[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:04:56 +0000 (GMT)
Neville J
From Neville Jones Wed Jul 25 19:30:18 2007
[PD]
Regarding Apollo and laser retro-reflectors. We've been this route previously
and my views are on record. I am however intrigued by your assertion that these
artifacts -- should they exist -- could be used to resolve the helio/geo
debate. Further, I am curious, not to mention -- it would seem -- ignorant.
Would you explain how this might be resolved? I've given it several seconds
consideration |[:-) but no solution suggests itself.
[NJ]
It's based upon the light taking (off the top of my head) about 2.25 seconds to
reach the reflector and the same amount of time to return. In this ~ 4.5
seconds, the World would have turned in the heliocentric scenario, but not the
geostationary one, and so the return signal would be very significantly
displaced from the firing location.
The Moon is (near enough to) 384375 km distant. This is, at v = c, 1.28s.
You've overestimated by about 100%.
I remember discussing this very early in my exposure here in a debate on the
merits of your Apollo Moon landing hoax paper. I quoted to you from N70 - 10030
Apollo 11 - Preliminary Science Report. Here is part of that post -
Apollo Program From Paul Deema Sun Mar 5 16:07:42 2006
Concerning the Laser Reflector Experiment, I am fortunate to have in my
possession "N70-10030 Apollo 11 - Preliminary Science Report 1969". Part 7 -
Laser Ranging Retroreflector is a 20 page description of the construction,
deployment and operation of the said reflector. As such you can guage the level
of detail offered as being substantial. I can't 'cut and paste' so I will have
to be economical in my quotes and in any event, much of what is said is a bit
beyond my grasp. If however you have any specific questions concerning this
report - assuming you don't have access to a copy - I will attempt to address
them.
The point I wish to address firstly is your explanation of why it won't work.
Your description conjures up a pencil thin focused beam of laser light being
reflected as another pencil thin beam at the same angle which - due to the
Earth's (supposed) rotation causes the returning beam to be displaced from the
point of origin by some 2,955.8 ft. (I admit that when first reading this, I
thought I had made a blunder because this axial displacement had not ocurred to
me. Silly actually because I had used that very mechanism in a recent debate
with others). Due to certain uncertainties, you claim that the return point of
this inferred pencil-thin beam cannot be known and therefore its detection is
impossible. There are of course, methods for overcoming this uncertainty - the
techniques used to discover the helical structure of DNA comes to mind - but
this is unnecessary as is explained in the first paragraph of the relevant
section on p167 as follows -
"Ground Station Design. A single telescope can be used both as a transmitter
and a receiver because the large difraction pattern resulting from the 3.8-cm
diameter corner reflectors (the central spot has a diameter on the Earth of
approximately 10 miles) allows for a velocity aberration displacement of
approximately 1 mile without significant loss of signal. This was one of the
major considerations in the design of the LRRR array discussed previously. The
2.5-sec light travel time between transmitting and receiving readily allows the
mechanical insertion of a mirror that directed the returning photons collected
by the telescope into a photomultiplier detector".
You raised no objections that I can recall at the time -- I asumed you were
satisfied. Was I mistaken?
Paul D
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
