The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: noonenoone on June 09, 2016, 02:38:12 AM

Title: Line of sight communication
Post by: noonenoone on June 09, 2016, 02:38:12 AM
So, if the Earth were flat, why is line of sight based communication across the surface of the Earth limited to such short distances? Why are the limits of such forms of communication in agreement with the geometry of a sphere?

We know the service distance of a radio transmitter increases more or less in proportion to the square root of it's height off the ground, so we know it's not merely a matter of signal attenuation through atmosphere or environment.

If the Earth were flat, a modestly powered transmission at even a modest height should be receivable much further than it is, especially in very flat geographic regions. It just so happens though that we are able to very accurately calculate transmittable distances and it is in agreement with the geometry of a curved surface.

Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Pyjamas on June 09, 2016, 02:39:54 AM
true. There is too much evidence showing the world is round for there to be any other conclusion made.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 09, 2016, 02:50:13 AM
When designing mobile (cellular) phone towers, we must to the curvature of the Earth into account in order for it to work.
If the curvature was ignored in the calculations, wireless data transmission from your phone would be near impossible.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 09, 2016, 02:51:12 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!
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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!

(http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: noonenoone on June 09, 2016, 03:11:44 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: noonenoone on June 09, 2016, 03:26:24 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!

(http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)

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

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?

A cheap 1mW laser pointer has been shown to have no problem traveling 20km through atmosphere. Buying a slightly higher powered one will go even further.

http://kotaku.com/one-mans-quest-to-prove-how-far-laser-pointers-reach-1464275649
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 09, 2016, 03:28:48 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 09, 2016, 03:33:34 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 09, 2016, 03:43:35 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.
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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 09, 2016, 03:47:25 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.

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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: noonenoone on June 09, 2016, 04:02:02 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.

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
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: andruszkow on June 09, 2016, 05:29:10 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.
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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: andruszkow on June 09, 2016, 01:20:48 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: noonenoone on June 09, 2016, 04:48:36 PM

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?


Why not just shield the signal along the x-axis while allowing it to propagate at a positive angle and confirm detection beyond the shielding? Very simple test.

This would confirm that it is in fact possible to bounce the signal off the atmosphere. This wouldn't even have to do with flat/round Earth, but simply show that you're incorrect about what is possible.

Your unwillingness to test these things is most likely rooted in not wanting to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 09, 2016, 05:32:11 PM
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.

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.

I have also worked in the fields of radio communication , radar and computer systems and  complexes. I also have held an amateur radio license for over 50 years and commercial radio licenses in my line of work in the military , civil service and private industry. For examples the characterists of each of the bands of frequencies is vastly different. For instance the amateur radio 75 meter band (3.5-4.0 MHZ)  and the 2 meter band (144-148  MHZ) are used for different purposes.
The examples I gave were simply facts of life that they were line of sight and limited by the curvature of the earth by the nature of their frequencies of operation.
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 11:46:54 PM
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !

Then Tom might find a real use for  :P Equidistant Azimuthal maps  :P! Instead of trying to pass them off as maps of the flat earth - with the North Pole Centred (Unipolar) and 0° E, 0° N centred (Bipolar)!
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 10, 2016, 12:37:11 AM
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !

Then Tom might find a real use for  :P Equidistant Azimuthal maps  :P! Instead of trying to pass them off as maps of the flat earth - with the North Pole Centred (Unipolar) and 0° E, 0° N centred (Bipolar)!

Tom could get an AEP  centered on his home QTH. Hams use these to tell them how to rotate their beam antennas for DX QSO's.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2016, 01:46:21 AM
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !

Then Tom might find a real use for  :P Equidistant Azimuthal maps  :P! Instead of trying to pass them off as maps of the flat earth - with the North Pole Centred (Unipolar) and 0° E, 0° N centred (Bipolar)!

Tom could get an AEP  centered on his home QTH. Hams use these to tell them how to rotate their beam antennas for DX QSO's.

:P Just think, if he had his base as the North Pole he use the standard "Ice Wall Map" to align his antenna!  :P
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on June 10, 2016, 05:52:52 AM
:P Just think, if he had his base as the North Pole he use the standard "Ice Wall Map" to align his antenna!  :P

Just FYI, Tom Bishop doesn't believe in the ice wall map:

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 (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents) with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

 :)
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2016, 06:46:59 AM
:P Just think, if he had his base as the North Pole he use the standard "Ice Wall Map" to align his antenna!  :P

Just FYI, Tom Bishop doesn't believe in the ice wall map:

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 (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents) with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

 :)
No problem, the "Bipolar Flat Earth Map" is also an Equidistant Azimuthal map but this time centred on the spot at 0° E, 0° N! Of course he would need a houseboat.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272_zpsfub8glzp.png)


Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: CableDawg on June 11, 2016, 04:02:06 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.

Why would there be a need for such a thing as Over the Horizon Radar when there is no real horizon in FET?

Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: CableDawg on June 11, 2016, 04:05:37 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!

(http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)

STOP THE INTERNET!

Tom Bishop has made a statement of actual fact!

"All electro-magnetic radiation consists of photons."

May this date be remembered in perpetuity.

Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2016, 03:36:05 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2016, 03:45:26 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 traveled in a straight line, and is a vastly more powerful explanation to the mental gymnastics the Round Earth scientists would have us believe.

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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2016, 03:53:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 12, 2016, 03:59:59 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 traveled in a straight line, and is a vastly more powerful explanation to the mental gymnastics the Round Earth scientists would have us believe.

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.

My knowledge of radiio theory is limited to the semi-professional technician/amateur radio operator level, so I'm no expert on the subject. But I do not recall photons ever being include in the wave lengths/frequencies used in radio communications. I do know that some frequencies have "skip" - some are "line of sight", etc. Photons may figure in laser theory. It seems Tom Bishop is claiming he knows more of theory than radilo scientists and engineers  ?  End of story.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2016, 04:01:32 AM
Radio signals are beams of photons.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 12, 2016, 04:16:00 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.

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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop 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.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2016, 04:36:45 AM
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.

https://youtu.be/Q6fWa6XtDw8
https://youtu.be/7ocyniiwhuI
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2016, 07:07:27 AM
I would appreciate a post relevant to the topic.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: CableDawg on June 12, 2016, 07:44:33 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.

Which is more absurd, over the horizon radar/communication or magical magnification because light (only of a certain intensity and angle though) "catches on the atmosphere"? 

In fact, why don't we expand on "light catching on the atmosphere and being magnified" and apply it directly to the conversation at hand.  If your magical magnification idea holds true, it only stands to reason that radio and radar frequencies can be bounced over the horizon, without loss of signal integrity simply because it is (as you pointed out yourself) all photons.

Before you try to argue too much about intensity keep in mind that the average headlight operates between 60 and 150 watts whereas radio/radar operates across a spectrum of 100 mW up to 50 kW (depending on use/purpose).  If a headlight operating somewhere between 60 and 150 watts is enough to "catch on the atmosphere" and be magnified, it follows that any radio/radar operating at or above this range would be subject to the same magnification.

In the short time I've been part of this site I've never seen you address anything, even your own ideas, in any way that lends credibility to anything you say let alone offers any type of proof for what you say is true or false.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rounder on June 12, 2016, 07:45:08 AM
The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

I am SO happy to hear you say this!  I look forward to reminding you of this post every time you try to tell us how the photons from the sun do not travel in a straight line, at sunset for example.

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.

You have clearly never worked with radar.  I have (Navy) and you are simply wrong.  You can pick up aircraft at much greater distance than ships on the surface, because ships at distance X are over the horizon while aircraft in the air at distance X are not (distance X being a function of the height of the radar dish).  And because, in your own words "photons simply travel in a straight line", they don't reach an over-the-horizon ship.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2016, 08:16:02 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.

Which is more absurd, over the horizon radar/communication or magical magnification because light (only of a certain intensity and angle though) "catches on the atmosphere"? 

In fact, why don't we expand on "light catching on the atmosphere and being magnified" and apply it directly to the conversation at hand.  If your magical magnification idea holds true, it only stands to reason that radio and radar frequencies can be bounced over the horizon, without loss of signal integrity simply because it is (as you pointed out yourself) all photons.

Before you try to argue too much about intensity keep in mind that the average headlight operates between 60 and 150 watts whereas radio/radar operates across a spectrum of 100 mW up to 50 kW (depending on use/purpose).  If a headlight operating somewhere between 60 and 150 watts is enough to "catch on the atmosphere" and be magnified, it follows that any radio/radar operating at or above this range would be subject to the same magnification.

In the short time I've been part of this site I've never seen you address anything, even your own ideas, in any way that lends credibility to anything you say let alone offers any type of proof for what you say is true or false.

My washing machine is about 500 Watts, should it magnify in the atmosphere too?  ???

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

I am SO happy to hear you say this!  I look forward to reminding you of this post every time you try to tell us how the photons from the sun do not travel in a straight line, at sunset for example.

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.

You have clearly never worked with radar.  I have (Navy) and you are simply wrong.  You can pick up aircraft at much greater distance than ships on the surface, because ships at distance X are over the horizon while aircraft in the air at distance X are not (distance X being a function of the height of the radar dish).  And because, in your own words "photons simply travel in a straight line", they don't reach an over-the-horizon ship.

The surface near the sea is a lot denser than the altitude airplanes may fly at. Of course some types of radar more susceptible to atmospheric opacity may see an airplane easier than a ship.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: andruszkow on June 12, 2016, 09:06:01 AM
That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2016, 02:29:46 PM
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.

Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2016, 02:45:16 PM
I would appreciate a post relevant to the topic.

the mechanism behind ducting/groundwaves/whatever is not an unproven hypothesis.  it is a proven hypothesis, hence the videos detailing some of the proofs.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 12, 2016, 03:56:28 PM
The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

I am SO happy to hear you say this!  I look forward to reminding you of this post every time you try to tell us how the photons from the sun do not travel in a straight line, at sunset for example.

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.

You have clearly never worked with radar.  I have (Navy) and you are simply wrong.  You can pick up aircraft at much greater distance than ships on the surface, because ships at distance X are over the horizon while aircraft in the air at distance X are not (distance X being a function of the height of the radar dish).  And because, in your own words "photons simply travel in a straight line", they don't reach an over-the-horizon ship.

I have worked in radar in both the USN and the US FAA . There are different radar systems for "Surface Search", such as the old SG-1b for land and ships on the ocean. There was another radar for "Air Search" , such as the old AN/SPS-6C for aircraft. The FAA used a long range version such as various versions of the ARSR systems.
It's really a bit more complex, but that is just the basics of what is used for different purposes.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 12, 2016, 10:45:51 PM
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.

As many others have replied, thanks for that assurance. I do believe we have been trying to argue that for a long time in relation to sunrises etc. I think we will both concede that the paths of photons can be deflected by refraction, diffraction, scattering and reflection.

The fact that "photons" (ie electromagnetic radiation) travel in straight lines limits the range of microwave propagation over the Globe, hence limiting the spacing that can be used between microwave relay towers.
Microwave links are still used in locations where fibre-optic links are not feasible. How is the tower spacing calculated? Using the curvature of the earth of course! Most links were commonly limited to 50 km or so depending on terrain. Much longer micro-wave links have been built, such as:
Quote
The longest microwave radio relay known up to date crosses the Red Sea with 360 km hop between Jebel Erba (2170m a.s.l., 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (2572m a.s.l., 21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia).
These long distances can only be achieved with very high antenna positions (on mountain tops - just look where 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, Sudan and 21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia are - on quite high mountains. Guess what, the "hump" due to curvature is 2,545 m, but refraction allows a bit more reliable range.

And just how do these engineers know that they not giving unnecessary clearance? Simple, if the "beam" gets too close to the water surface they get multipath reflections from the waves and hence unreliable performance.

You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!


Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2016, 04:56:19 PM
You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.

That coming from a guy who didn't know that HAM radio receivers could pick up signals hundreds or thousands of miles away?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 13, 2016, 04:59:37 PM
Well you don't know how Skywave works so...
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2016, 05:00:08 PM
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 13, 2016, 05:05:42 PM
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: garygreen on June 13, 2016, 05:17:23 PM
Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

https://youtu.be/Q6fWa6XtDw8
https://youtu.be/7ocyniiwhuI
http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/PF6.htm
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/duct.html
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 13, 2016, 06:11:21 PM
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?

The flat earth claiims seem to be "You round earthers claim that something that really works in a certain manner is due to the curvatutre of the earth and the earth is round, or globe shaped. My flat earth  claim is that because I am a flat earher I believe it doesn't work that way because I don't  know or will not admit that any thing about the fllat earth could be false.and that any thing about the round earth could be true."

Really the  feeble attemps by the flat earthers are the ones that are most often the absurd ones.. Bottom line : The idea that the earth is a flat disc is absurd in itself.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2016, 07:13:54 PM
You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Actually, skepticism is a negative claim.

The positive claim is the claim that photons can bounce off of the ionosphere and ground and the ionosphere and the ground several times, hit a target beyond the horizon, and ricochet back against the ground and sky back to the transmitter. This is your ridiculous positive claim to prove. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the existence of your magical fairies. I'm the skeptic here. You're the claimant. It is your responsibility to prove it.

You may as well ask me to disprove your theory on the spiritual existence of ghosts.

Quote
Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?

How far above the horizon is it aiming above? Even lasers will spread out (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Beam_Divergence).
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 13, 2016, 08:00:11 PM
You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Actually, skepticism is a negative claim.

You are not a skeptic, you are definitively saying this is impossible with not a shred of support for it other than your own incredulity.

Quote
The positive claim is the claim that photons can bounce off of the ionosphere and ground and the ionosphere and the ground several times, hit a target beyond the horizon, and ricochet back against the ground and sky back to the transmitter. This is your ridiculous positive claim to prove. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the existence of your magical fairies. I'm the skeptic here. You're the claimant. It is your responsibility to prove it.

It is proven by physical laws and daily practice. This has been brought to your attention countless times to which you respond, "absurd!" As if this dismisses the claim. If you dismiss a claim you must do so via valid counter example or falsification of the example presented. You refuse to do so and only continue to chew the scenery.

Quote
You may as well ask me to disprove your theory on the spiritual existence of ghosts.

If you choose to say that it is absurd and impossible then yes, I would ask you to substantiate this position.

Quote
Quote
Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?

How far above the horizon is it aiming above? Even lasers will spread out (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Beam_Divergence).

Yes we know lasers can spread out, but we also know that radio cannot "see" past a certain distance without being aimed in such a fashion as directly correlates with an oblate spheroid Earth. Combined with the many other disciplines that suggest or even directly observe the sphericity of the Earth it appears that your position requires rethinking or further study.

NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 13, 2016, 09:29:45 PM
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

There are no "magical fairies" in the real world (globe, round, etc.) . There are facts and evidence of such things as line--of-sight, skip and all forms of electro-magnetic science.Radio signals and laser beams can and have been bounced off the moon for approximate or accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon is just one example of facts and evidence of something that flat earthers deny. It can get a bit complex, too.

 No, there are no "magical fairies" in the real world, but there are plenty of "magical fairies" in the flat earth world....flat discs, universal accelerations, ice rings, et cetera, et cetera and so forth. If you don't take flat earth seriously it can get so absurd that it can get hilariously funny.....And at least some people have a lot of reasons to do so and do so.LOL.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2016, 02:51:44 AM
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2016, 02:52:24 AM
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

There are no "magical fairies" in the real world (globe, round, etc.) . There are facts and evidence of such things as line--of-sight, skip and all forms of electro-magnetic science.Radio signals and laser beams can and have been bounced off the moon for approximate or accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon is just one example of facts and evidence of something that flat earthers deny. It can get a bit complex, too.

 No, there are no "magical fairies" in the real world, but there are plenty of "magical fairies" in the flat earth world....flat discs, universal accelerations, ice rings, et cetera, et cetera and so forth. If you don't take flat earth seriously it can get so absurd that it can get hilariously funny.....And at least some people have a lot of reasons to do so and do so.LOL.

You have already embarrassed yourself quite enough in this thread with the EM-is-not-photons thing. I would suggest developing a sense of shame and refrain from posting in this thread ever again.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2016, 03:05:29 AM
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

i have twice now posted such evidence for your perusal.  that you pretend it doesn't exist speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: CableDawg on June 14, 2016, 03:28:35 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.

Which is more absurd, over the horizon radar/communication or magical magnification because light (only of a certain intensity and angle though) "catches on the atmosphere"? 

In fact, why don't we expand on "light catching on the atmosphere and being magnified" and apply it directly to the conversation at hand.  If your magical magnification idea holds true, it only stands to reason that radio and radar frequencies can be bounced over the horizon, without loss of signal integrity simply because it is (as you pointed out yourself) all photons.

Before you try to argue too much about intensity keep in mind that the average headlight operates between 60 and 150 watts whereas radio/radar operates across a spectrum of 100 mW up to 50 kW (depending on use/purpose).  If a headlight operating somewhere between 60 and 150 watts is enough to "catch on the atmosphere" and be magnified, it follows that any radio/radar operating at or above this range would be subject to the same magnification.

In the short time I've been part of this site I've never seen you address anything, even your own ideas, in any way that lends credibility to anything you say let alone offers any type of proof for what you say is true or false.

My washing machine is about 500 Watts, should it magnify in the atmosphere too?  ???

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

I am SO happy to hear you say this!  I look forward to reminding you of this post every time you try to tell us how the photons from the sun do not travel in a straight line, at sunset for example.

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.

You have clearly never worked with radar.  I have (Navy) and you are simply wrong.  You can pick up aircraft at much greater distance than ships on the surface, because ships at distance X are over the horizon while aircraft in the air at distance X are not (distance X being a function of the height of the radar dish).  And because, in your own words "photons simply travel in a straight line", they don't reach an over-the-horizon ship.

The surface near the sea is a lot denser than the altitude airplanes may fly at. Of course some types of radar more susceptible to atmospheric opacity may see an airplane easier than a ship.

How am I to know what should or shouldn't be affected by magical magnification?  That idea is yours and you seem to be able to bend the rules to best fit whatever proclamation you are trying to make.  It's kind of like your own little game of Calvinball wherein the only real rules are that the rules are made up as you go along and rules cannot be used twice.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 14, 2016, 03:39:01 AM
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

There are no "magical fairies" in the real world (globe, round, etc.) . There are facts and evidence of such things as line--of-sight, skip and all forms of electro-magnetic science.Radio signals and laser beams can and have been bounced off the moon for approximate or accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon is just one example of facts and evidence of something that flat earthers deny. It can get a bit complex, too.

 No, there are no "magical fairies" in the real world, but there are plenty of "magical fairies" in the flat earth world....flat discs, universal accelerations, ice rings, et cetera, et cetera and so forth. If you don't take flat earth seriously it can get so absurd that it can get hilariously funny.....And at least some people have a lot of reasons to do so and do so.LOL.

You have already embarrassed yourself quite enough in this thread with the EM-is-not-photons thing. I would suggest developing a sense of shame and refrain from posting in this thread ever again.
[/quote)

I have nothing to be embarassed about. I have just posted examples of facts and evidence of how things operate in the real world. If you want to deny them, that seems to be the method of most flat earthers . If it gives you any satisfacfion , so be it. I don't think I'm alone in thinking there are some persons who are an embarassment to the FES.

In case you are unaware of the shape of the earth, it is a sphere, a globe , etc. The earth once again is not some imaginary flst disc.

I think we should take a poll.
Which of these is worse ?
(1) jroa
(2) Tom Bishop
(3) The Three Stooges
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 14, 2016, 03:41:03 AM
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Your skepticism is so unreasonable in this case that it is absurd. You obviously did not read my post anyway, because I referred to a form of Skywave that depends on a near vertical angle of incidence to broadcast over obstructions at distances not achievable via Skywave.

So, unless you have a reasonable position, other than, "it's absurd", there is nothing more to be said. Your skepticism is founded on nothing more than personal incredulity, and ignores reams of pages devoted to the topic. You obviously have not investigated a jot in to it or you would know this. Your objection to the existence of Skywaves is feeble. Please come back when you have a position of substance. In the meantime read this (http://ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/publications/miscellaneous/afrl_publications/handbook_1985/Chptr10.pdf) or this (https://books.google.ca/books?id=qdWUKSj5PCcC&redir_esc=y) or contact them (http://giro.uml.edu). If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 14, 2016, 04:00:57 AM
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Your skepticism is so unreasonable in this case that it is absurd. You obviously did not read my post anyway, because I referred to a form of Skywave that depends on a near vertical angle of incidence to broadcast over obstructions at distances not achievable via Skywave.

So, unless you have a reasonable position, other than, "it's absurd", there is nothing more to be said. Your skepticism is founded on nothing more than personal incredulity, and ignores reams of pages devoted to the topic. You obviously have not investigated a jot in to it or you would know this. Your objection to the existence of Skywaves is feeble. Please come back when you have a position of substance. In the meantime read this (http://ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/publications/miscellaneous/afrl_publications/handbook_1985/Chptr10.pdf) or this (https://books.google.ca/books?id=qdWUKSj5PCcC&redir_esc=y) or contact them (http://giro.uml.edu). If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?
[/quote

There is plenty of evidence for real things in the real world. But where is there ANY evidence for ANYTHING in the flat earth world ?
Another good source of information is the American Radio Relay League.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 14, 2016, 04:52:47 AM
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
No Tom, the burden of proof clearly lies with you.
The 5th post in this topic:
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!
You claim that a body of science is "made up", yet you provide no proof that the science does not work, is made up or fails.
Clearly the optimum "Zetetic" approach would be to disprove this with some form of evidence, not just saying it is Ridiculous.

If I just said that
Quote
Flat Earth believers have to make up mysterious Shadow Objects to explain lunar eclipses, no matter how absurd.
Consider the height of the moon, the sun & moon somehow are suspended above a flat-disc-earth without crashing/falling back down again, yet everything else falls back down. Ridiculous
You wouldn't let me get away with that without providing demanding some form of proof?
Would you?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 14, 2016, 11:45:54 AM
You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.


And you know better than all the engineers who design these microwave links! They design using the globe figures, and it works!

Do you realise how patently ridiculous it is to claim that "some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others" is the answer to some links being limited to 50 km and others can traverse 360 km?

And, if the "some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others" applies to light, just how is it possible that we can predict in advance sunrise and sunset times years in advance to good accuracy?

Do you know something, I simply refuse to believe the amazing co-incidences you present us with all the time:
All this because "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat".
You know what, I'll stick with a rotating Globe Earth where everything ties in together, with having to resort to all these co-incidences!







Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2016, 06:16:40 PM
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

i have twice now posted such evidence for your perusal.  that you pretend it doesn't exist speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

Math != proof

Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Your skepticism is so unreasonable in this case that it is absurd. You obviously did not read my post anyway, because I referred to a form of Skywave that depends on a near vertical angle of incidence to broadcast over obstructions at distances not achievable via Skywave.

So, unless you have a reasonable position, other than, "it's absurd", there is nothing more to be said. Your skepticism is founded on nothing more than personal incredulity, and ignores reams of pages devoted to the topic. You obviously have not investigated a jot in to it or you would know this. Your objection to the existence of Skywaves is feeble. Please come back when you have a position of substance. In the meantime read this (http://ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/publications/miscellaneous/afrl_publications/handbook_1985/Chptr10.pdf) or this (https://books.google.ca/books?id=qdWUKSj5PCcC&redir_esc=y) or contact them (http://giro.uml.edu). If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?

I see some links containing some refraction math. A lot of people can write some math for hypothetical phenomena. Where is the proof that the phenomenon is actually occurring?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2016, 06:19:33 PM
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
No Tom, the burden of proof clearly lies with you.
The 5th post in this topic:
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!
You claim that a body of science is "made up", yet you provide no proof that the science does not work, is made up or fails.
Clearly the optimum "Zetetic" approach would be to disprove this with some form of evidence, not just saying it is Ridiculous.

If I just said that
Quote
Flat Earth believers have to make up mysterious Shadow Objects to explain lunar eclipses, no matter how absurd.
Consider the height of the moon, the sun & moon somehow are suspended above a flat-disc-earth without crashing/falling back down again, yet everything else falls back down. Ridiculous
You wouldn't let me get away with that without providing demanding some form of proof?
Would you?

The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Quote
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of  the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition.  These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

Burden of Proof

From  X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy.  If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..

 Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course  leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course  ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course  X  exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 14, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
I see some links containing some refraction math.

No you don't.  You didn't even examine them!  Pathetic.

Quote
A lot of people can write some math for hypothetical phenomena.

Please provide evidence for this positive claim.

Quote
Where is the proof that the phenomenon is actually occurring?

With HAM radio operators around the world.  With the people at GIRO.  With physicists who study plasma physics.  All over the place really.  This is not magic fairies, this is something that is happening everyday!  Try investigating!  Start with this phenomenom, which I mentioned earlier and you ignored:


NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"

This is a real thing that happens, it is described by the math I linked you to, is goverenwhich is derived from Maxwell's equations.  Now what is the problem?  How is this hypothetical if people in the real world are doing this, it has been meticulously modeled and replicated thousands of times all based on a rock solid set of physical laws?  How is that in any context "absurd"?  What is your basis for calling this "absurd" other than your refusing to believe it?

Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2016, 09:07:36 PM
Math != proof

if proof of the soundness and validity of the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves, as they relate to ducting, are not persuasive to you, then ok i guess. 

what would you consider valid proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 14, 2016, 11:52:28 PM
The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic
Thank you Tom!
You claim that the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves are false; since you are the claimant, prove it!
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2016, 12:42:16 AM
The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic
Thank you Tom!
You claim that the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves are false; since you are the claimant, prove it!

Skepticism is a negative claim, and has no burden of proof. Claiming that photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground to reach a far off destination and then back again is a positive claim, which requires proof.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2016, 12:46:11 AM
With HAM radio operators around the world.  With the people at GIRO.  With physicists who study plasma physics.  All over the place really.  This is not magic fairies, this is something that is happening everyday!  Try investigating!  Start with this phenomenom, which I mentioned earlier and you ignored:


NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"

This is a real thing that happens, it is described by the math I linked you to, is goverenwhich is derived from Maxwell's equations.  Now what is the problem?  How is this hypothetical if people in the real world are doing this, it has been meticulously modeled and replicated thousands of times all based on a rock solid set of physical laws?  How is that in any context "absurd"?  What is your basis for calling this "absurd" other than your refusing to believe it?

I don't see any evidence here, just a lot of hand waving.

Math != proof

if proof of the soundness and validity of the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves, as they relate to ducting, are not persuasive to you, then ok i guess. 

what would you consider valid proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

It takes more than someone writing some equations on a white board for how it might happen to prove that photons are bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground.

Try harder.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 15, 2016, 12:53:47 AM
With HAM radio operators around the world.  With the people at GIRO.  With physicists who study plasma physics.  All over the place really.  This is not magic fairies, this is something that is happening everyday!  Try investigating!  Start with this phenomenom, which I mentioned earlier and you ignored:


NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"

This is a real thing that happens, it is described by the math I linked you to, is goverenwhich is derived from Maxwell's equations.  Now what is the problem?  How is this hypothetical if people in the real world are doing this, it has been meticulously modeled and replicated thousands of times all based on a rock solid set of physical laws?  How is that in any context "absurd"?  What is your basis for calling this "absurd" other than your refusing to believe it?

I don't see any evidence here, just a lot of hand waving.

Math != proof

if proof of the soundness and validity of the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves, as they relate to ducting, are not persuasive to you, then ok i guess. 

what would you consider valid proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

It takes more than someone writing some equations on a white board for how it might happen to prove that photons are bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground.

Try harder.
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf (http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf)
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2016, 12:58:36 AM
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf (http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf)

From the abstract:

Quote
Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: garygreen on June 15, 2016, 01:02:28 AM
It takes more than someone writing some equations on a white board for how it might happen to prove that photons are bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground.

Try harder.

you seem happy enough to use mathematics to support your own positions.  i don't get it's good enough for you but not for me.

that said, you're correct that mathematics alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that the physical process described by those mathematics are real.  that's fair.  that leads me to my question, which is 100% genuine: what would you count as valid evidence/proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?  be as general or as specific as you like.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 15, 2016, 01:11:04 AM
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf (http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf)

From the abstract:

Quote
Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.

It looks like they are observing radio waves bouncing off the atmosphere, so it is in fact demonstrating that skywave is a real phenomenon. 

So they are modifying the theory, so what?  To what degree was it inaccurate before?  At what level of accuracy do you consider a theory to be strong?  How does its level of accuracy compare with the predictions made by your own theory?  Which one is stronger?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 15, 2016, 01:16:37 AM
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf (http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf)

From the abstract:

Quote
Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.
And that's how the Scientific approach differs from your Zetetic approach.

Science is all about
a) Devising a theory
b) Making an observation
c) revising the theory
d) repeating the observation, etc.

Your Zetetic approach seems to consist of
a) Making a wild claim
b) Inventing some abstract concept that could support it
c) Ignoring all scientific evidence that disproves it
d) Calling everyone that disagrees heathens/satanists
e) Demand that everyone provide proof of the science that rejects the original Zetetic idea
f) Rejecting all proofs provided
g) Refusing to provide any proof or said Zetetic idea on the basis that it is not up to you to provide any proof
h) Using circular logic to state that the concept invented in b) proves that a) must be true
i) Ignoring all scientific evidence that disproves b)
j) iterate for all eternity...


Did you even bother to read the paper?
Quote
...Measurements from a high resolution SODAR are used to show the complex structure and characteristics of elevated ducts...
Their observation proves the existence of elevated ducts.
Next step, revise the theory, then rinse and repeat...
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2016, 01:37:44 AM
It takes more than someone writing some equations on a white board for how it might happen to prove that photons are bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground.

Try harder.

you seem happy enough to use mathematics to support your own positions.  i don't get it's good enough for you but not for me.

that said, you're correct that mathematics alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that the physical process described by those mathematics are real.  that's fair.  that leads me to my question, which is 100% genuine: what would you count as valid evidence/proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?  be as general or as specific as you like.

I've never used an equation alone as evidence for anything in the physical world. That's just stupid and childish. My standard for you is that your evidence must not be stupid and childish.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: garygreen on June 15, 2016, 02:08:49 AM
I've never used an equation alone as evidence for anything in the physical world. That's just stupid and childish.

on this page (http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm) of earth not a globe, a page i have seen you reference many times, robotham asserts that "IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile...Any work on geometry or geodesy will furnish proofs of this declination."

in other words, your belief in the convexity of water is both quantitatively and qualitatively based on geometry and its associated mathematics.

if it is not, then on what do you base this belief about the physical world?

My standard for you is that your evidence must not be stupid and childish.

haha good one.  my question was very sincere, though.  i get that you're saying that mathematics alone will not persuade you that the mechanism described is real.  that's fair.  so my question is: what would you count as valid evidence/proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

it's not a trick question.  you say that you've seen no evidence that ducting is a plausible explanation for these radio phenomena.  since you find the evidence presented thus far unsatisfactory, then it would be helpful to know what kind of evidence you might find persuasive, or what to you would count as good evidence.

it's not a one-way street, either.  you could ask me a similar question about this subject, or any other, and it would be a fair question. 
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 15, 2016, 04:26:29 AM
It takes more than someone writing some equations on a white board for how it might happen to prove that photons are bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground.

Try harder.

you seem happy enough to use mathematics to support your own positions.  i don't get it's good enough for you but not for me.

that said, you're correct that mathematics alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that the physical process described by those mathematics are real.  that's fair.  that leads me to my question, which is 100% genuine: what would you count as valid evidence/proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?  be as general or as specific as you like.

I've never used an equation alone as evidence for anything in the physical world. That's just stupid and childish. My standard for you is that your evidence must not be stupid and childish.

Do you include the method or the equation used for estimating the distance to the horizon due to the curvature of the earth in your statement ?
It has been used for years in planning the spacing of microwave relay statiions, the range of certain radars and the navy uses it in their training manuals for lookouts.
Are you saying this is stupid and childish ?  Yes ? or No ?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rounder on June 16, 2016, 12:56:28 PM
i get that you're saying that mathematics alone will not persuade you that the mechanism described is real.  that's fair.  so my question is: what would you count as valid evidence/proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

it's not a trick question.  you say that you've seen no evidence that ducting is a plausible explanation for these radio phenomena.  since you find the evidence presented thus far unsatisfactory, then it would be helpful to know what kind of evidence you might find persuasive, or what to you would count as good evidence.

Good question.  I think many of us would like to know what evidence might be accepted.  In fact, several of us have asked this very question in one form or another on other specific topics, and gotten nowhere.  I think it is an effect of how the Zetetic way of thinking differs from the scientific method.  To do proper work under the scientific method requires one to think about 'result X will support my hypothesis, result Y will prove it wrong, result Z will be inconclusive' while Zetetic method intentionally and explicitly rejects the idea of forming a hypothesis and then testing it.


it's not a one-way street, either.  you could ask me a similar question about this subject, or any other, and it would be a fair question.

This is good too, and we round earthers have often answered this without being asked in the spirit of "Here is what I would need to come to the FE side, now it's your turn."  Another null result.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: İntikam on June 17, 2016, 08:14:45 AM
There are some users here that answering instead of people altought when writers waiting from an answer somebody else.

I'm thinking they as some viruses. I don't know why the management feeding them but we don't need to listen these anthropophagi whose interfere everything is related or not associated with him.

I'm strongly recommended to ignore them whose answering instead of anybody else. And it is interesting somebody who find on writers some pathological problems just caused by believing some theories does not pay attention about this pathology.


Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Unsure101 on June 17, 2016, 09:33:38 AM
There are some users here that answering instead of people altought when writers waiting from an answer somebody else.

I'm thinking they as some viruses. I don't know why the management feeding them but we don't need to listen these anthropophagi whose interfere everything is related or not associated with him.

I'm strongly recommended to ignore them whose answering instead of anybody else. And it is interesting somebody who find on writers some pathological problems just caused by believing some theories does not pay attention about this pathology.
Hi Inti, you do realise that this is a public forum don't you?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 17, 2016, 12:11:56 PM


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)"

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???

Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 17, 2016, 03:06:21 PM


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)"

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???

Venuses problem is, she hasn't commented on a conversation that Inti' was having with someone else, thereby triggering the "don't butt in on my discussion" clause that he as arbitrarily introduced to filter out all you barbarians.

As I am not yet deemed to have transgressed, I would imagine your request for your message to be seen is now fulfilled, as to whether I will have activated a retribution for circumvention remains to be seen.   
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 17, 2016, 11:10:22 PM


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)"

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???

Venuses problem is, she hasn't commented on a conversation that Inti' was having with someone else, thereby triggering the "don't butt in on my discussion" clause that he as arbitrarily introduced to filter out all you barbarians.

As I am not yet deemed to have transgressed, I would imagine your request for your message to be seen is now fulfilled, as to whether I will have activated a retribution for circumvention remains to be seen.
Thanks. I hope I'm not getting too personal, but I suspect that Venus's gender might be the same as your own.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Venus on June 18, 2016, 10:07:50 AM


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???

Venuses problem is, she hasn't commented on a conversation that Inti' was having with someone else, thereby triggering the "don't butt in on my discussion" clause that he as arbitrarily introduced to filter out all you barbarians.

As I am not yet deemed to have transgressed, I would imagine your request for your message to be seen is now fulfilled, as to whether I will have activated a retribution for circumvention remains to be seen.
Thanks. I hope I'm not getting too personal, but I suspect that Venus's gender might be the same as your own.

Why are my ears burning??

I just see Intikam's ignoring people as a total refusal to let anyone's else's views, observations or proofs for a Round Earth perhaps change his mind ... some people have an incredibly hard time admitting they are wrong ... that's why flat earthers cannot be considered as Scientists, because scientists are always prepared to look at new evidence and either change or modify their theories according to that evidence... In fact that is the whole BASIS or Science ... that's why we can presume that there would not be one person with a science degree among the whole bunch of them.

Rab, I was sort of enjoying being undercover ... now you've blown my disguise  8)
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 18, 2016, 12:32:52 PM

Why are my ears burning??

Rab, I was sort of enjoying being undercover ... now you've blown my disguise  8)

"Why are my ears burning??" That's easy! It's because we've been talking about you behind your back! Just tryng hard to get you a promotion!
Sorry about the "undercover" bit - I didn't know there was a secret!
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: andruszkow on June 18, 2016, 01:38:15 PM
You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.

That coming from a guy who didn't know that HAM radio receivers could pick up signals hundreds or thousands of miles away?
I never said that, did I? I gave you an example of a wavelength used by HAM operators that is dependent of line of sight.

Keep digging though.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: geckothegeek on June 18, 2016, 03:14:36 PM
You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.

That coming from a guy who didn't know that HAM radio receivers could pick up signals hundreds or thousands of miles away?
I never said that, did I? I gave you an example of a wavelength used by HAM operators that is dependent of line of sight.

Keep digging though.

There have been several examples of equipment and systems that are dependent on line of sight. I listed a radar system and a microwave relay system that are dependent on line of sight. It's just a fact of life in the real world because the fact of life that the earth is a globe in the real world.



Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2016, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2016, 04:36:17 PM
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf (http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf)

From the abstract:

Quote
Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.

It looks like they are observing radio waves bouncing off the atmosphere, so it is in fact demonstrating that skywave is a real phenomenon. 

So they are modifying the theory, so what?  To what degree was it inaccurate before?  At what level of accuracy do you consider a theory to be strong?  How does its level of accuracy compare with the predictions made by your own theory?  Which one is stronger?

If they have to modify the theory to match the observations it means that the theory didn't really work. A good theory can predict things, and matches reality. It's quite a blow to the narrative that we have this strong and verified theory of sky waves that has been around for many years.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 18, 2016, 07:12:48 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 18, 2016, 07:14:08 PM
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf (http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf)

From the abstract:

Quote
Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.

It looks like they are observing radio waves bouncing off the atmosphere, so it is in fact demonstrating that skywave is a real phenomenon. 

So they are modifying the theory, so what?  To what degree was it inaccurate before?  At what level of accuracy do you consider a theory to be strong?  How does its level of accuracy compare with the predictions made by your own theory?  Which one is stronger?

If they have to modify the theory to match the observations it means that the theory didn't really work. A good theory can predict things, and matches reality. It's quite a blow to the narrative that we have this strong and verified theory of sky waves that has been around for many years.

So unless you get it right the first time, it can never be correct?  I hope you understand how preposterous that is.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 18, 2016, 10:19:59 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.
You really DO believe in magical coincidences don't you?
And if goes on and on, magical coincidences pile magical on coincidences, just to explain observations that fit together perfectly with a rotating Globe!

Quote from: William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347)
Occam's Razor
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" and
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora". or "In vain, takes place over the course of what can be done by a few" (Maybe your Latin is better than Google's"!)
The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I think that we need some new "Razor" stating "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the least magic should be selected." Mind you even old Ockham wasn't far off!

Tom, I know you love your magic and will never change, but just possibly I might encourage others to think for themselves, and not blindly sallow the "authority of the SacredTexts.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2016, 11:53:39 PM
Other than childish rants and assumptions, do you have any proof that its exactly the right amount?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2016, 11:56:39 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 20, 2016, 12:08:28 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.

Is this a haiku or something?  We are talking about transparency to various radio transmission frequencies. Please get back to us will relevant evidence.

Inb4light=radio
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2016, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.

Is this a haiku or something?  We are talking about transparency to various radio transmission frequencies. Please get back to us will relevant evidence.

Inb4light=radio

Its a proof of the statement that some ranges of photons are affected by atmospheric opacity.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 20, 2016, 02:40:19 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.

Is this a haiku or something?  We are talking about transparency to various radio transmission frequencies. Please get back to us will relevant evidence.

Inb4light=radio

Its a proof of the statement that some ranges of photons are affected by atmospheric opacity.
Oh come on! You are claiming that some microwave links are limited to around 50 km distance and others can cover 360 km due to the differences in "atmospheric opacity" to essentially the same frequency ranges.
Please tell me how the design engineers manage to design these links on the basis of the globe radius.
They even get the expected wave interference (multipath transmission) if the main lobe of the beam gets too close to the ocean waves!

This is getting just too fanciful and removed from the real world!
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2016, 02:46:49 AM
Where is your evidence that it exactly matches the globe radius?
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: Rama Set on June 20, 2016, 04:21:16 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.

Is this a haiku or something?  We are talking about transparency to various radio transmission frequencies. Please get back to us will relevant evidence.

Inb4light=radio

Its a proof of the statement that some ranges of photons are affected by atmospheric opacity.

It does nothing for your claim though.  Your claim is very specific, and so your evidence, in order to be relevant, has to be specific to the radio frequencies we are discussing.  It is well know that different frequencies of light interact differently and your anecdote, not even evidence, is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Line of sight communication
Post by: rabinoz on June 20, 2016, 04:25:28 AM
Where is your evidence that it exactly matches the globe radius?
I did not say "exactly matches the globe radius" and in fact it probably does not "exactly match the globe radius"! Whatever you say or fuss about quite variable refraction is a fact of life in microwave link design, celestial navigation, surveying and astronomical observations near the horizon.

You could take a look at Basic Principles for understanding atmospheric refraction phenomena (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/principles.html).
Quote
atmospheric refraction
Introduction
Green flashes, mirages, astronomical refraction, dip of the horizon: these are all related phenomena. But there are some basic ideas that are helpful in understanding all of them. The purpose of this page is to point these out. (A more technical page is also available.)
Overview
One principle is to realize how all these pieces fit together:
Astronomical refraction is all the atmospheric refraction between the observer and some point outside the atmosphere.
Green Flashes are caused by the dispersion of astronomical refraction.
Terrestrial refraction is just the part between the observer and some object inside the atmosphere.
Mirages are extreme examples of terrestrial refraction that sometimes occur for objects that are (usually) beyond the horizon.
Dip involves just the refraction between the observer and the apparent horizon (usually, the sea horizon).

Designers of these links commonly make a rough allowance for "typical" refraction by using an effective earth's radius of (4/3) x raduis, but the actual refraction very near the horizon if rarely near its "typical value".
 
I said that the do their designs of the basis of the globe radius, and basically the links work and they also find that if the beam width is too wide the main lobe will get too close the the waves (for a sea crossing) and cause multipath transmission problems.

I have, I believe, given copious references to these designs in the past and don't intend wasting my time with your nit-picking now!