Ham Radio and Moonbounce

  • 451 Replies
  • 117899 Views
?

Squat

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #210 on: July 01, 2009, 04:50:38 AM »
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?

Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.


What, other than metal would be a good substance to use?

?

Squat

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #211 on: July 01, 2009, 05:07:55 AM »
You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?

Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.

Metal antennas can receive photons omnidirectionally, from all sides. A photon can hit any point on the metallic surface from many different angles.



Can someone clarify for me please - are these contradictory statements? They look like it. I'm getting confused now . . .

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #212 on: July 01, 2009, 05:49:31 AM »
Metal antennas can receive photons omnidirectionally, from all sides. A photon can hit any point on the metallic surface from many different angles.

And thus I refer you to my previous post:

Quote from: julianmartin

That isn't strictly true tom. The way antennas receive directionally is using antenna theory to increase the gain of signals from a particular direction, thus making signals from that direction more powerful and easier to receive. Signals received from other directions on said antenna will have little to no gain, often a negative gain is induced, reducing the signals penetration into the receiver network.


Yes, antennas will receive from all directions. However DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS, are arranged in such a way that the signals from the intended direction will receive a gain boost, making them easier to receive and separate from background noise and other erroneous signals. On top of that, a squelch function (which I again have already described), can be used to distinct the signals which will be inevitably stronger from the desired direction than anything else received.

Is that clear enough for you Tom?

Edit Squat, I don't think they are contradictory statements - he's alluding to the same final point which is explained and eliminated twice already (both above this edit)
« Last Edit: July 01, 2009, 05:51:24 AM by julianmartin »

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #213 on: July 01, 2009, 05:50:30 AM »
"JulianMartin" is my new hero!  Sorry, Tesla.

No worries, old chap.

This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.

But then, so was the sun-rise and sun-set bearings on The Equinox evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that "light bends horizontally" and left it at that.

And so was the Antarctic Midnight Sun evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that an image of The Sun "bounced around crystals in The Ice Wall" and left it at that.

And so was the Southern Celestial Pole always due south evidence, but Flat Earthers just ignored that one because "astronomy is only an observational science".

Tom is doing the same here with the "radio waves bounce off hill-sides".

For him that is an adequate refutation of the evidence.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Squat

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #214 on: July 01, 2009, 05:57:37 AM »
"JulianMartin" is my new hero!  Sorry, Tesla.

No worries, old chap.

This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.

But then, so was the sun-rise and sun-set bearings on The Equinox evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that "light bends horizontally" and left it at that.

And so was the Antarctic Midnight Sun evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that an image of The Sun "bounced around crystals in The Ice Wall" and left it at that.

And so was the Southern Celestial Pole always due south evidence, but Flat Earthers just ignored that one because "astronomy is only an observational science".

Tom is doing the same here with the "radio waves bounce off hill-sides".

For him that is an adequate refutation of the evidence.

Don't forget your 'Star Trails'. I've just finished reading it - excellent stuff.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #215 on: July 01, 2009, 06:02:06 AM »
"JulianMartin" is my new hero!  Sorry, Tesla.

No worries, old chap.

This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.

But then, so was the sun-rise and sun-set bearings on The Equinox evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that "light bends horizontally" and left it at that.

And so was the Antarctic Midnight Sun evidence, but Flat Earthers just said that an image of The Sun "bounced around crystals in The Ice Wall" and left it at that.

And so was the Southern Celestial Pole always due south evidence, but Flat Earthers just ignored that one because "astronomy is only an observational science".

Tom is doing the same here with the "radio waves bounce off hill-sides".

For him that is an adequate refutation of the evidence.

Don't forget your 'Star Trails'. I've just finished reading it - excellent stuff.

You are most kind to say so!

The "Southern Celestial Pole always due south evidence" was part of that thread, as I recall.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #216 on: July 02, 2009, 03:25:57 AM »
And thus Tom finally gives up when he realises Rowbotham did nothing on EM physics and he's run out of arguments.

Again, game, set and match to Julian. Read it and weep flat earthers!

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #217 on: July 02, 2009, 04:08:21 AM »
And thus Tom finally gives up when he realises Rowbotham did nothing on EM physics and he's run out of arguments.

Again, game, set and match to Julian. Read it and weep flat earthers!

Perhaps "light bends" vertically and horizontally when necessary to support a Flat Earth ...

Should be modified to "light bends in circles" too when necessary to support a Flat Earth ?

Clearly there exist above The Flat Earth small pockets or vortices of space-time-energy which are capable of bending radio waves around in a circle so that they come up on you from behind.

Quite simple really ...
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #218 on: July 03, 2009, 02:10:46 AM »
Still no adequate Flat-Earth explanation of this phenomenon?

(Not even a single diagram?)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #219 on: July 03, 2009, 12:10:21 PM »
And thus Tom finally gives up when he realises Rowbotham did nothing on EM physics and he's run out of arguments.

Again, game, set and match to Julian. Read it and weep flat earthers!

Perhaps "light bends" vertically and horizontally when necessary to support a Flat Earth ...

Should be modified to "light bends in circles" too when necessary to support a Flat Earth ?

Clearly there exist above The Flat Earth small pockets or vortices of space-time-energy which are capable of bending radio waves around in a circle so that they come up on you from behind.

Quite simple really ...

Actually...if we go with that one for a minute - unfortunately the light bending theory probably wouldn't apply to lower frequency radiation like mentioned - we already know that reflections and directioning varies massively between HF and VHF alone - let alone getting upto light frequencies, so "bending" radio waves can be pretty easily ignored. Unless someone gets out giant magnets and puts them everywhere!

Yeah I think this one has pretty much killed FET in one blow. I'm surprised the more serious Flat Earthers0 (i.e. not trolls like Tom Bishop haven't even attempted to suggested anything; and levee has all but disappeared by the look of it.

On top of that, I have chosen to not even mention the issues with Moonbounce...!!

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #220 on: July 03, 2009, 12:39:04 PM »
And thus Tom finally gives up when he realises Rowbotham did nothing on EM physics and he's run out of arguments.

Again, game, set and match to Julian. Read it and weep flat earthers!

Perhaps "light bends" vertically and horizontally when necessary to support a Flat Earth ...

Should be modified to "light bends in circles" too when necessary to support a Flat Earth ?

Clearly there exist above The Flat Earth small pockets or vortices of space-time-energy which are capable of bending radio waves around in a circle so that they come up on you from behind.

Quite simple really ...

Actually...if we go with that one for a minute - unfortunately the light bending theory probably wouldn't apply to lower frequency radiation like mentioned - we already know that reflections and directioning varies massively between HF and VHF alone - let alone getting upto light frequencies, so "bending" radio waves can be pretty easily ignored. Unless someone gets out giant magnets and puts them everywhere!

"Blue bends best" after all!
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #221 on: July 04, 2009, 12:46:22 AM »
Still no adequate Flat-Earth explanation of this phenomenon?

(Not even a single diagram?)

I have a very nice diagram:



It shows a nice round earth and all the shit that us humans have left there.
(this has no relevance to the thread just thought it was nice)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #222 on: July 05, 2009, 02:46:40 AM »
Quote
This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.

Refute what? It hasn't been demonstrated that the photons were coming from one and only one direction and angle, or the path those photons took to hit the metal surface of that omnidirectional antenna.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #223 on: July 05, 2009, 03:11:00 AM »
Quote
This is, indeed, a very nice piece of Round Earth evidence which FET is, at present, unable to refute.

Refute what? It hasn't been demonstrated that the photons were coming from one and only one direction and angle, or the path those photons took to hit the metal surface of that omnidirectional antenna.

..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #224 on: July 05, 2009, 03:13:02 AM »
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #225 on: July 05, 2009, 03:15:34 AM »
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #226 on: July 05, 2009, 04:22:12 AM »
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.

Bellini-Tosi antennas aren't satellite dishes.

?

Squat

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #227 on: July 05, 2009, 04:35:57 AM »
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".

What other substances, other than metal can be used to make an antenna? Can they be made completely  without metal?

Serious question by the way.

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #228 on: July 05, 2009, 05:04:45 AM »
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.

Bellini-Tosi antennas aren't satellite dishes.

Bishop you can make a directional antenna by detecting the direction of the signal you want and RF jam the rest of the antenna. A friend of mine did it as his final year project for his degree in which he got a first.
You obviously don't understand basic RF theory and should shut up.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #229 on: July 05, 2009, 05:06:11 AM »
So you don't believe satellite dishes are directional? They are pieces of metal.

Bellini-Tosi antennas aren't satellite dishes.
I didn't say they were. You said
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".

Your only qualification was that it was made of metal. Would you like to clarify your position?

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #230 on: July 05, 2009, 05:53:51 AM »
Also Household TV antennas act like directional antennas and they are made of metal.

Tom bishop is beaten again!

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #231 on: July 05, 2009, 07:27:03 AM »
Also Household TV antennas act like directional antennas and they are made of metal.

Tom bishop is beaten again!

You say act like - the just are directional antennas.

If you want to be pedantic tom, all antennas are omnidirectional to a degree. However depending on how an antenna is constructed (not what it is constructed of), they can be very very poor signal conductors from some directions and very very good signal conductors in another direction. A TV antenna is a good example of this - signals received from behind it and to it's sides are reduced in gain considerably to the point where said signals are so weak they are unusuable.

I never said Bellini-Tosi devices weren't omnidirectional - in fact being omnidirectional is pretty crucial to their function. Please reread my post which explains their function and what they are used for as you've lost the plot a bit here.


*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #232 on: July 05, 2009, 07:29:18 AM »
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".

RE-READ my post troll before you make stupid assertions like that.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #233 on: July 05, 2009, 07:54:01 AM »
..what is it that you don't understand about directional antennas? Why are you ignoring information julianmartin posted about gain and signal strength? It seems analogous to sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala i can't hear you".

If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".

RE-READ my post troll before you make stupid assertions like that.

Tom appears to be refusing to admit that he - the non-expert in this debate - is wrong in a most childish manner.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #234 on: July 06, 2009, 03:21:53 PM »
Thanks, Julianmartin!  Another excellent thread to which the FErs have failed to offer even a slightly rational response.  The funniest part of this thread is Levee's apparent inability to recognize that FE theory and Velikovsky's theories are mutually exclusive.  They could both easily be wrong (and in fact are), but there is no way they could both be true (though that has nothing to do with the subject of your OP, of course).  The fact that he seems so totally oblivious to that so obvious truth makes even Robosteve and Tom Bishop seem rational by comparison to Levee.  That is a remarkable achievement!  I laughed out loud when I saw his attempt to support Velikovsky despite believing so firmly in FE, which even Velikovsky would find every bit as ridiculous as you and I do!
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 03:30:00 PM by Rational U.S. Viking »

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #235 on: July 06, 2009, 03:38:42 PM »
[Tom appears to be refusing to admit that he - the non-expert in this debate - is wrong in a most childish manner.
[/quote]

I'm sure you've noticed, as I have, that Tom seems to be constitutionally incapable of admitting to being wrong on any point--no matter how trivial or wildly off the mark.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 03:40:46 PM by Rational U.S. Viking »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #236 on: July 07, 2009, 01:30:23 AM »
If the antenna is omnidirectional and composed of a solid metallic surface it obviously cannot tell which angle a photon is hitting it from.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #237 on: July 07, 2009, 02:10:24 AM »
If the antenna is omnidirectional and composed of a solid metallic surface it obviously cannot tell which angle a photon is hitting it from.

what do you think defines omnidirectional? as i already said, by your logic, a parabolic satellite dish is omnidirectional.
you don't really understand do you?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #238 on: July 07, 2009, 02:33:28 AM »
what do you think defines omnidirectional?

If a photon can hit the receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #239 on: July 07, 2009, 02:46:09 AM »
what do you think defines omnidirectional?

If a photon can hit the receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.

Yes, but there are collosal differences in "gain" (the degree to which a signal is amplified") at different angles of incidence ...

And it is this that makes a "directional" antenna effectively directional (not omni-directional).

As has been explained to you clearly on several occasions.

I do not know if you are too dumb to grasp this, or if you are being willfully obtuse - either way debating with you has become pointless.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)