The Earth from Space

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps Einstein's relativity is not false, it is a 'composite theory'?

Einstein's theory of relativity made some startling accurate predictions and is a guiding principle of physics.

Perhaps the lunar landings were not fakes, they were 'composite space travel'?

They happened. If they had been faked, the Russians would have found out.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Einstein's theory of relativity made some startling accurate predictions and is a guiding principle of physics.

They happened. If they had been faked, the Russians would have found out.

Well, you are not being particularly observant Shadowwolf.
You still cannot see how the image is a fake.

And I have observed many Russians with their tongues in their cheeks.

And relativity in physics makes as little sense as relativity in ethics.
Both deny objectivity which is the very essence of Science-Monotheism as opposed to opinion-polytheism.

There are no relative truths. Truth is always objective.

 

[Skwim]

You have such lazy eyes.
lazy minds.

tsk tsk

Let me give a few clues:

Perhaps piltdown man was not a fake it was a 'composite fossil'?

Perhaps Einstein's relativity is not false, it is a 'composite theory'?

Perhaps the lunar landings were not fakes, they were 'composite space travel'?

Yeah, pretty much as I figured; all bluster and no substance. But thanks, I think everyone here has got your number now.


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And relativity in physics makes as little sense as relativity in ethics.

If it makes little sense, then why were physicists stunned at the precision of Einstein's numbers when a chance to test his theory presented itself? If it makes so very little sense, then why does pretty much all of our "space age" technology operate under the assumption it is true?
What doesn't make any sense is when someone tries to criticize something or attack it yet they know very little of it themselves and they make it very obvious they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

"Composite" does not imply "faked." Someone's implication here appears to be that the image presented would not have been visible to a human orbiting the moon at that time and that place. As far as I can tell, it is an accurate representation, even if a composite.

Most color images from space--Hubble, the Mars probes, Cassini at Saturn, etc.--are composites, and often false-color at that. However, at the link provided, it explains how the image was created.

The images were taken on Oct. 12, as the moon approached "New Moon" phase ("Full Earth" from the moon). Thus, the visible side would have been in darkness, and the far side would have been illuminated. The illumination appears to be coming from behind and to the lower left of the orbiter, which is where the Sun would have been at that time and orientation..

The lunar orbiter is reported to have been about 85 miles above the surface, and part of the crater Compton is reportedly visible on the surface. Compton is located on the far side of the moon, but near the limb, and because of libration (a slight turning of the moon from side to side as it orbits), is sometimes visible from earth--so it is very close to the edge. Some of the mountains/crater rims are not illuminated by the sun, but are silhouetted by the earth, which is consistent with the reported position of the orbiter, the earth, and the moon.

So, I am curious about what is so evident that it is 'faked," and not a legitimate composite image?