41

Flat Earth Community / Re: Interview

« on: September 22, 2016, 09:34:15 PM »

I would try contacting John Davis here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5562

42

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 22, 2016, 09:59:20 AM »

From what I have read on this website the problem is that most flat earthers tend to spout their own opinion of how things work which are often erroneous.
In this case, I think they generalize and do not realize that each piece of electronic equipment is designed for a different purpose and has its own frequency  and criteria of operation for that particular use. It is like tryimg to compare apples with oranges.

That is the problem I think Tom is having.  Different frequencies, antennas and other equipment are used for a reason.

Troposcatter is not a good method to use for something like broadcasting TV and GPS.  If it was that is what would be used.  It makes no sense to fake satellites since it is just extra cost and nobody would complain if "they" said it was cheaper to have a terrestrial based system.

Similar to GPS.  The only complaints and draw backs of LORAN was lack of world coverage and number of stations needed that had to be maintained.  GPS uses satellites because it provides better coverage and is more cost effective.

43

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Buying a home is a terrible investment

« on: September 21, 2016, 12:18:05 PM »

It is very simple.

You can rent and buy real estate for someone else and end up with nothing to show for it.  While the landlord got at the very least you to pay to increase part of the equity they have in the property.

There is a reason most millionaires got their wealth from owning real estate that they got someone else to pay for.

Buying a home is not the right choice for everyone, but if you are going to live in a certain town or city for more than 5 years buying is likely the best option.  Of course this depends on the market and economy.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 20, 2016, 12:44:26 AM »

As you turned the scene the height of the far end of the terminal arm dropped in height, due to perspective.

Indeed it did! Very perceptive! What's your point?

Just to give you a heads up, Tom does not think math works after a certain distance and Pi=4.

At least that is how I interpreted posts he has made.

45

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got 100% proof for globe or flat earth that cannot be debunked?

« on: September 19, 2016, 06:28:25 AM »

Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...

Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. 

I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..

This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...

If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.

A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.

When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air.

Hmmm, this reasoning and explanation seems to be just right for both globe and flat earth... and you argued that the plane self-adjust itself for its cruising constant speed... i think you should technically show how this happens... tnx

It would be the same on FE or RE. 

An experiment I can think of that is simple to do is moving you hand held at an angle through water and air.  There is lots of room for error, but it will demonstrate the difference in force.  Just do your best to hold your hand at the same angle and move it at the same speed. What you will notice if you are accurate enough is there will be a noticeable difference in the amount of force trying to either lift or push down your arm.  There should be more force while running your hand through the water. While your hand is in the water change the speed you move it.  The faster you move the more force you will feel trying to move your hand up or down. I guess the next time you go swimming or if you take a bath would be a good time.

The same thing happens with planes.  In the lower more dense atmosphere more lift is generated traveling at a certain speed than would be generated at higher altitudes.

As for basically self adjusting that is just what would happen.  Pilots or automatic pilots when they get to cruising altitude maintain level flight by measuring atmospheric pressure.  When the control surfaces and thrust are set for level flight it is for that air speed and altitude/air pressure.  So the plane will for the most part want to stay balanced and require very little to no corrections to its control surfaces and thrust. It will naturally want to stay at that air pressure which in the majority of cases results in the same altitude. Those corrections would not be noticeable.

One cause for a flight to experience turbulence is a plane flying through a change in air pressure.  The air pressure changes and the plane either wants to go up or down as a result.  This would likely be felt as just short up or down movements of the plane as the forces balance and not much of a change in the distance above the surface of the Earth.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 17, 2016, 09:13:24 PM »

Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth.  Not true when we go back in time.  It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape.  Astronomers also were very interested in the shape.  People in your claimed field also study the shape.  Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round.  Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.

They are only interested in the shape so much as "these slight variations in g must mean that the earth is not perfectly round". They are not interested in the earth's true shape.

If the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields.  Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.

They do go noticed. Only that it's explained away by an assortment of illusions. There have been times when the sun and moon have been above the surface of the earth during a lunar eclipse and it was called a refraction illusion.

If you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions.  This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now.  If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.

Actually, a lot of prediction models for things like the tides and the appearance and path of celestial bodies are created by looking at historical records of past events and predicting when the next one will occur.

I will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio.  If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones.  Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down. 

I was able to communicate with people on the other end of the world with my home phone under the assumption of a Flat Earth and the pseuodolite technologies involved. Where's my medal?

They are interested in the Earth's true shape.  If not maps would not be accurate.  It is why they learned a projection was needed to make maps.  They also needed to figure out why something that was almost perfectly vertical did not appear to be when viewed from a distance.

They do not go unnoticed do I need to link that paper again?  If it went unnoticed why did someone look into it?

You are ignoring how accurate the predictions are using models from different fields together all of which assume a round Earth. If the Earth was not round those errors would propagate and accurate predictions could not be made.

Look up how something like Kepler's laws where verified.  Simple observations and predictions being made.  The math works and matches observations.

Tides are not predicted on timelines and past events.  They change every day and predictions in my large amount of experience are very accurate and almost right to the exact minute.  I live on my boat and every day, month or year the tides do not rise and fall at the same time.

Are you seriously arguing since you can call someone across the globe that the HF radio I used used the same method?  It is likely similar or using land lines crossing the ocean.  Depending on your service you are using and how your call was routed.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 17, 2016, 09:01:05 PM »

Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round.  It does not work for a flat surface.

Actually, there is no math necessary:

https://sextantbook.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/how-celestial-navigation-works-in-easy-steps-1/

You may well think celestial navigation is a dark science that calls for a lot of complex mathematics.  In a way that’s perfectly true because it took the work of many brilliant mathematicians to perfect the techniques mariners use to fix their position on the open sea.

But to practice the art of celestial navigation today you really don’t need much mathematical skill.  In fact you only have to be able to add and subtract – and maybe not even that now that we all have access to computers.

To explain the basic principles of celestial navigation let’s start with a crucial concept – the ‘geographical position’ of a heavenly body.

At any given moment every heavenly body is vertically above a precisely defined spot on the surface of the Earth.  So if you imagine a straight line drawn from the centre of the Earth to a star, someone standing where that line passes through the surface of the Earth would see that star directly overhead – or in their zenith.  That person will then be standing at the star’s geographical position (GP).  Its GP can be defined by its latitude (degrees north or south of the equator) and its longitude (degrees east or west of the Greenwich meridian, a line joining the North and South Geographical Poles that happens to pass through the observatory at Greenwich).

Now if the Earth did not rotate about its axis all the stars (though not the sun, moon or planets) would appear to stand still in the sky.  That would of course also mean that their GPs were fixed.  So a very simple way of navigating would be to identify the star whose GP was closest to your goal and then sail (or walk, or fly – or whatever) until that particular star was overhead.

You may say that won’t work because the Earth actually does turn.  But wait.  There are two special places on the Earth’s surface that actually do remain stationary in relation to the sky immediately above them: the North and South Geographical Poles.  So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead.

There is math needed at night when determining position.  I have used celestial navigation on more than one occasion.  I can tell you to get anything beyond just determining latitude or direction of travel requires math that assumes a round Earth.

Read your link again.  You display a lack of reading comprehension regularly.  This is not the first time I have seen you link something that does not support what you claim.

"So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead."

Which means you can follow the North Star and be heading north.  No math involved, but you can not determine your position.

"The height of Polaris is in fact equivalent to the observer’s latitude."

Which means you can determine your latitude and that is it.  You can not get your position without using some math and observing at least one other or more stars.

The only time you can use celestial navigation without the math to get some place is when that place happens to line up with a certain latitude.  You can not determine your position along a line of latitude or longitude without those calculations assuming a round Earth.

Like wave propagation you are talking about something I have used and have experience with. 


Edit: Wanted to add look up the difference between fix and line of position.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 17, 2016, 06:51:41 PM »

Is that statement true?

Yes.

So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?

Geodetic surveyors tend to take measurements and assume that the earth is a globe. No one is questioning the shape of the earth anymore.

And if anyone does detect a Flat Earth over long distances, it's explained by an illusion like "Atmospheric Ducting," which is ridiculous explanation that em waves can bounce between the ground and the sky to reach far off locations they shouldn't.

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.

If you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth.  An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.

As I said, no one is studying whether the earth is round or flat. They are studying a Round Earth. If they happen to not see a Round Earth, they make up a phenomenon to explain it.

So I can assume you have a Master in Geology?

Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round.  It does not work for a flat surface.

Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth.  Not true when we go back in time.  It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape.  Astronomers also were very interested in the shape.  People in your claimed field also study the shape.  Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round.  Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.

If the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields.  Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.  If you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions.  This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now.  If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.

I will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio.  If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones.  Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down. 

Your post shows a very limited understanding of wave propagation.  I suggest you it if you are going to use it in the search for the true shape of the Earth.

49

Flat Earth Community / Re: Has anyone got 100% proof for globe or flat earth that cannot be debunked?

« on: September 17, 2016, 09:10:20 AM »

Here is a test anyone can do, anywhere in the world...

Enlist a trusted friend to do it with you...
Now, one of you must travel to a distant location, preferably somewhere 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the world. 

I suggest that any globe or flat earther has to show evidence that all pilots have protocols to constantly adjust their direction as they fly 1/3 to 1/2 distance around the world, otherwise, they will not follow the curvature of the earth, or they will run out of fuel in going straight line or level direction. Of course, the flat earther can show proof that the pilots are not at all required to adjust their directions constantly as there isn't a need because earth is flat. Well, show us proofs then..

This is the epitome of round earth logic, everyone...

If lift pulls up the plane hard enough that it keeps flying. But lift depends, among other things, on the density of air around the plane: the higher the planes fly, the weaker lift is. So, all in all, the plane flies in a layer of air at the same pressure, which in turn follows approximately the surface of the Earth.

A plane needs to be moving at different speeds to maintain enough lift at certain altitudes. So to maintain the same amount of lift it has at a lower altitudes it needs to move faster at higher altitudes.

When a plane is put into level flight at a constant speed it will tend to self adjust as it moves through the air. 

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 16, 2016, 08:33:08 PM »

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

If you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth.  An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 16, 2016, 07:11:48 PM »

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

 

I hold a Masters in Geology from Berkley.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12652.msg182796#msg182796

Is that statement true?

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 16, 2016, 10:19:59 AM »

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=139159&p=7086690#p7086690

You filly fool, who said the Illuminati would ever do that? They already have all the sheep in line. Completely induced into thinking our world is round.

They feed you lobster!

When have I said anything like that?

"Those billionaire space tourists were simply tricked into believing they were on a rocket flight to space. They flushed their money down the toilet and the Conspiracy took it gladly."

"If you blindly and dogmatically follow the opinions and beliefs of others, then you are the fool. Sorry to say."

"That guy didn't fork out 25 million dollars for a rocket flight into space. That guy paid 25 million dollars to be injected with a variety of psychotropic drugs, led through a maze and into a space simulator amusement ride. He was so 'spaced out' during the trip that his imaginations made the experience seem real."

Seems you were pushing the conspiracy angle more often back when you were posting on NationStates forum.  Those quotes are from the other flat Earth site from about the same time period.

"Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has been the only man in history who has conducted serious inquery into the shape of the earth."

You also post some rather stupid stuff, just like what is posted under your name on the Nation states forum.

If you think there is a big difference from what you post here and there I would review it again.  Even used the exact same wording on posts here, the other FE site and there.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 14, 2016, 12:18:54 PM »

Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him.  Probably a combination of all 3.

He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong.  Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS.  Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.

The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment.  Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.

Then there is more dishonesty here:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement.  Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.

I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.

The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site.  Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.

An obvious parody account.

http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?author_id=91975&sr=posts

How is it obvious?  The posts are about the Earth being flat and a conspiracy.

Decided to spend a couple of minutes searching for this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12552.msg179175#msg179175

I would prefer to keep these topics in their respective threads so that we do not repeat ourselves.

Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.

As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton.

This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.

The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. The Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull.

Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=102854

Awhile back, I approached this forum firmly beleiving I could convince the community that our dear Earth was indeed flat. I'm back.

Here is a basic explanation of how the Flat Earth works:

Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.

As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton. This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.

The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. Th e Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull. Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.

Now, The Flat Earth is walled up by an Ice Wall to keep the contents in. This wall is guarded by an organization formed by a majority of nations on our planet. The Ice Wall does not melt for it also contains rock. and one more thing. BENDY LIGHT, look it up before bothering.

Getting off topic, cocaine was founded at Kennedy space center. If NASA were a real space agency they would be hiring straight and narrow engineers and scientists instead of these lowlife cocaine addicts who sit around building fake space ships out of cardboard paper, scotch tape, and assorted junk yard parts.

So if it was not you it was someone copying and pasting your stuff from  here or other site. It could also be you are copying them.

You continue to prove you are dishonest.

54

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 11:28:47 AM »

Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

The portable transit antennas are about 3 feet in diameter. A little over in my experience.  They are not cosidered man portable over long distances like the satellite antenna I carried that was 1 foot in diameter.  Usually deployed by being transported in a vehicle then set up when the vehicle arrives at a location.  It also has a decreased range, max being about 150km in good conditions.  Sometimes a little further in ideal conditions.

I am telling you I work with communications systems rather frequently and received a lot training.  You are wrong in assuming that troposcatter is used to send things like satellite tv signals and GPS.  It is highly directional and can not be used for wide spread coverage.

This page is about hobbyist Troposcatter tech, and says that a 70 cm receiver is better for a greater range than a 2 meter receiver:

http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

Greater range on 70 cm than on 2 m

70 cm may have greater range than 2 m, because:

a.   lower noise level in the sky means you can take better advantage of a low-noise preamplifier in your 70 cm receiver

b.   greater path loss is compensated by a larger antenna gain, given the same physical dimensions of the antenna

c.   more frequent ducting because a smaller duct will do

Why do most amateurs then think that 70 cm has shorter range?

fewer other amateurs are active
greater antenna gain => smaller beam width
difficult to have the same transmitter power output
in the old days it was more difficult to make a low-noise preamplifier for 70 cm than for 2 m
greater cable loss
 

That is 2'4" and still could not send a signal from the Middle East to North Carolina like I could with sat-comm. Which used a dish about 1/2 that size. Not only was it 1/2 the size it was not solid but made of mesh material.  Which decrease the effectiveness at transmitting and receiving.  Even then it worked 100% of the time I used it.

It is still directional the size of the antenna is not going to change that and it still does not provide wide spread coverage like GPS or satellite TV.

You are missing one rather important thing.  The amount of data that needs to be transmitted effects the effective range.  The less data needed to transmit the further apart you can have the antennas.

In most applications the range is around 150km to 300km.  Depending on frequency, power, antenna size and environment.  If you have been researching you will notice that most modern set ups have less range than the earlier ones from the 1960's.  Partly due to the amount of data needed to transmit increased.  Methods and technology is starting to get to the point where that will likely not be the case.  More sensitive equipment and better data compression will start changing that.

I will point out again I have real world experience with the equipment and have successful and unsuccessfully sent data and transmissions using that equipment.  I have bounced HF radio waves across the globe from the Middle East to Germany and the US a couple of hundred times.  I have set up the equipment you posted pictures of and used it.  I have used satellite communication and had to set up antennas hundreds of times. 

Here is a relatively simple thing to do.  Go to a site that tells you the direction and elevation a satellite dish needs to be pointed to receive a signal from a satellite of your choosing.  Maybe even one that is in the time lapse photo I posted in this thread.  Then figure out the altitude and direction the signal source is.  This is one of the things I pointed out before.  You dismissed it becasue you said it would not prove the shape of the Earth.  Now since you are questioning the existence of satellites in this thread and you are seeking the truth I see no reason for you to dismiss it.

55

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 09:42:55 AM »

Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

The portable transit antennas are about 3 feet in diameter. A little over in my experience.  They are not cosidered man portable over long distances like the satellite antenna I carried that was 1 foot in diameter.  Usually deployed by being transported in a vehicle then set up when the vehicle arrives at a location.  It also has a decreased range, max being about 150km in good conditions.  Sometimes a little further in ideal conditions.

I am telling you I work with communications systems rather frequently and received a lot training.  You are wrong in assuming that troposcatter is used to send things like satellite tv signals and GPS.  It is highly directional and can not be used for wide spread coverage.

56

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 09:25:03 AM »

Did you notice the size difference between Thork's picture and yours?

Did you research the advancement of the technology and time line?

As technology and techniques improved/improves the size of the receiving dishes decreased/will decrease and data rates have/will increase.

Looking closer you should realize the antennas currently used for troposcatter are much larger so they can receive the signal than the antennas used for satellite TV. They used to need to be

Militaries are interested in troposcatter because of the narrow transmission beam.  It allows for more security because the signal can be directed and have a very narrow range where it can be intercepted.  Compare that to satellite transmissions which can be received over a very large area.

That would be a pretty dumb military application if any military operation which uses it has to be located in line with where the transmitter is pointing. How does that work? A lot of those military broadcasting antennas don't even look like they turn. And then in a combat situation how does it work when there are multiple teams spread across a large battle field trying to communicate with toposcatter tech?

I think it is more likely operates like a spotlight in the sky that anyone can see.

Look, I spent literally 2 minutes researching the matter and proved you wrong that Troposcatter tech worked only in a line like you described and is more like a spotlight in the sky that anyone can see:

http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-In-The-Modern-Military.pdf

In an attempt to free-up satellite bandwidth, ground forces increased the use of Line-Of-Sight
microwave equipment. While useful, the problem in many instances was that LOS required
multiple relays to maneuver around obstacles or to span distances greater than the limited range
of tactical LOS links. This in turn resulted in relays being installed in unsecured areas that
required force protection and had no supporting infrastructure, thus limiting the use of LOS as a
complete battlefield bandwidth solution.

As an alternative to LOS and satellite, the military deployed its aging fleet of AN/TRC-170
troposcatter systems to provide intra theater communications. These vehicle mounted systems
with trailer transported antennas were the main stays of tactical long haul communications from
the 1970s through the early 1990s. One of the largest deployed troposcatter networks was
established using the AN/TRC-170 during Operation Desert Storm, consisting of over 60 links.
The success of mobile troposcatter systems in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) substantiated the value of troposcatter communications on the
modern battlefield.

Do you notice the size difference? Do you notice the troposcatter antenna is actually two antennas since it increased the reliability?
As I pointed out we now live in a time where they reduced the sizes, increased data rate and reliability.  This did not happen when satellite transmissions where first used to send signals to people's homes.

Satellite dishes on people's homes also used to be a lot bigger. It looks like as Troposcatter antennas shrunk so did the dishes on people's homes.

Antennas used for troposcatter still need to be larger than the ones used for satellite transmissions since the signal is still weaker and atmospheric conditions have a greater influence on them.

Home satellite dish connections are also subject to atmospheric conditions. What are you trying to tell us?

Well having being in long range surveillance as the radio operator where I had to send transmissions with satellites and other radios across the globe I think differently and so does the military.  The most secure and hardest to detect was not the satellite radio I used.  It was a a radio using a directional antenna.  Proven in training when intelligence units where trying to detect and track my team.

It is harder to detect a signal sent only in one direction.  It does not work like a spot light in the sky, do more research.  It is a directional signal being sent.  I was in the military in intelligence units using this technology and trained how to use it.  If the antenna's direction and elevation is off by a rather small margin depending on weather no signal is received.

Here is the very important part.  The sat-com antenna I used fit in my rucksack.  The antenna for troposcatter was mounted on a truck. Again need a large antenna to increase reliability and because the signal strength is much weaker.

Troposcatter transmissions are effected more by atmospheric conditions than satellite signals.  Like how humid it is, where a satellite signal generally needs really bad weather and thick cloud cover to be effected.

I read your link where did it say I was wrong?  troposcatter communications is directional and harder to intercept.  It is one reason the military is interested in advancing the technology.

Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

So I literally spent less than a minute reading what you said prove me wrong.  It does not.

Keep in mind I used this equipment in real world conditions.  Troposcatter is not sending satellite signals are being used for GPS. With current technology we would need to go back to the 80's size satellite dishes.  Not only that satellite dishes would not all be pointing in the same direction across some place like North America.  We would also be seeing a lot more dishes around since the effective range of troposcatter transmissions is around 250km.  It can be around 300km depending on amount of data needed to be transmitted, atmospheric conditions and terrain. Older systems like the one from 1963 had further ranges, but as you see those antennas where rather large and not mobile.

57

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 06:33:53 AM »

Have a look at

Offset dish antenna Main types of parabolic antennas An off-axis or offset dish antenna is a type of parabolic antenna. It is so called because the antenna feed is offset to the side of the reflector, in contrast to the common front-fed parabolic antenna where the feed is in front of the dish, on its axis. As in a front-fed parabolic dish, the feed is located at the focal point of the reflector, but the reflector is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid, so the focus is located to the side. The purpose of this design is to move the feed antenna and its supports out of the path of the incoming radio waves. In an ordinary front-fed dish antenna, the feed structure and its supports are located in the path of the incoming beam of radio waves, partially obstructing them, casting a "shadow" on the dish, reducing the radio power received. In technical terms this reduces the aperture efficiency of the antenna, reducing its gain. In the offset design, the feed is positioned outside the area of the beam, usually below it on a boom sticking out from the bottom edge of the dish. The beam axis of the antenna, the axis of the incoming or outgoing radio waves, is skewed at an angle to the plane of the dish mouth. The design is most widely used for small parabolic antennas or "mini-dishes", such as common Ku band home satellite television dishes, where the feed structure is large enough in relation to the dish to block a significant proportion of the signal. Another application is on satellites, particularly the direct broadcast satellites which use parabolic dishes to beam television signals to homes on Earth. Because of the limited transmitter power provided by their solar cells, satellite antennas must function as efficiently as possible. The offset design is also widely used in radar antennas. These must collect as much signal as possible in order to detect faint return signals from faraway targets. Offset dish antennas are more difficult to design than front-fed antennas because the dish is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid with different curvatures in the two axes. Before the 1970s offset designs were mostly limited to radar antennas, which required asymmetric reflectors anyway to create shaped beams. The advent in the 1970s of computer design tools which could easily calculate the radiation pattern of offset dishes has removed this limitation, and efficient offset designs are being used more and more widely in recent years.

I don't know about that. Look at these troposphere dishes with off-center receivers:

From http://web.archive.org/web/20090528134258/http://www.gdsatcom.com/troposcatter.php



Caption: "SATCOM Technologies’ newest addition to the troposcatter product line is the Dual-mode, All-band, Relocatable, Tactical Terminal (DART-T). Using industry-first technologies, this complete troposcatter system outperforms previous generations with its higher data rates, field-adaptable all-band operation, low weight and reduced prime power usage. Its patent-pending dual beam Ku-band feed uses angle diversity to achieve very low bit error rate in a small footprint terminal, replacing previous generations of troposcatter systems which were forced to rely on dual antennas on each end of the tropo link to achieve the necessary signal diversity. As a result, the number of antennas required for successful troposcatter operation is halved, freeing up valuable manpower and resources in the field."

Then there's this one from a page titled "SATCOM Technologies Troposcatter Communications System"

http://www.gdsatcom.com/email/1-10-08.htm




Compared to one of Thork's Satellite Dish images:

Did you notice the size difference between Thork's picture and yours?

Did you research the advancement of the technology and time line?

As technology and techniques improved/improves the size of the receiving dishes decreased/will decrease and data rates have/will increase.

Looking closer you should realize the antennas currently used for troposcatter are much larger so they can receive the signal than the antennas used for satellite TV. They used to need to be

Militaries are interested in troposcatter because of the narrow transmission beam.  It allows for more security because the signal can be directed and have a very narrow range where it can be intercepted.  Compare that to satellite transmissions which can be received over a very large area.


The above is a antenna built in 1965 using troposcatter


The above is an early satellite dish.

Do you notice the size difference? Do you notice the troposcatter antenna is actually two antennas since it increased the reliability?
As I pointed out we now live in a time where they reduced the sizes, increased data rate and reliability.  This did not happen when satellite transmissions where first used to send signals to people's homes. Antennas used for troposcatter still need to be larger than the ones used for satellite transmissions since the signal is still weaker and atmospheric conditions have a greater influence on them.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 14, 2016, 04:01:10 AM »

Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him.  Probably a combination of all 3.

He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong.  Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS.  Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.

The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment.  Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.

Then there is more dishonesty here:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement.  Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.

I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.

The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site.  Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.

59

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 01:54:27 AM »

Here you go Tom:



Every civilization has observed and recorded what they saw in the night sky to some extent.  Those stationary stars/lights were never recorded by any civilization or person in history.  Well at least not until we are told those satellites were launched. 

If you remember I also gave you some other methods to determine where radio signals are coming from. If I recall you determined that it was not worth doing because it would not be evidence if the Earth is flat or not.  Well it seems in this case it would be worth doing since you are questioning the existence of satellites and where the signals are coming from.

If you like I will list those methods again so you can gather evidence.

You really should research wave propagation.  When you do you will learn why different antennas and frequencies are used for different applications.  Like certain frequencies not bouncing off any layer of the atmosphere and punching through it.

60

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could this experiment be performed ?

« on: September 13, 2016, 09:19:16 PM »

This may be  a little off topic and maybe something more suited to one of the Titanic-related forums.
Would the lookout in the crow's nest on Carpathia see the Titanic's lifeboats first or would those in the Titanic's lifeboats see the top of Carpathia's highest  mast first ?
I believe there were reports that  the rockets from the Carpathia were seen well before the Carpathia appeared over the horizon.
Again.......Due to the  curvature of the earth.

If the Carpathia's lookout has line-of-sight to the lifeboats, then they have line-of-sight to him.  Along the same line.  Even if you can see farther than the pure horizon due to refraction, the photons refract along the same path in each direction.

Thanks, Rounder.
That was my deduction. Since the crow's nest on the Carpathia was a considerable height above the sea,  those in the lifeboats would see it at the same time the lookout saw them.
That does raise the questiion. Woiuld those in the lifeboats see the tip of the mast before the lookout saw them ?
But if the earth was flat they would see not only the mast, but the whole ship- hull to mast - just appearing larger as it aproached them.
Just the old "ship over the horizon."
Also about the same as those warnings on those "eighteen wheelers" ....." If you can't see my mirrors, I can"t see you."

I hereby abandon my "experiment" for lack of a perfectly flat, perfectly level elevation , perfectly straight  roadway.....For at least 3 miiles.
If someone else wants to pick up on it, they have my blessings . LOL

You could still do it and just include the elevation change in the calculations. Geodetic surveyors not only determine elevation, but take it into account while doing their jobs and calculations.