It was found that "the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer ... It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth's atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception."
The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.
Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations. These fluctuations were studied by S. Newcomb, who wrote: "I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatic phenomenon presented by the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action of any known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some action in nature hitherto unknown." They are not explainable by the forces of gravitation which emanate from the sun and the planets.
The barometric pressure, julian, also tells us that things are not as they seem on this Earth.
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: "The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth?s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.""
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.
Now, julian, you must take into account the existence of the Heavenly Dome, which separates the Sun/Moon/Planets/Stars orbits from our atmosphere:
On the Heavenly Dome subject:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/ftrad.html
http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm
http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/flatearth.htm
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm
The existence of this Dome explains all your concerns expressed in your message...
E/M circumnavigation on a flat earth was done and proved by none other than Nikola Tesla, please read the Tunguska 1908 explosion thread; a ball lightning produced in Tesla's laboratory in New York exploded over the river Tunguska on the opposite side of the flat earth.
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.
The area between the two lines (shaded a lighter shade than the night-time sector) is known as the grayline and has special significance to radio communicators. Signals which travel inside the grayline region often experience significant improvements in propagation because of the loss of ionization in the D-region as the Sun sets. However, because the higher F-regions of the ionosphere remain strongly ionized for longer periods of time, signals with higher frequencies are able to travel to greater distances with less attenuation when they are within the grayline.
I am an amateur radio enthusiast, I have 2 callsigns, 2E1JJM and M3JJM - you can look this up with the RSGB and with Ofcom - the UK's governmental body for communications.
Thankyou for your cooperation. A NASA snatch squad has been sent to your address. Enjoy Gitmo sucker!
Your high school bull session message needs lots of improvement...
On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission.
On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission.
Wow - that is amazingly cool.
(If you are an A1 nerd like me, that is!)
Love it how no FE believers can put a plausible argument against what I have said above.
It's disgusting that you all devote your lives to a theory that is obscure and ultimately has little gain if it was actually correct.
this ever actually takes off, do you know what it will do to society? Particularly to people that have very fragile and easily influenced minds? It's a shameful existence.
If any FE's live in the southern half of the UK, I would love to meet up for dinner, I will pay, just for the interest I have in meeting someone that genuinely believes this stuff, and to have a good hearty debate about it over a good Bordeaux.
Thinking for yourself is fixing your toilet rather than getting a plumber in to do it.
FE theory merely reduces trust and faith in humanity.
As for bouncing off the ice mountains - not true as the signal would be receivable by the transmission antenna rather than the secondary antenna oppositely polarised to receive the signal coming from behind you - in my experiment, this is not possible.
The heavenly dome doesn't explain how one could transmit a highly directional signal, aimed within .5 of a degree, and then receive it at the exact opposite angle on a secondary antenna moments later. If your heavenly dome theory is even plausible, the signal would actually bounce right back at you before it could come from behind you, meaning it could and would be received on the primary transmission antenna first. I will try and reproduce this effect next time the conditions are right - I doubt it's going to work though....
Love it how no FE believers can put a plausible argument against what I have said above. I totally win.
reflection from the curved atmosphere will cause EM radiation to encircle the earth and ultimately return 'behind' the point of transmission .
The Maxwell-Boltzmann relations dictate that the temperature gradient will result in a corresponding convex meniscus of the atmosphere
Julian, welcome to the forum. I am posting for the first time, I have tried to avoid the forums and have preferred to mainly discuss FE/RE theory among other scholars. These forums, as with most internet forums, tend to be filled with extremely juvenile conversatoins. However, your question rises above the rather basic intellectual capacity demonstrated by typical round earthers.
The explanation to your question is not explained by reflections fro mthe ice shelf, as this would result in reverse polarity and ultimately destructive intereference of the EM radiation. Rather, the explanation is from the curvature of the atmosphere. The earth itself has a flat surface, in 3 dimensions ressembling to the shape of a thin cylinder, however the atmosphere retains curvature due to the meniscus affect. Without getting into the intense mathematical complexities which are neccessary to fully describe the phenomenon, the basis can be easily explained due to difference in cohesion between the bulk gas molecules vs cohesion of the gas/earth interface (which occurs at the edge of the earth, or the ice shelf). The cohesive forces within the molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the atmosphere and the ice shelf, causing the gaseous atmosphere to assume a convex shape.
A similar affect can be seen in everyday life. If you fill a glass with water, the top of the water will form a concave meniscus. if you fill the glass with mercury, the liquid will show a convex meniscus (the latter being analogous to the atmosphere/ice shelf interface). In the case of the flat earth, the raised ice shelf which encircles the surface of the earth acts as the "walls" which interact with the atmosphere. Thus, while the earth is still flat, the atmosphere maintains a concave curvature.
An alternative, less accepted theory is due to the temperature gradient between the ice shelf and the bulk land. The cold temperatures from the ice shelves cause gas particles at the edge of the earth to have a colder average temperature than those in the center, creating a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. The Maxwell-Boltzmann relations dictate that the temperature gradient will result in a corresponding convex meniscus of the atmosphere (think of it this way: hot gas rises, cool gas falls. The gas over the ice shelf is cold, as you move away from the ice shelf the gas in the atmosphere heats up and rises, creating a convex lens).
Thus, while the earth is flat the atmosphere is not. This is a fact overlooked by many round earthers who are quick to dismiss FE facts because they dont have the capacity to evaluate the complexities of advanced scientific theory. If the appropriate complex Euler wave equation is satisfied. reflection from the curved atmosphere will cause EM radiation to encircle the earth and ultimately return 'behind' the point of transmission .
Julian, welcome to the forum. I am posting for the first time, I have tried to avoid the forums and have preferred to mainly discuss FE/RE theory among other scholars. These forums, as with most internet forums, tend to be filled with extremely juvenile conversatoins. However, your question rises above the rather basic intellectual capacity demonstrated by typical round earthers.
The explanation to your question is not explained by reflections fro mthe ice shelf, as this would result in reverse polarity and ultimately destructive intereference of the EM radiation. Rather, the explanation is from the curvature of the atmosphere. The earth itself has a flat surface, in 3 dimensions ressembling to the shape of a thin cylinder, however the atmosphere retains curvature due to the meniscus affect. Without getting into the intense mathematical complexities which are neccessary to fully describe the phenomenon, the basis can be easily explained due to difference in cohesion between the bulk gas molecules vs cohesion of the gas/earth interface (which occurs at the edge of the earth, or the ice shelf). The cohesive forces within the molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the atmosphere and the ice shelf, causing the gaseous atmosphere to assume a convex shape.
A similar affect can be seen in everyday life. If you fill a glass with water, the top of the water will form a concave meniscus. if you fill the glass with mercury, the liquid will show a convex meniscus (the latter being analogous to the atmosphere/ice shelf interface). In the case of the flat earth, the raised ice shelf which encircles the surface of the earth acts as the "walls" which interact with the atmosphere. Thus, while the earth is still flat, the atmosphere maintains a concave curvature.
An alternative, less accepted theory is due to the temperature gradient between the ice shelf and the bulk land. The cold temperatures from the ice shelves cause gas particles at the edge of the earth to have a colder average temperature than those in the center, creating a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. The Maxwell-Boltzmann relations dictate that the temperature gradient will result in a corresponding convex meniscus of the atmosphere (think of it this way: hot gas rises, cool gas falls. The gas over the ice shelf is cold, as you move away from the ice shelf the gas in the atmosphere heats up and rises, creating a convex lens).
Thus, while the earth is flat the atmosphere is not. This is a fact overlooked by many round earthers who are quick to dismiss FE facts because they dont have the capacity to evaluate the complexities of advanced scientific theory. If the appropriate complex Euler wave equation is satisfied. reflection from the curved atmosphere will cause EM radiation to encircle the earth and ultimately return 'behind' the point of transmission .
Now I am going to assume you are correct with your theory for why the atmosphere is convex, as in my theory it is also, so for my side of the debate, this has little effect (just so you know, I did actually think the FE atmosphere was convex anyway, but it didn't occur to me to think why.). Where I think your argument is flawed however, is your application of Euler's Wave Equation....I'm fairly certain it cannot be derived correctly for electromagnetic waves as there is no way to model the medium, and I also can't think of a circumstance with an EM wave that would have a rational boundary condition. Hence the equation you are actually looking for...is the Electromagnetic Wave Equation, which is similar, (second order partial differential equation etc), but it's derived from Maxwell's equations funnily enough, and describes how an EM wave travels through a medium or vacuum...which as I'm sure you will agree, is vitally important to describing this phenomenon properly, due to the variations of the layers in the ionosphere; and its application holds firm for my argument as well.
julian, the radiation pressure over those spots IS LOWEST on the surface of the Sun, about 1/10000 of the atmospheric pressure on Earth; at this time, scientists do not know what causes the relation between the sunspots and weather pattern changes on Earth. If it is not due to radiation, what other cause could there be? This question is answered only in the correct model of the flat earth, which does include the black sun, which gives off energy/aether to the visible sun.
13. Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.
The explanation to your question is not explained by reflections fro mthe ice shelf, as this would result in reverse polarity and ultimately destructive intereference of the EM radiation. Rather, the explanation is from the curvature of the atmosphere. The earth itself has a flat surface, in 3 dimensions ressembling to the shape of a thin cylinder, however the atmosphere retains curvature due to the meniscus affect. Without getting into the intense mathematical complexities which are neccessary to fully describe the phenomenon, the basis can be easily explained due to difference in cohesion between the bulk gas molecules vs cohesion of the gas/earth interface (which occurs at the edge of the earth, or the ice shelf). The cohesive forces within the molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the atmosphere and the ice shelf, causing the gaseous atmosphere to assume a convex shape.
1. Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.
julian, the radiation pressure over those spots IS LOWEST on the surface of the Sun, about 1/10000 of the atmospheric pressure on Earth; at this time, scientists do not know what causes the relation between the sunspots and weather pattern changes on Earth. If it is not due to radiation, what other cause could there be? This question is answered only in the correct model of the flat earth, which does include the black sun, which gives off energy/aether to the visible sun.
To summarise you are saying "Scientists don't know what causes the relationship between sunspots and weather patterns, so is could "only" be down to a Flat Earth".
PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!
squirter, we can find a junior forum for you, if needed...
Impossibility of a round Sun shape:
The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the
...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html
...
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf
...
2. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.
squirter, we can find a junior forum for you, if needed...
Impossibility of a round Sun shape:
The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the
...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html
...
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf
...
PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!
Your spoutings are relating to "Creationist" sources or the sun being a binary star 14,000 years ago.2. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.
PSEUDOSQUIRTFUCK ALERT!
Your spoutings relating to my message are quotes taken out of context, which have nothing to do with my original posting.
3Tesla, at the present time, you are not in a position to judge anybody; you simply lack the hundreds of books or the thousands of links to keep up with me in any debate. I have thoroughly destroyed your every conceivable crackpot argument, there on the .net site and here;
you have a laughable high school level of scientific understanding,
not to mention an even weaker knowledge of history.
If you have nothing better to say, please shut the faq up. Thank you.
But it does; our friend julian must understand that the surface of the earth is actually flat; the explosion observed from a distance of 1000 km, or from London, or from Stockholm (instantly or a few minutes later) could thus be seen only a flat earth.
14. Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,e.g. For the "Tunguska Event", how do we know the light in Europe was caused by one explosion and not other fragments of an "asteriod?" Has anything ever happened like it since? The H-Bomb tests: They produced lots of photons but didn't illuminate half the world.
and suspect claims?rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
2. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.
3Tesla, you are the one who started the name calling not me, if you remember...
I have put up with your amateurish (notwithstanding your titles) approach long enough...
you are ignoring all the photographs which clearly show there is no curvature...
The visual obstacle between London and Tungusk IS OVER 9000 KILOMETERS IN HEIGHT! THE EXPLOSION AT TUNGUSKA PROVES CLEARLY THAT THERE IS NO CURVATURE OVER A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 7000 KILOMETERS IN DISTANCE.
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast...
At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink
It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime . . . the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.
julian, when it comes to atmospheric science, you are out of your league here...please do your homework before posting...
What I wrote IS TRUE...
The diurnal pressure variation has been recorded for hundreds of years now...as you should know...my friend...
Let us take as an example Taiwan. Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25?N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.
Do you understand these things Julian? And then why the crap from your last message...
The CAUSE of this variation is unknown, although it is described officially as being caused by waves in the upper atmosphere.
Therefore, julian, your comments are a trademark of the fact that you have in fact NOT STUDIED this things, mabye at all...
Now, here is the paradox: The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
Velikovsky was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century; notwithstanding the crackpot comments made by "scientists".
Please read Worlds in Collision carefully, you will discover the 1000+ references which prove that the Earth stopped from its axial rotation several times in the past; this could have happened only in a flat earth system, that is, the stars/sun changing the orbit above the earth; had the Earth stopped from the axial rotation, it would have crashed into the void, cosmic space immediately, not being able to restart its rotation.
Your superficial comments on this subject show that you have never studied the past catastrophism theories, and do not understand, for example, the cause of the extinction of the mammoths.
The first e/m signal to reach above the flat earth and back, was sent by none other than Nikola Tesla in 1883.
It is perfectly explainable, if we take into account the aether layer which lies beneath the Dome.
Your research on the Tunguska explosion is deplorable, julian; how could you bring Peary into the equation? That explosion had nothing to do with Peary's trips to the NP, please study before posting here.
Here is the best proof of the fact that the surface of the Earth is flat, and that e/m signals can be sent above it:
(renting time on the particle accelerator is expensive and there is quite a waiting list, I don't have time to mess around during the day).
These are just quick responses while my neutrino experiment is running, let me know if you ahve any other questions and I will get ot them when I finish work.
However, after you get beyond Physics II you learn that gasses are not ideal, there is certainly attraction between the gas particles and the gas/ice shelf interface. It is the reason why the atmosphere exists (instead of just floating into space).
However, after you get beyond Physics II you learn that gasses are not ideal, there is certainly attraction between the gas particles and the gas/ice shelf interface. It is the reason why the atmosphere exists (instead of just floating into space).
I thought that The Earth keeps its atmosphere because of gravitational attraction.
Or am I being stupid/naive?
However, after you get beyond Physics II you learn that gasses are not ideal, there is certainly attraction between the gas particles and the gas/ice shelf interface. It is the reason why the atmosphere exists (instead of just floating into space).
I thought that The Earth keeps its atmosphere because of gravitational attraction.
Or am I being stupid/naive?
If you were an FE'er, then yeah, you are so stupid and naive.
But as a RE'er, nah, you're fine. Gravity = win.
Let us now return to the subject discussed here.
An electrical signal will circumnavigate above a flat earth, just as easily as it could around a spherical earth.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716502#msg716502 (especially this, 55 km without ANY CURVATURE)
3Tesla, I just hope, for the sake of your pacients, that your research in the medical field is much better than the BS you posted in the last message: is this what you are trying to do, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit? It doesn't work with me...
Can you read 3Tesla? If so, we are now on the Hamilton Beach, looking at the Toronto lakeshore west condominiums:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg?v=0)
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS DR. 1/3TESLA?
DO YOU?
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg?v=0)
No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg?v=0)
No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.
Let us now return to the subject discussed here.
In the flat earth model, we also have an invisible layer of charged particles which serves as a medium for those signals.
In 1883, Nikola Tesla put forward the theory of electric signal propagation to the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia) and to the National Electric Light Association (St. Louis). This problem was analyzed by Thompson and Webster, and in 1886, and further studied by Corum and Aidinejad in The Transient Propagation of ELF Pulses in the Earth Ionosphere Cavity, which confirmed Tesla's experimental data.
Also, on a flat earth, we have the Schumann cavity resonances, that is, the space between the surface of the flat Earth and the conductive ionosphere (acting as a closed waveguide). Just above the ionosphere we have the first Dome, as is well known in our flat earth theory now.Irrelevant. Edit: Just to prove how Schumann resonance is irrelevant, firstly, it's experienced only in the ELF bands, I'm talking about HF bands, BIG difference. Secondly, Schumann resonance is normally applicable when excitation has occured...it's generally accepted this is caused by lightning. Directional circumnavigational propagation is normally only possible in very good weather conditions, i.e. sunny, hot and clear. The initial propagation simply will not be strong enough otherwise.
An electrical signal will circumnavigate above a flat earth, just as easily as it could around a spherical earth.
Therefore, julian, your hypotheses investigated in the opening message, are just not true; our flat earth model includes all these details.
Now, the facts presented here in the FAQ are not all true, you have to be careful about that; my messages include the correct theory, so far.
Here is the complete demonstration for you julian, that the Earth is completely stationary; that is, the cloud trajectories prove clearly that friction coupled with inertia could not possibly explain the round earth atmosphere model:You cannot cite this forum. Ever heard of pseudo-science? Give me academic references/citations directly in your posts, and I will believe you.
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=d8643bb13f66e50d4e9bee543b374e62&topic=535.0
You mentioned (or somebody else) the Maxwell field equations; well, all of you have not done your homework, IN FACT THOSE EQUATIONS WERE MODIFIED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL 1861 FORM, Tesla was the first to discover this, and actually recovered the true equations (even though he did not use the field concept).
Highly irrelevant to directional circumnavigational propagation. i.e. I don't care about Tesla's dubious theories, nor do many others of the scientific community. If the majority of what you have mentioned above were genuine statements that could be reproduced, humanity would be beyond the state that it currently is. A "special bulb"? A "tube of force"? Come on...time to take a reality check. Tesla was a genius, but equally nuts and everyone realises that. If any of this could be recreated, mankind would be several steps ahead than it is now.
'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
'My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.' ? Nikola Tesla
Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').
Abstract.
Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell?s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
Scalar waves were originally detected by a Scottish mathematical genius called James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) He linked electricity and magnetism and laid the foundation for modern physics, but unfortunately the very fine scalar waves (which he included in his research) were deliberately left out of his work by the 3 men, including Heinrich Hertz, who laid down the laws taught for physics as a discipline at colleges. They dismissed Maxwell's scalar waves or potentials as 'mystical' because they were physically unmanifest and only existed in the 'ethers' and so were determined to be too ineffectual for further study. These enigmatic (but more powerful than even microwaves when harnessed and concentrated into a beam) scalar waves may have been forgotten except that Nicola Tesla accidentally rediscovered them. He'd originally worked with Thomas Edison who discovered direct current, but Tesla discovered alternating current. The two men disagreed and eventually parted ways and Tesla later experimented using the research of the German Heinrich Hertz, who was proving the existence of electromagnetic waves. Tesla found, while experimenting with violently abrupt direct current electrical charges, that a new form of energy (scalar) came through.
By 1904, Tesla had developed transmitters to harness scalar energy from one transmitter to another, undetectably bypassing time and space. He could just materialize it from one place to another through hyperspace, without the use of wires, it was just sucked right out of the space-time/vacuum and into a transmitter and into a beam which could be targeted to another transmitter. Unfortunately he got no financial support for replacing electricity, which used wires and therefore earned money, and to this day, this is the reason why scalar energy is still not acknowledged in mainstream physics. Tesla, even though he discovered more for mankind in science than many others, is still not credited in science books for his discovery of scalar waves, a source of 'free-energy' obtainable as a limitless source of power that costs nothing. Other inventors have sporadically rediscovered 'free-energy' but have come to harm or have been silenced by the sum of millions of dollars hush money, a small sum compared to the sale of electricity, oil, gas and a myriad of other energy producers which would then be rendered worthless. Money hungry big business has harshly crushed any opposition to their own riches, generated by multiple obsolete earth polluting fossil fuels.
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html
julian, you do not understand what is going on.
The actual explosion was seen from 1000 km distance, the visual obstacle in the path is 67.5 kilometers!
Those newspaper accounts are THE REAL ONES; they appeared on July 1 and 2 in the Times, so stop the complaining.
What should have been a very local phenomenon, was seen instantly or minutes later on the other half of the globe (given your model), absolutely impossible given the curvature and the visual obstacle (over 9000 kilometers between London and Tunguska).
Please read Worlds in Collision, where you will discover over 1000 bibliographical references which will prove to you that the Earth stopped from its axial rotation several times in the past. Notwithstanding the comments made by the scientific establishment, you will find that Velikovsky was truly one of the geniuses of the 20th century:
http://www.varchive.org/
Please research the ball lightning physics much more carefully; you might start with Tesla's own experiments, he was able to produce such ball lightning very easily using the aether; your comments show that you have not studied this matter at all.
Now julian and 3Tesla, here are some photographs for you to watch carefully:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg718436#msg718436
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716538#msg716538
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716522#msg716522
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716502#msg716502 (especially this, 55 km without ANY CURVATURE)
for the sake of your pacients
Tesla was a genius, but equally nuts and everyone realises that.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg?v=0)
No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.
Here is a link to another Toronto-across-the-lake photo that clearly shows that you *can't* see the shoreline from that distance (because there is a "hump" of water in the way):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Ontario#Images
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_from_LO.JPG
So who's right?
Here is a link to another Toronto-across-the-lake photo that clearly shows that you *can't* see the shoreline from that distance (because there is a "hump" of water in the way):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Ontario#Images
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_from_LO.JPG
So who's right?
How close was the camera to the surface of the water? How high were those waves? Was the tide in?
What was the true elevation at which Levee's photos were taken?
What was the true elevation at which Levee's photos were taken?
I don't know. I'm not Levee, neither am I the photogorapher.
I'm asking you to describe the nature of the photos you presented as evidence. So how about it?
I'm asking you to describe the nature of the photos you presented as evidence. So how about it?
I have not given adequate details of the second-hand photos which I have referenced ...
In the same way that Levee has not given adequate details of the second-hand photos which he has referenced.
From which I reasonably conclude that second-hand lake photos are not suitable evidence.
So you instictively attack the admissability of my evidence because in am a Round Earther ...
But you do not draw into question the admissability of Levee's evidence because he is a Flat Earther?
Do I detect a significant bias in your motives?
If so, then I think that you lack the necessary fairness and critical reasoning skills to engage in grown-up scientific debate.
I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.
If we go inland, 2 kilometers, we will ascend to about 170 meters; in order to see the complete details, we must ascend further to 237 meters.
you should see nothing under 5.56 meters. In the zoom taken at nighttime we can see EVERYTHING, even the light from the small island in front of Toronto; and in the original (without zoom) photo in daytime, we can see every detail with no curvature whatsoever.
Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:
How one can transmit a signal directionally in one plane, and then seconds to under a second later, receive said signal in the opposite plane behind oneself, BEFORE it is received again in front of oneself?
I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.
The photographer could be lying - he could have really taken the photos from a boat half way across the lake.
Or he could have photoshopped them - the same way that NASA do with all their space pictures.
For all we know he is part of some grand Flat Earth Conspiracy and cannot be trusted.
I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.
The photographer could be lying - he could have really taken the photos from a boat half way across the lake.
Or he could have photoshopped them - the same way that NASA do with all their space pictures.
For all we know he is part of some grand Flat Earth Conspiracy and cannot be trusted.
So no explanation for the picture then?
I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.
The photographer could be lying - he could have really taken the photos from a boat half way across the lake.
Or he could have photoshopped them - the same way that NASA do with all their space pictures.
For all we know he is part of some grand Flat Earth Conspiracy and cannot be trusted.
So noexplanationdocumentation for the picture then?
The photographer does document the picture. In that photo album there's also a picture of the photographer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487754961/in/photostream/) standing right there on the Lake Ontraio Beach, dated at the same time as the other picture. He's obviously not standing on a giant 200 foot sand dune.Look what is on that same beach.
The photographer does document the picture. In that photo album there's also a picture of the photographer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487754961/in/photostream/) standing right there on the Lake Ontraio Beach, dated at the same time as the other picture. He's obviously not standing on a giant 200 foot sand dune.
Where does it say that the photo in question was taken from that precise location?
And there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.Where does it say that the photo in question was taken from that precise location?
Read the caption of the image in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/
"Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton."
And there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmdAnd there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.
That little tower clearly isn't on any beach.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmdAnd there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.
That little tower clearly isn't on any beach.
Nice try.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmd
Nice try.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmd
Nice try.
Van Wagner's Beach Rd isn't on a beach.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/if8s5l.png)
Van Wagner's Beach Rd isn't on a beach.A building between a road and a beach is still considered "on the beach". Hotels "on the beach" are still considered "on the beach" even though there is a road which leads to the hotel. What address would you expect a building on the beach to have? Now you are trying to divert everyone's attention to the meaning of "on the beach". However, it is reasonable to expect that someone taking a photo from the tower which is somewhere between Van Wagner's Beach Rd and Lake Ontario would say the photo is "from Lake Ontraio Beach". You can even tell from the photo you linked to the man is standing on the trail which borders the tower you can clearly see in the satellite photograph, or what you would believe to be an aerial photograph.
No, but it *is* close enough to the beach that the photographer could have used it to take his/her pictures ...
As well you know!
Fortunately the photographer tells us that he took the picture on the beach and includes pictures of himself and his friend standing on the beach.The tower is on the beach in that it borders the beach. In the other photo, he was standing on a paved trail which is between the tower and the beach.
QuoteNo, but it *is* close enough to the beach that the photographer could have used it to take his/her pictures ...
As well you know!
Fortunately the photographer tells us that he took the picture on the beach and includes pictures of himself and his friend standing on the beach.
nice photoshop skills leveee
try using real evidence instead of bullshit.
Where does it say that the photo in question was taken from that precise location?
Read the caption of the image in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/
"Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton."
I've underlined the pertinent part of the image's description.
You arguments are not successfully progressing the OP of this thread....please cut it out.
levee,
1. stop swearing - not necessary
2. you don't mean centrifugal - if you had studied any post high school physics you would know the word you are looking for is centripetal.
3. your whole post is off topic.
Tom, here's another photo that was taken at Lake Ontario Beach by the same photographer. Was it taken at precisely the same location as the one in question?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487754623/
If you do a search for "Toronto" you will find plenty of threads that Levee, et al. have tried to derail with their dubious lake-view pictures.
Tom, here's another photo that was taken at Lake Ontario Beach by the same photographer. Was it taken at precisely the same location as the one in question?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487754623/
Sorry, but that's still on the beach. Plenty of grass types grow in sand. Turf, for example.
QuoteIf you do a search for "Toronto" you will find plenty of threads that Levee, et al. have tried to derail with their dubious lake-view pictures.
It's not dubious. When there is no explanation for how there is no curvature in the view across Lake Ontario, it's crystal clear that the RE model is wrong.
Yes Tom, I know that the picture was on the beach. However, Lake Ontario has lots of beach. Miles of beach. That wasn't what I was asking. I was asking if all of those pictures in that photographer's fliker page were taken from the exact same spot on Lake Ontario beach?
Yes, it is dubious. There is no verifiable documentation stating exactly where (location and elevation) those pictures were taken.
They were taken FROM THE BEACH.
OK, that narrows it down to about a 3 mile stretch. WHERE on the beach were those pictures taken?
Except there are things on the beach, such as that tower, which would give the photographer a much better view.OK, that narrows it down to about a 3 mile stretch. WHERE on the beach were those pictures taken?
It doesn't matter. The beach is at or just above sea level.
The tower borders the trail which the next photograph was taken from. You can't deny the possibility that the photographer took that photo from a higher elevation, then still considered the photo to have been taken from Lake Ontario Beach when writing the caption. That was just one example of how the photographer could have used higher elevation for that photo. This means we can't determine what elevation the photo was taken from.
QuoteThe tower borders the trail which the next photograph was taken from. You can't deny the possibility that the photographer took that photo from a higher elevation, then still considered the photo to have been taken from Lake Ontario Beach when writing the caption. That was just one example of how the photographer could have used higher elevation for that photo. This means we can't determine what elevation the photo was taken from.
There are probably plenty of four story buildings next to that beach. No one climbs a building in a plaza, takes a picture, and says that they took it "from a beach". Not to mention, I've never seen a 200 foot tall four story building.
The order of the photos are as follows: a picture of some driftwood at the water's edge, a picture of the photographer, a picture of the photographers friend, a picture of Toronto, and finally another picture at the water's edge. Obviously he never climbed any towers in that sequence.
All pictures are captioned as taken "from the beach". Therefore they are "from the beach". No leaps of logic involved.
Tom, unless you were there, you don't know the order in which those pictures were taken. You only know the order in which they were posted. You also don't know where exactly those pictures were taken, other than "from the beach".
Tom, unless you were there, you don't know the order in which those pictures were taken. You only know the order in which they were posted. You also don't know where exactly those pictures were taken, other than "from the beach".
I do know where the photos were taken. They were taken from the beach. Exactly as the photographer informs us himself in his own words. He would know because he was there.
If you think that they were taken on the Sears Tower or wherever, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. Until then they were taken from the beach.
QuoteIf you do a search for "Toronto" you will find plenty of threads that Levee, et al. have tried to derail with their dubious lake-view pictures.
It's not dubious. When there is no explanation for how there is no curvature in the view across Lake Ontario, it's crystal clear that the RE model is incorrect.
They are dubious for two very good reasons which you obstinately refuse to acknowledge:
1. The photogrpaher lied about where the photos were really taken from
2. The photos were faked using Photoshop, or some such (very easy, as the interface is a straight line)
Debating with you is like arguing with an eight year-old boy.
Actually the photographer does tell us where the photos were taken from. It's right there in the caption of every photograph. They were taken from Lake Ontario Beach.
If you believe that they were taken from the Barad-dur Tower or wherever, the burden is on you to demonstrate those contentions. Until then the photos were taken exactly as described. They were taken from the Lake Ontario Beach.
Maybe you could say "it's an elaborate beach hoax" if the beach photographer had a well documented history of deception and outright hoaxing like NASA does. However, he does not.
The fact that s/he has never lied before does not prove that s/he is telling the truth on this occasion.
The fact that s/he has never lied before does not prove that s/he is telling the truth on this occasion.
Sure it does. The fact that the photographer has not been shown to be untrustworthy before, and has never been shown to be untrustworthy, demonstrates that there is no reason to doubt him now.
Tom, unless you were there, you don't know the order in which those pictures were taken. You only know the order in which they were posted. You also don't know where exactly those pictures were taken, other than "from the beach".
I do know where the photos were taken. They were taken from the beach. Exactly as the photographer informs us himself in his own words. He would know because he was there.
If you think that they were taken from the Sears Tower or wherever, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. Until then they were taken from the beach.
Tom, notice the lack of foreground reference points. Unless that beach is about 3 square feet, it's impossible to know exactly where he was on that beach when he took that picture.
The photograph of Toronto was taken right there from the Lake Ontario Beach. The photographer is taking the pictures from the beach.
And then they put the full Toronto sky-line on afterwards with Photoshop?
And then they put the full Toronto sky-line on afterwards with Photoshop?
Clearly not, since the full Toronto sky-line is already visible.
Until then, the earth is flat.
When I look at the night sky it is clearly and obviously spherical therefore The Earth cannot be flat.
Therefore any photographs which suggest that it is flat must be fake.
I will believe my senses over your Photoshopped pictures any day.
The sky is not the earth. A night sky which surrounds you says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the night sky surrounds you.Except that was not a controlled experiment using the scientific method, so it must be ignored. Remember that was the reason you decided to ignore astronomy and star-trails. You are using a photograph taken "from the beach" as documented evidence that the earth is flat, while there are photographs taken with a controlled variable (elevation) which clearly indicate otherwise in a thread that is actually relevant.
Direct evidence of the earth's shape can be readily seen in direct experimentation with the material world to see whether it really curves in the manner predicted by Round Earth Theory. As we can see from the Toronto beach, it does not.
Except that was not a controlled experiment using the scientific method, so it must be ignored. Remember that was the reason you decided to ignore astronomy and star-trails. You are using a photograph taken "from the beach" as documented evidence that the earth is flat, while there are photographs taken under controlled conditions (elevation) which clearly indicate otherwise in a thread that is actually relevant.
QuoteExcept that was not a controlled experiment using the scientific method, so it must be ignored. Remember that was the reason you decided to ignore astronomy and star-trails. You are using a photograph taken "from the beach" as documented evidence that the earth is flat, while there are photographs taken under controlled conditions (elevation) which clearly indicate otherwise in a thread that is actually relevant.
Th elevation in the Ontario images is provided. The photographer is taking the image right from the beach. And the Lake Ontario Beach clearly doesn't ascend to 200 feet in altitude.
For all we know Toronto could sit atop a 500 foot cliff which is being obscured by the "mound of water" that a Round Earth predicts.
QuoteFor all we know Toronto could sit atop a 500 foot cliff which is being obscured by the "mound of water" that a Round Earth predicts.
Then it's a good thing that it doesn't.
QuoteFor all we know Toronto could sit atop a 500 foot cliff which is being obscured by the "mound of water" that a Round Earth predicts.
Then it's a good thing that it doesn't.
But you can't prove that because you don't have any photos taken from higher than beach-level.
The experiment is flawed and not worthy of further discussion.
But you can't prove that because you don't have any photos taken from higher than beach-level.
The experiment is flawed and not worthy of further discussion.
The sky is not the earth. A night sky which surrounds you says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the night sky surrounds you.
As has been said, your disdain for astronomy - where no control over experimental variables can be exercised - combined with your promotion of this this experiment - where no control over experimental variables has been exercised - betrays an astounding level of hypocrisy and unfairness
With the stars one cannot go out to stars to see how far away they are.
When I look at the night sky in the UK the stars rotate in a sphere around a star that is due north.
When I go to the USA and I look at the night sky the stars also rotate in a sphere around a star that is due north.
That can only make sense if the Earth is a sphere too.
My senses and my intelligence don't lie.
Toronto doesn't sit on a 500 foot high cliff.
We can know how far away it is
Spinning star systems say nothing about the shape of the earth, only that spinning star systems exist.
Toronto doesn't sit on a 500 foot high cliff.
Prove it!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Beach.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Beach.JPG
As you have said so often:
Wikipedia is not a valid reference work.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Beach.JPG
As you have said so often:
Wikipedia is not a valid reference work.
Here are some more photos of the Toronto coast. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=beach&sll=43.62191,-79.375877&sspn=0.103141,0.244446&ie=UTF8&radius=6.12&rq=1&lci=com.panoramio.all&ll=43.635827,-79.38755&spn=0.103118,0.374908&z=12) Please tell me where you see some 500 foot cliffs.
Oh man - everyone knows that Google Maps is part of the Flat Earth Conspiracy!
Oh man - everyone knows that Google Maps is part of the Flat Earth Conspiracy!
Would that be the Toronto cliff conspiracy, or the international curvature-chopping photoshop conspiracy?
http://www.toronto.ca/waterfront/tour/scarborough_bluffs.htm
Scarborough Bluffs just outside Toronto. Maybe not 500 feet, but not lake level either.
Also, there are no or few buildings on top of those bluffs.
Spinning star systems say nothing about the shape of the earth, only that spinning star systems exist.
Sorry to be off topic here, but I must protest.
The Devil's in the detail (as ever). It's the way the stars spin (as a "dome", not a plane) that can tell us about the shape of the earth. -Far more compelling than a view out of a window.
QuoteSorry to be off topic here, but I must protest.
The Devil's in the detail (as ever). It's the way the stars spin (as a "dome", not a plane) that can tell us about the shape of the earth. -Far more compelling than a view out of a window.
Stars ascending from one horizon, passing overhead, and then descending to the other does nothing to demonstrate that the earth is a globe.
Flocks of birds and airplanes also do that.
Tom, I'm not going to post on this again because it's OT.
You are wrong, because birds and aircraft generally do NOT pass overhead with a constant angular velocity (e.g. degrees per second) in the sky. Because birds and aircraft tend to fly at a constant altitude (like the FE stars), their angular velocity decreases as it gets closer to the horizon.
Stars DO have a constant angular velocity (irrespective of their position in the sky). Any astral tracking platform is designed with this in mind. Stars do this at any position on the globe, which is a strong reason for a spherical earth.
Angular velocity becomes more constant the higher the altitude the body is. The higher the body, the longer it will take to reach the horizon. A body at a higher altitude is making a broader perspective line into the horizon.
For example, it will take much longer for a jet airplane to reach the horizon than a flock of birds. This is because it's approaching the horizon at a broader angle.
The stars are at such an altitude that they are making the broadest angle possible into the horizon: 45 degrees.
Damn. I was at least expecting Bending Light or Gears. Instead I've got "human perspective" for my troubles. -Unfortunately perspective lines are linear. The astral dome (and its movement) is spherical.
QuoteDamn. I was at least expecting Bending Light or Gears. Instead I've got "human perspective" for my troubles. -Unfortunately perspective lines are linear. The astral dome (and its movement) is spherical.
No one sees a spherical "dome". Over the course of the night some stars one one side of the horizon are ascending and some stars on the other side of the horizon are descending.
I think that the residents of Scarborough might beg to differ (it's mostly residential, if I recall).
Are you blind?
Take this shit to another thread you ignorant tool.
No one is obligated to discuss your topic. If you want to talk about radio signals or whatever, talk to your parent or guardian about it.
No one is obligated to discuss your topic. If you want to talk about radio signals or whatever, talk to your parent or guardian about it.
You're infantile and annoying Tom, if you were a round earther, I'd probably switch my beliefs just to avoid being grouped in with a person like you.
Guys please...
can this discussion go into another thread? It is seriously off topic, by a LONG way. I've hinted quite a few times now. I want someone to contribute to the debate on circumnavigational radio propagation.
No no no I know, I'd just rather wait with no posts to prove that FE doesn't have an answer than have to wade through lots of stuff about toronto that ultimately I don't care about...
perhaps you need to mimic their technique in order to elicit a response.
start spamming all of their threads with your question on radio signals.
No no no I know, I'd just rather wait with no posts to prove that FE doesn't have an answer than have to wade through lots of stuff about toronto that ultimately I don't care about...
So come on Flat Earthers:
Show (with diagrams) how this guy's radio signals can come back to him from behind.
So come on Flat Earthers:
Show (with diagrams) how this guy's radio signals can come back to him from behind.
So come on Flat Earthers:
Show (with diagrams) how this guy's radio signals can come back to him from behind.
They don't.
So julianmartin is lying, but Lady Blount (flat Bedford Level pictures *) was telling the truth?
...it is freely admitted that Ham Radio and AM signals are not traveling in a straight line, but bounce between the ionosphere and the ground like rubber balls to reach far off destinations.
If this is happening at all directions and angles, obviously some of it will be reflected back when it hits the side of an angled hillside.
...it is freely admitted that Ham Radio and AM signals are not traveling in a straight line, but bounce between the ionosphere and the ground like rubber balls to reach far off destinations.
If this is happening at all directions and angles, obviously some of it will be reflected back when it hits the side of an angled hillside.
And then somehow magically re-appear from behind...?
...it is freely admitted that Ham Radio and AM signals are not traveling in a straight line, but bounce between the ionosphere and the ground like rubber balls to reach far off destinations.
If this is happening at all directions and angles, obviously some of it will be reflected back when it hits the side of an angled hillside.
And then somehow magically re-appear from behind...?
It's being reflected by two angled hillsides?
So julianmartin is lying, but Lady Blount (flat Bedford Level pictures *) was telling the truth?
I'm not saying he's lying. He's just wrong. Here's what he said:
"Let me re-iterate. Directional Electromagnetic radition that circumnavigates the earth, is NOT possible on a dual flat plane of reflection; let alone omnidirectional. It would be emitted to into space."
This is obviously wrong, because it is freely admitted that Ham Radio and AM signals are not traveling in a straight line, but bounce between the ionosphere and the ground like rubber balls to reach far off destinations.
If this is happening at all directions and angles, obviously some of it will be reflected back when it hits the side of an angled hillside.
This is the kind of lame, unscientific and trite shallow-thinking that gives FET a bad name.
"Light bends upwards" (sunsets on the horizon), "light bends sideways" (sunrise and sunset bearings wrong), "it reflects off a hill-side" (trans-global radio waves), "dark energy holds the atmosphere in" (why we don't lose our air), "reflections off crystals in The Ice Wall" (Antarctic midnight sun), etc.
You forgot "light bends downwards".
You forgot "light bends downwards".
WTF ?!?!?as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by Snell's Law bent downwards towards the earth;
I am utterly dumb-founded!
"Light bends upwards" (sunsets on the horizon), "light bends sideways" (sunrise and sunset bearings wrong), "it reflects off a hill-side" (trans-global radio waves), "dark energy holds the atmosphere in" (why we don't lose our air), "reflections off crystals in The Ice Wall" (Antarctic midnight sun), etc.
You forgot "light bends downwards".
You forgot "light bends downwards".
WTF ?!?!?as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by Snell's Law bent downwards towards the earth;
So still waiting for your diagrams Flat Earth boys...! I've given you clear paths on the RE model. Only customary that it's your turn... ;)
But either way, however it happens, on a flat earth, the signal would ALWAYS be received in front of you rather than behind. And apologies for the poor pictures but you get the idea.
QuoteBut either way, however it happens, on a flat earth, the signal would ALWAYS be received in front of you rather than behind. And apologies for the poor pictures but you get the idea.
When you broadcast a wave which can bounce of both the Ionosphere and the ground, it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction at the first ricochet and then be scattered in every possible direction on the second ricochet. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where the photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.
When you broadcast a wave which can bounce of both the Ionosphere and the ground, it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction
photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.
QuoteBut either way, however it happens, on a flat earth, the signal would ALWAYS be received in front of you rather than behind. And apologies for the poor pictures but you get the idea.
When you broadcast a wave which can bounce of both the Ionosphere and the ground, it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction at the first ricochet and then be scattered in every possible direction on the second ricochet. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where the photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.
How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?
Fourthly, I WANT DIAGRAMS!
How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?
This is a perfect example of "talking out one's ass", as is so common with FE'ers. Tom has demonstrated that he really does not have a grasp of even the most basic concepts in this thread, and yet he presumes to be some kind of expert who is qualified to contradict accepted science in this field. Staggering.
How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?
... It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where the photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.Since when is something that is easy to imagine scientific?
How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?
Nor has evidence been presented that the signals are only received exactly 180 degrees behind the observer and none other.
All that is known at present is that the coast of Antarctica stretches out into a seemingly perpetual expanse of ice and snow.
The evidence before us is Julian Martin's first-hand account of repeatable experiences that he has actually had with his own equipment.
QuoteThe evidence before us is Julian Martin's first-hand account of repeatable experiences that he has actually had with his own equipment.
What equipment would that be? Ham radio antennas can pick up signals from many different directions.
How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?
Forgot to answer this Tom.
You can use a Bellini-Tosi direction finder device.
See here: http://leeds1.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1676641&history=true&StyleSheetView=all
QuoteThe evidence before us is Julian Martin's first-hand account of repeatable experiences that he has actually had with his own equipment.
What equipment would that be? Ham radio antennas can pick up signals from many different directions.
... I am sure that he has a compelling theory to say why all satellite TV dishes point upwards towards particular points in the sky.
The question has been asked and answered already. Are you seriously saying that you don't understand how a directional antenna works? How about every satellite dish you have ever seen? Or every large, outdoor TV antenna ever made? Any DirectTV or Dish Network customer who has had their dish bumped a tenth of a degree and lost their signal can attest to this.
Anyone can detect the direction of a common Wi-Fi signal with a paper plate wrapped in tin-foil positioned behind the antenna as a focusing reflector.
Why is this so mysterious for you? I contend that it isn't and you are just trying to digress the discussion like you always do. I think grasping at straws has degraded into Number 9 on the "Tools of The Debate Impostor" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29812.msg720984#msg720984) list. Can anyone confirm?
Edited for preciseness, and added that "JulianMartin" is my new hero! Sorry, Tesla.
Jules, (may I call you Jules too?)
Kudos! You have - in short time and few posts - nailed FET to the wall in what I can only describe as a brilliant and elegant display of scientific expertise and debate prowess. This thread stands as a monument to the true dichotomy between pseudoscience and reality, in a field of false idols and rubbish heaps.
If any FE'er were to best you, it would assuredly convince me that the Earth is as flat as the top of Tom's head.
I am proud to know you, Sir.
Julian Martin has already answered this question:
Hey, Tom. Don't read my posts. Don't you do it! Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.Julian Martin has already answered this question:
You mean this?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=Bellini-Tosi+direction+finder+device
Hey, Tom. Don't read my posts. Don't you do it! Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.
...and the beat goes on...
Hey, Tom. Don't read my posts. Don't you do it! Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.
...and the beat goes on...
Bellini-Tosi antenna's aren't satellite dishes, they're metal structures.
You can't have a metal structure that is a satellite dish?
You can't have a metal structure that is a satellite dish?
If it's an Eiffel Tower of metal it's just an antenna. There's nothing unidirectional about it.
Hey, Tom. Don't read my posts. Don't you do it! Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.
...and the beat goes on...
Bellini-Tosi antenna's aren't satellite dishes, they're metal structures.
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?
Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?
Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?
Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.
Hey, Tom. Don't read my posts. Don't you do it! Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.
...and the beat goes on...
Bellini-Tosi antenna's aren't satellite dishes, they're metal structures.
Metal antennas can receive photons omnidirectionally, from all sides. A photon can hit any point on the metallic surface from many different angles.
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?
Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?
Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.
Metal antennas can receive photons omnidirectionally, from all sides. A photon can hit any point on the metallic surface from many different angles.
Metal antennas can receive photons omnidirectionally, from all sides. A photon can hit any point on the metallic surface from many different angles.
That isn't strictly true tom. The way antennas receive directionally is using antenna theory to increase the gain of signals from a particular direction, thus making signals from that direction more powerful and easier to receive. Signals received from other directions on said antenna will have little to no gain, often a negative gain is induced, reducing the signals penetration into the receiver network.
"JulianMartin" is my new hero! Sorry, Tesla.
"JulianMartin" is my new hero! Sorry, Tesla.
No worries, old chap.
This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.
But then, so was the sun-rise and sun-set bearings on The Equinox evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that "light bends horizontally" and left it at that.
And so was the Antarctic Midnight Sun evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that an image of The Sun "bounced around crystals in The Ice Wall" and left it at that.
And so was the Southern Celestial Pole always due south evidence, but Flat Earthers just ignored that one because "astronomy is only an observational science".
Tom is doing the same here with the "radio waves bounce off hill-sides".
For him that is an adequate refutation of the evidence.
"JulianMartin" is my new hero! Sorry, Tesla.
No worries, old chap.
This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.
But then, so was the sun-rise and sun-set bearings on The Equinox evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that "light bends horizontally" and left it at that.
And so was the Antarctic Midnight Sun evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that an image of The Sun "bounced around crystals in The Ice Wall" and left it at that.
And so was the Southern Celestial Pole always due south evidence, but Flat Earthers just ignored that one because "astronomy is only an observational science".
Tom is doing the same here with the "radio waves bounce off hill-sides".
For him that is an adequate refutation of the evidence.
Don't forget your 'Star Trails'. I've just finished reading it - excellent stuff.
And thus Tom finally gives up when he realises Rowbotham did nothing on EM physics and he's run out of arguments.
Again, game, set and match to Julian. Read it and weep flat earthers!
And thus Tom finally gives up when he realises Rowbotham did nothing on EM physics and he's run out of arguments.
Again, game, set and match to Julian. Read it and weep flat earthers!
Perhaps "light bends" vertically and horizontally when necessary to support a Flat Earth ...
Should be modified to "light bends in circles" too when necessary to support a Flat Earth ?
Clearly there exist above The Flat Earth small pockets or vortices of space-time-energy which are capable of bending radio waves around in a circle so that they come up on you from behind.
Quite simple really ...
And thus Tom finally gives up when he realises Rowbotham did nothing on EM physics and he's run out of arguments.
Again, game, set and match to Julian. Read it and weep flat earthers!
Perhaps "light bends" vertically and horizontally when necessary to support a Flat Earth ...
Should be modified to "light bends in circles" too when necessary to support a Flat Earth ?
Clearly there exist above The Flat Earth small pockets or vortices of space-time-energy which are capable of bending radio waves around in a circle so that they come up on you from behind.
Quite simple really ...
Actually...if we go with that one for a minute - unfortunately the light bending theory probably wouldn't apply to lower frequency radiation like mentioned - we already know that reflections and directioning varies massively between HF and VHF alone - let alone getting upto light frequencies, so "bending" radio waves can be pretty easily ignored. Unless someone gets out giant magnets and puts them everywhere!
Still no adequate Flat-Earth explanation of this phenomenon?
(Not even a single diagram?)
This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.
QuoteThis is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.
Refute what? It hasn't been demonstrated that the photons were coming from one and only one direction and angle, or the path those photons took to hit the metal surface of that omnidirectional antenna.
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal...what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".
If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".
If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.
Bellini-Tosi antennas aren't satellite dishes.
I didn't say they were. You saidSo you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.
Bellini-Tosi antennas aren't satellite dishes.
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".
If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
Also Household TV antennas act like directional antennas and they are made of metal.
Tom bishop is beaten again!
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".
If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".
If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
RE-READ my post troll before you make stupid assertions like that.
If the antenna is omnidirectional and composed of a solid metallic surface it obviously cannot tell which angle a photon is hitting it from.
what do you think defines omnidirectional?
what do you think defines omnidirectional?
If a photon can hit the receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.
what do you think defines omnidirectional?
If a photon can hit the receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.
EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.
EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.
Two heads are always better than one (so thanks)!
Shall we agree not to try and explain this to Tom anymore?
"Do not feed the trolls!", and all that?
EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.
Two heads are always better than one (so thanks)!
Shall we agree not to try and explain this to Tom anymore?
"Do not feed the trolls!", and all that?
Sometimes I do think Tom is genuinely perplexed. However I guess you're right. I don't think directional aerials can be spelled out any simpler.
BTW I do think Tom is for real (i.e. I'm a Tom-Bishoper). I just wish someone would make a documentation. For example "When Louis Theroux Met TomB".
it's quite pointless to try to understand antennas by looking at photons hitting it.
Yes, but there are collosal differences in "gain" (the degree to which a signal is amplified") at different angles of incidence ...
If an antenna can receive a photon hitting a receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.
If the photon hits the antenna but the gain a reduced from certain angles, then it is not omnidirectional. For example, a TV (Yagi) antenna is a metallic directional antenna, because the gain is highest in one direction (within tolerances).
(http://www.tvradio.co.uk/images/Analogue%20TV%20aerial-large.jpg)
EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.
Sorry, but no.
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
QuoteIf we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
Not if it's a solid piece of bare metal is isn't.QuoteIf we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
Please tell me again how the metal antenna pictured above knows which direction the photons are hitting it from.
Satellite dishes are directional.
If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
RE-READ my post troll before you make stupid assertions like that.
Tom appears to be refusing to admit that he - the non-expert in this debate - is wrong in a most childish manner.
I do not know if you are too dumb to grasp this, or if you are being willfully obtuse - either way debating with you has become pointless.
Shall we agree not to try and explain this to Tom anymore?
"Do not feed the trolls!", and all that?
Really Tom - it's time to give up.
You clearly no almost nothing about R.F. technology, and you are just making yourself look incredibly stubborn/stupid.
QuoteIf we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
Not if it's a solid piece of bare metal is isn't.QuoteIf we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
Please tell me again how the metal antenna pictured above knows which direction the photons are hitting it from.
Does that help, Tom?
As EM waves hit an antenna, an alternating current is induced in the antenna. If, like the antenna shown above, the antenna has many "branches" (for the lack of me knowing the proper term), then the EM waves hitting those branches will induces many alternating currents. Depending on the angle of incidence at which the EM waves hit the branches, the synchronization of those induced alternating currents may be affected causing either constructive or destructive interference to occur.
Does that help, Tom?
He will be either unbale or unwilling to understand this no matter how often, differently, clearly or creatively we explain this to him.
Why should satellite dishes need to be directional Tom?
Why should satellite dishes need to be directional Tom?
Try pointing your satellite dish at the ground and see what kind of reception you get.
... the antenna has many "branches" (for the lack of me knowing the proper term), ...
You haven't "explained" anything.
You're children grasping at straws
You haven't "explained" anything.
No: you haven't understood anything.You're children grasping at straws
No: you are a child with his fingers in his ears shouting "Na! Na! Na! Na! Na! I can't hear you!"
If you knew how HAM and AM actually worked you wouldn't be mumbling on about this deluding "directional antenna" nonsense.
Ever heard of the number stations? It's an AM broadcast of women repeating seemingly numbers in monotone for hours on end (thought to be spy communications). They've been broadcasted on regular intervals for over forty years. They're of great interest and are widely studied. However, as much as hobbiests and researchers try, no one can find the location of the number signals because it's impossible to locate the source of an AM signal. AM is a field which bounces between the ionosphere and the ground in many many directions.
Tom, for the sake of argument, let's take a step backwards from all this talk of photons hitting metal, and the mechanics of RF antennas.
The point is, it's been demonstrated time and time again, in the real world that it works. By millions of people. When the location of a transmitter is known, let's say, a television transmitter, it's well known that adding a rooftop antenna if you're in a fringe reception area along with a motor for rotating the antenna, will allow you to improve your reception by "aiming" the antenna in the direction of the transmitter. I have experienced this myself, while attempting to receive broadcasts of football games that used to be 'blacked out' locally, but I could often receive them from distant cities not affected by blackout rules by aiming my directional antenna towards a distant transmitter. The difference in signal was more than just a little noticable, it was the difference between a viewable braodcast, or none at all.
If, as you say, these types of antenna are not in the least directional, what then accounts for this observed behavior?
TB doesn't understand and apparently lacks the capacity to.
QuoteIf we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
Not if it's a solid piece of bare metal is isn't.QuoteIf we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
Please tell me again how the metal antenna pictured above knows which direction the photons are hitting it from.
julianmartin, I'm gonna give you a week to cool yourself down.
There's nothing "directional" about HAM and AM signals. Those signals bounce off the environment and ionosphere many millions of times in many different directions. It's a field signal. It's not a directional signal like FM and conventional radar are. It's impossible to gauge a direction for HAM and AM because the signals are coming from ALL DIRECTIONS.
Please educate yourself.
There's nothing "directional" about HAM and AM signals. Those signals bounce off the environment and ionosphere many millions of times in many different directions. It's a field signal. It's not a directional signal like FM and conventional radar are. It's impossible to gauge a direction for HAM and AM because the signals are coming from ALL DIRECTIONS.
Please educate yourself.
Tom, if a radio signal is bouncing around many millions of times in many different directions, then why is it not garbled into random noise?
This is simply not true Tom, and you know it. It is you who needs an education here. People are able to hone in on the location of HAM and AM signal transmitters with the proper equiopment all the time..
QuoteTom, if a radio signal is bouncing around many millions of times in many different directions, then why is it not garbled into random noise?
A lot of it is random noise. AM is notorious for having significantly more static and distortion than FE. That's because, unlike a directional FM signal, the signals are bouncing all over the place as a field signal. The advantages of AM over FM are longer range (thousands of miles) but lesser quality. It also takes a lot more power to run an AM broadcaster than an FM one.
Frequency modulation (FM) is widely applied in Amateur Radio for voice, telegraphy and data modulation. This article gives an overview of the theory of FM, its application, and applied test and measurement techniques.
I'm sorry Tom, but what makes FM more directional than AM?
Also, you do realize that many HAM radio operators use FM equipment, right?
QuoteI'm sorry Tom, but what makes FM more directional than AM?
FM signals are directional and cannot bounce off of the environment or ionosphere. AM signals can bounce off the environment and ionosphere, which means that they can bounce their way to far off destinations.
The only problem with AM is the quality, distortion, and static. That's why most of the music stations are on FM.QuoteAlso, you do realize that many HAM radio operators use FM equipment, right?
HAM is an AM broadcast, not FM.
And you know this because you're a HAM radio operator, right Tom?
QuoteAnd you know this because you're a HAM radio operator, right Tom?
I've used HAM. It's common knowledge that it uses an AM band.
Then you should also know that HAM radio uses a variety of frequencies, not all of which are in the AM band.
Please show us an example then. A statement is not an example.
Please show us an example then. A statement is not an example.
It may come in quite handy responding to many of your posts. You're quite the master of posting statements as though they are automatically some sort of truth.
QuoteThen you should also know that HAM radio uses a variety of frequencies, not all of which are in the AM band.
HAM radio operators primarily use AM because AM can bounce off the environment to reach far off destinations. While different bands may be possible with various equipment, AM is the most widely used (and is the primary band on any HAM equipment) for its distance capabilities.
Is the bounce a property of the wavelength or the modulation?
All that matters is that AM waves bounce off of the environment and atmosphere, attacking an antenna from many different sides.
Is the bounce a property of the wavelength or the modulation?
What does it matter?
Answering a question with a question just demonstrates that you are inept.
Why are you people still arguing with TB? You should be pursuing other members that have the ability to see your point of view.
Why are you people still arguing with TB?
Kee it up Tom! Your incredible obstinancy in refusing to acknowledging your ignorance of radio wave propogation and refusing to educate yourself about how it really works only further damages the credibility of both yourself and FET.
As I said, though, keep up the good work! The more you continue to display your wilful ignorance in this thread, the more you weaken your credibility and that of FET!
All that matters is that AM waves bounce off of the environment and atmosphere, attacking an antenna from many different sides.
Because, as previously suggested, his pig-headed ignorance is discrediting FET by association?
QuoteBecause, as previously suggested, his pig-headed ignorance is discrediting FET by association?
Pig-headedness is asking you to support your ideas with evidence of your own now?
Answering a question with a question just demonstrates that you are inept.
QuoteAlso, you do realize that many HAM radio operators use FM equipment, right?HAM is an AM broadcast, not FM.
QuoteAlso, you do realize that many HAM radio operators use FM equipment, right?HAM is an AM broadcast, not FM.
Are you nuts? Ham (not HAM) is not specifically restricted to amplitude modulation.
"Ham Radio" is just a nick name for the Amateur Radio enthusiast hobby - you could call it douche radio if you really wanted.
QuoteBecause, as previously suggested, his pig-headed ignorance is discrediting FET by association?
Pig-headedness is asking you to support your ideas with evidence now?
No - pig-headedness is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the expert opinion and evidence which is presented to you.
If you guys were experts then you would know that AM is a field signal which bounces off the environment and is in no way considered 'directional'.
So any EM wave that has its amplitude modulated will bounce off the environment and any part of the atmosphere and cannot be directional, and any EM waves that do not modulate their amplitude don't suffer from this problem and can be directional?
No - pig-headedness is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the expert opinion and evidence which is presented to you.
If you guys were experts then you would know that AM is a field signal which bounces off the environment and is in no way considered 'directional'.
EM waves do not all behave in the same way. Please go back to school.
EM waves do not all behave in the same way. Please go back to school.
Yes Tom, that's what we're trying to explain to you. AM refers to the modulation of a wave, not the frequency. The way that EM waves behave depend more on their frequency than their modulation. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
Yes Tom, that's what we're trying to explain to you. AM refers to the modulation of a wave, not the frequency. The way that EM waves behave depend more on their frequency than their modulation. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
What does that have to do with anything? AM waves bounce off the surrounding environment and FM waves do not. That's all we need to know.
Maybe that's all you need to know, but a Ham radio operator needs to know a lot more than that.
Maybe that's all you need to know, but a Ham radio operator needs to know a lot more than that.
HAM radio operators are typically amateurs (hence the AM), and don't "need" to know anything. The cause of the AM bounce is immaterial to the discussion and more in the theoretical realm. All that matters is that AM is a field signal which bounces off the environment and that FM is not. AM signals come from many directions and can bounce their way to great distances while FM signals cannot.
to the original poster: you said there was time lag - doesn't that prove that Moon is much farther than 3000 miles?
What does the modulation technique have to do with a signal's ability to bounce? What about unmodulated signals (continuous wave)? Can those signals bounce? What about RADAR signals? They seem to bounce quite nicely.
to the original poster: you said there was time lag - doesn't that prove that Moon is much farther than 3000 miles?
so... yes or no?
Yes Tom, that's what we're trying to explain to you. AM refers to the modulation of a wave, not the frequency. The way that EM waves behave depend more on their frequency than their modulation. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?
What does that have to do with anything? AM waves bounce off the surrounding environment and FM waves do not. That's all we need to know.
EM waves do not all behave in the same way. Please go back to school.
Maybe that's all you need to know, but a Ham radio operator needs to know a lot more than that.
HAM radio operators are typically amateurs (hence the AM), and don't "need" to know anything. The cause of the AM bounce is immaterial to the discussion and more in the theoretical realm. All that matters is that AM is a field signal which bounces off the environment and that FM is not. AM signals come from many directions and can bounce their way to great distances while FM signals cannot.
to the original poster: you said there was time lag - doesn't that prove that Moon is much farther than 3000 miles?
so... yes or no?
The original poster is currently banned - but in answer to your question, yes, it does prove that.
And please, STOP IGNORING MY POSTS, give thought out answers to each of my points, then maybe I will believe you.
What does the modulation technique have to do with a signal's ability to bounce? What about unmodulated signals (continuous wave)? Can those signals bounce? What about RADAR signals? They seem to bounce quite nicely.
Sorry, but how does that pertain to the discussion again? It doesn't matter how they are able to bounce, all that matters is that they bounce. No one really knows for certain why certain types of EM waves bounce and others do not.
As far as RADAR goes, some types of radar bounce and other types do not. Conventional RADAR is directional and does not bounce. Over the Horizon (OTH) RADAR does bounce, and can reach great distances, but is typically much less accurate due to all the distortion.
Actually, we do know why certain EM waves differently. Here's a hint. It has to do with frequency and wavelength.
The whole principle of RADAR is that the signal bounces off of a target and is returned to the RADAR unit. The fact that conventional RADAR waves bounce quite nicely is why it's quite useless at low altitude (too many random reflections off the the ground), hence the development of Doppler RADAR.
QuoteActually, we do know why certain EM waves differently. Here's a hint. It has to do with frequency and wavelength.
Sure. We can tell what frequency and wavelength it takes for photons to bounce, but why do they bounce at certain frequencies and wavelengths and no other? That's something no one can say and is oft wondered.
QuoteThe whole principle of RADAR is that the signal bounces off of a target and is returned to the RADAR unit. The fact that conventional RADAR waves bounce quite nicely is why it's quite useless at low altitude (too many random reflections off the the ground), hence the development of Doppler RADAR.
Nikola Tesla, the father of RADAR, didn't even really know how it worked on a fundamental level. He described RADAR as exploratory radio waves which were sensitive to metallic structures. Years later after conventional (directional) RADAR became established Over the Horizon RADAR took it one step further by finding a frequency/wavelength which was sensitive to not only metallic structures, but to the ground and ionosphere as well.
QuoteActually, we do know why certain EM waves differently. Here's a hint. It has to do with frequency and wavelength.
Sure. We can tell what frequency and wavelength it takes for photons to bounce, but why do they bounce at certain frequencies and wavelengths and no other? That's something no one can say and is oft wondered.
Wow... Tom, if ever there was any question of whether you posted crap just for the sake of stirring things up with no real content, you've answered that here. Go Tom, go!
Maybe that's all you need to know, but a Ham radio operator needs to know a lot more than that.
HAM radio operators are typically amateurs (hence the AM), and don't "need" to know anything. The cause of the AM bounce is immaterial to the discussion and more in the theoretical realm. All that matters is that AM is a field signal which bounces off the environment and that FM is not. AM signals come from many directions and can bounce their way to great distances while FM signals cannot.
You owe all HAM radio operators an apology! They certainly do "need" to know a great deal just to qualify for a HAM operator's license.
I think you must know better than that, Tom. "Amateur" simply means that they don't do it to make a living. Dedicated, talented amateurs are often as knowledgeable and skillful, sometimes even more so, than some of the highest paid, most renowned professionals. In fact, it is not all that uncommon that highly paid professionals turn out to be total charlatans. HAM radio operators as a group are among the most respected and admired of all amateurs for their skill and knowledge, and have contributed greatly to both the design of radio equipment (including antenna design) and to what we know about radiowave propogation, not to mention their invaluable assistance in re-establishing communication during and after natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes and earthquakes. You owe all HAM radio operators an apology! They certainly do "need" to know a great deal just to qualify for a HAM operator's license.
The poster who made a point regarding resonance has done a very good job - this is a point that has been brushed over and not had much attention paid to it. Along with CW and PM, resonance destroys Toms very confusing arguments, mainly comprised of pseudo-science.
So am I right in thinking that we are left again with good evidence that radio signals can "come up behind you"
What good evidence would that be?
So am I right in thinking that we are left again with good evidence that radio signals can "come up behind you"Radio waves don't bounce off of the ionosphere during the day, so I don't see how it's possible to get a signal to bounce all the way "around" the earth through the day side.
I am quite confident that what has been explained in this thread knocks FET for 6.
A bit. I thought that someone would felt himself being insulted with SOMEONE SAYING THAT FET IS PSEUDOSCIENCE so he will try to say sth about that proof ;) (i'm really worried about correctness of my grammar ::) )
Level-headed and logical people would not feel bad regarding someone's insults about FET being pseudoscience or not. It just shows me the naivety and ignorance of the person uttering those words.So i don't think that all people believing FET are Level-headed and logical :p
So i don't think that all people believing FET are Level-headed and logical :p
And, still i have no response. There is proof that FET is wrong. Still believing?
There's nothing "directional" about HAM and AM signals. Those signals bounce off the environment and ionosphere many millions of times in many different directions. It's a field signal. It's not a directional signal like FM and conventional radar are. It's impossible to gauge a direction for HAM and AM because the signals are coming from ALL DIRECTIONS.
Please educate yourself.
There's nothing "directional" about HAM and AM signals. Those signals bounce off the environment and ionosphere many millions of times in many different directions. It's a field signal. It's not a directional signal like FM and conventional radar are. It's impossible to gauge a direction for HAM and AM because the signals are coming from ALL DIRECTIONS.
Please educate yourself.
I'm back Tom.
I'm back Tom.
Of course not. :)
Of course not. :)
Radio waves don't bounce off of the ionosphere during the day, so I don't see how it's possible to get a signal to bounce all the way "around" the earth through the day side.
Radio waves don't bounce off of the ionosphere during the day, so I don't see how it's possible to get a signal to bounce all the way "around" the earth through the day side.
I missed this corker!!! HA! I would like to see evidence of this please Tom.
Or you can just accepted that that was an outright lie that is the polar opposite of the truth.
As I recall, Tom referenced an article about some shortwave radio stations coming in better at night than during the day because of the slightly different properties of the ionosphere during the course of the day.
As I recall, Tom referenced an article about some shortwave radio stations coming in better at night than during the day because of the slightly different properties of the ionosphere during the course of the day.
The FCC even mandates that AM radio stations turn down their power considerably at night or cease operations completely. During the day AM radio stations operate by limited "groundwave" and can reach an audience only in their local vicinity. At night the signals bounce off the ionosphere and can reach vast distances.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/daytime.html
Just as an FYI Tom, ham radio operators are not restricted to the AM band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave
as this effect is frequency dependant we can just use a frequency of about 10MHz to get a good mixture of day and night propagation
Sure, but other bands don't bounce off the ionosphere during the day either. The ionosphere only manifests its reflective properties at night.
Except that HAM radio operators don't use 10MHz signals. See markjo's image above.
QuoteJust as an FYI Tom, ham radio operators are not restricted to the AM band.
Sure, but other bands don't bounce off the ionosphere during the day either. The ionosphere only manifests its reflective properties at night.
Except that HAM radio operators don't use 10MHz signals. See markjo's image above.
The FCC even mandates that AM radio stations turn down their power considerably at night or cease operations completely. During the day AM radio stations operate by limited "groundwave" and can reach an audience only in their local vicinity. At night the signals bounce off the ionosphere and can reach vast distances.
I'm still waiting for a serious attempt to debate the evidence I have presented. If it cannot be given, I am waiting for an acceptance that this is a hole in the FE model that is inexplicable?
I'm still waiting for a serious attempt to debate the evidence I have presented. If it cannot be given, I am waiting for an acceptance that this is a hole in the FE model that is inexplicable?
It's a hole jm. It was all a bit technical for someone like me but you have made your argument well and with no real counter to that argument the FE believers should admit defeat on this issue.
I'm still waiting for a serious attempt to debate the evidence I have presented.
A classic response Tom - I couldn't have asked for anything better!
Well the signal I sent in one direction - came back at me from the polar opposite direction it was transmitted in...funny one that eh?
It's his personal experience. He sent straight beam in one direction and it came back exactly from opposite side. If you deny personal experiments and experiences(although they are very zetetic) then there is always question about the flat earth evidence. Where is it.A classic response Tom - I couldn't have asked for anything better!
Well the signal I sent in one direction - came back at me from the polar opposite direction it was transmitted in...funny one that eh?
So where's the evidence?
A classic response Tom - I couldn't have asked for anything better!
Well the signal I sent in one direction - came back at me from the polar opposite direction it was transmitted in...funny one that eh?
So where's the evidence?
So no evidence to present then?So I guess that you aren't interested in a free dinner either. Protip for you Tom. Sometimes you need to go where the evidence is. In this case, julianmartin's place. Then again, it could be a conspiracy trap, so...
So no evidence to present then?So I guess that you aren't interested in a free dinner either. Protip for you Tom. Sometimes you need to go where the evidence is. In this case, julianmartin's place. Then again, it could be a conspiracy trap, so...
So no evidence to present then?So I guess that you aren't interested in a free dinner either. Protip for you Tom. Sometimes you need to go where the evidence is. In this case, julianmartin's place. Then again, it could be a conspiracy trap, so...
I still don't see any evidence that any of this ever occurred, or that he even owns this special equipment.
So no evidence to present then?So I guess that you aren't interested in a free dinner either. Protip for you Tom. Sometimes you need to go where the evidence is. In this case, julianmartin's place. Then again, it could be a conspiracy trap, so...
I still don't see any evidence that any of this ever occurred, or that he even owns this special equipment.
So no evidence to present then?So I guess that you aren't interested in a free dinner either. Protip for you Tom. Sometimes you need to go where the evidence is. In this case, julianmartin's place. Then again, it could be a conspiracy trap, so...
I still don't see any evidence that any of this ever occurred, or that he even owns this special equipment.
Okay I could use an SWR meter, which I do have, to prove signal of considerable strength is being received from behind me, and the timings that it occurs. However it is virtually impossible without me using an obscure data mode like SSTV which doesn't work well on HF to prove that it is the same signal without someone being here to listen to it themselves really. I could send recordings but the accusations would be "they are both the same sound file"....
They have no argument julianmartin, Tom Bishop is just being obnoxious because he cannot argue the main point anymore. You need no evidence for the troll, just put up a post saying FE impossible and lock the thread.
They have no argument julianmartin, Tom Bishop is just being obnoxious because he cannot argue the main point anymore. You need no evidence for the troll, just put up a post saying FE impossible and lock the thread.
Impossible? Tsk tsk. I'm afraid not.
Not sure what you are suggesting is not impossible - FE as a whole or my given phenomena working in FE? If the latter, would you care to elaborate?
you are ignoring all the photographs which clearly show there is no curvature...
No flatter is allowed to cite any form of photographic evidence whatsoever, as this would be hypocritical, since they claim photographic evidence for a round earth is all faked. You can't have it both ways.
Not sure what you are suggesting is not impossible - FE as a whole or my given phenomena working in FE? If the latter, would you care to elaborate?
Nothing is impossible, thus both.
Right and playing devils advocate has what place in serious debate and discussion?
I know people who have been banned for less informative posts than yours in this very forum.
GTFO of my thread if you aren't contributing.
Nothing is impossible, thus both.
Nothing is impossible, thus both.
Nonsense, many things are impossible.
Nothing is impossible, thus both.
Nonsense, many things are impossible.
Perpetual motion machines or otherwise violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example.
Depends. I personally gain satisfaction from showcasing poor logic and incorrect assumptions/facts.
And saying nothing is impossible doesn't classify as poor logic?
Perpetual motion machines or otherwise violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example.
And saying nothing is impossible doesn't classify as poor logic?
No. Thinking there are impossibilities is naive and fallacious.
And saying nothing is impossible doesn't classify as poor logic?
No. Thinking there are impossibilities is naive and fallacious.Perpetual motion machines or otherwise violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example.
Should check out Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku.
Okay I could use an SWR meter, which I do have, to prove signal of considerable strength is being received from behind me, and the timings that it occurs. However it is virtually impossible without me using an obscure data mode like SSTV which doesn't work well on HF to prove that it is the same signal without someone being here to listen to it themselves really. I could send recordings but the accusations would be "they are both the same sound file"....
The Dome is substantial evidence, once I prove to you the earth is flat, as I have done in my pictures, taken all over the Lake Ontario, English Channel, and Strait of Gibraltar. Please read the Nasa Fake Space Program to see how nobody has been able to ascend beyond 15 km.
Hai all.
Not sure if anyone has attacked this one. I am an amateur radio enthusiast, I have 2 callsigns, 2E1JJM and M3JJM - you can look this up with the RSGB and with Ofcom - the UK's governmental body for communications.
It occured to me that a while ago I was trying something nicknamed "moonbounce" - also known as EME or earth to moon to earth communications. Effectively, a ham radio user has a very directional form of an antenna, normally a Yagi beam that produces a very directional and efficient emission, aims it rather accurately at the moon using various calculations, and can then gauge roughly where the signal will arrive on earth after bouncing off the moon. Most importantly, there is a time delay in this which is quite measurable, and the curvature of the earth plays a part in this.
In my case I was using a standard standard Cushcraft Yagi beam on the 6 metre wavelength band, aka 50MHz. With a low discharge of power, 50 watts to be specific on my 2E1JJM callsign, I successfully achieved bounce from southern england to another user in russia, more specifically leningrad with the callsign RN3LLP (this corresponds to central russia). Now I know the rough distance that my transmissions took due to the time lag bouncing off the moon - and these only agree with a slight curve of the earth's face. On top of that, my communications would not have got so far on such a large wavelength transmission with relatively minimal power if the earth was flat.
On top of this, ham radio users using much larger wavelengths, like the 40m and 17m bands, know roughly how far their signal will go due to their emissions (depending on their antenna) being a proportionate resonate distance of their wavelength that can be targetted with specific angles using directional antennas at the top layers of the atmosphere (F2 layer specifically) and then reflect off the atmosphere. Using this method, one can work out how far a single atmospheric reflection will take a signal back down to sea level depending on time of day (the atmosphere rises and sinks with sunlight exposure due to temperature fluctuations); and crucially how long it will take, using speed of light calculations. This certainly confirms a round earth.
On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission. I have in fact witnessed my father doing this (his radio license allows more power, G0WKL is his callsign), on a completely omnidirectional HF dipole (proving that you don't even need my specifications to do it) made by cushcraft (an R8, available here http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/CUSHCRAFT_HF_Vertical_Antennas.html) with about 190W of power on the 40m band.
Let me re-iterate. Directional Electromagnetic radition that circumnavigates the earth, is NOT possible on a dual flat plane of reflection; let alone omnidirectional. It would be emitted to into space. A dual spherical plane of reflection (i.e. RE) is the only way without using ridiculous reflection repeater arrays positioned at incredibly lucky points along your "ice wall", to produce the effect I have described above. Goto any Ham radio forum and ask if HF circumnavigation is possible and if anyone has experienced it. No end of people have - I am not the only one. The ham radio community is so small, that NASA or any of your government agencies wouldn't even consider ploughing the tens of billions required to reproduce this effect on a flat plane; it would be impossible to recreate successfully for every user without someone seeing something weird like 500m tall resonant reflectors for each wavelength (we're talking nearly millions of combinations here with the various angles) on the edge of your ice wall, or as we call it, Antarctica.
This thread from nine years ago is a classic.
Hai all.
Not sure if anyone has attacked this one. I am an amateur radio enthusiast, I have 2 callsigns, 2E1JJM and M3JJM - you can look this up with the RSGB and with Ofcom - the UK's governmental body for communications.
It occured to me that a while ago I was trying something nicknamed "moonbounce" - also known as EME or earth to moon to earth communications. Effectively, a ham radio user has a very directional form of an antenna, normally a Yagi beam that produces a very directional and efficient emission, aims it rather accurately at the moon using various calculations, and can then gauge roughly where the signal will arrive on earth after bouncing off the moon. Most importantly, there is a time delay in this which is quite measurable, and the curvature of the earth plays a part in this.
In my case I was using a standard standard Cushcraft Yagi beam on the 6 metre wavelength band, aka 50MHz. With a low discharge of power, 50 watts to be specific on my 2E1JJM callsign, I successfully achieved bounce from southern england to another user in russia, more specifically leningrad with the callsign RN3LLP (this corresponds to central russia). Now I know the rough distance that my transmissions took due to the time lag bouncing off the moon - and these only agree with a slight curve of the earth's face. On top of that, my communications would not have got so far on such a large wavelength transmission with relatively minimal power if the earth was flat.
On top of this, ham radio users using much larger wavelengths, like the 40m and 17m bands, know roughly how far their signal will go due to their emissions (depending on their antenna) being a proportionate resonate distance of their wavelength that can be targetted with specific angles using directional antennas at the top layers of the atmosphere (F2 layer specifically) and then reflect off the atmosphere. Using this method, one can work out how far a single atmospheric reflection will take a signal back down to sea level depending on time of day (the atmosphere rises and sinks with sunlight exposure due to temperature fluctuations); and crucially how long it will take, using speed of light calculations. This certainly confirms a round earth.
On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission. I have in fact witnessed my father doing this (his radio license allows more power, G0WKL is his callsign), on a completely omnidirectional HF dipole (proving that you don't even need my specifications to do it) made by cushcraft (an R8, available here http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/CUSHCRAFT_HF_Vertical_Antennas.html) with about 190W of power on the 40m band.
Let me re-iterate. Directional Electromagnetic radition that circumnavigates the earth, is NOT possible on a dual flat plane of reflection; let alone omnidirectional. It would be emitted to into space. A dual spherical plane of reflection (i.e. RE) is the only way without using ridiculous reflection repeater arrays positioned at incredibly lucky points along your "ice wall", to produce the effect I have described above. Goto any Ham radio forum and ask if HF circumnavigation is possible and if anyone has experienced it. No end of people have - I am not the only one. The ham radio community is so small, that NASA or any of your government agencies wouldn't even consider ploughing the tens of billions required to reproduce this effect on a flat plane; it would be impossible to recreate successfully for every user without someone seeing something weird like 500m tall resonant reflectors for each wavelength (we're talking nearly millions of combinations here with the various angles) on the edge of your ice wall, or as we call it, Antarctica.
I tried to read many of the posts in this thread. As a newbie to this forum I read a lot of descent into very complicated explanations of this and that. Seems to avoid the elephants in the room so to speak.
The real questions for me regarding radio communication as a former broadcast engineer in AM, FM and TV transmission (also former VE3HWZ amateur) are:
1. If the moon is 3K miles or so above us why do reflections from the moon take exactly the amount
of time to arrive back to earth as predicted by the commonly accepted astro-physics model.
(simple arithmetic from that delay gives you the distance by the way)
2. Why do radio signals pointed at the dome not reflect back off the dome? And with that what the heck is it made of if radio waves don't reflect off it but rockets do?
Honest answers to those simple questions would help make a case for FE.
It requires explanation within the FE model.Where is your Nobel Prize?
I cannot think of a way.
Original set of Maxwell's equations:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701 (five consecutive messages)
Structure of the potential: Whittaker scalar waves
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (four consecutive messages)
During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by Hermann von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable." In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."
Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'
'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroughly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly exprest his confidence in its success."
Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the hidden substructure of the potential of the e/m/g (electrogravitational) waves.
A scalar wave is a bidirectional longitudinal wave = a non-Hertzian wave.
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.
Instead of everyone in the FE sitting around,
Doing nothing but spouting stuff.
EME or moon bounce is a real thing.
It can tell you how far away the moon is.
Surely, since there are so many FEs
One of them must know a ham radio operator.
Get them to bounce a signal off your
3,000 mile away moon and see what happens.
Course, if the results don't agree with your "theory"
It's all garbage anyway.
Earth still round though.
OK. But when we measure them it's really damned fast. Like about 300,000Km per sec and it doesn't seem to vary much. Real world stuff please.
In the lab, yes.
If you are directing a radio signal to the Moon, you are going to have to deal with the huge density of both the ether and the aether fields, which will markedly change the speed of light and the distance traveled by that radio signal.
A Tesla bifilar coil uses double torsion to access the field of ether.
Tesla specified several times how to inject signals directly into the potential (subquark strings/non-Hertzian waves), look for these specifications.
You might also want to check out the original form of the Maxwell equations, which were modified by Heaviside and Lorentz in order to eliminate any possibility of accessing the non-Hertzian waves.
"Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.
Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."
If you are directing a radio signal to the Moon, you are going to have to deal with the huge density of both the ether and the aether fields, which will markedly change the speed of light and the distance traveled by that radio signal.Neither of which you have shown to exist, and neither of which you have shown to effect light in any way.
Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."And Tesla just magically decided to stay quiet?
The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.And they are just magically in the right place at the right time?
The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.Balderdash!
And retroreflectors are not needed in any case.Really? The early laser measurements used 50 ns laser pulse length and a distance uncertainty of about 15 m. See below for after the retroreflectors were installed.
National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966Mr Sandokhan, so often you post only half the story, hoping nobody will look further, well just look:
'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy
Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yes, from:
Yes, the first laser pulse reflected from the moon was in 1962, but if you look into it, you will find a dramatic improvement in accuracy since the corner reflectors were installed.
You can read a bit about it in:
Reminescenses of Early Work at MIT and ESRIN 1963-1974 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004ESASP.561....3F)
But these early experiments needed very high power and comparatively long pulse lengths (around 1 ms in the 1962 MIT case), so could not achieve very high accuracy. I could not find much of the accuracy of this one, bit a later one (still without corner reflectors) described in (http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/69D/jresv69Dn12p1681_A1b.pdf)Quote from: A. Orszag, Ecole Poly technique, ParisOn page 1687: 3 .1. Accuracy of Distance Measurement
This accuracy is limited by several factors:
(a) The duration of the pulse emitted by the laser, that is, about 50 nsec. This time interval corresponds to an uncertainty of 15 m in the distance.
From: Moon Distance Measurement by Laser (http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/69D/jresv69Dn12p1681_A1b.pdf)
And have a look at:Quote from: Brad AckerHISTORY-TECH May 9, 2015
Today in History: Laser travelled through space and bounced off Moon for first time, 1962
On May 9, 1962 — 53 years ago today and about 2 years after the first laser was invented — for the first time in history a laser travelled through space and laser pulses were bounced off the Moon and used to determine the most accurate measurement of distance between the Earth and the Moon to that date.This historical first was conducted by Louis D. Smullin and Giorgio Flocco as part of project “Luna See” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
From: Brad Acker, HISTORY-TECH, May 9, 2015 (https://plus.google.com/+BradAcker/posts/W5BSSe1Ra7b)
The later measurements with the corner reflectors have achieved millimeter accuracy, enough to determine that the Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year - a figure unexpectedly high.
This is the improvement in precision of measurement from the first retro-reflectors:QuoteIn the early days one of the biggest challenges was discerning returning photons from "stray" photons. MLRS would fire 1014 or 1015 photons to the moon and only about 10 or so returned to the photodetector, so being able to verify them was absolutely essential. "We devised a four-filter system," says Peter Shelus, senior research scientist at UT-Austin's Center for Space Research and member of the MLRS team. "First, we opened the detector to the sky just before we thought the photons were due back - about 2.5 seconds later. Second, we used a pinhole aperture only a few arc seconds in diameter to look at a very small part of the surface of the moon. The third filter was spectral -- we fired red light from the ruby laser or green from neodymium and looked for those wavelengths coming back in. The fourth filter was mathematical to neutralize noise in the photodetector."From: Lunar laser ranging: 40 years of high-level science (http://spie.org/newsroom/12-09-laser-ranging)(http://spie.org//Images/Graphics/Newsroom/Imported-2009/LLR/Fig4-chart.jpg)Increasingly the trend at LLR stations has been toward narrower laser pulses and greater accuracy (Fig. 4). Today satellite laser ranging stations such as RGO (UK) and Graz (Austria) are favoring super-short pulse kiloHertz lasers. Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser Ranging Operation (APOLLO), the most advanced LLR station in the world, uses a 3.5-meter telescope and 532 nm Nd:YAG laser (100 ps pulse duration, 115 mJ/pulse, 20 Hz). "We routinely achieve 1-mm precision with a 7-picosecond round-trip travel-time error," indicates Tom Murphy, director of APOLLO and associate professor of physics at University of California, San Diego. "Our APD array is a working prototype from MIT's Lincoln Labs in a 4x4 format with 30-µm diameters on 100-µm centers. Photon detection efficiency is about 50 percent."
Figure 4.
So sure, laser moon distance measurements were made as early as 1962, but there has been a dramatic improvement in accuracy since corner reflectors were installed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ham radio won't help. Ham radio uses shortwave frequencies -- these bounce off the ionosphere to come back to earth, which is the whole point of shortwave and ham radio. What you need is ultra-high frequency radio that goes through the ionosphere to reach outer space. It is ultra-high freq that is used to communicate with the moon landings and the space station and satellites. Shortwave, by design, won't punch through the ionosphere to get there. Not so many people have ultra-high freq equipment; it's expensive and since it doesn't bounce off the ionosphere, about the only thing it's good for is outer space.
But with ultra-high frequency equipment several observatories and labs were and still are able to make use of the retroflectors set up by the astronauts on the moon. These are very precisely made, and very precisely positioned, parabolic reflectors designed that any laser or maser beam from earth that hits them will be reflected back to the exact spot on earth from which it was sent. These retroflectors have been used to precisely measure the moon's distance from earth.
The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.Ha!
The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.Ha!
<big SNIP>
Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200m/s +/-10% just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. This result is a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, which implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a preferred frame might be tied.
The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.Ha!
So he is saying that the moon is even further away then.
The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.Ha!
So he is saying that the moon is even further away then.
This is incorrect. The retro-reflectors were placed on the moon's surface by astronauts on previous moon landings. They have been used by astronomical observatories for more precise measurements, using laser beams, such as at the McDonald Observatory, to name one.(Another good source to check for more information)
If you have been on this website for any length of time , you get used to sandokhan's copy pasta, double talk, gobbledegook, etc.
LOL. Just disregard it as an attempt to derail a subject. LOL.
Fun fact: there is only one stable orbital point that would keep a satellite positioned exactly between the Earth and the Moon: the L1 Lagrange point.
Not if you are using the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Then, ANY orbit below the dome will suffice, or any stable stationary position in the atmosphere can be attained.
Thomas Townsend Brown:
You have asked several questions which I shall try to answer. The experiments in vacuum were conducted at "Societe Nationale de Construction Aeronautique" in Paris in 1955-56, in the Bahnson Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina in 1957-58 and at the "General Electric Space Center" at King of Prussia, Penna, in 1959.
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.
These vacuum sparks represented momentary ionization, principally of the metal ions in the electrode material.
The DC potential used ranged from 70kV to 220kV.
Condensers of various types, air dielectric and barium titanate were assembled on a rotary support to eliminate the electrostatic effect of chamber walls and observations were made of the rate of rotation. Intense acceleration was always observed during the vacuum spark (which, incidentally, illuminated the entire interior of the vacuum chamber). Barium Titanate dielectrique always exceeded air dielectric in total thrust. The results which were most significant from the standpoint of the Biefeld-Brown effect was that thrust continued, even when there was no vacuum spark, causing the rotor to accelerate in the negative to positive direction to the point where voltage had to be reduced or the experiment discontinued because of the danger that the rotor would fly apart.
In short, it appears there is strong evidence that Biefeld-Brown effect does exist in the negative to positive direction in a vacuum of at least 10-6 Torr. The residual thrust is several orders of magnitude larger than the remaining ambient ionization can account for.
In subsequent years, from 1930 to 1955, critical experiments were performed at the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC.; the Randall-Morgan Laboratory of Physics, University of Penna., Philadelphia; at a field station in Zanesvill, Ohio, and two field stations in Southern California, of the torque was measured continuously day and night for many years. Large magnitude variations were consistenly observed under carefully
controlled conditions of constant voltage, temperature, under oil, in magnetic and electrostatic shields, not only underground but at various elevations. These variations, recorded automatically on tape, were statistically processed and several significant facts were revealed.
There were pronounced correlations with mean solar time, sideral time and lunar hour angle. This seemed to prove beyond a doubt that the thrust of "gravitors" varied with time in a way that related to solar and lunar tides and sideral correlation of unknown origin. These automatic records, acquired in so many different locations over such a long period of time, appear to indicate that the electrogravitic coupling is subject to an extraterrestrial factor, possibly related to the universal gravitational potential or some other (as yet) unidentified cosmic variable.
The experiments performed in Paris several years later, proved that ion wind was not entirely responsible for the observed motion and proved quite conclusively that the apparatus would indeed operate in high vacuum.
Later these effects were confirmed in a laboratory at Winston-Salem, N.C., especially constructed for this purpose. Again continuous force was observed when the ionization in the medium surrounding the apparatus was virtually nil. In reviewing my letter of April 5th, I notice, in the drawing which I attached, that I specified the power supply to be 50kV. Actually, I should have indicated that it was 50 to 250kV DC for the reason that the experiments were conducted throughout that entire range. The higher the voltage, the greater was the force observed. It appeared that, in these rough tests, that the increase in force was approximately linear with voltage. In vaccum the same test was carried on with a canopy electrode approximately 6" in diameter, with substantial force being displayed at 150 kV DC.
None other than your idol, I. Newton made it very clear that he believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES at work: terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity. One is a force of pressure, the other one a force of rotation.
As such, you need some kind of barrier/shield between the two: that is the dome.
Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Ionic
Ion wind/excess ions/heavy ions cannot be responsible for the Biefeld-Brown effect:
(https://s1.postimg.org/4p74pzl0xb/bb1.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1no02xq6zz/bb2.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1yatw3n7kv/bb3.jpg)
The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.
VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/elghatab.jpg)
It requires explanation within the FE model.I have hand it to you sandy, that was almost a relevant and coherent post that kind of addressed the question.
I cannot think of a way.
Original set of Maxwell's equations:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701 (five consecutive messages)
Structure of the potential: Whittaker scalar waves
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (four consecutive messages)
During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by Hermann von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable." In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."
Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'
'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroughly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly exprest his confidence in its success."
Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the hidden substructure of the potential of the e/m/g (electrogravitational) waves.
A scalar wave is a bidirectional longitudinal wave = a non-Hertzian wave.
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.
None other than your idol, I. Newton made it very clear that he believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES at workWhere, exactly, did he make this "very clear"? And even if he did, so what?
Are you saying the timing of the radio waves being bounced off the moon match what FE would expect because they are slowed down by a denser ether?Sorry but was that a yes or a no?
The Aharonov-Bohm effect proved that vector fields are caused by the potential.
None of the RE would expect for an electron, or a neutron, or a photon, to undergo a phase shift in the absence of any forces.
Yet it happens.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263850559_Aharonov-Bohm_effect_for_light_in_a_moving_medium
No problem at all.That's right. No problem at all. Now stop lying and pretending there is.
The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.Which would require them to be magically int he right spot at the right time to intercept all the signals and would make it appear much closer.
Are you saying the timing of the radio waves being bounced off the moon match what FE would expect because they are slowed down by a denser ether?Please show just where in that paper it proves that your aether slows light, radar and radio frequencies down by a factor of over 25,000.
The Aharonov-Bohm effect proved that vector fields are caused by the potential.
None of the RE would expect for an electron, or a neutron, or a photon, to undergo a phase shift in the absence of any forces.
Yet it happens.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263850559_Aharonov-Bohm_effect_for_light_in_a_moving_medium
One of the replies on that old Moon Bounce thread said something to the effect that "Radio waves slow down on the way to the moon."Are you saying the timing of the radio waves being bounced off the moon match what FE would expect because they are slowed down by a denser ether?Please show just where in that paper it proves that your aether slows light, radar and radio frequencies down by a factor of over 25,000.
The Aharonov-Bohm effect proved that vector fields are caused by the potential.
None of the RE would expect for an electron, or a neutron, or a photon, to undergo a phase shift in the absence of any forces.
Yet it happens.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263850559_Aharonov-Bohm_effect_for_light_in_a_moving_medium
What's this "3,000 miles"? As far as I can gather Sandokhan thinks that the sun and moon are 12 to 15 km high.One of the replies on that old Moon Bounce thread said something to the effect that "Radio waves slow down on the way to the moon."Are you saying the timing of the radio waves being bounced off the moon match what FE would expect because they are slowed down by a denser ether?Please show just where in that paper it proves that your aether slows light, radar and radio frequencies down by a factor of over 25,000.
The Aharonov-Bohm effect proved that vector fields are caused by the potential.
None of the RE would expect for an electron, or a neutron, or a photon, to undergo a phase shift in the absence of any forces.
Yet it happens.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263850559_Aharonov-Bohm_effect_for_light_in_a_moving_medium
I suppose, since if they slow down and therefor would take longer and I suppose this is the flat earth answer why the hams get 238,150 miles instead of 3,000 miles. I suppose this is true of the laser beams, too, and why the astronomical observatories get about the same results as the amateur radio operators.
I think some flat earthers should go to McDonald (not the Big Mac place, but the place with the big telescopes on top of Mount Locke)
They might learn something......No!......I don't believe they'd believe anything those evil, satanics, satan worshippers at McDonald would just tell them a bunch of lies such as the world is a globe.
None other than your idol, I. Newton made it very clear that he believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES at work: terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity. One is a force of pressure, the other one a force of rotation.Do you actually know anything about thrust? Why would you look at one atom or electron? It's a combination of all of them. Please note this before you claim air cannot be responsible.
As such, you need some kind of barrier/shield between the two: that is the dome.
Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Ionic
Ion wind/excess ions/heavy ions cannot be responsible for the Biefeld-Brown effect:
(https://s1.postimg.org/4p74pzl0xb/bb1.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1no02xq6zz/bb2.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1yatw3n7kv/bb3.jpg)
The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.
VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/elghatab.jpg)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .If you really believe that the Biefeld-Brown effect is genuine, but not being exploited, Why don't get off your backside and make a fortune exploiting it yourself?
Ionic
Ion wind/excess ions/heavy ions cannot be responsible for the Biefeld-Brown effect:
(https://s1.postimg.org/4p74pzl0xb/bb1.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1no02xq6zz/bb2.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1yatw3n7kv/bb3.jpg)
The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.
Ergo c is 299792458m/sec, the metre is 1/c and the frequency of the transmitter is on the specified frequency + or - 0.5ppm. Then the moon is where it should be, 384,400km on average. Or approx as was recorded on my last contact 1272ms each way from ground to moon and back.The Flat Earth excuse for the 2.5 sec plus round trip for the moon bounce pales into insignificance compared to the time for radar echoes from Venus.
Where is this 3000mile/5000km distance that you speak of?
They just ignore contrary evidence and carry on as usual.SpJunk, you assume that radio signals travel the same speed all the time because that is what you were told to believe. You never consider that perhaps RF signals may slow down while traveling through the aetheric whirlpool, making the moon much closer.So radar signals are slowed down so much by it takes 2.5 secs for a 10,000 km round trip to you moon! Wow, that's a bit slow, but,
Take a gander at:QuoteTo See the Unseen, - Chapter Two - Fickle VenusFrom: SP-4218 To See the Unseen, Chapter Two - Fickle Venus (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/ch2.htm), full document: SP-4218 To See the Unseen. (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/sp4218.htm)
On 10 March 1961, a month before inferior conjunction, the Goldstone radars were pointed at Venus. The first signals completed the round-trip of 113 million kilometers in about six and a half minutes. During the 68 seconds of electronic signal integration time, 1 of 7 recording styluses on Goldstein's instrument deviated significantly from its zero level and remained at the new level.
Now we know that even on the Flat Earth model, Venus at its closest approach to must be considerably closer to Earth that the sun. After all, we regularly get transits of Venus across the sun.
But a radar signal from Earth to Venus and back, even when not at conjunction took about six and a half minutes.
You are surely not going to claim that your "Aetheric Whirlpool" is slowing radar signals so much that it takes 6 1/2 minutes for them to travel less than 10,000 km.That is completely and utterly ridiculous, so please come up with a plausible explanation - one that even YOU can believe!
Re ham radio uses HF waves ,amateur radio enthusiasts use any frequency from 1.8MHz through 25GHz, earth or space we communicateThe issue is where the speed of light changes.
The speed of light,if it changes by any significant amount no antenna on or off the earth would resonate at its fundamental frequency,try building an antenna.