🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 20, 4:28 pm, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:22 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:49 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Moon is as physically dark as coal?
>
> > > No - not in the least.
>
> > > Dark coals - like charcoal - is around 4% - about the same as fresh
> > > asphalt.  The moon's Lambert albedo is around 7.2% - but because
> > > nearly all objects on the lunar surface have the first few millimeters
> > > filled with pores - light enters and exits again, allowing much of the
> > > light coming from the sun, to be scattered at low angles.  So, if you
> > > look at the lunar surface not straight on, but at an angle relative to
> > > the incident light - you get over 11% of the light back when the
> > > appropriate tests are done.   .
>
> > > Photographing objects on the lunar surface would be as difficult as
> > > photographic objects in a conifer forest on Earth - they have the same
> > > average albedos.
>
> > > The moon is 3x birghter than asphalt - about as dark as weathered
> > > asphalt after its been in the sun a few years.
>
> > >http://www.historic101.com/Cuesta/Cuesta_South/Location_B.htm
>
> > > Which makes it about as bright as a meadow or sandy beach.
>
> > >http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htmhttp://en.wiki...
>
> > > Ice, snow, clouds - have very high reflectivities.
> > > Water, wet soil, forests, - have very low reflectivities.
>
> > > Sample albedos
> > > Surface Typical Albedo
>
> > > Fresh asphalt/charcoal 0.04
> > > Conifer forest (Summer) 0.08
> > > Worn asphalt 0.12
> > > Bare soil 0.17
> > > Green grass 0.25
> > > Desert sand 0.40
> > > New concrete 0.55
> > > Fresh snow 0.80–0.90
>
> > > Of course just as on Earth, different parts of a planet have different
> > > albedos,
>
> > > On the moon we have;
>
> > > Darkest areas:  8.6% - 2x brighter than charcoal
> > > Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%
> > > Plato's floor: 9.6%
> > > Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%
> > > Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%
> > > Nectaris: 11.4% - near the average for the moon
> > > Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1% - 3x brighter than charcoal
> > > Arzachel: 17% -4x brighter than charcoal
> > > Tycho ejecta: 20%  -5x brighter than charcoal
> > > Aristarchus: 20%
> > > Aristarchus interior: 22%
> > > Bright spot in Deslandres: 24% - brighter than green grass
> > > Proclus E wall: 28%
> > > Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30% - 6x brighter than charcoal
>
> > > So, while older textbooks using inappropriate measuring procedures can
> > > be found that quote 7% to 8% - these numbers are artificially low when
> > > one does a more modern measurement that takes into account phase angle
> > > - and arives at a proper value of 11%
>
> > > The albedo of planets, satellites and asteroids can be used to infer
> > > much about their properties.
>
> > > The study of albedos, their dependence on
> > >     wavelength,
> > >      lighting angle ("phase angle"), and
> > >      variation in time
> > > comprises a major part of the astronomical field of photometry.
>
> > > For small and far objects that cannot be resolved by telescopes, much
> > > of what we know comes from the study of their albedos. For example,
> > > the absolute albedo can indicate the surface ice content of outer
> > > solar system objects, the variation of albedo with phase angle gives
> > > information about regolith properties, while unusually high radar
> > > albedo is indicative of high metallic content in asteroids.
>
> > > The overall albedo of the Moon is around 11%, but it is strongly
> > > directional and non-Lambertian, displaying also a strong opposition
> > > effect. They are typical of the regolith surfaces of airless solar
> > > system bodies - and to observers on the surface, the brightness of
> > > that surface is rather high.
>
> > > For anyone who believes the moon is as dark as charcoal, please go out
> > > on a dark night of any full moon, and look at the moon in the sky.  It
> > > will appear white against the dark skies.
>
> > > For anyone who believes the moon is too dark to wash out stars -
> > > compare the number of stars you can see on a clear moonless night to
> > > the number of stars you can see on a night when there's a full moon.
>
> > > These are rather simple observations to make - its surprising that
> > > anyone who had troubled themselves to actually look at the sky would
> > > believe the bullshit Guthball has been repeating and repeating for
> > > years and years.
>
> > I gave you all five gold stars because you're an absolute idiot/moron
> > of the first order.
>
> >  - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think this response marks you out as the very thing you are calling
> me Brad.  I mean what about the difference between 4% and 11% can't
> you understand?  At the sea of tranquility, its more like 16% - 4x
> brighter than coal - and brighter even than a meadow or worn asphalt.
>
> Go out an actually LOOK at the moon on a dark night.  It appears white
> in the black sky.  Look at the number of stars you can see near it.
> Now imagine the number of stars you'd be able to see if you were
> located on that brilliant surface!   Sunlight, nearly twice as intense
> as on the surface of cloudy Earth is reflected with the same
> efficiency as a brightly lit meadow - with 2x the amount of sunlight
> at the surface!   While if you take care to let your eyes be dark
> adapted by shielding them from this surface, you might see a star or
> two - it is absolute rot to believe that cameras adjusted not to
> overexpose themselves on the lunar surface would be able to pick up
> anything other than nearby Earth reliably.
>
> Do the numbers dude.
>
> At sea level about 850 watts per square meter of direct sunlight
> illuminates the surface around you.   About 120 watts to 140 watts per
> square meter is reflected from a meadow or worn asphalt on a clear
> sunny day near sea level.  Water reflects far less,about 85 watts per
> square meter -  except at shallow angles - even so, you can get a
> sunburn from water relfection if you're not careful..
>
> On the moon 1,366 watts per square meter of direct sunlight
> illuminates the surface.  No air.  No clouds.  Between 200 and 300
> watts per square meter is reflected from the lunar surface - depending
> on what you're looking and the direction you are seeing it relative to
> the angle of sunlight.   This is twice a bright as a meadow - or an
> old parking lot - on a summer's day.   Even without the blue sky
> above, would a camera adjusted to take properly exposed pictures in
> this environment be capable of registering stars?   Obviously not!
>
> Sorry Spongebob - you just aren't thinking clearly on this subject - I
> hope this helps.

In other words, to the unfiltered Kodak eye (actually outfitted with a
polarized element that should have made the moon record on film as
though substantially darker than coal), the regular laws of physics
and of the best available peer replicated science that's outside of
your NASA still do not count.

Are you deathly afraid to look at those JAXA/Selene images, as well as
at countless others that oddly do not match up to anything of your
NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak moments?

Coal black is still coal black, no matters if it's situated on Earth,
Mars, Venus or that of our moon.  In other words, albedo is albedo, no
matters where the reflective surface is situated.

On the other hand, now I understand, that you're also a born-again
liar, as well as a Zionist/Nazi or simply another retired brown-nosed
spook/mole from DARPA.

 - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth