The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: EireEngineer on October 20, 2009, 06:00:57 PM
-
So....if the sun and the moon are just big disks of metal then how come we can see very un-metal like behavior when we look at them through a telescope? A metal disk would not have craters with obvious signs of ejecta. Nor would it have a corona, or giant flares of gass erupting from its surface. I suppose sunspots are just spots of tarnish on the surface that are periodically cleaned off by the cosmic maid?
-
They likely aren't large metal plates.
-
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.
-
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.
How do you know?
-
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.
How do you know?
Because it's been tried, dum dum. As it has with many other celestial objects.
-
Because it's been tried, dum dum. As it has with many other celestial objects.
So you don't know that it can't be done, only that nobody has done it.
-
Because it's been tried, dum dum. As it has with many other celestial objects.
So you don't know that it can't be done, only that nobody has done it.
I know that if it was a metal disc, it would have been successful. Given that you think Venus can absorb radar pulses, hold on to them a while then emit them later as a shockwave, your knowledge of radar is so paltry that you probably have no valid contribution to make regarding anything about it.
-
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.
I'm not so sure that it can't be done. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to detect the returning, reflected signal in the midst of all the solar radiation coming from the same direction, but impossible? I'm not so sure of that.
Of course, if the sun were really a globe or a disc only 32 miles across and only 3,000 miles or so high, it would have been accomplished long ago (and, probably kept a secret by the mythical RET conspiracy ::).
-
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.
I'm not so sure that it can't be done. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to detect the returning, reflected signal in the midst of all the solar radiation coming from the same direction, but impossible? I'm not so sure of that.
Of course, if the sun were really a globe or a disc only 32 miles across and only 3,000 miles or so high, it would have been accomplished long ago (and, probably kept a secret by the mythical RET conspiracy ::).
The Sun doesn't have a solid surface to reflect a radar beam. It gradually increases in density as one goes deeper in. I agree that a reflected signal would be difficult to detect amid the solar radiation though. The solar radiation on its own is enough to prove it's not a metal disc.
-
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.
I'm not so sure that it can't be done. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to detect the returning, reflected signal in the midst of all the solar radiation coming from the same direction, but impossible? I'm not so sure of that.
Of course, if the sun were really a globe or a disc only 32 miles across and only 3,000 miles or so high, it would have been accomplished long ago (and, probably kept a secret by the mythical RET conspiracy ::).
The Sun doesn't have a solid surface to reflect a radar beam. It gradually increases in density as one goes deeper in. I agree that a reflected signal would be difficult to detect amid the solar radiation though. The solar radiation on its own is enough to prove it's not a metal disc.
I understand all that, and that the beam would not all be reflected from a single distinct surface or layer, which would further complicate the nature of the return signal and make it even harder to detect, but the sun is essentially a giant ball of plasma, and we know that plasmas reflect radar signals.
-
Plasma is good - it's not metal at least! I didn't know plasma could reflect radio signals though thinking about it, I suppose it would, like the ionosphere. Maybe the frequencies usable by radar limit it in some way. I'm not an expert, though I do know more than Parsifal about radar.
-
Plasma is good - it's not metal at least! I didn't know plasma could reflect radio signals though thinking about it, I suppose it would, like the ionosphere. Maybe the frequencies usable by radar limit it in some way. I'm not an expert, though I do know more than Parsifal about radar.
Perhaps it is the anti-sun which absorbs all of the radar signal and doesn't allow it pass through and is completely undetectable by any scientific method.
Or maybe it could be the sky mirror and this information could lead us to discover what material it is made of knowing that it completely reflects sunlight, absorbs all radar energy and reflects none, doesn't reflect any other cellestial object including ones that themselves reflect sunlight, allows asteroids to pass through, doesn't block any other object that would be behind it and is completely immune to any thermal gradient inherent in space resulting in no distortion of the mirror or a distortion in only one way that is exactly equal to distortion which would be cancelled out by bendy light.
-
Actually, they did bounce a radar signal off of the sun in 1960. A 100 watt signal returned back .00000000000000001 watt. Of course it took a 40,000 watt signal to actually make it that far and return.
-
Actually, they did bounce a radar signal off of the sun in 1960. A 100 watt signal returned back .00000000000000001 watt. Of course it took a 40,000 watt signal to actually make it that far and return.
Then how do they know what power a 100 watt signal would have returned?
-
Try to keep up. The 40,000 watt signal from earth was about 100 watts when it reached the surface, and returned at .00000000000000001 watt. They pulsed the signal at a known frequency in order to differentiate it from the background noise.
-
The 40,000 watt signal from earth was about 100 watts when it reached the surface
How do you know? Was its strength measured at the surface of the Sun?
-
The 40,000 watt signal from earth was about 100 watts when it reached the surface
How do you know? Was its strength measured at the surface of the Sun?
Obviously not. All EM radiation follows the inverse square law, but in this case you also have to factor in the scattering effect of the earths atmosphere and all of the interplanetary debris, which is tiny but could account for a watt or two.
-
All EM radiation follows the inverse square law
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
-
Have you ever taken an em theory class in your life? As a signal radiates it also expands in area as it travels outward, reducing the power.
-
Have you ever taken an em theory class in your life? As a signal radiates it also expands in area as it travels outward, reducing the power.
Obviously. I'm curious as to where you get the idea that all electromagnetic radiation does so according to an inverse square law, however.
-
Have you ever taken an em theory class in your life? As a signal radiates it also expands in area as it travels outward, reducing the power.
Obviously. I'm curious as to where you get the idea that all electromagnetic radiation does so according to an inverse square law, however.
Could it perhaps be because every single measurement of any EM radiation of any wavelength ever tested has shown agreement with the inverse square law? Just a guess.
-
Could it perhaps be because every single measurement of any EM radiation of any wavelength ever tested has shown agreement with the inverse square law? Just a guess.
I beg to differ.
-
Could it perhaps be because every single measurement of any EM radiation of any wavelength ever tested has shown agreement with the inverse square law? Just a guess.
I beg to differ.
Then bring your proof next time.
-
Then bring your proof next time.
All you need to do is ask.
-
Then bring your proof next time.
All you need to do is ask.
Seriously, if I have to explain basic E-M theory to you, then you are in no intellectual position to be trying to derive "bendy light"
-
Then bring your proof next time.
All you need to do is ask.
I'm asking - bring your proof now.
-
Then bring your proof next time.
All you need to do is ask.
Seriously, if I have to explain basic E-M theory to you, then you are in no intellectual position to be trying to derive "bendy light"
No, I'm sure it will be "....so you're saying you've personally measured every single E-M radiation source to prove that every single one does.......blah"?
-
I'm asking - bring your proof now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
-
I'm asking - bring your proof now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
your point being? Have you tried using a laser to observe if it bends?
-
your point being? Have you tried using a laser to observe if it bends?
We weren't talking about bendy light in this thread. Please try to keep on topic.
-
I'm asking - bring your proof now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
Lasers don't count because they are a form of light that is not radiated radially. The inverse square law does not apply to such sources. As usual you have no proof, merely pedantry.
-
your point being? Have you tried using a laser to observe if it bends?
We weren't talking about bendy light in this thread. Please try to keep on topic.
I know you havent tried it, or you would know light does not bend, lol. And that was a pretty weak rebuttal, since as Thermal Detonator said, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
-
I'm not comparing apples and oranges. This is the statement I was responding to:
All EM radiation follows the inverse square law
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are lasers not a form of electromagnetic radiation?
-
I'm not comparing apples and oranges. This is the statement I was responding to:
All EM radiation follows the inverse square law
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are lasers not a form of electromagnetic radiation?
Lasers do in fact still obey the inverse square law, because even in the best laser there is a certain amount of divergence inherent in the beam. It is impossible to create a beam with perfectly parallel "sides". However, again you are comparing apples and oranges to try to catch me in an inconsistency. So, to be clear, All EM radiation emitted in either a conical or spheroidal fashion follows the inverse square law. But I am sure you already knew this, and are just being silly.
-
I'm not comparing apples and oranges. This is the statement I was responding to:
All EM radiation follows the inverse square law
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are lasers not a form of electromagnetic radiation?
This isn't debate on a flat or round earth, this is merely Sad Steve picking holes in peoples phrasing and grammar, again and again and again and again. Just so everyone knows, I have been officially warned by the mods not to refer to Parsifail as a troll, even though every day we see evidence of this piling up.
I've already had a three day ban for expressing my feelings on him in the forum, while I agree the language used in the post warranted the ban I think the sentiments expressed therein speak for many on this forum - the FES will never, ever be taken seriously with Parsifal impeding every discussion with his nitpicking.
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
This is what us Roundies love about you Tom. You don't go for all this "let's make up a new law of physics or blame bendy light" angle. No, you just use the good old "I can't explain it so I'll pretend it didn't happen" line. Like you did with satellites.
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.
Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.
There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.
Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.
There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.
Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162
First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.
-
There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.
Tom,
And moon-bounce (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-moonbounce.htm)? -Lots of people do this with the right equipment (http://www3.telus.net/public/va7mm/eme/). It takes 2.7 seconds.
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.
Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.
There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.
Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162
First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.
Mariner V was a NASA space ship which (supposedly) flew within 2500 miles of Venus, not a terrestrial dish.
-
I suggest you go and read the article. It's quite interesting. These guys reflected radar beams off Venus from the surface of the earth over a period of 6 years. Then they compared their results with the results provided by NASA's Mariner probe. There was an agreement between the two independent sets of data, and also with another independent study carried out earlier in the same year by MIT using the Arecibo radio dish. All of this has been peer reviewed, by the way. If anything it even adds credibility to NASA having sent a probe out there.
OK, next topic for Bashing The Bishop?
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
It depends on how you do it Tom. If you pulse the radar signal in a set pattern or at a set frequency you can easily isolate even a very faint signal from the background noise. The same principle applies in remote controls to distinguish the faint IR signal from the ambient light and heat.
-
I suggest you go and read the article. It's quite interesting. These guys reflected radar beams off Venus from the surface of the earth over a period of 6 years. Then they compared their results with the results provided by NASA's Mariner probe. There was an agreement between the two independent sets of data, and also with another independent study carried out earlier in the same year by MIT using the Arecibo radio dish. All of this has been peer reviewed, by the way. If anything it even adds credibility to NASA having sent a probe out there.
OK, next topic for Bashing The Bishop?
It doesn't say anything about bouncing a radar wave off of Venus from earth.
It depends on how you do it Tom. If you pulse the radar signal in a set pattern or at a set frequency you can easily isolate even a very faint signal from the background noise. The same principle applies in remote controls to distinguish the faint IR signal from the ambient light and heat.
Where's the raw data? Wheres the peer reviews?
-
Oh? So now you FETs believe in the peer review process? lol
-
I suggest you go and read the article. It's quite interesting. These guys reflected radar beams off Venus from the surface of the earth over a period of 6 years. Then they compared their results with the results provided by NASA's Mariner probe. There was an agreement between the two independent sets of data, and also with another independent study carried out earlier in the same year by MIT using the Arecibo radio dish. All of this has been peer reviewed, by the way. If anything it even adds credibility to NASA having sent a probe out there.
OK, next topic for Bashing The Bishop?
It doesn't say anything about bouncing a radar wave off of Venus from earth.
Where do you think the researchers were based? Tatooine? Gallifrey? Vulcan?
EARTH. Where we live. :-\ (it worries me that he doesn't understand this, and it is unclear whether he has read the article or not.)
-
Oh? So now you FETs believe in the peer review process? lol
Read Earth Not a Globe and its subsequent peer reviews.
Where do you think the researchers were based? Tatooine? Gallifrey? Vulcan?
EARTH. Where we live. Undecided (it worries me that he doesn't understand this, and it is unclear whether he has read the article or not.)
The article is about NASA space ships around Venus and nothing else.
-
Peer review does not mean reviewed by other believers, so colour me skeptical. And the radar signal problem you were talking about is electronics 101, so you really dont have much credibility on the subject. As for distinguishing the signal from the background there are these wonderful things called transistors now. With them you can build such amazing things as amplifiers and notch filters!
-
Peer review does not mean reviewed by other believers, so colour me skeptical. And the radar signal problem you were talking about is electronics 101, so you really dont have much credibility on the subject. As for distinguishing the signal from the background there are these wonderful things called transistors now. With them you can build such amazing things as amplifiers and notch filters!
So where's the data and peer reviews for all of this data?
-
Do you want it for the basic operation of RADAR (if you do thats sad), or for the specific planetary and solar observations?
-
Where's the data from the dishes which have allegedly bounced signals off venus? Where's the peer reviews?
-
Where's the data from the dishes which have allegedly bounced signals off venus? Where's the peer reviews?
Is that the only line you have? lol I will see if I can dig up the paperwork though on the planatary and solar observations for you. However, your homework is to go learn about RADARs operation, as well as signal to noise ratios.
-
The article is about NASA space ships around Venus and nothing else.
Oh, you haven't read the article. Or my summary of it.
No further questions. Your witness.
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.
Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.
There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.
Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162
First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.
Mariner V was a NASA space ship which (supposedly) flew within 2500 miles of Venus, not a terrestrial dish.
You must not have read the article then.
During 1967 time delay measurements from Venus radar bounce signals were obtained as part of a planetary observational program that began in 1961. The mean radius of Venus along with the orbital parameters and other dynamic constants of the planets as well as the astronomical unit have been obtained from a weighted least- squares orbit determination procedure. This method provides an estimate of the radius that has various degrees of correlation with the other parameters in the least-squares solution; however, the strength of the radius solution has steadily improved as the number and the precision of the observations has increased and as they have become better distributed. The current estimate of the mean radius of Venus by this method is 6053.7~2.2 km (Melbourne, W. ., Muhieman, D. 0., and O'Handley, D. A., Science 160, 987,1968). These measurements overlap the extremely precise range and Doppler radio tracking measurements of the Mariner V spacecraft as it flew by Venus on 19 October 1967. The near simultaneity of the radar bounce and radio tracking measurements allows one to determine the radius of Venus by a method that is virtually independent of errors in the ephemerides of Venus and the earth. Through the perturbation by Venus on the orbit of Mariner V during the encounter phase, one is able to determine very accurately from radio tracking data the position (also, the velocity and mass) of the center of gravity of Venus. The resulting geocentric range of the center of gravity of Venus at a particular epoch, e.g., the encounter time of Mariner V, may be compared with an interpolated geocentric range at this epoch based on the radar time delay measurements. Since the time delay measurements of radar bounce signals are referenced from the subearth point on the surface of Venus, a value of the bounce radius can be directly inferred from the difference in these two measurement types. The geocentric distance of the center of gravity of Venus may be determined to a precision equivalent to 0.5 i sec in two-way range from the Mariner V encounter. The radar bounce measurements during this period of time have a precision of about 3 ijsec. The radar bounce radius was found to be 6052.5 km. This result should be accurate to within 2 km and is in agreement with the least-squares approach. The results reported here are also consistent with the radius value reported by Ash (Ash, M. F., et al., Science 160, 985,1968) from processing radar observations taken at Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory and at MIT. The radar determinations of the radius of Venus continue to differ significantly from the 6079+3 km value corresponding to the final transmission from Venera 4 that was obtained from matching Mariner V occultation data with the atmospheric data from Venera 4 (Kliore, A. J., and Cain, D. L., J. Atmospheric Sci. 25, 549,1968).
-
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.
Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.
There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.
Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162
First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.
Mariner V was a NASA space ship which (supposedly) flew within 2500 miles of Venus, not a terrestrial dish.
You must not have read the article then.
During 1967 time delay measurements from Venus radar bounce signals were obtained as part of a planetary observational program that began in 1961. The mean radius of Venus along with the orbital parameters and other dynamic constants of the planets as well as the astronomical unit have been obtained from a weighted least- squares orbit determination procedure. This method provides an estimate of the radius that has various degrees of correlation with the other parameters in the least-squares solution; however, the strength of the radius solution has steadily improved as the number and the precision of the observations has increased and as they have become better distributed. The current estimate of the mean radius of Venus by this method is 6053.7~2.2 km (Melbourne, W. ., Muhieman, D. 0., and O'Handley, D. A., Science 160, 987,1968). These measurements overlap the extremely precise range and Doppler radio tracking measurements of the Mariner V spacecraft as it flew by Venus on 19 October 1967. The near simultaneity of the radar bounce and radio tracking measurements allows one to determine the radius of Venus by a method that is virtually independent of errors in the ephemerides of Venus and the earth. Through the perturbation by Venus on the orbit of Mariner V during the encounter phase, one is able to determine very accurately from radio tracking data the position (also, the velocity and mass) of the center of gravity of Venus. The resulting geocentric range of the center of gravity of Venus at a particular epoch, e.g., the encounter time of Mariner V, may be compared with an interpolated geocentric range at this epoch based on the radar time delay measurements. Since the time delay measurements of radar bounce signals are referenced from the subearth point on the surface of Venus, a value of the bounce radius can be directly inferred from the difference in these two measurement types. The geocentric distance of the center of gravity of Venus may be determined to a precision equivalent to 0.5 i sec in two-way range from the Mariner V encounter. The radar bounce measurements during this period of time have a precision of about 3 ijsec. The radar bounce radius was found to be 6052.5 km. This result should be accurate to within 2 km and is in agreement with the least-squares approach. The results reported here are also consistent with the radius value reported by Ash (Ash, M. F., et al., Science 160, 985,1968) from processing radar observations taken at Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory and at MIT. The radar determinations of the radius of Venus continue to differ significantly from the 6079+3 km value corresponding to the final transmission from Venera 4 that was obtained from matching Mariner V occultation data with the atmospheric data from Venera 4 (Kliore, A. J., and Cain, D. L., J. Atmospheric Sci. 25, 549,1968).
I'm sorry, but where do they bounce a radar signal of of Venus with a terrestrial dish?
It's speaking of terrestrial radar observations only.
-
Radar Astronomy: Closeup of Venus
Friday, Aug. 09, 1968
Though it is the brightest planet in the heavens, Venus has always been less than clear to astronomers. Wrapped in dense clouds of gases, the Venusian surface remains hidden even to the most powerful optical telescopes. Now, scientists are employing electronic means to explore the mysteries of the earth's sister planet. Using radio beams, Radar Astronomers Richard M. Goldstein and Shalhav Zohar of Caltech's Jet Pro pulsion Laboratory reported last week that they have mapped 160,000 sq. mi. of Venus, an area about equal to the size of the entire U.S. Northeast.
Their rough but unique closeup of Venus stems from 17 radar probes with NASA's 210-ft. dish antenna at Goldstone, Calif., last summer. At that time Venus was only 26 million miles from the earth. Since then, the scientists have been "drawing" a map by feeding their electronic findings into a computer. The result shows three blotches of extremely rough terrain, which Goldstein presumes are mountains, moonlike craters or fields of boulders.
Clocking the Signal. Celestial radar mapping is based on the same radio-echo techniques used in plane spotting and ship navigation. But bouncing radar waves off planets requires far more power and precision. For the Venus experiment, the Goldstone installation operated at 100,000 watts, twice the power of the largest U.S. commercial radio stations. When the signals came back 41 minutes later, they measured just a tiny fraction of a watt.
Yet even that faint feedback carries a definite message. If the signals bounce back polarized?in other words, with their electric fields reversed?they indicate rough terrain. Unpolarized echoes, on the other hand, mean smooth surfaces. In either case, the target areas are pinpointed by a system of coordinates similar to latitude and longitude. One coordinate is located simply by clocking the signal: the quicker it bounces back, the closer the bounce-back point is to that part of Venus nearest to Earth.
Determining the other coordinate is a more complicated matter of listening for a so-called Doppler shift in frequency. If the echo comes from the side of the planet spinning toward Earth, it will rise in frequency, just as the whistle of an approaching train seems to move up in pitch. If the reflection comes from the side rotating away from Earth, it will go down in frequency.
While their map is the clearest view yet of Venus, the Caltech researchers are not the only radar astronomers mapping that planet. Similar surveying is being carried out by Cornell scientists using the 1,000-ft. dish telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and by MIT astronomers at two sites in Massachusetts. In March, Venus will again approach Earth. By boosting their radar signal to 450,000 watts, Caltech's electronic cartographers expect to make even more detailed maps.
-
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Arecibo, those are NASA funded installations, aren't they?
-
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Arecibo, those are NASA funded installations, aren't they?
I knew you would result back to special pleading. And yes they are, so?
-
I'm sorry, but where do they bounce a radar signal of of Venus with a terrestrial dish?
It's speaking of terrestrial radar observations only.
Thats how they do it, using a dish, youre not really very switched on are you? How did you think they do a terrestrial radar observation of another planet?
And MIT is not connected with NASA and they have done this experiment too, it says in the blurb.
-
Yeah. Notice how he shut up. I will be happy to clarify any questions he has about the operation of RADAR if he still doesnt get it. lol
-
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Arecibo, those are NASA funded installations, aren't they?
I knew you would result back to special pleading. And yes they are, so?
Well if it's NASA controlled and funded, it doesn't really help your case.
-
Well if it's NASA controlled and funded, it doesn't really help your case.
And if that's the best you can do, it doesn't help you case much either, Tom.
-
Well if it's NASA controlled and funded, it doesn't really help your case.
And if that's the best you can do, it doesn't help you case much either, Tom.
The fact that your "evidence" is all controlled and produced by single entity and all you can do is point your finger and say "NASA said so," demonstrates the weakness of your arguments.
-
Well if it's NASA controlled and funded, it doesn't really help your case.
And if that's the best you can do, it doesn't help you case much either, Tom.
The fact that your "evidence" is all controlled and produced by single entity and all you can do is point your finger and say "NASA said so," demonstrates the weakness of your arguments.
What makes you believe that NASA controls and produces all of the evidence?
-
What makes you believe that NASA controls and produces all of the evidence?
Because all I ever hear is "NASA said so".
-
What makes you believe that NASA controls and produces all of the evidence?
Because all I ever hear is "NASA said so".
Then I suggest that you clean the wax out of your ears. There have been tons of posts that have provided evidence with no reference to NASA.
-
What makes you believe that NASA controls and produces all of the evidence?
Because all I ever hear is "NASA said so".
Both Skeleton and myself pointed out this experiment had also been conducted by MIT. Which is not NASA funded.
-
Yes, but Tom will probably come up with a theory about MIT being part of the conspiracy. Special pleading atop special pleading. If he ever bothered to actually look at the science instead of blaming a conspiracy, he would change his mind. Wait...I forgot who I am talking about.