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?
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.
You already asked thia in another thread of the same topic: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5112And I never got a sensible answer then either!
Please dont spam the forums.
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.
Quote from: Tom BishopAgain, 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
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!