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
  • 109263 Views
?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #420 on: September 10, 2013, 10:34:22 AM »
Rushy, clearly Cartesian made that distinction.

No, it still sounds as if he is referring to "scientists" as a summation of a singular being.

Well in some way it is like that. It's a checks-and-balances system.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #421 on: September 10, 2013, 10:39:59 AM »
Well in some way it is like that. It's a checks-and-balances system.

Science is a vote by majority, not a checks-and-balances. There are many, many broken theories that are kept around because other scientists built theories on top of them. Like building a skyscraper with the gound floor made out of straw.

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #422 on: September 10, 2013, 10:41:13 AM »
No, it still sounds as if he is referring to "scientists" as a summation of a singular being.

I didn't.

Only the dull of mind live in echo chambers.

I prefer to live in my round earth than day dreaming in your flat earth.
I think, therefore I am

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #423 on: September 10, 2013, 10:47:20 AM »
Science is a vote by majority, not a checks-and-balances.

Science is check and balance. The majority accepts a new theory not by vote but by counter checking it.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:51:36 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #424 on: September 10, 2013, 10:48:07 AM »
No, it still sounds as if he is referring to "scientists" as a summation of a singular being.

I didn't.

Only the dull of mind live in echo chambers.

I prefer to live in my round earth than day dreaming in your flat earth.

Hear ! Hear !

I am also a snob when it comes to people making fun of Ham Radio.

But I supose it's the same way with FE'ers about people making fun of FE'ers. LOL.

I'm not going to make any rash remarks about which group is in the majority. LOL.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:51:12 AM 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 !

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #425 on: September 10, 2013, 11:03:03 AM »
An example of science at work as a system. This is about the recent faster-than-light experiment:

Quote
On September 22, 2011, a paper from the OPERA Collaboration indicated detection of 17 and 28 GeV muon neutrinos, sent 730 kilometers (454 miles) from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, traveling faster than light by a factor of 2.48×10−5 (approximately 1 in 40,000), a statistic with 6.0-sigma significance. On 18 November 2011, a second follow-up experiment by OPERA scientists confirmed their initial results. However, scientists were skeptical about the results of these experiments, the significance of which was disputed. In March 2012, the ICARUS collaboration failed to reproduce the OPERA results with their equipment, detecting neutrino travel time from CERN to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory indistinguishable from the speed of light. Later the OPERA team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside of their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 11:05:22 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #426 on: September 10, 2013, 11:34:57 AM »
Hear ! Hear !

I am also a snob when it comes to people making fun of Ham Radio.

But I supose it's the same way with FE'ers about people making fun of FE'ers. LOL.

I'm not going to make any rash remarks about which group is in the majority. LOL.

You make posts like these and wonder why posters ignore you.

An example of science at work as a system. This is about the recent faster-than-light experiment:

Here's an example of theories built on theories:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1015

Yes, they are working out the kinks of redshift, but it's takens them almost a hundred years to do so. Another kink (unrelated to the article) is pulsars having anomalous redshifts. So what does the Astronomy community do? Move the pulsars. That's right, we now have pulsars in the middle of deep space for no reason other than to match doppler redshift. Doppler redshift is one big science fail, yet few scientists are trying to go against it. The ones that do get ousted because the majority don't like it. It is even said the many Astronomers already know what they're looking at before they ever peer through a telescope. A sad state of affairs indeed.

If you think science isn't a majority-rules spectacle, then I'm sorry to say you've never been in science before. You only see through the looking glass.


Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #427 on: September 10, 2013, 11:46:48 AM »
Here's an example of theories built on theories:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1015

Yes, they are working out the kinks of redshift, but it's takens them almost a hundred years to do so. Another kink (unrelated to the article) is pulsars having anomalous redshifts. So what does the Astronomy community do? Move the pulsars. That's right, we now have pulsars in the middle of deep space for no reason other than to match doppler redshift. Doppler redshift is one big science fail, yet few scientists are trying to go against it. The ones that do get ousted because the majority don't like it. It is even said the many Astronomers already know what they're looking at before they ever peer through a telescope. A sad state of affairs indeed.

If you think science isn't a majority-rules spectacle, then I'm sorry to say you've never been in science before. You only see through the looking glass.

I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accepted it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. If one day, that theory is later proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.
I think, therefore I am

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #428 on: September 10, 2013, 11:52:12 AM »
I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accept it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. One day that theory may be proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.

The rest of the world doesn't scrutinize anything, in fact it is an impossibility for one to scrutinize all of science. The problem with experts in a field is they remain to be considered experts for far too long. You end up with 50-year generation gaps where the experts believe the same thing they believed to be true decades ago and judge everything by that. You talk about verifying the data of others and at the same time trust those others to just be automagically right.

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #429 on: September 10, 2013, 11:58:13 AM »
I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accept it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. One day that theory may be proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.

The rest of the world doesn't scrutinize anything, in fact it is an impossibility for one to scrutinize all of science. The problem with experts in a field is they remain to be considered experts for far too long. You end up with 50-year generation gaps where the experts believe the same thing they believed to be true decades ago and judge everything by that. You talk about verifying the data of others and at the same time trust those others to just be automagically right.

I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.
I think, therefore I am

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #430 on: September 10, 2013, 12:03:27 PM »
I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accept it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. One day that theory may be proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.

The rest of the world doesn't scrutinize anything, in fact it is an impossibility for one to scrutinize all of science. The problem with experts in a field is they remain to be considered experts for far too long. You end up with 50-year generation gaps where the experts believe the same thing they believed to be true decades ago and judge everything by that.

Sounds like you are making a blanket generalization that really should not be taken seriously. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #431 on: September 10, 2013, 12:11:04 PM »
I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.

A poor cop-out.

Sounds like you are making a blanket generalization that really should not be taken seriously. 

Sounds like you're adding nothing to the thread whatsoever.

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #432 on: September 10, 2013, 12:16:08 PM »
I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.

A poor cop-out.

What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?
I think, therefore I am

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #433 on: September 10, 2013, 12:22:14 PM »
I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.

A poor cop-out.

Sounds like you are making a blanket generalization that really should not be taken seriously. 

Sounds like you're adding nothing to the thread whatsoever.

Just calling you out on your pretentious BS mate.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #434 on: September 10, 2013, 12:26:27 PM »
What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?

At what point have I ever said I don't "believe" in science? (whatever that means?)

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #435 on: September 10, 2013, 12:34:15 PM »
What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?

At what point have I ever said I don't "believe" in science? (whatever that means?)

You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.
I think, therefore I am

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #436 on: September 10, 2013, 01:20:55 PM »
You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.

You skitter away from a debate like a roach from light.

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #437 on: September 10, 2013, 02:39:13 PM »
You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.

You skitter away from a debate like a roach from light.

I don't know how a mod can let you get away with derailing someone's thread like this. If you want to start discussion about what you think science is then I suggest you to make your own thread. If you want to discuss about OP without derailing it then you're welcome to stay. If you are interested in FE science, then why don't you participate in threads that talk about it. There's a plethora of choices of threads that deal with the experiments made by Rowbotham and co. Give one of them a try without derailing the thread. Or make your own and defend it. OK Rushy?
I think, therefore I am

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #438 on: September 10, 2013, 03:26:57 PM »
One thing I have learned on this forum. Any thread is fair game for a de-railment or off-topic posting by any FE. Any facts and evidence presented by any RE is going to be posted as being faked by any FE. That's just the way it is and I have learned to accept that.

Back on-topic.:
BTW the Amateur Radio Measurements were not as accurate as measurements made by using lasers aimed at reflectors on the moon and the measurements have been increasingly precise.
This is just one of many references.:
http://spie.org/x38304.xml

This is just one example of observations that have been made by numerous observatories, etc. and have established factual evidence of their accuracy.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 05:18:55 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 !

*

Junker

  • 3753
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #439 on: September 10, 2013, 05:32:23 PM »
What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?

At what point have I ever said I don't "believe" in science? (whatever that means?)

You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.

Guys, keep it on topic please.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #440 on: September 10, 2013, 06:31:48 PM »
BTW the Amateur Radio Measurements were not as accurate as measurements made by using lasers aimed at reflectors on the moon and the measurements have been increasingly precise.

Amatuer radio is out of the question, because they can't even verify or pretend to know where their signals come from. Could be the moon. Could be space. Could be the NSA's backyard. They don't know the difference and they don't have the equipment to do any real work.

This is just one of many references.:
http://spie.org/x38304.xml

This is just one example of observations that have been made by numerous observatories, etc. and have established factual evidence of their accuracy.

This phenomenon is just as questionable. NASA supposedly put mirrors on the moon, but, ah, wait, no one without a properly equipped NASA-endorsed observatory can actually do the experiment. Not to mention they tell you when you attempt it that it may not work because the mirrors get dusty or the signal is off. In the official experiments, NASA received tens of photons, in some they even received one. One single photon. LLR is complete baloney and they know it. Go ahead, do it yourself. When you come back as well with a "ah guys the signal trajectory must have been off by a few millimeters" and they sent you home, I'll be here to laugh and laugh and laugh.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #441 on: September 10, 2013, 06:57:02 PM »
BTW the Amateur Radio Measurements were not as accurate as measurements made by using lasers aimed at reflectors on the moon and the measurements have been increasingly precise.

Amatuer radio is out of the question, because they can't even verify or pretend to know where their signals come from. Could be the moon. Could be space. Could be the NSA's backyard. They don't know the difference and they don't have the equipment to do any real work.

Rushy, don't confuse "amateur" with "novice". 
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.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #442 on: September 10, 2013, 07:00:47 PM »
Rushy, don't confuse "amateur" with "novice".

am·a·teur  (m-tūr, -tr, -chr, -chr, -tyr)
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
adj.
1. Of or performed by an amateur.
2. Made up of amateurs: an amateur cast.
3. Not professional; unskillful.


Notice how amateur is a noun and an adjective and you're trying to use the noun definition?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #443 on: September 10, 2013, 07:26:30 PM »
An amateur radio operator is a person, so why should I not use the noun definition?  After all, it is not uncommon for dedicated amateurs to be more adept than many professionals.
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.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #444 on: September 10, 2013, 07:32:54 PM »
Rushy, don't confuse "amateur" with "novice".

am·a·teur  (m-tūr, -tr, -chr, -chr, -tyr)
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
adj.
1. Of or performed by an amateur.
2. Made up of amateurs: an amateur cast.
3. Not professional; unskillful.


Notice how amateur is a noun and an adjective and you're trying to use the noun definition?

I'm a little confused about why you submitted all the definitions for the word. When a word is used, there is typically only one that is applicable.

My best guess is that it was this one:

"1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession."

So you can throw those other ones out the window. These are the people that usually have some experience in the field, now, it can be assumed that some of those other definitions might apply but I think just this one is the majority. These people who engage in the art/science/study as past time do so out of enjoyment and they may have started as novices but some percentage of them are likely to even be skilled at the art/science/study.

Now, if you want to debate the merits of an amateur's skill then by all means, take it up with an actual amateur radio operator but don't act like you know what you are talking about in regards to the subject. You're not even a novice. You have no experience whatsoever.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #445 on: September 10, 2013, 07:34:12 PM »
An amateur loves his field, while a novice is a beginner.
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #446 on: September 10, 2013, 07:37:12 PM »
An amateur radio operator is a person, so why should I not use the noun definition?  After all, it is not uncommon for dedicated amateurs to be more adept than many professionals.

You just used the adjective again, Markjo. That's hilarious.

I'm a little confused about why you submitted all the definitions for the word. When a word is used, there is typically only one that is applicable.

My best guess is that it was this one:

"1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession."

So you can throw those other ones out the window. These are the people that usually have some experience in the field, now, it can be assumed that some of those other definitions might apply but I think just this one is the majority. These people who engage in the art/science/study as past time do so out of enjoyment and they may have started as novices but some percentage of them are likely to even be skilled at the art/science/study.

Now, if you want to debate the merits of an amateur's skill then by all means, take it up with an actual amateur radio operator but don't act like you know what you are talking about in regards to the subject. You're not even a novice. You have no experience whatsoever.

Please read my post. "Amateur" is not used as a noun anywhere in it. Also, if I don't post all of them posters call me out saying I'm purposefully using only one. Now posters are calling me out saying I'm using too many? Why are you being purposefully argumentative?




?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #447 on: September 10, 2013, 07:42:27 PM »
If you take that 1st definition to be an amateur of any of those fields, whether it be science, art or whatever then its appropriate to follow the word amateur with the name of the field.

Evidently its an amateur doing science so the definition is appropriate.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #448 on: September 10, 2013, 07:43:44 PM »
If you take that 1st definition to be an amateur of any of those fields, whether it be science, art or whatever then its appropriate to follow the word amateur with the name of the field.

Evidently its an amateur doing science so the definition is appropriate.

Turning adjectives into nouns, now? This is the best you can do? Shoo off, so I can wait for someone who actually fires off neurons when they post.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #449 on: September 10, 2013, 07:45:48 PM »
If you take that 1st definition to be an amateur of any of those fields, whether it be science, art or whatever then its appropriate to follow the word amateur with the name of the field.

Evidently its an amateur doing science so the definition is appropriate.

Turning adjectives into nouns, now? This is the best you can do? Shoo off, so I can wait for someone who actually fires off neurons when they post.

no, actually I'm not. I'm also not inclined to accept your cherry picked definitions so I'll cherry pick google's:

am·a·teur
ˈamətər,-ˌtər,-ˌCHo͝or,-CHər/Submit
noun
1.
a person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.
synonyms:   nonprofessional, nonspecialist, layman, layperson; More
antonyms:   professional
a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity.
"that bunch of stumbling amateurs"
synonyms:   bungler, incompetent, bumbler More
antonyms:   expert
adjective
adjective: amateur
1.
engaging or engaged in without payment; nonprofessional.
"an amateur archaeologist"
synonyms:   nonprofessional, nonspecialist;

According to Google the definitions that helped your case were simply synonyms.