Message from @jeremy
Discord ID: 576039943533756417
inverse square law is idiot math ?
never heard of it 😤😤😤
yea
child math
are u saying its easy ok
i am a child
i havent ever learned abt that
smh
good its easy math so why wasnt the moon brighter
brighter when?
where
sigh
lmao
apollo mission
like in general+
oh
u jumped in here like a firecracker first off hello
What do you mean why wasnt it brighter?
oh hi btw
Wait lemme scroll up and read
or dimmer the farther u get away from the light
by a very specific amount
Can you post ur argument again
or point whatever sorry
on the apollo missions shouldnt the moon have been much brighter according to the inverse square law
i know it only applies when u can see the whole light in one frame but their was points where it should have been like what a billion lumens lol
i never did the math but it would have to be an insane amount brighter
ive got issues with the brightness of the moon at multiple points during the apollo mission but i think approaching is the biggest one cause their is a law that proves it should have been brighter
noone has anything to say to that ?
The moon was brighter, they were standing right on it
But what measurement of Q don't think is suspect?
im talking about the point before they landed or after they took off
Inverse square law does apply to a reflective surface when a light source reaches it, although the inverse square law usually refers to sources of light. But you have to take in the account of how much light is actually reflected. The moon actualy has a lower albedo than earth, at 0.12 compared to 0. 33 of the earth
@PsyClone You're verified please post an image in rejoice
Im not too sure but this is what i think is happening
well the earth in the picture didnt look too bright or as big as the moon for that matter
but their was points they showed the moon when they we reconnecting with the guy that looped around the moon or points when they were approaching the moon where the inverse square law could have applied
no ?