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
  • 106937 Views
Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #510 on: September 15, 2013, 12:39:51 PM »
"I've done goofed and tried to talk about a subject I myself don't understand at all, as a result, I have no idea what your response to my topic even means. Rather than formulate a proper response, I'm going to shift the focus of the topic to you calling these guys and then get mad when you don't because you totally just got done explaining why my topic is hilariously wrong." -OP

I'm just going to keep posting this over and over. I'm done with this thread and will remain to be so until you actually verify your claims. To any others who read this, note that Googleotomy has no idea what he is talking about. Note he can't explain anything on his own and just wants FE'ers to call other people, so other people can explain what he can't, which is that what he saying is baloney by any standards and laughable by even the scientific community.

I've been bumping this thread from time to time just to keep it alive.

 And I might add mostly for the entertainment value. It is intereresting to see what the next nonsense that an FE is going to post is going to be.

I just happen to be an amateur radio operator. (Duly licensed by the Federal Communications Commission) And I know very well what I am talking about. Even if you apparently don't seem to know, Rushy ? In my working days (I'm retired) I was also required to hold a First Class Commercial Radio License with Radar Endorsement. These are my credentials.

It is a very simple explanation, which I will repeat  for the umpteenth time unless you didn't get it for the umpteenth time. :

1.You aim an antenna at the moon.
2.Then you  transmit a signal.
3.Then you  wait  and listen for a return of your signal on your receiver.
4.Then you note the time between transmission and reception.
4.Then using the time interval you take into account that you divide the time in half for the time for the "one way" distance .
5.Then you mulitply the time  by the speed of radio waves.
6. Then you  compute the distance to the moon and that's it.
Admittedly, it does take some sophisticated antennas, transmitters and receivers, but the principle is very simple. The math is very simple, but apparently not to some FE's from some of the postings at the very beginning of this subject. Read some of them. ROFLOL !

The equation is also very simple:  d=vt
Where d is the distance in miles; v is the speed of radio waves (186,000 miles per second) and t is the time (1.275 seconds)

If you don't take my word for it or my explanation, you can verify the evidence by talking to any  other amateur radio operator or even with  anyone at an observatory. This is a fact with has been proven by the observatories and amateur radio operators. There is plenty of evidence available from any of those sources garygreen, others and I have listed.

Rushy's only defense would seem to be that all of those persons and all those sources are just lies from  liars. Just like most of the defense put up by any FE's on plain facts and evidence posted on this forum.

It seems obvious this is just a gross case of trolling. Just like this subject started from the very first.

The fact is .: "Moon Bounce" and the results are obvious evidence and the results concur with those of those made by the more precise methods of the observatories. There is nothing "just made up" on this subject.

This gets more tedious the longer this thread goes on. I'm just continuing for the sake of argument.
Ho Hum ! It seems that on this forum, you can post facts and figures until you're blue in the face, but FE's are so close minded that you'll never get through to them . It's really rather sad. Or it's so sad it gets to be funny after a while ? Or is it so funny it's really sad ?

Off topic trivia. : Has anyone on this forum ever been to Delgadillo's Snow Cap in Seligman, Arizona ?
A lady tourist from Wales once said "Don't go there if you have had a sense of humour transplant."
I think the same applies to this forum . Don't go to the Flat Earth Society Forum if you don't have a sense of humour.....For any FE reply, that is ?:D

I've attempted to explain this to Rushy, but maybe I haven't made it simple enough for him to understand, so maybe I need to do some more work on it.  ???
Sigh !!!! And I thought it was so simple and straighforward anyone could understand how "Moon Bounce" works and how hams were able to compute the distance from the earth to the moon. ???
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 06:17:17 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 !

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #511 on: September 15, 2013, 01:11:00 PM »
He clearly said only professional jarhead techs who go to a technical school can do it. Not engineers, but techs. Amateurs are just stupid people who don't know anything according to him. That is the reason why "we" can't bounce signals of the moon.
His opinion should suffice, after all he has been to technical school. 

That is a really deep thought explanation. But doesn't it mean that someone (tech) can do it then?

I didn't say "amateurs are just stupid people who don't know anything according to him."

I said amateurs "are very intelligent people who know quite a lot about radio."
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 #512 on: September 15, 2013, 01:34:03 PM »
??? I didn't say any of those things. I guess when people can't argue, they make things up? That might work in a physical conversation but not so much on a forum, buddy.
 

IMHO you can back up all of garygreen's quotes if you will go back on this forum for Rushy's quotes.

Just a thought. :

I have just considered The Flat Earth Society just to be something like a Lodge or Secret Society that has all their own little secret rules and ins and outs of their group . So if that is so, they are perfectly at will to believe all the Flat Earth Theories they wish, but I think "Round Earthers" should be allowed to post true facts when these Flat Earth Society beliefs of things such as distances to the moon and so forth are so obviously false and have been proven false for a long time .

So , Flat Earthers, go ahead and believe in the Ice Ring and  that the moon is only 3000 miles from the earth if you wish, but just for outsiders I believe visitors to this website would really be interested in the true facts , so that it why I and many others continue to post them.

If The Flat Earth Society wishes to post only their information, they should restrict this website only to members of the Flat Earth Society and  that is their business. But if not, I believe "Round Earthers" are going to continue their "de-bunking" of Flat Earth Society so-called Theories as long as The Flat Earth Society permits it .

There is plenty of factual information available on the Internet anyway to go elsewhere to get it .
So if you wish, I propose that The Flat Earth Society say to all "Round Earthers" : "Go away, we don't want to hear any more  from you !"
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 06:12:36 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 !

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #513 on: September 16, 2013, 01:35:27 AM »
I don't know how credible Rushy is, or even whether he is what he says he is. I would love to see him in an amateur moon bounce forum proving the "stupid" amateurs wrong. Why don't you impress us Rushy?

Why would I waste my time proving someone wrong when they can't simply prove themselves to be correct?

Have you ever asked them in their forum to prove themselves correct? I'd like to see how the conversation went.
I think, therefore I am

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #514 on: September 16, 2013, 09:50:16 AM »
I don't know how credible Rushy is, or even whether he is what he says he is. I would love to see him in an amateur moon bounce forum proving the "stupid" amateurs wrong. Why don't you impress us Rushy?

Why would I waste my time proving someone wrong when they can't simply prove themselves to be correct?

Have you ever asked them in their forum to prove themselves correct? I'd like to see how the conversation went.

I think that has been tried. But as far as how the conversation went, I don't think it ever went...anywhere.  ;D

They usually just cry "fake" when any factual information is presented and that's about the size of it IMHO. The usual response is to claim any RE posting  is not correct, but never to prove themselves correct. Pure nonsense in most cases. A never ending source of entertainment. :D
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 09:53:54 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 #515 on: September 16, 2013, 10:47:34 AM »
I think that has been tried. But as far as how the conversation went, I don't think it ever went...anywhere.  ;D

They usually just cry "fake" when any factual information is presented and that's about the size of it IMHO. The usual response is to claim any RE posting  is not correct, but never to prove themselves correct. Pure nonsense in most cases. A never ending source of entertainment. :D

Actually I am more interested in seeing how FEers disprove these hobbyists, for example, whether they use technical/scientific arguments or not.
I think, therefore I am

Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #516 on: September 16, 2013, 11:20:57 AM »
I think that has been tried. But as far as how the conversation went, I don't think it ever went...anywhere.  ;D

They usually just cry "fake" when any factual information is presented and that's about the size of it IMHO. The usual response is to claim any RE posting  is not correct, but never to prove themselves correct. Pure nonsense in most cases. A never ending source of entertainment. :D

Actually I am more interested in seeing how FEers disprove these hobbyists, for example, whether they use technical/scientific arguments or not.

Also in seeing how FEers  would disprove the professionals at the observatories as well as the hobbyists.....going back to the OP as to the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon.
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 !

I think that has been tried. But as far as how the conversation went, I don't think it ever went...anywhere.  ;D

They usually just cry "fake" when any factual information is presented and that's about the size of it IMHO. The usual response is to claim any RE posting  is not correct, but never to prove themselves correct. Pure nonsense in most cases. A never ending source of entertainment. :D

Actually I am more interested in seeing how FEers disprove these hobbyists, for example, whether they use technical/scientific arguments or not.

For one thing, I think FE'ers don't believe in science or technology. I haven't seen any evidence from FE's  to disprove the "Moon Bouncers."

EDITED 4 OCTOBER 2013.:

With all due apologies to all the Flat Earthers, the main problem I find in the Flat Earth Society is that it is so easy to de-bunk all of their so-called "theories. The "Distance from the Earth to the Moon" is just one prime example. Secondly, I find it hard to believe they are ignorant of simple  things such as radio and radar for another example. From other threads it seems the simple aspects of photography is just one more of those weaknesses. Pity !

Getting back to the OP.:
I am more interested in how FE can show proof of "The Distance from the Earth to the Moon", whether it be 15 Kilometers, 700 miles or 3000 miles...or whatever.  Even then there does seem to be some little disagreement as to the distance amongst FE's. LOL.

The bottom line :
This whole website is a bit of nonsense. Ask anyone outside of the FES. I'm just keeping it alive from time to time for the entertainment and amusement value.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2013, 09:52:47 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 !

Are you suggesting that there is any distinction between radio waves and microwaves?

Yes.

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

There is no one end-all definition for EM spectra, but I thought I was being pretty clear on what I was referring to. Radio waves and microwaves are not always defined to be the same thing.

It's all very simple. There are radio waves. "Long waves", "Medium Waves", "Short Waves" and "Microwaves" are just definitions for various sections of the spectrum.
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 !

*

Rushy

  • 8971
It's all very simple. There are radio waves. "Long waves", "Medium Waves", "Short Waves" and "Microwaves" are just definitions for various sections of the spectrum.

Yawn. Your trolling required one copy and paste to destroy. Try again.

Name    Wavelength    Frequency (Hz)    Photon energy (eV
Microwave    1 mm – 1 meter    300 GHz – 300 MHz    1.24 meV – 1.24 µeV
Radio    1 m – 100,000 km    300 MHz – 3 Hz    1.24 meV – 12.4 fe


He clearly said only professional jarhead techs who go to a technical school can do it. Not engineers, but techs. Amateurs are just stupid people who don't know anything according to him. That is the reason why "we" can't bounce signals of the moon.
His opinion should suffice, after all he has been to technical school. 

That is a really deep thought explanation. But doesn't it mean that someone (tech) can do it then?

I didn't say "amateurs are just stupid people who don't know anything according to him."

I said amateurs "are very intelligent people who know quite a lot about radio."
 

EDITED 7 OCTOBER 2013

I will make a concession to Rushy

Some - if not most - amateur radio operators are intelligent people who know at least something about radio.
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 !

It's all very simple. There are radio waves. "Long waves", "Medium Waves", "Short Waves" and "Microwaves" are just definitions for various sections of the spectrum.

Yawn. Your trolling required one copy and paste to destroy. Try again.

Name    Wavelength    Frequency (Hz)    Photon energy (eV
Microwave    1 mm – 1 meter    300 GHz – 300 MHz    1.24 meV – 1.24 µeV
Radio    1 m – 100,000 km    300 MHz – 3 Hz    1.24 meV – 12.4 fe

Now look who is calling the kettle black. LOL.

My explanation was the way terms about "radio waves" are commonly used in the amateur radio as well as in professional radio. Long-, Medium-, Short-, Ultra High Frequency, Micro- etc. are just terms for various frequencies and wave lengths of radio waves. Haven't we been down this road before ?

Some of your posts make about as much sense as the common Flat Earth Hypothesis : "When I look out my window the earth looks flat. Therefore the earth is flat." Another LOL. This whole website is one big "LOL" in itself. Well, some of us so-called "Round Earthers" do visit here just for the fun of it. If you take it seriously I suppose it would get rather tedious and frustrating to some "Round Earthers."

What is it you don't understand about my explanation of "Moon Bounce", Rushy ? How can I make you believe it's not some "made up story" ? Or maybe I should just give it up and let you live in your own little fantasy world ?

I am still of the opinion that you would find a visit to a local Amateur Radio Club or better yet the headquarters of The American Radio League or even better to a local Astronomical Observatory  would be most interesting and would cure you of any doubts as to the veracity of "Moon Bounce" .

As far as "paste" and "pasta" are concerned I'm neither in the same league nor can I compete with sandokhan :( Go back to Pages 18 and 19, etc. to see what I mean.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 08:24:48 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 !

It's all very simple. There are radio waves. "Long waves", "Medium Waves", "Short Waves" and "Microwaves" are just definitions for various sections of the spectrum.

Yawn. Your trolling required one copy and paste to destroy. Try again.

Name    Wavelength    Frequency (Hz)    Photon energy (eV
Microwave    1 mm – 1 meter    300 GHz – 300 MHz    1.24 meV – 1.24 µeV
Radio    1 m – 100,000 km    300 MHz – 3 Hz    1.24 meV – 12.4 fe

Two copy and paste to destroy
  • Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. Radio waves have frequencies from 300 GHz to as low as 3 kHz, and corresponding wavelengths ranging from 1 millimeter (0.039 in) to 100 kilometers (62 mi).
  • Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter, or equivalently, with frequencies between 300 MHz (0.3 GHz) and 300 GHz.
I think, therefore I am

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Two copy and paste to destroy
  • Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. Radio waves have frequencies from 300 GHz to as low as 3 kHz, and corresponding wavelengths ranging from 1 millimeter (0.039 in) to 100 kilometers (62 mi).
  • Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter, or equivalently, with frequencies between 300 MHz (0.3 GHz) and 300 GHz.

You just agreed with me and everything I've already said.  My whole point was that Radio waves and Microwaves cover different EM frequencies and you just posted concurring evidence. What exactly were you destroying? In fact, you posted the exact same thing I did, except you used words instead of numeric values. Are you even reading posts before you reply?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 08:35:58 PM by Rushy »

Two copy and paste to destroy
  • Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. Radio waves have frequencies from 300 GHz to as low as 3 kHz, and corresponding wavelengths ranging from 1 millimeter (0.039 in) to 100 kilometers (62 mi).
  • Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter, or equivalently, with frequencies between 300 MHz (0.3 GHz) and 300 GHz.

You just agreed with me and everything I've already said.  My whole point was that Radio waves and Microwaves cover different EM frequencies and you just posted concurring evidence. What exactly were you destroying? In fact, you posted the exact same thing I did, except you used words instead of numeric values. Are you even reading posts before you reply?

I did what exactly what you did to Googleotomy, playing definition for something not really important to the essence of this thread.
I think, therefore I am

*

Rushy

  • 8971
I did what exactly what you did to Googleotomy, playing definition for something not really important to the essence of this thread.

The essence of this thread died when I destroyed OPs laughable "experiment" and he stuck his head in the sand.

The essence of this thread died when I destroyed OPs laughable "experiment" and he stuck his head in the sand.

Just because you backed out from this thread doesn't mean it's dead.
I think, therefore I am

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Just because you backed out from this thread doesn't mean it's dead.

No reason to stick around in a thread that has been addressed. I gave detailed analysis of why this experiment wouldn't work, so the OP just told me to "call the observatory" because he didn't know what he was talking about and subsequently couldn't understand why he was wrong.

I don't go into threads talking about string theory because I'm not a theoretical physicist, likewise, RE'ers should not post threads like these when they know nothing about the subject. This thread clutters up the forum and only demonstrates that there are currently no RE'ers on this forum that understand RF physics.

It's probably best that users such as yourself don't post at all, because you're not going to learn anything if you're actively spewing nonsense. We used to have RE'ers that weren't ignorant children, but they left because the forum is flooded with people like Googletomy and yourself.

Just because you backed out from this thread doesn't mean it's dead.

No reason to stick around in a thread that has been addressed. I gave detailed analysis of why this experiment wouldn't work, so the OP just told me to "call the observatory" because he didn't know what he was talking about and subsequently couldn't understand why he was wrong.

I don't go into threads talking about string theory because I'm not a theoretical physicist, likewise, RE'ers should not post threads like these when they know nothing about the subject. This thread clutters up the forum and only demonstrates that there are currently no RE'ers on this forum that understand RF physics.

It's probably best that users such as yourself don't post at all, because you're not going to learn anything if you're actively spewing nonsense. We used to have RE'ers that weren't ignorant children, but they left because the forum is flooded with people like Googletomy and yourself.

Blindly denying an argument doesn't mean the argument is wrong. As far as I remember you also haven't provided any evidence supporting your claim that we couldn't bounce radio signal off the moon.
I think, therefore I am

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Blindly denying an argument doesn't mean the argument is wrong. As far as I remember you also haven't provided any evidence supporting your claim that we couldn't bounce radio signal off the moon.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't even bother to read the thread or my posts before responding.

Blindly denying an argument doesn't mean the argument is wrong. As far as I remember you also haven't provided any evidence supporting your claim that we couldn't bounce radio signal off the moon.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't even bother to read the thread or my posts before responding.

I can confirm that I haven't seen any evidence supporting your claim that we couldn't bounce radio signal off the moon.
I think, therefore I am

Just because you backed out from this thread doesn't mean it's dead.

No reason to stick around in a thread that has been addressed. I gave detailed analysis of why this experiment wouldn't work, so the OP just told me to "call the observatory" because he didn't know what he was talking about and subsequently couldn't understand why he was wrong.

I don't go into threads talking about string theory because I'm not a theoretical physicist, likewise, RE'ers should not post threads like these when they know nothing about the subject. This thread clutters up the forum and only demonstrates that there are currently no RE'ers on this forum that understand RF physics.

It's probably best that users such as yourself don't post at all, because you're not going to learn anything if you're actively spewing nonsense. We used to have RE'ers that weren't ignorant children, but they left because the forum is flooded with people like Googletomy and yourself.

Blindly denying an argument doesn't mean the argument is wrong. As far as I remember you also haven't provided any evidence supporting your claim that we couldn't bounce radio signal off the moon.

I am really trying to make some sense with some of Rushy's post. There is no question of the Moon Bounce operations as having been performed by quite a large number of amateur radio operators. It's just a fact. There is plenty of proof that they have been doing this for some time, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

I really should apologize for starting this thread in the first place. The idea in mind that it was such a simple means of determining the distance from the earth to the moon by such a simple bit of mathematics. (Which even got messed up by FE-ers in the early stages of this thread.) Granted it takes some complicated equipment to perform Moon Bounce.

Maybe I'm reading Rushy wrong, but Rushy: Are you saying that all those amateur radio operators are liars and just made up this "Moon Bounce" thing. Also are you saying that all those astronomers are liars and just made up the laser measurements ? Putting Moon Bounce aside, are you also saying the distance to the moon (see several websites for figures) is all nonsense, too ?

In the face of all the evidence, I don't see how any statements like yours make any sense. IMHO, you're just engaging in all this nonsense about Moon Bounce just for  the fun of it. Well then, most of your posts are just so nonsenical you can't take them anyway but the old "ROFLOL." But that seems to be the way of FE which I have found from experience.

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but is the above what you are saying when you say "we couldn't bounce radio signal off the moon." ? Also correct me if I'm wrong but would you also say that radar won't work in determining distances ?
Are you really saying that "Moon Bounce" and distances are just nonsense ?

I really didn't think this thread would last this long. I really supposed FE would just ignore it since the figures for the distance from the earth to the moon is such an established fact and was so long before "Moon Bounce" and Laser Measurements came into being.

Efforts by FE to dispute these grow more hilarious by the minute and by the post . LOL.

We're almost up to 2 to 1 on the poll for the ham radio measurements -vs - FE measurements .

Finally, what difference does it make if some of the ham radio measurements were made on the 432 MHZ amateur radio band and some were made by lasers ? The results were all the same. Or is  this is just another vast part of the Round Earth Conspiracy on the part of ham radio operators and astronomical observatories ?
Why in the world (flat or round, that is) did they come up with that 237,150 mile figure and they all agreed on it being a close "ball park figure" in the first place ?

Two can play this silly game sandokhan I can post a lot of pasta, too.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 08:40:14 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 !

Question for today for RE's :

Am I the only person who has trouble making any sense out of the posts of Rushy, Sandokhan and Sceptimatic ? ???
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 !

Question for today for RE's :

Am I the only person who has trouble making any sense out of the posts of Rushy, Sandokhan and Sceptimatic ? ???

I have the same issue too.
I think, therefore I am

Question for today for RE's :

Am I the only person who has trouble making any sense out of the posts of Rushy, Sandokhan and Sceptimatic ? ???

I have the same issue too.

To Cartesian

Whew ! I'm crtainly glad to hear that ! I thought I might be the only one.

Thanks very much.

To be honestly honest, I visit this website mainly for the reasons listed in my signature line below. Cheers !

To Rushy

Correct me if I'm wrong but answer the following questions to clarify your statements about bouncing radio waves off the moon.

Question #1: Are you saying that bouncing radio waves (no matter what frequency /or/ wavelength)  off the moon or by laser to determine the distance from the earth to the moon  is impossible ?

Question # 2 : In reference to Question # 1  , are you saying that Radar is also impossible ?

Question # 3 : In reference to Questions #1 and #2,  are you saying that is impossible to get a measurement of the distance from the  earth to the moon in the order of 237,150 miles ?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 09:50:58 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 !

Just because you backed out from this thread doesn't mean it's dead.

No reason to stick around in a thread that has been addressed. I gave detailed analysis of why this experiment wouldn't work, so the OP just told me to "call the observatory" because he didn't know what he was talking about and subsequently couldn't understand why he was wrong.

I don't go into threads talking about string theory because I'm not a theoretical physicist, likewise, RE'ers should not post threads like these when they know nothing about the subject. This thread clutters up the forum and only demonstrates that there are currently no RE'ers on this forum that understand RF physics.

It's probably best that users such as yourself don't post at all, because you're not going to learn anything if you're actively spewing nonsense. We used to have RE'ers that weren't ignorant children, but they left because the forum is flooded with people like Googletomy and yourself.

To Rushy

Question # 4 - If you were to -quote- "Call the observatory" - unquote - and ask them about the methods and results that I have explained (ad infinitum and ad nauseum) on this thread and the answers they gave you were the same as those I have posted would you still  say - quote - "he (or insert maybe "she')  didn't know what he (or insert maybe "she") was talking about and subsequently couldn't understand why he (or maybe "she") was wrong."
-unquote.
 ???

That was why I suggested you "Call the observatory" (or maybe one of the amateur radio groups.) In other words, don't take my word for it as to the veracity of "Moon Bounce."

I dare ya to do it !

Here are two good sources for information for you to contact.:

Big Bend Amateur Radio Club
Mc Donald Observatory

P.S. The purpose of this thread was not to debate the fine points of RF physics, but just to show one method of how the distance from the earth to the moon was determined.

You still haven't answered any of my questions.

I think the trouble with FE's is that  when an RE posts some well known proven  facts and evidence they get all upset because they really don't have any sensible answers to dispute the evidence and facts, such at those on "Moon Bounce." I would also add well documented evidence in the case of "Moon Bounce."
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 10:30:18 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 !

Just because you backed out from this thread doesn't mean it's dead.

No reason to stick around in a thread that has been addressed. I gave detailed analysis of why this experiment wouldn't work, so the OP just told me to "call the observatory" because he didn't know what he was talking about and subsequently couldn't understand why he was wrong.

I don't go into threads talking about string theory because I'm not a theoretical physicist, likewise, RE'ers should not post threads like these when they know nothing about the subject. This thread clutters up the forum and only demonstrates that there are currently no RE'ers on this forum that understand RF physics.

It's probably best that users such as yourself don't post at all, because you're not going to learn anything if you're actively spewing nonsense. We used to have RE'ers that weren't ignorant children, but they left because the forum is flooded with people like Googletomy and yourself.
 

I keep having problems with Rushy's posts. He keeps saying he "gave detailed analysis of why this experiment wouldn't work." But I have reviewed his posts and found absolutely no evidence of this.

On the other hand, the EME or Moon Bounce measurements are so well documented that it seems rather inane to even say "this experiment wouldn't work", but the actual truth of the matter is that they do work and some are most likely even being done as this is posted.

If I was an FE, I think my rebuttal would be more that the measurements were inaccurate rather than to deny that the "Moon Bounce" operations were even done.
But the Moon Bounce measurements are so easy to compute and known facts are used that there really aren't any grounds to dispute them.

On another thread there was a comment to the effect that someone's wife told him  "You're wasting your time trying to convince a Flat Earther that the earth is round." I think the same thing is true on this thread. I'm wasting my time trying to convince a Flat Earther that the amateur radio "Moon Bounce" has been successfully done  and that the measurements have been done by simple math and are accurate. 

PS- I wonder just who really are "the ignorant children" on this website ?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 07:32:16 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 !

Just because you backed out from this thread doesn't mean it's dead.

No reason to stick around in a thread that has been addressed. I gave detailed analysis of why this experiment wouldn't work, so the OP just told me to "call the observatory" because he didn't know what he was talking about and subsequently couldn't understand why he was wrong.

I don't go into threads talking about string theory because I'm not a theoretical physicist, likewise, RE'ers should not post threads like these when they know nothing about the subject. This thread clutters up the forum and only demonstrates that there are currently no RE'ers on this forum that understand RF physics.

It's probably best that users such as yourself don't post at all, because you're not going to learn anything if you're actively spewing nonsense. We used to have RE'ers that weren't ignorant children, but they left because the forum is flooded with people like Googletomy and yourself.

To Rushy

Question #5 - Are you saying that you can disprove "that this experiment wouldn't work" when hams have been doing it for years ?

Question #6 - Are you saying that The American Radio Relay League (and all the hams that have done "Moon Bounce") and Mc Donald Observatory (to name just two sources) are "spewing nonsense" and are "the ignorant children" and you are a lot smarter than they are ?

Question #7 - Can you honestly say that you haven't learned anything about "Moon Bounce" after reading all the postings that have been shown on this thread ?

Question # 8 - What do think about the way the poll is going ?

Question # 9 - When was the last time you called Newington, Connecticut  and/or
Fort Davis, Texas  ?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 08:53:20 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 !

No answers from Rushy today.

But there is always hope for tomorrow. ???

BTW, in an exchange of e-mails from Mc Donald Observatory, one of the remarks I received was that the person who answered my e-mail said that he had met a few Flat Earthers and they were all "Arrogant and ignorant."
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 !

*

Alchemist21

  • 610
  • tfes.org
Isn't that what all REers think of FEers?  And from an FE point of view, the reverse is true.
tfes.org