Pages:
Author

Topic: Did we actually really land on moon? - page 19. (Read 7469 times)

legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 27, 2019, 05:20:45 PM
^^^ It's a ratio based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye (1 minute)....

No, it's just chance that is approximately one minute. Frequency of light divided by aperture. Your example is for the case of 2020 vision in full daylight. It's entirely different at night when the aperture opens wider, and for better and worse vision.



(((coincidence)))

legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
July 27, 2019, 11:53:53 AM
"two weeks" -- Josh Zerlan, BFL



@BADecker,

   This discussion of bouncing a LASER off of the Moon (I purpose it's actually bouncing off the firmament) has me thinking this is the ticket to accurately measuring the distance to the Sun.

I theorize that the Sun is a projection made of plasma, scalar waves (a type of radio wave with a negligible transverse component) are produced in the polar region by a Tesla coil type device (cooled by sea water) and are transmitted to the firmament where they're reflected, and converge on a layer of dense liquid crystal gas to create a plasmoid (the Sun).

I think the distance to this liquid crystal gaseous layer can be measured with a specially tuned MASER that will create an "artificial" plasmoid. It's then simply a matter of measuring the return trip of stimulated photons to get the distance.

I believe the faggots at HAARP have all the equipment needed to perform this experiment.

Since you've claimed that a triangle's legs add up to 180, let's talk about my trip to Asia from the US via the North Pole. It might just be interesting.

This is your chance to prove the Earth is flat.



^^^ It's a ratio based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye (1 minute)....

No, it's just chance that is approximately one minute. Frequency of light divided by aperture. Your example is for the case of 2020 vision in full daylight. It's entirely different at night when the aperture opens wider, and for better and worse vision.

legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 27, 2019, 03:21:51 AM
"two weeks" -- Josh Zerlan, BFL



@BADecker,

   This discussion of bouncing a LASER off of the Moon (I purpose it's actually bouncing off the firmament) has me thinking this is the ticket to accurately measuring the distance to the Sun.

I theorize that the Sun is a projection made of plasma, scalar waves (a type of radio wave with a negligible transverse component) are produced in the polar region by a Tesla coil type device (cooled by sea water) and are transmitted to the firmament where they're reflected, and converge on a layer of dense liquid crystal gas to create a plasmoid (the Sun).

I think the distance to this liquid crystal gaseous layer can be measured with a specially tuned MASER that will create an "artificial" plasmoid. It's then simply a matter of measuring the return trip of stimulated photons to get the distance.

I believe the faggots at HAARP have all the equipment needed to perform this experiment.
sr. member
Activity: 479
Merit: 253
July 27, 2019, 03:05:22 AM
No we didn't land on the moon and we never will.

The narrative will always be "Coming Soon" or "Within the next 5 years".
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 27, 2019, 02:52:15 AM
^^^ What's wrong comrade, you don't like me posting proof of Russian collusion with the US government?
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 26, 2019, 09:49:12 PM
^^^ It's a ratio based on the angular resolution limit of the human eye (1 minute), when an "eye" other than human is used the ratio changes.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
July 26, 2019, 09:08:21 PM
^^^ I only need an approximate value for the distance to the Sun to prove my point. However, since all of you Satan worshipping degenerates keep harping on about accuracy I'll give it some thought, perhaps I can devise a more accurate measure with modern equipment.

You yourself said you could not calculate it, approximation or not, you never provided the calculation and resorted to saying, oh but I proved 1 min = 1 nautical mile, which you didn't btw. So yeah, you are a liar.

A = sin(1 degree) = 0.01745241

60 * A = 1.047 (Note exactly 1, but close)

It's a geometric ratio.

Multiple by 60 to get a minute instead of a degree.

Pilots and seamen have long known this "rule of 60s". No big deal.

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 26, 2019, 08:32:19 PM
^^^ I only need an approximate value for the distance to the Sun to prove my point. However, since all of you Satan worshipping degenerates keep harping on about accuracy I'll give it some thought, perhaps I can devise a more accurate measure with modern equipment.

The trouble with this thinking is which approximate distance.

Just for fun, imagine that the sun is the size and distance that is agreed on in standard science, and that space is the thing that standard science suggests. What would you uses to determine the sun's distance and size? Would the methods you use give more than one answer, and possibly multitudes of answers? Or would you be able to use your methods to prove that the sun is 93 million miles away, and 800,000 miles in diameter?... if the sun actually were 93 m and 800 thousand m?

Use this reverse logic, and show us how you would prove distance and size if it were as standard science suggests. If you can't, how do you know that what you are using is proving what really exists?

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 26, 2019, 08:08:14 PM
,,,since "Certain beams of light, such as laser beams, can get very close to having one frequency", how does a LASER that's as close to monochromatic as physically possible get a distinctive monochromatic signature from this reflector NASA claims to have put on a Moon....

I already posted the link that explained that.

If you can't find the link or it doesn't make sense just ask.

I'm not going to claim this subject is simple.

No, no I can't find any info in your wiki link on this so-called signature imbued by the retro-reflector. In any case how could anybody independently verify any of these claims?






@Astargath,

   I have proven 1 minute = 1 nautical mile with the angular resolution limit of the human eye, game over cock smoker.






Need proof of Russia collusion?

Yuri Gagarin Vs. Neil Armstrong:

Image source: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/300333868898982420/

Communist conspiracy confirmed!
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 26, 2019, 01:59:10 PM
^^^ I only need an approximate value for the distance to the Sun to prove my point. However, since all of you Satan worshipping degenerates keep harping on about accuracy I'll give it some thought, perhaps I can devise a more accurate measure with modern equipment.

You yourself said you could not calculate it, approximation or not, you never provided the calculation and resorted to saying, oh but I proved 1 min = 1 nautical mile, which you didn't btw. So yeah, you are a liar.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
July 26, 2019, 12:15:08 PM
,,,since "Certain beams of light, such as laser beams, can get very close to having one frequency", how does a LASER that's as close to monochromatic as physically possible get a distinctive monochromatic signature from this reflector NASA claims to have put on a Moon....

I already posted the link that explained that.

If you can't find the link or it doesn't make sense just ask.

I'm not going to claim this subject is simple.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 26, 2019, 10:36:24 AM
^^^ I only need an approximate value for the distance to the Sun to prove my point. However, since all of you Satan worshipping degenerates keep harping on about accuracy I'll give it some thought, perhaps I can devise a more accurate measure with modern equipment.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 26, 2019, 09:24:47 AM
Two credible sources I've quoted in the last few pages:

1. Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
2. Encyclopedia Britannica.

You also admitted to:

1. Never holding a sextant or using it

2. Never testing any of the claims you keep posting here

3. To not be able to calculate accurately how far the sun is.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 26, 2019, 09:23:30 AM
^^^ Oh what a tangled web you weave...

So tell me, since "Certain beams of light, such as laser beams, can get very close to having one frequency", how does a LASER that's as close to monochromatic as physically possible get a distinctive monochromatic signature from this reflector NASA claims to have put on a Moon that's nothing but plasma?

I should note that nobody but NASA or a Vatican faggot run observatory can actually verify any of these claims, so this so-called lunar reflector isn't actually "proof" man (son of) or machine have actually landed on a solid sphere Moon.

However, I'll have to give you credit for finding a quasi-credible source (with a big picture of fake globe Earth at the top) that describes LASER light as not being 100% monochromatic.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
July 26, 2019, 07:30:24 AM
.... a source for your claim that LASER light is not monochromatic...

Please stop talking on subjects you know nothing about. Yeah, some random anonymous internet guy is going to refute your Brittanica. That's the way it is today.

A light beam never has exactly one frequency. Even a single bit of light (a photon) never has exactly one frequency. It is fundamentally impossible for a photon to have exactly one frequency. Certain beams of light, such as laser beams, can get very close to having one frequency, but can never have exactly one frequency.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/05/08/when-does-a-light-beam-have-only-a-single-frequency/

newbie
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
July 26, 2019, 12:31:40 AM
I've yet to see good evidence prooving that we not land3d on the moon.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 26, 2019, 12:12:44 AM
These satanic homosexuals sure bend over backwards insisting that our completely subverted and corrupt governments are telling the truth. Too bad they can't back up any of the lies with anything but loads of more bullshit.

Hey spendy, still waiting on a source for your claim that LASER light is not monochromatic...
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 25, 2019, 10:24:04 PM
Two credible sources I've quoted in the last few pages:

1. Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
2. Encyclopedia Britannica.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 25, 2019, 10:12:44 PM
^^^ You should just stick to frothing at the mouth over the Bible, I actually back up my claims with evidence and credible sources.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
July 25, 2019, 09:06:30 PM
^^^ Fuck off, you're just making shit up.

Sources or you're just a lying faggot.
Pages:
Jump to: