Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..

  • 68 Replies
  • 15236 Views
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2009, 11:31:13 AM »
I'm asking - bring your proof now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

Lasers don't count because they are a form of light that is not radiated radially. The inverse square law does not apply to such sources. As usual you have no proof, merely pedantry.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2009, 11:34:09 AM »
your point being?  Have you tried using a laser to observe if it bends?

We weren't talking about bendy light in this thread. Please try to keep on topic.
I know you havent tried it, or you would know light does not bend, lol.  And that was a pretty weak rebuttal, since as Thermal Detonator said, you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2009, 11:38:47 AM »
I'm not comparing apples and oranges. This is the statement I was responding to:

All EM radiation follows the inverse square law

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are lasers not a form of electromagnetic radiation?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2009, 12:03:49 PM »
I'm not comparing apples and oranges. This is the statement I was responding to:

All EM radiation follows the inverse square law

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are lasers not a form of electromagnetic radiation?
Lasers do in fact still obey the inverse square law, because even in the best laser there is a certain amount of divergence inherent in the beam. It is impossible to create a beam with perfectly parallel "sides".  However, again you are comparing apples and oranges to try to catch me in an inconsistency.  So, to be clear, All EM radiation emitted in either a conical or spheroidal fashion follows the inverse square law. But I am sure you already knew this, and are just being silly.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2009, 02:33:47 PM »
I'm not comparing apples and oranges. This is the statement I was responding to:

All EM radiation follows the inverse square law

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are lasers not a form of electromagnetic radiation?

This isn't debate on a flat or round earth, this is merely Sad Steve picking holes in peoples phrasing and grammar, again and again and again and again. Just so everyone knows, I have been officially warned by the mods not to refer to Parsifail as a troll, even though every day we see evidence of this piling up.
I've already had a three day ban for expressing my feelings on him in the forum, while I agree the language used in the post warranted the ban I think the sentiments expressed therein speak for many on this forum - the FES will never, ever be taken seriously with Parsifal impeding every discussion with his nitpicking.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2009, 10:26:11 PM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45093
  • +87/-123
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2009, 01:40:54 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2009, 03:44:30 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.

This is what us Roundies love about you Tom. You don't go for all this "let's make up a new law of physics or blame bendy light" angle. No, you just use the good old "I can't explain it so I'll pretend it didn't happen" line. Like you did with satellites.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2009, 04:29:33 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.

Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.

There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2009, 04:49:18 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.

Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.

There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.

Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162

First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2009, 07:43:12 AM »

There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.

Tom,

And moon-bounce?  -Lots of people do this with the right equipment.  It takes 2.7 seconds.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2009, 09:32:57 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.

Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.

There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.

Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162

First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.

Mariner V was a NASA space ship which (supposedly) flew within 2500 miles of Venus, not a terrestrial dish.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2009, 10:47:52 AM »
I suggest you go and read the article. It's quite interesting. These guys reflected radar beams off Venus from the surface of the earth over a period of 6 years. Then they compared their results with the results provided by NASA's Mariner probe. There was an agreement between the two independent sets of data, and also with another independent study carried out earlier in the same year by MIT using the Arecibo radio dish. All of this has been peer reviewed, by the way. If anything it even adds credibility to NASA having sent a probe out there.
OK, next topic for Bashing The Bishop?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #43 on: November 02, 2009, 11:35:17 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
It depends on how you do it Tom.  If you pulse the radar signal in a set pattern or at a set frequency you can easily isolate even a very faint signal from the background noise. The same principle applies in remote controls to distinguish the faint IR signal from the ambient light and heat.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #44 on: November 02, 2009, 01:34:04 PM »
I suggest you go and read the article. It's quite interesting. These guys reflected radar beams off Venus from the surface of the earth over a period of 6 years. Then they compared their results with the results provided by NASA's Mariner probe. There was an agreement between the two independent sets of data, and also with another independent study carried out earlier in the same year by MIT using the Arecibo radio dish. All of this has been peer reviewed, by the way. If anything it even adds credibility to NASA having sent a probe out there.
OK, next topic for Bashing The Bishop?

It doesn't say anything about bouncing a radar wave off of Venus from earth.

Quote
It depends on how you do it Tom.  If you pulse the radar signal in a set pattern or at a set frequency you can easily isolate even a very faint signal from the background noise. The same principle applies in remote controls to distinguish the faint IR signal from the ambient light and heat.

Where's the raw data? Wheres the peer reviews?

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #45 on: November 02, 2009, 02:56:41 PM »
Oh? So now you FETs believe in the peer review process? lol
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2009, 03:30:35 PM »
I suggest you go and read the article. It's quite interesting. These guys reflected radar beams off Venus from the surface of the earth over a period of 6 years. Then they compared their results with the results provided by NASA's Mariner probe. There was an agreement between the two independent sets of data, and also with another independent study carried out earlier in the same year by MIT using the Arecibo radio dish. All of this has been peer reviewed, by the way. If anything it even adds credibility to NASA having sent a probe out there.
OK, next topic for Bashing The Bishop?

It doesn't say anything about bouncing a radar wave off of Venus from earth.


Where do you think the researchers were based? Tatooine? Gallifrey? Vulcan?
EARTH. Where we live.  :-\ (it worries me that he doesn't understand this, and it is unclear whether he has read the article or not.)
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2009, 03:55:46 PM »
Oh? So now you FETs believe in the peer review process? lol

Read Earth Not a Globe and its subsequent peer reviews.

Quote
Where do you think the researchers were based? Tatooine? Gallifrey? Vulcan?
EARTH. Where we live.  Undecided (it worries me that he doesn't understand this, and it is unclear whether he has read the article or not.)

The article is about NASA space ships around Venus and nothing else.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 04:01:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2009, 04:22:12 PM »
Peer review does not mean reviewed by other believers, so colour me skeptical.  And the radar signal problem you were talking about is electronics 101, so you really dont have much credibility on the subject. As for distinguishing the signal from the background there are these wonderful things called transistors now. With them you can build such amazing things as amplifiers and notch filters!
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2009, 04:31:57 PM »
Peer review does not mean reviewed by other believers, so colour me skeptical.  And the radar signal problem you were talking about is electronics 101, so you really dont have much credibility on the subject. As for distinguishing the signal from the background there are these wonderful things called transistors now. With them you can build such amazing things as amplifiers and notch filters!

So where's the data and peer reviews for all of this data?

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2009, 04:36:12 PM »
Do you want it for the basic operation of RADAR (if you do thats sad), or for the specific planetary and solar observations?
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #51 on: November 02, 2009, 04:37:58 PM »
Where's the data from the dishes which have allegedly bounced signals off venus? Where's the peer reviews?

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #52 on: November 02, 2009, 04:41:15 PM »
Where's the data from the dishes which have allegedly bounced signals off venus? Where's the peer reviews?
Is that the only line you have? lol  I will see if I can dig up the paperwork though on the planatary and solar observations for you.  However, your homework is to go learn about RADARs operation, as well as signal to noise ratios.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2009, 06:23:34 PM »
The article is about NASA space ships around Venus and nothing else.

Oh, you haven't read the article. Or my summary of it.
No further questions. Your witness.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #54 on: November 03, 2009, 07:03:40 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.

Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.

There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.

Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162

First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.

Mariner V was a NASA space ship which (supposedly) flew within 2500 miles of Venus, not a terrestrial dish.
You must not have read the article then.
During 1967 time delay measurements from Venus radar bounce signals were obtained as part of a planetary observational program that began in 1961. The mean radius of Venus along with the orbital parameters and other dynamic constants of the planets as well as the astronomical unit have been obtained from a weighted least- squares orbit determination procedure. This method provides an estimate of the radius that has various degrees of correlation with the other parameters in the least-squares solution; however, the strength of the radius solution has steadily improved as the number and the precision of the observations has increased and as they have become better distributed. The current estimate of the mean radius of Venus by this method is 6053.7~2.2 km (Melbourne, W. ., Muhieman, D. 0., and O'Handley, D. A., Science 160, 987,1968). These measurements overlap the extremely precise range and Doppler radio tracking measurements of the Mariner V spacecraft as it flew by Venus on 19 October 1967. The near simultaneity of the radar bounce and radio tracking measurements allows one to determine the radius of Venus by a method that is virtually independent of errors in the ephemerides of Venus and the earth. Through the perturbation by Venus on the orbit of Mariner V during the encounter phase, one is able to determine very accurately from radio tracking data the position (also, the velocity and mass) of the center of gravity of Venus. The resulting geocentric range of the center of gravity of Venus at a particular epoch, e.g., the encounter time of Mariner V, may be compared with an interpolated geocentric range at this epoch based on the radar time delay measurements. Since the time delay measurements of radar bounce signals are referenced from the subearth point on the surface of Venus, a value of the bounce radius can be directly inferred from the difference in these two measurement types. The geocentric distance of the center of gravity of Venus may be determined to a precision equivalent to 0.5 i sec in two-way range from the Mariner V encounter. The radar bounce measurements during this period of time have a precision of about 3 ijsec. The radar bounce radius was found to be 6052.5 km. This result should be accurate to within 2 km and is in agreement with the least-squares approach. The results reported here are also consistent with the radius value reported by Ash (Ash, M. F., et al., Science 160, 985,1968) from processing radar observations taken at Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory and at MIT. The radar determinations of the radius of Venus continue to differ significantly from the 6079+3 km value corresponding to the final transmission from Venera 4 that was obtained from matching Mariner V occultation data with the atmospheric data from Venera 4 (Kliore, A. J., and Cain, D. L., J. Atmospheric Sci. 25, 549,1968).
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #55 on: November 03, 2009, 08:49:47 AM »
I don't really believe in those radar-bounce claims. The weakness of the signal they're trying to detect on the bounce back is typically indistinguishable from the background noise.
Which is exactly why you use a radar signal that is distinguishable from the background noise.

Unless the specific claim was repeated and peer reviewed it's just a claim, really.

There are also people who claim to communicate with UFOs and see alien ships. There's probably more peer review for that than there is for the sun-bounce.

Title: Radius of Venus as Determined by Planetary Radar and Mariner V Radio Tracking Data.
Authors: Anderson, J. D., Efron, L., Goldstein, R. M., Melbourne, W. G., O'Handley, D. A.,
Pease, G. E., ,
Journal: Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 162

First one I found. Took me less than ten seconds. I'm sure if I looked more thoroughly I could find many more details of peer reviewed experiments in radar reflection off celestial objects.

Mariner V was a NASA space ship which (supposedly) flew within 2500 miles of Venus, not a terrestrial dish.
You must not have read the article then.
During 1967 time delay measurements from Venus radar bounce signals were obtained as part of a planetary observational program that began in 1961. The mean radius of Venus along with the orbital parameters and other dynamic constants of the planets as well as the astronomical unit have been obtained from a weighted least- squares orbit determination procedure. This method provides an estimate of the radius that has various degrees of correlation with the other parameters in the least-squares solution; however, the strength of the radius solution has steadily improved as the number and the precision of the observations has increased and as they have become better distributed. The current estimate of the mean radius of Venus by this method is 6053.7~2.2 km (Melbourne, W. ., Muhieman, D. 0., and O'Handley, D. A., Science 160, 987,1968). These measurements overlap the extremely precise range and Doppler radio tracking measurements of the Mariner V spacecraft as it flew by Venus on 19 October 1967. The near simultaneity of the radar bounce and radio tracking measurements allows one to determine the radius of Venus by a method that is virtually independent of errors in the ephemerides of Venus and the earth. Through the perturbation by Venus on the orbit of Mariner V during the encounter phase, one is able to determine very accurately from radio tracking data the position (also, the velocity and mass) of the center of gravity of Venus. The resulting geocentric range of the center of gravity of Venus at a particular epoch, e.g., the encounter time of Mariner V, may be compared with an interpolated geocentric range at this epoch based on the radar time delay measurements. Since the time delay measurements of radar bounce signals are referenced from the subearth point on the surface of Venus, a value of the bounce radius can be directly inferred from the difference in these two measurement types. The geocentric distance of the center of gravity of Venus may be determined to a precision equivalent to 0.5 i sec in two-way range from the Mariner V encounter. The radar bounce measurements during this period of time have a precision of about 3 ijsec. The radar bounce radius was found to be 6052.5 km. This result should be accurate to within 2 km and is in agreement with the least-squares approach. The results reported here are also consistent with the radius value reported by Ash (Ash, M. F., et al., Science 160, 985,1968) from processing radar observations taken at Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory and at MIT. The radar determinations of the radius of Venus continue to differ significantly from the 6079+3 km value corresponding to the final transmission from Venera 4 that was obtained from matching Mariner V occultation data with the atmospheric data from Venera 4 (Kliore, A. J., and Cain, D. L., J. Atmospheric Sci. 25, 549,1968).

I'm sorry, but where do they bounce a radar signal of of Venus with a terrestrial dish?

It's speaking of terrestrial radar observations only.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 09:14:01 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #56 on: November 03, 2009, 09:10:35 AM »

Radar Astronomy: Closeup of Venus
Friday, Aug. 09, 1968


Though it is the brightest planet in the heavens, Venus has always been less than clear to astronomers. Wrapped in dense clouds of gases, the Venusian surface remains hidden even to the most powerful optical telescopes. Now, scientists are employing electronic means to explore the mysteries of the earth's sister planet. Using radio beams, Radar Astronomers Richard M. Goldstein and Shalhav Zohar of Caltech's Jet Pro pulsion Laboratory reported last week that they have mapped 160,000 sq. mi. of Venus, an area about equal to the size of the entire U.S. Northeast.

Their rough but unique closeup of Venus stems from 17 radar probes with NASA's 210-ft. dish antenna at Goldstone, Calif., last summer. At that time Venus was only 26 million miles from the earth. Since then, the scientists have been "drawing" a map by feeding their electronic findings into a computer. The result shows three blotches of extremely rough terrain, which Goldstein presumes are mountains, moonlike craters or fields of boulders.

Clocking the Signal. Celestial radar mapping is based on the same radio-echo techniques used in plane spotting and ship navigation. But bouncing radar waves off planets requires far more power and precision. For the Venus experiment, the Goldstone installation operated at 100,000 watts, twice the power of the largest U.S. commercial radio stations. When the signals came back 41 minutes later, they measured just a tiny fraction of a watt.

Yet even that faint feedback carries a definite message. If the signals bounce back polarized?in other words, with their electric fields reversed?they indicate rough terrain. Unpolarized echoes, on the other hand, mean smooth surfaces. In either case, the target areas are pinpointed by a system of coordinates similar to latitude and longitude. One coordinate is located simply by clocking the signal: the quicker it bounces back, the closer the bounce-back point is to that part of Venus nearest to Earth.

Determining the other coordinate is a more complicated matter of listening for a so-called Doppler shift in frequency. If the echo comes from the side of the planet spinning toward Earth, it will rise in frequency, just as the whistle of an approaching train seems to move up in pitch. If the reflection comes from the side rotating away from Earth, it will go down in frequency.

While their map is the clearest view yet of Venus, the Caltech researchers are not the only radar astronomers mapping that planet. Similar surveying is being carried out by Cornell scientists using the 1,000-ft. dish telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and by MIT astronomers at two sites in Massachusetts. In March, Venus will again approach Earth. By boosting their radar signal to 450,000 watts, Caltech's electronic cartographers expect to make even more detailed maps.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #57 on: November 03, 2009, 09:16:20 AM »
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Arecibo, those are NASA funded installations, aren't they?

?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #58 on: November 03, 2009, 10:49:54 AM »
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Arecibo, those are NASA funded installations, aren't they?

I knew you would result back to special pleading. And yes they are, so?
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Skeleton

  • 955
  • +0/-0
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #59 on: November 03, 2009, 01:17:58 PM »
I'm sorry, but where do they bounce a radar signal of of Venus with a terrestrial dish?

It's speaking of terrestrial radar observations only.

Thats how they do it, using a dish, youre not really very switched on are you? How did you think they do a terrestrial radar observation of another planet?

And MIT is not connected with NASA and they have done this experiment too, it says in the blurb.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.