1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Shills claim rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: February 07, 2018, 01:37:09 PM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

You know you don't really believe that.

I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

My apology.  It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.

What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.

It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.

Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.

Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.

Well you lost me there.

Unsurprising.

I lose all the other mad shill bots there too, so you're nothing different.

Bye

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Shills claim rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: February 07, 2018, 06:54:08 AM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

You know you don't really believe that.

I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

My apology.  It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.

What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.

It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.

Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.

Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.

Well you lost me there.  I re-read the posts.  A free body diagram for me is just a tool to evaluate forces like what happens when I sit on my skateboard and throw the bowling ball.

Newton's 3rd law explains my experience perfectly to me. Action...re-action.

I am not really smart enough to deal with all the theory.  I need real world tangible stuff.
So until somebody tells me why my bowling ball is not the same as another mass being pushed away from me I have to take it as how the universe works.  Just like the FE model thinking says my experience tells me the world is flat, my experience with guns and bowling balls tells me if you push something away from you, you feel it.

I welcome an alternative explanation for why I feel it and why that won't work anywhere in creation.

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Falcon Heavy First Test Flight

« on: February 06, 2018, 05:11:23 PM »

Ayhoo, you can all unclench your butthole now, fraud accomplished, another few million banked, etc...

Umm...  Nope.

It was a test flight.  No customer.  No money to bank.

The lying never ends:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

That's capitalism at its best. 
Create a big idea. Sell a big idea and get big money, private, government ,,,wherever.

Try it some time. It's a (kind of) free country.

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Shills claim rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: February 06, 2018, 04:59:57 PM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

You know you don't really believe that.

I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

My apology.  It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.

What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bathroom break at 800Km/Hr

« on: February 06, 2018, 04:48:26 PM »

But that's my concern.  If that piece is not true then it begins to cast doubt on other aspects of the FE model.  Like maybe Inertia is real!

The same can be said on the other way.
If a REer makes a flawed argument like claiming "if Earth was flat attempts to circumnavigate in an east-west direction should be impossible and result in people falling of the edge of Earth" does that case doubt on other aspects of the RE model?

I take your point with the caveat that one is speculation and the other is a guy taking a leak at 800Km/Hr with no mess.  It pretty much contradicts the FE views on inertia.
Perhaps we just need a better example to support your point.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Shills claim rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: February 05, 2018, 08:52:33 PM »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

You know you don't really believe that.

Tell me why the big bowling ball going slow is different that really small bowling balls going much much faster.

I really need to know.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bathroom break at 800Km/Hr

« on: February 05, 2018, 08:17:33 PM »

Does that give any substance to the RE claim that we cannot feel the fact that the Earth is hurtling through space? Is there an FE explanation for my ability to leave the facilities clean an tidy?

Yes it does. It means you cannot detect any absolute motion.

However, all this specific case does for the FE, is show their arguments claiming Earth can't be moving because we don't feel it is a load of crap.
It isn't actually an issue for a FE model (at least not ones with inertia and the like), and doesn't indicate Earth is round. It just means some of their arguments (like those of clickljamas) are a load of crap.

"... all this specific case does for the FE, is show their arguments claiming Earth can't be moving because we don't feel it is a load of crap."

But that's my concern.  If that piece is not true then it begins to cast doubt on other aspects of the FE model.  Like maybe Inertia is real!

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Shills claim rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: February 05, 2018, 01:25:09 PM »

And now for something completely different!

A practical experiment you can do in the privacy of your own home.

You will need:

1. A heavy weight like a bowling ball, a brick, a shot-put or your brother who always ticks you off
2. A skateboard or equivalvent device that you can sit on with low friction wheels.
3. A smooth relatively level surface like a gymnasium floor or a hardwood floor in a room of your home
( it should be level enough so the the skateboard will not roll by itself)
4. A friend who can catch heavy stuff

Method:
1. Sit on the skateboard so that nothing is touching the ground, facing in one of the directions that skateboard is pointing
2. Pick up the bowling ball
3. Throw the bowling ball at the friend
(be sure to tell them you are going throw a bowling ball at them)

-Please tell us what happened to you and the skateboard when you threw the weight
-Videos are nice to see so please feel free to share them
-Have your friend describe the large amount of air they felt as the bowling ball came towards them

My Hypothesis: Rockets might be throwing very small bowling balls  ...really really fast.

Amazing!

No one has ever suggested the above nonsense before...

Oh, wait:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.0

The proof that it doesn't work is...?

Oh...  I bet you didn't have skateboard handy to try it. 
Get back to us when you do.

9

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Shills claim rockets work in a vacuum.

« on: February 05, 2018, 10:11:09 AM »

And now for something completely different!

A practical experiment you can do in the privacy of your own home.

You will need:

1. A heavy weight like a bowling ball, a brick, a shot-put or your brother who always ticks you off
2. A skateboard or equivalvent device that you can sit on with low friction wheels.
3. A smooth relatively level surface like a gymnasium floor or a hardwood floor in a room of your home
( it should be level enough so the the skateboard will not roll by itself)
4. A friend who can catch heavy stuff

Method:
1. Sit on the skateboard so that nothing is touching the ground, facing in one of the directions that skateboard is pointing
2. Pick up the bowling ball
3. Throw the bowling ball at the friend
(be sure to tell them you are going throw a bowling ball at them)

-Please tell us what happened to you and the skateboard when you threw the weight
-Videos are nice to see so please feel free to share them
-Have your friend describe the large amount of air they felt as the bowling ball came towards them

My Hypothesis: Rockets might be throwing very small bowling balls  ...really really fast.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce

« on: February 05, 2018, 06:59:09 AM »

<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.
[/quote]

That low error is an engineers dream!

And the question remains:

How far away is the moon based on numerous moon bounce communications by ordinary technicians running equipment in their basements who hear reflections of their own signal in their radios a second or two after they send the transmission?

If the moon is not really 3000 miles above the earth then what does that say for the rest of our
FE ideas.  (they are not theories yet because they have no equations to define them so they are ideas)

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce

« on: February 05, 2018, 06:38:36 AM »

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.

For clarity here I have to say that Ham radio operators in the USA and Canada are license to use frequencies from long wave to medium wave to short wave to Very high freq (VHF) to Ultra high freq. (UHF) to microwaves.

See this chart please;  http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/Band%20Chart/Band%20Chart%20-%2011X17%20Color.pdf

And there are people experimenting in the entire range. 

Many moon bounce rigs are using UHF or microwave frequencies so they can make high gain antennas that are not too big but some moon bounce has been done in the 2Metre VHF band.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Bathroom break at 800Km/Hr

« on: February 04, 2018, 07:58:10 AM »

I have noticed something that might prove to be a problem for our FE model of reality.

I spent a fair bit of time in the air during my work history and that meant that there were occasions for me to use the facilities on board. (Hong Kong to Toronto is a long flight)

As a male member of the species I can make use of the water closet while standing.
My experience is ... without being to indelicate... that I did not have to make any undue corrections to my "aim" as it were, despite the fact that the on board display informed me that I was traveling over 800Km/Hr in airspeed.

Does that give any substance to the RE claim that we cannot feel the fact that the Earth is hurtling through space? Is there an FE explanation for my ability to leave the facilities clean an tidy?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS evidence

« on: February 03, 2018, 02:15:19 PM »

This is a serious challenge to the FE model because it uses Einstein's equations.
And we all know he was wrong, always and forever.

"The satellite clock bias is important to estimate as it can result in a position error of thousands of meters. The procedure to calculate the satellite clock bias is described on page 96 of the GPS Interface Specification document. The procedure consists of evaluating a polynomial whose coefficients are provided in the GPS ephemeris message and adding a relativistic term. The polynomial provides most of the correction, with the relativistic effect contributing about 1-10 m depending on the position of the satellite. "

We need answers.  Perhaps scripture?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce

« on: February 03, 2018, 01:58:02 PM »

"Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the hidden substructure of the potential of the e/m/g (electrogravitational) waves." 

So what. I don't use those things.

"A scalar wave is a bidirectional longitudinal wave = a non-Hertzian wave."
Perhaps but how do I create them?

"A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether."
That may be, but they work real well for communication. 
Try your cell phone sometime and let me know how it works out.

"Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents"
I really don't care. We are talking about real world technology that works in specific reproducible ways.
(by the way stealing vocabulary from string theory doesn't help you.  It has not made one accurate prediction about reality to date as I understand.)

"A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves."
How is it generated please.  Describe the circuit or whatever it takes to make them.

"A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave."
I would love to have a receiver that picks them up.  Where can I learn how to make one?

"This is true wireless."
But for us mortals "un-true" wireless is how I send voice and data across distances.

"Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves."
Which Nikola Telsa invention generated these waves? A Tesla coil?  I can see the EM spectra from a Tesla coil.  I don't know how to pickup non-herzian waves until you give me a device or the plans how to make one.

"The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere."
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.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce

« on: February 03, 2018, 11:43:53 AM »

This thread from nine years ago is a classic.

Yes it is.  It occurred to me a day or two ago that my early history with amateur radio introduced to me to moon bounce guys back in the 1970s.  These are independent "nerd" types that play with this stuff for their own amusement. No conspiracy or hidden agenda. Just the challenge of building the radio station to do the job. (which I identify with) 

It requires explanation within the FE model.
I cannot think of a way.

Related to the moon bounce question is my personal experience of installing TV downlinking antennas and rack equipment and then assisting the operators to find the correct satellite to get the programs that we  were going to record or broadcast.  Our little station in Canada was late to this technology so there were about 12 or so satellites up there in the mid 1980s.  They were all lined up so that once you got the dish at the right angle for your latitude they all fell in a line... almost like they were in a geostationary orbit.

This activity replaced the way we did it in the 1970s  and mid 1980s where the courier arrived everyday and dropped off a stack of film reels (movies) and video tapes (syndicated TV shows to our shipping door.  We aired them and then they were forwarded on to the next TV station down the highway.   

What changed that caused a commercial money making enterprise to stop paying for
courier fees of *50 ..100lbs of stuff every day?  Just askin' ...

*2" wide 15" reels of video tape are very heavy.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce

« on: February 03, 2018, 10:15:39 AM »

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.