The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: rpt on September 11, 2018, 02:23:33 PM
-
I am an amateur radio operator (aka radio ham) and my everyday observations are consistent with the round earth model.
I take part in SOTA (Summits on the Air). I climb to the tops of hills and mountains and set up a radio station. I make contacts using various different radio bands and communicate with people both locally and over long distances.
If I use the 2m band (145MHz) I make mostly local contacts but I also manage to talk to others also on summits up to about 150km. If I switch to HF (also known as short wave) then I can communicate much further. On 40m (7MHz) contacts are usually between 500 and 1000km and on 20m (14MHz) they are 1000km to 2000km, sometimes getting as far as the US (5000km from the UK).
The round earth model can explain these observations:
VHF communication is mostly line of sight although signals can travel a little further as they are refracted by the atmosphere. For the summit to summit contacts, if I enter the altitudes of the two stations into an online calculator it will tell me the maximum line of sight range. These figures are always entirely consistent with my observations.
HF radio signals bounce off the ionosphere which is the upper atmosphere. Radiation from the sun strips electrons from the air molecules to form ions which can refract radio signals back down to earth. The degree to which this refraction happens depends on the amount of radiation from the sun, the frequency used and the angle at which the signal hits the ionosphere. If you send a radio signal straight up you can find the critical frequency. This is the highest frequency where the signal is bounced straight back down again. At the moment this is about 4MHz during the day so signals higher in frequency go straight out into space. But if the signal hits the ionosphere at a lower angle then it will be refracted, effectively reflecting it back to earth. As the frequency increases, the angle has to be lower and lower for the signal to return to earth. So this explains why my 7MHz signals can reach nearer stations than the 14MHz signals.
The time of day and year has a big impact on how far signals will go on any particular frequency. For example, during the afternoon I might be working stations around Europe. As the earth rotates and the sun's strength moves west I can no longer work Europeans but there are now Americans audible. And then at about 11 or 12 o'clock it all goes quiet and there are no more signals.
From my home location, in a valley, I can not hear many stations on VHF unless they are on a hill top. But I can still work stations far away on HF even though they are blocked by the hills around me, because they are bouncing off the ionosphere.
In the flat earth model, why would the frequency affect how far the signals travel? Why would the time of day matter? How can I still make contacts over long distances even though I live in a valley?
-
In the flat earth model, why would the frequency affect how far the signals travel? Why would the time of day matter? How can I still make contacts over long distances even though I live in a valley?
None of what you described about the propagation of different frequencies in the atmosphere and the bouncing off of the ionosphere seems to have any correlation to a Round Earth.
-
In the flat earth model, why would the frequency affect how far the signals travel? Why would the time of day matter? How can I still make contacts over long distances even though I live in a valley?
None of what you described about the proparation of different frequencies in the atmosphere and the bouncing off of the ionosphere seems to have any correlation to a Round Earth.
Have you completed your measurements of the angle of the sun from different locations?
-
In the flat earth model, why would the frequency affect how far the signals travel? Why would the time of day matter? How can I still make contacts over long distances even though I live in a valley?
None of what you described about the proparation of different frequencies in the atmosphere and the bouncing off of the ionosphere seems to have any correlation to a Round Earth.
But can you answer my question?
-
None of what you described about the proparation of different frequencies in the atmosphere and the bouncing off of the ionosphere seems to have any correlation to a Round Earth.
The round earth model explains that the range of VHF signals is limited due to the curvature of the earth. But HF signals can travel much further because they bounce off the ionosphere. How do you explain that in the flat earth model?
-
None of what you described about the proparation of different frequencies in the atmosphere and the bouncing off of the ionosphere seems to have any correlation to a Round Earth.
The round earth model explains that the range of VHF signals is limited due to the curvature of the earth. But HF signals can travel much further because they bounce off the ionosphere. How do you explain that in the flat earth model?
Why would we need to? We don't need a 'bounce' on a flat earth and we can still have a bounce from an Ionoplane if we wanted one. We also don't need bending for ground waves. We are in a far better place than you are to explain radio.
-
Please explain why VHF signals are short range and HF signals are long range.
-
I'm still waiting for an answer.
-
Why would we need to? We don't need a 'bounce' on a flat earth and we can still have a bounce from an Ionoplane if we wanted one. We also don't need bending for ground waves. We are in a far better place than you are to explain radio.
Sorry, but the bounces would not work out the same, however you bring up a good point. On a flat earth all radio transmission should, with a sufficiently high antenna, be basically line of sight. This would certainly be the case over the 'flat' ocean. However, in reality radio communications over sufficiently long stretches of water are frequency dependent - requiring frequencies low enough to be bounced off the ionosphere.
In addition, the propagation delay between transmission and reception shows the longer path taken by a bounce, rather than the shorter line of sight path.
-
Yea it certainly appears to me that a globe earth explains radio transmission much better than the FE hypothesis.
If one had a high enough antenna, you would expect radio waves to travel all the way across the plane, which doesn’t match observations.
-
So the Flat Earthers cannot explain my observations. Clearly the earth is round.
-
So the Flat Earthers cannot explain my observations. Clearly the earth is round.
Please stop spamming the thread with low-content posts whining about no one replying to you in the way you want. Read the rules if you need further clarification. Warned.
-
The replies to me have all been low content. I have a round earth explanation for how radio propagation works at different frequencies but I have yet to see a flat earth explanation.
-
You are dealing with TRANSVERSE electromagnetic waves.
A true radio wave is a LONGITUDINAL electromagnetic wave.
Tesla used only longitudinal waves, and never transverse waves: this was the source of his legendary results and experiments.
A longitudinal wave (boson strings) travels through subquark waves (ether, transverse e/m waves).
A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.
A non-Hertzian wave is a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.
This is true wireless.
Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.
The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.
E.T. Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the longitudinal waves (potential):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
Aharonov and Bohm proved experimentally the existence of the potential.
-
What does this have to do with my question? How does it explain my observations?
-
I would love to see some actual experimental evidence around longitudinal EM waves. In my knowledge, not only does sandokan's response not apply to your example, it applies to nothing I am aware of.
The problem with Whittaker's work is that it requires a medium with specific properties in order for these 'longitudinal' waves to exist and propagate. The issue is that no such medium exists and this had been proven before Whittaker published his work. I guess he did not want to throw out years of work, so instead just closed his mind to the overwhelming experimental evidence demonstrating his required medium did not exist.
The ether was shown to be nonsense by Michelson and Morley well over a hundred years ago. It does not need to get re-born at this point.
EM waves are transverse. There is no accepted theory or experimental evidence for anything else.
-
Well, you are wrong and I can proof it with a very very simple statement.
"Amateur radio". There you have it Amateur, means "those who know shit". An Amateur knows nothing. I can also claim that the Mount Everest is knly 200m high, because I am an amateur. Only professional scientists should be allowded to work with sophisticated technology. But I give a s**t about any "amateur" science.
-
The word amateur just means 'something done without payment', it doesn't mean that the person 'knows nothing'. I have been an amateur radio operator for well over 50 years. When I was in high school I started out playing around with radios as a hobby. Later, I did become a 'professional' and engaged in 'playing around with radios' for pay. I would agree that it's difficult to witness the roundness of the earth using HF radio. The only instance I can think of that I've personally witnessed when I was in high school was hearing Russian stations using Morse code on about 14 MHz. Usually the sounds would have the normal characteristics of any station in the world. Occasionally, the sound would have a strong echo along with it. That echo occurred because the same signal from the Russian station would come from two sources. The first source was the 'direct short path' route, and the other signal came from the around the earth 'long path' route. I suppose that the flat earth model could claim that the second signal was from the firmament, but that then opens a whole other 'can of worms'.
-
I'm pretty certain that all the flat earthers are amateurs so I guess they know nothing as well.
-
I'm pretty certain that all the flat earthers are amateurs so I guess they know nothing as well.
Second warning. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, nobody's forcing you to post.
-
I was pointing out the fallacy of MiraculumHelix's post. Why didn't he get a warning for not contributing to the discussion?
I started this thread but no one has actually given a flat earth explanation of my observations. If they did, I'd be delighted to have a discussion with them.
-
I was pointing out the fallacy of MiraculumHelix's post. Why didn't he get a warning for not contributing to the discussion?
To answer bluntly: He did. He's already sitting on 2 warnings, both issued yesterday.
Please remember that, per the rules, (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0) you're not supposed to bicker about moderation in the middle of the thread. If you have questions about how moderators operate, raise them in S&C. Normally, this would net you another warning, but let's try and not be harsh for now.
-
Please explain why VHF signals are short range and HF signals are long range.
I'm just gonna take a stab at this.
VHF signals are short range because they don't travel through the atmosphere that well.
HF signals are long range because they are better at traveling through the atmosphere.
-
I have been working with radios for more than 50 years. HF signals are long range because they can bounce off the ionosphere and then back to the earth. If a radio operator wants better range he would design an antenna that had a low angle of radiation. Doing that would allow the signals to bounce off the ionosphere at a longer distance away and come back to earth farther too. VHF and UHF signals are short range because the ionosphere has whats call the MUF. That's maximum usable frequency. That frequency is variable and depends on how well the sun ionizes the layer at any given moment. Since VHF and UHF signals are way below the maximum usable frequency, ionospheric bouncing isn't a viable strategy. That means that those signals are line of sight. Some entities want to reach out longer distances with their VHF or UHF signals. To do that, very tall towers are constructed. Ever see a 1000 foot TV tower? A taller tower means that the signal can reach farther over the earth's curvature. The farther out the signals go the more TVs the signal will reach and the bigger potential audience the station can have. A bigger audience means the more the station can charge for their commercials on the 6 o'clock news. It's just basic economics. TV station owners aren't dummies (usually). Many stations had transmitters and antennas on smaller towers and just kept them around in case the main transmitter had a technical issue. When the main transmitter was off and the auxiliary transmitter was on, the stations lost a significant portion of their audience. That was bad at many prime times of the day. I was a transmitter engineer and can personally attest that the station's switchboard would light up if we lost our main transmitter in the middle of the 'Soap Opera' times in the morning. Yes, at certain times you could receive signals from a longer distance with your TV. My explanation was simplified to only cover the bare essentials. There are more things involved than the few I've mentioned. If the flat earth folks have a better and cheaper idea on how to increase the range of VHF and UHF signals other than the construction of very tall towers I'm sure that the owners of the local TV stations would be all over the idea and you could make a fortune.
-
I'm just gonna take a stab at this.
VHF signals are short range because they don't travel through the atmosphere that well.
HF signals are long range because they are better at traveling through the atmosphere.
Okay, you have now just made a statement. Good. However, you have not demonstrated the validity of that statement. Would you care to do that? To explain why VHF signals don't travel well through the atmosphere and why UHF signals do? If what you said is true, then there has to be a good and reasonable theory behind it. People have been using radio for well over a century have have gotten quite a bit of good information about how it works and have become quite expert in getting it to work the way they want. In searching I can't find any explanation for your hypothesis, an hypothesis which goes against the normally accepted theory on the propagation of radio signals, so I would really be delighted if you could possibly give us a link to the explanation, or even run it past us yourself.
Or possibly it is acceptable just to make baseless statements and that is plenty good enough. Is that correct?
Can I make on of my own then? The earth is a massive sphere and orbits the more massive sun, which in turn orbits the even more massive galactic core. 8)
So, by your very own methodology, were all done here, right? I shouldn't have to offer any explanation for my statements and the whole argument regarding flat/spherical earth is now settled. I'm glad we could wrap this up and I had no idea it should be so easy.
-
Few articles which may be useful:
https://rsgb.org/main/get-started-in-amateur-radio/operating-your-new-station/vhfuhf-propagation/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-lower-frequency-Radio-Waves-travel-farther-than-shorter-ones
https://www.pa9x.com/propagation/
Edit: Another one here:
http://www.met.nps.edu/~psguest/EMEO_online/module3/module_3_1.html
-
Few articles which may be useful:
https://rsgb.org/main/get-started-in-amateur-radio/operating-your-new-station/vhfuhf-propagation/
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-lower-frequency-Radio-Waves-travel-farther-than-shorter-ones
https://www.pa9x.com/propagation/
Edit: Another one here:
http://www.met.nps.edu/~psguest/EMEO_online/module3/module_3_1.html
Good collection of accurate explanations of the accept theory. I was just wondering if iamcpc can find or offer something similar to prop up his expressed position, which goes against these explanations.
-
In the flat earth model, why would the frequency affect how far the signals travel?
I thought this was already answered but i'll answer it again.
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.
Why would the time of day matter?
Since the signals are traveling through the air during the day the air molecules are warmed by the sun.
How can I still make contacts over long distances even though I live in a valley?
The signal is traveling through the air. Since the air hits the valley the signal travels through that air.
-
I worked in several different venues that used radios for communications for a half century so I am familiar with the 'normally accepted theory on the propagation of radio signals'. If you took a couple of radios into outer space most everything would work according to the theory. The problem with using radios on the earth is the effect that the atmosphere can have. In my earlier career days I designed, installed and maintained, on an every day basis, radio systems for police, fire, ambulance, and many other kinds of users. I was also an amateur radio operator and I used VHF and UHF radios in that venue as well. Since this tread pertains to amateur radio I will stick to the effects there. Radios harness electromagnetic waves to send messages from point A to point B. A radio signal differs from light only in the frequencies used. Most everyone has seen what a prism can do to white light. The reason that you see the effects are that the refractive effects depend on the frequency of the light. The atmosphere does the same thing to radio signals only in a more disorganized manner. On your average day a radio amateur can communicate with another amateur (VHF or UHF) at a distance that is limited by the curvature of the earth. This is why a taller tower will give better range, on average. Sure, hills and valleys have a big effect here as well. Sometimes, however, there would also be atmospheric effects that would greatly enhance those signals. Radio amateurs often seek these atmospheric anomalies and use them to get a longer distance VHF or UHF contact with another radio amateur. Radio amateurs get their kicks out of this. Some even look for the ionization trails of meteors to get a longer range. The Aurora Borealis is also used for this purpose as well. My main point here is that the higher the frequency you use the more the curvature of the earth effects the range of your signals, on average. Weather can effect radio communications and since the weather always changes so does the absolute range you get when using a VHF or UHF radio system. To the average radio amateur, it doesn't matter, it's just a hobby. For, say the state police, with a large area of jurisdiction, where the curvature of the earth can have an effect, they must have a radio system designed with the worst case scenario in mind, think an antenna on a tall tower. They can't depend on the intermittent and highly variable atmospheric bending to get their message thru when lives may be at stake. All of what I've said is the result of many years of experience in knowing what works in the real world. We would have loved to have quoted a lower priced system to customers at times and put the proposed antenna on a much smaller tower, but we knew if we got the bid that the system would not provide the quoted service area 100% of the time. This is what we had to work with in the spherical real world we had to work in.
-
In the flat earth model, why would the frequency affect how far the signals travel?
I thought this was already answered but i'll answer it again.
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.
Why would the time of day matter?
Since the signals are traveling through the air during the day the air molecules are warmed by the sun.
How can I still make contacts over long distances even though I live in a valley?
The signal is traveling through the air. Since the air hits the valley the signal travels through that air.
Again, if you going to make statements that don't fit with accepted theory, you need to provide a substitute theory so that folks can continue to work things out.
What about the well known case of AM radio dropping out as you pass under an overpass bridge. The air goes around the bridge, so according to your hypothesis, the radio signals should go around through the air. However, that is not the case.
Radio signals do not propagate through the air. They do not need the air, or any other physical medium to propagate and air (provided the signal is not passing into or through the ionosphere) will have practically no effect on radio wave propagation at frequencies below ~50 GHz, and at frequencies higher than that, air only serves to attenuate the signal.
-
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.
That's just wishful thinking. There is no evidence. What you're saying contradicts all experiments on radio transmissions.
On a flat Earth, increasing the height of a radio tower wouldn't increase the range of the transmission. In reality, it does.
-
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.
That's just wishful thinking. There is no evidence. What you're saying contradicts all experiments on radio transmissions.
On a flat Earth, increasing the height of a radio tower wouldn't increase the range of the transmission. In reality, it does.
The higher the radio tower the less dense the air is.
Flat earth can easily say that this is more evidence that supports the flat earth. The higher up the tower goes the less dense the atmosphere is which is exactly why it travels further!
-
Again, if you going to make statements that don't fit with accepted theory, you need to provide a substitute theory so that folks can continue to work things out.
I did provide a substitute theory for each point. I guess you missed them. let me provide them to you.
Two different travel distances for different frequencies alternate theory (they are based on the ability of the wave to travel through the atmosphere not the shape of the earth):
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.
Different radio signal travel distances based on time of day alternate theory (different atmospheric conditions are affecting the radio travel distances not the shape of the earth):
Since the signals are traveling through the air during the day the air molecules are warmed by the sun.
-
The higher the radio tower the less dense the air is.
Flat earth can easily say that this is more evidence that supports the flat earth. The higher up the tower goes the less dense the atmosphere is which is exactly why it travels further!
Flat earth can easily say a lot of stuff, that doesn't make it true. Atmospheric pressure doesn't prevent electromagnetic waves from propagating. This is very well known.
You do realize that the variation of atmospheric pressure is ridiculously small at the height of a building?
A radio antenna 250 feet above the ground, where the air pressure is 14.6kPa, successfully transmits a VHF signal up to 20 miles away.
Another antenna 500 feet above the ground, where the air pressure is 14.4kPa so 1% less, transmits the same signal up to 27 miles so 25% more.
The quantity of air travelled by the second signal is much greater than the first one, proving that the atmosphere isn't a limiting factor.
Once again, all you have is an ad hoc explanation that doesn't make sense in any way.
Edit for the source: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html)
-
The propagation of radio waves doesn't require air at all. Light is another form of electromagnetic radiation, just like radio waves, only of a much higher frequency. Light travels thru the vacuum of space just fine. It's mostly the water vapor that's present in the atmosphere that can both bend and/or reflect a radio wave. That's how weather radar works. On my last ship we had two different kinds of radars. One used a much higher frequency than the other. The lower frequency unit reached out farther and could track vessels 20 to 30 miles out. The higher frequency radar was better at separating smaller vessels that were 3 to 5 miles out. A large fleet of small fishing vessels could easily be seen as individual targets. The disadvantage to the higher frequency radar was that rain from a thunderstorm would also show up and obscure other ships and boats. Airline pilots used that fact to their advantage because they wanted to see where the rain and thunderstorms are so they could be avoided. All radars just use pulses of radio waves. The atmosphere isn't what propagates the signals, but can have an effect on them. A HF, VHF, or UHF radio uses the very same electromagnetic waves as the radar, only of a lower frequency. Microwave radios use a frequency similar to a radar. Radars emit microwave radiation.
-
I did provide a substitute theory for each point. I guess you missed them. let me provide them to you.
Two different travel distances for different frequencies alternate theory (they are based on the ability of the wave to travel through the atmosphere not the shape of the earth):
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.
Different radio signal travel distances based on time of day alternate theory (different atmospheric conditions are affecting the radio travel distances not the shape of the earth):
Since the signals are traveling through the air during the day the air molecules are warmed by the sun.
Sorry, I don't intend to be mean or rude here, but those are not theories. They are not even hypothesis. They are merely unsubstantiated statements.
An hypothesis begins with one or more statements, then substantiates them by providing a description of the 'mechanism' involved in fulfilling the statement(s).
So, lets show what I mean by building a bogus hypothesis around your two statements. I'll edit them a wee bit to make them more compatible so that they can be covered by the same description.
Statement(s):
Radio signals of different frequencies can propagate through air at different rates depending on their frequency. In addition, temperature changes in the air due to warming by the sun can affect the propagation rate giving different propagation speeds at different times.
Description:
Radio wave interact with the molecular bonds in the constituents of air, predominately nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2). Absorption of the radio signal and subsequent re-emission by the covalent bonds in these molecules both delays and removes energy from the radio signals. The N2 and O2, having substantially different intrinsic energy levels makes this interaction frequency dependent. The result is that lower frequency radio signals interact less with the bonds and can therefore be propagated further. Inherent in the interaction is a delay between the absorption and subsequent re-emission causing higher frequency radio signal to propagate more slowly as well. Thermal energy in the air will change the intrinsic energy of the molecular bonds in both the N2 and O2 molecules and also reduce the mean-time to spontaneous re-emission of the absorbed signal.
That is an hypothesis. Now for that to be a theory, you would also need to provide the mathematics that give precise calculations of the described interactions. Of course, since the above is bogus, there can be no mathematical model.
Does this help in understanding the difference between an unsubstantiated statement, an hypothesis and a theory? I hope it does.
So, anyway, now that I've explained what I'm asking for I'll ask again. Can you provide a link to a description or give a description of how Radio signals are propagated and/or affected by air?
-
Well, if you are really interested in equations you can see some that were made up by Maxwell, Gauss, Faraday, or Ampere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation. These guys did all their work well over 100 years ago and the results of those equations are verified everyday. They are an adequate description to just how electromagnetic waves behave. How good is your calculus? If you've had 4 or 5 semesters in college you are all set. If you want something short and easy just see http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40j.htm. All I know is what I learned working on radios for more than 50 years, and my many semesters in college studying mathematics. I was just trying to distill all that down in a short explanation of how radio waves can be influenced by weather and stay away from all the equations that 99% of the people won't understand. Mostly radio waves always travel at the speed of light. Air has little to do with the actual propagation of electromagnetic waves as radios work just fine in outer space where there's no air. Light (just another electromagnetic wave) propagates just fine in space. I don't think that there's too much left that's unclear or unsubstantiated. If you need more then consider that radio waves can have effects on things in their path. Just try putting a cat inside a microwave oven. The cat will be exposed to microwaves and the results will be interesting. I always had to watch my exposure to microwave radiation when working around radars. The biggest risk was getting cataracts in my eyes. People get sun burned. That's just another form of electromagnetic radiation. The risk is less on a cloudy day, but doesn't go away completely. Of course radio waves will be effected by the rain and moisture in the air. Any radio system no matter what frequency can be influenced by the earth's atmosphere and can easily be noticed at times. The sun can also have an effect as it excites the ionosphere. The sun spots run in roughly 11 year cycles. I was just talking with another amateur radio operator the other day and he was complaining about the sun spot cycle being at the low this year. That fact has an effect on the propagation of HF radio signals. All of this only indirectly relates to the subject matter of this thread.
-
Ronj,
I know how radio works, and I know the math. What I don't know is how iamcpc's concept of radio works. I would like him to give me at least an hypothesis of how his concept of radio works so I can better understand what he is trying to say. However, it seems that all he has to offer are some as yet unsubstantiated claims.
I'd be willing to bet that iamcpc is not going to look up the work of Maxwell, Gauss, Hertz, Faraday, Browne, Ampere, Coulomb, Voltaire, Ohm, Kirchhoff, Wien, Marconi, Gilbert, Boyle, Bose, Lesage, Galvani, Volta, Cavendish, Orstead, Poisson, Henry, Lenz, Jacobi, or any of the hundreds of other physicists, engineers and mathematicians that had a hand in developing electromagnetic theory. None of them will provide any confirmation of his worldview.
I got banned for 3 days for suggesting someone bone up on real theory.
-
We are on the same page there. This whole thing is like a couple of boxers getting ready for a big fight. Both sides talk 'smack' and try to build excitement and a paying audience. Eventually, the boxers have to enter the ring and do their thing. The result may be scripted, or may not. I have proposed my view of FET. If the paradigm works then VHF, UHF, and microwave communications should offer a whole lot more range because the signals won't have to deal with the curvature of the earth. The current installed systems utilize tall towers to enhance service area. Just look at what the TV stations put up. Years ago my first 'real' job was as a transmitter engineer at one of the local TV stations. I sat under a 1000 foot tower and baby sat TV and FM transmitters. The initial cost and the maintenance of that tower was substantial. With the FET paradigm you should be able to get the same service area with a tower at 250 feet. It could even be 100 feet but we live in an area with lots of hills and valleys. The round earth folks have made their moves and have put up extensive radio networks based on all the disadvantages of the round earth theory. Now it's time for the FET folks to stop talking and start putting up their VHF, UHF, and microwave systems with lower power and lower towers and save a bunch of money. That advantage should drive prices a lot lower. It's time to stop talking theory and start building real systems. Everyone will quickly find out what will really work in the real world. Personally I have known all my life on which side to place my bet.
-
RonJ You answering questions intended for Flat Earthers gives them an excuse to not answer themselves. It's unclear what your goal is, given that you don't even disagree with the person who asks the question. It is honestly annoying.
-
RonJ You answering questions intended for Flat Earthers gives them an excuse to not answer themselves. It's unclear what your goal is, given that you don't even disagree with the person who asks the question. It is honestly annoying.
Au contraire, it is explicitly encouraged here. Please read the "read before posting" post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10088.0) before posting.
-
Sorry, I don't intend to be mean or rude here, but those are not theories.
Seriously? Well here we go with dictionary links.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/theory
"something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event"
The facts are that one frequency travels further than the other. I suggest (as a reasonable explanation) that one frequency travels better through air and therefore travels longer.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/theory
"A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something."
I suggest, as an explanation for why one frequency travels farther than another: One frequency travels better through air and therefore travels longer.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/theory.html
"A set of assumptions, propositions, or accepted facts that attempts to provide a plausible or rational explanation of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships among a group of observed phenomenon."
The observed phenomenon is that one radio frequency travels further than another. The assumption which attempts to provide a plausible explanation for the observed phenomenon is One frequency travels better through air and therefore travels longer.
They are not even hypothesis.
Seriously? Well here we go with dictionary links.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
"a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences"
The tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical consequences is: one radio frequency travels better in the air therefore travels further
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis
"a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"
A concept that is not yet verified but if true would explain why one radio frequency travels further than the other is: one radio frequency travels better in the air therefore travels further
"a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations"
A proposal intended to explain the observation/fact that one radio frequency travels further than the other is: one radio frequency travels better in the air therefore travels further
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis
"a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena"
A proposition set forth as an explanation for the phenomena of one radio frequency traveling further than another is: one radio frequency travels better in the air therefore travels further
https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html
"A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence"
The unexplained occurrence in the flat earth model is that one radio frequency travels further than another. A suggested solution to this occurrence is: one radio frequency travels better in the air therefore travels further
They are merely unsubstantiated statements.
A perfect example of an unsubstantiated statement as shown by the evidence above (and below).
Now i'll send you some more links
https://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/educ/radio/tran-rec/exerc/iono.htm
"Earth's atmosphere, however, acts an opaque barrier to much of the electromagnetic spectrum. The atmosphere absorbs most of the wavelengths shorter than ultraviolet, most of the wavelengths between infrared and microwaves, and most of the longest radio waves."
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/propagation-overview/atmosphere-atmospheric-effects-on-radio-propagation.php
"The various effects like reflection, refraction, diffraction, etc all come together in a real way as radio signals propagate through the atmosphere. The signals are affected by a variety of factors enabling signals to be detected near and far dependent upon a variety of factors."
https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/5353
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5261619
-
iamcpc, you're not even understanding the links you provide.
First, these:
VHF signals are short range because they don't travel through the atmosphere that well.
HF signals are long range because they are better at traveling through the atmosphere.
Do not explain anything, formally or otherwise. They are just claims. Mere statements.
Second:
Your fist set of links are generic dictionary definitions, not definition of scientific theory which is what we need here. However, they do collectively describe a theory as a formal explanation. Being formal would require a predictive model that can, and has been tested.
Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
Your 2nd set of links collectively describe an hypothesis as an informal explanation. Explains, but has not been tested and does not need a predictive model.
Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)
For your last few links, you quote bits that refer to parts of the EM spectrum outside the scope of amateur radio. If you read them more honestly, you will see that the effects they are talking about are not attributed to air. The first is specifically about the ionosphere. In that one they soundly prove the OP's first post, so thanks for that. Your 2nd one, if you had the attention span to actually read it, states:
Troposphere: As a very approximate rule of thumb, this area of the atmosphere tends to affect signals more above 30 MHz or so.
Ionosphere: The ionosphere is the area that enables signals on the short wave bands to traverse major distances. It crosses over the meteorological boundaries and extends from altitudes around 60 km to 700 km. The region gains its name because the air in this region becomes ionised by radiation primarily from the sun. Free electrons in this region have affect radio signals and may be able to refract them back to Earth dependent upon a variety of factors.
The troposhpere is where we live. And as I had stated before, it only affects signals in the 10's of GHz. Not in the amateur radio bands. They say over 30GHz - I said over 50GHz or so - so, again, thanks for providing some confirmation.
You didn't read the 3rd one or the 4th ones at all, did you?
The Calhoun paper concludes:
While a certain number of the collected environmental variables did play a small role in the resultant cyclic behavior of the net loss vector (e.g., solar irradiance), the vast majority (i.e., temperature, humidity, and wind), were not correlated to RF propagation loss at a statistically valid level of significance.
Thanks for providing disproof of your very own claim.
The fourth one I read years ago. That is where I got my number for attenuation effects beginning at 50 GHz and above.
Thanks one more time. You have gone and gotten all the information that totally disproves your unsubstantiated statements. Now I guess they are just bunk.
-
Wow, it really looks like I poked the bear here! My whole point for my last post was a challenge for the FET supporters. Put your money where your mouth is. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a competitive bidding situation where the potential customer was specifying a desired service area and my challenge was to provide radio communications (VHF, or UHF) at the cheapest price possible. I also needed to make a profit. All our systems were based upon the fact that any communications range is limited by line of sight (mostly) and line of sight is limited by the curvature of the earth. If the FET model really works in the real world, then now is the time for some young enterprising individual to get out there, get into the radio communications business, and start quoting cheaper systems based upon FET. You will be at a distinct advantage because you won't need as tall a tower or can use lower power (cheaper) radios in your bid. The only proviso will be that after you get finished installing the system, your customer will quickly determine if you can deliver on the specified range that was stated in the bid. It's just that simple. If FET works, then take advantage of that, get out there, and make a fortune. I'm retired now so it won't matter anymore for me, but if I were still in business I wouldn't be worried at all. Now you've seen all my moves, let the FET radio guys get out there and prove me wrong with an actual working system. Good Luck.
-
iamcpc, you're not even understanding the links you provide.
You asked for theories and hypothesis which I have given you. Sorry I am not a Radio Broadcast Engineer.
VHF signals are short range because they don't travel through the atmosphere that well.
HF signals are long range because they are better at traveling through the atmosphere.
Do not explain anything, formally or otherwise. They are just claims. Mere statements.
They are also, by definition, both theories and hypothesis.
Your 2nd set of links collectively describe an hypothesis as an informal explanation. Explains, but has not been tested and does not need a predictive model.
Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
From the link you provided, again back to the English lessons. I thought that the dictionary would have cleared this up.
"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon"
I propose that the explanation for why different radio frequencies travel different distances is because of environmental/atmospheric reasons. One frequency is better at navigating these environmental/atmospheric conditions therefore travels farther.
Your fist set of links are generic dictionary definitions, not definition of scientific theory which is what we need here. However, they do collectively describe a theory as a formal explanation. Being formal would require a predictive model that can, and has been tested.
Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Again using both of your sources I have provided you with both a theory and a hypothesis.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested"
One radio frequency travels further because it is less affected by environmental/atmospheric conditions. This can be repeatedly tested using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluating results.
Your fist set of links are generic dictionary definitions, not definition of scientific theory which is what we need here. However, they do collectively describe a theory as a formal explanation. Being formal would require a predictive model that can, and has been tested.
I have a predictive model. I predict that VHF signals are more affected by environmental conditions which reduces their range.
I predict that HF signals are less affected by environmental conditions which increases their range.
We can test this by examining the range of VHF signals and HF signals. It sounds like people here have already done this and verified that VHF signals don't travel as far as HF signals supporting the original predictive model.
Your 2nd set of links collectively describe an hypothesis as an informal explanation. Explains, but has not been tested and does not need a predictive model.
In this situation the tests and results are the same. The predictive model is different.
For your last few links, you quote bits that refer to parts of the EM spectrum outside the scope of amateur radio. If you read them more honestly, you will see that the effects they are talking about are not attributed to air. The first is specifically about the ionosphere. In that one they soundly prove the OP's first post, so thanks for that. Your 2nd one, if you had the attention span to actually read it, states:
This does not change the fact that, per the articles, that environmental conditions can, and do, affect radio waves.
Ionosphere: The ionosphere is the area that enables signals on the short wave bands to traverse major distances. It crosses over the meteorological boundaries and extends from altitudes around 60 km to 700 km. The region gains its name because the air in this region becomes ionised by radiation primarily from the sun. Free electrons in this region have affect radio signals and may be able to refract them back to Earth dependent upon a variety of factors.
So parts of the atmosphere can affect radio waves. Hmm that kinda supports the predictive model?
Troposphere: As a very approximate rule of thumb, this area of the atmosphere tends to affect signals more above 30 MHz or so.
The troposhpere is where we live. And as I had stated before, it only affects signals in the 10's of GHz. Not in the amateur radio bands. They say over 30GHz - I said over 50GHz or so - so, again, thanks for providing some confirmation.
Another part of the atmosphere which affects radio waves. Hmm I'm really seeing a pattern of parts of the atmosphere affecting radio waves. Even more evidence suggesting that it's more about environmental conditions and less about the shape of the earth.
While a certain number of the collected environmental variables did play a small role in the resultant cyclic behavior of the net loss vector
Yet more evidence supporting the idea that environmental variables playing a role in radio waves.
Thanks one more time. You have gone and gotten all the information that totally disproves your unsubstantiated statements. Now I guess they are just bunk.
You ask a question, I give an answer, you then claim that the answer does not count.
Maybe this should be moved to the debating English semantics forum because, by both my definitions and yours, I have provided you with theories and hypothesis. Without language as a common ground I don't see the point of continuing in this conversation.
-
No, sorry, what you wrote cannot be described as an hypothesis and definitely not a theory. Your statements explain nothing and just claim an effect. You need to tell us how the atmosphere acts on the signals to produce the effect you claim. Once you do that it will be an hypothesis. For it to be scientific theory it needs a predictive model and it needs to be tested to show that the predictive model works. A predictive model is a mathematical formulation, not another unsubstantiated claim.
Here's the process to build a scientific theory:
1) Formulate one or more postulate(s). (You have done that. Your statements count as postulates.)
2) Formulate an hypothesis to substantiate and explain the effect/behavior/phenomenon alluded to in the postulate(s)
3) Formulate a mathematical predictive model that will allow you to accurately calculate the effect/behavior/phenomenon explained in your hypothesis
4) Design and perform an experiment to test your model and collect the data into useful information
5) If successful, publish all of the above so that others can verify your results and utilize your theory.
The Calhoun paper you linked to is an illustration of how this is done.
Also, quit cherry picking sentences out of context. It just makes you look like a fool.
Yet more evidence supporting the idea that environmental variables playing a role in radio waves.
You really should read the Calhoun paper. It's not what you think.
Anyway, you are being intellectually dishonest and obtuse. I'll give you the last word on this matter for that reason.
-
I have done a little research and did quickly read thru a couple of papers that outline the effects of the earths atmosphere on radio waves. Mostly these papers outlined things that I have witnessed for myself. Things like rain and fog can attenuate microwave signals a lot. TV stations typically have their studio downtown. The transmit site is usually out in the country so they can construct 1000+ towers. All the programming is then transmitted by a dedicated microwave link from studio to transmit site. In my years sitting out at the transmitter and monitoring the equipment, I had a meter that would monitor the strength of the microwave signal coming from the studio. Under certain weather conditions, like heavy rain, I would sometimes see the signal go right down into the noise for a couple of seconds before recovering. Heavy fog could make things a little shaky too. I looked at another paper that outlined the recommended procedures for commissioning a microwave link. One of the important considerations was the curvature of the earth. Atmospheric bending was also a factor and could actually increase the expected range a little. All these considerations are often obscured because of other things like hills or tall buildings that may be in the path. The bottom line is that the curvature of the earth definitely limits the expected range of a microwave link. This statement isn't speculation, its the result of thousands of microwave links constructed. Believe me, a practical business man will cut corners and save money where ever possible. You can bet that a few have tried to 'scam the system' a little and try to get a microwave link working that was just too far over the horizon. The results were probably as expected and the antenna had to be put on a bigger tower at more expense. Like I have always said 'It isn't nice to try to fool mother nature'. In this case Mother Nature has a global earth. It isn't me making the argument it's the inanimate, brainless, microwave equipment that is making the determination.
-
I have done a little research and did quickly read thru a couple of papers that outline the effects of the earths atmosphere on radio waves. Mostly these papers outlined things that I have witnessed for myself. Things like rain and fog can attenuate microwave signals a lot. TV stations typically have their studio downtown. The transmit site is usually out in the country so they can construct 1000+ towers. All the programming is then transmitted by a dedicated microwave link from studio to transmit site. In my years sitting out at the transmitter and monitoring the equipment, I had a meter that would monitor the strength of the microwave signal coming from the studio. Under certain weather conditions, like heavy rain, I would sometimes see the signal go right down into the noise for a couple of seconds before recovering. Heavy fog could make things a little shaky too. I looked at another paper that outlined the recommended procedures for commissioning a microwave link. One of the important considerations was the curvature of the earth. Atmospheric bending was also a factor and could actually increase the expected range a little. All these considerations are often obscured because of other things like hills or tall buildings that may be in the path. The bottom line is that the curvature of the earth definitely limits the expected range of a microwave link. This statement isn't speculation, its the result of thousands of microwave links constructed. Believe me, a practical business man will cut corners and save money where ever possible. You can bet that a few have tried to 'scam the system' a little and try to get a microwave link working that was just too far over the horizon. The results were probably as expected and the antenna had to be put on a bigger tower at more expense. Like I have always said 'It isn't nice to try to fool mother nature'. In this case Mother Nature has a global earth. It isn't me making the argument it's the inanimate, brainless, microwave equipment that is making the determination.
I just threw out a possible FE answer. One could also possibly say that the distance that radio waves travel has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
The 25 million dollar question is what tests can be done to determine if the variance of travel distance of radio frequencies is due to environmental factors vs curve of earth?
-
It is known and has been observed by me that microwave signals arrive at the antenna on the ship I was on. Since we were out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it was safe to say that there wasn't much else around. I had a dish antenna pointed at a satellite that was believed to be in synchronous earth orbit. That means that the path length was thousands of miles. I could receive a strong microwave signal that was usable 24 hours a day. Some attenuation was accounted for the atmosphere in the path. Now the ship travels further away from that same satellite and the dish has to move further and further towards the horizon. Eventually the signal strength falls off and becomes unusable. At that point the microwave signal is going thru the maximum length of the Earth's atmosphere. It isn't until the satellite disappears below the horizon that the signal is totally lost. Transfer the whole thing to a land based system. If the earth was flat you could easily postulate that the range of a typical microwave could be a whole lot farther than what is observed in the real world. The average loss to atmospheric effects wouldn't be even close to what occurs when the signal has to dip over the curvature of the earth. There are equations available that describe the sight horizon and the radio horizon. This can vary some due to the dynamic effects of the Earth's atmosphere. If you could get everything to hold steady for a while you could get everything down to a 'gnats ass', but Mother Nature isn't so accommodating . You can bet that there has been extensive research into the effect by both the microwave equipment manufacturers and universities. If there was some way to get around the curvature of the earth problem other than building higher and higher towers the microwave businessmen would be all over it. The accepted way is to use satellites, which is the only alternative for use at sea, but you have to hold on to your wallet, it's expensive.
-
I had a dish antenna pointed at a satellite that was believed to be in synchronous earth orbit. That means that the path length was thousands of miles. I could receive a strong microwave signal that was usable 24 hours a day.
That signal you were receiving is subject to a delay: the Coriolis effect. However, the same signal IS NOT affected by either the rotational Sagnac effect or the orbital Sagnac effect.
This means that the Earth is stationary.
What is a radio wave?
A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.
Whittaker’s 1903 discovery that sets of longitudinal waves are the actual basis of all electromagnetic waves: Whittaker showed that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components.
A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.
Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents
A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.
A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.
This is true wireless.
Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.
The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.
There are equations available that describe the sight horizon and the radio horizon.
What? Equations?
Here are the original ether electromagnetic equations published by J.C. Maxwell:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884
They are invariant under Galilean transformations, which means the speed of light is variable.
Again, Whittaker showed in 1904 that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials. Each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves. All EM fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal EM waves and their internal dynamics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
-
I had a dish antenna pointed at a satellite that was believed to be in synchronous earth orbit. That means that the path length was thousands of miles. I could receive a strong microwave signal that was usable 24 hours a day.
That signal you were receiving is subject to a delay: the Coriolis effect. However, the same signal IS NOT affected by either the rotational Sagnac effect or the orbital Sagnac effect.
This means that the Earth is stationary.
What is a radio wave?
A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.
Whittaker’s 1903 discovery that sets of longitudinal waves are the actual basis of all electromagnetic waves: Whittaker showed that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components.
A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.
Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents
A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.
A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.
This is true wireless.
Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.
The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.
There are equations available that describe the sight horizon and the radio horizon.
What? Equations?
Here are the original ether electromagnetic equations published by J.C. Maxwell:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884
They are invariant under Galilean transformations, which means the speed of light is variable.
Again, Whittaker showed in 1904 that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials. Each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves. All EM fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal EM waves and their internal dynamics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
No. No. No.
Again, you post a pile of words, throw in straw man arguments, which have little to do with the OP, confuse the issue, and claim victory. You are not fooling anyone. You claim the earth is stationary, based on the Coriolis Effect? Isn’t that admitting the earth is in fact a sphere spinning by definition of what causes the Coriolis Effect?
-
There are equations out there that show the effects of the environment and show the effects of the curvature of the earth on a microwave signal. Other effects are the topology of the earth. Inland, the earth is not anywhere near flat. There are lots of hills, valleys, trees and tall buildings that will obstruct a microwave signal. If you are putting up an expensive microwave link you always start off with a path survey. It involves looking at the path with a topographic map and you won't even see the curvature of the earth on it. The curvature is usually built into the software that used to calculate the estimate of the total path loss that you should experience. Of course things change during the seasons of the year, you can have storms or foggy days, ect. The amount of signal strength margin you have can then be used to get an estimate of the percentage of time you may actually loose the path due to all the variables. Curvature of the earth is only one of many variables to be considered. At least it is known and doesn't change. Many of the other variables can change a lot. There are university papers available in the internet that outline all the theoretical equations that apply to microwave signals. Some equipment manufactures also have a certain amount of that kind of information in their manuals that are sometimes available on line for anyone to look at. I know that I'm poking the bear again, but take a look at Exalt Microwave. They have installed a microwave link with a total length of 146 miles. Certainly, that is possible and an actual system is said to exist. There are flat earth videos claiming that this link proves their theory. Exalt is a known company and has equipment installed all over the US. The link I mentioned is between Cyprus and Lebanon. Both countries have some small mountains on the coast and the distance between the countries is mostly the Mediterranean Sea. I haven't found anything that tells me just where the link antennas are located, but that distance still could be doable even with a curved earth if the antennas were high enough. The videos said that the antennas were on 50 foot towers, but didn't exactly say just where the towers were located. I did take a quick look at Cyprus and found a 600+ meter hill on Cyprus. There is a communications company in that location and a 50 foot tower at that distance above sea level could work out fine, if there was another site on the Lebanon side that was about the same. Anyone that's interested can easily see all the same stuff that I have. You could even call Exalt and tell them about the Flat Earth theory, and get them to install a system for you between Chicago and Des Moines. It would probably be a money maker if you could get it to work.
-
There are equations out there that show the effects of the environment and show the effects of the curvature of the earth on a microwave signal.
You haven't done your homework on the subject.
Here are both the FE and the RE equations for radar signal propagation:
https://prod.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi/2012/1210690.pdf (page 10)
A more involved, theoretical, work explains the assumed effect of the atmosphere on the e/m signal (refractive index):
http://www.navy-radio.com/manuals/0101-1xx/0101_112-02.pdf
Page 3 of pdf document
explains the refractive effect (radio horizon factor)
Page 4 of the pdf document
The author clearly states that, if the atmosphere were homogeneous throughout the path, the microwave beam would travel in a straight path between the stations.
It is assumed that the earth bulge factor (k = 4/3) is due to the influence of the Earth's curvature.
However, this cannot be true.
Here are the extremely precise experiments carried out by Dr. Yuri Galaev on the ETHEREAL WIND effect on microwave signal propagation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf
journal pgs 211-225
ETHERAL WIND IN EXPERIENCE OF MILLIMETRIC RADIOWAVES PROPAGATION Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine
Therefore, only Maxwell's original ether equations can be applied to analyze this situation, and not the censored/modifed Heaviside-Lorentz equations (which are valid only for Herztian waves).
A confirmation of Newton's own words:
Third Book of Opticks (1718): "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?"
The microwave signals currently used in the industry are HERTZIAN WAVES, transversal waves, which are ripples in the sea of ether.
Tesla used only NONHERTZIAN WAVES, longitudinal waves, to transmit signals.
Lebanon
Are you sure you want to bring Lebanon into our discussion?
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/x-png.31998/)
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/cyprus-jpg.32021/)
LEBANON SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM CYPRUS:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2feb055db835ef6d02ea26808fe56c7a.jpg)
https://travel.stackexchange.com/posts/99012/revisions
-
After reading the last post and all the technical literature, the FET folks should be well educated in the theory of microwave on the flat earth. After working with that kind of equipment for 50 years I still believe that microwaves are limited by the curvature of the earth. So do designers and manufacturers of equipment. If the earth were flat then a microwave communications company could be started, equipment bought, bids won, and links set up and would be at a HUGE advantage over the existing old companies that insist that the earth is a sphere. By all means, take that superior knowledge about the real form of the earth, and go out and make your fortune using that knowledge. That is the dream of many. Please, make it a reality.
-
I still believe that microwaves are limited by the curvature of the earth.
The industry uses transverse waves, this is the basic limitation; just a ripple in the sea of ether.
These e/m waves also are subject to the ether wind: how come you are not complaining about this UNKNOWN, experimentally proven effect, which is not taken into consideration by modern science?
By all means, take that superior knowledge about the real form of the earth, and go out and make your fortune using that knowledge.
Just try and even mention longitudinal e/m waves to anyone in the scientific/educational establishment, and you'll see the results.
-
The possible problem with the UNKNOWN ether wind was solved by Michelson & Morley long ago, or so I thought. Why would you ever mention anything about longitudinal e/m waves to anyone? If the phenomenon exists then I'm sure that you can develop some radio equipment that uses it. Long, long ago I borrowed money from my parents and started an electronics business. Business was good and I paid my parents back and continued to operate that business for 23 years until I sold out to a much larger corporation. I had the courage of my convictions and used my knowledge of radios to my advantage in business. You can do the same with your knowledge of longitudinal e/m waves. Clearly the majority don't believe that they exist. That's a HUGE advantage in business. You could develop equipment and get some patents. Now is the time to have the courage of YOUR convictions. Get out there and take advantage of what you know. Don't let the ignorance of others hold you back.
-
You need to update your knowledge on the MMX:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2041450#msg2041450 (part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039 (part II)
If the phenomenon exists then I'm sure that you can develop some radio equipment that uses it.
Whittaker proved the existence of the bidirectional longitudinal waves long ago:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
Clearly the majority don't believe that they exist. That's a HUGE advantage in business. You could develop equipment and get some patents.
ONLY the various departments of defense (the military) are allowed to make use of the longitudinal waves: not even Tesla was allowed to make public this kind of knowledge.
What is a longitudinal wave?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110
-
Clearly the majority don't believe that they exist. That's a HUGE advantage in business. You could develop equipment and get some patents.
ONLY the various departments of defense (the military) are allowed to make use of the longitudinal waves: not even Tesla was allowed to make public this kind of knowledge.
You're saying the military is preventing you from opening your business?
-
Well, it seems that lot's of folks have knowledge of things that could help mankind advance if only the government would let them. Funny, I worked on navy ships for several years, and even held a secret clearance, but never ran across any of the kind of equipment you say exists. Maybe I should just state that 'I can neither confirm nor deny that longitudinal wave equipment exists'. I don't want to spill the beans. Since the DOE is the only ones that can make use of longitudinal wave equipment, maybe the FET folks should start a political movement to get that changed. You can count me out of that effort, however, I don't want to see a bunch of black SUV's with 10 antennas on the roof spooking around my neighborhood.
-
Lebanon
Are you sure you want to bring Lebanon into our discussion?
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/x-png.31998/)
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/cyprus-jpg.32021/)
LEBANON SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM CYPRUS:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2feb055db835ef6d02ea26808fe56c7a.jpg)
https://travel.stackexchange.com/posts/99012/revisions
With a simple google search, I found the poster of that image and got a little more information.
Let’s do a little math shall we? Height of Kanterra Castle (where that image is from) is 610 meters. Average Height of Lebanon Mountains is 2500 meters..... Distance to Lebanon Mountains varies a lot but let’s use 240 km as that looks about average.
Using those heights,
distC= f * [sqrt(heightA in meters) + sqrt(heightB in meters)]. Where f= sqrt(2R) where R = earths diameter in 1000km and we multiply f by 1.13 if counting for atmospheric refraction.....
DistC = sqrt(2*6.371)*1.13 * [sqrt(610) + sqrt(2500)]
DistC = ~303 kilometers... with refraction... 240km < 303 km so YES, Lebanon Mountains are very visible from Kanterra Castle in Cyprus. Without refraction 240km < 266 km and YES, still visible.
Now, let’s compare that photo taken from a height of 610 meters to the how far we could see photo on the beach and 2 meters tall, pretending the beach is the same distance....
DistC = sqrt(2*6.371)*1.13 * [sqrt(2)+ sqrt(2500)]
DistC = 207km with refraction , 183km without refraction....... <<<< 240km and the average height of Lebanon Mountains NOT ViSIBLE from he breath 240 km away. A simple google search of beach photos taken from Cyprus towards Lebanon show this to be true.
Simple experiment, backed up by photos, and the math just confirms why the globe matches the observation.
If you want to use photographs as evidence, you have to do more then just show a picture taken from a great height of objects in the distance with their bottom half mysteriously missing and claim victory. You have to show how the globe fails and back it up experimentally.
-
Height of Kanterra Castle (where that image is from) is 610 meters. Average Height of Lebanon Mountains is 2500 meters..... Distance to Lebanon Mountains varies a lot but let’s use 240 km as that looks about average.
Why not increase the altitude of the observer to 900 meters?
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpswhoewt2o.jpg)
BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R
BD = visual obstacle
h = altitude of observer
h = 0.9 km
s = 233 km
R = 6378.164 km
BD = 1.242 km
On a spherical Earth, you could not see anything under 1.242km, yet we can see the full view of the mountains from Lebanon.
Funny, I worked on navy ships for several years, and even held a secret clearance, but never ran across any of the kind of equipment you say exists.
Nikola Tesla, using only longitudinal waves to transmit the equivalent of 1016 Joules of energy, for a distance of over 8,100 km (New York - Tunguska river), without radio towers:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994713#msg1994713 (three consecutive messages)
-
It sounds like you have the longitudinal wave technology down pat. Again, make use of that technology. Design some microwave equipment, but don't try to sell it in the US. As you said, only the military is allowed to use it. Instead go to China, or better yet meet a Chinese agent in Thailand. Don't let them steal your technology but get them to manufacture the equipment in Vietnam. Then those items can be sold in places like Sim Lim Tower in Singapore. I can then get a new longitudinal wave radio made by Baofeng in a shop there. A few years ago I bought some radio equipment there that I still have. I just don't think I can reveal what it was. Don't get left out in the cold. Think like an international entrepreneur and put your ideas in motion. Don't let the US government tell you what you can and can't do. The power is in your hands and the time is wasting away.
-
On a spherical Earth, you could not see anything under 1.242km, yet we can see the full view of the mountains from Lebanon.
You see the top half of the mountains because they are 2500 meters high. That's twice as much as the height hidden by the horizon, 1250 meters.
Your calculations are coherent with a spherical Earth. Thank you for your service.
-
It sounds like you have the longitudinal wave technology down pat. Again, make use of that technology. Design some microwave equipment, but don't try to sell it in the US. As you said, only the military is allowed to use it. Instead go to China, or better yet meet a Chinese agent in Thailand. Don't let them steal your technology but get them to manufacture the equipment in Vietnam. Then those items can be sold in places like Sim Lim Tower in Singapore. I can then get a new longitudinal wave radio made by Baofeng in a shop there. A few years ago I bought some radio equipment there that I still have. I just don't think I can reveal what it was. Don't get left out in the cold. Think like an international entrepreneur and put your ideas in motion. Don't let the US government tell you what you can and can't do. The power is in your hands and the time is wasting away.
This "be an entrepreneur" meme of yours has run its course, and is adding nothing to the discussions you post it in. Stop derailing threads with it. Warned.
-
In the Merchant Marines we had a moto "Acta Non Verba". Catch you later.
-
On the subject of amateur radio, I am one. I'm also a new Flat Earther. One thing I want to point out that effects of methods of radio communication cannot prove the earth is flat or round. There are workable models for both. therefore we must proceed on other bases. This is basic logic.
By the same token, I would welcome anyone who can postulate on how radio long-distance communication can occur on the HF bands (1.8 Mhz - 28 Mhz) on a flat earth. I am thinking the firmament (which is a hard metal-like surface, likely) can accomplish this nicely. And the time of day and sunlight can and does affect it. I know of no other ham operators who believe in flat earth, altho I have read of a couple on the web. So anyone wanting to chime in on this, fel free.
-
I'm still waiting for an answer.
I'm new to radio waves, but I might have a point. can not short wave broadcasts reflect off the upper atmosphere in both RE and FE models? I don't know why Short Waves can't travel far in line of sight. Maybe signal dispersion? Maybe the curvature of earth is not the only explanation? Why do Long Waves bend with the curvature of earth? Im not a scientist.
-
I'm still waiting for an answer.
I'm new to radio waves, but I might have a point. can not short wave broadcasts reflect off the upper atmosphere in both RE and FE models? I don't know why Short Waves can't travel far in line of sight. Maybe signal dispersion? Maybe the curvature of earth is not the only explanation? Why do Long Waves bend with the curvature of earth? Im not a scientist.
Here's some reading for you
https://www.bbceng.info/additions/2016/No.%2010%20-%20Long-Wave%20And%20Medium-Wave%20Propogation.pdf
-
I am also a ham operator (Amateur Radio). Radio waves do travel in the line of sight. I have talked to the ISS three times from my home. It is easy but only when it passes overhead. And yes the distance I can use my VHF radio on the earth will be about 60 miles. If the earth would be flat I could communicate thousands of miles but because of the curvature of the earth, I can't.
Is there any ham operated that believe the earth is flat?