1

Flat Earth General / Re: Globe is even more ridiculous because...

« on: March 04, 2026, 11:24:57 PM »

Can I ask what your experience is within aviation and ATC?

I've been one for 27 years and I am the United Kingdom rep on the following international panels:

Eurocontrol A-SMGCS Task Force (which defines operational requirements and procedures for radar systems)
EuroCAE Working Group 41 (which defines the technical requirements and performance standards for the radar systems)
ICAO All Weather Ops Group (which defines operational procedures and technical requirements for using the radars in zero visibility).

So I literally help write the technical specifications for the radar systems I use, I'm not 'just given them'.

Any evidence for the claims you make, or is it just repeated dogma?

The long range radar systems do require a high level of accuracy because the data from multiple reader heads is all merged to provide a plot extracted picture to the controller. The straight line distance from radar head to aircraft, if say 100nm away at 35,000ft will not represent the actual lateral distance, just as it doesn't if the aircraft are 5nm miles away at the same level. This is due to the effects of curvature and slant range. If we didn't understand and account for this, ATC screens would be filled with multiple radar returns for each aircraft.

But back to the main topic, you're using assumptions in your own view too. People here who claim the earth is flat are, I'm sure, well aware that there are hills and mountains and valleys, which are obviously not flat. In fact very few natural surfaces on the earth could be considered to be flat, regardless of one's belief of the shape of the earth as a large body. And yet they just say it's flat. Those are assumptions and simplifications. Everyone uses them in order to consider and articulate concepts. This is just what those papers are doing. I'm not sure how it can be explained more simply.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Globe is even more ridiculous because...

« on: March 03, 2026, 12:13:25 PM »

We've been here before; descriptions of many technical concepts will contain assumptions and simplifications in order to prevent having to spend hundreds of pages detailing each and every possible scenario and every possible variable.

In aviation we often refer to the International Standard Atmosphere, 15 degrees Celsius, 1013.2HPa air pressure. Aircraft performance is measured using ISA as a baseline, and expressed as such in aircraft data manuals.

This does not mean that we all think the temperature is always 15 degrees, neither that the air pressure is always 1013.2HPa.

For the ground radar system I use at my airport as an air traffic controller. We consider the surface of the earth as flat, given the small surface area of the airport relative to the globe. For the air surveillance radar performance we assume the earth to be a globe as we are considering distances of hundreds of miles.

Assumptions are very subject-specific and have intention behind them.

The OP and others here fundamentally misunderstand how technical concepts are taught and considered.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

« on: September 20, 2025, 09:22:25 PM »

When a pilot adjusts a flight, he knows why he’s adjusting the flight for a reason, it’s not just adjusted for no reason.

They don’t just ‘adjust for curvature’ along a flight, that’s just stupid

Your last sentence there is actually functionally correct. They don't really need to do so. Any adjustment required to pitch down to follow the gradual curvature is negligible compared to the adjustments made due to the forces and accelerations experienced in flight, and completely unnoticed, especially given the change in forces that would occur if an aircraft were to fly 'straight' (so as to begin climbing, rather than follow the curvature). This is again discounting how aircraft fly with reference to a pressure datum.

I'll ask for a fifth or maybe sixth time on this board; are you a pilot? What is your experience level  in aviation?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

« on: September 12, 2025, 02:28:42 PM »

Measurements cannot be twisted and used in separate tiny individual segments.

Measurements cannot be faked or so small to not measure correctly and then combined as if valid.

A curve cannot be sliced into tiny pieces of a straight line and combined together as a straight line!

That’s what you’re trying to do here, and it never works out!

But nobody has said this is the case, nor is anyone 'trying to do that'.

As I said, discounting altimetry, an aircraft flying level, at a fixed altitude above the sea, will be flying a curve; respecting the curve of the earth, as gravity always acts towards the centre of the earth.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

« on: September 07, 2025, 11:49:17 AM »

There isn’t level flight over a globe, it’s impossible to do that.

A curved path would be flown over a curved surface, period

Yes, if we discount altimetry and all the other forces acting on an aircraft in flight, and only consider an aircraft flying at exactly 10,000ft above the surface of the ocean, it does follow the curvature and nobody feels any adjustment because that adjustment is so small, and the radius of the curve is so large.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

« on: September 07, 2025, 11:46:50 AM »

Adjustments you mean.

They are different on every flight, some have few adjustments others have more adjustments.

We adjust for them, return to level flight once again. That’s what we adjust for.

I guess you think flights have all sorts of adjustments on every flight that the curve is magically flown as level!!!

Is this meant for me?

Yes, flight control changes (i.e. inputs from the flight crew or far more comon the autopilot) are adjustments to cope with those factors I describe, which are thousands of times more significant than any adjustments required to stay level over, say, the curve of the ocean's surface.

You use the word 'we' - are you a pilot?

Could you re-state your point here please? It's difficult to understand it the way you've phrased it.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

« on: September 06, 2025, 07:19:15 AM »

It's very possible, as tens of thousands of aircraft do so daily.

The combination of the constantly changing forces acting on an aircraft in flight, due to changes in power/thrust from the engines, wind, turbulence, air pressure, lift, weight, drag etc all massively drown out any flight control changes required to maintain level flight around the globe.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: TFES does not have a world map

« on: September 06, 2025, 07:12:12 AM »

Lots to unpack there.

Nordic as in what many call the Viking era?

The era from which some surviving texts describe how the Norse would navigate a spherical earth using the stars and sun, and produced many great nautical explorers?

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific & Mathematical Investigation of Earth: An Argument Against Curvature

« on: September 03, 2025, 03:30:29 AM »

As an air traffic controller, ATC procedure and airspace designer I'm intrigued as to where you get the evidence to state this:

3 Flight Path Analysis
The analysis of flight paths provides another compelling argument for the flat Earth model. Commonly cited flight distances frequently contradict the
expected great-circle distances, further complicating
the spherical narrative.
Route Great-Circle Distance (km) Actual Flight Distance (km)
Sydney to Johannesburg 6,200 8,000
Los Angeles to Tokyo 8,800 10,500
New York to London 5,600 7,000
Miami to London 7,000 8,200
Toronto to Vancouver 3,400 4,000
Table 1: Flight Path Analysis
As shown, the observed distances consistently exceed the great-circle distances, suggesting that the
navigational logic might align with a flat Earth model
rather than a spherical one. This discrepancy raises
questions about the underlying assumptions of flight
path calculations, potentially challenging the validity
of the spherical Earth framework. It invites us to reconsider how we interpret navigational data and the
implications for global travel and logistics.
The implications of these findings extend beyond
theoretical discourse; they affect real-world applications such as air traffic management and route planning. If navigational principles based on a spherical
Earth do not accurately reflect reality, this could lead
to inefficiencies and misunderstandings in global aviation.

You do not provide any references. It is in no way an 'analysis' as claimed. What was the methodology of the analysis? What was the data set?

10

Flat Earth General / Re: What prevents people from reaching the edge of the Earth?

« on: August 28, 2025, 07:46:06 AM »

No. I have by the way flown due north from California to China, a route that made no sense until I looked at an overhead map

That route makes a lot of sense of a globe, especially when you figure in common wind patterns in the Pacific Ocean.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: The horizon discussions.

« on: December 22, 2023, 05:53:52 AM »

Quite agree with you Basker, and wecome from a 25yr-experienced air traffic controller. All the evidence we've both seen in our careers just does not support a flat earth.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do airplanes have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground?

« on: October 28, 2023, 11:34:35 AM »

My brother in law is a pilot and so is one of my longtime friends, among others I know as well.

I’ve had debates with pilots online, who defend the ball Earth lie and ‘curvature’. They’ve left the debate and didn’t return. 

But theyve told me it’s flat, or else they’d be toast by now! Or way higher than they should’ve been anyway

Level flight is crucial to know and fly at, more so when flying over longer distances

Qualified pilots have told you the earth is flat otherwise they’d have crashed? Are these commercial pilots? If so then I need to know who they fly for so as to not buy tickets from their employer.

Perhaps you should take some ground school and flight instruction before making quite incorrect claims about how aircraft fly?

Weight (ie the effect of gravity) acts on an aircraft in flight at 90degrees to the level, ie straight down. It doesn’t act towards a point on the ground that the aircraft flies past, thereby necessitating a pitch/trim down action by the pilot.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do airplanes have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground?

« on: October 27, 2023, 11:12:41 PM »

Have you flown, turbonium2? I mean taken the controls, not as a passenger. Have you receiv3d any flight training or instruction, including ground school?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why do airplanes have machinery to tell whether they are parallel to the ground?

« on: October 08, 2023, 09:42:23 AM »

I think there is some confusion here.

Is the OP referring to what an Attitude Indicator provides?  The AI works through a gyro to indicate the aircraft’s attitude relative to the level, i.e. at 90degrees to the direction of the force of gravity. And yes at high altitudes it will show as if the aircraft is pointing straight at the horizon even though the visible horizon will in fact be a few degrees below eye level.

In which case the discussions about Flight level v altitude v height are quite the diversion. Altimeters measure a difference between local air pressure and a datum air pressure (that can be pressure at ground level (height), pressure at sea level (altitude), or 1013.2hPa, or 29.92in (Flight Level)). The latter is what all aircraft will be using above a certain altitude (called the transition altitude, which varies from nation to nation usually depending on terrain). Based on a fixed datum, an aircraft maintaining FL250 could be, at various stages of flight, at altitude 24,000ft at one point, and altitude 26,000ft at another as air pressure varies over the route. The key is that all the other aircraft around it will also be using the same datum, and thus will also be staying in the same band of constant pressure as it rises and falls in altitude.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: crescent moon question

« on: March 01, 2023, 10:42:21 PM »

What's your point? Logos are not accurate maps. It could be rotated along a different tilt. It could be upside-down.

We're not using it as our map.

We're demonstrating that UN's real map is not a globe. 
It also isn't a northern-hemisphere or southern-hemisphere overhead map, it's an entire Earth flap disc map.

You brought up the UN logo. You’re now arguing against your original point.

You were the one who said it was germane to the discussion, and showed that the UN is in on the conspiracy.

Now you’re saying it’s not.

Just like the other threads, you’re changing your mind and moving on to new subjects whenever you can’t address the questions asked.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: crescent moon question

« on: February 26, 2023, 11:35:15 AM »

Why would you expect to see any curvature looking at the horizon from ground level?

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 17, 2023, 01:35:32 PM »

I hear a drum beat. I get closer, then I start to hear the guitar, flute, or bagpipes.

I always here the bagpipes first before I hear the drums.

You do not.

Not unless you're Scottish. Scottish ppl can nae hear the drums first, for they are always listening to the wee bagpipes in their soul.

Why don't you concentrate on the speed issue?

I am. I just gave you a good example of a situation where things of different speeds nonetheless intersect. It's not even the only one. When the snail, the cat, the dog, the skateboarder are starting out, they are all of different speeds but we can say that they are also in proximity. It lasts more moments the you think for a snail to move away from a car, as we do not care about perfect alignment but that the snail is within the proximity of the car. If the snail moves past the car (it has trouble starting for example), the snail wins even if the car's total speed is greater.

Proximity effect is why we can hear sounds of different speed as music. They register at the speed of sound, and it takes awhile for them to disperse. Less like a car and snail, and more like a cat and dog.

Cats are sprinters, dogs are endurance runners. Both start out as roughly 30 mph. But wilder breeds of cats can reach up to 70 mph. So that's it, cat wins? You've obviously not read the tortoise and the hare. The dog may be able to only run 30 mph but they can run for longer and can catch up, and possibly pass a wild cat like a cheetah. Especially if that dog is also wild (wolves have impressive endurance).

The same is true of sound waves. Slower frequencies carry for longer. Or in layman's terms, slow and steady wins the race.

I dunno about bagpipes as they do have a kinda drone (I don't happen to live where bagpipes are played), but western music, even when the guitar is loud, the drum still carries better. Different speeds don't necessarily mean that the music breaks apart instantly.

LOW frequencies carry for longer.

There’s no evidence at all to suggest sounds at different frequencies travel at different speeds. Just like there’s no evidence to suggest different parts of the EM spectrum travel at different speeds.

If you are aware of any, please let us know. It’s pretty easy to test, and prove the speed of sound in different media by experimentation, is it not?

We are talking about speed of propagation, not how far each frequency travels.

I’ll ask again, if we don’t know the speed at which radio waves travel, how does radar work?

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 17, 2023, 03:44:58 AM »

I have been to enough outdoor concerts and baseball games to know that when you leave, certain sounds simply do not carry well at range.

You can tell me lies all you want, but it doesn't make them true. At range, several blocks around from an outdoor event (most common in my area is farmer's market), I hear a drum beat. I get closer, then I start to hear the guitar, flute, or bagpipes. But there is an audible spot where I walk into or out of the festival and it sounds almost like tribal drums. No other sound can be picked out, just drums banging away. In fact, at close range, the drums don't really register. On the outskirts, first thing I hear. I am fairly certain that musicians don't suddenly stop playing treble when I move away.
So you can say that I hear it all at a distance. Obviously, you've never left a concert early to beat the traffic, because that is not what happens. You're not far enough away.

Yes, for maybe the fifth or sixth time, this has nothing to do with the speed of of the sound wave. Just like your comments about FM radio and AM radio had nothing to do with the speed of the radio waves.

Speed is the rate at which something covers a distance. It's not longevity, rate of decay, or susceptibility to attenuation. None of that matters when you are talking about speed of propagation.

You make all thse claims about speed of various waves, but then immediately give details about other characteristics of waves.

Why don't you concentrate on the speed issue?

I'll ask again, if we don't know the exact speed that radio waves travel, how does radar work?

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 16, 2023, 11:21:04 AM »

Bulmabriefs, you don’t even understand your own claims.

Take the concert hall out of consideration if it’s confusing you,

Put an orchestra, or any sound source that can output multiple frequencies of sound at a high volume, outside.

Now stand a way away. You do not experience any difference in terms of the times at which different frequencies arriving at your ear.

It’s easy to hear how this effect could be heard, if it did actually exist.

At an outdoor event with multiple PA/tannoy speakers, you can easily detect the difference in distance between speakers as the sound (at all frequencies) travels different distances to your ear. Just to be clear, this is the same sound, arriving at different times, from two sources different distances from the listener.

You never get the effect of the different frequencies from one source arriving at different times. You just don’t. You would be able to hear this effect, if it actually existed, over a few hundred metres.

It doesn’t exist.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 15, 2023, 06:48:36 AM »

And please forgive me for not noticing it just now, but are you now claiming higher frequency sound travels faster through the same medium than lower frequency sound?

Where’s your evidence please?

I just told you. Personal evidence. When hit at a soft amplitude by a child (me!) higher notes broke down quicker. I found that I had to hit higher notes harder (raising the amplitude) in order for them to register. As I grew to be an adult, I found this to be true. And this was trying several instruments (I never got good at anything because my ability to follow through with things that take excessive amounts of practice was limited) from piano to handbells, to guitar, to harmonica, and finally accordion. The accordion I was actually with effort able to play a few simple songs, but mostly it gathered dust. But in all cases I found that the initial effort for the highest notes was alot more.

None of that relates to speed though. You just said 'it breaks down quicker'. That's not the speed. You're still getting confused by the speed of the thing (be it radio waves, or sound waves), and what that thing contains. Where's the evidence, anywhere, that difference frequencies of sound travel at different speeds?

Sound obviously does travel at the same speed, a sound consisting of multiple frequencies being created a distance away will travel at a measureable speed, and the same sound will be heard, at a lower amplitude but still containing the same frequencies. If it didn't as you claim, the further away from the sound's source you are (say a short, sharp explosion), the more elongated the sound would become as the frequencies separated out.

This just doesn't happen, does it?

If you're a musician, imagine being in a concert hall with an orchestra. if the different frequencies travelled at different speeds then the audience in the furthest seats would hear an out-of-tune squeal.

BTW, you're still yet to answer how you think radar works if we don't know how fast radio waves travel.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 15, 2023, 06:33:41 AM »

LF radio waves exhibit low signal attenuation, making them suitable for long-distance communications.

Attenuation is the breakdown of waves. The longer the wave the more stable it is. Since this is the same relationship for sound and radio, we are not talking about two different things. We are talking about the same spectrum at different speeds and frequencies.

What are your criteria for trusting Wikipedia? I'm sure it says that all the EM spectrum travels at the speed of light, no?

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 14, 2023, 11:23:13 PM »

And please forgive me for not noticing it just now, but are you now claiming higher frequency sound travels faster through the same medium than lower frequency sound?

Where’s your evidence please?

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 14, 2023, 10:47:31 PM »

I realise this must be confusing to you, I really do.

But the word ‘static’, when used referring to radio interference, was first used when the audible effect of static electricity was heard on early radio experiments.

You’ll notice I’m not ‘explaining anything away as static electricity’.

I’m telling you why the word ‘static’ is used in radio. There are many mechanisms for causing interference and weak signals on the EM spectrum, I’ve mentioned some above in this thread…. Multipath, reflection, diffraction, atmospherics, humidity, sunspot activity, line of sight issues and so on. Nobody has claimed it’s all caused by static electricity.

So what if your rope isn’t travelling anywhere? Well, then you’re literally just moving a rope around. I mean it’s obvious. You haven’t set up a wave. So anything after that has no relevance to this discussion about waves and their behaviour. You might as well be prodding a jelly.

As I’ve said before, FM radio is clearer than AM radio because of its different nature. It can ignore the variations in amplitude caused by many factors (see above) and so the signal coded in the variations of frequency survive intact. In AM radio, the signal is encoded in variations in amplitude, so any variations in amplitude caused by those interfering factors are received and then played to the listener, causing the interference to be heard.

This is, what, the third or fourth time this has been explained?

You must either think the whole radio industry around the world is incompetent, or in on a conspiracy to hide how radio actually works. Why would that be the case?

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 14, 2023, 01:17:10 AM »

Bulmabriefs,

A synonym is a word with a similar meaning as another word. But words don't have the same meaning, because of a little thing called word origin. And another little thing called connotation. Static is from the word for "stillness" because the noise is actually latency. Different meaning you say, but actually there is a rhyme and rhythm to definitions. They tend to form because meanings are associated.

Well done. You looked up the etymology of the word 'static'. That has no bearing on how the word is actually used now. In radio terms, static refers technically to the noise associated with AM radio reception, because it was associated in early radio experiments with the presence of static electricity. You can actually hear it on AM radio when electrical storms are nearby, or you can even provoke it with vandegraff generators or even using some synthetic fibres (like rubbing a toy balloon, making your hair stand on end, or taking off a synthetic sweatshirt). As I explained earlier, the word 'static' has become a common terms for all kinds of noise and interference heard on the radio, but it is actually technically very specific.

What have we learned here? That static is not static electricity at all but atmospheric noise that is a combination of electricity, other signals, and thermal radiation. And more importantly, a strong frequency and high amplitude drowns out the signal. Of these two, strong frequency seems to be more relevant as the AM frequency I heard was plenty loud, but had an awful amount of feedback. The same is true of streaming anime on certain internet websites. Static is latency.

No. Nobody has said static is static electricity. Static on the radio is the effect of static electricity. It's a simple concept. Same word. Different meanings.

means you very definitely don't know what you are talking about.

Please, educate me about your experince in radio and radar. I've used both for every day of my working life since 1997. I've worked with manfacturers and system designers in both fields. What's your experience? Where's the evidence for all of your claims?

The world we live in has something called Occam's Razor, which means the more complex something is, the more likely it is to be bullshit. Especially if it outright contradicts observable reality. If you don't live in Africa or a few areas where they've imported zebras, hoofbeats are horses. Or to put it another way.

Quite. This thread is crying out for anything you can contribute that you've observed yourself. You've posted nothing so far that proves to contradict our current understanding of radio and radar. You have a few wacky ideas and ridiculous claims, with no evidence behind them. I'd love to be proved wrong. We're all waiting.

. Dude, anyone who has ever used a jump rope knows better than this. A frequency of 2 ropes per 30 seconds is significantly slower than 228 ropes in 30 seconds

Excellent example of frequency. But that rope isn't travelling anywhere. It's motionless in terms of travel. It's just moving up and down. Now hold that rope at one end only and flip it up and down. The waves travel down the rope towards the other end until they peter out. Let's say you make one up and down movement every ten seconds (0.1Hz). You then make your arm move faster up and down, but to the same extent, maybe once a second, and that sends one wave per second (1Hz) down the rope. The wave in the rope travels at the same speed. You can really put your back into it and move your arm really quickly and more violently. Now you're increasing the amplitude. The speed of the wave going down the rope stays the same, it's just a bigger wave and will travel further down the rope.  You see how we can both vary frequency, and amplitude, but the speed stays constant.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 13, 2023, 07:16:06 AM »

Yes yes, feel free to rationalize this away. The point is the word "static" refers to standing still, the opposite of being dynamic.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/static

I see you are yet to learn that words can have different meanings depending on context. When referring to radio, the word 'static' refers to noise on AM radio, because it was often caused by static electricity. Technically you don't get static on FM radio, it should be called 'noise' rather than static, but common usage has it used in all cases regarding interference and noise (and noise here is not audible sound noise, it's radio noise).

Yes, things are complex!

Both AM and FM have frequencies, and they have amplitudes. Thae amplitude is the signal strength, the frequency is the equivalent of wave beats per second. You are either "turning up the volume" or raising the signal rate. The problem with FM theory is that you raise the energetic value of radiation. Microwave melts chocolate, UV gives you a tan, gamma radiation gives you cancer. The higher on the spectrum, the more profound an effect (in general, though the visible spectrum is sorta safe).

I recognise those as all words, but in that order they just don't make sense. There's no evidence for what you say.

AM is more susceptible to interference because its amplitude varies, so the receiver doesn't know if a particular change in amplitude is part of the intended signal, or interference, hence we hear all the interference. FM radios ignore variations in amplitude, because they know it's interference, as the signal is not encoded in amplitude. On the other hand, the frequencies used by the civil FM radio band are shorter range, so it's wrong to say that higher frequency is better.

Again, if there is no difference in rate, there is fundamentally NO reason to increase frequency.

Have you read what numerous people have posted on this thread? It's the speed of the radiation that is constant. Rate of transmission of data varies greatly depending on myriad variables. For data transmitted over radio, there is a great difference is data rate across the spectrum. Please go back, read and digest some of the earlier posts.

Again, if there is no difference in rate, there is fundamentally NO reason to increase frequency. Not when human health hangs in the balance. But there IS a difference in static when you raise frequency. I would say that AM radio was in thousands of KHz while FM was from 70 or 80 to just over 100 MHz. Faster frequency, low latency. Actually is faster. Neither one goes at light speed but both go faster frequency than regular sound (that is, frequency is somewhat modulated in AM, just enough to give different channels). Let's say by alot. So-called satellite radio gets little static broadcasting from Korea. Now some of this may be local signals, prerecorded audio or other tricks, but the point being that it very definitely is not speed of light and very definitely is not broadcast from space.
68,000 ft up is farther than we can see during the day, farther than radar can hit easily (it goes out farther than up), yet still below even high double digits of miles. Unlike space satellites which are supposed to be hundreds of miles up.

I'm sorry but this just isn't very coherent.

Satellite radio uses the DAB bands, so either 1.4GHz or 2.3GHz is the USA. These frequencies are far less vulnerable to interference, hence the cleaner signal, along with the fact it's a digital radio link, and not analgoue. There is no evidence that it's not at the speed of light, nor that satellite radio is not transmitted from satellites. That fact is easy to verfiy in the US. Buy a directional antenna. Point it at the satellite. Point it away from the satellite. Easy. Satellite radio has been overtaken by online listening.

What has radar got to do with satellite radio? Radar can see a lot further up than 68,000ft, it's just that the antenna needs to be steered to look up., Most radars are designed to detect airborne objects, aircraft etc so their antenna will be positioned to maximise useful coverage volume. If you tilt a radar up at 45 to see up, you won't see anything flying at low level a few miles away. There are specialised space detection radars used to detect, catalogue and analyse satellites and their orbits. They're not great at detecting aircraft flying at normal levels.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 12, 2023, 10:26:32 AM »

I listened to AM radio yesterday then listened to FM radio. AM was getting shitty sound like way worse than any static I have ever heard from FM. Almost like the lower frequency created a breakdown in clarity as distance went on. Almost as though radio waves don't in fact move perfectly at the speed of light but all signals are not created equal. That the breakdown of AM was reduction of towers due to upgrades. Hype.

It's almost as if that, when a wave is subject to changes in amplitude due to interference, multipath, poor line of sight etc etc, and the embedded signal is carried by Amplitude Modulation, then static and the breakup of any speech/music etc occurs. Whereas if the signal is carried by Frequency Modulation, then static is far less likey to affect the signal and a clear speech/music etc is still discernable. Well done, you've determined that lower frequncy radio waves, while having a longer range, the signal being carried by the wave will be more susceptible to interference.

Nobody has said signals are equal, nor perfect. Quite the opposite. I have posted in this thread describing how different radio bands have different characteristics, and quality of signal being carried. The speed of the carrier wave is constant. Speed. Nothing to do with the quality of signal that's being carried. Static still travels on AM radio at the speed of light.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 10, 2023, 10:53:06 AM »

Is this the first time the conspiracy has been defined as a vehicle to sell space merch?

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 09, 2023, 08:12:51 AM »

And I’ll add….

Nobody has claimed that all signals are equal (I assume you mean here that all forms of transmissions, regardless of frequency).

The speed of transmission is equal, yes, but other characteristics change throughout the EM spectrum.

For example, ELF radio signals can penetrate below the surface of the ocean to a significant depth. This is how the UK, USA and Russia communicate with their submarines. ELF waves suffer from incredibly low attenuation, and they can travel around the globe lots of times before they degrade completely (this actually causes a unique problem; if they are broadcast in all 360 degrees, then on the other side of the world the waves coming from different directions can interact with each other and cause interference. This is why such transmissions are directional in nature), They follow the curvature of the earth through diffraction. The data rate is very slow, perhaps only one or two letters or characters of a message per minute, so they only usually transmit a signal that calls a particular submarine to periscope depth where a radio antenna is raised and HF or other, less exotic radio links are used, with a far higher data transmission rate. These frequencies will not, of course, penetrate down to any depth. Hence this two-stage process.

Another good illustration that speed of data is different to speed of transmission.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 09, 2023, 07:56:55 AM »

Bulmabriefs,

I see you’re still confused about speed of radiation v speed of data transmission within that radiation.

Here’s an analogy, which you seem to like.

Ok, I have a torch, on a dark night. I want to communicate a signal, let’s call it a data packet, to you, let’s say it’s ten flashes of the torch. Let’s call each flash, a ‘bit’.

Let’s call the speed of the light from the torch, ‘c’.

I turn the torch on for 1 second, then off for one second, then on for one second, then off for one second, and so on, until I have flashed the torch ten times to transmit my data packet. I have transmitted 10 bits in 20 seconds.

0.5 bits per second.

Let’s say I now am quick enough with my finger to flash the torch for half a second, then off for half a second.

That now equates to a data transmission rate of 10 bits in 10 seconds, so 1bit per second. I’ve doubled the data speed while using the same actual mechanism of transmission. C remains the same.

If I hook the torch up to a Raspberry Pi or other small computer running a programme to control the torch, I can send ten flashes each of 0.1 seconds duration. That will need another computer linked to an optical sensor at the other end, as those flashes will be too quick to count with the human eye.

I can now send 10 bits in 2 seconds, so 5 bits per second. You see how changing the way the data is encoded, sent, received and decoded on even the exact same EM frequency and wavelength (in this case visible light) can massively change data rates. The same principle applies to WiFi, cellular data networks, and lots of other ways we send data via the EM spectrum.

And yes, we know that ‘c’ remains the same across the EM spectrum, because as I’ve said, the radars I use at work every day rely on that speed as part of the ‘distance = speed x time’ formula which is used to display radar returns on my radar screens. The radar processing system knows when the radar sends out a pulse, it measures the time lag of the reception of the return, and then uses the speed of light to complete the formula.

It’s really pretty basic.

I’ll ask again….

How does this work if we don’t know the speed of those 3 different frequencies?
How does this work if those speeds are different, depending on the frequency?

Because... the speed involved is conveniently far enough that no one is able to test it.

Using the Korea example, and the assumption that your Earth is round in the first (and that the circumference of the world can be known as 24,901.461 mi despite the fact that this is all extrapolation as very few of us have done honest sailing expeditions across south seas then the north seas to see it the surface area is equal at same N/S latitudes as it would in a round Earth, or continues to widen the further south we go... we take Google Earth's word for it), and in which case you would need to broadcast 24,901.461 mi/s (not 186,000 mi/s) to circle all the Earth instantly.
In other words, a theoretical test for light speed transmission always yields a much lower needed speed because the Earth is simply too small to run such a light speed test. Oh, but it gets worse.

How do we function without "knowing" exact amounts? The same way we function without knowing what a bird is chirping to another bird. It just doesn't matter to us all that much. The speed of radio waves is "fast enough". If I want to listen to a broadcast literally more than 12 hours away, it appears to be instant. The circumference distance will never come into play, and at best we would need to broadcast between the Howland Islands and the Kirbati Islands.

With this information, then the biggest time difference between two places on earth is a whole 26 hours. The Howland islands, an unincorporated unorganized territory of the United States, use a time zone of -12 hours UTC on the far west of the earth. The Republic of Kiribati’s Line Islands, which have a time zone of +14 hours UTC, are on the far east of the earth. These two places, therefore, have the biggest time difference of 26 hours.

With that in mind, I guess the longest distance on Earth would be Howland Islands to Kirbati Islands?

I guessed wrong. Distance from Kiribati to Howland Island is 2,146 kilometers. It's because timezones don't necessarily jive up perfextly to distance that there is a 26 hour difference. So let's find our the longest distance on Earth. Well, the longest walking distance is South Africa to Magadan (22,387 km), but this is involving a curved path so I dunno. The longest real difference is the equatorial diameter (7,926 miles or not much different from Korea to my location). We'll even double it for sending and receiving.

Only 15,852 mi/s to give the appearance of an instant or "light speed" radio transmission. Not 186,000 mi/s. Radio never needs to be beyond that point so transmission if unequal, could be well slower than we are told.
So, listening to Korean music... assuming it actually is from Korea and not a bunch of hired Korean singers and actors putting on a show in a basement in SoCal, the speed of radio only needs to be fast enough for us to listen to it.

When accounting for speed from Wifi or phone data plans however, if there hasn't been actual progression of speed, then all these frequency adjustments and upgrades in range etc, etc, etc actually involve units per second. If frequency is irrelevant to speed of transmission of data, then there would be no purpose in adjusting frequency to levels that would be in the 5G microwave range. We could simply update working 3G connections and the signal should be as fast as light regardless, you say. Ditto for WiFi, just improve connections.

That this is not done, implies not all signals are equal, and that it is actually necessary to change frequency for reasons other than "we have a cool new thing and it needs to be at a different frequency than the lamer older things to not interfere with signals". In other words, if frequency is being adjusted to carry more data at faster rates, then not all speeds are equal. Or rather not all speed loads (the difference between a person running at 8 mph sprint and and the same sprint done carrying a backpack filled with 40 lb of books) are identical. I'm not actually sure which this is (actual speed or speed load), but the point being, either all electromagnetic frequencies are equal (sounds like lazy science to me) or the differences in frequency have practical value.

Really, if you’re going to quote my posts could you at least address some of the points therein?

I didn’t mention anything about Korea.

In your latest, you claim that we function enough without knowing the exact speed of light.

Please, tell me how.

Again, I use three different radars at work, of differing frequencies. They all depend on the speed of light being known, to put the radar returns that represent aircraft in the correct and accurate location. If the speed they assumed was off by a fraction of a %, the radars would be useless.

We also use what we call ‘permanent echos’ to calibrate our radars, fixed objects, the distances of which (from the radar heads themselves) are known to the nearest metre. For these we know the distance, we measure the time of return, so we can actually measure the speed. Spoiler alert it’s the speed of light.

If you really do have any evidence to the contrary, it’s one of the top the scientific discoveries of all time.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Cool Mission?

« on: February 08, 2023, 10:01:08 AM »

Bulmabriefs,

I see you’re still confused about speed of radiation v speed of data transmission within that radiation.

Here’s an analogy, which you seem to like.

Ok, I have a torch, on a dark night. I want to communicate a signal, let’s call it a data packet, to you, let’s say it’s ten flashes of the torch. Let’s call each flash, a ‘bit’.

Let’s call the speed of the light from the torch, ‘c’.

I turn the torch on for 1 second, then off for one second, then on for one second, then off for one second, and so on, until I have flashed the torch ten times to transmit my data packet. I have transmitted 10 bits in 20 seconds.

0.5 bits per second.

Let’s say I now am quick enough with my finger to flash the torch for half a second, then off for half a second.

That now equates to a data transmission rate of 10 bits in 10 seconds, so 1bit per second. I’ve doubled the data speed while using the same actual mechanism of transmission. C remains the same.

If I hook the torch up to a Raspberry Pi or other small computer running a programme to control the torch, I can send ten flashes each of 0.1 seconds duration. That will need another computer linked to an optical sensor at the other end, as those flashes will be too quick to count with the human eye.

I can now send 10 bits in 2 seconds, so 5 bits per second. You see how changing the way the data is encoded, sent, received and decoded on even the exact same EM frequency and wavelength (in this case visible light) can massively change data rates. The same principle applies to WiFi, cellular data networks, and lots of other ways we send data via the EM spectrum.

And yes, we know that ‘c’ remains the same across the EM spectrum, because as I’ve said, the radars I use at work every day rely on that speed as part of the ‘distance = speed x time’ formula which is used to display radar returns on my radar screens. The radar processing system knows when the radar sends out a pulse, it measures the time lag of the reception of the return, and then uses the speed of light to complete the formula.

It’s really pretty basic.

I’ll ask again….

How does this work if we don’t know the speed of those 3 different frequencies?
How does this work if those speeds are different, depending on the frequency?