8461

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 20, 2016, 02:46:49 AM »

Where is your evidence that it exactly matches the globe radius?

8462

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the moon show the same face everywhere?

« on: June 20, 2016, 01:18:42 AM »

You already asked thia in another thread of the same topic: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5112

Please dont spam the forums.

And I never got a sensible answer then either!

There you claimed: "Under FET the moon is 3000 miles in altitude and disappears when it is 6000 miles away (2x its height), which means its not going to turn much."
No, the moon would disappear under FET when it was more like 8,800 miles away and when the moon would change through quite a large angle - near enough to 90°!

And we KNOW that photons travel in lines - I believe you said so.

Keep your conversations in one place. I dont respond to spam threads.

8463

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 20, 2016, 01:13:19 AM »

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.

8464

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 19, 2016, 11:56:39 PM »

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.

8465

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« 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?

8466

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon floating above us - I don't get it

« on: June 19, 2016, 11:47:01 PM »

Unknown.

8467

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the moon show the same face everywhere?

« on: June 19, 2016, 11:44:02 PM »

You already asked thia in another thread of the same topic: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5112

Please dont spam the forums.

8468

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain the Moon Phases on a flat Earth to me and I'll consider FE theory

« on: June 19, 2016, 02:11:10 PM »

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.

Actually, scientists have different math for physical reality at different scales.

8469

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain the Moon Phases on a flat Earth to me and I'll consider FE theory

« on: June 19, 2016, 02:06:42 PM »

It would take significantly longer for a giant floating rubix cube receding into the distance to perceptually turn to its side at an altitude of 10,000 feet vs an altitude of 10 feet. This can be demonstrated with real world experiences.

No one knows how it may behave at an altitude of thousands of miles, however, as there is no easy real world test for such scales. Our only human experience of very large non-testable  scales is that things dont change much.

8470

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain the Moon Phases on a flat Earth to me and I'll consider FE theory

« on: June 19, 2016, 01:38:33 PM »

The idea that everyone sees the same phase or face is a myth. It actually changes slightly.

Under FET the moon is 3000 miles in altitude and disappears when it is 6000 miles away (2x its height), which means its not going to turn much.

Furthermore, it is unknown how perspective works on large scales.

8471

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: "Soft" Merger

« on: June 18, 2016, 05:41:25 PM »

My only concern is that if we combine the forums there will be way too many people asking me questions. I kind of like a small forum environment, because the conversations can get a little more in depth.

As a wish list for a combined forum I would want my own "Ask Tom Bishop" section on the main site or on the forums (or maybe "Ask a Believer" or "Ask the Zetetic Council"), where people may submit questions and I can publish answers without feeling like I would need to be on the forums 24/7 catering to dozens of threads filled with dozens of people asking endless questions.

8472

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 18, 2016, 04:36:17 PM »

VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf

From the abstract:

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.

8473

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 18, 2016, 04:32:45 PM »

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

8474

Flat Earth Community / Re: i have a thing with the moon!!!!

« on: June 15, 2016, 03:16:14 PM »

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?

The moon wobbles as it moves, allowing us to see large areas of its backside. The idea that we only see its face is a myth. See: Lunar Liberation

8475

Flat Earth Community / Re: i have a thing with the moon!!!!

« on: June 15, 2016, 03:03:58 PM »

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.

8476

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 15, 2016, 02:05:46 PM »

"Pretty consistent"? Consistently what? They consistently get smaller with distance. This is the opposite of what your theory predicts.

They are fairly consistent. Any one-pixel-in-difference analysis is petty. Stop the denial.

Those aren't the details we are talking about and you know it. With the sun and moon, we can see distinct interior details.

What's the difference between interior or exterior details? They are details. We've seen that it the magnification effect can also change color depending on the light source, too.

8477

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« 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.

8478

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 15, 2016, 12:58:36 AM »

VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf

From the abstract:

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.

8479

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« 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.

8480

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« 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.