I notice with interest that no 'flat-earthers' have replied to this question.And all that was heard was:
Possibly because they realise there is no sensible answer!
CLANG! That's the sound of the gauntlet being thrown down!
(http://www.cricketsounds.net/cricket.jpg) Click me! (http://www.cricketsounds.net/crickets.mp3) |
See
I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.
I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.I see that you are unable or unwilling to be a little patient in waiting for rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a desperate man.
Moonbounce on a Budget, Winter 2013 (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)I think real radio amateurs might know more than your Globebusters!
What is moonbounce?
• Contact made via signals bounced off the moon
• EME or Earth Moon Earth
• First done by US Army in Project Diana in 1946
• First successful amateur contact made in 1960
. . . . . . . .
Amateur Work
• First echoes heard on 2 meters in 1953 by W4AO and W3GKP
• It was not until 1960 that two-way was possible W6AY and W1FZJ
• First two-way on 1296 MHz band
. . . . .
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/chvgv33249zqo4v/The%20Eimac%20Gang%20July%201960%20Dish%20Antenna.jpg?dl=1)
The Eimac Gang's Dish Antenna
<< See the .pdf file for the rest. >>
I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.You said that we are "unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content" in half an hour.
That is clearly the response of a losing position and hence I am forced to assume that you concede defeat on this issue.
I must admit that I was just mimicking Tom Bishop's claim but the experiences of the real HAMs that have succeeded in using "moon bounce" for two way communication are worth reading.That is clearly the response of a losing position and hence I am forced to assume that you concede defeat on this issue.
From my point of view these things are not about "victory" or "defeat". :(
How do FE-ers explain Ham Radio 'moonbounce' experiments?
Ham operators can bounce radio off the moon and calculate the distance to be the expected value of around 240000 miles.
How do you explain this with the FE model?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensible answers only please!
Maybe now someone can now explain how a return time averaging about 2.57 seconds is possible for a moon only some 5000 km above the earth.
Hey Dutchy ... is that the best you can do?Sorry...please continue !
Talk about ducking the issue!!
(http://geeklyinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Great-ATuin.jpg)QuoteMaybe now someone can now explain how a return time averaging about 2.57 seconds is possible for a moon only some 5000 km above the earth.
Hey Rab ... it's 'slow light' (as in 'Discworld', the respected Flat Earth model on the back of a turtle ...)
Knowing that radio emission travels at speed of light, and it takes roughly 2.5 secondsAnd the Flat Earther's reply is:
to bounce radio communication off Moon (1.25 there and 1.25 back), then Moon is roughly 240 000 miles away.
(Was member of YU1AFX in late 70's and early 80's.)
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.My reply was (Son of Orospu used to be jroa)
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.You are joking I hope!
For a start there's not a mite of evidence that your "aetheric whirlpool" even exists.
That aetheric whirlpool must be slowing radar and light signals down by a factor of about 80, yet allowing amazingly sharp telescopic images of the moon.
And the Flat Earther's reply is: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.
Normal hardworking people would never engage longer than a couple of days with flatties.
Here is a very rough path budget, showing that EME is very feasible...
Path loss at VHF is around 250 dB
......
So - 10 - 20 = 10 dB ABOVE THE NOISE...
<< Irrelevant! The topic is "Ham Radio moonbounce ... and radio towers" >>Would you care to explain why radar echoes, HAM radio returns or even laser signals take a bit over 2.5 seconds to come back from the moon when the moon is supposedly only about 5000 km above the flat earth?
Hey Rab,Sure, very, very, very slow light ;D!
See - I said it was 'slow light'...
(BTW good picture of 'Great A'Tuin' ... I couldn't find one!)
And the Flat Earther's reply is: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.
I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.I see that you are unable or unwilling to be a little patient in waiting for rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a desperate man.
That video is over 15 minutes and you expected a rebuttal in 31 minutes!
Now you put the salient points, including powers, path losses, antenna gains etc an some radio HAM might look at it.
In the meantime you might read by a radio HAM:Quote from: Bob DeVarney W1ICWMoonbounce on a Budget, Winter 2013 (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)I think real radio amateurs might know more than your Globebusters!
What is moonbounce?
• Contact made via signals bounced off the moon
• EME or Earth Moon Earth
• First done by US Army in Project Diana in 1946
• First successful amateur contact made in 1960
. . . . . . . .
Amateur Work
• First echoes heard on 2 meters in 1953 by W4AO and W3GKP
• It was not until 1960 that two-way was possible W6AY and W1FZJ
• First two-way on 1296 MHz band
. . . . .
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/chvgv33249zqo4v/The%20Eimac%20Gang%20July%201960%20Dish%20Antenna.jpg?dl=1)
The Eimac Gang's Dish Antenna
<< See the .pdf file for the rest. >>
I think that document by Bob DeVarney W1ICW might be an adequate rebuttal.
Hey Round Earth Boys and Girls ... I think we have got the FE-ers on the run!They'll take no notice! All contrary evidence is fabricated and part of the conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth.
Why you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-you-cant-argue-with-a-conspiracy-theorist/)
When it comes to challenging deep-seated beliefs, relying on scientific evidence won't cut any ice.
For Dr David Bell, a psychoanalyst and consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, trying to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong is destined to end in failure: “What is demanded is a kind of ultimate proof, which there cannot be.”
Trying to disprove a conspiracy theory by rational argument will not work, he says, because the premise is not based on rational argument, but on “a very intense emotional need to see the world in this way”.
Read more:Dr Harry Dyer explains that if you show a conspiracy theorist that science that can prove them wrong, they’ll often disregard it, attacking the institution it comes from as being part of the conspiracy. “They don’t trust the institutions, and therefore any ideas that come out of those institutions are invalid,” he says. “I’ve never had any success at arguing with people who believe conspiracy theories.”
- The rise of the Flat Earthers (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-rise-of-the-flat-earthers/)
- What makes a conspiracy theory? (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/what-makes-a-conspiracy-theory/)
<< And it does on about Dr Harry Dyer talking to a flat-earther >>
Hey Round Earth Boys and Girls ... I think we have got the FE-ers on the run!They'll take no notice! All contrary evidence is fabricated and part of the conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth.Quote from: Moya SarnerWhy you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-you-cant-argue-with-a-conspiracy-theorist/)
When it comes to challenging deep-seated beliefs, relying on scientific evidence won't cut any ice.
For Dr David Bell, a psychoanalyst and consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, trying to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong is destined to end in failure: “What is demanded is a kind of ultimate proof, which there cannot be.”
Trying to disprove a conspiracy theory by rational argument will not work, he says, because the premise is not based on rational argument, but on “a very intense emotional need to see the world in this way”.
Read more:Dr Harry Dyer explains that if you show a conspiracy theorist that science that can prove them wrong, they’ll often disregard it, attacking the institution it comes from as being part of the conspiracy. “They don’t trust the institutions, and therefore any ideas that come out of those institutions are invalid,” he says. “I’ve never had any success at arguing with people who believe conspiracy theories.”
- The rise of the Flat Earthers (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-rise-of-the-flat-earthers/)
- What makes a conspiracy theory? (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/what-makes-a-conspiracy-theory/)
<< And it does on about Dr Harry Dyer talking to a flat-earther >>