THE REFLECTORS ON THE MOONQRE FQKEARE FAKE
>>532295208
>>532295208yes, there is only one reflector on the moon, placed there by the soviets. All the laser bouncing nonsense is just bouncing off relatively flat area of the moon. People get told "it's at this longitude and latitude" and fire their laser, get a standard return that would happen off any flat area of the moon, and they are convinced they hit the retroreflector.
>>5322953773 days of darkness incoming
>>532295411you're so wrong i almost believe you fell for the AMerican Moon movie
>>532295660I'm right, it was proven by studying multiple laser reflector attempts in the published literature. there has never been a photon return number that would be expected from a retroreflector. All returns are within the range of standard bounce off the surface.
>>532295828of course there is a return from the bare lunar surface. thats never been a secret. what you fail to get is that the retroreflectors increase the accuracy up to 100x, not least because you can know for sure where your photons are coming from instead of them them spread all over the surface which can be at different distances.
>>532295208>THERE ARE FAKE REFLECTORS ON THE MOON
>>532295970>retroreflectors increase the accuracy up to 100xtheoretically. Never happened though.
>>532296136>no reproducible amplification of thereflected laser pulse compared to a measurement onto thesurface of the Moon could be demonstrated.>in all lunar laser ranging experimentsthe measurements were taken to the bare surface of the Moon.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreas-Maerki/publication/292130269_A_Critical_Review_of_the_Lunar_Laser_Ranging/links/5f4375d1a6fdcccc43f4ea69/A-Critical-Review-of-the-Lunar-Laser-Ranging.pdf
>>532296136and now you simply have to reject anything anyone says on the subject no matter their qualification to say it.>>532296773yes, i know the paper you are referring to. have you ever checked his sources? his assumptions? spend some time really trying to understand that paper instead of simply assuming its all true because you like the conclusion.
>>532296773You can't land on a cold light source, midwit
>>532295828Here's the thing:>the reflectors are on the surfaceWhat difference do you expect them to detect exactly? The reflector only makes a particular spot a little more bright, but due to scattering and lack of coherence et cetera the reflected signal will still be multiple kilometers wide one earth.In other words it affects only the strength of the returned signal, nothing more.
>>532297098you are the one assuming laser experiments have shown expected returns
>>532297910its what the weight of evidence shows. you're the one assuming that one single paper from a guy that has zero experience in the area is telling the truth despite never having even checked his sources. isn't that the case? go off and do that, then maybe you'll start to see that his numbers are entirely unreliable.
>>532297904it really more than that because the returns from the retro in use during any one run can be distinguished from returning photons coming from any other source. Once you can isolate those photons that are coming from a known location you can really start working on getting very very accurate timings and therefore distance measurements. thats why the history of LLR has seen a steadily increasing accuracy of earth-moon distance measurements. if it was all just from regolith returns the accuracy would be still fairly vague instead of down to sub centimeter range, simply because there would be no way to tell where exactly your photons are coming from with the multi-kilometer circle within which they strike.
>>532298148Trust the experts is your argument? go and shite.
>>532298553so what are you doing when you place so much emphasis on a single paper youv'e never checked out? only difference is that you have one single source and i have lots more from multiple different people. seriously, go and spend time looking into the paper you posted. take you time and subject it to the highest level of scrutiny you can. let me know when you find out that one if his key numbers was sources from a no longer available highschool presentation paper. no, im not kidding.
>>532298530Well yeah, but it's really sensitive stuff. If your set-up is sophisticated and properly calibrated you can distinguish the reflector signal and localize it precisely.In a fairly crude set-up however it just increases the intensity of the return signal if you happen to hit the reflector.
>>532298954from what i read they count single photon returns of specific wavelength. seems to be sensitive enough to tell the difference between a random regolith return and one from the retro. you can see the random regolith returns in the published graphs as background noise compared to the spikes.
>>532296773Firstly, you are using a non-peer-reviewed first draft, Ie. a completely worthless source.Secondly, in the published version his conclusion is that the retroreflectors degraded to near uselessness between '62 and '69, not that they don't exist
>>532299647and he's still wrong because his initial numbers and assumptions were bad. just another crank paper from someone with zero experience in the area.
>>532295660kek globetards are insufferable
>>532299342It can be distinguished based on frequency alone, I imagine, as in: the color or spectrum returned by the reflector will be altered less than in the light reflected off regolith. If you tune your laser accordingly, say use a frequency that the rock reflects poorly but the reflector does perfectly then the difference might be quite stark. But it does require a very advanced understanding of absorption spectrums, the nature of the reflector itself, and what typical effects to expect from light signals traveling these distances (in that even the reflector light will be altered in some consistent way).Probably not something OP can handle.
>>532296040Doesn't have the schitzo tone to it. I like OP's spelling better.
I've literally worked at the ARO 3.5m observatory that does the APOLLO laser range finding. this thread makes me laugh
>>532300077yeah you got it.>>532300171id like to think thats true.
>>532300171and please do lay it all out or link to other materials, id find it very interesting
>>532300457well I'm not going to dox myself, sorry lad. The next-door solar observatory is being destroyed in October tho because of a mercury leak, it's quite sad :(
>>532300590you really wouldnt have to id yourself in order to talk about the issue if you're informed about it
>>532300805it's public info https://sunspot.nmsu.edu
>>532300509My understanding of it is purely theoretical, but it made me curious whether they also placed radio transponders on the moon (for radar ranging, in essence) and indeed they did.Brought up this insanely technical paper (has free PDF download).https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339736110_Influence_of_the_layered_Moon_and_Earth's_orientation_on_lunar_rotation
>>532300904guess thats where you started before you tried to pass yourself off as a knower. many such cases>>532300981>radio transponders on the moonyeah that does make sense for sure.
