[Gulliver]

Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection.

Look at Over the Horizon Radar. The Flat Earth explanation is that the waves are simply proceeding in a straight line, bouncing off their target, and returning. The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through the atmosphere and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

Please share your math to support your implication. How do you figure that scattering would obliterate such a signal? OTH can be readily understood here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

[Tom Bishop]

Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection.

Look at Over the Horizon Radar. The Flat Earth explanation is that the waves are simply proceeding in a straight line, bouncing off their target, and returning. The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through the atmosphere and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

Please share your math to support your implication. How do you figure that scattering would obliterate such a signal? OTH can be readily understood here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

Light and photons scatter when it is reflecting off of an irregular surface, such as off of a foggy mirror. The atmosphere is hardly regular, therefore extreme scattering will occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_scattering

Light scattering is a form of scattering in which light is the form of propagating energy which is scattered. Light scattering can be thought of as the deflection of a ray from a straight path, for example by irregularities in the propagation medium, particles, or in the interface between two media. Deviations from the law of reflection due to irregularities on a surface are also usually considered to be a form of scattering. When these irregularities are considered to be random and dense enough that their individual effects average out, this kind of scattered reflection is commonly referred to as diffuse reflection.

[Gulliver]

... returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

Please share your math to support your implication. How do you figure that scattering would obliterate such a signal? OTH can be readily understood here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

Light and photons scatter when it is reflecting off of an irregular surface, such as off of a foggy mirror. The atmosphere is hardly regular, therefore extreme scattering will occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_scattering

Light scattering is a form of scattering in which light is the form of propagating energy which is scattered. Light scattering can be thought of as the deflection of a ray from a straight path, for example by irregularities in the propagation medium, particles, or in the interface between two media. Deviations from the law of reflection due to irregularities on a surface are also usually considered to be a form of scattering. When these irregularities are considered to be random and dense enough that their individual effects average out, this kind of scattered reflection is commonly referred to as diffuse reflection.

As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".

[markjo]

Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection

  Are you saying that the atmospheric refraction and ionospheric reflection are not real phenomena?  As I recall, FET (mis)uses these same "made up" explanations all the time.

[Tom Bishop]

As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".

I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.

Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.

[Rama Set]

As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".

I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.

Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.

Radio waves do not bounce off of the air particles in the ionosphere. They bounce off of an EM field. So your rebuttal is not only incorrect but inaccurate.

[Gulliver]

As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".

I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.

Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.

You made  the outlandish yet-unsupported positive claim that scientists "proceed to make things up". I've made no claims. The burden, as usual, is yours. Good luck with that. Oh, and an example, especially one as faulty as Rama Set points out, does not substantiate a generalization.

[Tom Bishop]

As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".

I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.

Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.

Radio waves do not bounce off of the air particles in the ionosphere. They bounce off of an EM field. So your rebuttal is not only incorrect but inaccurate.

Actually, the current theory is that the photons bounce off of the charged particles of the ionosphere. How do photons "bounce off an EM field" rather than the charged particles as the currently theory states? You will need to clarify your position a little more.

You made  the outlandish yet-unsupported positive claim that scientists "proceed to make things up". I've made no claims. The burden, as usual, is yours. Good luck with that. Oh, and an example, especially one as faulty as Rama Set points out, does not substantiate a generalization.

Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.

[Gulliver]

Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.

You're being dishonest about your implication. Still, we're waiting on the math to show that your outlandish claim has any credibility.

The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

[Tom Bishop]

Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.

You're being dishonest about your implication. Still, we're waiting on the math to show that your outlandish claim has any credibility.

The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

My claim establishes credibility through a priori knowledge that the atmosphere scatters light. The challenge is to you to show that it does not.

[Gulliver]

Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.

You're being dishonest about your implication. Still, we're waiting on the math to show that your outlandish claim has any credibility.

The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

My claim has credibility through a priori knowledge that the atmosphere scatters light. The challenge is to you to show that it does not.

Nope. You made the outlandish positive claim that the atmosphere scatters the radar signal enough to obliterate it. You must substantiate your outlandish claim.

[Tom Bishop]

Nope. You made the outlandish positive claim that the atmosphere scatters the radar signal enough to obliterate it. You must substantiate your outlandish claim.

I am sorry, but the idea that the atmosphere can reflect radar images over the horizon, and that the propagation of a radar beam ludicrously bounces along the ground, explaining why the earth appears flat when truthfully round, is not a priori knowledge. That is something which must be proven and demonstrated, not assumed.

[Rama Set]

Nope. You made the outlandish positive claim that the atmosphere scatters the radar signal enough to obliterate it. You must substantiate your outlandish claim.

I am sorry, but the idea that the atmosphere can reflect radar images over the horizon, and that the propagation of a radar beam ludicrously bounces along the ground, explaining why the earth appears flat when truthfully round, is not a priori knowledge.

There is a tremendous amount of editorializing going on here which should be ignored.  Sky waves do not make the Earth appear flat. They make it appear that the radio wave propagates towards the sky, reflects of the negative charge of the free electrons, and continue along a predictable course slightly attenuated.

That is something which must be proven and demonstrated, not assumed.

It is a well known and documented phenomenon Tom. Your penchant for ostriching in the face of common occurrences does not make your objection credible. The Wikipedia page has a substantial list of technical and historical documents concerning radio wave propagation, especially ionospheric bounces.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation

Also feel free to speak with Googleotomy at the other site as he is a HAM radio operator who could provide your highly valued first hand account.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see any evidence in that link that the beams are actually bouncing off of the atmosphere, only claims that it happens. Where is the evidence that this is the case?

I thought Round Earth Theory had mountains of evidence and studies behind it? Surely, then, someone has done the necessary research and have published papers demonstrating this phenomena. Keep doing your research. Come back to us when you have something better.

[Rama Set]

I don't see any evidence in that link that the beams are actually bouncing off of the atmosphere, only claims that it happens. Where is the evidence that this is the case?

I thought Round Earth Theory had mountains of evidence and studies behind it? Surely, then, someone has done the necessary research and have published papers demonstrating this phenomena. Keep doing your research. Come back to us when you have something better.

Holy crap you read all the books in that list?  You smart. Did you talk to Googleotomy?  Like I said, he has first hand experience with sky waves. You love first hand evidence right?

Tell you what. Come back when you have done your homework properly. Sticking your head in the sand is no way to learn about the world.

Why would I bore you with links to papers like this:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=372018

Or

http://www.loran.org/Meetings/Meeting2003/Session5/LeRouxILA32Final.pdf

Or

http://www.eurasip.org/Proceedings/Eusipco/Eusipco2006/papers/1568982302.pdf

Or this old one

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/20/jresv20n5p627_A1b.pdf

Or a newer one that deals with elevation angles of transmission

http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/TaCom/papers98/09_02c.pdf

Here is a look at sky wave transmitting a nearly 90 degrees to the ground, but that would not interest you

http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis

I bet you wouldn't buy a data bank of sky wave measurements at this link either:

http://www.itu.int/pub/R-OP-R.68

Anyway, sorry information is so scarce.

[Tom Bishop]

You are apparently just posing random articles without any knowledge of their contents. None of those papers are trying to prove that the long distances are because the beams are bouncing off of the atmosphere, as opposed to any other explanation. There is no challenge to the underlying assumption.

The link that mentions 90 degrees actually says that the antennas in use can radiate signals up to 90 degrees. You seem to not be reading any of this. Shameful. I expect better from you in future posts.

[Rama Set]

You are apparently just posing random articles without any knowledge of their contents. None of those papers are trying to prove that the long distances are because the beams are bouncing off of the atmosphere, as opposed to any other explanation. There is no challenge to the underlying assumption.

The link that mentions 90 degrees actually says that the antennas in use radiate signals up to 90 degrees. You seem to not be reading any of this. Shameful. I expect better from you in future posts.

So when they talk about elevation angles what do you think they are talking about?  What is implied by sending a radio signal up in to the sky and receiving it again on the ground?  Have you yet contacted the HAM radio operator on the other site for his Zetetic evidence? 

The point of my post was that there is quite clearly a mountain of refereeed scientific papers available at the click of a mouse that you have not gone through and not an allegation of the practice not matching the theory to be found... Except from you... And you have not researched the topic. You seem to think that because there is no evident paper with the abstract, "Using Super Precise Methods^TM, it can be shown that Radiowaves bounce off of the ionosphere because of the field created by free electrons." that none of these papers say anything substantial about the topics.

Your patronizing tone is completely undone by the fact that you are simply denying the hundreds of thousands of examples that completely agree with theory because it is inconvenient to your worldview but you will accept the shaky reasoning and lack of experimentation by Rowbotham because it is convenient to your world view. You who has cited links to travel advertising as scientific evidence. Epistemologically you are less sophisticated than most grade schoolers.

So shame away. It means nothing coming from you. You are just funny.

[Tom Bishop]

So when they talk about elevation angles what do you think they are talking about?

You will need to quote something specific. I find very few references to elevations or angles in your links.

What is implied by sending a radio signal up in to the sky and receiving it again on the ground?

You tell me. The antennas which broadcast AM and Ham frequencies that can go over the horizon usually look like this:

Have you yet contacted the HAM radio operator on the other site for his Zetetic evidence? 

Why would I go to the other forum to have someone Google for things that don't exist when I have you right here on this forum to do that?

The point of my post was that there is quite clearly a mountain of refereeed scientific papers available at the click of a mouse that you have not gone through and not an allegation of the practice not matching the theory to be found... Except from you... And you have not researched the topic. You seem to think that because there is no evident paper with the abstract, "Using Super Precise Methods^TM, it can be shown that Radiowaves bounce off of the ionosphere because of the field created by free electrons." that none of these papers say anything substantial about the topics.

Your patronizing tone is completely undone by the fact that you are simply denying the hundreds of thousands of examples that completely agree with theory because it is inconvenient to your worldview but you will accept the shaky reasoning and lack of experimentation by Rowbotham because it is convenient to your world view. You who has cited links to travel advertising as scientific evidence. Epistemologically you are less sophisticated than most grade schoolers.

So shame away. It means nothing coming from you. You are just funny.

What hundreds of thousands of examples? You have not shown us one, nor have you explained why it favors your model.

[Rama Set]

So when they talk about elevation angles what do you think they are talking about?

You will need to quote something specific. I find very few references to elevations or angles in your links.

Oh so you saw them. Can you answer the question then?

What is implied by sending a radio signal up in to the sky and receiving it again on the ground?

You tell me.

That radio signals bounce off of the ionosphere.

The antennas which broadcast AM and Ham frequencies that can go over the horizon usually look like this:

Super.

Have you yet contacted the HAM radio operator on the other site for his Zetetic evidence? 

Why would I go to the other forum to have someone Google for things that don't exist when I have you right here on this forum to do that?

Why would ask anyone for any evidence at all if you plan on being completely disingenuous.

The point of my post was that there is quite clearly a mountain of refereeed scientific papers available at the click of a mouse that you have not gone through and not an allegation of the practice not matching the theory to be found... Except from you... And you have not researched the topic. You seem to think that because there is no evident paper with the abstract, "Using Super Precise Methods^TM, it can be shown that Radiowaves bounce off of the ionosphere because of the field created by free electrons." that none of these papers say anything substantial about the topics.

Your patronizing tone is completely undone by the fact that you are simply denying the hundreds of thousands of examples that completely agree with theory because it is inconvenient to your worldview but you will accept the shaky reasoning and lack of experimentation by Rowbotham because it is convenient to your world view. You who has cited links to travel advertising as scientific evidence. Epistemologically you are less sophisticated than most grade schoolers.

So shame away. It means nothing coming from you. You are just funny.

What hundreds of thousands of examples? You have not shown us one, nor have you explained why it favors your model.

Well there was a link to an entire database of sky wave data but why would you count that as evidence?  This is much more entertaining.