|
Post by fireballs on Sept 2, 2010 20:36:21 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Sept 2, 2010 17:23:10 GMT -4
15 o per hour is what you get when you divide 360 o by 24 hours: the apparent motion of the Moon is due mostly to the daily rotation of the Earth Makes sense then
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Sept 2, 2010 16:33:42 GMT -4
Remember, fireballs - we're not measuring the angle or where the moon is in the sky - we're measuring its size. A very rough way to see how big one degree of the sky is - hold up you hand at arms length and stick up your little finger. Its width would be about 1 degree. Look at it like this - from directly overhead to the horizon is 90 0. So, the width of the moon is 1/180 of that. It moves across the sky at about 15 0 per hour. Let's say, you were facing North... The moon seems to be bigger than that when you look at it, doesn't it? But this is the size it would be when looking at the whole sky from the eastern horizon to the western horizon. I think the diagram illustrates just how small the Moon actually is in the sky. You need accurate instruments to send and receive signals to and from the moon. Could you (or someone) expand on this some more? I think I generally understand what you're saying, but I need some clarification. Specifically: "So, the width of the moon is 1/180 of that. It moves across the sky at about 15 0 per hour." This is the only part I'm lost on. Otherwise it all make sense
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 31, 2010 20:52:09 GMT -4
At the S-band wavelength, a radio telescope beam width is about 1/3 degree. For comparison, the diameter of the Moon as viewed from Earth is about 1/2 degree. So you can see that the antenna beam width is narrower than the size of the Moon. If the signal was not coming from the Moon it would be immediately obvious. I was thinking about this more and here's a question: Could I take a protractor and measure 1/2 degree? Would that be equivalent to the 1/2 degree that the moon is viewed as? See what I'm getting at? Because if that is equivalent, then you guys are right when you say that transmission from the moon are extremely narrow.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 28, 2010 14:26:23 GMT -4
Thanks for the help guys. I understand it better now I'll ask another question if I get confused
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 27, 2010 17:50:48 GMT -4
At the S-band wavelength, a radio telescope beam width is about 1/3 degree. For comparison, the diameter of the Moon as viewed from Earth is about 1/2 degree. So you can see that the antenna beam width is narrower than the size of the Moon. If the signal was not coming from the Moon it would be immediately obvious. I'm slightly confused about this... But I'll take your word Just some background- I'm not a math person at all. I have been in remedial math in the past. I think I have a condition called dyscalculia. It's like dyslexia but with numbers. So I don't do well with numbers. Never have and probably never will. So that;s why I don't get some of the stuff you guys are trying to tell me with degrees and so forth. I guess I just never had it all explained to me. I don't know
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 27, 2010 17:36:10 GMT -4
Consider this scenario: You are in a valley looking up the mountains. Great panorama. You see a lot of mountains around you. Literally speaking: there is alot of information hitting your eyes. But then you miss the mountain climber located in one spot waving at you. He is so small (his optical information is so week) that you are not able to see that he is waving at you. In order to see him (because you know he is there), you use binoculars or a telephoto lens. And there he is, you can see him very clearly and full size in your field of view. All the other "optical information" around him is gone, you don't see it anymore and it no longer does disturb your image and distract your eyes (your antenna). And since the climber now completely fills your field of view you can make out much more details as with the naked eye. But: in order to see that climber waving, you have to point your binoculars or your telephoto lens exactly at the mountain climber. A slight movement left or right - he is out of your field of view and nothing of him is left in your image. Thats the way radio dishes work. And of course they get bigger dishes in order to get a bigger wave collecting surface. But in principle, they are just big telephoto lenses (not to be taken literally, the physical principles are different). Great analogy! So that's really how radio/tv broadcasts from the moon work? Thanks for explaining it, everyone (yes, I read the other responses ) Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 26, 2010 17:00:06 GMT -4
@fireball Thats one point. The other, and thats why I brought up the whole topic of satellite TV, is: There is little margin for pointing errors. Communication at those distances doesn't work like the one you are used to: For your radio receiver a simple wire put somewhere is sufficient to enable the receiver to catch the signal. Hack, here in Austria I even received TV by using my bunch of keys hooked up with a modified paper clip to a TV-set in 'emergency situations' and it did work. Not perfect, but it did work. But none of this will work at those distances and with those transmitting power levels involved from the mooon. Either your dish points more or less exactly at the source or you won't receive anything. 1 Degree off axis (probably less) -> silence. And that is the same for satellite TV and for communication with the Moon. So it is not the case, that the russians (and anybody else interested in receiving the signals) could just say: somewhere in that general direction of 45° around that spot the source must be located. The can precisly say: In that direction and nowhere else. And the russians would have been the first to cry, if that direction wouldn't be the direction to the moon.The guys operating the russian antenna dishes would have become very quickly very suspicous if they can see the moon high above them in the sky and yet they have to point there antennas at the horizon to get the best signal quality. If that would have been the case, then the signal source is located at a line along the horizon and there is no way it ever could come from the moon. Same, if the signal source moves in a different way then the moon moves in the sky. All of this of course does not proove that manned Apollo capsules were at the moon. But it proves that at least some source for radio signals must be located on the moon. And this source must have been brought to that location. With a rocket. And since it is impossible to fire a rocket without the russians knowing it ... it must have been Apollo, which brought that radio source to that location, since there is no evidence how else it could have gotten there. There is a lesson in it: While there is no single 100% proof, that Apollo indeed brought man to the moon, all the evidence in their totality point to only one possible conclusion: they went where they said they went. You earlier asked and the answer is pretty simple: Because it is the only way to simultaniously come up with all the effects we can see, hear and measure in the Apollo documentation. Assume a fake and the problems begin. You can get away with assuming this and that part was faked. But then you run into enormous problems in other areas. Actually: Looking at all the problems creeping up, it is far easier to simply go to the moon. Don't get me wrong. Going to the moon is no easy task. But compared to the difficulty level of faking it with all physical and logistic aspects, it is as simple as taking candy from a baby. I was thinking more about this, and yes it still makes sense to me. But can someone either explain this to me or refer me to a site that explains this? (see bold)
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 22:05:46 GMT -4
Well what would be ideal would be a telescope small enough to fit in a normal backyard. But physics isn't changing any time soon so it probably won't ever happen
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 20:50:54 GMT -4
Maybe I should clarify myself. I'm talking about a telescope that could be bought (preferably built on a good budget) and can see the landing sites from someone's back yard. Only thing is, that kind of telescopic power is impossible right now Maybe we should use this thread as a brainstorm of ideas on how to build such a telescope?
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 20:06:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 19:57:37 GMT -4
In my opinion, the only way the moon hoax theory will totally die is if a telescope is invented that allows people to view the landing sites right here from earth. Yes, there is the LRRR, but it (and some of the lasers used) belong to the government, so theorists can explain it away, saying the government fakes it. The lasers that aren't owned by the government could be said to be paid off by the feds. So I think the only cure will be if people are able to see the sites with their own two eyes. Anyone else agree?
I have to say that I did contemplate trying to build a telescope powerful enough to see the sites, but when I started to research I realized it would have to be absolutely huge. So big, in fact, that it's nearly impossible to build such a telescope. Maybe in the future some technology will come along so we can see the landing sites right here from earth.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 19:47:57 GMT -4
Could NASA have pre-recorded them, sent them up, and did it like that? On Apollo 16, NASA temporarily lost communication with John Young and Charlie Duke while they were on the Moon getting ready for their second EVA. So a guy at the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station in Australia named John Saxon contacted them to explain the situation and they had a brief friendly conversation. Does this sound pre-recorded to you? honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_16_mission/apollo16_audio.htmlAlso, the conversations between Mission Control and the astronauts often involved things like the news of the day and sports events that were in progress. The following thread has examples. How do you record this beforehand? apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=640&page=6Point well taken
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -4
Gillianren is a prolific poster here. She's a woman. Gottcha Anyway, here's one last question. Why is it impossible for the recordings to be faked? Could NASA have pre-recorded them, sent them up, and did it like that? No, there is no evidence. But I heard the claim brought up and I don't know a good answer. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 22, 2010 19:14:21 GMT -4
You have received a lot of information in this thread. Why don't you tell us what you think of the link, in light of what has been said here. It's interesting that they put that much time into it, but in the end they're wrong. ;D
|
|