Only under remarkable precision, intermittent, inconsistent, for such a fractional amount of time (prism) that you can not confidently claim we had the sort of technological capabilities when created in 67 to 70
Considering physics in the context of what is being argued has a larger % of unknown variables, aym confident you are far too over confident, in your understanding of physics.
This is ignorant. A cubical retroreflector doesn't care about angle. It takes in ANY incoming beam and reflects it back to source.
Only under remarkable precision, intermittent, inconsistent, for such a fractional amount of time (prism) that you can not confidently claim we had the sort of technological capabilities when created in 67 to 70
Your comment is kind of ungrammatical, and you may not understand any physics. So I am not clear on what the fuck you're saying.
/face palm/
Considering physics in the context of what is being argued has a larger % of unknown variables, aym confident you are far too over confident, in your understanding of physics.
I'll be blunt: you're an idiot. Richard Feynman was my physics professor. I'll take you on any day of the week.