Moonbounce - Bouncing radio waves off the moon

Can we finally put this to rest now? I really shouldn't even give out this much information yet, but I gave a different variant of the same system. It's not that difficult to grasp if you just take your time. No pun intended.

You still have not said anything of any relevance.  You keep spouting on about quantum mechanics, but you have yet to actually answer the simple question: How does the propagation of useful information at FTL velocities not violate Special Relativity?  You keep giving answers based in QM about how they do not violate this principle.  Yet, your experiment obviously violates SR.  You claim that nothing is being violated because QM does not violate SR.  Yet, your experiment now obviously violates QM, too.

I'm going to ignore all the other petty crap you enjoy and just concentrate on this.

That's always a good way to turn when you aren't showing evidence. Ignore the debate and type up a bunch of crap that's not related to showcasing where the experiment vindicates your argument or how it doesn't violate anything.

Hey guys, so I hear oceans are weightless...

I also heard that radio waves are much slower than light waves.

I also heard that radio waves are much slower than light waves.

LOL.

And Alaska is bigger than rest of the United States put together

And all light comes from the sun, except when you start talking about energy saving lightbulbs of course.

try comparing alaska to the rest of the USA on a GLOBE and you will see what i mean! i was commenting on how inaccurate most maps are near the north AND south poles!

no, eric, you fail

try comparing alaska to the rest of the USA on a GLOBE and you will see what i mean! i was commenting on how inaccurate most maps are near the north AND south poles!

Alaska is approximately a third of the total landmass of the US.

So no it is half the size of the continental US.

did you miss my pic, Raist.

Quote from: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2007, 09:31:22 PM

Can we finally put this to rest now? I really shouldn't even give out this much information yet, but I gave a different variant of the same system. It's not that difficult to grasp if you just take your time. No pun intended.

You still have not said anything of any relevance.  You keep spouting on about quantum mechanics, but you have yet to actually answer the simple question: How does the propagation of useful information at FTL velocities not violate Special Relativity?  You keep giving answers based in QM about how they do not violate this principle.  Yet, your experiment obviously violates SR.  You claim that nothing is being violated because QM does not violate SR.  Yet, your experiment now obviously violates QM, too.

It violates neither. I will explain this as short and simple as possible and this is as basic as it gets.

Remember we are dealing with time-reversal symmetry right? This is allowed in both systems.

The information itself, travels from the finger to the brain and it is not affected by anything other than what you would normally think of. It stays quite nicely within the confines of Special Relativity and takes a finite amount of time to travel to the brain *in and of itself* (this is what I've been trying to tell you.. the information is simply jumping the gap so to speak, NOT exceeding the speed of light. It still takes a finite amount of time... time-reversal symmetry is allowing the following effects)

The freaky part is that somehow the brain is projecting the information back in time so that it ocurrs simultaneously with the event. So that the event is being reacted to *instantly*.

You should have easily been able to extrapolate any and all of this from all of the examples I have given you with your vast knowledge and skill in physics.

This is as high-school as it gets. Although crude, it provides an obvious explanation of what is actually occurring, and that none of the systems involved require a violation of special relativity, and without quantum mechanics.. it wouldn't even be possible in the first place.. doh!!

The End!

Quote from: Optimus Prime on November 27, 2007, 09:31:22 PM

I'm going to ignore all the other petty crap you enjoy and just concentrate on this.

That's always a good way to turn when you aren't showing evidence. Ignore the debate and type up a bunch of crap that's not related to showcasing where the experiment vindicates your argument or how it doesn't violate anything.

What the hell are you talking about? Everything I wrote was in direct relation to the specific debate topic. I was referring to insults and banter. You didn't even read the post did you? I gave a direct example of the experiment in a visual basis that would be even easier to comprehend. Edit: (was supposed to be anyway)

Now I have just previously broken it down to even simpler language. Please don't post demeaning things when you aren't even looking at what's being written, or misinterpreting the quote I'm guessing.

bump

Every source I can find on the signal propagation speed of a human nerve says that the speed varies between 1 and 100 meters per second.

Every source I am finding says that there is a signal delay between extremity and brain.

So whether or not you can provide a proposed mechanism (Quantum mechanical or otherwise) for your claims, and whether or not it violates special relativity seems irrelevant.

The fact seems to be that your statement:

Without visual cues, the mind can perceive signals from all over the body *instantaneously*

Is simply not true.

Now can we get back to the topic at hand please?

As the original poster pointed out, amateurs are able to make a reasonably accurate measurement of the Earth-Moon distance as a few hundred thousand miles.

Rowbotham also claimed to have made several measurements of astronomical distances, and claimed that they implied the moon to be only a few thousand miles away.

This calls Rowbotham competency into question, and raises legitimate evidence that Rowbotham was simply lying about his measurements of astronomical distances.

Every source I can find on the signal propagation speed of a human nerve says that the speed varies between 1 and 100 meters per second.

Every source I am finding says that there is a signal delay between extremity and brain.

So whether or not you can provide a proposed mechanism (Quantum mechanical or otherwise) for your claims, and whether or not it violates special relativity seems irrelevant.

The fact seems to be that your statement:

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

Without visual cues, the mind can perceive signals from all over the body *instantaneously*

Is simply not true.

Unfortunately you aren't taking the experiments or the theory into account. I can't believe no one is paying attention here. You apparently didn't read my last post regarding this either. Many experiments have come up with the same results since the 70s and it appears ours is as well thus far.

The speed in which information travels from a point on the body to the brain is already known. What isn't known is why the response is instantaneous. And it is as such. No matter how much you read that this and such is how long it takes a signal to reach the brain... you obviously haven't read up on how long it takes for the person to recognize that signal have you? This is the big mystery and my previous posts explain the theory.

Once again, don't spout "this statement is true / false" without researching your claims properly first. You can't look at one portion of the equation and skip the rest and claim finality.

I will put this in a new post. As I had posted in another thread, I apologize that this has gone off topic for so long.

O.P.

Rowbotham isn't a reliable source. He is part of the flat Earth conspiracy. (an organization that makes profit by convincing people that the Earth is flat. Therefore any of his so-called observations are fabricated. Therefore the Earth is round.

Tom just got Bishoped. 

It violates neither. I will explain this as short and simple as possible and this is as basic as it gets.

Remember we are dealing with time-reversal symmetry right? This is allowed in both systems.


I can't believe no one is paying attention here.

I really would like you to continue talking about this, even though the people you are debating do not seem to understand the topic you are trying to explain.  But I hear this subject discussed often by the faculty at my school and often see it discussed on the physics forums I lurk at.  It is fascinating, but I am very surprised that so many would have a decent understanding of GR/SR but (appear) to know so little about QM.  So, try not to sweat it too much.  There are some here who realize the validity of the things you are discussing, even if what all of this really means for our universe is much harder to pin down.

One thing to remember:  These things he is talking about are observed reality.  This simply is how the universe is.

another wiki for basic info that might help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics

"observed reality" makes me think of "the matrix": you think that's air you're breathing now?

several people can look at the same thing and perceive it differently, which is why eyewitness reports come second to photos in criminal trials.

so the FE insistence that all NASA pictures are fake...ruins any hope of consensus.

"observed reality" makes me think of "the matrix": you think that's air you're breathing now?

several people can look at the same thing and perceive it differently, which is why eyewitness reports come second to photos in criminal trials.

so the FE insistence that all NASA pictures are fake...ruins any hope of consensus.

eric shoots and missed by a mile. Give up. We are not talking about memory, we are talking about observations.

This is not that hard.

Varying perceptions do play a part in varying reports, even though memory plays a much larger part.

A better example might have been why two people have varying interpretations of someone else's behavior.

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?

Bump.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 25, 2007, 01:52:53 PM

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?

Bump.

Just wanted to bump this thread again and reiterate... there is a new thread "Special Relativity or no Redirect". I have started this thread to take the physics / experiment / perception debate away from this topic in an attempt to return it to it's proper place. Please respond, debate, etc. on that topic there if you wouldn't mind. And once again, apologies for it getting SOOOoooo far off.

O.P.

edit: sorry, i see you have already moved this debate to separate thread.  thank you.  disregard below.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 29, 2007, 06:54:47 PM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 25, 2007, 01:52:53 PM

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?

Bump.

Just wanted to bump this thread again and reiterate... there is a new thread "Special Relativity or no Redirect". I have started this thread to take the physics / experiment / perception debate away from this topic in an attempt to return it to it's proper place. Please respond, debate, etc. on that topic there if you wouldn't mind. And once again, apologies for it getting SOOOoooo far off.

O.P.

i for one would like to keep this thread on it's original topic of bouncing radio waves off the moon.  this is something the fe'ers need to come up with an answer for.

arguments about nerve impulses or reactions or whatever being instantaneous, while possibly being an interesting debate, are derailing this topic.  (personally i've never read or heard anything about and it so i wouldn't include myself in that debate, but i might read such a dedicated thread.)  regardless of the validity or invalidity of your arguments, we owe the op the courtesy of making at least vaguely related posts on his thread.  (why?  if for no other reason so that i [or you] get the same courtesy and don't get your posts derailed...and i for one am interested in hearing the fe excuse for radio moon bounces...)  thank you...

i for one would like to keep this thread on it's original topic of bouncing radio waves off the moon.  this is something the fe'ers need to come up with an answer for.

arguments about nerve impulses or reactions or whatever being instantaneous, while possibly being an interesting debate, are derailing this topic.  (personally i've never read or heard anything about and it so i wouldn't include myself in that debate, but i might read such a dedicated thread.)  regardless of the validity or invalidity of your arguments, we owe the op the courtesy of making at least vaguely related posts on his thread.  (why?  if for no other reason so that i [or you] get the same courtesy and don't get your posts derailed...and i for one am interested in hearing the fe excuse for radio moon bounces...)  thank you...

I've researched the topic a bit, and nowhere in any scientific paper or study could I find data for the time delay from radio signals bouncing off the moon. I've searched and searched, and no such figure could be found. By the wording on the papers I have found it sounds like the signal bounces back almost immediately.

As for the radio signals bounced off of Venus, Max Fagin has produced a few scientific papers for us in previous threads. Unfortunately the only studies on the subject were made and conducted by NASA's radio astronomy division. This considered, we must automatically disregard such studies as part of NASA's hoax to support its model.

Therefore; since no useful data can be found, there is no coherent conclusion we can reach to determine which model - RE or FE - is correct.

Quote

i for one would like to keep this thread on it's original topic of bouncing radio waves off the moon.  this is something the fe'ers need to come up with an answer for.

arguments about nerve impulses or reactions or whatever being instantaneous, while possibly being an interesting debate, are derailing this topic.  (personally i've never read or heard anything about and it so i wouldn't include myself in that debate, but i might read such a dedicated thread.)  regardless of the validity or invalidity of your arguments, we owe the op the courtesy of making at least vaguely related posts on his thread.  (why?  if for no other reason so that i [or you] get the same courtesy and don't get your posts derailed...and i for one am interested in hearing the fe excuse for radio moon bounces...)  thank you...

I've researched the topic a bit, and nowhere in any scientific paper or study could I find data for the time delay from radio signals bouncing off the moon. I've searched and searched, and no such figure could be found. By the wording on the papers I have found it sounds like the signal bounces back almost immediately.

As for the radio signals bounced off of Venus, Max Fagin has produced a few scientific papers for us in previous threads. Unfortunately the only studies on the subject were made and conducted by NASA's radio astronomy division. This considered, we must automatically disregard such studies as part of NASA's hoax to support its model.

Therefore; since no useful data cannot be found, there is no coherent conclusion we can reach to determine which model - RE or FE - is correct.

well i got what i asked for; the fe excuse.  it's all a government hoax.  (sigh...)  such a cop-out.

edit: ad hominem removed

Enough with the ad hominems.

Enough with the ad hominems.

point well taken.  fixed.  now it's only attacking his stupid ideas.

well i got what i asked for; the fe excuse.  it's all a government hoax.  (sigh...)  such a cop-out.

edit: ad hominem removed

If you can find a study on the subject which was not conducted by NASA we would be more than happy to take it at face value.