Just curious...

  • 106 Replies
  • 7803 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2012, 06:16:19 AM »
Just to confirm, I can't see any link between iconoclast and IconoclastRadio. For one thing, iconoclast seems a great deal more literate and polite.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2012, 06:30:08 AM »
Sorry Pongo, but it wouldn't cost a fraction of the price.  Take a singular example of a communications satellite.  In order to simulate this you would need multiple towers with associated broadcast equipment, none of which is cheap. Also, the broadcast equipment would have to have exceptionally high Q, and have exceptional phase control.  Not to mention the fact that you would have to put significant effort into camouflaging these towers so that nobody would notice all the extra hardware lying about.  Yet, even with all of this you would only be "simulating" a satellite for a very small area in 3 dimensional space, because reflections and overlaps in signal lead to interference patterns which create "holes" where reception is impossible. So you would need even more towers and broadcast equipment.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38248
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2012, 07:02:06 AM »
Wouldn't it also a cost a lot of money to fake satellites and GPS and launches?

Yes, but faking them would only cost a fraction of the price, leaving loads of money for the conspirators.

Pongo, isn't the whole premise of launching satellites in the first place that it's supposed to be more cost effective than performing the same function by other means?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17253
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2012, 09:29:13 AM »
Sorry Pongo, but it wouldn't cost a fraction of the price.  Take a singular example of a communications satellite.  In order to simulate this you would need multiple towers with associated broadcast equipment, none of which is cheap. Also, the broadcast equipment would have to have exceptionally high Q, and have exceptional phase control.  Not to mention the fact that you would have to put significant effort into camouflaging these towers so that nobody would notice all the extra hardware lying about.  Yet, even with all of this you would only be "simulating" a satellite for a very small area in 3 dimensional space, because reflections and overlaps in signal lead to interference patterns which create "holes" where reception is impossible. So you would need even more towers and broadcast equipment.

Yeah, except that the US government already has a network of navigational towers called the LORAN system which covers most of the civilized world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN



Other governments have similar systems in place. The British, for example, claim to cover most major shipping lanes.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 09:56:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38248
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2012, 09:34:56 AM »
Sorry Pongo, but it wouldn't cost a fraction of the price.  Take a singular example of a communications satellite.  In order to simulate this you would need multiple towers with associated broadcast equipment, none of which is cheap. Also, the broadcast equipment would have to have exceptionally high Q, and have exceptional phase control.  Not to mention the fact that you would have to put significant effort into camouflaging these towers so that nobody would notice all the extra hardware lying about.  Yet, even with all of this you would only be "simulating" a satellite for a very small area in 3 dimensional space, because reflections and overlaps in signal lead to interference patterns which create "holes" where reception is impossible. So you would need even more towers and broadcast equipment.

Yeah, except that the US government already has a network of navigational towers called the LORAN system which covers most of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

http://www.accessscience.com/loadBinary.aspx?filename=389600FG0050.gif

Other governments have similar systems in place. The British, for example, claim to have buoys which cover most major shipping lanes.

That's nice Tom, but do you have any evidence that LORAN or British buoys are being used to simulate communications satellites?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17253
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2012, 09:50:23 AM »
That's nice Tom, but do you have any evidence that LORAN or British buoys are being used to simulate communications satellites?

The point was that at the time of GPS's alleged debut, the government already had a worldwide network of navigational towers in operation for over 30 years. The claim that they would need to build a new worldwide network of towers is untrue.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 11:30:53 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38248
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2012, 10:32:14 AM »
That's nice Tom, but do you have any evidence that LORAN or British buoys are being used to simulate communications satellites?

The point was that at the time of GPS's alleged debut, the government already had a worldwide network of navigational towers installed. The claim that they would need to build a new worldwide network of towers is untrue.

The post that you were responding to didn't say anything about GPS.  It was specifically referring to communications satellites.  Even so, no one could mistake LORAN towers for GPS satellites.  GPS and LORAN work in fundamentally different (and incompatible) ways.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17253
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2012, 11:13:51 AM »
The post that you were responding to didn't say anything about GPS.  It was specifically referring to communications satellites.

The subject was GPS. Please follow the thread.

Quote
Even so, no one could mistake LORAN towers for GPS satellites.  GPS and LORAN work in fundamentally different (and incompatible) ways.

LORAN is the direct precursor to GPS. It uses the same method of triangulation.

Indeed, the last version of LORAN, eLORAN, claims to be interoperable with GPS.

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571

Quote
Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 11:24:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Just curious...
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2012, 11:40:36 AM »
How would LORAN explain GPS coverage out in the open ocean? It might work in a flat earth scenario where there is direct line of sight, but that would raise eyebrows as to why there are so many towers (according to that image, that is).

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17253
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2012, 11:52:15 AM »
How would LORAN explain GPS coverage out in the open ocean? It might work in a flat earth scenario where there is direct line of sight, but that would raise eyebrows as to why there are so many towers (according to that image, that is).

On the LORAN Wiki page scroll down to the "See Also" section. The Russians have a counterpart to LORAN which does the same thing. The British also have a copunterpart to LORAN.

Look at the Decca system, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_Navigator_System

    "After the end of World War II the Decca Navigator Co. Ltd. was formed (1945) and the system expanded rapidly, particularly in areas of British influence; at its peak it was deployed in many of the world's major shipping areas."

There we go, evidence that there are navigational systems which cover many of the worlds major shipping areas. Like the US, the British also deployed their navigational towers world-wide:

    "Other chains were established in Japan (6 chains); Namibia and South Africa (5 chains); India and Bangladesh (4 chains); Canada (4 chains around Newfoundland and Nova Scotia); North-West Australia (2 chains); the Persian Gulf (1 chain with stations in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and a second chain in the north of the Gulf with stations in Iran) and the Bahamas (1 chain). Four chains were planned for Nigeria but only 2 chains were built and these did not enter into public service. Two chains in Vietnam were used during the Vietnam War for helicopter navigation, with limited success. During the Cold War period, following WWII, the R.A.F. established a confidential chain in Germany. The Master station was in Bad Iburg near Osnabrück and there were two Slaves. The purpose of this chain was to provide accurate air navigation for the corridor between Western Germany and Berlin in the event that a mass evacuation of allied personnel may be required. In order to maintain secrecy, frequencies were changed at irregular intervals."

So yes, there are a lot of these towers out there, and these are only the ones we're told about. It is also suggested in the LORAN Wiki that the British have access to LORAN technology, specifically.

As we can see, a world-wide system of navigational towers is absolutely possible -- as one already exists.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:10:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Just curious...
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2012, 11:59:48 AM »
As we can see, a world-wide system of navigational towers is absolutely possible -- as one already exists.
No more possible than landing a man on the Moon in 1969 though. Oh, and no, a "world-wide[sic] system of navigational towers" does not already exist. You're confused about what "worldwide" means:

"Involving or extending throughout the entire world; universal: a worldwide epidemic."
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2012, 12:11:32 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.

Re: Just curious...
« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2012, 12:18:02 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #43 on: March 13, 2012, 12:35:00 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.

Re: Just curious...
« Reply #44 on: March 13, 2012, 01:14:27 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2012, 01:26:26 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?

Not at all. Light doesn't really bend very well (again, discounting refraction and EA), and therefore will obviously work better if significant amounts of it are not being beamed out into the sky.

Re: Just curious...
« Reply #46 on: March 13, 2012, 01:34:03 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?

Not at all. Light doesn't really bend very well (again, discounting refraction and EA), and therefore will obviously work better if significant amounts of it are not being beamed out into the sky.
If and only if FET's claim that the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves is ignored. FEers can't have it both ways--FE radio waves travel farther (to explain distance of ionosphere refraction) and FE radio waves don't travel far (beyond RET-predicted distance) because the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #47 on: March 13, 2012, 01:39:24 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?

Not at all. Light doesn't really bend very well (again, discounting refraction and EA), and therefore will obviously work better if significant amounts of it are not being beamed out into the sky.
If and only if FET's claim that the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves is ignored. FEers can't have it both ways--FE radio waves travel farther (to explain distance of ionosphere refraction) and FE radio waves don't travel far (beyond RET-predicted distance) because the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves.

True. However, radio waves are fundamentally different from light waves. They can travel at much higher wavelengths (up to 100 km), which means they can reach areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick.

Re: Just curious...
« Reply #48 on: March 13, 2012, 03:18:36 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?

Not at all. Light doesn't really bend very well (again, discounting refraction and EA), and therefore will obviously work better if significant amounts of it are not being beamed out into the sky.
If and only if FET's claim that the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves is ignored. FEers can't have it both ways--FE radio waves travel farther (to explain distance of ionosphere refraction) and FE radio waves don't travel far (beyond RET-predicted distance) because the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves.

True. However, radio waves are fundamentally different from light waves. They can travel at much higher wavelengths (up to 100 km), which means they can reach areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick.
Why would reaching areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick (a.k.a. thinner) explain longer distance for reception on the FE?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #49 on: March 13, 2012, 05:05:11 PM »
Tom is really confusing the issue. LORAN does not require precise aiming of the receiving element in the way that point source communication from a satellite does.  My original point was that in order to replicate such a point source you would need multiple broadcasters, and all associated equipment,  to give you a few square feet of area where the signal could appear to be coming from a satellite.  Seeing as you can easily relocate a satellite dish, align it, and pick up a signal, it is fairly obvious to anyone with more than a cursory understanding of RF that the ground based tower idea is impractical,
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2012, 05:12:24 PM »
The post that you were responding to didn't say anything about GPS.  It was specifically referring to communications satellites.

The subject was GPS. Please follow the thread.

Quote
Even so, no one could mistake LORAN towers for GPS satellites.  GPS and LORAN work in fundamentally different (and incompatible) ways.

LORAN is the direct precursor to GPS. It uses the same method of triangulation.

Indeed, the last version of LORAN, eLORAN, claims to be interoperable with GPS.

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571

Quote
Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”

LORAN towers in the US were shut down a while back.  Are you suggesting NASA secretly operates them now?  And LORAN was not world wide if you look closely (a few missing continents).  GPS works at the north pole (you can watch Top Gear drive there using GPS), are you suggesting that there are towers built there?


?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2012, 05:45:33 PM »
That was only C-LORAN.  E-loran is back up as an emergency alternative.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17253
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2012, 05:50:51 PM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
LORAN towers in the US were shut down a while back.  Are you suggesting NASA secretly operates them now?

Obviously the old LORAN-C signal was gradually faded out to make room for the new eLORAN signal (aka. GPS), just as LORAN-A was replaced with LORAN-B, and LORAN-B was replaced with LORAN-C.
 
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
And LORAN was not world wide if you look closely (a few missing continents).

As discussed, Russia and Britain have counterpart systems.

Quote
GPS works at the north pole (you can watch Top Gear drive there using GPS), are you suggesting that there are towers built there?

Several countries have Arctic research bases at the North Pole. Britain or Russia may have towers there. Remember, navigational towers come as standard equipment at government bases. All of the LORAN towers on the map I provided on the previous page, for example, are located on US government bases.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:01:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #53 on: March 13, 2012, 06:00:51 PM »
First of all Tom, be a little more careful assigning quotes, as I was not the one who posted about Loran being world wide.

Second, LORAN operates in the LF band where as GPS operates in the 1100-1500MHz band, so stop trying to pretend they are in any way the same thing.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17253
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #54 on: March 13, 2012, 06:03:10 PM »
First of all Tom, be a little more careful assigning quotes, as I was not the one who posted about Loran being world wide.

Second, LORAN operates in the LF band where as GPS operates in the 1100-1500MHz band, so stop trying to pretend they are in any way the same thing.

Perhaps you missed my citation on the previous page which states that eLORAN is interoperable with GPS.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #55 on: March 13, 2012, 06:03:51 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?

Not at all. Light doesn't really bend very well (again, discounting refraction and EA), and therefore will obviously work better if significant amounts of it are not being beamed out into the sky.
If and only if FET's claim that the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves is ignored. FEers can't have it both ways--FE radio waves travel farther (to explain distance of ionosphere refraction) and FE radio waves don't travel far (beyond RET-predicted distance) because the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves.

True. However, radio waves are fundamentally different from light waves. They can travel at much higher wavelengths (up to 100 km), which means they can reach areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick.
Why would reaching areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick (a.k.a. thinner) explain longer distance for reception on the FE?

...because it means less atmospheric distortion...

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38248
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2012, 06:07:58 PM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
LORAN towers in the US were shut down a while back.  Are you suggesting NASA secretly operates them now?

Obviously the old LORAN-C signal was gradually faded out to make room for the new eLORAN signal (aka. GPS), just as LORAN-A was replaced with LORAN-B, and LORAN-B was replaced with LORAN-C.

I'm sorry but I don't see where your link says that eLORAN has gone live.  Would you please point it out?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Just curious...
« Reply #57 on: March 13, 2012, 06:29:59 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?

Not at all. Light doesn't really bend very well (again, discounting refraction and EA), and therefore will obviously work better if significant amounts of it are not being beamed out into the sky.
If and only if FET's claim that the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves is ignored. FEers can't have it both ways--FE radio waves travel farther (to explain distance of ionosphere refraction) and FE radio waves don't travel far (beyond RET-predicted distance) because the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves.

True. However, radio waves are fundamentally different from light waves. They can travel at much higher wavelengths (up to 100 km), which means they can reach areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick.
Why would reaching areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick (a.k.a. thinner) explain longer distance for reception on the FE?

...because it means less atmospheric distortion...
Would you please draw a diagram that shows how a radio wave reaching any area where the atmosphere is thinner and then arriving at a farther distance on the FE than a wave that doesn't reach such an area?

I believe that you've made a logic error. If a wave goes high enough to reach the thinner atmosphere, it can't turnaround and reach the FE again.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #58 on: March 13, 2012, 06:38:49 PM »


Perhaps you missed my citation on the previous page which states that eLORAN is interoperable with GPS.
Only in the way that a DVD is interoperable with a VCR.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Just curious...
« Reply #59 on: March 13, 2012, 07:00:21 PM »
It should also be noted that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth, due to the whole 'lack of curvature' thing. Unless you believe in EA.

Edited for Spanish bleeding through.
Remind how FET predicts how far radio waves will travel from a transmitter of height h over a perfectly flat with the Oceans area. Thanks.

Absolutely no idea. My grasp of electromagnetic radiation extends only to chemistry.
So... we can disregard your claim that waves will travel farther on the flat Earth as unfounded, right?

Not at all. Light doesn't really bend very well (again, discounting refraction and EA), and therefore will obviously work better if significant amounts of it are not being beamed out into the sky.
If and only if FET's claim that the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves is ignored. FEers can't have it both ways--FE radio waves travel farther (to explain distance of ionosphere refraction) and FE radio waves don't travel far (beyond RET-predicted distance) because the atmosphere is opaque to radio waves.

True. However, radio waves are fundamentally different from light waves. They can travel at much higher wavelengths (up to 100 km), which means they can reach areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick.
Why would reaching areas where atmosphere is significantly less thick (a.k.a. thinner) explain longer distance for reception on the FE?

...because it means less atmospheric distortion...
Would you please draw a diagram that shows how a radio wave reaching any area where the atmosphere is thinner and then arriving at a farther distance on the FE than a wave that doesn't reach such an area?

I believe that you've made a logic error. If a wave goes high enough to reach the thinner atmosphere, it can't turnaround and reach the FE again.

You understand how waves work, right? It constantly goes up and down. The wavelength (how far up and down it goes) is inversely proportional to the frequency (how fast it moves horizontally). Radiowaves have longer wavelengths (and therefore slower frequency). The wavelength can be as long as 100 km. This brings them very high in the air, and then back down.