# Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality

• 16 Replies
• 630 Views
?

#### ZeroEnna

• 11
##### Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« on: April 22, 2019, 10:29:05 AM »
Hey everyone, I've seen  a post like this before, however, I didn't want to necrothread, so I opened a new thread instead.

So, I am studying for my ham radio technischen exam, and some things just do not add up if the earth was really a flat disk.

All of the things I talk about can pretty easily reproduced by any ham radio operator out there, so if you don't trust me, trust anyone with a ham radio certificate.

First of all, let's make some basic assumptions based on things I learned from Flat earth videos on Youtube and by browsing through this forum. Let's assume the dome flat earth that is widely popular in this community, that a dome made of some reflective material. Let's also assume that this material is similiar to glass, because if this some sort of holohraphic screen, and all screens I know are made of glass or a plastic sheet (just look at your display or TV screen).
And finally, let's assume that radio waves, just like the ones carrying your favorite music, travel in straight lines, just like light, which is also some sort of electromagnetic wave.

First of all, grab two of those small PMR radios you can buy for a few bucks in any good store. Get one of your friends and let him take one of these outside, while you stay inside.
Again, let'S assume that these waves work like light. If you shine a flash light onto the wall, you can't see it from the outside, if you shine it through the window, you can. Now, talk to your friends over the radio with your window closed. Does it work? If so, why? Well, this proves that radio waves are traversing glass with no problem at all. Do you agree on this?
Second thing: Take a mirror and a flashlight, a laser point, or whatever you have near you. And then shine your light from different angles. Have you noticed that the beam is reflected at the exact same angle? Physicists call this the "law of reflection", where the angle of incidence equals the angle of emergence. Do we agree on this? Because this is important for my further argumentation.

Okay, let's take a step further.

A radiowave with a frequency of 27 Mhz (the popular CB radio band) travels the surface, right? What if a mountain is in its way? Well, of course, it will not penetrate the mountain, it will simply be blocked or reflected. But from a certain distance, the wave will skip the mountain. Because it is reflected by the dome... wait...no...if the dome is mad eof glass-like material, and we just learned that radio waves will pass through glass effortlessly, that means... they are gone.
No, they are not, they are reflected. So that means that either, the wavelength is larger than the molecular structure of that dome, so that it will be bounced off, or that something else is at play here.
Let's take a step back. According to best practices, ham radio operators can talk to people at the other side of the world, from america, you can talk to australia, russia or south africa, with as little as 200W, that is equal to two light bulbs. I personally have crossed a distance of more than 5000 Miles (Germany -> Brazil) with only 200W of output power.
How does that work? I mean, seriously, you can not see a lightbulb, even a 200W one, from further distances than 100 Miles.
And here is another thing. It is possible to contact stations with the antenna pointed in the opposite direction. Let's say you are in San Francisco, and want to talk to South Africa. If you point your antenna 180° away from South Africa, you can still contact the station. Now, if you take the dome model of the flat earth, you might say, okay, these radiowaves are reflected by the dome. But according to the law of relection, this will highly depend on where these waves hit the dome. In best case, it's a direct hit at an angle of 0°, But what if you hit the dome at and angle of 20°. The radio wave will bounce around until eventually, it will somehow find it's way. But the receiving antenna will guaranteed not look at a 180° angle towards the sendign antenna.... this will be like 90° or 70° depending on the direction the wave was eventually bounced from the globe, making it virtually impossible to predict which direction the antenna needs to face to optimally receive the signal. And same for the answer that is being sent.

On a globe model, however, this is pretty easy to predict, because yes, the wave travels at a streaight line, just like light, BUT it bounces of the atmosphere, specifically, the ionisphere, the part of the atmosphere that is radiated by solar particles. How does this specific detial work in a flat earth model, where this is no sun that ionizes the atmosphere, because there is no atmosphere.

And finally, one more nail in the flat earth coffin: Sporadic-E. Sporadic E means that with radio waves that are normally passing through the glass, because of their short wave length, they are reflected by ultra ionized areas in the atmosphere, that lasts anywhere between 1 to 15 minutes. If there is no atmosphere, then...what is causing this?

Again, any of these things I said can easily be verified by PRACTICAL testing (I know some of you are not to keen on math, you avoid math like the devil avoids holy water), and if you come to the same conclusions, that this could mean that the globe earth theory stands a fair chance.

?

#### JackBlack

• 10947
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2019, 02:57:45 PM »
all screens I know are made of glass or a plastic sheet (just look at your display or TV screen).
Some screens are made of silver, or silver coated fabric. That way the polarisation can be retained.

And finally, let's assume that radio waves, just like the ones carrying your favorite music, travel in straight lines, just like light, which is also some sort of electromagnetic wave.
This may be your first problem. Some FEers appeal to bendy light to explain away the massive problems with the FE, like why the sun sets.

If so, why? Well, this proves that radio waves are traversing glass with no problem at all. Do you agree on this?
They can also traverse walls, depending on the material. Different EM radiation is absorbed or scattered or reflected by different materials by different amounts.

Second thing: Take a mirror and a flashlight, a laser point, or whatever you have near you. And then shine your light from different angles. Have you noticed that the beam is reflected at the exact same angle?
Have you notice that the point can be seen from lots of angles? This shows that the light can scatter, i.e. reflect in all directions, not just specularly.
It is also important to note that not everything reflects or transmits perfectly (in fact, basically nothing does). With lots of materials you can have partial reflection and partial transmission. Glass is a wonderful example of this and is sometimes used for "holographic" displays. This can be easily seen when looking out a window where you can often see a reflection of yourself.

Because it is reflected by the dome... wait...no...if the dome is mad eof glass-like material, and we just learned that radio waves will pass through glass effortlessly, that means... they are gone.
Nope. As pointed out, the dome is not necessarily made of glass. Even if it was there could be another substance above it (like water). Regardless, as pointed out before you can have partial reflection.

the wavelength is larger than the molecular structure of that dome
Are you sure that is what you meant? The molecular structure of most things is on the order of nm or less.
The wavelength of a 27 MHz radio wave is over 11 m.

Let's take a step back. According to best practices, ham radio operators can talk to people at the other side of the world, from america, you can talk to australia, russia or south africa, with as little as 200W, that is equal to two light bulbs. I personally have crossed a distance of more than 5000 Miles (Germany -> Brazil) with only 200W of output power.
How does that work? I mean, seriously, you can not see a lightbulb, even a 200W one, from further distances than 100 Miles.
This isn't an argument against the FE.
If anything, it being able to travel such distances would be evidence for a FE as a RE should have gotten in the way.

The issue is reflection.

As for 200 W, that is quite relative to what the background is.

because there is no atmosphere.
That is nothing more than semantics. They still have gas above Earth, gas which can be ionised. Most even call it the atmosphere, even though some will call it the atmoplane.

?

#### Koresh

• 22
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2019, 06:39:01 PM »
It's simple: the wave travels straight to the receiver. If a mountain is in the way, the radio is still reflected by the atmosphere. The radio doesn't cut through the middle of the world because the upper atmosphere blocks it.

?

#### jimster

• 438
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2019, 07:56:05 PM »
Actually, the ham community has several reasons to be sure the earth is round.

1. Direction to point beam antenna for dx. 20 or 10 meter beam antennas can reach thousands of miles, but only when pointed very carefully, and you need RE geometry.

3. Amateur radio satellites, latest one launched in SpaceX.

3. Moonbounce, amateur radio operators have bounced signals off the moon, timed the return signal, and it matches the speed of light over the distance measured optically.

Amateur radio operators are not NASA, not stupid, not fooled, not pressured by NASA to keep quiet, not brainwashed. They point highly directional antennas at satellites every day and succeed in line-of-sight 2 meter communications over a thousand miles that can't happen without a satellite.
Is it possible for something to be both true and unproven?

Are things that are true and proven any different from things that are true but not proven?

?

#### ZeroEnna

• 11
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2019, 08:32:00 PM »
all screens I know are made of glass or a plastic sheet (just look at your display or TV screen).
Some screens are made of silver, or silver coated fabric. That way the polarisation can be retained.

Okay, I give you this, but isn't that even stranger? That electromagnetic waves pass through the best conductor ever? Silver?

And finally, let's assume that radio waves, just like the ones carrying your favorite music, travel in straight lines, just like light, which is also some sort of electromagnetic wave.
This may be your first problem. Some FEers appeal to bendy light to explain away the massive problems with the FE, like why the sun sets.
Well, of course, light can be bent. Think of a prism. WHy do you think the sky turns red at sunset? A prism, of course....wait...the same goes for the RE, with the atmowhatever being the prism.

If so, why? Well, this proves that radio waves are traversing glass with no problem at all. Do you agree on this?
They can also traverse walls, depending on the material. Different EM radiation is absorbed or scattered or reflected by different materials by different amounts.
Why do microwaves never leave your microwave oven then? Do me a favor and remove that small grate on the oven door, the one with the many holes, and then put a glass of water in front of it while you watch your food heat up from the distance. Guess what is heating up, too? The water, because this grate prevents the microwaves from leaving the oven. How? Well, microwaves have a different wavelength that is still too large for these tiny holes.

Second thing: Take a mirror and a flashlight, a laser point, or whatever you have near you. And then shine your light from different angles. Have you noticed that the beam is reflected at the exact same angle?
Have you notice that the point can be seen from lots of angles? This shows that the light can scatter, i.e. reflect in all directions, not just specularly.
It is also important to note that not everything reflects or transmits perfectly (in fact, basically nothing does). With lots of materials you can have partial reflection and partial transmission. Glass is a wonderful example of this and is sometimes used for "holographic" displays. This can be easily seen when looking out a window where you can often see a reflection of yourself.

I'm not talking about it being visible from everywhere. If you project a beam of light onto a mirror in a 45 degree angle, the beam is not reflected in a 10 degree angle, nor a 60 degree angle, but in a 45 degree angle. And a beam of light as tiny as a laser can not be seen from all directions, but only the direction it is reflected to.

Because it is reflected by the dome... wait...no...if the dome is mad eof glass-like material, and we just learned that radio waves will pass through glass effortlessly, that means... they are gone.
Nope. As pointed out, the dome is not necessarily made of glass. Even if it was there could be another substance above it (like water). Regardless, as pointed out before you can have partial reflection.

A partial reflection that is almost 100% the strength of the original radio wave beam? Yeah, sure.

the wavelength is larger than the molecular structure of that dome
Are you sure that is what you meant? The molecular structure of most things is on the order of nm or less.
The wavelength of a 27 MHz radio wave is over 11 m.

And how do these waves "break through" the beam then? With holes that tiny? Like in the above example with the microwave oven, the wavelength is too big for it to fit through these tiny holes.

Let's take a step back. According to best practices, ham radio operators can talk to people at the other side of the world, from america, you can talk to australia, russia or south africa, with as little as 200W, that is equal to two light bulbs. I personally have crossed a distance of more than 5000 Miles (Germany -> Brazil) with only 200W of output power.
How does that work? I mean, seriously, you can not see a lightbulb, even a 200W one, from further distances than 100 Miles.
This isn't an argument against the FE.
If anything, it being able to travel such distances would be evidence for a FE as a RE should have gotten in the way.

The issue is reflection.

As for 200 W, that is quite relative to what the background is.

Even if the background is made of vantablack, you won't be able to see that light bulb from farther than 100 miles. Or, if you want it this way: can you still feel the heat from a 200W electric
heating a 100 miles out? Radio waves, however, travel these distances at ease (having spoken to a ham radio operator in Brazil myself that is 5000 miles away, even across mountains. So no line of sight there, which rules out a direct hit. How do radio waves magically hop mountains?

because there is no atmosphere.
That is nothing more than semantics. They still have gas above Earth, gas which can be ionised. Most even call it the atmosphere, even though some will call it the atmoplane.

Still one point has not conclusively disproven, and that is the predictable reflection.
In a dome, the radio beam would be reflected over and over, until it finally reaches its destination by pure chance. Also, you will rarely find your antenna pointing 180 degrees away from the destination and still be able to pick up the signal strong and crisp. On a RE, this is easy to do.

It's simple: the wave travels straight to the receiver. If a mountain is in the way, the radio is still reflected by the atmosphere. The radio doesn't cut through the middle of the world because the upper atmosphere blocks it.

Of course it does, but this works even more predictable on a round earth, with no dome. So either, there is no dome but sort of a windowpane covering the whole FE, or the FE model is not that easy to explain.

Actually, the ham community has several reasons to be sure the earth is round.

1. Direction to point beam antenna for dx. 20 or 10 meter beam antennas can reach thousands of miles, but only when pointed very carefully, and you need RE geometry.

3. Amateur radio satellites, latest one launched in SpaceX.

3. Moonbounce, amateur radio operators have bounced signals off the moon, timed the return signal, and it matches the speed of light over the distance measured optically.

Amateur radio operators are not NASA, not stupid, not fooled, not pressured by NASA to keep quiet, not brainwashed. They point highly directional antennas at satellites every day and succeed in line-of-sight 2 meter communications over a thousand miles that can't happen without a satellite.

1. Even the long way aroung is ALWAYS 180 degrees +- 1 degree for atmospheric distortions, but you never have to point your antenna 110 degrees or 300 degrees, which means the radio wave travels straight lines, which would be impossible on a RE because a light is never reflected in a straight 180 degree reflection in a ring or ball of reflective material.

2. QO-100 is the most amazing thing ever, and to be honest, after my exam, this is the first thing I wanna try out.

3. If the moon is a holographic projection OR a plane/sphere whatever that is only 3000 miles above the surface of the FE, then how comes that exactly this happens? The signal takes around 2 to 3 seconds from sender to receiver? If radio waves travel at the speed of light, how come they take 2 to 3 seconds? What is slowing them down? OIr maybe, JUST MAYBE, it's true what jimster and I say, that the distance between sender, moon, and receiver is larger than 3000 miles. How about close to 200.000 miles? Which - weird but true - matches the distance RE knows between the sun and the moon.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4095
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2019, 12:45:53 AM »
or that something else is at play here.

“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether”

“It being a fact that radio waves are essentially like sound waves in the air"

Nikola Tesla

M. Ruderfer experiment (1960):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

This is the main reason why relativists are abandoning Einstein's version of relativity and are embracing the modified Lorentz ether theory. The speed of light is variable: it varies according to the density of aether/ether (the dome consists of multiple layers of aether and ether).

?

#### ZeroEnna

• 11
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2019, 01:14:26 AM »
To rip off a quote from "The Lion King"
sandokhan, with you, EVERYTHING's aether.....

The problem I have will all the FE proof is tat there are so many assumptions to make, ruling out each other, contradicting each other, while with RE; eventhing lines up just perfectly.
Instead of having an atmosphere and a constant speed of light +- some minor, insignificant variations, suddenly, the waves slow down and speed up just like however the want to, with no constant, predictable behaviour, and an alledged "aether" that is floating around, surrounding the earth, seperated from "our world" by a magic layer of glass, ather, ether, electromagnetic Spaceship Enterprise like force field that Darth Vader would be jealous of, or whatever is convinient enough to "explain it". I get the notion that flat earthers not claim the earth is flat, because it is flat, but because they just need a reason to swim against the tide.

With a telescope on Mount Everest, you would be able to zoom in on the sun no matter how distant it was from your vantage point, but no matter how high the zoom factor of that telescope is, you are unable to, because the sun does not just magically move so far away that you cannot see it anymore.
But yeah, with all these contradicting assumptions concerning the distance, shape, distinct shape of the light cone and its properties and how the sun is changing lanes over the year resulting in the seasons and what not.... seriously, the RE theory is so much simpler with much, much less assumptions, because one assumption explains everything else, without the need of some esoteric aether (by the way, speaking of aether, the only known form of aether is a gooie green substance that oozes from rifts of the earth and can be harvested to fuel cars, or turn animals into gruesome monsters. Google aetherpunk for more information on that one).

Just like this, it's easier to assume that the speed of light is a constant, rather than a variable that changes depending on what it penetrates, that slows down whenever it is convenient. If it was like this, we should be able to see individual photons, which we are, but only under very specific circumstances with an energy consumption similiar to Los Angeles. And you tell me that some allmight space wizard can produce such energy and condense it in aether, and us down here un earth, we would be unable to measure that energy?

Seriously, it's easier to assume that the speed of light does not change that drastically, and to assume that the earth is round, the moon is 200,000 miles away, the sun is even further away, and that ham radio operators are really bouncing off the soundwaves from the moon's surface, from a celestial object, rather than a holographic/semi-holographic/semi-permeable disc/hologram/whatever hovering above our head, and that is invisible at day, only visible at night, and that is either high above us, even high above the sun, and then suddenly comes down for a solar eclipse, or is ashamed and turns red during a lunar eclipse, or that is always low above our heads but invisible for all of us, and that has a twin brother called Rahu for whatever reason....... come on, if I take FE serious, whats next? Calling "radio waves" fake, because you can't see them? Claim that there is no real radio transmission going on, at least not with the power they say these trasmitters have, but the radio waves are broadcasted via your wifi routers, which explains why in the "Zona di silencio", there is no radio, because there is no wifi? Or can we assume that there is actually no weather at all, and that thunderstorms are just "malfunctions" in the dome's force field? That a Tsunami is not caused by earthquakes but by another of those so-called satellites crashing to earth because the balloon that it was attached to burst?

In all seriousness, though, there is far more evidence, especially in the ham radio community, that the established ROUND EARTH model is far more reliable and predictable, plus applicable then a flat earth with all it's variables and assumptions.

All I learned about the flat earth community in a nutshell:

1. Everyone else lies.
2. Because of 1., every evidence they provide is fake.
3. Because everything is fake,. the earth MUST be flat.
3a. All of those who propagate a round earth are paid by NASA to do this
4. No matter what concrete evidence they provide, it is fake without any reconsideration.
5. Because the earth is flat, flat earthers are not the ones who must proof their point of view.
6. Additional to 5., the flat earther's only purpose is to make sure that 2. always is enforced

« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 01:20:11 AM by ZeroEnna »

#### Bullwinkle

• Flat Earth Curator
• 16259
• "Umm, WTF ???"
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2019, 01:23:01 AM »

The problem I have will all the FE proof is tat there are so many assumptions to make, ruling out each other, contradicting each other, while with RE; eventhing lines up just perfectly.
Instead of having an atmosphere and a constant speed of light +- some minor, insignificant variations, suddenly, the waves slow down and speed up just like however the want to, with no constant, predictable behaviour, and an alledged "aether" that is floating around, surrounding the earth, seperated from "our world" by a magic layer of glass, ather, ether, electromagnetic Spaceship Enterprise like force field that Darth Vader would be jealous of, or whatever is convinient enough to "explain it". I get the notion that flat earthers not claim the earth is flat, because it is flat, but because they just need a reason to swim against the tide.

What other things send you into fits of rage?

RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4095
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2019, 01:30:57 AM »
it's easier to assume that the speed of light is a constant

Physicists are beginning to realize now, after more than 100 years have passed since the statement made in 1905 by Einstein, that the so-called postulate of the constancy of light is just that, a simple opinion with no scientific proof behind it.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

However, those are the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ equations and not the original J.C. MAXWELL equations.

This means that a different set of equations will make this statement null and void.

The original Maxwell equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS: that is, they are superluminal.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884 (dynamical Maxwell equations)

?

#### ZeroEnna

• 11
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2019, 01:31:40 AM »

The problem I have will all the FE proof is tat there are so many assumptions to make, ruling out each other, contradicting each other, while with RE; eventhing lines up just perfectly.
Instead of having an atmosphere and a constant speed of light +- some minor, insignificant variations, suddenly, the waves slow down and speed up just like however the want to, with no constant, predictable behaviour, and an alledged "aether" that is floating around, surrounding the earth, seperated from "our world" by a magic layer of glass, ather, ether, electromagnetic Spaceship Enterprise like force field that Darth Vader would be jealous of, or whatever is convinient enough to "explain it". I get the notion that flat earthers not claim the earth is flat, because it is flat, but because they just need a reason to swim against the tide.

What other things send you into fits of rage?

Oh, where should I start? Should I start with the sunsets? Or should I start with distances between two points in the southern hemiplane that are deviating up to 200% from the real, measured distances? Or how about the absolute lack of evidence from FE that easily explains why all people close to the "southern wall" see the esxact same stars, when they look 180° away from the north pole, which should be impossible because they all look in different directions on a flat disc.
Or how about "Behind the curve", where flat earthers accidently produced results during their testing that disagreed with a flat earth reality?

You see, there are so many things that FE fails to explain, and still everything that contradicts FE is brushed away as "lies", but us globeheads are expected to "take everything FE says as face value".

?

#### ZeroEnna

• 11
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2019, 01:35:16 AM »
it's easier to assume that the speed of light is a constant
The original Maxwell equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS: that is, they are superluminal.

Sorry.... I have to correct you. You have a hufe typo in that statement. It's not the GALILEAN Transformations... they are called GALLIFREYAN Transformations.

?

#### JackBlack

• 10947
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2019, 02:31:56 AM »
Okay, I give you this, but isn't that even stranger? That electromagnetic waves pass through the best conductor ever? Silver?
I meant movie theatre screens which have the image projected onto them, considering you wanted to discuss projections.

Well, of course, light can be bent. Think of a prism. WHy do you think the sky turns red at sunset?
They have it bend without a prism. As for sunsets, that is for the same reason the sky is blue during the day, Rayleigh scattering, not refraction.

Why do microwaves never leave your microwave oven then?
Are we talking about Earth or conductive metal screens? They are different.
Like I said, different frequencies penetrate different materials differently.

Well, microwaves have a different wavelength that is still too large for these tiny holes.
But small enough for the tiny atomic size holes in glass?
The issue is the fundamentally different material.

I'm not talking about it being visible from everywhere.
You are talking about detecting a signal. So that sure seems to match the seeing it everywhere part.

And a beam of light as tiny as a laser can not be seen from all directions, but only the direction it is reflected to.
Once it scatters from a surface it can (at least the directions that aren't on the other side of the surface).

A partial reflection that is almost 100% the strength of the original radio wave beam? Yeah, sure.
It depends entirely upon the surface.

And how do these waves "break through" the beam then? With holes that tiny? Like in the above example with the microwave oven, the wavelength is too big for it to fit through these tiny holes.
So you are saying your window has holes that are over 11 m?
And that the glass on the microwave likewise has massive holes larger than those tiny ones in the metal sheet?

You seem to have very little idea of what you are talking about.

Even if the background is made of vantablack, you won't be able to see that light bulb from farther than 100 miles.
So I guess all those pictures from space showing city lights are fake?
Regardless, not being able to see it with your eyes doesn't mean it can't be detected (And I'm still not certain you can't see it with your eyes, as you have provided nothing to show that).

Radio waves, however, travel these distances at ease
Which in no way shows Earth is round. Instead it shows radio waves have different properties to visible light.
If you need a simple example of that, you can't see radio waves

Still one point has not conclusively disproven, and that is the predictable reflection.
In a dome, the radio beam would be reflected over and over
Why should the dome result in reflections over and over rather than be predictable?

?

#### JackBlack

• 10947
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2019, 02:33:58 AM »
“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether”
Well with the aether being firmly refuted it definitely can't be that.
I don't give a damn who said it, but they are wrong.
More importantly, that method of propagation rules out polarisation, so it isn't that either.
That quote is completely wrong.

?

#### ZeroEnna

• 11
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2019, 02:46:58 AM »
Even if the background is made of vantablack, you won't be able to see that light bulb from farther than 100 miles.
So I guess all those pictures from space showing city lights are fake?
Regardless, not being able to see it with your eyes doesn't mean it can't be detected (And I'm still not certain you can't see it with your eyes, as you have provided nothing to show that).
[/quote]

Geez, you ARE a tough nut, aren't you? Of course, we are talking of ONE 200 Watt light bulb against thousands and hundreds of thousands of light bulbs clustered together.

If you light a light bulb in the middle of the sahara at night, would you be able to see it from space?
If you send a radio wave with a power of 200Watts to the ISS, would they be able to pick that up?

It's a huzge difference. And why? Wave lengths. In a microwave oven, the microwave has the right wavelength to be reflected by the mesh in the door. Radiowaves can also be reflected, if the surface is big enough. Radiowaves and Gamma rays can easily pass through walls, but Light not, because light has the right wavelength to be absorbed or reflected.
That's why UHF waves are passing through the ionosphere, but HF Waves are not. Okay, it was my mistake, but this stil does not proof the earth is flat, nor does it definitively disprove the earth is round.

?

#### JackBlack

• 10947
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2019, 03:46:09 AM »
If you light a light bulb in the middle of the sahara at night, would you be able to see it from space?
According to this paper:
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006147
YES! In fact you can see a much duller one.
And that is without a directional source.

It's a huzge difference. And why? Wave lengths.
Yes, and it isn't a simple case of if it is too big or not. It is materials behave in a different way to different wavelengths.

Radiowaves and Gamma rays can easily pass through walls
While one has a tiny wavelength and one has a massive wavelength.

Okay, it was my mistake, but this stil does not proof the earth is flat, nor does it definitively disprove the earth is round.
And I never said it did. My point was you didn't prove Earth was round nor disprove Earth was flat.

#### rabinoz

• 21642
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2019, 04:26:46 AM »
Actually, the ham community has several reasons to be sure the earth is round.

1. Direction to point beam antenna for dx. 20 or 10 meter beam antennas can reach thousands of miles, but only when pointed very carefully, and you need RE geometry.
So you use an Azimuthal Equidistant Map to find the bearing and distance to the other amateur radio operator.

Quote from: jimster
3. Amateur radio satellites, latest one launched in SpaceX.

3. Moonbounce, amateur radio operators have bounced signals off the moon, timed the return signal, and it matches the speed of light over the distance measured optically.

Amateur radio operators are not NASA, not stupid, not fooled, not pressured by NASA to keep quiet, not brainwashed. They point highly directional antennas at satellites every day and succeed in line-of-sight 2 meter communications over a thousand miles that can't happen without a satellite.

?

#### flat_theory_is_wrong

• 4
##### Re: Ham Radio questions the Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2019, 04:16:23 PM »
it's easier to assume that the speed of light is a constant

Physicists are beginning to realize now, after more than 100 years have passed since the statement made in 1905 by Einstein, that the so-called postulate of the constancy of light is just that, a simple opinion with no scientific proof behind it.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

However, those are the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ equations and not the original J.C. MAXWELL equations.

This means that a different set of equations will make this statement null and void.

The original Maxwell equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS: that is, they are superluminal.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884 (dynamical Maxwell equations)

You really ruined the mainstream's scientific paradigm And i have't seen something like that before.
I like it and I respect to your research but there is not a accurate flat earth map that explain everything in the world.
You should work more on that. Don't waste your time on globe believers anymore. Do flat earth research.
Thanks to internet that familiarize us with lies that mainstream put in our minds when we were children.

I was a Globe believer but turned after reading Sandokhan's posts. At least I am a Skeptic now
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 04:26:45 PM by flat_theory_is_wrong »