8401

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

« on: September 14, 2016, 03:20:43 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:

8402

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity

« on: September 13, 2016, 11:47:13 PM »

First off, why are you instantly characterizing A as ignorant and biased?

He is ignorant because his science was replaced with Science B. He is biased because he is a Science A proponent rather than an an unaffiliated third party.

Second, we are talking about replacing a theory in the same discipline. Someone from another discipline is not as likely to replace a theory because they would not have the facility with the available evidence.

Earth Science covers all aspects of the planet from the deep inner core to the outer layers of the atmosphere. But Geology and Meteorology are called different sciences, as are sub fields within them. A science is merely a body of knowledge on a particular subject.

You really shouldn't talk about this because you often characterize scientists as biased and/or unable to just do the work of science, which is to follow the evidence.  It was Einstein who supplanted Newton, and it was Feynman who replaced Maxwell. These are scientists who were more than capable of seeing outside the box of what had come before and to find new and novel ways of dealing describing the world.

That's right. It was Einstein who debunked Newton, not Newton who debunked Newton.

It took a different scientist, who promoted a fundamentally different approach to the science, for science to change.

This blogger you linked to seems highly unlikely to supplant QM because he does not appear to be actually doing science, but instead puts up diagrams and ideas and purports them to be science.

His website is quite extensive and the theory is flushed out beyond the front page, do pay attention to things when you look at them.

The people actually doing science are the ones likely to do the science that supplants an outdated or outmoded theory.  This should not be a surprise.

The author claims to have discovered the protron and neutron wave structure in 2004. How is he not claiming to have performed science?

8403

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

« on: September 13, 2016, 11:39:11 PM »

What "stuff" is on the horizon, exactly?  Oh, you mean the ocean?  The flat, self levelling, ocean?  The ocean with (in these photos) tiny little waves on it?  Is that the "stuff" hiding tall objects?

You keep repeating the "elephant behind a dime" analogy, you must think it's effective.    I don't understand why you think so.   If you stand a dime up on the ground a long ways off, the elephant cannot hide behind it no matter how far away he is.  As you yourself have told us:

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

However, in order for light from a tall animal like an elephant to hide behind a small object like a dime, the light would have to violate your rule, and instead dip down to dime level before rising again to eye level.  Same with tall objects (like cruise ships, skyscrapers, and storage tanks) and waves; in order for a wave located a mile away from me to hide from my sight a cruise ship a hundred feet or more above the surface, the light must curve.

Yes, but if you look out at the world you will notice that perspective causes the surface to ascend in height until the horizon is at eye level with the observer. And if you were to take a protractor you could see that the horizon is at a 90 degree angle to the ground.

From http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective -

A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

Here's a text about horizon line and eye level, from Chapter 5 from the Perspective Handbook:

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level.

It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps. Move your character to one end of the map, center your crosshair on the line of the horizon, and turn on noclip. Without moving the mouse, ascend in height and notice how the line of the horizon will stay centered on the crosshair until you run out of land to see.

While a game is not comparable to life, this easily observable perspective effect is enough to satisfy the observer as to its workings and should be apparent and visible in most modern computer games.

8404

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

« on: September 13, 2016, 11:36:48 PM »

But,
1. The sun sets every night and at a very predictable time. Are you really going to claim that every night everywhere there just ahppens to be a convenient object to hide the sun?

There are always waves and swells on the surface of the sea, hundreds of them, thousands of them, so many that at the horizon they become a solid line, unable to distinguish. Of course there is always something to hide behind.

2. There is no way that a sun some 3,200 miles high can get to anywhere near the horizon! Remember Rowbotham's Law of Perspective!

You have not yet debunked the video I provided which shows that the geometrical side view math is not accurate.

Yes, I have read and studied that, but there is no way that "known magnification due the glare . . . . . . " explains the sin's staying exactly the same size!

Sure it does. The explanations and supporting evidence is pretty clear.

8405

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity

« on: September 13, 2016, 07:26:31 PM »

The most qualified person to replace a scientific theory in an given discipline with another scientific theory is a scientist in the given discipline, obviously.

Quite incorrect.

If Science A is to be replaced with Science B it makes a lot more sense that someone who is very knowledgeable and practiced in Science B would do it, not an ignorant and biased Science A proponent.

8406

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

« on: September 13, 2016, 06:42:02 PM »

No that video is wrong!

Compelling.

Well, you asked for it. This is what I mean.

Obviously you will explain it away, but I find it compelling because it agrees exactly with what I expect to see.Horizon Zoom Boom Earth Flat Video

And that sun at sunset and these other buildings (from a Flat Earth video) certainly look further than the horizon, yet are very visible.

As Rowbotham clearly states, the vanishing point for an object depends entirely on the size of the object - large objects can be seen when much away.

To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon an none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.

That would be because there is stuff on the horizon to hide behind, if an object is far enough away behind it, just as a dime can obscure an elephant. The plane of the earth is not perfectly flat.

That is why I claim that the video is wrong. It tries to show that the size of the should gradually reduce until it finally reduces to nothing at the horizon.

It does not do that! I did not want to clutter things up with this, but these are photos taken through a filter to remove the glare.

But from actual observations the angular size the sun does not change during the day. It certainly does not reduce in size as your video claims.
Have a look at this thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.
Here is a bit of the OP:
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change its size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

The size of the sun at sunset is described here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

8407

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity

« on: September 13, 2016, 06:31:50 PM »

Cool thing about astrology, as with FET, is that neither is founded in any type of science nor does either have any rules of constraint and any individual can produce a narrative which is pleasing to them.  What about you and your chosen narrative of FET makes you, decidedly, a reliable source?

Whether the subject matter is Astrology or Quantum Theory, it doesn't matter. The professionals in that field are in the best position to debunk other fields or to show his or her own field to be correct. The professionals in those fields are not in the best position to show his or herself to be wrong, however.

A Quantum Theorist probably isn't looking to prove that quantum particles or any type of matter doesn't actually exist, as that is counter to almost everything basic and fundamental about QM, everything he or she has learned, and all of his or her own published works.

The Wave-Matter Theory guy in that above link who says that QM is wrong is in the best position to prove QM to be wrong, as he knows the most about his subject and has written the most about it and has done most of the research. Being the most reliable source on that subject, he is also in the best position to prove himself to be correct.

8408

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity

« on: September 13, 2016, 04:29:48 AM »

It also makes you absolutely unreliable as a source for FET.

Are Astrologers not reliable sources for the practice and teachings of Astrology?

Are they not the most reliable source to find and present evidence for it, if such evidence can exist?

For example, perhaps only an properly motivated Astrologer would be up on the statistics of the number of murders on full moons, and might argue that is possible for the celestial bodies to affect the human complexion. Maybe such a dedicated Astrologer would have all sorts of stats for us about the sun and the planets and the heavens. I only know about the murders during a full moon association. A knowledged Astrologer would know much more.

The Astrologer is not in the best position to debunk himself, as he is not actively persuing that, but he is in the best position to show himself to be right or the opposition to be wrong.

8409

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

« on: September 13, 2016, 04:08:46 AM »

No that video is wrong!

Compelling.

8410

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

« on: September 13, 2016, 03:58:44 AM »

That math doesn't really work when it comes to perspective. I refer you to the following video:

8411

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

« on: September 13, 2016, 12:22:12 AM »

Where are you seeing that he got no satellite phone reception on a mountaintop?  Are you seriously basing it on a youtubers opinion on a Hollywood interpretation of a true story?  I hope you are, because that would be hilarious.

I've read about the Lone Survivor story and the youtuber's point appears to be correct as far as I can tell. The events take place in multiple locations. I haven't picked up the book, but you are welcome to read the book and settle the matter.

8412

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

« on: September 12, 2016, 03:44:51 PM »

- In Lone Survivor, a true story, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afganistan.

While I have neither watched the movie nor read the book Lone Survivor, I do have Google.  A quick search of the internet does not back up your assertion of "zero signal" at the top of a mountain.  It actually contradicts you exactly: the ONLY place he had signal was the very exposed position on top of the mountain, where he successfully made the call (and received his fatal wounds in the process)

Actually, if one searches for Satellite Phone on that page it says that he had to move to an "exposed position" to get a signal. It says nothing about it being on a mountain. From what I've read about it, I don't think the entire story takes place on the top of a mountain.

8413

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity

« on: September 12, 2016, 03:33:26 PM »

In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Such an ironic thing for you to say.  From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker.  Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.

And that makes me the most reliable person to debunk RET, but perhaps not the most reliable person to debunk FET.

8414

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity

« on: September 12, 2016, 08:50:56 AM »

Sandokhan is welcome to make additions to the Wiki with his model, but the theory will need to be readily understood by all and heavily debated before the majority adopt that as their model.

I base my arguments in favor of UA on that it is the most empirical explanation for gravity, which I have discussed elsewhere. However, his explanation may provide some talking points in its favor.

Your "Don't stop the quest to measure Big G" article isn't very specific on what the 0.05% spread in results means. Does it mean that they experiments got bunch of errors that were 25%, 25.05%m and 25.1% off, so we have a 0.05% spread in error? It doesn't even say what the experiments are looking at. They could be about looking at orbits in the sky being imprecisely measured by 0.05% for all we know, not a Cavendish-type experiment. Maybe these experiments are just examining falling bodies, and assuming that it's due to gravity, with the accuracy of the experiments being 0.05% off. We really have no idea what that vague phrase means in that zero source article.

8415

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

« on: September 12, 2016, 08:21:05 AM »

Thork's post at https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51208.msg1254456#msg1254456

I have a satellite dish on my house. It points South East, not up. Proof in itself the 'satellite' must be in Slough and not in space.

Your satellite dish points parallel to the surface of the earth? 

Yep. It is mounted like this one


or this one


or any of the ones in this street.


You'll be telling me they are all pointing up at satellites in the sky, and not parallel at ground based stations next.

8416

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

« on: September 12, 2016, 07:47:39 AM »

From tpub.com on Tropospheric Scatter:

http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40k.htm

TROPOSPHERIC PROPAGATION

As the lowest region of the Earth's atmosphere, the troposphere extends from the Earth's surface to a height of slightly over 7 miles. Virtually all weather phenomena occur in this region. Generally, the troposphere is characterized by a steady decrease in both temperature and pressure as height is increased. However, the many changes in weather phenomena cause variations in humidity and an uneven heating of the Earth's surface. As a result, the air in the troposphere is in constant motion. This motion causes small turbulences, or eddies, to be formed, as shown by the bouncing of aircraft entering turbulent areas of the atmosphere. These turbulences are most intense near the Earth's surface and gradually diminish with height. They have a refractive quality that permits the refracting or scattering of radio waves with short wavelengths. This scattering provides enhanced communications at higher frequencies.

Recall that in the relationship between frequency and wavelength, wavelength decreases as frequency increases and vice versa. Radio waves of frequencies below 30 megahertz normally have wavelengths longer than the size of weather turbulences. These radio waves are, therefore, affected very little by the turbulences. On the other hand, as the frequency increases into the vhf range and above, the wavelengths decrease in size, to the point that they become subject to tropospheric scattering. The usable frequency range for tropospheric scattering is from about 100 megahertz to 10 gigahertz.

An image:

8417

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

« on: September 12, 2016, 07:41:33 AM »

I was watching an interesting video which provides some elements of discussion.

- In Lone Survivor, a true story, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afganistan.

- There is an interesting idea posed that Satellite TV could be using Troposcatter technology, and that other satellite technologies may be land-based Troposcatter broadcasting devices.

- Brought up a point that Thork once made that many satellite dishes are often seen pointed in the general direction of the horizon, rarely "up".

- Obligatory 9/11 conspiracy tie-in at the end.

8418

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

« on: September 12, 2016, 12:26:35 AM »

Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.

There's no geometric horizon on a flat plane in relation to the sun unless the sun actually sinks or otherwise lowers its altitude to the point it's behind, say, a mountain.

Perspective lines can shrink behind something in the foreground. Easily. Consider that if you hold a dime in front of your face you can obscure an elephant in the distance.

No matter how small of an imperfection above the surface of the earth, the sun can eventually get behind it as the perspective lines of the sun and the earth merge.

8419

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite theory of gravity

« on: September 12, 2016, 12:19:27 AM »

Why then does not TFES follow Sandokhan  theory of gravitation?  When I have more time I'll try to condense his writings a little.

If you trust his thoughts on gravitation so much, why is there no mention of "dextrorotary", "quarks" or even "Sandokhan" in the Wiki?

Yes, that is a very serious question! If you are going to quote his comments on Cavendish and the other measurements you should understand his theory!

Sandokhan is welcome to create a section in the Wiki for his model. He is the most qualified to create such a section. No one is turning him away, and this has been expressed to him before.

8420

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

« on: September 11, 2016, 11:06:21 PM »

This is just an idea....
No claims made for a theory or hypothesis.
Or even if it would be  practical or possible.
I rather doubt that there is a highway that would be straight enough and level enough.
.
Here is the idea. But....If you could.
Let's assume you are at Mile Marker  1 and then   take sights on Mile Markers 2 and 3 with a telescope
Could you perform an experiment something like the Bedford Level ?

Sure, why not?

You should be expected to somehow defend the elevations, however, as you will be challenged regardless of result.