Topic: Did we actually really land on moon? - page 19. (Read 7568 times)
^^^ 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.
^^^ 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.
^^^ 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?
,,,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!
^^^ 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.
,,,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.
^^^ 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.
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.
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.
^^^ 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.
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.
.... 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/
I've yet to see good evidence prooving that we not land3d on the moon.
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...
Hey spendy, still waiting on a source for your claim that LASER light is not monochromatic...
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.
1. Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
2. Encyclopedia Britannica.
^^^ You should just stick to frothing at the mouth over the Bible, I actually back up my claims with evidence and credible sources.
^^^ Fuck off, you're just making shit up.
Sources or you're just a lying faggot.
Sources or you're just a lying faggot.
^^^ You're a retarded liar, all LASER light is monochromatic. That's just how stimulated emission works.
"... In laser action the stimulating emission triggers a chain reaction in which the radiation from one atom stimulates another in succession until all the excited atoms in the system have returned to normalcy. In doing so, coherent monochromatic light (light of a single wavelength) is emitted. ..." -- Encyclopaedia Britannica
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!
"... In laser action the stimulating emission triggers a chain reaction in which the radiation from one atom stimulates another in succession until all the excited atoms in the system have returned to normalcy. In doing so, coherent monochromatic light (light of a single wavelength) is emitted. ..." -- Encyclopaedia Britannica
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!
Nope. Laser light is close to one wavelength, but is not one wavelength. The central frequency of the emissions is cited as the frequency.
^^^ You're a retarded liar, all LASER light is monochromatic. That's just how stimulated emission works.
"... In laser action the stimulating emission triggers a chain reaction in which the radiation from one atom stimulates another in succession until all the excited atoms in the system have returned to normalcy. In doing so, coherent monochromatic light (light of a single wavelength) is emitted. ..." -- Encyclopedia Britannica
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!
"... In laser action the stimulating emission triggers a chain reaction in which the radiation from one atom stimulates another in succession until all the excited atoms in the system have returned to normalcy. In doing so, coherent monochromatic light (light of a single wavelength) is emitted. ..." -- Encyclopedia Britannica
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!
^^^ You're so full of shit you scientifically illiterate buffoon! All LASER light is monochromatic you fucking liar.
No it isn't.
^^^ And the sextant is not able to measure size and distance beyond the limits of they eye... at which point size and distance blur into a standard maximum that doesn't fit what's really there.
You can't limit size and distance by the limitations of what the eye sees, and then not use the same eye limitations with the sextant.
You can't limit size and distance by the limitations of what the eye sees, and then not use the same eye limitations with the sextant.
^^^ You're so full of shit you scientifically illiterate buffoon! All LASER light is monochromatic you fucking liar.
Jump to: