Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2016, 07:44:33 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.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2016, 07:45:08 AM »
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.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #42 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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2016, 09:06:01 AM »
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.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2016, 02:29:46 PM »
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.

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.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2016, 02:45:16 PM »
I would appreciate a post relevant to the topic.

the mechanism behind ducting/groundwaves/whatever is not an unproven hypothesis.  it is a proven hypothesis, hence the videos detailing some of the proofs.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2016, 03:56:28 PM »
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.

I have worked in radar in both the USN and the US FAA . There are different radar systems for "Surface Search", such as the old SG-1b for land and ships on the ocean. There was another radar for "Air Search" , such as the old AN/SPS-6C for aircraft. The FAA used a long range version such as various versions of the ARSR systems.
It's really a bit more complex, but that is just the basics of what is used for different purposes.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2016, 10:45:51 PM »
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.

As many others have replied, thanks for that assurance. I do believe we have been trying to argue that for a long time in relation to sunrises etc. I think we will both concede that the paths of photons can be deflected by refraction, diffraction, scattering and reflection.

The fact that "photons" (ie electromagnetic radiation) travel in straight lines limits the range of microwave propagation over the Globe, hence limiting the spacing that can be used between microwave relay towers.
Microwave links are still used in locations where fibre-optic links are not feasible. How is the tower spacing calculated? Using the curvature of the earth of course! Most links were commonly limited to 50 km or so depending on terrain. Much longer micro-wave links have been built, such as:
Quote
The longest microwave radio relay known up to date crosses the Red Sea with 360 km hop between Jebel Erba (2170m a.s.l., 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (2572m a.s.l., 21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia).
These long distances can only be achieved with very high antenna positions (on mountain tops - just look where 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, Sudan and 21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, Saudi Arabia are - on quite high mountains. Guess what, the "hump" due to curvature is 2,545 m, but refraction allows a bit more reliable range.

And just how do these engineers know that they not giving unnecessary clearance? Simple, if the "beam" gets too close to the water surface they get multipath reflections from the waves and hence unreliable performance.

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!



*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #48 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?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 04:59:57 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2016, 04:59:37 PM »
Well you don't know how Skywave works so...
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #50 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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2016, 05:05:42 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.

You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2016, 05:17:23 PM »
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.



http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/PF6.htm
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/duct.html
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2016, 06:11:21 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.

You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?

The flat earth claiims seem to be "You round earthers claim that something that really works in a certain manner is due to the curvatutre of the earth and the earth is round, or globe shaped. My flat earth  claim is that because I am a flat earher I believe it doesn't work that way because I don't  know or will not admit that any thing about the fllat earth could be false.and that any thing about the round earth could be true."

Really the  feeble attemps by the flat earthers are the ones that are most often the absurd ones.. Bottom line : The idea that the earth is a flat disc is absurd in itself.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2016, 07:13:54 PM »
You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Actually, skepticism is a negative claim.

The positive claim is the claim that photons can bounce off of the ionosphere and ground and the ionosphere and the ground several times, hit a target beyond the horizon, and ricochet back against the ground and sky back to the transmitter. This is your ridiculous positive claim to prove. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the existence of your magical fairies. I'm the skeptic here. You're the claimant. It is your responsibility to prove it.

You may as well ask me to disprove your theory on the spiritual existence of ghosts.

Quote
Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?

How far above the horizon is it aiming above? Even lasers will spread out.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2016, 08:00:11 PM »
You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Actually, skepticism is a negative claim.

You are not a skeptic, you are definitively saying this is impossible with not a shred of support for it other than your own incredulity.

Quote
The positive claim is the claim that photons can bounce off of the ionosphere and ground and the ionosphere and the ground several times, hit a target beyond the horizon, and ricochet back against the ground and sky back to the transmitter. This is your ridiculous positive claim to prove. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the existence of your magical fairies. I'm the skeptic here. You're the claimant. It is your responsibility to prove it.

It is proven by physical laws and daily practice. This has been brought to your attention countless times to which you respond, "absurd!" As if this dismisses the claim. If you dismiss a claim you must do so via valid counter example or falsification of the example presented. You refuse to do so and only continue to chew the scenery.

Quote
You may as well ask me to disprove your theory on the spiritual existence of ghosts.

If you choose to say that it is absurd and impossible then yes, I would ask you to substantiate this position.

Quote
Quote
Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?

How far above the horizon is it aiming above? Even lasers will spread out.

Yes we know lasers can spread out, but we also know that radio cannot "see" past a certain distance without being aimed in such a fashion as directly correlates with an oblate spheroid Earth. Combined with the many other disciplines that suggest or even directly observe the sphericity of the Earth it appears that your position requires rethinking or further study.

NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #56 on: June 13, 2016, 09:29:45 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.

There are no "magical fairies" in the real world (globe, round, etc.) . There are facts and evidence of such things as line--of-sight, skip and all forms of electro-magnetic science.Radio signals and laser beams can and have been bounced off the moon for approximate or accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon is just one example of facts and evidence of something that flat earthers deny. It can get a bit complex, too.

 No, there are no "magical fairies" in the real world, but there are plenty of "magical fairies" in the flat earth world....flat discs, universal accelerations, ice rings, et cetera, et cetera and so forth. If you don't take flat earth seriously it can get so absurd that it can get hilariously funny.....And at least some people have a lot of reasons to do so and do so.LOL.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 09:44:23 PM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2016, 02:51:44 AM »
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 04:33:47 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #58 on: June 14, 2016, 02:52:24 AM »
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.

There are no "magical fairies" in the real world (globe, round, etc.) . There are facts and evidence of such things as line--of-sight, skip and all forms of electro-magnetic science.Radio signals and laser beams can and have been bounced off the moon for approximate or accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon is just one example of facts and evidence of something that flat earthers deny. It can get a bit complex, too.

 No, there are no "magical fairies" in the real world, but there are plenty of "magical fairies" in the flat earth world....flat discs, universal accelerations, ice rings, et cetera, et cetera and so forth. If you don't take flat earth seriously it can get so absurd that it can get hilariously funny.....And at least some people have a lot of reasons to do so and do so.LOL.

You have already embarrassed yourself quite enough in this thread with the EM-is-not-photons thing. I would suggest developing a sense of shame and refrain from posting in this thread ever again.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #59 on: June 14, 2016, 03:05:29 AM »
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

i have twice now posted such evidence for your perusal.  that you pretend it doesn't exist speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.