Inverse Square Law disproves Moon landings?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- I've seen numerous people claim the 'inverse square law' proves that people haven't landed on the moon ... so here is why their arguments do not work
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#globe #science #flatearth #apollo #moonlandings
Flat earthers appear dimmer the closer you get to them.
Also as you get farther away from them. It's the inverse IDGAF Law.
That shit was funny af yo. Lol
It may well be that all (or most) flat-Earthers believe that the moon landings were fake, but it certainly isn't the case the all those who believe that the moon landings were fake are flat-Earthers.
The very purpose of the "flat-Earth theory" is to associate anyone who questions any government narrative with the nonsense of flat-Earth as means of dismissing those who question the government without having the address their arguments.
It may be that all flerfs believe the moon landings were fake, but it's certainly not the case that everyone who believes the moon landings were fake are flerfs.
The very purpose for the flat-Earth theory is to use it as a weapon against anyone who would question "the official narrative" by associating them with the nonsense of flerfism so that they may be dismissed without having to address their questions.
Those who don't question are sheep.
Though all flerfs may question the moon landings, very few of those who question the moon landings are flerfs.
The very purpose of flerfism is to associate any who question with the nonsense of flerfism so that their questions may be dismissed without being addressed. Flerfism is controlled opposition.
Those who don't question are sheep.
Don't argue with a photographer about light-based phenomena.
You might as well tell a flerp not to argue with physicists about physics based phenomena. Making the smart choice is not the conspiracy theorist's strong suit.
You say that, but there is a photographer named Gary Fong who has provided "reasons" that Apollo is fake based on his "photography expertise." However, Dave McKeegan and others have successfully debunked Gary's claims, But the point is, it's not the authority themselves, but what that authority is saying and the evidence they are using.
Dave McKeegan's debunk of Gary Fong: ua-cam.com/video/hLXHrQ1Keac/v-deo.htmlsi=rESmuxjfbBtHoWCN
Sadly, a lot of photographers don't understand this stuff either. Dave's explanations in this video, on the other hand, were correct, so he's not "one of those".
He’s still wrong. Could you land on a headlight that is able to brighten your book in the night sky? No it would blind you, fry you, and you would not be able to take good video on the surface of a headlight.
And he also conveniently let out the fact that the moon is strong enough to light up your book if no other light source is polluting the sky.
@mikeslemonade The moon is as dark as charcoal lit by the sun. Can you stand on a dark gray bit of surface on Earth in sunlight? Of course you can.
People don't seem to understand the 30 stop global dynamic range of human eyes.
When you skim too fast over the titles, and then wonder for a second: "What the heck is the Insane Scare Law?"...
when you skim too fast over the comment and wonder why this guy just said "when you skim too fast over the titties"
It's a great band name :)
That would be flat earther's only hope lol
🤣🤣🤣 nicely done
Every scientific theory, equation, or law is a scare law for a flerfer.
This is why I'm stuck in my office. I try to go to the door to open it and leave, but as I approach the door to turn the knob, the amount of electromagnetic energy it's reflecting rapidly increases to infinity, in accordance with the inverse square law, and I'm instantly vaporized into a small cinder.
Bravo, perfect! We will send food
Lol, perfect
You can't get anywhere near the door. You have to go halfway first. Before you can get halfway you have to get half of that, and so on. Since any amount can be divided by half infinitely there are an infinite number of halving of the distance. You can't be halving the time to cross an infinite number of distances. Thus proving you can't even get out of your chair.
@@dpsamu2000
Felt like I almost got a nosebleed reading that post, lol... I need to go sit down. World view shattered.
@@gmr4life884 Watch out. I proved you'd never be able to get up again. I cannot take responsibility for your safety when you go against the math.
"You see Dougald, these cows are small. Those cows are far away"
One thing I will say with Dave's videos. I have learned more about science and photography than I have probably since school.
I wholeheartedly agree with this 😊
He's an engaging speaker, and does an excellent job of explaining things. We're lucky to be able to have such excellent content essentially for free!
Completely agree
Skill issue, simply learn at school instead of dozing off then getting pitiful amount of knowledge from youtube videos
@@youtubehandlesux I've learned more doing self research than I have been taught by any teacher.
Hmmm... The same folks who say that the moon would be too bright say that the lack of stars in the sky behind Apollo astronauts (i.e. limiting the amount of light entering the camera because the foreground is too bright) is "proof" that the moon landings were faked. Such irony. It is to laugh.
Spot on.
One of the amazing delusions about flerfs is that they can come up with reasons for specific phenomena on a flat earth that are totally inconsistent with the reasons they use for another "explanation". None of them appear to realise that their explanations need to be consistent for their ideas to be workable.
Many of the flat earthers have also jumped on "the final experiment" saying that it is an observation and therefore proves nothing while completely missing the point that it invalidates flat earth no matter whether it is an observation or an experiment.
Moon landing deniers can't ever get to be self consistent. One claim disprove the previous one, and get disproved by the next.
People like you are the reason the comment section is funny.
Yep, just that statement about not seeing stars in a black sky photo on the moon proves they have no clue about cameras/photography/exposure. Why they also would not apply this "brighter as you get closer" theory to the Earth is lost on me. They say they do research but they really don't. They could test this theory by recreating it on Earth as Dave suggests. But then I suppose it would debunk that theory and they need to posit as many theories as possible so they can confuse and baffle others in to believing.
Dave will always look brighter than any Flerf.
Rusty will always look brighter than any flerf.
You mean brighter than the self illuminating light that has shadows but it’s still self illuminating 🤪
everyone looks bright when they smile
From any distance :-)
So will Vantablack
Flerfs misunderstanding basic physics is par for the course.
It’s more basic than that.
Flerfs have a really difficult time dealing with more than one variable at a time.
It’s why they make silly memes like “Gravity is strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water in place, but too weak to stop a bumblebee from flying” or “helium filled balloons disprove gravity”.
@@jonemeigh5588 Memes like those genuinely mind boggles me, like how do people making those "criticisms" (if you can call them that) not even take a second to think how water isn't sentient like a bee which uses its bodily energy to fly? Like, you don't even have to understand the biology of a bee, all you need to understand is "bee eat food, bee get energy from food, bee use energy and fly"
@@mrdraco3758 To be fair, the grifters that make the memes know full well they are full of shit.
The ones that believe the memes are the ones that should boggle your mind.
@@mrdraco3758I've just asked them what happens when a bird stops flapping it's wing or a plane shuts off it's engine
@@jonemeigh5588 "Flerfs have a really difficult time dealing with more than one variable at a time."
This.
Flerfs are flerfs because they cannot process any degree of complexity. In this case, "complexity" means more than one variable operating on a phenomenon.
Ahhhhh ... I see where the misunderstanding is Dave ... they believe that the moon is a light source (a cold-light source in fact). This would mean they HAVE to presume a dazzling effect if anyone was to land upon it, and to they therefore HAVE to assume nobody did land on it ... QED (I think!)
Similarly, going by that logic, wouldn't that mean that the earth would be too bright to land on because it also reflects light just like venus and mars.
Even if it was a light source, this would still apply.
Even if they don't think the moon is the source of the light we see reflecting off it, they inadvertently model it that way when they try to apply the inverse square law.
Besides, the only reason you hear them citing a scientific law at all is because they trust literally anything that seems to them to agree with their presuppositions. That is the full scope of their trust in science. Cite any science that refutes them and they will do cartwheels to deny it. Like gravity for instance.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394less a presupposition and more a preconception.
Whether the Moon reflects light or emits it, at the same overall brightness the same rules apply. Light itself cares not a whit whether it just departed a self luminous source or a reflecting one.
The surface brightness of surface sending the light forward is the first determinant for the illumination it provides to some receiver of that light, and the subtended angular area of the source is the second determinant.
One could prepare a frosted light bulb controlled by a dimmer, place it at distance so that it subtends the same 1/2° angular diameter as the full Moon, then adjust the brightness until it and the Moon have the same surface brightness. Then alternately blocking one and then the other, it will be seen that a white sheet facing them will have the same level of illumination.
The inverse square law also states that the more you flerf, the dimmer you look.
I am glad the politically-correct and culturally sensitive term 'dim' is being used here. Psychiatrists and psychologists favour this term when instructing flerfs.
If flerfing twice as much, does one appear four times dimmer?
@@ntdscherernope. 7 times because flerf math. ;)
What a great video. The inverse square law also debunks the claim that the moonwalk photos were done on a soundstage. Even the brightest studio lights would have a dramatic fall-off in the distance of a photo. You know what light source stays consistent? A giant one millions of miles away, a.k.a. the sun.
But they could have used the suns light on earth to achieve the same effect! /s
@@LootyStuff yep, there's always another excuse until they run out. Then it's either "nuh-uh" or they just recycle old ones and pretend you didn't already answer it.
Nasa did film it on a soundstage. They asked Stanley Kubrick to do the filming and he insisted on working on location.
@@alankott3129 But Kubrick wasn't just a perfectionist, he had a very difficult personality, so he ended up constantly fighting with the three stars.
When they travelled to the location, Aldrin had enough of his shenanigans and punched him in the face. Kubrick left the production in a rage, and that is why the moon landings looked like shit and not like Kubrick films.
@@alankott3129Couldn't have been Kubrick, there aren't a huge number of IBMs on the film.
This was very enlightening.
Pun intended
Illuminating, even!
@@NeutralDrow😂😂😂😂
This video really brightened up my day.
@@jeromepatrick5690 Truly, a candle shining in the dark!
Your devoted doggie is brighter than the brightest Flat Earther.
Flerf intelligence: ❌
Dog intelligence: ✅
McKeegan's Inverse Square Law
"As you move a camera further away from a light source, doggie gets proportionally closer"
Oh it gets way better: the inverse square law can in turn be used as proof there was no studio spotlight involved. That would have created a hotspot in accordance with the inverse square law. Try to compensate that using more lights to even out the lighting over a wider area: they would show up as multiple shadows or even soft shadows as well as multiple specular highlights.
Also a local light always produces diverging rays and not the parallel rays one can see in the Apollo footage. (solid foundation in perspective required)
It’s physically impossible to recreate the lighting from the Apollo moon images with a studio setup, easy to see for a trained eye. Hardly noticeable for ignorant moon landing deniers and thus they pull their opinion out of thin air.
What if they used a wall of light, would that produce the same effect as the sun?
@@ntdscherer TLDR: you would have to move the wall so far back and then make it so bright that you basically just have the sun.
Long Answer:
If you used a wall of light, you would end up with multiple shadows because the lights coming from the far left of the wall are hitting an object at a different angle than the lights at the far right end. The only way to correct this is to move the wall so far back that the angles from lights at each end are shallow enough to not create multiple shadows of an object. Of course, moving a light wall back means you have to make it brighter in order to maintain proper "sun-like" illumination.
---Example time: put two lamps at either end of a wall in your room. You can see that they create two shadows of you standing in the middle of the room. Now consider how far back you would have to move for those shadows to completely overlap and look like just one shadow. How bright would those lights have to be to reach you, let alone be as bright as the sun?
@@aden538 Wouldn't the other lights fill in the shadows?
@@ntdscherer Properly positioned and bright enough, I think so, but then you still end up with an irregular shadow because it's being lit from multiple directions. This is not what we see from Apollo photographs. They are clearly being lit by a single source from far away to create the clear, defined shadows while such a huge area is evenly lit with no hot spots.
Again, this is something you can test in a room. Put the two lamps directly behind you and look at your shadow on the wall. Then split them up and see how your shadow gets narrow and distorted on the wall.
@@aden538 Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the moon landings, just wondering if there is any extreme one could go to to replicate it (the low gravity of course would be impossible).
Lack of understanding + conspiratorial beliefs = monumental devolution
Q: Are we not men?
A: We are DEVO!
@@GustavoLovato In short, lack of brain.
And also, a willingness to play a role of victim of society.
@@PeterBee911 "Something that happened way before I existed is fake! WAAAAHHHH!"
Make that «REFUSAL to understand + conspiratorial narrative = massive and monumental devolution»
You know your argument is bad when it gets debunked by "Well, do objects seem to get brighter as you move towards them?"
No? Problem solved.
I heard many parrots squeaking "inverse square law! Sqweak!" but they always refused to explain to me what they meant, so I never knew how to address their claim.
I didn't know it was _that_ bad...
It's like these people have never LIVED ON PLANET EARTH and simply observed that only lights get brighter as you approach them (to a meaningful degree, in the vast majority of circumstances).
But they're so eager to "prove" a flat earth that the brain, logic, observation, critical thought, etc. just turns off.
Thank Dave. I heard the “inverse square law” argument, and although I knew it was wrong I wouldn’t have been able to explain why. You have a way of explaining things that makes them easy to understand, and in retrospect it feels like it should have been obvious.
It feels obvious because it sort of is. When flat Earthers twist the words of some physical law into some word spaghetti that means whatever it is they want it to mean at that moment the untangling you have to do is just like when you've jumbled up your Christmas tree lights with your speaker wires. You have to untangle it carefully to work out what they've done wrong and put all the parts straight.
Watching debunk videos to feel smarter than a Flerf: ✋
Watching debunk videos to learn science: 👍
"I don't understand exposure controls, therefore the moon landings are fake." FLERFs
This is the sort of stuff flat Earth kids don't seem to understand when it comes to taking photos in space. Even in space the stars are REALLY dim, dimmer than a flat Earth kid. The light level reaching us from distant objects is incredibly low, while the light level from the Sun is astronomically high. They can't fathom that you need to adjust your camera to filter out the sheer amount of light reflecting off objects from the Sun. Doing so blocks out the very small amount of light reaching us from distant objects. I mean this is easily replicated by going outside at night and looking up. Look up where you don't have a street lamp and you'll generally see a sky filled with stars, depending on if you live in a big city or not. Look up at the sky under a street lamp and you'll almost no stars as your eyes adjust to the light level as well as the light from the street lamp washing out the light from the stars.
Yes. It's why amateur astronomers who want to view or image deep sky objects, do their observing when the Moon has set, or it's such a small crescent that it doesn't appreciably wash out those objects. This also applies when observing an occultation of a star or planet by the Moon, as when it occurs on the bright limb of the Moon, it's a lot more difficult to see the star or planet.
And yes, it's why amateur astronomers get the shits with the amount of light pollution in the sky. Our astronomical society is based an hour or so South of Sydney and trying to look at anything in the northern sky is basically pointless.
Well I do have a correctly exposed, single exposure photograph of the full moon, with stars visible in the background. Apparently according to MC Toon it's cheating to wait until a total lunar eclipse. Who knew?
It's an easy test to conduct yourself. If you want to take a picture of the night sky showing those 'really bright' stars then then exposure time you need is surprisingly long, even I you can see the stars quite plainly with your eyes.
How would they ever figure that out, when they haven't yet figured out that you can't see stars during daylight hours (sun aside)?
I don't think I've ever watched one of Dave's videos and not learned something new and interesting (and I'm not even into photography).
Thanks Dave!
Just start from the other end of the argument. The surfaces of the earth and moon are approximately the same distance from the sun, so why would one be any brighter than the other?
I may be misunderstanding your question, but the reflectivity of the surface will change how bright the one looks compared to the other. Dave mentions that the moon's reflectivity is about 10% and the Earth's is about 40%. So for the same light source the Earth would be about 4 times brighter. A similar (though greatly exaggerated) example is when headlights flash across the mirrors in your car. The mirror reflects more light, so it appears brighter than the dash, even though the dash also lights up.
You are correct. Solar irradiance (W/m^2) at the Moon's surface is about 0.5% less than solar irradiance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. In numbers, it's roughly 1354 W/m^2 on the Moon's surface and about 1361 W/m^2 at the top of Earth's atmosphere (and about 1000 W/m^2 at Earth's surface....with the losses being due to reflection and absorption of different wavelengths by the atmosphere). Irradiance is just the intensity of light incident on a surface. It does not into account the albedo of that surface.
The inverse square law of flerf states that if two flat earthers enter a room, it becomes 4x dimmer.
…haha, just noticed I’m about the 50th person to use this joke. My apologies.
*7x dimmer. They can't math.
It bears repeating.
There's also another thing that you demonstrated with the camera and the light but you didn't explain it in relation to the moon, which is that the cameras they used to take the photos on the moon were also adjusted to the exposure of light, reducing the amount of light it captured so the surface and the astronaut can be seen better in the photos, which is another reason why it doesn't look _as_ bright as people expect it too look on the photos
That's also why you can't see the stars in the background as well.
One would almost think that the darkened visor of the helmets where so that they didn't hurt your eyes and not to hide the actors. 😂😂
... because professional photographers, or even trained astronauts are better at photography than flat-earthers. (and note most of Buzz's pictures are in focus as well...lol)
@@mikefochtman7164 Which is extra impressive when you consider they had no viewfinders or anything. Their cameras were entirely chest-mounted, and they just had to hope it was aimed at the right thing when they took a picture with it.
It would have been very difficult to create a fake Moonscape with technology at the time (or even today CGI would still look fake). The closest thing you could get is White Sands in New Mexico... if you pull up photos of White Sands, the sky is blue (not black) and generally appears nothing like the Moonscape photos and TV images. The shadows are also blue tinted ( reflecting the atmosphere tint, not black)
Assuming the landings were faked, then they would have had to develop completely new and unknown special effects technologies. None of the archival footage shows any of the telltale signs of the analog compositing and other special effects tricks that were common in the 1960s. Even Kubrick's 2001 has shots that are obvious special effects work.
Evidence is so inconvenient. Much easier to point and say, " I no believe!", and that makes it so.😅
@@MrJustinOtisI saw the moon scenes in 2001 and noticed the astronauts walk like they do on earth.
@@nkuniverse7856 The YT channel Corridor Digital did a good video where they talk about what it would take to fake the moon landings from the perspective of special effects artists. It's called "VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing."
@@MrJustinOtis I saw that video.
What the?
The intensity remains the same, the area just changes
Yes Dave, but have you considered...
Nuh uh?
I did consider that but then I thought 'nuh uh to nuh uh!'
@@DaveMcKeegan I normally don't laugh at your videos, although I find them very interesting. But I literally laughed out loud at this comment! 😂
I love when FE's bring up the inverse square law, because the power output from sun-tracking solar panels show a constant amount of power output. Non-tracking panels show a curve, but this curve matches what we'd expect with an off-angle orientation and a constant intensity light source. In both cases, if the Sun were relatively nearby (as in, some 2,400 miles at Noon, 6,700 miles at sunrise and sunset), the power output would have to show this inverse square behavior and change by approximately a factor of 7.
Huh. That's a really good point.
Just in general, solar panels wreck a lot of flerf ideas, but this is a good point you make. I did hear on another stream that Flat Earth Dave has solar investments.
If flerfs didn't have hypocrisy, they'd have nothing.
Just gonna pause at 1:20 and say my guess for the explanation: from afar we see the entire moon's earthfacing light focused in a rather small point, and as we get closer and closer, the source of the light (the moon as a whole) will stretch across more of our vision and appear less focused, and once landed we'd only be receiving light from within our own horizon on the moon, still spread quite drastically compared to from earth. If the moon were a very small point light source at the same brightness from earth, rather than a large light source, I would expect it to spread across our vision less and focus its brightness more intensely as we approach.
Yep, pretty close, although I didn't know the exact definition regarding a point source of light as opposed to just a big or small one, wasn't aware of the exact correlation between apparent size and light received, and didn't account for the perimeter of the moon to shrink away on approach either. I am a little confused now though, about what then makes other stars in the sky bearable to look at. Maybe they're effectively point sources by distance?
I remember the old days of film photography & Weston 5 lightmeters. You could take a reflected meter reading at the camera but that was influenced by both things around what you wanted to photograph AND the colour of what you were shooting (no spot metering in those days) but what you always saw professional photographers do was take an incident light reading AT the model for more accurate exposure (regardless of how far away from the model the camera was).
In the "old days" you also got a "cheat sheet" on the box of film with the "Sunny 16" rule.... ISO100, 1/125sec, guess F16 for sunny, down a stop F11 for dull & up a stop for F22 for sunny snow/sand.
If you think "dark at night" so a moon image from here needs a wide aperture then all you get is burned out white circle of moon photo.
If you think "standing on the moon for incident light reading I would get a 1/125 F22 sunny desert type reading" & try that you will get a much better exposure.
OK you had to make some allowance for the atmospheric absorption but thinking "beach shot" rather than "night shot" always got you a better shot of the moon.
The exposure here & the exposure on the moon are not that different.
There is actually a more interesting phenomena... looking at stars & they generally seem to be about the same size (regardless of how far away they are)... this is "sub-pixel" resolution of the eye. The eye cannot truly see down to the point size of the star image, but there is enough light there to trigger the whole of that eye cell that covers that general region... so when we see all these star points in the sky we are not truly appreciating their true size, we are just seeing the smallest resolution of the eye being triggered regardless of star size.... hence they all look equal to us.
They seen to think there was 1 landing...As usual,they dont look at the whole picture of the apollo (and gemini) eras as a whole.
And Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor.
2:33 "I want a biscuit. Ooh, what are you doing? I'll lie down and not interrupt. I think that deserves a biscuit."
The wall that is 72 inches to my left is fairly bright due to the lights in my room. I walked over and placed my eyeball 0.5625 inches away from the wall. Can confirm that it became 128 times brighter as I am now blind.
Flerfers misunderstanding scale again. Bless their little minds.
But their minds do get bigger the closer you are to them. It's still only four or five neurones flickering intermittently, though.
"little minds"
That was very generous of you.
@@leftpastsaturn67plancoscopic is still "little" ;)
Very nicely laid out video! Easy to follow, and yet another checkmate for the flerfs/conspiracy crowd.
I think there should be more people talking about the horizon on the Moon. It's obvious when looking at pictures taken from the surface of the moon, that the horizon is much closer. The Moon is smaller, thus "less flat" (curves more). I actually find this fascinating.
The Moon is 1/13 the size of Earth in volume thus also in spherical surface area. So, Earth's average horizon distance of 4.8 km / 13 = 0.369 km horizon distance on the Moon. That's basically down the street!
@@RideAcrossTheRiver The earth has 50 times the volume, and 13 times the surface area of the moon.
The horizon distance does not calculate linearly, as there are squared functions in the calculation - it's about 2.5km on the moon for a man of average eye height.
@@thedubwhisperer2157there's also the fact that the moon has (basically) no atmosphere, meaning there's no light refraction to let you see further like there is on Earth.
It's also worth pointing out that because the Moon's Surface, Astronaut suits, and Lunar Lander were all reflecting sunlight, the crew had to lower exposure on their cameras, at least to the point where stars don't even appear from the photos and footage taken from the lunar surface.
Nahh... NASA just forgot to paint stars on the backdrop - it was an easy mistake to make when faking outer space.
@@thedubwhisperer2157 Do you actually believe that, or are you joking?
@@taqresu5865 your life would be better if you think dumb people are joking
@@taqresu5865 Not dumb, just joking... 😚
Would it help if I said that "8 inches per mile squared" describes a parabola? 🤣
I love how Rusty is looking at you, probably thinking "there he is playing with his camera again" and just lies down 😂
These guys should get into 3D art. The more of these videos I watch, the more I realise how many misunderstood concepts are common knowledge in CGI.
Most of the flerfers and moon hoaxies imagine that CGI is just a kind of magic wand that you wave, and the images you want simply appear on the screen at your whim.
They have no understanding of how difficult the work really is, the technical and artistic challenges to making it work, the hardware/software required, or the workflows needed to successfully implement it.
@@MrJustinOtis that's one side of it, but even claims that aren't reliant on 'it's just fake cgi' are obviously untrue if you understand basic principles of lighting, which are important aspects of 3D art.
For example, the inverse square law is essential when lighting a scene in 3D. It's why you can't use a spot light when a scene is supposed to be lit by the sun.
@@existentialselkath1264 You're absolutely correct, if you're going to simulate the real world, you have to incorporate real-world rules into that simulation. But most flerfers and moon hoaxies aren't even aware of the facts that you're mentioning. They have literally zero understanding of how any of it works.
And they have no excuse beyond being idiots, since there is perfectly decent software to do any of this available for free these days. However, I don't know about you, but It took me a while to become proficient (in the days before the internet), and even now you need to watch a ton of tutorials to get halfway there, and these are people who can't even be bothered to learn how to focus a camera, or even wonder why the stars move across the sky... Since according to the bible they are fixed on the firmament.
@@MrJustinOtis Or how to use Google to find out.
The fact that "First Man" won the Oscar for best visual effects for facking the moon landing in 2018 shows how incapable Hollywood was at facking it in 1969.
that's exactly what "they" want you to think
Sure it was back in 1969.
The US had a massive almost football field sized enclosed studio to film all the fakery .
Watch the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey!
@@thomasgriffith7364 if you get fooled by that movie, you are the problem
The fact this video has a need to exist proves George Carlin's statement about half the population being dumber than average.
That would be dumber than the median. To say average would be mean.
Moon landing deniers can't be reasoned with. You could take them to the moon in a rocket, show them the landing sites and they'd still shriek "fake". It's like talking to a wall.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter took photos of the apollo landing sites from orbit. Not only did they see the hardware right where we left it BUT, we saw the footprints of the astronauts on every excursion.
@@stuartgray5877 I know this, and you know this, but moon landing deniers don't believe that this is true. Most don't believe a rocket has ever left Earth's orbit.
Great explanation and discussion. As a worker in a nuclear plant, we studied the use of distance to limit radiation exposure. BUT, we had to consider the shape/ form of the radiation source. If it was a point-source, then yes the inverse-square law applies. But if it's a 'line source' (think long pipe with bad stuff inside it), then a linear model applied. And if it was a 'plane source' (think entire wall covered with contamination) then distance from it makes no difference at all. This last case is just like your light coming from a surface as you get closer/ farther.
And of course, what we consider a 'point' or 'surface' is relative to its size and distance. A red giant star that is hundreds of times larger than our sun can still be treated as a 'point source' thanks to the immense distance. And your light reflector acts like a plane source unless you were to back away from it a few dozen meters, whereas it would start to behave more like a 'point source'.
Thanks again for an informative, straight-forward video explanation.
Dave you should have pointed out that as you get closer to a conspiracy theorist that they do appear dimmer.
I really like that you explain interesting facts about our world we barely ever think about in a very easy to understand way.
This is like the science communication we always needed but barely got.
This was LONG overdue ! Can't even count the # of nuh uhs I've gotten over the years when telling them it's just an idealization for point sources due to the geometry of spherically symmetric propagation more than some kind of intrinsic property of light itself. Leave it to dropout nutters to think they understand everything involved even better than the experts who actually quantified all these things over the centuries.
The inverse square law also discredits a small local sun always above a flat earth, but they ignore that pesky fact
Don't most things we see each day discredit that? They still can't figure out how the moon and the sun can be in the sky at the same time.
To the people who didn’t pay attention, the moon is NOT a light source, it’s a reflector.
Also the photos look dark because they had to shoot at a higher shutter speed/aperture because it definitely is pretty bright, so they had to adjust the exposure to compensate.
That’s your opinion. I say moon is a light
@@Globeisahoaxx
Grow up!
@@Globeisahoaxx OK, let's pretend that's an opinion and not a fact and agree to disagree about the Moon being a source of light or reflecting the sunlight.
Do you agree with the point of the video, that the inverse square law is perfectly compatible with the mainstream claims and that's isn't an argument against the moon landings?
@@federicogiana do you agree that light is not a land and you can’t go there
@@Globeisahoaxx No to both. I definitely don't agree with you.
I said that "we can agree to disagree" because I'm interested in hearing your opinion about the "inverse square law" claim and the explanation given in the video.
I'm assuming you watched the video you're commenting under.
Not to mention that the light "source" is the sun. And we're basically the same distance from it as the Earth is.
Why would "daytime" on the moon be brighter than it is here on earth?
Dave during the flight to Antarctica: The Suns light intensity...
Jeran: ( Shaking head)
"Inverse flerf law" -Flerfers appear dimmer proportional to the amount they say.
Horizon? On the Moon, you say? That's going to upset the flat-mooners...
They're so desperate, aren't they?
The funny thing is, the more clever they try to be to prove their opinion (it's not even a theory at this stage) the dumber they look for it.
I'm no mathematician, but this seems almost common sense. But I did take photography, so..... and I stayed in a Days Inn once....😂😂😂
Your Nobel prize is waiting then. 😆
The moon is about as bright as asphalt, but in direct sunlight, asphalt is VERY bright.
OH WOW I never knew I needed polarized eyewear for driving!
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Why would you on a Thin strip of road?
@@RideAcrossTheRiver The moon rocks are a tad more reflective than asphalt, IIRC, but the real big difference is that on the Moon you don't have an atmosphere, so everything is about 50% brighter than on Earth.
"These are very small ... but those are far away". Father Ted. SO if I was on the Moon, the Earth would be too bright to land on?
If anything, the inverse square law proves the landings. The photos taken on the moon show a uniform, even level of light across the entire vista. The only way to get that sort of light, with no discernible brighter or darker spots, and no drop-off in light left to right or front to back, is if there is one single light source, which is so far away that we cannot detect any difference.....such as one really bright one, 93 million miles away.
How come a cameraman didn’t do 360 and shows us everything
@@Globeisahoaxx You mean the way that they did? There's plenty of such full-panorama shots. I mean, there's even one right here in this video!
@@mooneyes2k478 those are fakes, duh
anything that contradicts my claim is wrong! lalalalalala....
@@BarioIDL Pretty much, yeah....
But the Second Law of Thermodynamics! And the Van Alen Belts! And rockets can't work in a vacuum! And other scientific words I don't know the meaning of!
What's funny about the "rockets don't work in a vacuum" thing is there are a bunch of videos here on youtube of people firing rockets in a vacuum or doing similar experiments, and showing that they do, indeed, work in a vacuum.
@@MrJustinOtis CGI!
A more mundane example -
Imagine that you can see a house from a half mile away. As you get up close, the house doesn't get dazzlingly bright.
I'm just here for the dog... 😀🐶❤
1:15 - hears explanation of deniers’ theory
1:20 - reaches for bottle of ibuprofen 😣
Oh that’s quite interesting. So the apparent brightness of things kinda self regulates because if you go further there is less light because of the inverse square law but because you just moved further away a larger area is reflecting the light onto you so it just cancels out. Same thing for moving closer.
Ok. Now this is the first time I actually facepalmed while watching your video (and I've seen 'em all). Forget about the moon, this planet needs better education ASAP.
I learned the hard way. Looking at the full moon with a telescope will hurt your eyes, too bright. Specially zoomed in
You get to see a lot more detail during a crescent phase. The south lunar pole in particular
You do not need to compute the visible surface area near the surface of the Moon.There is a more intuitive way. The illumination provided by an object is proportional to its angular surface (aka its solid angle). For a circular object, the angular surface is given by the formula is 4*pi*sin²(theta/2) where theta is the angular size.
From Earth, the Moon angular size is about 0.5° for an illumination of 0.25 lux.
From the surface of the Moon, the angular size of the ground is 180° (while the remaining 180° is occupied the sky). Consequently, the illumination provided by the Moon surface can be estimated to 0.25 lux * (sin(180°/2)/(sin(0.5°/2))^2 = 13131 lux ~ 13 kilolux.
In the table shown at 5:16, 13 kilolux falls in the lower side of 10-25 kilolux for "Typical overcast day, midday" and far less than the 20 kilolux for "Shade illuminated by entire blue sky, midday".
This is also 9 times smaller the direct illumination by the Sun (110 kilolux Bright sunlight).
3:53 rookie mistake to not include a "not to scale" on that diagram. Now all those idiots are going to strawman the scaling of the sun and moon
Normal people will see your comment and take it as a joke. But the truth is that flerfs really will do exactly that because they can't understand even the most basic concepts.
It is indeed very simple. Both Moon and Earth are lit by the same light source and for all intents and purposes the same distance from it. Therefore, leaving aside possible effects from reflected light and atmospheric light scattering, the same exposure would apply to each.
You missed a factor. The relative size of the earth or the Moon to the sun as an extended source. The sun's diameter of 100 times that of the earth means light from it is collimated, far from being a point source. Shadows are more distinct coming from the sun because of this and the great distance.
In some odd way I have to thank flat earthers. If it weren't for them I wouldn't have learned so much about science from all the people debunking them and educating their misunderstandings. Of course thank you Dave as well for being one of those educators.
Did you also learn seasons caused by 23.4 degrees tilt?
Funny number. What’s 90-23.4
@@GlobeisahoaxxLiterally what is wrong with 66.6? It’s just a number. It has no meaning in reality. Only people who believe in that dumb stuff would care.
@@Globeisahoaxx
Grow up!
@@Globeisahoaxx Did you also realise that that tilt is the only explanation we have the seasons that we do? And therefore earth is a globe? You're welcome.
@@Globeisahoaxx What's sixty five plus 1? Why did I start from 65 for no reason? Same reason you started from 90 for no reason.
I was wondering why I recently saw that "inverse square law" in flerfs comments.
So that's it.
How can they be so dumb? It's fascinating.
I thought they misinterpreted the inverse square law because they think the moon is its own light source.
Those people are a much higher level of dumb!
Hahaha😈 I can dissprove your claim😈with our best argument😈
**he took a huge breath and his eyes turned red because of the power of his argument**
Nuh uh
Radiated vs. reflected light? So, in other words, the problem is more complex than just "trust you common sense"? No wonder Flerfs are stuck.
Well, flerfs are ever so slightly accidentally right. The Moon does emit black body radiation, but because it's so cold, the intensity of that emitted light is undetectable by the human eye and hard to measure even with special instruments.
Yah. I don't think the distance from the sun even comes into play for this argument. The argument pertains to the reflected light from the moon. Unless I misunderstand. Wouldn't be the first time. XD
@@alankott3129, distance is a factor in that it influences the intensity of sunlight incident on the Moon's surface, although that difference is very small. At half-moon, the intensity of light on the lit surface is about 1361 watts per square meter. At full moon, the intensity is about 1354 watts per square meter. Averaging over a full orbit of the Moon around the Earth, the intensity of that light incident on the Moon is 1361 watts per meter squared which is the same as the intensity of sunlight hitting the top of Earth's atmosphere
@@robinseibel7540 Yes. I am aware of that. But the argument that the OP made is about changes in intensity while a spacecraft is approaching the moon from the earth. That is virtually a snapshot in time (would span over just several days) and as such there wouldn't be a change in what is emitted from the sun.
@@alankott3129 , that is true.
Another point that’s also relevant on top of what Dave has explained. Is our vision has a lot of latitude and it’s doesn’t scale brightness in a linear fashion.
To put that in simpler language. If we see two similar objects. and one is half as bright as the other. To us the difference in brightness look far less than one being twice as bright as the other.
Latitude is a term used originally for photographic film. If a film has a lot of latitude it can still show an image with the incorrect exposure without being excessively dark or washed out.
Best example is if we’re looking at someone standing in front of a window where the outdoors is bright. Often our vision can make out the person and still see features outside through the window and both don’t appear to be too different in brightness.
Try the same situation with a camera and either the person is correctly exposed, but the light through the window is so bright every thing outside is washed out. Or the scene through the window is correctly exposed but the person standing in front looks very dark or even just a silhouette.
So how bright something like the moon really is in the night sky compared to our perception (thanks to the way our whole vision system works) can be quite skewed.
Saying that, as good as our vision is on this point there’s still limitations. The difference in brightness between the moon and that of the stars is so great when we look at the moon we don’t see anywhere near the amount of stars compared to looking at the other side of the sky where the moon would be behind you.
Hence why on the photos taken from the surface of the moon you don’t see any stars. And no matter how many times that last point is explained to them we still see the same Flerfers repeatedly commenting “but where are the stars!”
Flerfers explaining science are like a student giving a book report on a book they neglected to actually read...
I've just proved the earth is fake, I took a picture on my phone with a shutter speed of 1/1000 and it's as bright as the sun, and took another picture with a shutter speed of 1/6000 and it's pretty dark, all I can say is witchcraft 🤷
and 6000 is way bigger than 1000 - checkmate atheists, i mean globists
I love how you debunk these from every possible angle!
Why do they never think about the fact that if the USA would have fake the moon landing and they make any little mistake during the process and the video footage, the whole world would call them liar and cheater for decades. They couldn't afford that risk in my opinion.
Even today there are always little mistakes in movies. And we know how long it takes to produce a movie with all of the editing, vfx, sound and so on. Stanley Kubtick's movies are also not 100% perfect.
Now flerfs and moon landing deniers are searching for those mistakes but there's literally nothing.
Even 2001 has a lot of errors
@@nkuniverse7856
Some examples:
ua-cam.com/video/tNbeN_V_NNw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/RK3Jnl6Zyhk/v-deo.html
@@nkuniverse7856 Not so much errors as things that were simply impossible to conceal. Putting aside the limitations of compositing and such they had available, in some of the 0g scenes through the films, if you look it's obvious loose clothing is being pulled "down". For example, in the moon shuttle scenes, although the flight attendant is doing a decent job moving as if she's only being held to the floor by velcro, if you look at her clothing you can see it's clearly being pulled by gravity toward her feet, even in the scene where the camera rotates to make it look like she's walking "inverted".
@@keith6706also the astronauts in the moon scenes are walking around in earth's gravity.
You can apply the Inverse Square Law to conspiracy theorists. The further they get from facts, the dimmer they become.
Except their dimness is nonlinear because they can't do math.
You know, out of all the lunacy (intended) coming out of the flerf community, this one was actually one of the most reasonably misunderstandings I've seen so far. When you explained the core of the idea (around 1:20 ish is when you finish this explanation), I found myself going "You know, if someone explained that to me, in that way, I too would have questions."
Granted, I wouldn't jump to the insanity of "the moon landing was faked!" but instead realise I'm clearly missing a piece of knowledge or understanding of how light works. Which I'm sure you're going to provide for me as I continue watching.
Love your stuff, Dave. :)
well, how about this.
IN FACT, the moon does not produce its own light. it REFLECTS light from the sun.
ok, you say, but the moon is an IRREGULAR, THREE-dimensional object. so we need to understand that, in this regard, the moon functions as a COLLECTION of very many small mirrors.
next, we need to understand that, at the distances involved (yes, the ACTUAL NUMBERS matter), the sun functions as a PARALLEL BEAM of light.
based on those facts, we can start asking what happens to individual photons. pick some photon in the beam of light from the sun. it hits the moon, and then it does or does not find a reflecting surface, and that photon will or will not reach your eye. in either case, it makes no difference how far away from the moon-mirror you are. you will or will not see that photon at any distance. and then you apply it to all the photons in the original beam that reach your eye. this microscopic picture is summarized in macroscopic properties such as the albedo of the moon.
now think about a comparable situation that you can actually get your hands on: a searchlight. notice how the searchlight beam remains just as bright over a very long distance, and eventually dissipates? that's a very good analogy to the mostly parallel beam of sunlight that reflects off the moon.
if I got a dollar for every time a flerf misinterpreted basic physics, I still would not be able to pay for their tuition....
You mean their CT scans, basic spatial perception and intelligence assessments, and psychiatric treatment.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver
oh no, that is completely separate. I was talking about kindergarten....
yeah the main point is that the moon receives roughly the same 1000W/m² as the earth. so theres absolutely no reason for the moon to reach any kind of insane brightness and the flerfs just misunderstand the maths as always...
Sunlight on the Moon appears twice as bright compared to Earth's surface view because the Moon has no reflective and absorptive atmosphere.
Mind-boggling stuff. Surely the best argument for a photographer against the conspiracy theorists is that USA, Russia, Japan, South Korea and India have all taken photographs showing the Eagle from Apollo 11 on the Moon ?
I love when flatearthers try to use scientific laws to prove that scientific achievements haven't happened.
Last time I was this early, Dave was still posting photography tutorials.
If you search Ken Wheeler, you will find a guy who also started out in photography but is now a full on cult leader for the 'electric universe' and the finest purveyor of nonsense grandiose word salad. So it can go both ways 😆
@@k-mc94 Man, that whole Electric Universe thing is whacky.
3:03 is such a GIF-able moment. Plz somebody capture this.
I'll take stupid shit you didn't realise flat earthers believe for $10 thanks Alex
Wow posted 2 minutes ago, I can already tell this videos going to be so funny and educating.
If this is their argument then shouldn't the surface of earth be to bright to see anything, considering how bright it appears in the blackness of space? what a ridiculous group of people, hedging their bets that people don't know what the inverse square law is and just listen to them for sounding smart.
Thats flerfs snd anti-science conspiracy theorists in general. They see scientists getting all this attention using words they don't understand in contexts they don't understand so they use the same words and oops. Prove they don't actually understand the words or contexts lol
6:40 why is there no doggo there?
He was too far away for the light to reach him.
Dave, do you never get tired of these people who think they're smarter than all those who have studied and researched these things for their entire lives.? They come up with these wild theories and every time it just comes down to them not understanding what they're talking about which in their head means it's all "fake" and they spew out their crap with such conviction.
Yodeling from Dunning and Krueger mountain.
And if you look at the moon during the day (when you can see it), it looks quite dim. To the extent that (amazingly) some people will insist that the moon CAN'T be out during the day (as though it magically disappears if the sun is out).
It's like a lot of people neither observe much or think much at all.
OTOH, maybe when kids actually spent a lot of time outdoors, they would be far more likely to actually NOTICE the moon is out during daylight sometimes.
We landed on the moon That's all there is to it people
I am just taking my spot here untill people come to dissprove your claim
You did but not with Apollo but some other clandestine more advanced, able spacecraft.
Apollo was a big tin can and couldn't do it.
@@gregorygant4242 No, with Apollo. It was a state of the art spacecraft, and you lying about will never change that fact.
@@EBDavis111 No it wasn't you fool the US govt. wanted you to believe that of course they got to the moon but not with Apollo ,Apollo was just
a showcase for PR against the Soviets and to syphon off millions ,billions from the American tax payer .
The question is how did the Americans get to the moon ?
Only top tier above even the POTUS individuals and Wernher von Braun could answer you that but von Braun is dead now so that leaves ?
@@gregorygant4242 "No it wasn't you"
Yes, it was.
"Apollo was just
a showcase for PR against the Soviets"
The Soviets agree with me that Apollo was state of the art aircraft that went to the moon. They congratulated the U.S. for doing so. They tracked it the whole way.
"The question is how did the Americans get to the moon ?"
Apollo. Duh.
"Only top tier above even the POTUS individuals"
There are no such individuals.
"Wernher von Braun could answer you"
Werner von Braun was an engineer employed by NASA and had no actual power outside of his immediate department. Also: he agreed with me that Apollo was state-of-the-art spacecraft that took the astronauts to the moon.
Earth's Albedo is 0.39. "Albedo 0.39" is a music album by Vangelis. Just a coincidence?
Not at all, the Synth God Vangelis did actually make the earth.
The track is a bit out of date as it's albedo is now about 0.30; earth is capturing more of the sun's energy, and looking a little darker to aliens...
(I remember the track well [and 'Pulstar'] from a laser show I saw at the Royal Institution in the '70s, when lasers were a New Thing!).
An experiment for y’all to try. First, please know that an film ISO (I'm an old photographer so I like to say ASA) of 200 will give a proper exposure of a grey card in mid day at f:16 at 200th of a second. ISO 1000 would be f:16 at 1000th of a second an so on. Load up some film, take your best zoom lens and point it at a full moon. Use f:16 and match the shutter speed to your ISO. I won't spoil this for you but if the moon is in the same sunlight as the earth, the exposure will be really close. If the moon has a different light source then the exposure will be off. Let me know what you get.
So the color and reflectivity of the moon don't matter at all? All parts of a photographed scene in sunlight are always equally exposed, no matter the color or albedo?
@@JohnVJay The moon surface is about 12% reflective and a photographic grey card is about 18% reflective. At ISO and f:16 the grey card should be properly exposed. There are a few stipulations that I'm old enough to not remember exactly. Like an hour after sunrise and before sunset. Equatorial regions at either a full or half stop brighter around the solstice... if my old brain remembers correctly. You can do it with digital but those things want to help you so much that the results might be askew.
@@JohnVJay To answer your question... try it and tell us what you get. I don’t want to taint it.
@@mikelakner5622 I no longer have a film camera (or at least no film, and no zoom lens long enough. I'd have to use digital.)
But you're still confusing me by talking about "an hour after sunrise and before sunset" and "around the solstice". We are talking about photographing the moon, right? Photographing the moon during the daytime means you're also going to get all the light from atmospheric scattering of sunlight. And what does the solstice have to do with anything?
Also, the moon is not a uniform color. The maria are significantly darker than the highlands of the moon.
And you didn't answer my original question. When I photograph objects in sunlight here on the Earth, some areas of the photo can be overexposed while other areas are properly exposed, even though they are receiving the same sunlight.
And anyway, you said "if the moon has a different light source [than the sun]"...
exactly what other light source would there be (aside from Earthshine, which is just reflected sunlight)? The moon is clearly lit by the sun.
Could you just explain what your point is supposed to be?
@@JohnVJay Those stipulations were in the standards of the ASA/ISO design. I was trying (poorly) to describe that the grey card is calibrated to normal daylight conditions. Since the moon is 12% reflective and the grey card is similat at 18% reflective, the ISO should be a good judge of how much light is hitting the moon.
“The moon would be too bright to land on”
Dave, there is no way this isn’t a straw man. There is no way people are stupid enough to not realise the earth is basically just as close to the sun as the moon.
Dave isn't straw-manning, though. That is literally their argument. Dave is simply stating what they are actually stupid enough to believe.
Stick around in the comment section here for the next couple of days, and you will absolutely see he isn't straw manning.
I’ve seen this being used as a flerf argument. Perhaps not one of the more obvious points raised but it’s out there. So not the straw man it may seem.
"There is no way people are stupid enough...".
All together now, children: OH YES THEY ARE...
Please can you stop using facts to back up your arguments. The flat earthers don't like it
Great job as always. I always appreciate your deep dives on basic things flat earthers get wrong. On this one though, I assumed a graph of falloff might help drive the distance point home. From any given light source, if the first foot you move away drops the light by a quarter, then 1,000 lumens becomes 250. Big drop. But pretty quickly you’re going from .001 lumens to .00025 lumens, which is just not a change we can detect. Once you’re in the tail of a graph approaching zero but never getting there, even large movements produce almost no change.
This is something I never thought about and it is interesting. But instead of flerfs and conspiracy theorists learning about about this and seeing how interesting it all is they take a small peace of it and yell "it's a conspiracy!", just to make themselves feel smarter. The world they believe in is so much less interesting than the real world, that must make their lives so dull.
In fantasy world the globe model has southern hemisphere and Australia upside down at the bottom.
But in real life it doesn’t exist
@@Globeisahoaxx Down is towards the center of gravity which is the center of the earth so they are not upside down. 7-year-olds can understand this, why can't you? And as I said, the real world is more interesting than your fantasy world.
@@Globeisahoaxx
Grow up!
@@clwho4652 do you know what globe model is
@@Globeisahoaxx You, who does not understand the concept of up and down think you can enlighten me on this? The person who thinks people who accept reality thinks Australia is upside down.
That's not how it works. North is not up, the only reason maps are north oriented is the that is where the powers have been. If Australia, South Africa and Chile were the world powers out maps would be south oriented. In fact maps used to be east oriented because the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Real up and down are determined by gravity. The direction things fall is down, the opposite is up. Things fall toward the center of gravity, which on the oblate spheroid (not round, round is 2D) that is the Earth is the center of the Earth.