#### Setec Astronomy

##### "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« on: May 03, 2016, 05:05:27 AM »
The moon moves across the sky with an angular motion of about 14.5 degrees each hour, and the moon has an average diameter of 31.7 arcminutes. So it moves about 27.5 lunar diameters each hour, 0.45 diameters per minute or 0.0076 diameters each second. They say the moon's diameter is about 3476 kilometers, so that's about 26.4 kilometers (0.0076 * 3476) of lunar surface moving past each second from a fixed spot viewed from earth.

Light from the moon's surface takes ~1.3 seconds to reach earth, so any given spot a telescope is aimed at is actually behind the true position by about 34.32 kilometers (1.3 * 26.4) due to lightspeed delay. If a laser is aimed there, it will also take ~1.3 seconds to reach the moon's surface and miss the spot it was aimed at by double that amount - 68.64 kilometers.

Note that not one single description of the LLR experiments mentions taking this distance offset into account.

But lets go ahead and pretend they do and the laser is aimed ahead with the appropriate offset.

There is still a problem. A BIG and insurmountable problem!

The retro-reflector cannot aim light back towards earth at an offset - it can only reflect back at the exact angle the light was received, so the reflection will be aiming exactly at the apparent position of the light source at the moment it is received - and by that time the apparent position will be 34.32 km off from the true position on earth's surface, and the light will therefore be 68.64 km off from that position when it is reflected back to the earth.

It is claimed the reflected beam has a diameter of 20 km (an absurdly low divergence, but let's pretend it's true) when it reaches earth (see http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/experiments/lrr/ ) - but it would hit a spot on earth's surface nearly 70km away from the observatory, which means no portion of it's 20 km beam diameter area would come anywhere near the observatory's telescope!

Get it? The whole damn thing is impossible and it's proven so with their own numbers.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 05:10:41 AM by Setec Astronomy »

#### Lord Dave

• 7116
• Grumpy old man.
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2016, 05:55:47 AM »
26.4 lunar lengths per 24 hours, not per hour

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 06:00:37 AM by Lord Dave »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2016, 06:10:22 AM »
26.4 lunar lengths per 24 hours, not per hour

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
That's with respect to the stars. I'm talking about with respect to a fixed point on earth (ie, an observatory), which is where the measurements are done. Watch the moon move across the sky in the course of a night.

(bold print clarified for Aspies)
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 07:21:14 AM by Setec Astronomy »

#### Lord Dave

• 7116
• Grumpy old man.
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2016, 06:46:08 AM »
26.4 lunar lengths per 24 hours, not per hour

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
That's relative to the stars. I'm talking about relative to a fixed point on earth (ie, an observatory), which is where the measurements are done. Watch the moon move across the sky in the course of a night.
Relative to the stars?  The same stars that are trillions of lighyears away and fixed relative to the moon?

If you want measurements relative to the view from Earth, why are you using the size of the moon at the moon and not its apparent size from Earth?  You can't say 14 degrees per hour from Earth then use measurements for the moon's size relative to the stars.  You have to stay consistent in your frame of reference.

Also don't forget that the Earth rotates in the same direction the moon orbits.  Did you take that into account?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2016, 06:58:22 AM »
Ok, I see you're just an idiot who likes to obfuscate. Let's see how the "ignore" feature works.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2016, 07:11:22 AM »
Unfortunately there appears to be no "ignore" function, so Lord Dave's droolings will be stuck in this thread.

For those who have a working brain (unlike Dave), please take note that the pertinent elements are the two surfaces (lunar and terrestrial) in relative motion to one another. Whether you model it as the earth rotating and the moon being relatively still, or both rotating at differential speeds, makes no difference to the math as far as the location and trajectory of the light beam is concerned.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 07:13:49 AM by Setec Astronomy »

#### Rama Set

• 9848
• Round and round...
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2016, 01:04:41 PM »
I don't understand your issue. You aim where the moon will be, not where it is. Since the pulse is already imparted with the Earth's motion, you do not need to account for that on the return trip.

It is a precise operation but not impossible.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2016, 04:42:10 PM »
I don't understand your issue. You aim where the moon will be, not where it is.
As I said, let's assume they account for that even though it is not mentioned at all in LLR experiments.

Quote
Since the pulse is already imparted with the Earth's motion, you do not need to account for that on the return trip.
Completely untrue, and such ad-hoc explanations completely ignore what is known about light and retroreflectors. First of all, light's trajectory is unaffected by the source's state of motion. And the corner-cube array is only reflecting directly back at the apparent position as it is seen from the perspective of the retro-reflector.

#### Rama Set

• 9848
• Round and round...
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2016, 08:15:13 PM »
I don't understand your issue. You aim where the moon will be, not where it is.
As I said, let's assume they account for that even though it is not mentioned at all in LLR experiments.

Do you have a source for said procedures?

Quote
Quote
Since the pulse is already imparted with the Earth's motion, you do not need to account for that on the return trip.
Completely untrue, and such ad-hoc explanations completely ignore what is known about light and retroreflectors. First of all, light's trajectory is unaffected by the source's state of motion.

I am not sure where you get this idea from. Relative velocity does occur with light based on the motion of an FOR, but the relationship is not classical. See the Fizeau water experiment to learn more.

Quote
And the corner-cube array is only reflecting directly back at the apparent position as it is seen from the perspective of the retro-reflector.

Yes but if you aim where the reflector will be you cut out half the distance you cited in the OP which, per your figures, if they are correct, puts the position of the detector within the throw of the returning light pulses.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2016, 10:54:36 PM »
Quote
And the corner-cube array is only reflecting directly back at the apparent position as it is seen from the perspective of the retro-reflector.

Yes but if you aim where the reflector will be you cut out half the distance you cited in the OP
I have very little patience with someone who cannot do math yet persists in arguing. The distance is calculated according to the apparent position of something over a quarter million miles away, which is going to be off by distance X. If a light is aimed at that apparent location (which is already off by X), when that light traverses the distance it will be off by X as well. X + X = 2X.

As for the LLR experimental details, there are a plethora of write-ups available on the internet. Here's a simple one by the University of California San Diego about New Mexico's "APOLLO".
http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
No mention of the aiming offset at all. Only "just so" factoids.

Quote
Relative velocity does occur with light based on the motion of an FOR
The only affect emitter motion has on light is a doppler shift in frequency. It cannot change the speed of light or its trajectory once it has left the source.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2016, 10:57:35 PM by Setec Astronomy »

#### Rama Set

• 9848
• Round and round...
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2016, 03:58:16 AM »
Quote
And the corner-cube array is only reflecting directly back at the apparent position as it is seen from the perspective of the retro-reflector.

Yes but if you aim where the reflector will be you cut out half the distance you cited in the OP
I have very little patience with someone who cannot do math yet persists in arguing.

If you persist in being an arrogant prick, you will quickly find yourself with no one to trouble you, so you are on the right path.

Quote
The distance is calculated according to the apparent position of something over a quarter million miles away, which is going to be off by distance X. If a light is aimed at that apparent location (which is already off by X), when that light traverses the distance it will be off by X as well. X + X = 2X.

It is rich that you claim to know more than others, but then do not understand how proper aiming can eliminate a portion of that error.

Quote
As for the LLR experimental details, there are a plethora of write-ups available on the internet. Here's a simple one by the University of California San Diego about New Mexico's "APOLLO".
http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
No mention of the aiming offset at all. Only "just so" factoids.

It's an FAQ, not a technical document.  Can I expect this level of thoroughness from everything you do?

Quote
Quote
Relative velocity does occur with light based on the motion of an FOR
The only affect emitter motion has on light is a doppler shift in frequency. It cannot change the speed of light or its trajectory once it has left the source.

So you did not look up the experiment I mentioned.  Well, if you had, you would know that the velocity of light is only constant in a vacuum and is subject to variation, but that the variation is non-classical.  Also, if the trajectory of light can't be altered, perhaps you can tell how mirrors actually work?

Why don't you come back once you have learned enough about the subject to actually criticize it.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 04:00:45 AM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2016, 05:20:49 AM »
The distance is calculated according to the apparent position of something over a quarter million miles away, which is going to be off by distance X. If a light is aimed at that apparent location (which is already off by X), when that light traverses the distance it will be off by X as well. X + X = 2X.

It is rich that you claim to know more than others, but then do not understand how proper aiming can eliminate a portion of that error.
You are making the same error again despite having it pointed out to you.
Assume the laser is aimed such that it strikes the retro-reflector perfectly on center, OK.
Now, the light that strikes the retroreflector appears to originate from a specific location on the earth - but that apparent location is actually 1.3 seconds behind from where it is at the time the light reaches the reflector.
The reflector sends the light back towards that apparent location and that takes another 1.3 seconds.
We would have missed the retroreflector by the same amount if we had not compensated by aiming ahead of it's location to account for the lightspeed delay. But the retroreflector is dumb and only reflects light back towards where it appears to originate.
NOW do you get it???

Quote
If you persist in being an arrogant prick, you will quickly find yourself with no one to trouble you, so you are on the right path.
Considering the intelligence of the ones that have been troubling me thus far, that would be a welcome change. If you aren't bright enough to understand the conversation, it's best you don't join in.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 05:24:38 AM by Setec Astronomy »

#### Rama Set

• 9848
• Round and round...
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2016, 11:40:43 AM »
Well I am glad you at least concede my other points. That shows some good sense.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2016, 06:22:41 PM »
Well I am glad you at least concede my other points. That shows some good sense.
I've conceded nothing. You are a twit who does not even understand math.

#### Rama Set

• 9848
• Round and round...
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2016, 06:25:59 PM »
Well I am glad you at least concede my other points. That shows some good sense.
I've conceded nothing. You are a twit who does not even understand math.

Still not addressing them.  Keep digging, or let us know how mirror's work if light's trajectory can not be altered.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2016, 07:09:14 PM »
If you can't see your own simple math error in pretending the problem the observatory has aiming at the retroreflector and not missing it by 68.64 km is not the exact same problem that the retroreflector has aiming at the observatory and not missing it by 68.64 miles, why on earth would I bother addressing the rest of what you say, as you would only perform the exact same sort of obfuscation?

Quite amusing to see the defenders of round-earth hoax and the LLR hoax have nothing but trolling and non-comprehension of math to offer in the face of factual well-reasoned arguments. Even more amusing that you seem to think it accomplishes anything besides making yourself look foolish,

#### Rama Set

• 9848
• Round and round...
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2016, 09:27:09 PM »
If you can't see your own simple math error in pretending the problem the observatory has aiming at the retroreflector and not missing it by 68.64 km is not the exact same problem that the retroreflector has aiming at the observatory and not missing it by 68.64 miles, why on earth would I bother addressing the rest of what you say, as you would only perform the exact same sort of obfuscation?

Quite amusing to see the defenders of round-earth hoax and the LLR hoax have nothing but trolling and non-comprehension of math to offer in the face of factual well-reasoned arguments. Even more amusing that you seem to think it accomplishes anything besides making yourself look foolish,

You're not qualified to perform a lunar ranging experiment unless there is extensive knowledge of GR and advanced calculus hiding in your brain. Is there?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2016, 10:14:59 PM »
Now you're just perseverating (a classic symptom found on the autistic spectrum by the way).

Here's something more your speed, 'Rama Set':

#### Rama Set

• 9848
• Round and round...
##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2016, 10:27:26 PM »
W0w you're so smart!  Have you found a source yet that is not an FAQ?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 10:52:54 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Setec Astronomy

##### Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2016, 11:24:57 PM »
W0w you're so smart!  Have you found a source yet that is not an FAQ?
Have you learned how to do your own research instead of just spitballing like a gimp at the back of the short-bus? It seems you haven't.