all try and explain things to you that are logical and proven.
have you met tom bishop? perhaps you are related? you will get on well with him.
both of you are well advanced in the fingers in ears lalalalala technique.

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 10:52:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 09:58:56 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 09:31:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:52:39 AM

I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.

Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.

Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.

So we (you) don't know what the moon is made of, but we (you) know it absorbs radio signals? how is that possible.

I said, going by what we are told that the moon is. I have no clue what the moon is made up of and neither do you or anyone else, except for those who dish out the BS.

We are told it's like grey cement and rocks with sun spotlights strategically placed that card board and tinfoil, plus duct taped craft can land on.

Why would rock absorb radar signals?

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 11:22:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 11:05:39 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 10:52:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 09:58:56 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on November 18, 2012, 09:31:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2012, 07:52:39 AM

I understand the waves bounce off in different directions and that's fine for planes and stuff on Earth because we are not dealing with light seconds but we supposedly are with the moon, going by what the top men tell us about it mind.

Not in different directions, in all directions, imagine it as light (also a wave), imagine one of those red lasers the teachers use to point on whiteboards or other presentations, now imagine a laser strong enough to reach the moon and be visible from earth, you would be able to see the red dot from any point on earth where you can see the moon, not only from where the person with the laser stands.

Let's get a bit real here.
Radar works well on Earth, it would do jack skippety in measuring the moons distance because even if it could reach the moon, the moons surface, (assuming we go by the bullshit we have been told the moon is) would absorb the signal, so that's Radar out of the question.

So we (you) don't know what the moon is made of, but we (you) know it absorbs radio signals? how is that possible.

I said, going by what we are told that the moon is. I have no clue what the moon is made up of and neither do you or anyone else, except for those who dish out the BS.

We are told it's like grey cement and rocks with sun spotlights strategically placed that card board and tinfoil, plus duct taped craft can land on.

Why would rock absorb radar signals?

I said the moon would but it doesn't matter because radar isn't the reason the moons distance was calculated, so what did they use to calculate it.

Someone said it was calculated hundreds of years ago. Just how did they calculate it.
I'd still like to know how they calculated it for the 1969 moon landings as well.

Do some research, it is useless talking with you.

You have no clue about the distances of stars other than what you have been taught right?
Everything you have been taught about the stars, the sun, the moon and other planets, you accept because you trust in those that have rank.

Realscientist, if you are a real scientist, then tell me just one thing about science that you have questioned and attempted to rectify.

Newton's laws, for starters. I have done more than one hundred experiments that directly test the validity of Newton's laws, as far as they can be tested in simple settings. This was standard practice for all engineering careers at my university.

Experiments around electronics, I have done too many to count. I have direct knowledge that the physics of atomic and subatomic particles that are used in everything from diodes to lasers works in the lab exactly as expected.

Very importantly, I have pointed and kept communication with geostationary satellites and I know the approximate distance to them from two different sources: the calculated orbit from Newton's law of universal gravitation and from the time that messages need to get to the satellite and come back to the receiving station. I can personally guarantee you that the Moon is a lot farther away than the 36000 or so kilometers that there is from the Earth to the geostationary satellites for two reasons: first, when my station, the satellite and the Moon were in line, about 2 times per year, there was no disruption in the communications whatsoever; second, the gravitational pull from the Moon did not, in any way, make the satellite miss alignment, so I know that the Moon is not orbiting just a few kilometers farther away than the geostationary satellites.

But one of the most telling parts of my previous work with satellites has to do with the re-positioning that has to be done to the satellites periodically. This is done according to specific schedules that are published well in advance of every re-positioning so that the larger dishes, like the one at my company, which was 9 meters in diameter, could be readjusted without loss of service. You just cannot secretly do things with satellites to fool people because too many people in too many countries are seeing what happens, all the time.

And finally, but very importantly, the satellites need small rockets to re-position themselves. This means that rockets are needed at least once every two years or so to do the positioning, and those have to work some 35900 km above the atmosphere of the Earth.

As you see, there are a lot of things in science that I have verified myself. I question lots of supposed given pieces of information and check that they indeed work nicely according to known theories of Physics. It is not necessary that I find things that are wrong, I just need to check their validity to really understand them.

Do some research, it is useless talking with you.

Since we are never going to see some research from skeptimatic, lets do some calculations for ourselves: we know that the distance at which a satellite orbits our Earth, whether it is natural or artificial, does not depend on any other parameter except the time needed for one orbit. This is the reason every geostationary satellite, whether large or small, has to be at the precise altitude for geostationary orbit, which is about 36000 km. So, lets get started:

• The variables I will use are: (all measurements are in the mks system)
• G: the gravitational constant, = 6.67 x 10^-11
• M: the mass of the Earth = 5.97 x 10²⁴
• p: period of the Moon's orbit = 2360591 seconds
• w: rotational speed of the Moon's orbit
• r: mean radius of the Moons orbit
• a_c: the centripetal acceleration of the Moon
• m: the mass of the Moon
• And now the derivation of the formulas:
• ma_{c = mg}
• a_c = g
• a_c = w²r
• g = w²r
• g = GM/r²
• w²r³ = GM
• r³ = GM/w²
• r = 383213536 meters

As you can see, just from Newtons laws and known data, like the period of the Moon's orbit, you can get a pretty good estimate of its distance. Here you can see that we do know the distance to the Moon with a precision that is good enough to plan the trip to the Moon, and with the other information detailed in this forum we can make an even better plan. In fact, we have not talked about Kepler, whose information helps improve the estimate above considerably.

You can question what is said about the Solar System. And after questioning it you can see that our knowledge of it is pretty solid.

Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?

There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?

What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.

Quote from: RealScientist on November 19, 2012, 04:19:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 01:06:23 AM

Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?

There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?

What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.

I didn't think you could answer the questions.

You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.

He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 05:41:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 05:34:54 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on November 19, 2012, 04:19:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 01:06:23 AM

Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?

There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?

What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.

I didn't think you could answer the questions.

You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.

He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.

Nobody has explained anything properly, other than, oh this can be used and that can be used.
I understand many things but I also understand that a lot of what we are told about space is simply best guesses or downright lies.

You are just another frustrated one that can't hammer home the BS that you have bought into to get other people thinking on your terms.
Well guess what...
My views are my views, regardless of being in a minority. It doesn't mean I'm not closer to the truth than you are.

Actually, they tried to show you how to use geometry and algebra to verify claims. You're not going to sit here and say geometry and algebra are false to are you? If so, is a square really a square? I can't believe all the crap I've been fed about squares and 90* angles, it's all lies. Those obtuse triangles really screwed me over too.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 05:51:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 05:49:00 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 05:41:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 05:34:54 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on November 19, 2012, 04:19:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 01:06:23 AM

Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?

There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?

What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.

I didn't think you could answer the questions.

You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.

He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.

Nobody has explained anything properly, other than, oh this can be used and that can be used.
I understand many things but I also understand that a lot of what we are told about space is simply best guesses or downright lies.

You are just another frustrated one that can't hammer home the BS that you have bought into to get other people thinking on your terms.
Well guess what...
My views are my views, regardless of being in a minority. It doesn't mean I'm not closer to the truth than you are.

Actually, they tried to show you how to use geometry and algebra to verify claims. You're not going to sit here and say geometry and algebra are false to are you? If so, is a square really a square? I can't believe all the crap I've been fed about squares and 90* angles, it's all lies. Those obtuse triangles really screwed me over too.

Geometry. trigonometry, angles, they work fine on Earth.

Have you measured the distance from the Earth to the moon yourself and if so, give me a simple run down on how you achieved it.

I'm not going to waste my time giving you a run down of things that you have already been given a run down on 3 or 4 times in this same thread.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 05:57:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 05:55:39 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 05:51:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 05:49:00 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 05:41:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 05:34:54 AM

Quote from: RealScientist on November 19, 2012, 04:19:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 01:06:23 AM

Why would anyone (if it were possible) put up a satellite inside a radiation belt?

There is a huge amount of blabber in your post, which I will not bother to answer, but one thing really stands up: you wail endlessly about the lies that have been spoon fed to you, and yet you repeat without a single second of thought every claim that appears in Conspiracy Theory pages and publications. You talk about radiation. How much radiation are we talking about? Do you even know how radiation is measured, or the units in which it is measured? Do you know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Are you aware that some kinds of radiation are dangerous to living beings but not to machines (except in quantities that can only be found close to the Sun or to a nuclear reactor)?, or are you aware that in many cases you can receive a stronger-than-normal dose of radiation for some weeks and have no long-term problems with your health? Do you know the difference between radiation exposure and radioactive substance exposure to your health? Do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a human being from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts? Or do you know how much metallic shielding is enough to protect a transistor there?

What you have shown here is that you are spoon fed anything that conspiracists tell you, but criticize spoon feeding by others, without seeing that many people are not being fed by anybody. Humanity is a resilient, resourceful species and civilization that achieves better understanding of all things every day, even though people like you and others at bad schools get spoon fed a lot of trash.

I didn't think you could answer the questions.

You are correct on one thing though, I haven't a clue about the radiation belts in terms of how strong they are and actually what they really are. I have to assume it all on what I've been spoon fed by those at the top, just like you really.

He wasn't talking specifically about radiation belts. He was talking about radiation in general. You have diverted every single question posed to you by blaming it on spoon feeding. You're ridiculous. Guys, just stop it with this sceptimatic fool here. He's not going to listen, not going to answer questions, not going to learn. He doesn't understand the methods you tried to explain to him about how to measure distance to the moon. He doesn't understand what radiation is. He doesn't understand radar. Just leave him be to his ways.

Nobody has explained anything properly, other than, oh this can be used and that can be used.
I understand many things but I also understand that a lot of what we are told about space is simply best guesses or downright lies.

You are just another frustrated one that can't hammer home the BS that you have bought into to get other people thinking on your terms.
Well guess what...
My views are my views, regardless of being in a minority. It doesn't mean I'm not closer to the truth than you are.

Actually, they tried to show you how to use geometry and algebra to verify claims. You're not going to sit here and say geometry and algebra are false to are you? If so, is a square really a square? I can't believe all the crap I've been fed about squares and 90* angles, it's all lies. Those obtuse triangles really screwed me over too.

Geometry. trigonometry, angles, they work fine on Earth.

Have you measured the distance from the Earth to the moon yourself and if so, give me a simple run down on how you achieved it.

I'm not going to waste my time giving you a run down of things that you have already been given a run down on 3 or 4 times in this same thread.

Which is the answer I expected.
You see, playing the high and mighty doesn't make you so. Thinking you are smarter, doesn't make you so.
Being told that space is this and that and being shown shoehorned equations , only makes them correct for the shoehorned theory, not what actually is.

How am I playing high and mighty when I imply (quite intentionally) that you didn't bother to read what was explained to you? Do you think algebra doesn't work when you get farther away from earth's surface? Or did you really just not bother to read? I said I was done with this once before. I'm done now. Keep trying to taunt me and intentionally twisting my words because you're self conscious.

Geometry. trigonometry, angles, they work fine on Earth.

Have you measured the distance from the Earth to the moon yourself and if so, give me a simple run down on how you achieved it.

I pointed you to a link explaining how the Ancient Greeks calculated the distance to the moon using geometry and trigonometry, but you wouldn't have any of it.  But seriously, what makes you think that measuring a distance of about a quarter of a million miles should be a simple task?

Now all I asked was, "how did they calculate the moons size and distance accurately enough to allow the so called 1969 Apollo craft to land on it."

So in simple terms, just say what they did and how it was set out to achieve an accurate size and distance, considering they supposedly calculated the fuel to for this supposed mission.

Just simple explanations will suffice.

And I told you that RADAR measurements have been made since the late 1940's.

Radar measurement on Earth have been done since the 40's.
Have you personally done a radar measurement of the moons distance?
If yes, tell me simply how you did it and what exact reading did you get.
If not, can you explain how it was done and what exact reading they got to be able to confidently send Apollo to the moons surface.

No, I have not personally performed any RADAR measurements of the moon.  The simple explanation is that you aim a very powerful RADAR pulse to the moon and measure how long it takes to return.  NASA  and the Soviets were confident enough with that process to send quite a few unmanned probes to land on the moon before Apollo.

Quote from: markjo on November 19, 2012, 07:09:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 06:33:11 AM

Radar measurement on Earth have been done since the 40's.
Have you personally done a radar measurement of the moons distance?
If yes, tell me simply how you did it and what exact reading did you get.
If not, can you explain how it was done and what exact reading they got to be able to confidently send Apollo to the moons surface.

No, I have not personally performed any RADAR measurements of the moon.  The simple explanation is that you aim a very powerful RADAR pulse to the moon and measure how long it takes to return.  NASA  and the Soviets were confident enough with that process to send quite a few unmanned probes to land on the moon before Apollo.

So why are they sticking retro reflective mirrors on the moon to be hit by laser beams when they can accurately just simply bounce radar from it.

Retro frigging reflective mirrors indeed.
I was told fairy stories as a kid and believed them, I don't intend hanging onto fairy stories as an adult.

Radar is good for Earth.

Nothing escapes this Earth, nothing....and that includes radar.

Then you deny the laws of physics as we know them.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 07:17:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 19, 2012, 07:09:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 06:33:11 AM

Radar measurement on Earth have been done since the 40's.
Have you personally done a radar measurement of the moons distance?
If yes, tell me simply how you did it and what exact reading did you get.
If not, can you explain how it was done and what exact reading they got to be able to confidently send Apollo to the moons surface.

No, I have not personally performed any RADAR measurements of the moon.  The simple explanation is that you aim a very powerful RADAR pulse to the moon and measure how long it takes to return.  NASA  and the Soviets were confident enough with that process to send quite a few unmanned probes to land on the moon before Apollo.

So why are they sticking retro reflective mirrors on the moon to be hit by laser beams when they can accurately just simply bounce radar from it.

Retro frigging reflective mirrors indeed.
I was told fairy stories as a kid and believed them, I don't intend hanging onto fairy stories as an adult.

Radar is good for Earth.

Nothing escapes this Earth, nothing....and that includes radar.

Then you deny the laws of physics as we know them.

Not at all.
How am I denying the laws of physics?

The laws of physics work fine on Earth for most part, yet outide Earth, nobody has a clue whether the laws of physics still apply. It's all best guess work.

And why shouldn't they work the same outside of the atmosphere? Physics are validated every day through what we view from telescopes pointed at other parts of space. We watch asteroids moving exactly as the laws of physics say they should. We watch cloud formations change on jupiter exactly as physics says they should. We watch solar flares on the sun performing exactly as physics says they should. We watch the moon orbit exactly as physics says they should. We see radiation come from the sun curve around earth's magnetic field exactly as physics says it should. These are but a few examples. So what makes you think that physics is different when you leave earth? Why should radar, which is simply another form of EM radiation (light falls into this category) not work in space? Light can travel through space, otherwise the earth would be a very, very dark place, as light would never reach here from the sun. The sun emits all kinds of EM radiation that we can detect, and it gets here just fine. So why would an earthbound radar station have any trouble projecting waves into space?

Also, just so you know, you said earlier you knew what radar was. Then you listed sonar. Sonar is not radar. Sonar is sonar.

Sonar is a form of radar and I just used all the forms of radar in answer to me being told I don;t know what radar is or does.

Well you obviously don't know what it is if you think sonar is another form of radar. Sonar isn't remotely the same. It is not another form of radar. It can be used in the same kinds of ways, but it is not the same thing.

The suns radiation, heat/light hits Earth's atmosphere and agitates the matter in that atmosphere and the more they are agitated, the brighter and hotter they get.

What are you talking about? I can't even begin to imagine what you're saying. That is not how light works.

Anything sent from this Earth upwards would be stopped by Earth's outer barrier.
It's the reason we can bounce radio signals off of the atmosphere in a triangulation for communication.

What outer barrier? Are you saying there's some kind of cage around the earth? Also, some frequencies of radio waves can be bounced off of the ionosphere. This is called HAM radio. Radar is not the same frequency.

It bounces off because it cannot escape just like throwing a tennis ball at your ceiling at an angle, you see it bounce off and land where the angle projects it.

So If I throw that same tennis ball at the sky, I should see it bounce off, no?

That's your fake satellites by the way.

What is my fake satellite? I don't own any satellites.

We are prisoners on this planet, we cannot escape and nothing we use to this very day escapes either.
Whether we can in the next few hundred or thousand years remains to be seen but not by us , unless rein carnation is real.

You have a very pessimistic view of reality, which doesn't even remotely match reality.

Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.

Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?

we should back off sceptimatic is the leading expert on so many different forms of science. he knows things that the leading experts dont even know about.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 08:48:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 08:23:25 AM

Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.

Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?

I gave you the balloon experiment, did you try it?

What are you providing me with , other than to say, it works with radar, or , the laws of physics says it works, or, Newtons law says it works.

I asked for simplistic explanations for stuff that's all and you haven't provided any.

I've gave you a very simple experiment to show you why a rocket won't work in  the vacuum of space.

Some people are happy to believe peer reviewed data. And your experiment is invalid due to many variables and above all its not a vacuum. If space is in reachable like you say it is then no experiment can be made to see if a rocket works or not because you don't know what space is.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 08:48:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 08:23:25 AM

Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.

Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?

I gave you the balloon experiment, did you try it?

What are you providing me with , other than to say, it works with radar, or , the laws of physics says it works, or, Newtons law says it works.

I asked for simplistic explanations for stuff that's all and you haven't provided any.

I've gave you a very simple experiment to show you why a rocket won't work in  the vacuum of space.

You've been told about the laws of physics and given sources on them so you can perform simple tests to see if they work the way they are described to work.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 10:03:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 09:04:42 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 19, 2012, 08:48:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2012, 08:23:25 AM

Pay attention Thinkingman, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.

Why should I provide better service than you do? I have tried and tried and tried to explain. I haven given you experiments in this thread and others, and so have many other people. You shrug us off. So tell me, why should I keep providing debate points and explanations and answers to your questions when you provide nothing of substance in return besides telling us that things don't work that way just because you think they don't work that way?

I gave you the balloon experiment, did you try it?

What are you providing me with , other than to say, it works with radar, or , the laws of physics says it works, or, Newtons law says it works.

I asked for simplistic explanations for stuff that's all and you haven't provided any.

I've gave you a very simple experiment to show you why a rocket won't work in  the vacuum of space.

You've been told about the laws of physics and given sources on them so you can perform simple tests to see if they work the way they are described to work.

On Earth, those experiments work. There is no evidence of them working in space.

... I don't even know what to say to your little one liners anymore.

The few times you have (apparently) understood what we were trying to explain, yor final argument has been something like "it is a theory anyway", "nobody really know" or "it sounds like a lie". And then its like cleverbot forgetting what we told you a few posts before. And yo repeating the same argument everybody debated to you a few posts ago, like it was new and none had an answer.
You should accept that there is a big difference between understanding something because it is logical and it can be verified, and being spoon fed (your favorite phrase). Maybe (just maybe), you not understanding a lot of things in physics has less to do with them being illogical, and more to do with your intelligence.Or you could be from other country and your mother tongue maybe is not english, that is the only explanation (other than your intelligence) i can find for you saying so much nonsense and not understanding most of what we explain to you.

So why are they sticking retro reflective mirrors on the moon to be hit by laser beams when they can accurately just simply bounce radar from it.

In this very phrase we can see the way sceptimatic just babbles endlessly, repeating what he has gotten from us with amazingly bad reading comprehension and twisting words because he cannot do the maths.

Who said that the accuracy of a measurement by radar is the same as the accuracy of a measurement by laser? In fact, the opposite is true. The laser reflects almost exclusively on the mirrors, giving a precise measurement to a precise place on the Moon. The radar reflects back on every surface of this side of the Moon, so you get a myriad echoes, and select the first you hear, which can be from a high place or a low valley.

That is the quality of sceptimatic's intellect. It can read the word "accurately" but he cannot understand its meaning and the complexities of a word with relative value.

So, I agree with ThinkingMan. I will stop feeding the troll.

if we believe what we are told then we have been to space many times. you refuse to believe this information. fair enough but your whole argument is based on a global conspiracy.

yours truly weevil the rodent

Should I tell him to moon is tidally locked to the earth and has one side always facing the earth and this is why we only every see one side of the moon? Meh, I guess I wont.