biffer

The next big space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, should be launched next year. The European contribution was led by the Royal Observatory Edinburgh. There are four instruments on JWST, one of them was built mostly on the top of Blackford Hill in Edinburgh.

Yep

So much of that feels forced. Do they actually say Govrenment over there?

The only thing ,that annoys me about people writing in scots is the way some people quite obviously force it with weird spellings and forced scots written pronunciations. There’s some stuff you see flying about which is virtually impossible to decipher, but if I heard the person actually speaking I’d know what they were saying. Scots is slightly odd in that it’s an oral tradition but it also has a significant amount of written history, so there is some standardisation of spelling in Scots, substantially from Burns (and yes I know there are things he didn’t spell consistently). But if you pick someone up on Scots spelling, jesus the precious howling. Oh, and also the fact that most people aren’t speaking Scots, they’re speaking Scottish Standard English.

It’s around Currie, but we wouldn’t expect you to know that with your West Coast education.

So people from Oban aren't Teuchters?

You did it on the previous page https://www.tamb.net/forum/index.php?/topic/12904-there-is-no-dark-side-of-the-moon/&do=findComment&comment=578494

You've spent time going through people's posts changing what they said so it suits your argument. That's dishonest. Over and over again. You're a lying false prophet. If I explain anything, you'll just go through it and change the language again, so it suits your ideas. So what's the point in talking to you? Other than if I stop, you'll take it as a victory.

I've not just studied theoretical physics Scott, I've studied practical and experimental physics as well. But this is just you reframing it so that you can maintain your faith driven beliefs. And the rest of your post is similarly a reframing to align with your faith based ideas. Conspiracy theories are for people who want to be intellectuals (which I'm not) but aren't prepared to do the hard work.

A very good summary. Particularly the bit about needing a conspiracy for everything. I personally think we might be evolutionarily predisposed to believe in things that aren’t true to a certain extent. We benefit massively as a species from inquisitiveness and a drive to look for reasons, but spending too much time on them wouldn’t have been beneficial when we were hunter gatherers. So getting an explanation that was good enough for our every day purposes was what we needed most of the time. Match that up with pattern recognition and you get to this concept of belief. Sometimes it can be beneficial to believe things that aren’t true, e.g. there are always lions down that path, when they’re only there one out of a hundred times. It’s beneficial to believe that and avoid the path until need drives you to determine when the lions are actually there. Determinative method trumping belief. Stick society and civilisation on top of that lot and it brings a need to organise belief in order to act together. Hence religion. So we have belief systems and are predisposed to them, which with the collapse of religion in western societies in particular leads to a need for something else to believe in, and conspiracy theories have filled some of that gap.

If you’re not prepared to properly study and understand physics, why should I bother to engage with things with unsourced, biased videos?

evidence you don’t understand gravity or mechanics evidence you don’t understand electronics

That’s a resolution thing. At that distance you’d need a fricking huge telescope to see something a few metres across. It’s to do with something called diffraction limited optics - basically there is an absolute limit to how small a thing you can see with a certain diameter of telescope from a certain distance (it’s also affected by wavelength of the light). At about 400km you can see something about 2.5m across with a telescope 10cm in diameter. It scales pretty much linearly, so at 400,000 km you’d need something 10m across to resolve that (and that’s the theoretical best you can achieve, in reality it’d never be quite that good, also depends on telescope design and pixel size of the detector). These are hard limits of physics, not limitations of technology. The EPIC instrument on DSCOVR only has a 30cm optic - I just checked and it has a resolution of about 25km.

He also can’t explain why the moon appears upside down in the Southern Hemisphere.

He’ll be gone for a while now, because he never answers that one, just deflects and pushes it onto a different subject.

ISS is in a pretty low orbit, not many satellites will pass underneath it.

How did they fake the movement of dust on the moon videos in the 60s Scott? I've asked this five or six times before and you've never answered it. Always go quiet.

Makes Absolute statement Insists he's open minded. Scotty CTA ladies and gentlemen.

Don't know. I could guess at all manner of things but they'd mostly be BS.

Yeah, pretty sure it's at one of the Lagrange points (where the gravitational pull of the earth / sun / moon equalise so you can basically just sit there (not quite as straightforward as that to be fair).

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ But no doubt that's some kind of fraud that you won't specify. It's exactly what you've previously asked for, images of the whole earth taken from space. But you only asked for that because you thought it didn't exist, not because you were inany way open to persuasion.

The recent lunar orbiters have also taken pictures of the tracks left by the moon buggies.

Bollocks. As usual.

Scientists wouldn’t have just assumed that. They would have looked for proof, and used radioactivity and magnetism measurements to check what they had assumed, and found that they were wrong, and then revised what they thought. That’s the difference between them and you Scott, you don’t look for proof, you just rely on faith. It’s palpable nonsense.