>If our eyes could see high-energy radiation called gamma rays, the Moon would appear brighter than the Sun! The Moon is canceled.https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/moon-glows-brighter-than-sun-in-images-from-nasas-fermi/
>>17074314Thanks for the fun article. I am not surprised by the findings at all. Cosmic rays hit the moon’s surface and reflect gamma rays, but for the sun the magnetic field shields the cosmic rays (and I would also guess that since the Sun’s surface is gaseous then you don’t have a hard surface to reflect off either , though NASA claims the magnetic shielding is more important)this reminds me of the whole thing about people posting pictures of dark patches in space where there are apparently no visible stars, but when you look into it all those pictures are just patches of dust that are just blocking the stars behind them (picrel)
>let's go to a celestial body that glows brighter than the sun in terms of gamma rays
I have legitimately no idea why this is being spammed, multiple threads about this and even the /pol/ copy bot gets in on the action.>>>/pol/544301580Just go back.
>>17074337>thread police doing its roundscan't have people talking about subjects that don't line up with the narrative, right?
>>17074338such as spacers destroying our ozone layer
>>17074337It's thinly veiled moonlanding denial by the same retard who spams electric universe nonsensehttps://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/544263286/https://warosu.org/sci/thread/17069574#p17069633https://warosu.org/sci/thread/17009378#p17031237https://warosu.org/sci/thread/17010753#p17010776https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/xenosarc/country/DE/
>>17074568it's soft disclosure by NASA and we're different anons but nice try, sherlock
>>17074575>yeah i made the exact same posts with the exact same filenames but i'm a different anonNot only are you schizos extremely fucking retarded, you're also extremely dishonest. It's always the same script.
>>17074579i have made the /pol/ thread but not those /sci/ posts step up your game, sherlock
shine like a gamma ray moon!
the moon glows brighter than the sun in terms of gamma radiationno one is going there and lives
BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN
>>17075669
>>17074321Put a base on the Sun, then
>>17074321Want to know another celestial body that likely glows brighter than the sun in terms of gamma rays? Earth.
>>17075917got any fermi pics to back that up?
>>17074321Too the Moon!
>>17075917>Want to know another celestial body that likely glows brighter than the sun in terms of gamma rays?MY MOOOMM
>>17074314But no brigher than glowniggers
>>17075921My source is that I mog you in intelligence.
>>17075974>My mom works at the FBI and she'll put you in Guantanamo Bay if you say mean things to meUh huh, sure
>>17074314>>>> Anonymous 10/14/26(Wed)17:47:13No.17074337▶>>17074338 >>17074568>I have legitimately no idea why this is being spammed, multiple threads about this and even the /pol/ copy bot gets in on the action.>>>>/pol/544301580>Just go back.this explains werewolves. werewolves come from gamma ray
>>17076007here's the litmus test: did man walk on the moon?
>>17076015imagine how powerful werewolves would be on the moon
>>17076018https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zTDupfAho
>>17076018Only on the light side.Dark side Moon werewolves are pink, hairless, and cold.
>>17076038the moon gets pummeled with cosmic rays from all sides
>>17076015Nice try, but I won't fall into your chud trap of assuming the gender of xe brave disabled sould that first wheelchair drifted on the moon.
to illustrate human space exploration: polaris dawn (2024) reached the highest altitude ever accomplished by a human being and it was basically a copy of the gemini 11 mission from 1966no man has beaten laikas (dog) altitude and she died fairly quicklythe russians lied about her cause of death for nearly 50 years
2024 vs 1966
>>17076080>>17076083>>17076087oh look it's a /pol/turd flat earth mongoloid, what a surprisehttps://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/uid/kkiYIxlB/order/asc/https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/uid/LDA%2B0QFw/order/asc/
>>17076091i'm by no means a flat earther but i always get relied in with them because i call out the moon landing hoax
>>17076093stay in your containment board, schizophrenic moron
>>17076093>reliedlumped*just esl things
>>17076099stay out this thread if you don't like the content
>>17076102moonlanding deniers are mentally ill
>>17076107so you do believe that man jumped around on gamma ray glowing surface :)you are not very intelligent
>>17076110meanwhile you think you're smarter than actual aerospace engineers and physicistsyou're mentally ill
>>17076113i've shown you the boss of roscosmos who does not believe itbut he has no credentials right?
>>17076120don't careyou're mentally ill
>>17076132nah, my almonds are very functional.did you know ESA tried looking at the landing sites with their largest telescope at the time?>With AMBER on the VLT-I, the astronomers were able to see details on thescale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, fromthe Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon.the resolution is good enough to distinguish the headlights of a car parked on the moon, guess what they saw?
>>17076136>greentext failanyway, the article of the scientists bragging about it
>>17076136>>17076137you are mentally ill
>>17076149it says right there in the article that it can't be used to observe the moon, without giving reasons why. what are the reasons?
>>17076110Razor sharp Moon rocks would have shredded those knee pads.
>>17074319...is the sun glows that brightly due to cosmic ray bombardment turned to gamma, how the hell did astronauts in 1969 walk around it's lit surface in nothing but a space suit?
>>17076312they've had zero sense of danger because they were in a safe environment (not on the lunar surface)
>>17076451Middendorf is not NASA. Middendorf is not an astronaut. There is no chain of custody linking that thing to anything officially claiming it to be a lunar rock.Not that it matters since you've heard this a million times before, as with any explanation, but you'll repeat this garbage anyway.
>>17076454mittendorf received it from the US state department and it was given to the netherlands during the offical goodwill tour where astronauts were present
>>17076461>received it from the US state departmentThat still doesn't prove it was ever officially claimed to be lunar material>it was given to the netherlands during the offical goodwill tour where astronauts were presentAnd it looks NOTHING like gifted lunar sample displays that ARE officially claimed (and verified) to be from the moon
>>17076465>verifieddid they use the moon meteorites as reference material?but here's the thing, the soviets brought back moon rocks (allegedly) and they have never sent men to the moon
btw, here's how easy the recent artemis mission was faked (launched on april fools day :^)) the soviets fooled even NASA
>>17074314NASA glows brighter than the sun
>>17076477>fooledit was collusion
>>17076149i've underlined the section that actually talks about the VLT-I which they used to look at the landing sites
>>17076012You somehow made a worse joke than the guy you replied to.
>>17076829Thanks
Both the sun and moon seem the same size.
>>17076848Because it's the same model with a different texture, the apparent slight different is because of a texturing error that turns down the alpha around the edges and nobody caught it in development. Now it's too noticed and iconic to change.
>>17074314Don't you need high energy events for gamma rays? Why would the moon emit them?
>>17076851cosmic rays bombarding the surface non-stop
>>17076850Though the sun rays brigthen to cover the size.
>>17076848‘Tis merely a coincidence, fellow product of chance.
>>17076919it's sad how you people can't cope with reality and instead require to be the super special magic creations of some foreskin obsessed jewish desert god who watches you masturbate
>>17076093well you should accept that people will be negative towards you when you're so rude that you're bringing up /x/ outside of /x/
>>17076975>looks at a gamma ray glowing moon>thinks "yeah, we went there"wonder who's coping with reality here
>>17077302>>17076326>that brightlyBut you haven't shown it glows brightly. You have shown it is detectable, and brighter than the quiet sun. That doesn't mean it is bright. These telescopes can detect individual gamma rays. These same instruments detect gamma rays from earth, from thunderstorms. Now does that mean anyone near a thunderstorm has had their face melted by gamma rays? No. Just because it's detectable, doesn't mean it is dangerous.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_gamma-ray_flash
>>17077310see, this is cope
>>17076102>>17076120Dmitry Rogozin is a politician with no scientific background. His degrees are in economics and journalism. Possibly he is saying that as a political play to sow distrust of the government in the West, possibly he is just retarded.>many in Roscosmos defended Washington's version of eventsThose are the actual scientists he is talking about.>>17076110>>17077302Those gamma rays are just present in space. The moon reflects (some of) those rays, it does not 'glow'.Anyway, the gamma ray intensity reflected from the moon's surface is approximately 510 photons [math]m^{-2} s^{-1}[/math] over 100 MeV. Since you're so much smarter than all the scientists, perhaps you could calculate for them the absorbed dose (in Gy) and the equivalent dose (in mSv) that an astronaut standing on the moon for 21 hours would receive during that time, then determine whether that radiation dose would pose a significant health risk.Oh look, seems like some of those stupid scientists have had this idea already.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40405-0
>>17077315i think we should send you to the moon
>>17077312>>17077317>suddenly no argument when presented with actual facts
>>17076136>>17076137>>17076149>did you know ESA tried looking at the landing sites with their largest telescope at the time?And where is your evidence it was attempted. People clearly discussed it, but where is anyone stating they actually tried it? Nowhere. You are making shit up.ESA and ESO are completely different.The reason it is almost impossible is due to how interferometry works. Each telescope in the VLTI sends the light through tunnels to a combined focus. The paths along each telescope must be matched to within a fraction of the wavelength of light, a hundred nanometres over a distance of 200 meters. How do they measure this? They use the light from the target object to scan for the zero path difference. Then they lock onto the fringes. A source which is a point source produces nice clear fringes to measure, a uniform extended source produces no fringes at all. If the Moon was truly smooth, interferometers like the VLTI can't even detect it. They could measure the shadows, but how can they even observe without being able to match the path difference? They cannot. Even if they could, what would be produced would be anti-climactic. It would be a tiny blobby image with a tiny dip in brightness in the centre. You wouldn't see the lander. Just the shadow. Would this convince any of you people? No. The photos from orbiters are many times better.
>>17077302>failed middle school physics>thinks he knows better than professionals
>>17077442>>thinks he knows better than someone who thinks we didn't go to the moon.
>>17077444yes
>>17077444next you'll be surprised people think being able to tie your shoes makes you more dextrous than someone who can't
We can't leave earth, we can't go to the moon because of plasma, already been proven.
>>17077337if they didn't try it how do they know it can't be used to observe the moon?>Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.where are the results?
>>17077461>if they didn't try it how do they know it can't be used to observe the moon?You can work out the feasibility of an observation without taking any data. Any time you ask for time on a telescope you have to justify that it is possible. For example there is a tool to work out how detectable the fringes are, and how much telescope time it would require.>where are the results?Where is the evidence he tried? He said he they "planned" to do it, not that they had done it or had been awarded telescope time to try.The logs of ESO observatories are public, you can even query the data if you find something. You can see West was involved in dozens of programs, but none with the VLTI. The VLT has observed the Moon with adaptive optics, but not the interferometer.https://archive.eso.org/wdb/wdb/eso/sched_rep_arc/form
>>17077498The official statement by ESO is that it can’t be used to observe the moon. They don’t specify why that is the case. That’s not very scientific.The scientists seemed very eager to look at the landing sites. What followed was silence.
>>17074321so not only humans never actually left the Earth because of the radioactive ring around the planet according to Science™, humans never went to the human either
>>17077507
>>17077503One guy said he wanted to. A guy who is not an expert in interferometry. >That’s not very scientific.And I explained to you why it wouldn't work. And it's not a page on ESO's science portal, it's for the public. And it's on the page about ELT, so of course it focuses on ELT.
>>17077508
>>17077512>And I explained to you why it wouldn't work.you are the authority nownot esonot the drnot the official websiteyou are implying the people working there had no idea about this
>>17077518>not eso>not the official websiteBoth of which agree with me. >not the drWorking at ESO does not make him an expert on interferometry. You can look up his programs and publications yourself, he didn't work on this kind of data.>you are implying the people working there had no idea about thisInterferometry is niche. Working at ESO doesn't make you an expert in everything they do. And it's not "the people", it's one guy. He also never stated to be sure it would work.
>>17077524It was not just one guy, it was done by a team, and you don’t need to have any publications on interferometry, or any field for that matter, to have knowledge about it.No one protested the claims made by Dr West. No one corrected the press release. The website simply states - as an aside - that it cannot be done, without giving any further explanation.The lack of data after announcing the experiment leaves two options: they were told not to attempt the experiment, or the data was purged after it succeeded.
>>17078735>succeededor failed* both would be unscientific handling of data
wouldn’t be the first time they *lost* data
>>17079261
>>17078735>No one protested the claims made by Dr West. No one corrected the press release. Because he didn't say anything wrong. He wanted to try it. And it's a newspaper article, not a press release. >The website simply states - as an aside - that it cannot be done, without giving any further explanation.Funny that you appeal to West's authority as someone who worked at ESO. But you reject the statement by ESO. West never justified that it was feasible. He simply stated it as an aside. And you take that one statement as proof it is totally possible. >The lack of data after announcing the experiment leaves two options: they were told not to attempt the experiment, or the data was purged after it succeeded.That is not an announcement of anything. To get time on the VLT you have to apply, and be successful in selection and pass the technical scrutiny. Even if it was feasible, there is no guarantee the TAC would select it based on scientific merit, schedulability and risk. The most likely secario is that he spoke to an expert at the VLTI and they said "Nope, not possible".
>>17079300the footage contained the only high quality material of the first steps on the moonevery video today is a digitally altered version of an inferior copy
>>17079310>The most likely secario is that he spoke to an expert at the VLTI and they said "Nope, not possible".He would have done so before going to the press and making a public announcement.
>>17079319You are assuming. Based on nothing. The main part of the article is about doing it with one telescope and Adaptive Optics. Not the interferometer. It is just an aside.
>>17079322>You are assuming. Based on nothing.based on logicyou are assuming dr west is a mouth-breathing retardit was obvious they would be using the interferometer when you have a telescope with a resolution to distinguish the headlights of a car on the moon anyone would use it to look at the landing sitesthe article was even headlined with putting to rest the controversy surrounding the moon landing
>>17079448>resolution to distinguish the headlights of a car on the moonThis is merely an analogy to demonstrate the theoretical resolving power; it can't make said observation in a literal sense.>anyone would use it to look at the landing sitesNo, because the people actually using it know1) it's not the correct instrument to point at the moon2) the moon landing happened and they aren't too interested in wasting their reservation time to placate mentally ill subhumans
>>17079448>based on logic>you are assuming dr west is a mouth-breathing retardAnd you are assuming on the basis of nothing that ESO is lying. And as I explained, I know enough about interferometry to know why it wouldn't work. I'm not assuming anything.>when you have a telescope with a >resolution to distinguish the headlights of a car on the moon anyone would use it to look at the landing sitesWhere are all the images of solar system objects taken by the interferometer? They could image the moons of the outer solar system with 10 times the resolution of other images. So why haven't they? Because you need many nights with different configurations (baselines) to cover the UV plane to make images. Planets and moons rotate and change to quickly. >the article was even headlined with >putting to rest the controversy >surrounding the moon landingWriten by a journalist.
>>17076975>can't cope with realityyou mean that you'll never go to space?
>>17079454>>17079723The telescope was brand new at the time and they wanted to put it to the test. Testing involves using the telescope in its interferometer setting to observe the moon. This was confirmed by ESO and the press article has never been refuted. Testing also involves having results >Trained on the Moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the base of one or more of the six lunar modules which Nasa insists landed on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Any images of the modules would be the first not to have been taken from space by Nasa.>Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".>The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics" to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial run of the equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon taken from the Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of 238,000 miles.>The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow under ideal conditions.>Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.
>>17079777>This was confirmed by ESOWhere? West does not speak for all of ESO.Copy-pasting the same article we've been discussing for ages is not some new revelation.
there is no technical reason why the interferometer couldn’t be used to observe the moon
>>17079782Appart from all the problems listed prior:>>17077337>>17079723
>>17077310>TGFs>Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes were first discovered in 1994 by BATSE, or Burst and Transient Source Experiment, on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, a NASA spacecraft.[3] A subsequent study from Stanford University in 1996 linked a TGF to an individual lightning strike occurring within a few milliseconds of the TGF. BATSE detected only a small number of TGF events in nine years (76)76 events in 9 years compared to 1,000 particles per m2/s. a constant monsoon of cosmic particles raining down and exploding into gamma ray fireworks hits different than a random burst every year
>>17079795>1,000 particles per m2/sAnd where does this number come from?Also note that the Gamma ray image you posted is added from 10.7 years of Fermi data.https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/moon-glows-brighter-than-sun-in-images-from-nasas-fermi/
>>17079799https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8759739/you’re right it’s more like 10,000’s per m2/s
>>17079803Please cite exactly where in the paper this value comes from.
>>17079805https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JE004648The GCR proton spectrum peaks at about 200 MeV, although some GCRs have energies many orders of magnitude greater. Near solar minimum, their flux is ∼4 particles cm−2s−1, and at solar maximum their flux is ∼2 particles cm−2s−1
>>17079782https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0906/>The VLTI will however not be able to observe the Moon as its surface is too big to produce the interference patterns necessary for this technique.Oh look, a press release directly ESO, on the first images from the interferometer. The experts explaining why it doesn't work for targets like the Moon. Debunking any claim it was possible. And it is exactly what you were already told.
>>17074314I knew the Moon was a fed.
>>17079817how is the surface too big to produce an interference pattern?
>>17079892See:>>17077337
>>17079803https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8759739/ >>17079807https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JE004648pretty much ends the moon landing
>>17079921wow really that's amazing (take your meds)
>>17079922the best part about space being fake is that even if it's real, you're still NEVER going there no matter how much you hecking love science lol
>>17079946woah can't believe you owned every scientist out therehow will we ever recover
>>17079956if the scientist didn’t reveal this was a slice of sausage people like you would still believe it’s an image of Proxima Centauri
>>17079921Show us your working.>>17079946>Space is fake>Here is some data from a Chinese satellite though
>>17079963still more believable than that jewish book of fairytales of yours lol
>>17079972everyone dies (memento mori)
Moon is just plasma though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCNGcbwxWg&t=6s
>>17080033you are just schizophrenic though
>>1707997290% of the soience you worship was invented by jews lol
>>17077337hard to believe synching mirrors automatically shouldn’t be too difficult i could do it manually if you gave me fine enough knobs to turn let me do it and i’ll get you the pictures
>>17080133jesus is a jew lol
>>17080347you’ve never went to the moon and your entire reality is a lie
>>17080353>he says as he believes in some magic boat that housed 2 of every animalLOL
>>17080355the oldest story ever discovered, the epic of gilgamesh, tells a similar story this fact alone should activate your almonds
>psalms 19:1
>>17080358You believe in stories LOL
>>17080362when the story comes from the cradle of civilization, from a time when there means o sharing information was limited, and one story was imprtant enough to be recorded on tablets that would be discovered millennia later and resembled the story found in the major religions of the time then yes i pay attention to those stories
>>17080363lol cope
>>17080364one party is coping here and that one believes man walked on a gamma ray glowing moon
>>17080366you believe rabbis have the magic superpower to walk on water LOL
>>17080341Interferometry is not easy. The path lengths have to be matched to within 10 nanometers, and the total distance is over 100 meters. And there are 4 telescopes, with different path lengths to be matched together. And while you're tweaking it, the whole thing is changing as the Earth rotates. Plus atmospheric turbulence.It is possible to do it automatically with millions of euros worth of delay lines. But you need a reference to match, a star or compact object. Otherwise how do you know you have the correct delay? You don't. It doesn't magically produce a perfect image when you get it right, it takes a lot of data and processing to get an image. Lasers don't work since they don't take the same path as the starlight, they are used to measure the delay lines.
>>17080369and bring the dead back to life halleluyah
>>17080362the moon landing is a story...
>>17080724sure thing buddy
>>17076083Sovl vs soulless
>>17080831>10 000 to 40 000 cosmic particles per second per square meter >gamma ray glowing moon
>>17080916>highschool dropout>mentally ill
>>17080919>reality falling apart>coping
>>17080969seek professional help
>>17080970is it so hard to believe that some people are so evil they will lie to you about anything?
>>17080973is it so hard to believe that you're actually retarded and not part of some small group with super secret knowledge?
peter hyatt, statement analystmoon landing believer (former?)analyzed neil armstrong interview using forensic state analysis pic related is what he had to say afterwards starts at about 8:00 introduction at 4:00https://odysee.com/Analysing-The-Astronauts-Part-1:c
>statement analystlol
>>17080919Most people who dropout become successful people anyway.
>>17081014um no, most people aren't successful and dropping out makes the odds of success even lower
>>17080978using a scientific method for deception detection
>>17082053okay cool
>>17082053Does he do horoscopes too?
>>17082125he's deadthey've killed him with cancer
>>17082149oh no that sucks
