Moon Radar Bounce

Tom, I don't see how your flat earth theory would make it impossible to bounce radio waves off the moon.

Quote

Get a ham radio. It's perfectly possible to receive moonbounce signals. My bosses do it all the time.

So I say again, try it yourself.

Why should I bother doing any of that when I already know for a fact that it cannot be done?

You got proof? Scientifically recognized proof?

Quote

Get a ham radio. It's perfectly possible to receive moonbounce signals. My bosses do it all the time.

So I say again, try it yourself.

Why should I bother doing any of that when I already know for a fact that it cannot be done?

Being selective about your observations is the very bedrock of pseudoscience.

Tom, I don't see how your flat earth theory would make it impossible to bounce radio waves off the moon.

Who said anything about FE Theory? The atmosphere makes it impossible to bounce a signal off of the moon.

You got proof?

My proof is that I've yet to see data in this thread proving it's possible to bounce signals off of the moon.

Being selective about your observations is the very bedrock of pseudoscience.

I've never seen signals bouncing off of the moon's surface, so how am I being selective in my observations? 

How does the atmosphere make that impossible.

How does the atmosphere make that impossible.

It's not easy to get a signal to progress through hundreds of miles of atmosphere, bounce off the barely reflective surface of a celestial body, and expect that reflected signal to be be strong enough to make its way back through the earth's atmosphere and land in the exact spot it left at without being redirected in its course by Snell's Law.

Quote from: lindelof on April 30, 2008, 03:19:58 PM

How does the atmosphere make that impossible.

It's not easy to get a signal to progress through hundreds of miles of atmosphere, bounce off the barely reflective surface of a celestial body, and expect to  see that signal progress back through the earth's atmosphere and land in the exact spot it was sent off at.

Signals can get through the ionisphere. How do you think we can get radio signals from space? .

Google is your " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">friend, Tom.

http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/Operating_Modes/EME/

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html

Your turn tom.

Signals can get through the ionisphere. How do you think we can get radio signals from space?

Those are one-way signals. GPS is a one-way signal. DirectTV is a one-way signal. Those one way-signals require tremendous amounts of power to reach the surface of the earth.

We're talking about a signal which proceeds through the atmosphere from the surface of the earth, bounces off a hardly reflective celestial body, and proceeds back through the atmosphere unencumbered by diffusion or Snell's Law.

Quote

Signals can get through the ionisphere. How do you think we can get radio signals from space?

Those are one-way signals. GPS is a one-way signal. DirectTV is a one-way signal. Those one way-signals require tremendous amounts of power to reach the surface.

We're talking about a signal which proceeds through the atmosphere from the surface of the earth, bounces off a hardly reflective celestial body, and proceeds back through the atmosphere unencumbered.

how do you control a satelite? Mars rovers? Use Satelite internet that doesn't require a phone line?

Still don't see any proof from your side.

how do you control a satelite? Mars rovers? Use Satelite internet that doesn't require a phone line?

Still don't see any proof from your side.

In the rare technologies which do allow communication with a Satellite you aren't bouncing your signal off of the satellite. You are sending a signal to the Satellite. The signal degrades massively as it proceeds up through the atmosphere. The satellite receives your faint signal, processes it, and broadcasts a reply in full power. The reply you receive isn't the same broadcasted signal you sent up to the satellite. That would be pointless.

Satellite Internet comprises of a series of one way signals between client and transceiver. At no point does the client bounce a signal off of the satellite or the satellite bounce a signal off of the client. The same goes for Satellite Phone and the other few ways to communicate with a satellite.

Quote

how do you control a satelite? Mars rovers? Use Satelite internet that doesn't require a phone line?

Still don't see any proof from your side.

In the rare technologies which do allow communication with a Satellite you aren't bouncing your signal off of the satellite. You are sending a signal to the Satellite. The signal degrades massively as it proceeds up through the atmosphere. The satellite receives your faint signal, processes it, and broadcasts a reply in full power. The reply you receive isn't the same broadcasted signal you sent off to the satellite. That would be pointless.

Satellite Internet comprises of a series of one way signals between client and transceiver. At no point does the client bounce a signal off of the satellite or the satellite bounce a signal off of the client. The same goes for Satellite Phone and the other few ways to communicate with a satellite.

Sallite internet communicates with the sattelite up in space. Initially satellite internet used a phone line for the uplink. This was due to the fact that you needed licencing from the FCC/CRTC in NA and now that thats done with, two way satellite internet exists (In the US at least).

There are also plenty of other applications out there that use 2 way satellite, many of which involve big companies, worldwide telecomunications, etc.

However, the easiest way to verify would be to try it yourself. And you still don't have any proof that it doesn't happen. So you've failed once more.

There are also plenty of other applications out there that use 2 way satellite, many of which involve big companies, worldwide telecomunications, etc.

But those applications aren't bouncing a signal off of a satellite like the moonbounce, those applications are sending a signal to the satellite and the satellite responds by broadcasting another signal.

Quote

There are also plenty of other applications out there that use 2 way satellite, many of which involve big companies, worldwide telecomunications, etc.

But those applications aren't bouncing a signal off of a satellite like the moonbounce, those applications are sending a signal to the satellite and the satellite responds by broadcasting another signal.

While there is no transceiver on the moon (yet, there are plans to build one) radio signals can still bounce off the moon. They bounce off of plenty of things. How about reading the links, or setting up a ham radio?

Quote

how do you control a satelite? Mars rovers? Use Satelite internet that doesn't require a phone line?

Still don't see any proof from your side.

In the rare technologies which do allow communication with a Satellite you aren't bouncing your signal off of the satellite. You are sending a signal to the Satellite. The signal degrades massively as it proceeds up through the atmosphere. The satellite receives your faint signal, processes it, and broadcasts a reply in full power. The reply you receive isn't the same broadcasted signal you sent up to the satellite. That would be pointless.

Satellite Internet comprises of a series of one way signals between client and transceiver. At no point does the client bounce a signal off of the satellite or the satellite bounce a signal off of the client. The same goes for Satellite Phone and the other few ways to communicate with a satellite.

I thought satellites were fake Tom

Quote

You got proof?

My proof is that I've yet to see data in this thread proving it's possible to bounce signals off of the moon.

Quote

Being selective about your observations is the very bedrock of pseudoscience.

I've never seen signals bouncing off of the moon's surface, so how am I being selective in my observations? 

On the subject of data, this person has successfully echoed signals off the moon.  His website contains an account of the first echo he achieved on April 26, 2005.  He states that "Echoes return approximately 2.5 seconds".

What is wrong with this "proof" then?  BTW remember there is no such thing as absolute proof is science, only evidence.

BTBTW You are being selective about the evidence you are seeing.  You have made a choice not to collect any moonbounce data.  That's being selective.  If you did observe 2.5 seconds it would falsify FE the 3000 miles theory (cue the DEF).

He's always selective about his evidence. and by that, I mean he has 1 peice of evidence that is not scientifically recognized, nor real good proof. There was a book on phlogostine. Does that mean it exists? Fuck no. He's just obtuse and kinda not all there

I thought you didn't believe in satellights? 

Hmm, light passes through the cold void of space, and it seems to slow down?

Sounds pretty consistent with current science.

I thought satellites were fake Tom

Satellites exist. They're just not in orbit.

On the subject of data, this person has successfully echoed signals off the moon.  His website contains an account of the first echo he achieved on April 26, 2005.  He states that "Echoes return approximately 2.5 seconds".

What is wrong with this "proof" then?

Your proof is unacceptable for a number of reasons. Firstly even bouncing a signal off of a dimly reflective celestial body is impossible due atmosphere and signal degradation and siffusion issues. Secondly, even if it were possible, how do you know that the signal isn't passing up the 32 mile diameter moon and bouncing off the  surface of the Celestial Dome behind it?

I don't see proof on your side. I guess we're the ones that are right.

I don't see proof on your side. I guess we're the ones that are right.

You want me to prove a negative? 

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 11:43:29 AM

I don't see proof on your side. I guess we're the ones that are right.

You want me to prove a negative? 

Oh there's the dreaded excuse.

If you can't prove your side of the argument, what makes you think you're right?

If you can't prove your side of the argument, what makes you think you're right?

I don't need to prove that the moonbounce is impossible, that space travel is impossible, or that landing on the moon is impossible, as it's impossible to prove a negative. Proving a negative is a logical fallacy.

It can only be proven that those things are possible, which you have yet to to do.

Quote

If you can't prove your side of the argument, what makes you think you're right?

I don't need to prove that the moonbounce is impossible, that space travel is impossible, or that landing on the moon is impossible, as it's impossible to prove a negative. Proving a negative is a logical fallacy.

It can only be proven that those things are possible, which you have yet to to do.

So prove it's possible to not bounce a signal off the moon

Your knowledge is wrong.

My side of the argument is that "those technological breakthroughs are impossible." Your response is "prove that those breakthroughs of technology don't exist." That type of argument is non sequitur. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove that these breakthrough technologies exist.

If I claim that a rock sits on my desk is the burden of proof on you to prove that the rock does not exist, or is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that it does exist?

I'm the one with proof.

I'm the one with proof.

Then would you quit hemming and hawing and provide it already? 

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 12:20:43 PM

I'm the one with proof.

Then would you quit hemming and hawing and provide it already? 

Sure! Look at this thread. A whole bunch of links for you.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20518.0

My side of the argument is that "those technological breakthroughs are impossible." Your response is "prove that those breakthroughs of technology don't exist." That type of argument is non sequitur. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove that these breakthrough technologies exist.

If I claim that a rock sits on my desk is the burden of proof on you to prove that the rock does not exist, or is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that it does exist?

Much as I hate agreeing with Tom, he's right. However, if Kill-9 has the proof, which does exist, he should stop beating around the bush and go get it... point them out and show the blasted links.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 01, 2008, 12:22:40 PM

Quote from: Kill-9 on May 01, 2008, 12:20:43 PM

I'm the one with proof.

Then would you quit hemming and hawing and provide it already? 

Sure! Look at this thread. A whole bunch of links for you.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20518.0

Where do you prove anything in this thread?