geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2016, 05:32:11 PM »
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.

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.

I have also worked in the fields of radio communication , radar and computer systems and  complexes. I also have held an amateur radio license for over 50 years and commercial radio licenses in my line of work in the military , civil service and private industry. For examples the characterists of each of the bands of frequencies is vastly different. For instance the amateur radio 75 meter band (3.5-4.0 MHZ)  and the 2 meter band (144-148  MHZ) are used for different purposes.
The examples I gave were simply facts of life that they were line of sight and limited by the curvature of the earth by the nature of their frequencies of operation.
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !
« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 05:49:13 PM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2016, 11:46:54 PM »
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !

Then Tom might find a real use for  :P Equidistant Azimuthal maps  :P! Instead of trying to pass them off as maps of the flat earth - with the North Pole Centred (Unipolar) and 0° E, 0° N centred (Bipolar)!

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2016, 12:37:11 AM »
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !

Then Tom might find a real use for  :P Equidistant Azimuthal maps  :P! Instead of trying to pass them off as maps of the flat earth - with the North Pole Centred (Unipolar) and 0° E, 0° N centred (Bipolar)!

Tom could get an AEP  centered on his home QTH. Hams use these to tell them how to rotate their beam antennas for DX QSO's.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2016, 01:46:21 AM »
It is also a simple fact of life that the earth is a globe and  not some flat disc. LOL
I am sure that with all his knowledge and expertise, Tom Bishop should have no diifficulty in passing the examinations for a First Class Commercial Radio License or an Amateur Radio Extra   Class  License.
How about it , Tom , get your "ticket" ....We could have a lively round table QSO and chew the rag on 20 meters. You could even start "The Flat Earth Net" !
Contact the ARRL for the wonderful possibilities of ham radio !

Then Tom might find a real use for  :P Equidistant Azimuthal maps  :P! Instead of trying to pass them off as maps of the flat earth - with the North Pole Centred (Unipolar) and 0° E, 0° N centred (Bipolar)!

Tom could get an AEP  centered on his home QTH. Hams use these to tell them how to rotate their beam antennas for DX QSO's.

:P Just think, if he had his base as the North Pole he use the standard "Ice Wall Map" to align his antenna!  :P

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2016, 05:52:52 AM »
:P Just think, if he had his base as the North Pole he use the standard "Ice Wall Map" to align his antenna!  :P

Just FYI, Tom Bishop doesn't believe in the ice wall map:

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

 :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2016, 06:46:59 AM »
:P Just think, if he had his base as the North Pole he use the standard "Ice Wall Map" to align his antenna!  :P

Just FYI, Tom Bishop doesn't believe in the ice wall map:

1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).

I believe in the bi-polar model with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.

 :)
No problem, the "Bipolar Flat Earth Map" is also an Equidistant Azimuthal map but this time centred on the spot at 0° E, 0° N! Of course he would need a houseboat.



Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2016, 04:02:06 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.

Why would there be a need for such a thing as Over the Horizon Radar when there is no real horizon in FET?


Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2016, 04:05:37 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!



STOP THE INTERNET!

Tom Bishop has made a statement of actual fact!

"All electro-magnetic radiation consists of photons."

May this date be remembered in perpetuity.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #28 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.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 02:48:50 AM 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

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2016, 03:36:05 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.
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 #30 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.
"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

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2016, 03:45:26 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 traveled in a straight line, and is a vastly more powerful explanation to the mental gymnastics the Round Earth scientists would have us believe.

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.
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 #32 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.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 03:52:51 AM 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

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2016, 03:53:04 AM »
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.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2016, 03:59:59 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 traveled in a straight line, and is a vastly more powerful explanation to the mental gymnastics the Round Earth scientists would have us believe.

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.

My knowledge of radiio theory is limited to the semi-professional technician/amateur radio operator level, so I'm no expert on the subject. But I do not recall photons ever being include in the wave lengths/frequencies used in radio communications. I do know that some frequencies have "skip" - some are "line of sight", etc. Photons may figure in laser theory. It seems Tom Bishop is claiming he knows more of theory than radilo scientists and engineers  ?  End of story.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6063
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2016, 04:01:32 AM »
Radio signals are beams of photons.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2016, 04:16:00 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.

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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #37 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.
"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 #38 on: June 12, 2016, 04:36:45 AM »
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.



I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6951
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2016, 07:07:27 AM »
I would appreciate a post relevant to the topic.
"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