General Conspiracy Theory Dump Store

[Stevo985]

3 hours ago, Seal said:

Like I said, I took 2,000mph from my head. I can't  remember where from. I have just googled, it says 2,288mph. 

https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/176--How-fast-does-the-Moon-travel-around-Earth-#:~:text=The Moon orbits Earth at,(3%2C683 kilometers per hour).

In my post, I said, "admittedly much slower as you head to the poles' so yes I had taken into account. Even allowing for it being at a guess 200 mph in the UK, then I contend it would not work. 

 

Speed in that sense is irrelevant. Angular velocity is what's important. 

The earth rotates at 15 degrees an hour. 360 degrees in 24 hours. It is incredibly slow

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Surely pretty much any sophisticated technology developed in recent decades, that weren't obvious to people long before then, that require a degree of experimentation, research, advanced engineering or other specialist knowledge is equally implausible. 

Just seen this. To my understanding, and if I've not got the wrong end of the stick, some modern tech is magic - "how did they do that" stunning, but most is not. Most is iterative of existing knowledge, or is resulting from being able to cram more processing power on a chip due to improved manufacturing techniques and so on.

It's like early manned flight was "magic", but then it's all incremental - a bit faster, a bit higher, a bit longer (kenny). And then there was Unmanned flight - magical again,, and then it's iterative. The same kind of thing is true in most spheres of technology, I think. But even the "magical" ones were largely "plausible" and resulted from exactly the things you mention experimentation, research, advanced engineering or other specialist knowledge, but they weren't "implausible" almost by definition - if they required those things - research and test and advanced engineering and knowledge - they were therefore "plausible" because people were trying to do them, trying to find a way....

So the magic applies in the eye of the ordinary beholder and non-expert, but the boffins and men in sheds, to them it was all plausible all along, they just hadn't quite made it happen yet.

Apols if I've misunderstood your point.

[Seal]

44 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Speed in that sense is irrelevant. Angular velocity is what's important. 

The earth rotates at 15 degrees an hour. 360 degrees in 24 hours. It is incredibly slow

I fear this is missing the point. The point being that having the accuracy to pinpoint the laser especially decades after the reflector is placed would be practically impossible, and that, bearing in mind the same experiment and results could be performed before anyone went to the moon, is suggestive (to me at least) that it probably ain't a reflector reflecting stuff back. Its probably just... the moon. 

[blandy]

23 hours ago, Seal said:

I fear this is missing the point. The point being that having the accuracy to pinpoint the laser especially decades after the reflector is placed would be practically impossible, and that, bearing in mind the same experiment and results could be performed before anyone went to the moon, is suggestive (to me at least) that it probably ain't a reflector reflecting stuff back. Its probably just... the moon. 

The accuracy ought not to be a problem. Like I’ve posted earlier the steering of the light beam is pretty easy. Not as much as with radio waves from a directional antenna, but still to an extent, the laser beam will also spread wider with distance, so a beam that’s (say) a metre wide as it leaves the lens on earth, will be many times wider by the time it reaches the moon, so it gives room for tolerance in the steering at the target. I’d guess much bigger problems might be getting the right weather conditions - no clouds, no dust, no rain, snow etc.  they’d stuff it up right at the start. But clear conditions and you could definitely pinpoint the location on the moon where the astronauts left the reflector(s).  I’m not sure whether the clangers who live in the moon go and give the reflector(s) a wipe down and polish every few weeks. Probably not. Should have thought about that earlier.  The moon does obviously reflect some light to earth, but not efficiently and as lasers operate not across the spectrum of visible light, but at a specific single frequency (which can be different for different lasers), it won’t be the moon reflecting the laser light back, it’ll be a dedicated reflecting device(s) made so that it/they don’t just scatter the received light, but reflect it back the way it came.

The science and engineering is there and versions of it are in use in all kinds of stuff.

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

 

 

Nice to see I’m not the only one who manages to get their finger over the lens when taking a snap

Edited September 19, 2023 by LondonLax

[limpid]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

I fear this is missing the point. The point being that having the accuracy to pinpoint the laser especially decades after the reflector is placed would be practically impossible, and that, bearing in mind the same experiment and results could be performed before anyone went to the moon, is suggestive (to me at least) that it probably ain't a reflector reflecting stuff back. Its probably just... the moon. 

Is there a reason you ignored my reply explaining this?

Also, please cite your claim that the "same experiment" was performed before we'd landed anything on the moon.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Seal said:

I fear this is missing the point. The point being that having the accuracy to pinpoint the laser especially decades after the reflector is placed would be practically impossible, and that, bearing in mind the same experiment and results could be performed before anyone went to the moon, is suggestive (to me at least) that it probably ain't a reflector reflecting stuff back. Its probably just... the moon. 

Again this is personal incredulity. Because you don’t think it’s plausible you’re claiming it’s not possible. 

[Seal]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

The accuracy ought not to be a problem. Like I’ve posted earlier the steering of the light beam is pretty easy. Not as much as with radio waves from a directional antenna, but still to an extent, the laser beam will also spread wider with distance, so a beam that’s (say) a metre wide as it leaves the lens on earth, will be many times wider by the time it reaches the moon, so it gives room for tolerance in the steering at the target. I’d guess much bigger problems might be getting the right weather conditions - no clouds, no dust, no ruin, snow etc.  they’d stuff it up right at the start. But clear conditions and you could definitely pinpoint the location on the moon where the astronauts left the reflector(s).  I’m not sure whether the clangers who live in the moon go and give the reflector(s) a wipe down and polish every few weeks. Probably not. Should have thought about that earlier.  The moon does obviously reflect some light to earth, but not efficiently and as lasers operate not across the spectrum of visible light, but at a specific single frequency (which can be different for different lasers), it won’t be the moon reflecting the laser light back, it’ll be a dedicated reflecting device(s) made so that it/they don’t just scatter the received light, but reflect it back the way it came.

The science and engineering is there and versions of it are in use in all kinds of stuff.

But if it isn't the moon reflecting back then how come the experiment could be performed in the early 60's? I still think finding the reflector would be difficult. The beams claim to be 4 miles wide at the surface - which is what you are saying. But all the variables make it too hard to my mind. You have the weather conditions that you mention. Any dust - although I imagine less than there would be if it was in the sahara. Solar weather. The earths atmosphere. The rotation of the earth. The orbital velocity of the moon (I am still gunna use my laymen terms in my head sorry), where the moon is in its cycle, I think 4 miles wide is not enough - assuming that was correct, I lifted that from wiki, although another place said 200m). Especially when you are reliant on this thing to send a reflection back to you. But I don't think we will reach an agreement on this.

Also bearing in mind that nasa claim to have taken things to the moon on unmanned expeditions. If there are reflectors up there, is it proof that man went to the moon?

The toughness in completing the experiment is not just limited to hitting the laser. But also in being able to isolate the photon that comes back and being able to replicate the experiment. 

I am also very sceptical about things that cannot be demonstrated by anyone outside of an authority. Reading about a the Apollo project (apache point observatory lunar laser range operation project, it suggests that you need a laser than can shoot enough photons up that you get some back. He - someone involved in that - states this is 10¹⁷ green 532 nm photons per pulse (be aware I am just digging into it this repeating the words of others. So I am taking a layman understanding from this), and at this level, you can only expect to get about 1 photon back. And this is the best that can be expected using a 3.5m telescope, and this can only be done somewhere with absolutely minimal background light and no distortion. So basically it appears to be far too complicated for regular joe's to achieve https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/apparatus.html you wild need a laser as well 532nm green with a gigawatt of peak power that can output pulses of 120 picosecond duration at 20hz. Customized detection hardware and it seems special computer hardware and software to statistically 'interpret the "data". In short it seems there are only 8 places equipped to do this. 

Reading about how the lasers work, it reads like you need to give it a gate - in order to filter out "local noise" like reflections from clouds. So basically you need to input the earth - moon distance, in order to find out the earth - moon distance. Seems weird, although I may have misread that.

Also I don't see how at the Earth anyone would be able to distinguish between the photons from the laser. And the photons given off by the reflection from the moon - which is a broadly similar portion of the spectrum. Presumably  this explains why the result of the experiment worked before we even "had lasers on the moon". If the theoretical return of a photon is statistically likely to be just 1 photon, then how is this distinguished from the other photons of identical wavelength?

I imagine it would be like detecting an ants fart in a hurricane. 

It think it requires faith, as it seemingly cannot be verified by the regular dude. Basically to my mind it requires a massive assumption that the return is actually the reflection. 

It is also true that if you point a temperature gun directly at the moon, you will see an increase in temperature from the surrounding atmosphere. 

 

 

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Seal said:

But if it isn't the moon reflecting back then how come the experiment could be performed in the early 60's? I still think finding the reflector would be difficult. The beams claim to be 4 miles wide at the surface - which is what you are saying. But all the variables make it too hard to my mind. You have the weather conditions that you mention. Any dust - although I imagine less than there would be if it was in the sahara. Solar weather. The earths atmosphere. The rotation of the earth. The orbital velocity of the moon (I am still gunna use my laymen terms in my head sorry), where the moon is in its cycle, I think 4 miles wide is not enough - assuming that was correct, I lifted that from wiki, although another place said 200m). Especially when you are reliant on this thing to send a reflection back to you. But I don't think we will reach an agreement on this.

Also bearing in mind that nasa claim to have taken things to the moon on unmanned expeditions. If there are reflectors up there, is it proof that man went to the moon?

The toughness in completing the experiment is not just limited to hitting the laser. But also in being able to isolate the photon that comes back and being able to replicate the experiment. 

I am also very sceptical about things that cannot be demonstrated by anyone outside of an authority. Reading about a the Apollo project (apache point observatory lunar laser range operation project, it suggests that you need a laser than can shoot enough photons up that you get some back. He - someone involved in that - states this is 10¹⁷ green 532 nm photons per pulse (be aware I am just digging into it this repeating the words of others. So I am taking a layman understanding from this), and at this level, you can only expect to get about 1 photon back. And this is the best that can be expected using a 3.5m telescope, and this can only be done somewhere with absolutely minimal background light and no distortion. So basically it appears to be far too complicated for regular joe's to achieve https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/apparatus.html you wild need a laser as well 532nm green with a gigawatt of peak power that can output pulses of 120 picosecond duration at 20hz. Customized detection hardware and it seems special computer hardware and software to statistically 'interpret the "data". In short it seems there are only 8 places equipped to do this. 

Reading about how the lasers work, it reads like you need to give it a gate - in order to filter out "local noise" like reflections from clouds. So basically you need to input the earth - moon distance, in order to find out the earth - moon distance. Seems weird, although I may have misread that.

Also I don't see how at the Earth anyone would be able to distinguish between the photons from the laser. And the photons given off by the reflection from the moon - which is a broadly similar portion of the spectrum. Presumably  this explains why the result of the experiment worked before we even "had lasers on the moon". If the theoretical return of a photon is statistically likely to be just 1 photon, then how is this distinguished from the other photons of identical wavelength?

I imagine it would be like detecting an ants fart in a hurricane. 

It think it requires faith, as it seemingly cannot be verified by the regular dude. Basically to my mind it requires a massive assumption that the return is actually the reflection. 

It is also true that if you point a temperature gun directly at the moon, you will see an increase in temperature from the surrounding atmosphere. 

 

 

The laser beam begins a couple of metres across. By the time it gets to the moon it’s over a mile wide. So even though the reflectors are small, you don’t have to hit them exactly. 
 

And because the reflectors are shaped like cubes, they reflect light back in the direction it came. So as long as some photons hit the reflector, they’ll get reflected back. 
 

The spread of the laser is much wider when it comes back to earth which means it’s hard to detect the photons. 
In fact each photon only has a 1 in 250 million chance of reaching the moon and being reflected back. 

Luckily there are **** loads of photons in laser beams so you get a pretty good return if you do it right

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, Seal said:

 

It is also true that if you point a temperature gun directly at the moon, you will see an increase in temperature from the surrounding atmosphere. 

 

 

I don’t understand what this means

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The accuracy ought not to be a problem. Like I’ve posted earlier the steering of the light beam is pretty easy. Not as much as with radio waves from a directional antenna, but still to an extent, the laser beam will also spread wider with distance, so a beam that’s (say) a metre wide as it leaves the lens on earth, will be many times wider by the time it reaches the moon, so it gives room for tolerance in the steering at the target. I’d guess much bigger problems might be getting the right weather conditions - no clouds, no dust, no ruin, snow etc.  they’d stuff it up right at the start. But clear conditions and you could definitely pinpoint the location on the moon where the astronauts left the reflector(s).  I’m not sure whether the clangers who live in the moon go and give the reflector(s) a wipe down and polish every few weeks. Probably not. Should have thought about that earlier.  The moon does obviously reflect some light to earth, but not efficiently and as lasers operate not across the spectrum of visible light, but at a specific single frequency (which can be different for different lasers), it won’t be the moon reflecting the laser light back, it’ll be a dedicated reflecting device(s) made so that it/they don’t just scatter the received light, but reflect it back the way it came.

The science and engineering is there and versions of it are in use in all kinds of stuff.

The reflectors have deteriorated over time, probably from being covered with dust by micro impacts for meteors. They’re only 10% as reflective. 
 

Luckily lasers are over ten times as powerful as they were when the reflectors were put there, so we’ve made up for the degradation

[Stevo985]

Here is a photo of the experiment being done by the way. Pretty cool

[Seal]

25 minutes ago, limpid said:

Is there a reason you ignored my reply explaining this?

Also, please cite your claim that the "same experiment" was performed before we'd landed anything on the moon.

Yeah, I put my daughter to bed. And then I had dinner. And then there were loads of messages. Sorry! I did coincidentally just do a post that perhaps answers it. 

In terms of citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments - "The first successful lunar ranging tests were carried out in 1962 when Louis Smullin and Giorgio Fiocco from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a 50J 0.5 millisecond pulse length.^[7] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser."

http://picsandfiles.connectedcomputer.com/Moon/NatGeoLaser/NationalGeographic1966LaserTheMoon.pdf - this national geographic article talks about it also. I think this article is a bit low on details. It seems to reference a full text called 'optical echoes from the moon' which seems to be behind a paywall.

This article has further details: http://www.k3pgp.org/lasereme.htm

If I put my sceptical hat on, it is strange why the experiment has not suffered too much repetition. Not a lot of follow up.

 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Seal said:

Yeah, I put my daughter to bed. And then I had dinner. And then there were loads of messages. Sorry! I did coincidentally just do a post that perhaps answers it. 

In terms of citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments - "The first successful lunar ranging tests were carried out in 1962 when Louis Smullin and Giorgio Fiocco from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a 50J 0.5 millisecond pulse length.^[7] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser."

http://picsandfiles.connectedcomputer.com/Moon/NatGeoLaser/NationalGeographic1966LaserTheMoon.pdf - this national geographic article talks about it also. I think this article is a bit low on details. It seems to reference a full text called 'optical echoes from the moon' which seems to be behind a paywall.

This article has further details: http://www.k3pgp.org/lasereme.htm

If I put my sceptical hat on, it is strange why the experiment has not suffered too much repetition. Not a lot of follow up.

 

Probably because shortly afterwards they put a reflector on the moon which gave far more reliable results

[Seal]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Probably because shortly afterwards they put a reflector on the moon which gave far more reliable results

Possibly. Although it could also be because they wanted to promote the idea that the lunar laser experiment was the reason. But I am sceptical about both you notion, and also mine. 

It reads to me like it can only get reliable results by inputting the information that happens to be reliable result being looked for, but yeah I am sure that they do blast loads of the little fellas out there for the reason you say.

I don't see how a few photons can be distinguished from all the extra noise out there either. 

[Seal]

Out of interest have any of you conducted / replicated the lunar ranging experiment?

[limpid]

1 minute ago, Seal said:

Yeah, I put my daughter to bed. And then I had dinner. And then there were loads of messages. Sorry! I did coincidentally just do a post that perhaps answers it. 

In terms of citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments - "The first successful lunar ranging tests were carried out in 1962 when Louis Smullin and Giorgio Fiocco from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a 50J 0.5 millisecond pulse length.^[7] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser."

http://picsandfiles.connectedcomputer.com/Moon/NatGeoLaser/NationalGeographic1966LaserTheMoon.pdf - this national geographic article talks about it also. I think this article is a bit low on details. It seems to reference a full text called 'optical echoes from the moon' which seems to be behind a paywall.

This article has further details: http://www.k3pgp.org/lasereme.htm

If I put my sceptical hat on, it is strange why the experiment has not suffered too much repetition. Not a lot of follow up.

 

Thanks, but this is not the "same experiment". It's a similar experiment.

That non-wiki links are to an insecure sites. All of the links appear to be to articles. Do you have a link to an (extract of) a primary source? The kind of thing that would be needed to do my own research?

I'd guess that there hasn't been much follow up as they put retroreflectors on the moon's surface to do a better experiment.

[Seal]

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Here is a photo of the experiment being done by the way. Pretty cool

That is a really cool photo. To get proper results would this not be best done when the moon is not lit up, for the moon would be shedding loads of photons that couldn't be distinguished from the few fed back by the laser? 

[limpid]

2 minutes ago, Seal said:

Out of interest have any of you conducted / replicated the lunar ranging experiment?

No, the costs of the laser and detector are out of the reach of normal people.

I've never done an experiment to measure that the sea is flat either.

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, Seal said:

Possibly. Although it could also be because they wanted to promote the idea that the lunar laser experiment was the reason. But I am sceptical about both you notion, and also mine. 

It reads to me like it can only get reliable results by inputting the information that happens to be reliable result being looked for, but yeah I am sure that they do blast loads of the little fellas out there for the reason you say.

I don't see how a few photons can be distinguished from all the extra noise out there either. 

 

Just now, Seal said:

That is a really cool photo. To get proper results would this not be best done when the moon is not lit up, for the moon would be shedding loads of photons that couldn't be distinguished from the few fed back by the laser? 

You get loads of “noise”. You’re right. 
 

But the laser is emitted in short bursts. And the detectors are “opened” for short windows within which you would expect to see the photons return. These are called gates. 
 

As a result you get a clear pattern of photons detected that you can conclude came from the laser

Visualised below

 

You can see that the laser was emitting bursts over a 13 minute period. There’s absolutely loads of results, but the obvious pattern all return at around 45 nanoseconds into the “gate”. From that they can determine the exact time it takes the photons to return