Real earth stuff

 Ionospheric propagation of electromagnetic radiation in the shortwave bands makes it possible to hear transmissions from Russian and American stations in Australia but VHF, UHF and microwave signals no matter how powerful will only travel in line of sight. A radar that can see an asteroid is unable to see more than 100 klms on the surface of the earth. How come?.     

Higher frequency signals are not as affected by atmoplanic refraction, reflection, and diffusion as the lower frequency ones.  This is a well known fact, and does not prove the Earth's shape one way or the other. 

Higher frequency signals are not as affected by atmoplanic refraction, reflection, and diffusion as the lower frequency ones.  This is a well known fact, and does not prove the Earth's shape one way or the other.

The range of a shipboard or land based radar pretty well proves the earth's shape as being round and not flat . The range is limited by the distance to the horizon. The higher the radar antenna is above the surface of the land or the sea , the longer the range. If the earth was flat radar would have an infinite range.


"Atmoplanic" incidentally is just another of those made up , inane flat earth words. Naturally fe can't use the correct term "atmospheric" since a flat earth is a "plane", but  not a "sphere." LOL.
Just try googleing on "atmosphere" and "atmoplane" and see the difference you will get. Nil, nada, zero for "atmoplane" and the number you will get for "atmosphere." Naturaly since "atmoplane" doesn't exist in Real Earth Stuff.

Higher frequency signals are not as affected by atmoplanic refraction, reflection, and diffusion as the lower frequency ones.  This is a well known fact...

Can you please cite a reference to this "well known fact"?  As far as I know, there are far more variables that affect the transmission of electromagnetic energy.  One of the more critical ones is the power output of the transmitter.

And tropospheric ducting (or open-ended wave guides) can transmit FM and UHF signals for thousands of kilometres around the surface of the earth.



—BTW, this is the formula for line of sight calculations:


This effectively proves that the earth's surface is curved.  If the surface were flat, then D1 + D2 could (theoretically) equal the diameter of the flat earth as the signal wouldn't be limited by a line of sight as shown.



 
EDIT:  Could an administrator please check and/or correct the faulty [img] coding.  An erroneous [url] coding is automatically added.  Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on June 18, 2014, 06:00:38 PM

Higher frequency signals are not as affected by atmoplanic refraction, reflection, and diffusion as the lower frequency ones.  This is a well known fact...

Can you please cite a reference to this "well known fact"?  As far as I know, there are far more variables that affect the transmission of electromagnetic energy.  One of the more critical ones is the power output of the transmitter.

And tropospheric ducting (or open-ended wave guides) can transmit FM and UHF signals for thousands of kilometres around the surface of the earth.



—BTW, this is the formula for line of sight calculations:

The distance, D1, to the radio horizon for the transmitter is 1.415 times the square root of h1 (metres)
The theoretical maximum line-of-sight distance between two elevated points, presumably the transmitter (h1)
and the receiver (h2), is the sum of the two distances to the radio horizon (D1 + D2).

This effectively proves that the earth's surface is curved.  If the surface were flat, then D1 + D2 could (theoretically) equal the diameter of the flat earth as the signal wouldn't be limited by a line of sight as shown.

As a former radar technician (I'm retired) I look at these things more from the practical standpoint rather than going into all the technical details. There are more variables involved but the general rule as to the range of a radar is determinant on the line of sight distance to the horizon which is dependant on the height of the radar antenna. This is how things really work and proves that the earth is round and not flat.

Just another observation, but another  factor in radar is the "pulse repetition rate." In other words, the pulse is sent out, then the radar goes into the receiving mode and "waits" for a signal to return. If the earth was flat, the repetition rate would have to be much different if the radar would cover the entire earth, which would theoretically be possible if the earth was flat. But once again the earth is not flat and radar is just one more proof of a round earth-Real Earth Stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_repetition_frequency

If the earth was flat there would be no need for so many radar stations and so many  microwave relay stations as there are in Real earth stuff.

Which brings us back to the topic of this thread, which is of course.:
Re: Real earth stuff

The surprising thing  to me is  that sandokhan hasn't chimed in by now with his pages and pages of pasta. LOL.

Another thought is that some fe's deny that the speed of radio waves is accurate and measurements by radar are either inaccurate or fake. Like measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by radar or radio waves.
Which they have also said that radio waves and radar are two different things and not to be confused with each other. Et cetera, et cetera and so forth. LOL. this has been covered in another thread.

The surprising thing  to me is  that sandokhan hasn't chimed in by now with his pages and pages of pasta. LOL.

Thanks for your explanations from a technical—and practical, workplace-accredited—standpoint Googleotomy.  It'll be interesting to see what the flat earthers make of this incontrovertible evidence regarding radar from someone with actual hands-on experience.  I'm betting there'll be several rebuttals from flat earthers who know absolutely nothing about radar in the real world, but will just make up some silly stuff on the trot in an attempt to discredit your evidence that the surface of the planet is indeed curved.

And unfortunately—for us—poor old sandokhan doesn't possess any scientific or academic qualifications in order to post any original comments here.  He just blindly regurgitates reams of other people's stuff—usually nothing more than a copy and paste exercise.  Maybe we should call him "The King of Copypasta" LOL.  Although, he may surprise us one day with some innovative thought—although I won't be holding my breath.

Quote from: Googleotomy on June 19, 2014, 09:10:02 AM

The surprising thing  to me is  that sandokhan hasn't chimed in by now with his pages and pages of pasta. LOL.

Thanks for your explanations from a technical—and practical, workplace-accredited—standpoint Googleotomy.  It'll be interesting to see what the flat earthers make of this incontrovertible evidence regarding radar from someone with actual hands-on experience.  I'm betting there'll be several rebuttals from flat earthers who know absolutely nothing about radar in the real world, but will just make up some silly stuff on the trot in an attempt to discredit your evidence that the surface of the planet is indeed curved.

And unfortunately—for us—poor old sandokhan doesn't possess any scientific or academic qualifications in order to post any original comments here.  He just blindly regurgitates reams of other people's stuff—usually nothing more than a copy and paste exercise.  Maybe we should call him "The King of Copypasta" LOL.  Although, he may surprise us one day with some innovative thought—although I won't be holding my breath.

I suppose I have an evil mind. I like to post facts that are known to be true just to see what the FE's are going to come up with their answers.

As for sandokhan.....Well.....Hope springs eternal . LOL. You must be some kind of an  optimist !