Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 422 423 [424] 425 426 ... 490  Next >
8461
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 13, 2016, 05:00:08 PM »
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

8462
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 13, 2016, 04:56:19 PM »
You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

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

That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.

That coming from a guy who didn't know that HAM radio receivers could pick up signals hundreds or thousands of miles away?

8463
It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.

It supports the theory. Those headlights are pretty consistent.

Quote
Quote
It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.

The headlights in the distance are pretty consistent.

Quote
2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.

Quote
None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.

The Wiki page explains the reason why.

8464
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 08:16:02 AM »
Arguments from personal credulity are feeble. That's all you have. You cannot address the actual mechanisms so you resort to feeble arguments. End of story.

I cannot address the mechanisms because they are so absurd. An image bouncing off of the surface of the earth? Ridiculous. An image bouncing off of the atmosphere itself? Ridiculous. Multiple times in both directions, while staying intact? Outrageous.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

Which is more absurd, over the horizon radar/communication or magical magnification because light (only of a certain intensity and angle though) "catches on the atmosphere"? 

In fact, why don't we expand on "light catching on the atmosphere and being magnified" and apply it directly to the conversation at hand.  If your magical magnification idea holds true, it only stands to reason that radio and radar frequencies can be bounced over the horizon, without loss of signal integrity simply because it is (as you pointed out yourself) all photons.

Before you try to argue too much about intensity keep in mind that the average headlight operates between 60 and 150 watts whereas radio/radar operates across a spectrum of 100 mW up to 50 kW (depending on use/purpose).  If a headlight operating somewhere between 60 and 150 watts is enough to "catch on the atmosphere" and be magnified, it follows that any radio/radar operating at or above this range would be subject to the same magnification.

In the short time I've been part of this site I've never seen you address anything, even your own ideas, in any way that lends credibility to anything you say let alone offers any type of proof for what you say is true or false.

My washing machine is about 500 Watts, should it magnify in the atmosphere too?  ???

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

I am SO happy to hear you say this!  I look forward to reminding you of this post every time you try to tell us how the photons from the sun do not travel in a straight line, at sunset for example.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

You have clearly never worked with radar.  I have (Navy) and you are simply wrong.  You can pick up aircraft at much greater distance than ships on the surface, because ships at distance X are over the horizon while aircraft in the air at distance X are not (distance X being a function of the height of the radar dish).  And because, in your own words "photons simply travel in a straight line", they don't reach an over-the-horizon ship.

The surface near the sea is a lot denser than the altitude airplanes may fly at. Of course some types of radar more susceptible to atmospheric opacity may see an airplane easier than a ship.

8465
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 07:07:27 AM »
I would appreciate a post relevant to the topic.

8466
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 04:24:00 AM »
Quote
The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

The fact of the matter is that the earth DOES NOT APPEAR FLAT to certain frequencies and systems used in radar. Some of the surface search radars are prime examples of range limiitations due to the curvature of the earth,

I think Tom Bishop should have a talk with a ham radio operator or a radar or microwave repeater technician about "skip" or "line of sight.". LOL.

This was already addressed.

Restating the same feeble argument does not make it a stronger objection. You can't even say what makes the mechanism absurd, you just declare it on its face. Deal with the actual mechanism or just admit that you can't and move on.

Deal with a unproven hypothesis? Isn't it your job to demonstrate that the hypothesis is true, if that is your position?

Can I just say that little invisible fairies did something and expect you to deal with that mechanism and rebut it?

It is clearly you who is making mumbling excuses to avoid the issue, not me. These absurd claims are not mine.

8467
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 03:50:38 AM »
Arguments from personal credulity are feeble. That's all you have. You cannot address the actual mechanisms so you resort to feeble arguments. End of story.

I cannot address the mechanisms because they are so absurd. An image bouncing off of the surface of the earth? Ridiculous. An image bouncing off of the atmosphere itself? Ridiculous. Multiple times in both directions, while staying intact? Outrageous.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

8468
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 03:45:13 AM »
Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false. That's not how this works. If you can't properly address the mechanisms that make over the horizon communication possible, maybe you should display some humility and go learn about them first. Arguments from personal credulity, like the one above are just not acceptable.

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line. This is a vastly more powerful explanation to the mental gymnastics the Round Earth scientists use to explain why a round earth looks flat.

8469
The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

8470
Under the bi-polar model the biggest forks are out in the middle of the ocean. However, the landmasses near the equator do see forks in the road.

Consider the following images. If the earth is a globe and the stars are light years away and very distant, how is it that the stars can be physically seen to move away from each other over the course of the night? They seem to come closer together then spread away. The stars in the upper left are rotating one way and the stars in the lower right are rotating the other. The stars are moving in relation to each other! This is impossible if the earth is a globe.

A rotating globe should not cause the stars to physically separate from each other in the sky, and these stars would need to be moving light years through space if they were to actually travel this route. It is a proof that the earth is not a globe.




8471
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 12, 2016, 02:44:31 AM »
Incorrect? You were trying to enhance the likelihood of the Earth being flat by providing an example (read: generalizing) about amateur radio bands. It only takes one example to dismiss your claim, and that is what I gave you.

NB-UHF (70cm) is as line of sight as it gets. You rate the distance between a transmitter and a receiver to be about 500m because it takes nothing to disrupt the signal. However, if you send the transmitter upwards, there's no problem receiving over a distance of +40km. Besides, you cant just generalize AM frequencies like that. Low Frequency AM (300khz - 3MHz) have a wavelength range from 100-1000 meters. It's their "bouncing" properties, diffraction and their insensitive nature to be disrupted that allows receivers to decode a signal even with antennas below the horizon.

Some types of EM may be limited to line of sight because, like visible light, it is affected by the opacity of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is so thick to that range that it can't go through, it is limited in duration.

The fact that there is some types of EM that can travel much further than a Round Earth should allow, is evidence against the globular model. The only way to believe that the earth is a globe under such a scenerio is to assume that the EM from an Over the Horizon radar device is bouncing off of the atmosphere and the earth several times (we must assume that it can do this), hit an object beyond the earth's curvature, and then bounce again between the earth and the atmosphere (often several times) back to the radar to register an image of that distant object to the Over the Horizon Radar unit, all without significant scatter. Ridiculous.

8472
Ignoring some of the religious references at the end, the following video is a good overview of Airy's Failure experiment and how it suggests that the stars are moving, not the earth.



Airy's paper on his experiment:
http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/20/130-138/35.full.pdf+html

Specifications for the equipment he was using:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1873GOAMM..33C..17A/0000132.000.html

8473
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

Come on Tom.  Answer the question.

How is it that light intensity and "catching on the atmosphere" relevant in one of your provided proofs yet doesn't seem to be relevant in the other of your provided proofs, even though they both contain images of automobile headlights, which you contend are of high enough intensity to "catch on the atmosphere".

This is not a difficult question to answer.  You provided two supposed proofs for the same concept yet they prove nothing (individually or combined) and one is directly counter to what you are saying is fact.

It's relevant in all images. If the light source isn't bright enough, it can't catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. Different photographs at different angles or conditions may cause some light sources not to enlarge, such as when viewing the glow of a light house from its backside when it is shining its directed beam at the ocean.

A picture of a dim light which is not being magnified is not a counter-proof. In the image of magnified lights we see that the less intense light sources in the distance are not being magnified.

Quote
I thought this sight "worked on evidence" - so now being "mentioned on our Wiki page" is evidence?

Yes, the images in the Wiki are evidence. Some light sources, such as the headlights, are magnified, and some dimmer light sources, such as the light from the pavement and small objects in the distance, are not magnified.

Consider the following image from the Wiki:



 The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see. The headlights are bright, and therefore the magnification effect occurs. Other objects in this scene, are not as bright as the headlights, such as the tail lights of the cars moving away, and therefore naturally shrink. This is evidence that brighter light sources magnifiy and dimmer light sources do not.

Quote
Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail.

We are only seeing examples of light bulbs in the distance, and therefore they do not much detail to them. Perhaps if a very bright and powerful projector were put in the distance and pointed at the camera, with enough lumens to cause the effects demonstrated in this thread, the effect would occur.

8474
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Definition of a Scientific "Theory"
« on: June 10, 2016, 03:06:23 PM »
This is how we use the word "theory" as well. Our explenations meet all observations and we use the model to predict things. If I let go of this hammer, I predict it will fall.

*ahem* I don't want to completely derail this thread, but this just isn't true. Here is one example of an observation that contradicts the flat earth "theory". There are many more examples if you are curious.

Examples of enlarged headlights were provided in that thread.

8475
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 12:55:52 PM »
Yes, kind of, but the carrier is not the photon. From a classical physics perspective, the radio waves are EM fields propagating through space. Once you get into quantum mechanics, it gets a bit murkier. To create a radio transmitter, the antenna needs to effectively vibrate thereby creating fluctuations in the EM field. This is what the carrier wave of an AM radio.
Like I said, this is the quantum mechanics description of EM radiation, but I didn't think that Flat Earth believers accepted any scientific discoveries since the dark ages.

Incorrect. All Electro-Magnetic radiation is photons.
I'm not debating that.

You stated in your original post that in low frequency radio waves:
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.
However, in order to understand the method of how these waves propagate, you have to understand that it is not the photon that is acting like the carrier wave. This is not the case for higher frequency waves however.

All EM is photonic. Please elaborate.

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

Different frequencies operate in different ways. Even ham radio operators know this. I rather doubt that you would find any flat earthers who are engaged in any field of communications- amateur or professional. LOL.

Different ways like bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground several times, hitting an object beyond the horizon and then miraculously bouncing back between the atmosphere and ground to the radar receiver to register an image without any significant scatter in this process?

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

These are not operating on line of sight. I would suggest you read about ground waves and how signals of various wavelength propagate.

I would also pose the question why anyone would bother using a technology that takes advantage of something unnecessary such as ultra low frequency waves. A radar on the modestly high mountain above sea level would cover all required ranges.

Ground waves? Ducting?

The simplest explanation is that the photons just went in a straight line.

Quote
Why bother debating the merits of such advanced physics when you can use literal line of sight communication -- a laser pointer -- to test your theory?

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent to all forms of EM, which is why distant mountains may be faded in the distance by atmosphere.

It doesn't have to be perfectly transparent, especially if you do it on a day with agreeable weather conditions.

There is a simple method to prove that atmosphere attenuation is not the limiting factor in visibility. Simply adjust the angle upward and point it at a tall landmass or building. This will increase the amount of atmosphere it is traveling through, proving that the laser is not being attenuated by atmosphere. The atmosphere is not massively different at a mere 100ft height difference, nor a few miles away. I'd suggest a nice large, flat, place like the salt flats in Bolivia for testing. It's the flattest place on Earth.

What you'll find is that someone sitting on the mountain top 10 miles away will be able to see your laser, but someone standing on the ground 5 miles away will not.

It's quite simple geometry and requires no real scientific knowledge. It's basic line of sight communication.


If it can travel 20km

Nice thought experiment. Feel free to put your imaginations to the test.

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.
That's great Tom. "Ham radio" - What? VHF? UHF? Again, you're talking out your a** acting like an expert in an area you have no expertise in.

I'm a licensed operator (B license). I don't know what's included in your licenses "over there" but at least here, they require you to know about electronics as well.

Anyway, that license gives me access to broadcast and receive @ 100 W. Though for all my balloon launches, I've used the UHF 70 cm band (~434.650 Mhz) @ 10 mW. It's pretty much as limited by line of sight as it gets.

I repeat, It's pretty much as limited by line of sight as it gets.


Incorrect. It is possible for HAM receivers to hear stations from hundreds or thousands of miles away on the AM band.

8476
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 03:35:04 AM »
true. There is too much evidence showing the world is round for there to be any other conclusion made.

There is too much evidence that the earth is round that certain frequencies, such as those in radar, microwave repeaters, etc. operate in a line of  site method.
The distance is limited to the distance to the horizon which is determined by the height of the antenna due to the  curvature of the earth.
This is a well known fact to anyone who has ever worked in those fields.
If the earth was flat, the range of  certain frequency radars and microwave repeater stations could be  designed to have an infinite range.
"There is too much evidence showing the world is round for there to be any other conclusion made."
Examples are a World War II US Navy SG-1b surface search radar and a  microwave repeater system that was used by the US Federal Aviation Administration.
Their ranges were line of site due to the  curvature of the earth.
This is really a moot point because the earth is round -  a globe.

It's not possible for many forms of light to propagate infinitely. Visible light is affected by the opacity of the atmosphere. This is evidenced by very distant objects being discolored and muddied.

8477
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 03:33:16 AM »
Yes, kind of, but the carrier is not the photon. From a classical physics perspective, the radio waves are EM fields propagating through space. Once you get into quantum mechanics, it gets a bit murkier. To create a radio transmitter, the antenna needs to effectively vibrate thereby creating fluctuations in the EM field. This is what the carrier wave of an AM radio.
Like I said, this is the quantum mechanics description of EM radiation, but I didn't think that Flat Earth believers accepted any scientific discoveries since the dark ages.

Incorrect. All Electro-Magnetic radiation is photons.

Quote
Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.
Where is the evidence that this is made up? The whole reason that these radars, like the JORN, exist is because the surface of the earth is curved.

It shouldn't be possible to "see" over the horizon if the earth is a globe. In order to explain what these radars do, new scientific theories had to be invented.

8478
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 03:28:32 AM »
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

These are not operating on line of sight. I would suggest you read about ground waves and how signals of various wavelength propagate.

I would also pose the question why anyone would bother using a technology that takes advantage of something unnecessary such as ultra low frequency waves. A radar on the modestly high mountain above sea level would cover all required ranges.

Ground waves? Ducting?

The simplest explanation is that the photons just went in a straight line.

Quote
Why bother debating the merits of such advanced physics when you can use literal line of sight communication -- a laser pointer -- to test your theory?

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent to all forms of EM, which is why distant mountains may be faded in the distance by atmosphere.

8479
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 02:56:08 AM »
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.
Are you sure about that? These types of radios do not use photons as their carrier!

All electro-magnetic radiation consists of photons.

Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!


8480
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication
« on: June 09, 2016, 02:47:41 AM »
Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 422 423 [424] 425 426 ... 490  Next >