Is there a way to prove that men have gone to the moon

  • B
  • Thread starter Tio Barnabe
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Moon
In summary, the conversation discusses the frustration of people claiming that the Apollo moon landing was a fraud and the importance of questioning and testing all claims. The conversation also brings up the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment as evidence of spacecraft landing on the moon and the lack of evidence for a staged event. It is also mentioned that rocks brought back from the moon are further proof of the Apollo mission's authenticity. The conversation concludes with a mention of a casual talk between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Joe Rogan on the topic.
  • #1
Tio Barnabe
It's frustrating to see plenty of videos on YouTube and websites across the internet claiming that men has never walked on the moon or that the Apollo mission was a fraud. I do believe that the land on the moon happened.

On the other hand, it's on the heart of science to consider all claims which are physically possible and testing their validity, so we should not simply believe in NASA (or in what most people believe) --every claim has to be proven to be accepted.

So is there ways of actually proving that the Apollo mission really was what is informed?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Tio Barnabe said:
So is there ways of actually proving that the Apollo mission really was what is informed?
There is a very simple proof:
The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance between Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectorsplanted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15) and the two Lunokhod missions. The time for the reflected light to return is measured.
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)

See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_Operation
https://ilrs.cddis.eosdis.nasa.gov/science/scienceContributions/lunar.html
 
  • Like
Likes stoomart, davenn and Tio Barnabe
  • #3
Good! I thought about those mirrors before posting here, but I was not sure.
 
  • #4
The impressive thing is that we could show that to the supporters of the conspiration theory and they will continue under their belief.
 
  • #5
Tio Barnabe said:
The impressive thing is that we could show that to the supporters of the conspiration theory and they will continue under their belief.
There's a saying: "men convinced against their will, are of the same opinion still". On a related note, ice walls forever!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies

j/k
 
  • Like
Likes davenn, Tio Barnabe and fresh_42
  • #6
I wonder which equipment would be necessary to see the cars. It's certainly manageable.
 
  • #8
Tio Barnabe said:
The impressive thing is that we could show that to the supporters of the conspiration theory and they will continue under their belief.
Yes, because conspiracy theories are not, at their heart, about facts and logic.
 
  • #9
fresh_42 said:
This is evidence that spacecraft , equipped with laser reflectors landed on the moon. It is not proof that the Apollo landings were manned.

(Note: I have no doubt the Apollo landings were "as advertised", but that does not justify applying loose standards of evidence and proof.)
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #10
fresh_42 said:
I wonder which equipment would be necessary to see the cars.

Unfortunately, the Hubble Space Telescope's resolution is not quite good enough to see them, and it's probably the best chance we have. (The Palomar telescope has a bigger mirror, but it's ground-based so atmospheric interference probably makes it worse at resolving objects on the Moon.)
 
  • #12
PeterDonis said:
Unfortunately, the Hubble Space Telescope's resolution is not quite good enough to see them, and it's probably the best chance we have. (The Palomar telescope has a bigger mirror, but it's ground-based so atmospheric interference probably makes it worse at resolving objects on the Moon.)
Yes, I've done a little research meanwhile and it seems that Hubble can resolve something about 500 yards. Don't the modern telescope systems calculate the atmospheric disturbances out of their images? But they probably don't work in the visible range of light.
 
  • #13
Steve Dutch has a good article on this:

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm

Note in particular the "Telemetry" and "Rocks" sections.
 
  • #14
Yes, the rocks and the missing Soviet propaganda are quite convincing. I've seen Russian scientists in a TV documentation, who worked on their space program and who told, that they had been equally (as us) excited and happy to watch the Apollo landings at the time. That made perfectly sense to me, as scientists don't care a lot about who made which discovery as long as it's scientifically valid.
 
  • #15
fresh_42 said:
Don't the modern telescope systems calculate the atmospheric disturbances out of their images? But they probably don't work in the visible range of light.
They do (you can't do that in software, you have to deform a mirror while taking data), but that is still not sufficient for Earth-based observations. ELT will be nearly diffraction limited in the visible light with its 39 meter mirror - but that still means the resolution is just about 10 meters. And where is the point in a few blurry pixels if people dismiss the videos filmed there as staged? It would be much easier to change the color of a few pixels in a picture taken from Earth.
 
  • #17
Tio Barnabe said:
So is there ways of actually proving that the Apollo mission really was what is informed?
My general response to crackpottey of any kind is to ask that very question as a rebuttal, inserting any random theory, discovery or accomplishment into it. Because the reality is that very few people who aren't specialists in a particular field are actually capable of proving a modern theory or experimental result for themselves. For all the rest of us it comes down to trust that the evidence we see second-hand is real.

But honestly, considering it was broadcast live on TV at a time when CGI didn't exist, it doesn't take a whole lot of trust to believe it was real.
 
  • Like
Likes Tio Barnabe and davenn
  • #18
It wasn't just the actual moon landings . The whole process of technical development from the earliest test flights to the final landings was conducted openly .
 
  • Like
Likes Tio Barnabe
  • #19
I'm surprised - and more than a little irked - that the Mentors are not just keeping, but actively participating in, a topic that is explicitly on the banned list.

That said, how is it that 850 pounds of moon rocks are unconvincing?
 
  • #20
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm surprised - and more than a little irked - that the Mentors are not just keeping, but actively participating in, a topic that is explicitly on the banned list.
I have a broader interpretation of the rules in that I think there is a difference between proving the science and disproving the crackpottery. Along the same lines, I judge "how do I test conservation of energy?" differently from "can you debunk my perpetual motion machine?"

And also, as you like to say, there is a difference between learning physics and learning about physics.
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith, fresh_42 and Tio Barnabe
  • #21
Indeed, someone should have probably pointed out by now that science is not a device for "proving" anyway, that's mathematics. It's also not a device for convincing people, that's rhetoric. Science is a device for making testable predictions that work out better than any other system so far devised. So we should not make it the goal of science to prove that we have walked on the Moon, nor to convince people that we have walked on the Moon, but simply to make predictions (like, the evidence we didn't will be easy to debunk, the people who present that evidence will advertise essentially phony credentials, and hoax supporters will cherry pick expert comments way out of context, etc.) that test out well. The mathematicians will not see a proof there, and people who want to believe something different will not see something convincing there, but neither was ever really the goal of science.
 
  • #22
Can someone prove to me that people have been in Australia? I have never been there.
 
  • Like
Likes rbelli1 and stoomart
  • #23
russ_watters said:
My general response to crackpottey of any kind is to ask that very question as a rebuttal, inserting any random theory, discovery or accomplishment into it. ...

Exactly. "Prove you aren't really a sleeping butterfly, dreaming that you're human..."
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #24
O.k. now it looks as we've arrived at the point where the second stage has been ignited: What is a proof? Since the third stage will likely be the actual conspiracy front, it's time to close the thread. Despite it's problematic title, it has provided some scientific insights about the distinction of lunar and terrestrial rocks, a paper which actually debunks the conspiracy and a few insights about the resolution and behavior of modern telescopes. But now it's time to close it, before it goes too far off topic.
 
  • Like
Likes Doc Al, berkeman and russ_watters

1. Is there any physical evidence of the moon landing?

Yes, there is physical evidence of the moon landing. The Apollo missions left behind a variety of physical evidence on the moon, including footprints, equipment, and experiments. Additionally, moon rocks brought back by the astronauts have been analyzed and confirmed to be of lunar origin.

2. Can we see the evidence of the moon landing from Earth?

No, the evidence of the moon landing cannot be seen from Earth with the naked eye. However, powerful telescopes have been able to capture images of the landing sites and the equipment left behind by the astronauts.

3. Have astronauts ever admitted to faking the moon landing?

No, there is no evidence that any of the astronauts involved in the moon landing have ever admitted to faking it. In fact, all of the astronauts who have been to the moon have consistently defended and confirmed the authenticity of the moon landing.

4. How do we know the footage of the moon landing wasn't staged in a studio?

There are several reasons why we can be confident that the footage of the moon landing was not staged in a studio. First, the technology and equipment available at the time were not advanced enough to create such realistic footage. Additionally, independent analysis of the footage has confirmed its authenticity.

5. Why hasn't anyone been to the moon since the Apollo missions?

The Apollo missions were part of a specific goal set by the United States government in the 1960s to land a man on the moon. After achieving this goal, there was no longer a need for continued missions to the moon. However, there are plans in place for future manned missions to the moon in the coming years.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
48
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
23K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • Sticky
  • Aerospace Engineering
2
Replies
48
Views
60K
Replies
69
Views
10K
Back
Top