*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11344
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2018, 04:58:44 PM »
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 before posting.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #41 on: October 24, 2018, 06:26:31 PM »
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
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 06:33:25 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2018, 07:25:57 PM »
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

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

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:

Quote
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:
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 07:29:12 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #43 on: October 24, 2018, 08:29:08 PM »
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. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2018, 09:56:12 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2018, 10:18:47 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #45 on: October 24, 2018, 10:36:28 PM »
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.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2018, 02:50:54 AM »
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.     
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 810
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2018, 09:00:53 PM »
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?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #48 on: October 26, 2018, 09:34:21 PM »
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.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2018, 06:58:05 PM »
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


Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2018, 07:52:33 PM »
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?


*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #51 on: October 28, 2018, 05:13:22 AM »
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.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #52 on: October 28, 2018, 09:41:21 AM »
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?





LEBANON SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM CYPRUS:



https://travel.stackexchange.com/posts/99012/revisions

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2018, 01:16:53 PM »
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. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2018, 01:30:21 PM »
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.


*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #55 on: October 28, 2018, 02:11:38 PM »
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.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #56 on: October 28, 2018, 02:56:55 PM »
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


Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #57 on: October 28, 2018, 03:31:17 PM »
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?
Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1110
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #58 on: October 28, 2018, 03:37:00 PM »
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.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« Reply #59 on: October 28, 2018, 05:05:23 PM »



Lebanon

Are you sure you want to bring Lebanon into our discussion?





LEBANON SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM CYPRUS:



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.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2018, 05:08:49 PM by JCM »