Ham Radio moonbounce ... and radio towers

How do FE-ers explain Ham Radio 'moonbounce' experiments?
Ham operators can bounce radio off the moon and calculate the distance to be the expected value of around 240000 miles.
How do you explain this with the FE model?

What about terrestrial microwave towers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bacton_Gas_terminal_in_rural_setting_-_geograph.org.uk_-_287918.jpg
The height of the towers is necessary to reach oil rigs 'below the horizon' due to the curve of the earth.
If the earth was flat, a minimal height of tower would be needed (to clear nearby obstacles ...)

Sensible answers only please!

NASA has a fleet of stealth AWACS aircraft providing a constant presence around the moons projection on the dome. These aircraft absorb the original ham signal, and transmit a duplicate on a calculated delay.

The towers are just for show.




(edit for spelling)

Ham radio operators know the earth is round for several reasons.

short version:

long version:

Also, ham radio operators have built and orbited their own satellites for years, most recently using SpaceX. Several problems with this for FE.

amsat.org

Perhaps FE has no good answer and so says nothing? I respect that, better than a silly answer.

I notice with interest that no 'flat-earthers' have replied to this question.
Possibly because they realise there is no sensible answer!

CLANG! That's the sound of the gauntlet being thrown down!

I notice with interest that no 'flat-earthers' have replied to this question.
Possibly because they realise there is no sensible answer!

CLANG! That's the sound of the gauntlet being thrown down!

And all that was heard was:

Click me!

See

See

Why don't you describe what you think you specifically gleaned from the video you posted. Because I watched it and want my 15 minutes back.
What a bunch of mishmash from the same guy who tried to hide the results from the ring laser gyroscope in 'Behind he Curve'. He is literally making zero scientific sense from his free space path loss theory. Wow, what a substandard and lame piece of evidence for what I don't even know. Up your game and try much, much harder.

I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.

I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.

Actually no, the onus is on you to construct a rebuttal to the OP. Not just puke up some video from Globebusters, of all sources, (Have you seen 'Behind the Curve'?) and be like, "Watch this..." Lazy. Which is far more clearly the response of a losing position.

I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.

I see that you are unable or unwilling to be a little patient in waiting for rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a desperate man.
That video is over 15 minutes and you expected a rebuttal in 31 minutes!

Now you put the salient points, including powers, path losses, antenna gains etc an some radio HAM might look at it.

In the meantime you might read by a radio HAM:

Moonbounce on a Budget, Winter 2013
What is moonbounce?
• Contact made via signals bounced off the moon
• EME or Earth Moon Earth
• First done by US Army in Project Diana in 1946
• First successful amateur contact made in 1960
. . . . . . . .
Amateur Work
• First echoes heard on 2 meters in 1953 by W4AO and W3GKP
• It was not until 1960 that two-way was possible W6AY and W1FZJ
• First two-way on 1296 MHz band
. . . . .

The Eimac Gang's Dish Antenna
<< See the .pdf file for the rest. >>

I think real radio amateurs might know more than your Globebusters!

I think that document by Bob DeVarney W1ICW might be an adequate rebuttal.

TBH I don't really know why I am wasting my time but I'll take the bait!

Firstly the Pave PAWS example of 'range' is not comparing like with like. The radar return needs to be orders of magnitude stronger to give information about (say) a missile - in the EME example, we're looking for typically a very narrow band CW (morse) or JT8 signal.

Here is a very rough path budget, showing that EME is very feasible...

Path loss at VHF is around 250 dB
US Ham power limit ~1.5Kw, around 60 dBm
An average receiver can detect -120 dBm

So -> 250 (path loss) - 120 (receiver detection) = 130 dB below noise ...
130 - 60 (power limit) = 70 dB below noise.

Antenna gain helps you twice (tranmit and receive) so assuming 20 dB gain (x2 =40)
70 dB - 40 = 30 dB below noise (you see, we are getting there!)

Use masthead preamplifier, typical gain 20 dB
30 - 20 = 10 dB below noise (we are *nearly* there)...

Finally, utilise sophisticated software and modulation schemes such as WSJT, which can recover signals from 20 to 30 dB below noise...

So - 10 - 20 = 10 dB ABOVE THE NOISE...

(I'm not an expert in this but the above is a reasonable approximation ... multiple stacked and phased antennas could give another 6 to 12 dB gain, and remember that antenna gain applies both to the TX and the RX signal, so CW is also possible and SSB (voice) is not out of the question!)

OK, for the masochistic, here is a rather interesting path loss / budget calculator.
Beware, it'll blow your minds!

http://vk3um.com/eme%20calculator.html

I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.

You said  that we are "unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content" in half an hour.
But, in far longer than that,  you have failed to respond to Flat Earth General / Re: Ham Radio moonbounce ... and radio towers « on: July 10, 2019, 05:45:55 PM » in far more time than you gave for a response.

That is clearly the response of a losing position and hence I am forced to assume that you concede defeat on this issue.

That is clearly the response of a losing position and hence I am forced to assume that you concede defeat on this issue.

From my point of view these things are not about "victory" or "defeat".

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2019, 02:25:12 PM

That is clearly the response of a losing position and hence I am forced to assume that you concede defeat on this issue.

From my point of view these things are not about "victory" or "defeat".

I must admit that I was just mimicking Tom Bishop's claim but the experiences of the real HAMs that have succeeded in using "moon bounce" for two way communication are worth reading.

Maybe now someone can now explain how a return time averaging about 2.57 seconds is possible for a moon only some 5000 km above the earth.

That is one of main questions asked in the OP:

How do FE-ers explain Ham Radio 'moonbounce' experiments?
Ham operators can bounce radio off the moon and calculate the distance to be the expected value of around 240000 miles.
How do you explain this with the FE model?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensible answers only please!

Maybe now someone can now explain how a return time averaging about 2.57 seconds is possible for a moon only some 5000 km above the earth.

Hey Rab ... it's 'slow light' (as in 'Discworld', the respected Flat Earth model on the back of a turtle ...)

All you globeearthers remind me of a dutch social worker in the redlight district of Amsterdam.
Helping the oppressed hookers, chat, drink coffee , support with the needed administration, report violations etc...
 But after ten years he/she becomes part of the redlight district as much as the hookers , customers and drug dealers.

From the outside world you are all part of the flatearth movement, no matter the content of your posts.
You are flatties like us, when viewed from the outside.
Normal hardworking people would never engage longer than a couple of days with flatties.
You have proven to be one of us and i am sure the outside world agrees.
 

Hey Dutchy ... is that the best you can do?

Talk about ducking the issue!!

Hey Dutchy ... is that the best you can do?

Talk about ducking the issue!!

Sorry...please continue !

Quote

Maybe now someone can now explain how a return time averaging about 2.57 seconds is possible for a moon only some 5000 km above the earth.

Hey Rab ... it's 'slow light' (as in 'Discworld', the respected Flat Earth model on the back of a turtle ...)

Possibly "Discworld" explains it better than our Flat Earth Guru, Son of Orospu:

Don't burst out laughing or you might hurt Son of Orospu's feelings. Look at thins litthe exchang:

Knowing that radio emission travels at speed of light, and it takes roughly 2.5 seconds
to bounce radio communication off Moon (1.25 there and 1.25 back), then Moon is roughly 240 000 miles away.
(Was member of YU1AFX in late 70's and early 80's.)

And the Flat Earther's reply is:

SpJunk, you assume that radio signals travel the same speed all the time because that is what you were told to believe.  You never consider that perhaps RF signals may slow down while traveling through the aetheric whirlpool, making the moon much closer.

My reply was (Son of Orospu used to be jroa)

Quote from: jroa on August 19, 2016, 04:39:01 PM

SpJunk, you assume that radio signals travel the same speed all the time because that is what you were told to believe.  You never consider that perhaps RF signals may slow down while traveling through the aetheric whirlpool, making the moon much closer.

You are joking I hope!
For a start there's not a mite of evidence that your "aetheric whirlpool" even exists.

That aetheric whirlpool must be slowing radar and light signals down by a factor of about 80, yet allowing amazingly sharp telescopic images of the moon.

Hey Rab,

See - I said it was 'slow light'...

(BTW good picture of 'Great A'Tuin' ... I couldn't find one!)

And the Flat Earther's reply is:

Quote from: Son of Orospu on August 19, 2016, 04:39:01 PM

SpJunk, you assume that radio signals travel the same speed all the time because that is what you were told to believe.  You never consider that perhaps RF signals may slow down while traveling through the aetheric whirlpool, making the moon much closer.

Normal hardworking people would never engage longer than a couple of days with flatties.

Quite an indictment, won't you say?

Here is a very rough path budget, showing that EME is very feasible...

Path loss at VHF is around 250 dB
......

So - 10 - 20 = 10 dB ABOVE THE NOISE...

Above, I provide a rough example showing how EME is possible, and even (as in the 'scientific method') making a (provable/disprovable) estimate of the expected signal/noise.

Now, notice no FE-ers have dared to try to refute my calculations...

The best they can come up with is an unverifiable and untestable claim that 'radio waves may slow down while traveling through the aetheric whirlpool'...
When something can't be refuted by rational (and testable) means, the only recourse is to gibberish, nonsense and magical creations ...

<< Irrelevant! The topic is "Ham Radio moonbounce ... and radio towers" >>

Would you care to explain why radar echoes, HAM radio returns or even laser signals take a bit over 2.5 seconds to come back from the moon when the moon is supposedly only about 5000 km above the flat earth?

Hey Rab,

See - I said it was 'slow light'...

(BTW good picture of 'Great A'Tuin' ... I couldn't find one!)

Quote from: rabinoz on July 11, 2019, 04:45:05 AM

And the Flat Earther's reply is:

Quote from: Son of Orospu on August 19, 2016, 04:39:01 PM

SpJunk, you assume that radio signals travel the same speed all the time because that is what you were told to believe.  You never consider that perhaps RF signals may slow down while traveling through the aetheric whirlpool, making the moon much closer.

Sure, very, very, very slow light !
And our wonderful Flat Earth Scientist Son of Orospu is postulating an aether that slows light by a factor of 77 for echoes from the moon.

But radar echoes from Venus take about 5 minutes to return (depending on the position of Venus). Now that's really slow light if Venus is only about 5000 km above the earth.

I think I'll stick with the Moon averaging about 384,400 km away and Venus being upwards of about 40 million km away.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2019, 11:04:17 PM

I see that you are unable or unwilling to construct a rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a losing position.

I see that you are unable or unwilling to be a little patient in waiting for rebuttal to the content. Clearly the response of a desperate man.
That video is over 15 minutes and you expected a rebuttal in 31 minutes!

Now you put the salient points, including powers, path losses, antenna gains etc an some radio HAM might look at it.

In the meantime you might read by a radio HAM:

Quote from: Bob DeVarney W1ICW

Moonbounce on a Budget, Winter 2013
What is moonbounce?
• Contact made via signals bounced off the moon
• EME or Earth Moon Earth
• First done by US Army in Project Diana in 1946
• First successful amateur contact made in 1960
. . . . . . . .
Amateur Work
• First echoes heard on 2 meters in 1953 by W4AO and W3GKP
• It was not until 1960 that two-way was possible W6AY and W1FZJ
• First two-way on 1296 MHz band
. . . . .

The Eimac Gang's Dish Antenna
<< See the .pdf file for the rest. >>

I think real radio amateurs might know more than your Globebusters!

I think that document by Bob DeVarney W1ICW might be an adequate rebuttal.

Who would you trust most  for information on "Moon Bounce" ?
(1) Tom Bishop or others in organizations such as the Flat Earth Society  who are not licensed amateur radio operators ?
(2) Licensed  Amateur  Radio Operators or others  in organizations of licensed amateur radio operators such as the American Radio Relay League or the Radio Society of  Great Britain ?
 

Hey Round Earth Boys and Girls ... I think we have got the FE-ers on the run!

Hey Round Earth Boys and Girls ... I think we have got the FE-ers on the run!

They'll take no notice! All contrary evidence is fabricated and part of the conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth.

Why you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist
When it comes to challenging deep-seated beliefs, relying on scientific evidence won't cut any ice.

---

For Dr David Bell, a psychoanalyst and consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, trying to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong is destined to end in failure: “What is demanded is a kind of ultimate proof, which there cannot be.”

Trying to disprove a conspiracy theory by rational argument will not work, he says, because the premise is not based on rational argument, but on “a very intense emotional need to see the world in this way”.
Read more:

• The rise of the Flat Earthers
• What makes a conspiracy theory?

Dr Harry Dyer explains that if you show a conspiracy theorist that science that can prove them wrong, they’ll often disregard it, attacking the institution it comes from as being part of the conspiracy. “They don’t trust the institutions, and therefore any ideas that come out of those institutions are invalid,” he says. “I’ve never had any success at arguing with people who believe conspiracy theories.”
<< And it does on about Dr Harry Dyer talking to a flat-earther >>

Quote from: radioflat on July 16, 2019, 05:01:31 AM

Hey Round Earth Boys and Girls ... I think we have got the FE-ers on the run!

They'll take no notice! All contrary evidence is fabricated and part of the conspiracy to hide the true shape of the earth.

Quote from: Moya Sarner

Why you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist
When it comes to challenging deep-seated beliefs, relying on scientific evidence won't cut any ice.

---

For Dr David Bell, a psychoanalyst and consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, trying to convince conspiracy theorists that they are wrong is destined to end in failure: “What is demanded is a kind of ultimate proof, which there cannot be.”

Trying to disprove a conspiracy theory by rational argument will not work, he says, because the premise is not based on rational argument, but on “a very intense emotional need to see the world in this way”.
Read more:

• The rise of the Flat Earthers
• What makes a conspiracy theory?

Dr Harry Dyer explains that if you show a conspiracy theorist that science that can prove them wrong, they’ll often disregard it, attacking the institution it comes from as being part of the conspiracy. “They don’t trust the institutions, and therefore any ideas that come out of those institutions are invalid,” he says. “I’ve never had any success at arguing with people who believe conspiracy theories.”
<< And it does on about Dr Harry Dyer talking to a flat-earther >>

I suppose the FES would consider the ARRL and RSGB as being part of the conspiracy ?
Or the DARC ? ( The Dallas Amateur Radio Club and amateur radio station W5FC.)

Here is another thread that has just petered out, cos the FE-ers can't reply ...