Moonbounce - Bouncing radio waves off the moon

Apparently amateur radio enthusiasts (hams) do earth-moon-earth (EME) bounces all the time.  There are apparently many "stations" that are produced by amateurs and can be received by anyone with the right equipment and a clear view of the moon.

-Of course what is relevant for this forum is the delay.  Around 2.5 seconds.   Not what you would expect for 6000 mile FE round trip?

Wow. You just won. Congrats. 

Yay!

Interesting.  Something for me to think about =-)

Interesting.  Something for me to think about =-)

No thought required. Blame it on aether without the slightest reason why. 

Quote from: Username on November 25, 2007, 03:00:02 PM

Interesting.  Something for me to think about =-)

No thought required. Blame it on aether without the slightest reason why. 

DUH, the signal bounces between the shadow object and the moon.
Sheesh.

Quote from: Yiak on November 25, 2007, 03:19:22 PM

Quote from: Username on November 25, 2007, 03:00:02 PM

Interesting.  Something for me to think about =-)

No thought required. Blame it on aether without the slightest reason why. 

DUH, the signal bounces between the shadow object and the moon.
Sheesh.

WOW. What was I thinking?! 
I'm gonna go slit my wrists and worship cheech and chong.

Quote from: Spec138 on November 25, 2007, 04:54:45 PM

Quote from: Yiak on November 25, 2007, 03:19:22 PM

Quote from: Username on November 25, 2007, 03:00:02 PM

Interesting.  Something for me to think about =-)

No thought required. Blame it on aether without the slightest reason why. 

DUH, the signal bounces between the shadow object and the moon.
Sheesh.

WOW. What was I thinking?! 
I'm gonna go slit my wrists and worship cheech and chong.

You don't already? Come on over and the slitting and toking can begin.

DUH, the signal bounces between the shadow object and the moon.
Sheesh.

So... When I key up my 10 meter rig, the signal bounces off the moon, then a shadow object.. therefore back on out into space?
That's rediculous. No matter how you slice it, a third object throws it out of the loop.

"Shadow Bounce" : Signal goes from earth, shadow object, earth. - This obviously doesn't work since the shadow object would be closer than the moon, therefore the time exchange is way off.

"Moon Bounce" : Earth - Moon - Earth signal path. This is what all of us (Amateur Radio Operators / hams) are familiar with and work on a regular basis.

"Moon - Shadow Bounce" : Earth - Moon - Shadow Object - Space. This doesn't make sense. End result would be the signal making it's final bounce out to space rather than back to the earth.

Assume that the shadow object is real, exists at whatever altitude you wish relative to earth, and make your calculations match. Now... why aren't there varying signal problems due to there being TWO objects in the immediate sky from which to bounce signals?
Bubba in Topeka would be getting signals in from all sorts of places, rather than tuning in to specific areas of bounce.

KB0RQB for I.D.

That is to say, when doing moon-bounce, there is an obvious trajectory of the signal... where it 'lands' back on the earth is also where you will be able to receive signals back from. In this instance you would have pairs or even inverse parallels of signal origin and receipt. It doesn't work.

Happy to input, happy to discuss further.

KB0RQB clear.

HAM radios are part of The Conspiracy.
On a serious note, do not expect any answer from the 2 or 3 real FE believers, any time there is a good scientific practical point is made that discredits one or more aspects of the FE theory they simply ignore the thread or sometimes come back with some off the wall explanation, like lighter than air satellites 

or ice crystals.

What does the distance to the moon tell us directly about the shape of the earth?

I say the DEF provides a medium, a type of Einstein-Bose condensate, thereby retarding the speed of propagation of light through the DEF boundary layer.   

What does the distance to the moon tell us directly about the shape of the earth?

Directly nothing, but indirectly a lot. There goes the FE theory of the Sun and Moon that acts like giant stage lights

I say the DEF provides a medium, a type of Einstein-Bose condensate, thereby retarding the speed of propagation of light through the DEF boundary layer.   

Something is retarded alright

I say the DEF provides a medium, a type of Einstein-Bose condensate, thereby retarding the speed of propagation of light through the DEF boundary layer.   

You can't be serious. So what you are saying then is that ALL transmissions are delayed in the entire world, more than they are already calculated to be so.

Think about that for a second, you are actually trying to say that stratospheric bounce would also be delayed more than is already known. You can't defeat a known propagation time frame by simply trying to insert another variable. You end up changing all other variables. That's not consistent.

The DEF boundary layer you refer to exists within the stratosphere, therefore you are trying to re-define current *known* latencies. You are beginning to seem arrogant.

If you are uncertain or disagree with me on this point, then use the Space Shuttle as an example. It is well above the stratosphere and is communicated with on a regular basis by HAM operators. Along with the ISS. Same latency values by comparison.

--------------

Tom Bishop: In reference to your question, I believe what is trying to be explained is that according to the FAQ, the known distance of the FE model moon doesn't add up to signal latency of radio transmissions when bounced from the RE model moon. Thereby disproving the moon's distance from earth and movements in reference to radio.

I could be wrong, but that's what I assume from the statement, as that is what I would deduce from the information presented.

--------------

I am open to further debate on both topics, but I don't see how you can bend the rules by redefining only parts of the equation.

What does the distance to the moon tell us directly about the shape of the earth?

Nothing directly, but it does show that FEer's/Rowbotham's given value for the Earth-Moon distance is off by a factor of 80.

That's not exactly a trivial error. . .

Directly nothing, but indirectly a lot. There goes the FE theory of the Sun and Moon that acts like giant stage lights

The fact that the distance to the moon demonstrates nothing is all we need to know.

Nothing directly, but it does show that FEer's/Rowbotham's given value for the Earth-Moon distance is off by a factor of 80.

That's not exactly a trivial error. . .

Care to point me where, in Earth Not a Globe, Dr. Rowbotham triangulates the distance to the moon?

I must have missed it.

1. The distance is direct enough to disprove FE.
2. If Rowbotham didn't find the distance where did the FAQ get it? Where did you get it?
3. Don't run away.

1. The distance is direct enough to disprove FE.

Wrong. Just as your RE friend admitted, the distance to the moon says nothing about the shape of the earth.

2. If Rowbotham didn't find the distance where did the FAQ get it? Where did you get it?

I didn't make the FAQ. The Flat Earth literature says nothing about the distance to the moon.

Care to show otherwise?

Chapter V - Earth Not a Globe:

.... sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

 

The above method of measuring distances applies equally to the moon and stars; and it is easy to demonstrate, to place it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than the sun, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles.

....

Just for reference purposes. There is a ton of information regarding the exact / varying distances of the Sun / Moon in that chapter and beyond.

Also, the fact that the moon could vary in distance by much is a tad eliminating - I wasn't aware of his references to the moon varying by that much until you pointed me to this book.

Care to point me where, in Earth Not a Globe, Dr. Rowbotham triangulates the distance to the moon?

I never said he triangulated the distance to the moon.  I said he gave a value for the distance (as the Optimus' post indicates)

Not to put to fine a point on it... there are actually some figures in the book where he triangulated the distance of the sun using comparative calculations in Fig. 58 (which references Fig. 57), which thereby fixes a lesser triangulation of the moon.

Just a thought...

Quote

1. The distance is direct enough to disprove FE.

Wrong. Just as your RE friend admitted, the distance to the moon says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Wrong. The shape of my blender says nothing about the shape of the Earth. The distance of the moon is a direct condition of FE. Basic logic: If A then B. Thus, if not B then not A. 

Quote

2. If Rowbotham didn't find the distance where did the FAQ get it? Where did you get it?

I didn't make the FAQ. The Flat Earth literature says nothing about the distance to the moon.

Care to show otherwise?

1. Optimus Prime did the courtesy of showing the text.
2. I merely asked how it was derrived. I didn't actually state Rowbotham stated the distance. So you missed my question.

Quote

Directly nothing, but indirectly a lot. There goes the FE theory of the Sun and Moon that acts like giant stage lights

The fact that the distance to the moon demonstrates nothing is all we need to know.

Ok, Ok...

Unfortunately I think the distance to the moon does provide solid evidence against a flat earth, by this reasoning:
 
It is my understanding that FE theory has carefully calculated the altitudes of the sun (and moon), using methods which assume that the earth is already flat.

This is fine as long as the "FE" assumption holds true.

However, if the distance is demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt (as you, Tom, admit it is) to be 80 times that distance, then you have to either:

   (A) Discard the assumption (axiom) that the earth is flat
   (B) Discard the method used to calculate the distance

-Now the method you used was pretty solid (as I remember), using something along the lines of triangulation.  So (b) has to stay, I think

Which leaves (A).

P.S. What is the DEF, please

TheEngineer is referring to something I have found throughout this site - mainly referred to by him and some of his peers as the "Dark Energy Field" or DEF.

This not only 'fuels' (forgive the term) the Universal Acceleration of the Flat Earth, but is an all encompassing Field.

The only problem with this is the fact that it would exist everywhere in the atmosphere, stratosphere, troposphere, "empty space", basically everywhere.

Therefore if the DEF exists, and *any* scientific measurements are correct to date, then respectively, radio propagation would also have to hold true. It's a moot point.

If radio propagation is false then by inference of mechanics speed of light is false, general relativity is false, and basically the fundamentals of physics fail - including dark matter / dark energy theories.

Edit: I am only a physics *student* therefore I don't claim to know everything, but hell - neither do my professors, so after some research and double checking with some fellows, I am confident in my knowledge of what I have stated.

Keep this in mind: They are continuing experiments at my university regarding particle time-travel. Get this.. When you prick your finger, there should be a finite amount of time it takes for the signal to reach your brain - no matter how fast it is right? Guess what? There IS NO DELAY. Without visual cues, the mind can perceive signals from all over the body *instantaneously* - therefore the impulse delivering the message to the brain must have left *before* the incident took place according to our understanding of time.

Let that soak in for a minute.

At this point in my studies I've decided that pretty much anything is possible to a certain extent, but there are basic physics that if undone in one place - unravel the rest.

3. Don't run away.

Quote from: L0gic on November 26, 2007, 10:52:22 AM

3. Don't run away.

LOL 

Keep this in mind: They are continuing experiments at my university regarding particle time-travel. Get this.. When you prick your finger, there should be a finite amount of time it takes for the signal to reach your brain - no matter how fast it is right? Guess what? There IS NO DELAY. Without visual cues, the mind can perceive signals from all over the body *instantaneously* - therefore the impulse delivering the message to the brain must have left *before* the incident took place according to our understanding of time.

References?  Where I stand, that is in direct violation of Special Relativity.

Quote from: Optimus Prime on November 26, 2007, 03:35:11 PM

Keep this in mind: They are continuing experiments at my university regarding particle time-travel. Get this.. When you prick your finger, there should be a finite amount of time it takes for the signal to reach your brain - no matter how fast it is right? Guess what? There IS NO DELAY. Without visual cues, the mind can perceive signals from all over the body *instantaneously* - therefore the impulse delivering the message to the brain must have left *before* the incident took place according to our understanding of time.

References?  Where I stand, that is in direct violation of Special Relativity.

Well, in your own style... that's not my problem. If you don't grasp Quantum mechanics, Quantum physics, or the sub-atomic world then oh well.

It's pretty darn easy to find sources if you even attempt to look, and I'm not about to give out the name of my university.

Have fun!!