Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote from: Tom BishopAgain, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.
Evidence?
The idea that everyone sees the same phase
Seems the same thing is true about math. Only works unless the results do not match what you want to believe.
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf
From the abstract:QuoteAbstract— 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?
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.
The moon actually does turn a little. In fact, it turns so much that the far side of the moon was mapped by astronomers long before NASA claimed to have gone there.
It turns about 5 degrees.
Have you ever actually looked at the moon? Do you honestly think it turns enough for us to see the far side of the moon from earth?
"Pretty consistent"? Consistently what? They consistently get smaller with distance. This is the opposite of what your theory predicts.
Those aren't the details we are talking about and you know it. With the sun and moon, we can see distinct interior details.
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.
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf
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.
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?
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?
The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skepticThank you Tom!
You claim that the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves are false; since you are the claimant, prove it!
Another problem with the bipolar model, and the figure 8 path of the sun:
Let's look at Alaska during the Spring Equinox, when the sun supposedly switches from circling the North pole to the South pole.
Day before equinox: The sun is rotating around the North pole. In Alaska, the sun will supposedly set somewhere to the West, curving around to the North.
Day after the equinox: The sun turns South instead of North, and never comes near Alaska.
How in the world has this never been noticed by anyone before?? Am I picturing it wrong? Perhaps you can draw the path of the sun before and after the equinox on the bipolar map so that I can understand better?
You do know that there are places near the polar circle where the sun can set and then not return for months, right?
Yes, but it doesn't happen on the equinox. The sun is visible every day around the equinox in Alaska. Try again.
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.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.
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!
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 thatQuoteFlat Earth believers have to make up mysterious Shadow Objects to explain lunar eclipses, no matter how absurd.You wouldn't let me get away with that without
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. Ridiculousprovidingdemanding some form of proof?
Would you?
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?
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.
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 or this or contact them. If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?