Poll

What is the correct distance from the earth to the moon  and the size of the moon ?

Flat Earth Measurements Of (Exact ?) 15 KM Distance /  600 M Diameter of the moon
Round Earth Measurements By  Ham Radio (approximately ? ) 237, 150 Miles Distance / 2,150 Mile Diameter of the moon
Some Other Measurements Such As The FE 3000 Mile  Distance / 30 Mile Diameter of the moon

Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.

  • 549 Replies
  • 96889 Views
I got disgusted with the way this subject was going and originally deleted my OP but am re-inserting if just for the record.


A radio signal aimed at the moon and transmitted from the earth to the moon on  an Amateur Radio "Moon Bounce" operation  travels to the moon and "bounces" off the moon and is returned and travels back to the earth and is received back at the earth 2.55 seconds later for the "round trip" time.

2.55 seconds divided by 2 equals 1.275 seconds for the "one way return" from the moon.

The speed of radio waves has been proven to be 186,000 miles per second. The earth's atmosphere has been proven to be of a neglible effect. The rest of the distance is "outer space" or a vacuum which has no effect.

1.275 seconds  times 186,000 miles per second equals 237,150 miles :D

I rest my case. So do hundreds of amateur radio operators. Period.

The result is not as precise as those done by other methods, but is close enough to prove the point.

How does this  method compare with the FE Measurement of 15 KM ?

« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:34:22 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

Thork

2.55 seconds / 2 x 186,000 miles/second= 238,000 miles (approximately)
??? No it doesn't.
Answer

It gives 4.25910^-9 s^2/m  (seconds2/meter), which is a nonsense.

How do Flat Earth'ers explain the discrepancy ?
How do you explain the discrepancy?

« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 01:09:12 PM by Thork »

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
2.55 seconds / 2 x 186,000 miles/second= 238,000 miles (approximately)
??? No it doesn't.
Answer

It gives 4.25910^-9 s^2/m  (seconds2/meter), which is a nonsense.

How do Flat Earth'ers explain the discrepancy ?
How do you explain the discrepancy?

Check your math. You need to do the operations in order, it's not 2.55/(2*186,000), it's

2.55 / 2 * 186,000 = 237,150
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Thork

That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

*

Salviati

  • 147
  • What is my Personal Text?
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second)

(300,000 Km/sec x 2.55sec)/2 = 382,500 Km

Of course i'm not going to use those barbarian imperial measures.
Q: Why do you think the Earth is round?
A: Look out the window!

?

Thork

That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second)

(300,000 Km/sec x 2.55sec)/2 = 382,500 Km

Of course i'm not going to use those barbarian imperial measures.
Oh, so you've decided to have the '2' as a denominator on its own. I think this shows how flawed the OP's equation is and how silly shmeggley looks leaping to its defence purely because it mentions the earth is round and he likes that as a concept.

2.55 seconds / 2 x 186,000 miles/second= 238,000 miles (approximately)
??? No it doesn't.
Answer

It gives 4.25910^-9 s^2/m  (seconds2/meter), which is a nonsense.

How do Flat Earth'ers explain the discrepancy ?
How do you explain the discrepancy?

Check your math. You need to do the operations in order, it's not 2.55/(2*186,000), it's

2.55 / 2 * 186,000 = 237,150

::)

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Your inability to do basic math is not really helping your argument, but I'm here to educate so:

2.55 s / 2 (unitless) * 186000 mi/s

s*mis = mi
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Thork

That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Your inability to do basic math is not really helping your argument, but I'm here to educate so:

2.55 s / 2 (unitless) * 186000 mi/s

s*mis = mi
No, the equation was wrong. Hence the reason the units were muffed up.

Your new attempt is equally as laughable as you are now multiplying where before you tried to divide.

*

Salviati

  • 147
  • What is my Personal Text?
Oh, so you've decided to have the '2' as a denominator on its own. I think this shows how flawed the OP's equation is and how silly shmeggley looks leaping to its defence purely because it mentions the earth is round and he likes that as a concept.
Better if you go to hoe potato fields  ;D
Q: Why do you think the Earth is round?
A: Look out the window!

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Your inability to do basic math is not really helping your argument, but I'm here to educate so:

2.55 s / 2 (unitless) * 186000 mi/s

s*mis = mi
No, the equation was wrong. Hence the reason the units were muffed up.

Your new attempt is equally as laughable as you are now multiplying where before you tried to divide.

This is depressing. I can now understand how you can come to the conclusions that you do. Even when you're shown where you're wrong you can't admit it.

Anyone else have a better argument how the moon bounce is wrong?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 01:54:29 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
The calculation is rather simple; it's already been done. Given a time of 2.55 seconds and a speed of light of 299,792km...

2.55seconds x 299792 km/s / 2 = 382,200km or ~~ 0.993 mean Moon-Earth distance.

The 'moonbounce' or EME communication produces a measurement very close to the accepted value for the average Earth-Moon distance of 384,400km.

Now the discussion can go beyond Th*rk's trolling attempts. Th*rk is terrible, people. Ignore him.
I don't want to believe.

?

Thork

ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR...

They both work by transmitting an receiving radio signals, so I don't see a problem there. Ham is nowhere near as accurate for locating a target in 2 or 3 dimensions of course, but is still perfectly capable of measuring range.

In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself...

Did you work that out yourself? I'd like to see the calculations on the size of the dish and the amount of power required for a moon bounce. Anyone (other than Thork, who has demonstrated appalling mathematical ability) want to provide those numbers?

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

Because the radio you are referring to losing reception in a valley is attempting to communicate via line of sight with the other transceiver, and does not have the capability to bounce it's signal off the moon. Someone who knows more about ham radio operation can elaborate on that.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

Can you see the moon from the valley?
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

Thork

ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

Can you see the moon from the valley?
Yes. Can I get KISS FM from the moon?

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
Ham radio is just a synonym for amateur radio. It's not a term that describes the equipment used. This being said, the idea that the equipment needed to perform a moonbounce experiment is somehow outside the realm of possibility for an amateur radio enthusiast is a misconception. The idea that you'd need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself is a blatant lie. Unless you're talking of a tiny football field (lol) and your idea of a small "power station" is something the size of a portable generator.

There's a list of EME radio enthusiasts/stations here. Many of them have websites and/or e-mail addresses. Most of them seem to use radio transmitters of no more than 2000W; in fact some claim to use radio transmitters of less than 1000W. Quite a few of them use relatively small antennas or dishes; less than 10m. Some even on the scale of 4-5m.

If someone wants to prove that amateur EME communication is a lie and put one more nail in the coffin of the "round Earth", they might try contacting some of these enthusiasts. They might also try to find an expert in radio communication, someone trustworthy, and go have a look. Talk to those people, see if they have a "legitimate" equipment setup or not. Hell, try to convince them to perform a moon-bounce for you. Who knows, maybe some of these amateurs would welcome a visit. It's worth a shot.

Yeah, I know... silly me. I'm suggesting that the people in charge of the Flat Earth society, or its more prominent members, might actually go out and do some honest-to-god investigating.
I don't want to believe.

?

Thork

Some pictures of the dishes on the wiki moon bounce page.







Bandying the words 'amateur' and 'enthusiast' is incredibly deceitful. Those words conjure images of some old codger talking to truck drivers.


Not someone with the power to subject half a continent to HARP experiments.


Do not make out that any one can do this on a shoe string budget if they so please.

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
Just contact someone at your local Federal Communications Commission Office (FCC) or the American Radio Relay League in Newington, Connecticut if you won't take my word for it.  ;D
I find it hard to dispute a commonly known fact.

Or any "Ham" or Professional Engineer in the field of  Radio for that matter.
Some hams have even done this with powers in the milliwatts.

And please do not confuse Amateur Radio with "CB" or Citizen's Band Radio. Amateur Radio Operators are licensed by the FCC and must take and pass an examination concerning regulations and theory in order to be granted a license. 

Any one can purchase a CB Transceiver and operate on a special band without a license (11 meters for example.) There are good "CB'ers" but "CB" is a dirty word to a lot of hams. Some truckers have given CB sort of a bad image.

Let's make it simple. Divide the round trip time in half and multiply by the speed of radio waves and you will still come up with about 238,00 miles or 382,200 kilometers. Check your math again.

Silly me, too. I'm no math whiz. But there does seem to be a rather big difference between 3000
miles and 238,000 miles. I probably used the wrong symbols for division and multiplication in my example listed.

I'd be amazed if they'd actually contact anyone on this. The main page of the Flat Earth wiki reads:
Quote
Throughout the years it has become a duty of each Flat Earth Society member, to meet the common round earther in the open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion; to declare that his reign of error and confusion is over; and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, he must shrink and disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom of science and philosophy to those awakening intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society have drawn the sword, and ere another generation has been educated and grown to maturity, will have forced the usurpers to abdicate. Like the decayed and crumbling trees of an ancient forest, rent and shattered by wind and storm, the hypothetical philosophies, which have hitherto cumbered the civilized world, are unable to resist the elements of experimental and logical criticism; and sooner or later must succumb to their assaults. The axe is uplifted for a final stroke - it is about to fall upon the primitive sphere of the earth, and the blow will surely "cut the cumberer down!"

It seems that all this lofty talk boils down to "let's debate stuff to death on a forum". That's fine by me, as I admit I'm here for entertainment. But I don't think that's very healthy for a society that "is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax. "

To me it seems a case of the bark being bigger than the bite.
I don't want to believe.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Some pictures of the dishes on the wiki moon bounce page.







Bandying the words 'amateur' and 'enthusiast' is incredibly deceitful. Those words conjure images of some old codger talking to truck drivers.


Not someone with the power to subject half a continent to HARP experiments.


Do not make out that any one can do this on a shoe string budget if they so please.
None of these are "the size of a football field" nor do they require "a small power station" to operate. I'm sure these guys invested a bit of money but it's not a military/NASA size budget. No one is suggesting you can make these out of tin cans and string.

All this in the end is only another diversion anyway, since it has nothing to do with whether you can measure the distance to the moon with radio waves or not.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Sculder

  • 113
  • Me and Mully
I'm going back to the "Come to the Flat Earth Society Forum for Entertainment" Mode. ;D

Hey, Sculder !  ....Let's give it up !.....It's useless ! I'm beginning to feel sorry for even posting in the first place and expecting something that makes sense from the FE'ers. My aplogies to the FE.
Since I am an amateur radio operator I do no exist. I'm a fake.

Do you reckon you have a big enough antenna to be part of the HAARP conspiracy?
I don't want to believe.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Thork your Wolfram calculation is entered differently than what was posted. You might want to refresh on the order of operations. BEDMAS!

2.55s/2*186,000mi/s

is different than

2.55s/(2*186,000mi/s)

Googleotomy's calculation is correct. He calculated the time it took for a radio signal to go to the moon and back (2.55s), divided it by 2 to get the average length of one leg of the trip (2.55s/2=1.275s), and then multiplied the result by the speed of light (1.275s*186,000mi/s=227,150 mi)

I have a hard time believing you did not know this.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Thork wins over a lot of FErs by making a post that appears to trump the OP.

Links no matter what they are to, seem to act as fact for whatever his rebuttal is.

Even though the main issues of the argument haven't even been broached, the thread is successfully derailed.

Whether it's a subconscious trait of FErs to derail a thread before any real debating begins or simply a trait of any person when they can't defend their beliefs, it just seems that's the way most threads go.  Enter sceptimatic and then you have nonsense debates that take all of the RErs time, much like n00bs take up a lot of FErs time.
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Well when someone is brashly ignorant or willfully derailing your thread, then you end up spending more time than you ever want to get the original point across.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.

Please prove your assertion that the moon does not reflect sunlight. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.

Please prove your assertion that the moon does not reflect sunlight.
How could it? The Sun is pointed in the opposite direction.

Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.

You know what also reflects light? Skin, water, trees, sand, etc.

You know what doesn't reflect light? Black holes
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

The sun is not pointed in any direction. It sends light in all directions.
Interesting theory. But I doubt it would be able to concentrate the luminance of the Earth and maintain the intensity that it does if it reflected the light in all directions.

Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.

Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.

And where does the light from the Earth come from ? From the sun ?  And if the light from the moon comes from the Earth doesn't that mean both the Earth and the moon reflect sunlight ?
The Sun is a focusing reflector of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth as a result of the UA reacting with the bottom of it.