The Brooklyn Brawler
Member
Come on it cant increase the budget that much to tie a video camera on to their machine and see what weird stuff they can film.
I don’t buy that for a second.Look at my tag. I'm the whore.
No.
I'm using the it's not in the mission parameters and these things have a budget.
We'd need a telescope with at least an order of magnitude bigger size mirror than is on the Hubble telescope. I think you can see the difficulty with that.
I honestly don't understand how this is the case, perhaps you can show me some info that will enlighten me. And why not just take some pictures with Hubble? Some crazy high res shots of the moon landing sites would be very cool.
In order to answer this question, we need to understand something about the resolving power of telescopes. Take a look at this image. This is an aerial image of the Statue of Liberty made available by a Web site called TerraServer. This image has 1-meter resolution, which means that something on the ground that is 1 meter square produces one pixel in the image. In the image of the Statue of Liberty, her head is about 3 meters across, so her head should take up about 3 pixels by 3 pixels in the image (see this page for other fun Statue of Liberty facts).
So, a good spy satellite might have 1-meter resolution like this. The best telescope available today is the Hubble Space Telescope. It has a resolving power of 0.1 arc-seconds. I am open to correction on this, but as best I can tell, the Hubble telescope would have something like 15-centimeter resolving power if it were pointed at something on the Earth, like the Statue of Liberty (if you are a telescope expert, please write in and correct me if I am wrong). Fifteen centimeters is about half a foot.
The moon is about 1,000 times farther away from the Hubble Space Telescope than the Earth is. That means that if you pointed the Hubble at the moon, it would have 150-meter resolution. At that resolution, a football stadium occupies just one or two pixels of the image. That means that there would be no way to discern the Lunar Excursion Module or any of the other equipment left on the moon. It is just too small to pick up, even with the world's best telescope.
So let’s look at our lunar descent stage. It’s 4 meters across, but 400,000,000 meters away. That gives it an angular size of (4/400,000,000) x 206265 = 0.002 arcseconds.
Hey, wait a sec! Hubble’s resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble.
That’s a pretty big surprise to most people. They’re used to seeing magnificent detail in Hubble images, stars in galaxies and wisps of gas in beautiful nebulae. But those objects are far, far larger than the Moon. Hubble’s resolution is 0.1 arcseconds no matter how far away an object is. Those wisps of gas appear to be finely resolved, but they’re billions of kilometers across. That’s a bit roomier than the lunar landers were.
So even if we built a colossal sports arena in Tycho crater, Hubble would barely see it at all. The landers, rovers, and other junk left on the lunar surface by the astronauts are totally invisible.
Using a bigger telescope won’t help much. You’d need a mirror 50 times bigger than Hubble’s to see the landers at all, and we don’t have a 100 meter telescope handy.
I honestly don't understand how this is the case, perhaps you can show me some info that will enlighten me. And why not just take some pictures with Hubble? Some crazy high res shots of the moon landing sites would be very cool.
Is the American Flag Still on the Moon? Objects Astronauts Left Behind
Apollo astronauts left a lot of stuff behind on the moon. Can you see any of that from Earth, even with a telescope?science.howstuffworks.com
Moon hoax: why not use telescopes to look at the landers?
In July 1969, Man first walked on the Moon. Over the course of three more years, we did it five more times.slate.com
Ok, but "we can still see the things we left there" is not a super strong argument then if we can only see some blurry grey mounds.
Photos: New Views of Apollo Moon Landing Sites
See photos of NASA's historic Apollo moon landing sites of the late 1960s and early 1970s as seen by the Lunar Reconnaissance Obiter in lunar orbit today.www.space.com
Those "blurry grey mounds" are exactly where they're supposed to be.
I can’t get over how Israel and India both had missions to the moon recently, that orbited the earth for weeks getting further away from earth each orbit but didn’t take a single picture of the journey let alone video it.
I can’t get over the fact the basic bitches try to defend this nonsense. The little remote control robot that was supposed to come out once it had landed had cameras on it right?
anyone actually watch these events? I did it was the most pathetic thing ever I can’t believe anyone could take out seriously. Propaganda at its finest. Not a single piece of real footage from space. Just simulation screen and cheap looking cgi.
how anyone can defend this stuff is a mystery. Yet they are so quick to hurl insults and question my intelligence for questioning it.
sticks in ground 2000 years ago people.
you don’t want cameras in space. Go back to sleep
I'm looking for the video for you Strange, a local sun on a flat plane will produce the same effect.
No it will not and never will.
You can tell me what's wrong with the experiment once I find it for you.
I can’t get over how Israel and India both had missions to the moon recently, that orbited the earth for weeks getting further away from earth each orbit but didn’t take a single picture of the journey let alone video it.
Why should I?
You will never accept it and this discussion will just keep going on forever.
Just like I predicted.
Answers like this don’t really help your case. The simple dismissal of something proven using simple math and tools that the great Greek people mastered over 2000 years ago.sticks in ground 2000 years ago people.
you don’t want cameras in space. Go back to sleep
Yea that one is hard to argue against. I don’t have a great answer to it.Answers like this don’t really help your case. The simple dismissal of something proven using simple math and tools that the great Greek people mastered over 2000 years ago.
I linked a video of the india one, it was very recent like the Israel oneWhat missions? Please specify!
Thats not exclusive to the ancient Greeks but I’m not derailing this thread for that comment .Yeah those ancient greeks also violated young boys so they're not that great
No it won't and never will.
I linked a video of the india one, it was very recent like the Israel one
Here it is, high priest Tyson even starts the demonstration by saying this works on a flat earth model.
What was the Israel one?
Did you even watch your own video?
"No flat Earth theory can explain the angle of all 3 shadows, but the spherical model explains it all." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
You can literally see the shadow in the red X well, it's just closer to the center so the shadow is smaller. A well on the right at same distance as the far left one, would produce a symmetrical shadow.
You fail to take into account that the well the far right "red X" is wrongly tilted for the shadow to fall like that. Hence why it's wrong.
Also, you are aware that this is merely a graphical representation, right?
What matters is that flat earth theory cannot explain this observable phenomenon, as correctly stated by Tyson.
Your video is bunk.
Happy birthday sir, long may you continue to amuse and terrify me in equal measuresit’s my birthday now
thank you all for the gifts
I wonder what people would think when if NASA goes to the moon in 2024 they didn’t film the journey.
Everyone was ok when Israel and India forgot, I don’t think that would be ok if NASA didn’t film it
Yeah it is, it's from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter .That isn't a photograph of the landing sites
Okay.show me pictures of the sites from before the landing without those mounds.
"We can't see the bottom of both wells at the same time. What might explain this? There are 2 possible explanations. First, we could have a flat earth, with a sun that's small and close by so that the light hits the second well at an angle."
atmosphere, for earth. I think Neil De Grass has said stars would be visible even during the day in space.Do you see stars during the daylight hours on Earth? Neither do I. Not that strange.
ISS weighs 419700kg. Pluggin that into https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/helium-balloons shows that you'd need 34 million party balloons to keep ISS up there. It might work.
I've seen ISS through a telescope and it didn't have any balloons or even one giant balloon above it. Maybe they painted it black to absorb the suns heat and stay puffed up.
Can astronauts see stars from the space station?
I've often been asked the question, "Can the astronauts on the Space Station see the stars?" Astronaut Jack Fischer provides an unequivocal answer of "yes!" with a recent post on Twitter of a timelapse he took from the ISS. Fischer captured the arc of the Milky Way in all its glory, saying it...phys.org
This is also amazing:
Note that you can only see the stars when you're on the night side of the Earth. When you're on the daylight side, it's too bright to see the stars. Basic photography knowledge.
All you need to prove that our planet isn't flat are two sticks and a bit of distance. As already observed by Eratosthenes 2250 frikkin' years ago. He did so by comparing shadows cast on the day of the summer solstice in Alexandria and a more southern city in Egypt. At noon, when the sun was directly overhead in the southern city of Aswan (Syene), there were no shadows but in Alexandria, a stick set in the ground cast a shadow.
From this simple observation, Eratosthenes realized that if he knew the angle of the shadow and the distance between the cities, he could calculate the circumference of the globe. He calculated that the circumference of the Earth was about 40.000km, which still holds true today:
No it won't and never will.
He states:Did you even watch your own video?
"No flat Earth theory can explain the angle of all 3 shadows, but the spherical model explains it all." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
unmanned robots could have left those marks.Yeah it is, it's from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter .
Okay.
Here's the Apollo 11 landing site from the scouting pics taken by one of the first Lunar Orbiters.
Here's the landing site in better detail from a newer orbiter 40 years later.
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site Seen in Unprecedented Detail
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter captured its best view yet of the Apollo 11 landing site on the moon.www.space.com
Well they're carrying out 'experiments', if they never do the 3 well experiment their gig is up. Also someone is bound to do the 3 well experiment, if it hasn't been done yet.Here's the real conspiracy theory: Flat Earthers are a group of elaborate trolls that have purposefully infected gullible kids on the internet with their brainless "theories", kids who outright refuse any evidence brought to them and live in a bubble of cynicism.
Debunked.
the flat earth claim is fisheye lens.
I think there is curvature at such heights but much less extreme.
He states:
With just two wells both explanations work, erathostenes only had two wells.
earlier in the video it looks quite curved. the earth is much bigger than that curve at that height suggests.If it were fisheye you would clearly see it before it gets that high. It’s not like anyone can reach up and perform a switcheroo.
Well the flat earthers claim to be looking for truth and doing experiments. If they're lying they won't touch this one with a ten foot pole. IF not they'll show they are obviously mistaken. Even if flat earthers don't someone doing debunking will.This only means that we need 3 sticks instead of 2 in order to refute flat Earth. That does not prove Eratosthenes wrong and neither does it show that Tyson is refuting him. In fact, Tyson explains why Eratosthenes' explanation is the only correct one.