[geckothegeek]

The problem with flat earthers  is they either don't know how things work or they pretend that they don't know how things work and just call them "fakes" for no good reason.

I am a licensed amateur radio operator. In order to be licensed, you have take and pass an examination which covers radio theory and radio regulations. There are some questions on antenna theory. They are fairly elementary questions but antenna theory can get highly complex. 

In short those antennas used in "Moon Bounce" are highly directional. All of those "elements" or the aluminum rods you see in those photographs act as "directors" or "reflectors" which act as sort of the way the mirrors do in flashlights to focus the radio beam into a narrow directional beam.

Some of the terms used are "front to back ratio" which means that most of the radio beam is transmitted or received  from the front of the antenna and less to the rear of the antenna.

By focusing the beam in a narrow beam you also increase the "gain" of the antenna and the "effective radio power" so that it is sort of like multiplying  the power of your transmitter. These antennas are aimed at the moon.

In short, amateur radio operators use these complicated antennas to enable them to send more powerful signals from their transmitters and they also amplify the signals coming into their receivers.

There is a lot more to it. If you really want to dig into the subject of "Moon Bounce" I would suggest you talk to the people at The American Radio League in Newington , Connecticut. But I think that is something no flat earther would ever do.

It seems rather foolish to say something doesn't work simply because you don't know  how things work. I know all of  this probably sounds like a lot of double talk and gobbledegook to some dedicated flat earthers. But the truth is you have to know a lot of theory to make a lot of things work. And that goes back to science, which the flat earthers reject.

There are a lot of things of which I don't know how they work but just because I don't know how they work I'm not going to say they are fakes.

Tom Bishop is really making himself look very foolish just by posting stuff that is  showing that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is doing a discredit to The Flat Earth Society IMHO. At least on the subject of antennas and "Moon Bounce."

The antenna in the picture above doesn't even have a motor or servos for positioning. How did he "point" it at the moon?

If you are such an expert how can you tell that just by looking at that photo ?
Of course there are some rotators some where in that array. Antennas of this type usually have rotators to adjust the tilt (up and down movements) and bearing (side movements) to aim them at their "target". Just like the guns and fire control radars on  warships. Of course the antennas could be aimed manually but it is more likely they are controlled by the rotators. (Hams usually use the term rotators instead of motors or servos.) Why not ask Mr. Hedberg to explain the details of his antenna array ? Is it obvious that this antenna array works anyway.

I'm just guessing that the rotator for the bearing is in the base of the mast and rotates the whole array. There looks like there is something at the top of the mast
which adjusts the tilt or elevation of the antenna itself. Obviously some kind of mechanism. However , I am sure Mr. Hedweg has logs to verify his operation so we know it works even if we don't know all the mechanical details.

I have written to the Swedish Amateur Radio Society to see if I can contact Mr.Hedberg , SM3PWN, for details on his antenna array and comments on his operations on "Moon Bounce."

And amateur radio operators are required to identify themselves by their call letters . It is obvious that they know it is their signal that they are receiving on "Moon Bounce" and they are not "listening to echos of something else in the firmament." Chart, schedules and software are available to give detailed  information on setting the azimuth and bearing  for aiming the antenna precisely at the moon so there is no question that there will be no question that what is received is not  "listening to echos of something else in the firmament."

Any other questions ?

[Pete Svarrior]

Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away?

I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.

[geckothegeek]

Per amateurs who claim to bounce signals off of the moon, we've questioned how non-directional HAM antennas can focus on a point in the sky. How does a non-directional antenna know what it's looking at? A non-directional antenna sends receives signals from all points around it. The experiment of listening to scattered undirected echoes is not controlled or scientific at all. For all it knows, the antenna is listening to echos of something else in the firmament.

Here is an example of the types of antennas used from Wikipedia:

Amateur Radio antenna array used for Earth–Moon–Earth communication on 144 MHz. Location Kilafors in Middle Sweden. Owner Sverker Hedberg, SM3PWM.

Tom, you do understand that Yagi antennas (like the one that you provided) are directional antennas, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi-Uda_antenna

So which direction is the antenna in the picture pointing?

There is really no way to tell which way the antenna in the picture is pointing. But it is really immaterial. The antenna is "parked" in a neutral position when not in use.
Most likely the antenna is level and aimed north. But it is anybody's guess.

[Serulian]

Tom, in your opinion what would sustain an object in orbit? I have known for some time that the theory of gravity was incorrect and have been working on an alternative. This question seems to be the only thing I have yet to work out. Thanks!

 

[huh?]

There is no doubt that directional antennas exist regardless of whether or not it is easy to tell where they are pointing.



Triangulation has been around since transmitters where invented.

[geckothegeek]

There is no doubt that directional antennas exist regardless of whether or not it is easy to tell where they are pointing.



Triangulation has been around since transmitters where invented.

"Hams" have been using "beams" (Directional Antennas)  with "rotators" for a long time. They just aim their antennas in the direction of the station that they want to contact. Many hams perform "DX" (Long Distance) contacts daily. The ARRL has a special award certificate for "WAC" (Worked All Countries) if you have contacted at least one ham in each country on the earth. "DX" is just one more of the intriguing things in "ham radio."

Likewise there are also "rotators" to "rotate" the tilt of the antenna for the correct azimuth or elevation in the case of "Moon Bounce" operations. It is just a matter of obtaining the information for setting the bearing and azimuth of the antenna from charts and tables giving the times and settings. It's not an inexpensive hobby . It is estimated that all the equipment for an elementary list of transmitter, receiver and associated parts to conduct "Moon Bounce" would be $1300. But many hams perform   "EME" (Earth-Moon-Earth) operations every day.

I suppose "DX" and "EME" are two more items that the flat earthers can add to their "fakes" list. LOL.

If flat earthers don't understand how things like "beams" operate and are built, why don't they just ask questions instead of making remarks such as those of Mr. Tom Bishop which often sound a bit stupid ?

[geckothegeek]

Back to "Ask Tom Bishop"

How about the distance from the earth to the moon ?

(Ham radio measurements -vs.- Flat Earth Measurements)

[Orbisect-64]

Hey Tom. I just need someone to point me to where in one of the old books it says that people can see polaris in the south.

I've collected photos of star trails in the far north, and in star tail photography in California Polaris is off-center, whereas in Alaska it's nearly dead-center.

[sandokhan]

The questions posed here are extremely relevant, but they cannot be answered in the context of the official, faulty, UA acceleration.

Here is the only thread which DOES answer the ham radio/radar/GPS signal questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (+ 18 more pages of debate)


By the way, if any of the RE here want to totally destroy the UA acceleration hypothesis all they have to do is read the Beam Neutrino thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0#.Vf0UDNKqqko


I was the first to put forward/propose the correct FE map: the global, bi-polar, Piri Reis map, see:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961267#msg961267

[sandokhan]

Did you check the 18 page discussion on the sun's path/movement, taking into consideration exactly your concerns, in the above mentioned thread?

When it comes to the Sun, the best place to start, of course, is the Faint Young Sun Paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

To actually date the age of the Sun, we have understand the true age of the comets:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735


And do check the path of the Sun as it relates to the Tunguska explosion:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676400#msg1676400



As to whether there were people who believed that the earth was flat prior to Rowbotham, yes, early Greece philosophers debated such things. The Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers as a society. It is worth noting that the Ancient Babylonians were expert astronomers and mathematicians, and could predict the Lunar Eclipse and other phenomenona with accuracy.

Sorry, one cannot have it both ways.

It is either/or.

Either the Earth is flat and the entire astronomical data as it pertains to the axial precession has been faked/forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler), or the Earth does orbit the Sun and does undergo a precessional axial movement (that is, the data is true).

This is all the RE have to do to claim victory (of course, if I was not around...): use the fact that absolutely no other FE/UAFE believes in the new radical chronology of history and have them admit that they accept wholeheartedly the official point of view (i.e., the existence of the words/works attributed to Hipparchus, Ptolemy and Kepler). Then it is all over, since such an acceptance means that the AXIAL PRECESSION OF THE EARTH, as it orbits the Sun (heliocentrical theory) is actually TRUE, as it had been recorded (official historical/astronomical data) in the past.

[huh?]

"Either the Earth is flat and the entire astronomical data as it pertains to the axial precession has been faked/forged (from Hipparchus to Kepler), or the Earth does orbit the Sun and does undergo a precessional axial movement (that is, the data is true)."


No, this is not actually correct.


There can be more than one model that accurately predicts some subset of observed phenomena.
And so sure as long as you ignore most observational evidence you can make a flat earth model work.

And while I do not know that the current scientific model is perfect it does reflect observation very well.

It is relatively easy to predict a time when you will see celestial events because the solar system is cyclical.
So understanding when something will occur is not that difficult understanding why it occurs is more difficult. 

For example you can observe the strange path that the planets make and predict where they will be at any time of year pretty well. But answering why they make that path was more difficult. And that answer lead to the current model of the solar system which lead to space probes visiting other planets. 

[geckothegeek]

The questions posed here are extremely relevant, but they cannot be answered in the context of the official, faulty, UA acceleration.

Here is the only thread which DOES answer the ham radio/radar/GPS signal questions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (+ 18 more pages of debate)


By the way, if any of the RE here want to totally destroy the UA acceleration hypothesis all they have to do is read the Beam Neutrino thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0#.Vf0UDNKqqko


I was the first to put forward/propose the correct FE map: the global, bi-polar, Piri Reis map, see:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38712.msg961267#msg961267

I think the thread on the ham radio measurements should have settled the question of the distance and the method for measurements of  the earth to the moon measurements. And unfortunately demonstrated quite of bit of ignorance on the subject  on the part of flat earthers.

Also I should think the unipolar and bipolar projections of the globe should have settled the question of how they were made and from  what source they were made.

[sandokhan]

My brief intervention here will come to a close with this remarkable article by Dr. Nikola Tesla:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm

Tesla describes the difference between sending signals which initiate ripples through the sea of ether (subquark strings) - modern day electromagnetic/wireless theory - and the true wireless: sending longitudinal waves through these transversal radio waves, without creating ripples.

[huh?]

My brief intervention here will come to a close with this remarkable article by Dr. Nikola Tesla:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm

Tesla describes the difference between sending signals which initiate ripples through the sea of ether (subquark strings) - modern day electromagnetic/wireless theory - and the true wireless: sending longitudinal waves through these transversal radio waves, without creating ripples.

This has nothing the do with the Doppler effect, I do not understand the purpose of this link is here.

At the time there was a question as to whether it would be practical to distribute electricity without wires and that is what Tesla was working on.

I do however think that particle wave theory is an interesting topic unto its self.

[geckothegeek]

My brief intervention here will come to a close with this remarkable article by Dr. Nikola Tesla:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm

Tesla describes the difference between sending signals which initiate ripples through the sea of ether (subquark strings) - modern day electromagnetic/wireless theory - and the true wireless: sending longitudinal waves through these transversal radio waves, without creating ripples.

This has nothing the do with the Doppler effect, I do not understand the purpose of this link is here.

At the time there was a question as to whether it would be practical to distribute electricity without wires and that is what Tesla was working on.

I do however think that particle wave theory is an interesting topic unto its self.

Aren't you familiar with sandokhan's tactics ?

[sandokhan]

My tactic has always been to present the best possible information, the most remarkable insights, to the reader.

This has nothing the do with the Doppler effect, I do not understand the purpose of this link is here.

But it does.

The article by Dr. Tesla describes the difference between Hertzian waves (modern theory of e/m) and non-Hertzian waves (scalar waves).

Can you understand the difference?

Then everybody here will understand that the speed of light cannot a constant, but a variable, according to the density of the aether (medium through which ether travels/propagates).


Here are the original J.C. Maxwell equations and a clear description on how and why these equations were modified in order to conceal the existence of ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521


Dr. Nikola Tesla:

Ever since the announcement of Maxwell's electro-magnetic theory scientific investigators all the world over had been bent on its experimental verification. They were convinced that it would be done and lived in an atmosphere of eager expectancy, unusually favorable to the reception of any evidence to this end. No wonder then that the publication of Dr. Heinrich Hertz's results caused a thrill as had scarcely ever been experienced before. At that time I was in the midst of pressing work in connection with the commercial introduction of my system of power transmission, but, nevertheless, caught the fire of enthusiasm and fairly burned with desire to behold the miracle with my own eyes. Accordingly, as soon as I had freed myself of these imperative duties and resumed research work in my laboratory on Grand Street, New York, I began, parallel with high frequency alternators, the construction of several forms of apparatus with the object of exploring the field opened up by Dr. Hertz. Recognizing the limitations of the devices he had employed, I concentrated my attention on the production of a powerful induction coil but made no notable progress until a happy inspiration led me to the invention of the oscillation transformer. In the latter part of 1891 I was already so far advanced in the development of this new principle that I had at my disposal means vastly superior to those of the German physicist. All my previous efforts with Rhumkorf coils had left me unconvinced, and in order to settle my doubts I went over the whole ground once more, very carefully, with these improved appliances. Similar phenomena were noted, greatly magnified in intensity, but they were susceptible of a different and more plausible explanation. I considered this so important that in 1892 I went to Bonn, Germany, to confer with Dr. Hertz in regard to my observations. He seemed disappointed to such a degree that I regretted my trip and parted from him sorrowfully. During the succeeding years I made numerous experiments with the same object, but the results were uniformly negative.

 In 1900, however, after I had evolved a wireless transmitter which enabled me to obtain electro-magnetic activities of many millions of horse-power, I made a last desperate attempt to prove that the disturbances emanating from the oscillator were ether vibrations akin to those of light, but met again with utter failure. For more than eighteen years I have been reading treatises, reports of scientific transactions, and articles on Hertz-wave telegraphy, to keep myself informed, but they have always imprest me like works of fiction.


Hertz made a collosal mistake: he created shock waves in air, not true electromagnetic waves, that is, just ripples in the sea of ether.


In 1887, Heinrich Hertz announced that he had discovered electromagnetic
waves, an achievement at that time of no small imporl. In 1889, Nikola Tesla
attempted the reproduction of these Hertzian experiments. Conducted with
absolute exactness in his elegant South Fifth Avenue Laboratory, Tesla found
himself incapable of producing the reported effects. No means however applied
would produce the effects which Hertz claimed. Tesla began experimenting
with abrupt and powerful electric discharges, using oil filled mica
capacitors charged to very high potentials. He found it possible to explode thin
wires with these abrupt discharges. Dimly perceiving something of importance
in this experimental series, Tesla abandoned this experimental series, all the
while pondering the mystery and suspecting that Hertz had somehow mistakenly
associated electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves in air for true
electromagnetic waves.

In fact, Tesla visited Hertz and personally proved these
refined observations to Hertz who, being convinced that Tesla was correct,
was about to withdraw his thesis. Hertz was truly disappointed, and Tesla
greatly regretted having to go to such lengths with an esteemed academician in
order to prove a point.

[andruszkow]

Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away?

I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.

No, that's not how you do. If you interpret scientific fact, and your understanding of it is questioned, you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself", simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.

This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for. Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.

Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.

With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.

[Pete Svarrior]

No, that's not how you do.

I'll do as I please, thanks.

If you interpret scientific fact

I did no such thing.

you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself"

Damn, it's a good thing I never did that. That would be terrible!

simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.

I didn't know that the mechanics behind the Doppler Effect are far-fetched or frowned upon. Clearly, we've met very different scientists.

No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium. Since no credible opposition exists (other than markjo's "nuh-uh that ain't so!" and your "you said things and I don't like it!", of course), there is no opposition for me to address. If you'd like to question the scientific consensus on the Doppler Effect, I welcome you to present your arguments, and I'll happily address them. However, I do not feel in any way obliged to respond to people who just keep saying "no" without any substantiation.

This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for.

I've done both of these things.

Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.

Yes. It's a good thing I linked to a bunch of Wikipedia articles with a plethora of supporting citations. Otherwise, you almost might have a point!

Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.

I have to explain the Doppler Effect to markjo because you think I'm a Flat Earther?

What an utterly warped view of science you have. You seem to think that what I am is more important than what I say.

If I, as someone you consider to be a Flat Earther, claim that humans need to breathe in order to survive and provide no evidence to the fact, will you also dismiss that as false because it was said by an FE'er?

With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.

Yes, I'm sure telling markjo to brush up on his high school physics and providing good sources to facilitate it was somehow significant. Keep living your dream.

[andruszkow]

No, that's not how you do.

I'll do as I please, thanks.

If you interpret scientific fact

I did no such thing.

you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself"

Damn, it's a good thing I never did that. That would be terrible!

simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.

I didn't know that the mechanics behind the Doppler Effect are far-fetched or frowned upon. Clearly, we've met very different scientists.

No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium. Since no credible opposition exists (other than markjo's "nuh-uh that ain't so!" and your "you said things and I don't like it!", of course), there is no opposition for me to address. If you'd like to question the scientific consensus on the Doppler Effect, I welcome you to present your arguments, and I'll happily address them. However, I do not feel in any way obliged to respond to people who just keep saying "no" without any substantiation.

This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for.

I've done both of these things.

Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.

Yes. It's a good thing I linked to a bunch of Wikipedia articles with a plethora of supporting citations. Otherwise, you almost might have a point!

Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.

I have to explain the Doppler Effect to markjo because you think I'm a Flat Earther?

What an utterly warped view of science you have. You seem to think that what I am is more important than what I say.

If I, as someone you consider to be a Flat Earther, claim that humans need to breathe in order to survive and provide no evidence to the fact, will you also dismiss that as false because it was said by an FE'er?

With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.

Yes, I'm sure telling markjo to brush up on his high school physics and providing good sources to facilitate it was somehow significant. Keep living your dream.

Yes! That's the spirit! A 1½ page of teflon, as per usual with you people.

What a nice day it turned out to be after all.

[Pete Svarrior]

Ah, no actual response, as per usual with you people.

Confronting you is such great fun. You don't think ahead far enough to realise that people might question you.