*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2017, 11:32:44 AM »
Therefore and somesuch.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #101 on: June 19, 2017, 11:17:37 PM »

Just because you believe SR has been falsified by a misinterpretation of the Sagnac effect and a one-time, never reproducible result in the Michaelson-Morley experiment, doesn't make you correct.


The Sagnac experiment have 2 fases:
1 - 0 m/s plate rotation (stationary), Results: No interference found
2 - 2 m/s plate rotation (moving), Results: Detected interferences!!

This means that the light is independent from any inertial system then the SR is invalidated... sorry XD

The Michaelson-Morley experiment is the GREATEST (misinterpretated experiment) of all times but it's always reproducible

The Michaelson-Gale experiment is the right interpretation of the Michaelson-Morley experiment and it proves that the Earth is STATIONARY....

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #102 on: June 20, 2017, 10:44:53 AM »
When the interference is detected in a Sagnac experiment you have a rotating frame which is... Non-inertial!  Looks like SR is not even relevant. Fortunately GR can explain the result.

Tell me, how the MM experiment should be interpreted. When you consider the observations of astronauts and satellites of the Earth's motion I think you must reconsider your silly conclusions.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #103 on: June 20, 2017, 12:45:18 PM »
When the interference is detected in a Sagnac experiment you have a rotating frame which is... Non-inertial!  Looks like SR is not even relevant. Fortunately GR can explain the result.

When the interference is NOT detected in the Sagnac experiment (when stationary) you have the rotating EARTH!!! which is even non-inertial system then ALSO in this case the SR is not even relevant. Un-Fortunately for you the GR theory is only crap.. xD

Tell me, how the MM experiment should be interpreted. When you consider the observations of astronauts and satellites of the Earth's motion I think you must reconsider your silly conclusions.

In the M-Gale experiment has been simulated the earth's angular-speed and in THAT case the interferences were DETECTED!!! (as born coordinates confirms) then if the EARTH is rotating the M-m experiments MUST have wrong results... try to research in the right way please....
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 12:54:34 PM by kromeader »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #104 on: June 20, 2017, 02:18:24 PM »
When the interference is detected in a Sagnac experiment you have a rotating frame which is... Non-inertial!  Looks like SR is not even relevant. Fortunately GR can explain the result.

When the interference is NOT detected in the Sagnac experiment (when stationary) you have the rotating EARTH!!! which is even non-inertial system then ALSO in this case the SR is not even relevant. Un-Fortunately for you the GR theory is only crap.. xD

Sorry this is tough for you. The Earth is it rotating with respect to the detector since their motion is identical, hence it is inertial. If you can't properly analyze an FOR, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to discard the work of actual scientists.

Tell me, how the MM experiment should be interpreted. When you consider the observations of astronauts and satellites of the Earth's motion I think you must reconsider your silly conclusions.

In the M-Gale experiment has been simulated the earth's angular-speed and in THAT case the interferences were DETECTED!!! (as born coordinates confirms) then if the EARTH is rotating the M-m experiments MUST have wrong results... try to research in the right way please....
[/quote]

Considering how fundamentally and grievously flawed your thinking on Sagnac was, I'm not looking in to this yet.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #105 on: June 20, 2017, 06:35:54 PM »

The Earth is it rotating with respect to the detector since their motion is identical, hence it is inertial. If you can't properly analyze an FOR, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to discard the work of actual scientists.


You wrong!!! The detector motion is ALWAYS different to the system motion where it is (You don't consider the motion of the earth around the sun it's equal to 30km/s and 1°/day as angular-speed) for this reasons it cant exists a "pure" inertial system in nature relativistically speaking (that's why the SR has been created).. the actual scientists work to cover up not for discover ... please wakeup

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #106 on: June 20, 2017, 06:54:39 PM »
Alright, I wont bother trying to change your mind. Good luck out there.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Offline Tahj

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: "Lunar Laser Ranging" (LLR) is a LIE and HOAX - The Simple PROOF
« Reply #107 on: August 08, 2017, 04:19:04 AM »

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.

Quick Google search finds a number of papers that include the distance offset

http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/288113/4/azu_td_7401993_sip1_w.pdf

See pages 26-27