Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 422 423 [424] 425 426 ... 490  Next >
8461
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 04:24:00 AM »
Quote
The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

The fact of the matter is that the earth DOES NOT APPEAR FLAT to certain frequencies and systems used in radar. Some of the surface search radars are prime examples of range limiitations due to the curvature of the earth,

I think Tom Bishop should have a talk with a ham radio operator or a radar or microwave repeater technician about "skip" or "line of sight.". LOL.

This was already addressed.

Restating the same feeble argument does not make it a stronger objection. You can't even say what makes the mechanism absurd, you just declare it on its face. Deal with the actual mechanism or just admit that you can't and move on.

Deal with a unproven hypothesis? Isn't it your job to demonstrate that the hypothesis is true, if that is your position?

Can I just say that little invisible fairies did something and expect you to deal with that mechanism and rebut it?

It is clearly you who is making mumbling excuses to avoid the issue, not me. These absurd claims are not mine.

8462
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 03:50:38 AM »
Arguments from personal credulity are feeble. That's all you have. You cannot address the actual mechanisms so you resort to feeble arguments. End of story.

I cannot address the mechanisms because they are so absurd. An image bouncing off of the surface of the earth? Ridiculous. An image bouncing off of the atmosphere itself? Ridiculous. Multiple times in both directions, while staying intact? Outrageous.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

8463
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 03:45:13 AM »
Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false. That's not how this works. If you can't properly address the mechanisms that make over the horizon communication possible, maybe you should display some humility and go learn about them first. Arguments from personal credulity, like the one above are just not acceptable.

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line. This is a vastly more powerful explanation to the mental gymnastics the Round Earth scientists use to explain why a round earth looks flat.

8464
The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

8465
Under the bi-polar model the biggest forks are out in the middle of the ocean. However, the landmasses near the equator do see forks in the road.

Consider the following images. If the earth is a globe and the stars are light years away and very distant, how is it that the stars can be physically seen to move away from each other over the course of the night? They seem to come closer together then spread away. The stars in the upper left are rotating one way and the stars in the lower right are rotating the other. The stars are moving in relation to each other! This is impossible if the earth is a globe.

A rotating globe should not cause the stars to physically separate from each other in the sky, and these stars would need to be moving light years through space if they were to actually travel this route. It is a proof that the earth is not a globe.




8466
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 02:44:31 AM »
Incorrect? You were trying to enhance the likelihood of the Earth being flat by providing an example (read: generalizing) about amateur radio bands. It only takes one example to dismiss your claim, and that is what I gave you.

NB-UHF (70cm) is as line of sight as it gets. You rate the distance between a transmitter and a receiver to be about 500m because it takes nothing to disrupt the signal. However, if you send the transmitter upwards, there's no problem receiving over a distance of +40km. Besides, you cant just generalize AM frequencies like that. Low Frequency AM (300khz - 3MHz) have a wavelength range from 100-1000 meters. It's their "bouncing" properties, diffraction and their insensitive nature to be disrupted that allows receivers to decode a signal even with antennas below the horizon.

Some types of EM may be limited to line of sight because, like visible light, it is affected by the opacity of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is so thick to that range that it can't go through, it is limited in duration.

The fact that there is some types of EM that can travel much further than a Round Earth should allow, is evidence against the globular model. The only way to believe that the earth is a globe under such a scenerio is to assume that the EM from an Over the Horizon radar device is bouncing off of the atmosphere and the earth several times (we must assume that it can do this), hit an object beyond the earth's curvature, and then bounce again between the earth and the atmosphere (often several times) back to the radar to register an image of that distant object to the Over the Horizon Radar unit, all without significant scatter. Ridiculous.

8467
Ignoring some of the religious references at the end, the following video is a good overview of Airy's Failure experiment and how it suggests that the stars are moving, not the earth.



Airy's paper on his experiment:
http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/20/130-138/35.full.pdf+html

Specifications for the equipment he was using:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1873GOAMM..33C..17A/0000132.000.html

8468
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

Come on Tom.  Answer the question.

How is it that light intensity and "catching on the atmosphere" relevant in one of your provided proofs yet doesn't seem to be relevant in the other of your provided proofs, even though they both contain images of automobile headlights, which you contend are of high enough intensity to "catch on the atmosphere".

This is not a difficult question to answer.  You provided two supposed proofs for the same concept yet they prove nothing (individually or combined) and one is directly counter to what you are saying is fact.

It's relevant in all images. If the light source isn't bright enough, it can't catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. Different photographs at different angles or conditions may cause some light sources not to enlarge, such as when viewing the glow of a light house from its backside when it is shining its directed beam at the ocean.

A picture of a dim light which is not being magnified is not a counter-proof. In the image of magnified lights we see that the less intense light sources in the distance are not being magnified.

Quote
I thought this sight "worked on evidence" - so now being "mentioned on our Wiki page" is evidence?

Yes, the images in the Wiki are evidence. Some light sources, such as the headlights, are magnified, and some dimmer light sources, such as the light from the pavement and small objects in the distance, are not magnified.

Consider the following image from the Wiki:



 The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see. The headlights are bright, and therefore the magnification effect occurs. Other objects in this scene, are not as bright as the headlights, such as the tail lights of the cars moving away, and therefore naturally shrink. This is evidence that brighter light sources magnifiy and dimmer light sources do not.

Quote
Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail.

We are only seeing examples of light bulbs in the distance, and therefore they do not much detail to them. Perhaps if a very bright and powerful projector were put in the distance and pointed at the camera, with enough lumens to cause the effects demonstrated in this thread, the effect would occur.

8469
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 03:06:23 PM »
This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.

*ahem* I don't want to completely derail this thread, but this just isn't true. Here is one example of an observation that contradicts the flat earth "theory". There are many more examples if you are curious.

Examples of enlarged headlights were provided in that thread.

8470
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 12:55:52 PM »
Yes, kind of, but the carrier is not the photon. From a classical physics perspective, the radio waves are EM fields propagating through space. Once you get into quantum mechanics, it gets a bit murkier. To create a radio transmitter, the antenna needs to effectively vibrate thereby creating fluctuations in the EM field. This is what the carrier wave of an AM radio.
Like I said, this is the quantum mechanics description of EM radiation, but I didn't think that Flat Earth believers accepted any scientific discoveries since the dark ages.

Incorrect. All Electro-Magnetic radiation is photons.
I'm not debating that.

You stated in your original post that in low frequency radio waves:
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.
However, in order to understand the method of how these waves propagate, you have to understand that it is not the photon that is acting like the carrier wave. This is not the case for higher frequency waves however.

All EM is photonic. Please elaborate.

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

Different frequencies operate in different ways. Even ham radio operators know this. I rather doubt that you would find any flat earthers who are engaged in any field of communications- amateur or professional. LOL.

Different ways like bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground several times, hitting an object beyond the horizon and then miraculously bouncing back between the atmosphere and ground to the radar receiver to register an image without any significant scatter in this process?

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

These are not operating on line of sight. I would suggest you read about ground waves and how signals of various wavelength propagate.

I would also pose the question why anyone would bother using a technology that takes advantage of something unnecessary such as ultra low frequency waves. A radar on the modestly high mountain above sea level would cover all required ranges.

Ground waves? Ducting?

The simplest explanation is that the photons just went in a straight line.

Quote
Why bother debating the merits of such advanced physics when you can use literal line of sight communication -- a laser pointer -- to test your theory?

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent to all forms of EM, which is why distant mountains may be faded in the distance by atmosphere.

It doesn't have to be perfectly transparent, especially if you do it on a day with agreeable weather conditions.

There is a simple method to prove that atmosphere attenuation is not the limiting factor in visibility. Simply adjust the angle upward and point it at a tall landmass or building. This will increase the amount of atmosphere it is traveling through, proving that the laser is not being attenuated by atmosphere. The atmosphere is not massively different at a mere 100ft height difference, nor a few miles away. I'd suggest a nice large, flat, place like the salt flats in Bolivia for testing. It's the flattest place on Earth.

What you'll find is that someone sitting on the mountain top 10 miles away will be able to see your laser, but someone standing on the ground 5 miles away will not.

It's quite simple geometry and requires no real scientific knowledge. It's basic line of sight communication.


If it can travel 20km

Nice thought experiment. Feel free to put your imaginations to the test.

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.
That's great Tom. "Ham radio" - What? VHF? UHF? Again, you're talking out your a** acting like an expert in an area you have no expertise in.

I'm a licensed operator (B license). I don't know what's included in your licenses "over there" but at least here, they require you to know about electronics as well.

Anyway, that license gives me access to broadcast and receive @ 100 W. Though for all my balloon launches, I've used the UHF 70 cm band (~434.650 Mhz) @ 10 mW. It's pretty much as limited by line of sight as it gets.

I repeat, It's pretty much as limited by line of sight as it gets.


Incorrect. It is possible for HAM receivers to hear stations from hundreds or thousands of miles away on the AM band.

8471
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 03:35:04 AM »
true. There is too much evidence showing the world is round for there to be any other conclusion made.

There is too much evidence that the earth is round that certain frequencies, such as those in radar, microwave repeaters, etc. operate in a line of  site method.
The distance is limited to the distance to the horizon which is determined by the height of the antenna due to the  curvature of the earth.
This is a well known fact to anyone who has ever worked in those fields.
If the earth was flat, the range of  certain frequency radars and microwave repeater stations could be  designed to have an infinite range.
"There is too much evidence showing the world is round for there to be any other conclusion made."
Examples are a World War II US Navy SG-1b surface search radar and a  microwave repeater system that was used by the US Federal Aviation Administration.
Their ranges were line of site due to the  curvature of the earth.
This is really a moot point because the earth is round -  a globe.

It's not possible for many forms of light to propagate infinitely. Visible light is affected by the opacity of the atmosphere. This is evidenced by very distant objects being discolored and muddied.

8472
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 03:33:16 AM »
Yes, kind of, but the carrier is not the photon. From a classical physics perspective, the radio waves are EM fields propagating through space. Once you get into quantum mechanics, it gets a bit murkier. To create a radio transmitter, the antenna needs to effectively vibrate thereby creating fluctuations in the EM field. This is what the carrier wave of an AM radio.
Like I said, this is the quantum mechanics description of EM radiation, but I didn't think that Flat Earth believers accepted any scientific discoveries since the dark ages.

Incorrect. All Electro-Magnetic radiation is photons.

Quote
Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.
Where is the evidence that this is made up? The whole reason that these radars, like the JORN, exist is because the surface of the earth is curved.

It shouldn't be possible to "see" over the horizon if the earth is a globe. In order to explain what these radars do, new scientific theories had to be invented.

8473
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 03:28:32 AM »
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

These are not operating on line of sight. I would suggest you read about ground waves and how signals of various wavelength propagate.

I would also pose the question why anyone would bother using a technology that takes advantage of something unnecessary such as ultra low frequency waves. A radar on the modestly high mountain above sea level would cover all required ranges.

Ground waves? Ducting?

The simplest explanation is that the photons just went in a straight line.

Quote
Why bother debating the merits of such advanced physics when you can use literal line of sight communication -- a laser pointer -- to test your theory?

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent to all forms of EM, which is why distant mountains may be faded in the distance by atmosphere.

8474
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 02:56:08 AM »
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.
Are you sure about that? These types of radios do not use photons as their carrier!

All electro-magnetic radiation consists of photons.

Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!


8475
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 02:47:41 AM »
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

8476
The moon stays essentially the same size from the moon rising to setting, and I cannot see how that can be attributed to "glare"!

The moon is very bright, but somewhat dimmed after the light passes through the atmosphere. It's the second brightest object in the sky apart from the sun.

8477
fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

Wow where to begin?  If the lighthouse is not directing 1,000,000 candela's, that does not mean it is not emitting 1,000,000 candela's.  How many candela's is this lighthouse purported to be emitting?  How far away is the lighthouse being filmed from?  How does a lighthouse not emitting 1,000,000 candela's exclude it from being as powerful as a headlight which is approximately 4 orders of magnitude dimmer, on average, than the upper limit of lighthouse brightness?

You have no rebutted anything that I have put forth.

Light houses are directional. They have a lens in them. They don't shine in all areas at once. Looking at the light house from the side may produce a glow, but you won't feel the full brunt of the beam unless it shines directly at you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens


8478
1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.
Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?

Perspective


8479
fascinating.  How is this relevant?

How is it not? The video I provided is a clear counter-rebuttal to your dim lighthouse theory. The light house in your video is clearly not focusing 1,000,000 candles directly at the camera.

8480
It is possible that they don't design light houses to be all that bright or intense, because then at sea it would be more difficult to tell how far away it is from the coast if the glare magnification effect occurs. Also, they may not be designed to shine the bulk of their light backwards onto populated areas.

It is possible, but it is not reality:

Modern lighthouse beacons vary in power from about 10,000 candelas to about 1 million candelas, depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the visibility requirements of shipping traffic in the particular area.

This makes the low end of light house brightness at 50 times the average headlight high beam intensity and equal to a high output xenon headlamp.

If you were designing a very powerful light house, would you make it so that it shown at the sea or at the people's houses behind it?

How is this even relevant?

Lets see what the light house looks like from the open ocean. It is logical that a light house designer would try to avoid focusing the light directly on the people living behind it.

Here is a light house that seems to be shining directly at the camera:


Pages: < Back  1 ... 422 423 [424] 425 426 ... 490  Next >