The Bishop Challenge

  • 370 Replies
  • 9579 Views
The Bishop Challenge
« on: December 14, 2019, 04:06:18 AM »
Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83875.msg2222694#msg2222694

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 04:15:03 AM by Timeisup »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2019, 04:09:38 AM »
For some background information, this link describes what equipment one would require and the method used to carry out a moon bounce experiment.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2019, 05:36:48 AM »
Was I issuing a challenge to you, or was I talking to someone else?

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2019, 05:42:23 AM »
Was I issuing a challenge to you, or was I talking to someone else?

I got the feeling you were going to rip me a new one Tom? Can you confirm or deny?

I think it was either me or Rab that triggered you.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2019, 06:13:27 AM »
I was issuing a challenge to Rabinoz, and which he refused in the thread. I wonder why. Surely he can actually argue successfully in a debate on a single subject with his collection of copy-pasta.

In leiu of his refusal, I guess we can do this.

Can the OP rephrase his question more closely to what was asked and explain how RE explains the distances or properties of  the celestial bodies better, rather than asking me to prove something about the FE celestial bodies 'according to the scientific method'?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 08:52:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2019, 09:10:58 AM »
I was issuing a challenge to Rabinoz, and which he refused in the thread. I wonder why. Surely he can actually argue successfully in a debate on a single subject with his collection of copy-pasta.

In leiu of his refusal, I guess we can do this.

Can the OP rephrase his question more closely to what was asked and explain how RE explains the distances or properties of  the celestial bodies better, rather than asking me to prove something about the FE celestial bodies 'according to the scientific method'?
I think the opening question is pretty clear, but just for you ill repeat it:

I accept the challenge as issued by Tom Bishop on all things Cosmological, and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles  from the Earth (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
There are a host of other experiments that can be carried out to prove the speed of radio waves if required, though the point of this debate is for TOM Bishop to prove his assertion that the moon is 3000 miles from the earth with a radius of 32 miles and as a consequence, the speed of radio waves is not that of light.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.

I'll also provide this link again that is aimed as High School children so therefore assume will in range of your understanding. Please note it gives not only the equipment required but the method used should you wish to replicate it. Again I wait with interest to learn which methods you used to determine the distance you appear to believe in.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

One should remember that this experiment was carried out by hundreds if not thousands of radio hams back in 2009, all yielding the same result of around 390,000 KM and not 3000 miles/ 4828Km.
https://www.wired.com/2009/06/moonbounce/


« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 09:19:51 AM by Timeisup »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2019, 09:35:19 AM »
Was I issuing a challenge to you, or was I talking to someone else?

Changed topic.  You lose.

To use Tom Bishop's own words regarding 'ripping a new one' its looking to me like he has a new one coming.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2019, 09:38:49 AM »
On the topic of the Moon Bounce there are two points:

1.) A licensed Ham radio operator shows that the signal in the EME Moon Bounce shouldn't be possible at all according to the propagation calculators.



2.) The narrator of the above video mentions that the Moon Bounce is suspicious, since an internet connection is apparently required. This is verified by the following link, showing us a EME Moon Bounce Station:



He is communicating with a third party installation, and says at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moon Bounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it. The process involves sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results. References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.

So this "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is. For what reason this service was made open to the public, who knows. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 02:00:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2019, 09:52:12 AM »
On the topic of the Moon Bounce there are two points:

1.) A licensed Ham radio operator shows that the signal in the EME Moon Bounce shouldn't be possible at all according to the propagation calculators.



2.) The narrator of the above video mentions that the Moon Bounce is suspicious, since an internet connection is apparently required. This is verified by the following link, showing us " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">a EME Moon Bounce Station. He is communicating with a third party installation, and says at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moon Bounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it. It's conducted by sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results. References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.

So this "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is. For what reason this service was made open to the public, who knows. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.

Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2019, 09:57:28 AM »
Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

Just watch the second video that I posted. He clearly states in the first couple of minutes that he is communicating with a facility in Germany,  and that "he heard me", etc. and at 4:54 "you need a pretty big station at the other end."

What is he talking about?

Quote
Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

I made no claim about any distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy, and it appears that so far your answer is "we asked the government".
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 10:01:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2019, 10:05:56 AM »
Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

Just watch the second video that I posted. He clearly states in the first couple of minutes that he is communicating with a facility in Germany,  and that "he heard me", etc. and at 4:54 "you need a pretty big station at the other end."

What is he talking about?

Quote
Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

I made no claim about any distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy, and it appears that so far your answer is "we asked the government".

Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

Just watch the second video that I posted. He clearly states in the first couple of minutes that he is communicating with a facility in Germany,  and that "he heard me", etc. and at 4:54 "you need a pretty big station at the other end."

What is he talking about?

Quote
Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

I made no such claim about any distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy, and it appears that so far your answer is "we asked the government".
You are evading the question once again. NO Internet connection is required if your transmitter has enough power. It was carried out for the first time in 1946 long before the internet. It's done on a regular basis all the time by Radio hams! Why do you continue to avoid providing your own data by indulging in this constant smoke screening?
Its only fair, I have provided you with a means of calculating the distance to the moon and you so far have provided ZIP.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2019, 10:13:06 AM »
It's looking like Tom Bishop is quite happy to break his own rules where it suits him. As yet he has provided no information to support his own beliefs being quite happy instead to indulge in avoidance by picking irrelevant holes in the fairly straight forward procedure of bouncing radio waves off the moon.

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2019, 10:21:28 AM »
The question here is a pretty simple one. We all use radio, it is a pretty mature technology. It has been known for many years that radio waves propagate at the speed of light. OR does Tom Bishop contest this, if so by what experimental data?
We know that radio waves bounce off objects, the basic principle of Radar. Or Does Tom Bishop contest this also?
IF a powerful enough transmitter is directed at the Moon some of the radio waves will be reflected where they can be picked by a receiver. The time taken for the journey is measured and a distance simply calculated using V=d/t.

What I want to know, what part of this does Tom Bishop disagree with and what would be his counter experiment, not for him to fault find with my proposals. that can come later once he has provided his methodology.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2019, 10:22:39 AM »
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Quote
Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.


There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one.

*

Macarios

  • 1881
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2019, 10:54:13 AM »
When using helicoidal antenna you get circular polarization.
If you send clockwise polarised wave, after reflection it becomes counte-clockwise.
To receive it, you need helicoidal antenna with coil in the opposite direction.
That's why you need system of more than one antenna for your trasceiver.

In the case of communication with another station, you never know which polarization has the other side.
For the reason of polarization reversal at bounce, that other station will also have both way windings.
It is not rare to have system of four antennas, two for transmitter, two for receiver.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2019, 11:59:00 AM »
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Quote
Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.


There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one.
Yet more evasion. When are you going to layout your own methodology for public scrutiny? This is supposed to be a two-sided debate. I have laid bare my proposal that anyone with the right equipment can verify or not!
but as yet you have kept your own a secret, why is that? Do you have no confidence in your own beliefs or would you rather continue to nitpick at mine? How about some honesty for once. Though I agree with your post that the distances are indeed very large and it does require some care in undertaking such an experiment....but where is your FE experiment?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 12:05:46 PM by Timeisup »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2019, 12:19:32 PM »
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Quote
Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.


There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one.

It's interesting you quote a source that not only confirms commonly accepted belief regarding the moon but also refers to a host of other things that you refuse to believe.
But with that said let's abide by your own stated rules and not be deflected from the main issue at hand which is the distance from the earth to the moon. I have stated that I agree with the distance determined by the radio moonbounce experiment as it agrees with other methods, the distance being around 384,400 Km. Your own Wiki states 3000 miles or 4828 KM, which you appear not to agree with either. It's a bit difficult to have a debate if you neither sate your belief or how you arrived at it! It strikes me you have something to hide and to cover up you nitpick at the concepts I have presented.

*

rabinoz

  • 24321
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2019, 01:58:42 PM »
On the topic of the Moon Bounce there are two points:

1.) A licensed Ham radio operator shows that the signal in the EME Moon Bounce shouldn't be possible at all according to the propagation calculators.



2.) The narrator of the above video mentions that the Moon Bounce is suspicious, since an internet connection is apparently required. This is verified by the following link, showing us a EME Moon Bounce Station:



He is communicating with a third party installation, and says at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moon Bounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it.
Incorrect!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's conducted by sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results.
Incorrect and totally unfounded!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.
Sure but radio amateurs have been doing it for many decades!

Why do you insist on making such erroneous claims with no evidence?

Numerous radio amateurs use moon-bounce for Earth Moon Earth communication with other HAMS in distant locations and precise delay times are now easy to measure.

Here is one of many examples of such EME communication between a radio HAM at Mawson Base in Antarctica:
Quote
Moon bounce in Antarctica, 6th June 2013
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.

Proving the feat was no accident, two nights later he performed another ‘moon bounce’ to communicate with radio operators in Sweden and New Zealand.

‘The “Holy Grail” for many serious amateur radio operators is bouncing a radio signal off the moon and reflecting it back to Earth to have a conversation with another station on the other side of the world,’ Craig says.

‘The technical challenges are immense, but with modern high-speed computers and sophisticated software, it has become a lot easier in recent years.’

Craig, who is wintering at Mawson station as a Senior Communications Technical Officer, says his first moon bounce on May 4 this year, was the first time it had been achieved from an Australian Antarctic station and only the third time from the Antarctic continent.

Until recently, the technique was only possible using the largest, most powerful and expensive amateur radio stations.
This is because of the distance the signal has to travel, the amount of power needed to send a strong signal and
the loss of signal as it travels through space.

‘The moon has to be lined up perfectly between the two stations to achieve an adequate reflection,
so we use computer programs to find the optimum time to communicate,’ Craig explains.

‘However, most of the transmitted signal is lost into free space and only about seven per cent of the signal
that strikes the moon is reflected; the rest is absorbed.

‘The Earth’s atmosphere distorts and attenuates the signal even further so that by the time the signal reaches
 the receiving station it is very weak.’

As Craig is operating from a small, ‘home-made’ station, he can only communicate with receiving stations that use multiple,
‘high gain’ antennas and vast amounts of power.
       
Mawson Senior Communications Technical Officer, Craig Hayhow, at his radio.
(Photo: Keldyn Francis)

Click to Enlarge
   

Click to Enlarge
Craig built his own radio station using an off-the-shelf antenna that is small enough not to get blown away in a blizzard, but large enough to generate a signal that can reach the moon. He also built an amplifier to boost his transmitting signal from 4 watts to 500 watts.

To bounce a signal off the moon he uses customised software to target it.
Objects other than the moon can also be used and Craig has targeted commercial aircraft and meteor trails.

‘The software is tailored for each application,’ he says.

‘It takes around 2.7 seconds for a signal to be bounced off the moon, while it is virtually instantaneous from an aircraft. If a signal comes back, you can be sure it’s reflected off the object you are targeting.’

Quote from: Tom Bishop
So this "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is.
No! Why would anyone ever "ask the government how far away the Moon is"?
Around 200 BC Hipparchus measured the distance to the moon. He claimed that the distance to the moon was between 62 and 73 Earth radii.
Today we know the average distance is about 60 radii.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
For what reason this service was made open to the public, who knows. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.
Where is your evidence that any such "service was made open to the public". No evidence means that you are making up stories!

But there are almost unlimited references to radio HAMS using EME for long distance DXing, here are a few:
electronics notes: How to Use Amateur Radio Moonbounce, EME Propagation.

VE2ZAZ - First EME (Moonbounce) Radio Contact with HB9Q - Higher Quality Vidéo

OK2KKW: The first Amateur Lunar tests & contacts |1st part: 1953-1965

Amateur Radio – PEØSAT: Information about Amateur Radio – Satellite experiments
Moonbounce on a Budget by Bob DeVarney W1ICW Winter 2013
Beginner’s Guide to Small-station EME by Paul Bock, K4MSG


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2019, 04:00:26 PM »
The reference you posted says that he had to perform it with a facility in Cornwall in England.

Quote
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.

The amateur radio operator is working with a facility in England to propagate the signals. Lets do a search on EME Moon Bounce Cornwall England.

The Cornwall facility mentioned is likely the Goonhilly Earth Station and 32-Meter Dish operated by the ESA:

http://www.arrl.org/news/goonhilly-32-meter-dish-to-be-active-on-moonbounce-on-september-1-2

Quote
Goonhilly 32-Meter Dish to be Active on Moonbounce on September 1 – 2

A team of moonbounce enthusiasts expect to activate the 32-meter antenna GHY-6 at Goonhilly, on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall (IO70jb) in the UK on September 1 – 2, operating as GB6GHY. The group, including G8GTZ, G8GKQ, and G4NNS, will be on the HB9Q logger while operational, which should be between 0800 and 1200 UTC, but “earlier if possible,” they’ve said.

GB6GHY will concentrate on 3.4 GHz on September 1 and 5.7 GHz on September 2, with the ability to switch bands immediately.

“Anyone with a relatively small dish (3-meter or less) should be able to work us,” their announcement said. The European Space Agency is undertaking a project to upgrade Goonhilly Earth Station to track missions to the Moon and Mars. The work will see the GHY-6 antenna — which carried the 1985 Live Aid concert around the world — upgraded over the span of 2 years.

This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 11:36:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 24321
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2019, 04:08:00 PM »
The reference you posted says that he had to perform it with a facility in Cornwall in England.

Quote
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.
And why does that make it fake?

But I posted that because the source was from the Australian Antarctic base at Mawson.

I was looking for reports of amateur lunar echoes. I had plenty of amateurs receiving Apollo signals from the moon.
As early as 1927 there had been reports of "spurious" long-delayed echoes (LDEs) as in Long delayed echo

But then I relocated this report:
Quote
The first Amateur Lunar tests & contacts |1st part: 1953-1965
<< " The first official EME test in 1946 - Project Diana", "The first official European EME test in 1946 - Hungary and "The military use of EME propagation during 50's - 60's" omitted >>

Lunar DX on 144 Mc! [1953]
W4AO and W3GKP Bounce 2-Meter Signals Off the Moon

Listening to the wire recording from which the above graph was made, it doesn’t sound like much; a one-second beep, an interval of receiver noise, then a wavering trailing bee-e-e-e-p barely discernible in the midst of the slightly musical rushing sound that is characteristic of high-selectivity reception. You wouldn’t be impressed if you happened to hear it casually, but to Ross Bateman, W4AO, and Bill Smith, W3GKP, it was music of the sweetest sort; evidence that more years of thinking, figuring, building, re building and testing were not in vain. An amateur signal had been sent to the moon and back, at last!

Bouncing signals off the moon is not new, of course. It was done on 110 Mc. by the Signal Corps back in 19461 and something approximating intelligence was sent from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Washington, D. C., on 400 Mc. more recently, using the moon as a reflector. These were high-power projects, however, and their slim margin of success indicated that lunar DX for amateurs was a long-chance proposition. It was an end that just might be achieved, but only after the most painstaking effort, if at all.

The best available information indicated that it would take the level amateur power limit, pushed to the last watt. An antenna gain of at least 20 dB was required, and a degree of receiver performance to tax the ingenuity of the best engineers in the business was called for. Obviously, a 144 Mc. WAS, lunar style, was a long way off, but it was a challenge that a few enter prising and infinitely patient hams were bound to accept.

One such ham was Bill Smith, W3GKP, then of Silver Spring, Maryland. Smitty knew what he was about, and he went at the job with no illusions about aiming his beam at the rising moon some night and then sitting back to listen to the W6s. He knew the requirements, in a general way, and he felt sure that the trick could be turned, eventually. The first step was to find a co-worker, so that the burden of equipment development and construction could be shared. A ham with a kilowatt rig and a big beam for 144 Mc. would be a fine start. Several prospects were lined up, and early in 1950 a few transmitting tests were made, while W3GKP worked on his receiving gear, but none of the prospects had sufficiently good equipment to make reception possible at that stage of the game.

Other amateurs, among them W4AO, Falls Church, Va., had been working along similar lines. Learning of W3GKP’s interest, Ross joined forces with Smitty, and Project Moonbeam was on its way in earnest. Ross brought to the operation the technical know-how and the enthusiasm and perseverance Smitty had been looking for, and he had a 2-meter rig capable of a full and efficient kilowatt, a 32-element array, a low-noise receiver and a quiet suburban location. After many evenings of discussion, planning and construction, the stage was set for a series of tests with a set-up that appeared to have some chance of succeeding.

 The required separation in frequency between the transmitter and receiver frequencies (to take care of Doppler effects resulting from movements of the earth and moon) had been calculated, and the receiver frequency set with elaborate stability precautions. A wire recorder was connected to the receiver output, to catch as permanent evidence any sign of a returned signal. The system was put in operation whenever the moon was in the right place, and no minor considerations like eating or sleeping were allowed to interfere.

At long last, at 5:03 A.M. on July 15, 1950, came something that sounded like an echo. It was faint and indefinite, but it started at the right time and it sounded like the real thing. What was more important, it was caught on the wire recorder. It was just one tiny beep after a long series of transmitter pulses, but it was enough to keep enthusiasm going.

<< Unsuccessful attempts descriptions omitted for brevity. >>

Tests the following afternoon produced nothing, but beginning at 1533 EST on the 27th, a whole series of echoes was recorded at W4AO, two cycles of which are reproduced at the start of this article. Success, at last, and in sufficient quantity and quality to provide irrefutable evidence!

The equipment used in this and earlier stages of Moonbeam will be described by W4AO and W3GKP in a subsequent issue of QST. Now the question is, “Where do we go from here?” As Smitty puts it, “This is the end of Phase A - we’ve got an echo. Phase B will be to transmit intelligence to another station. Phase C will be to work somebody, two-way. Phase D will be to break the 2-meter record. Phases E, F - well, can go on almost indefinitely. After three years we’re just getting started!”

-E. P. T.

       
Our cover shows W4AO, left, and W3GKP checking the alignment
of the 20 wavelength stacked rhombics used for Project Moonbeam.

Most radio amateurs are quite uninterested in measuring the distance to the moon - that has been known quite accrately for centuries.
What the want is contact with other amateurs over the largest distances that they can manage - DXing.
So they concentrate on point-to-point EME links. There is a lot on that in the rest of the above article.

But, whether you accept it or not a radio, radar of laser signal takes about 2.56 secs to cover the round-trip. That has been verified numerous times.

Now I would like an explanation, without unsupported hypotheses, how you explan that for a moon claimed to be only about 3000 miles above the Earth as stated in:
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

<< Extra material added about the first amateur lunar echo. >>
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 05:14:55 PM by rabinoz »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM »
The reference you posted says that he had to perform it with a facility in Cornwall in England.

Quote
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.

The amateur radio operator is working with a facility in England to propagate the signals. Lets do a search on EME Moon Bounce Cornwall England.

The Cornwell facility mentioned is likely the Goonhilly Earth Station and 32-Meter Dish operated by the ESA:

http://www.arrl.org/news/goonhilly-32-meter-dish-to-be-active-on-moonbounce-on-september-1-2

Quote
Goonhilly 32-Meter Dish to be Active on Moonbounce on September 1 – 2

A team of moonbounce enthusiasts expect to activate the 32-meter antenna GHY-6 at Goonhilly, on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall (IO70jb) in the UK on September 1 – 2, operating as GB6GHY. The group, including G8GTZ, G8GKQ, and G4NNS, will be on the HB9Q logger while operational, which should be between 0800 and 1200 UTC, but “earlier if possible,” they’ve said.

GB6GHY will concentrate on 3.4 GHz on September 1 and 5.7 GHz on September 2, with the ability to switch bands immediately.

“Anyone with a relatively small dish (3-meter or less) should be able to work us,” their announcement said. The European Space Agency is undertaking a project to upgrade Goonhilly Earth Station to track missions to the Moon and Mars. The work will see the GHY-6 antenna — which carried the 1985 Live Aid concert around the world — upgraded over the span of 2 years.

This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.

I think you need reminding of your own stated rule:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.
The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)


May I remind you the topic is the distance and dimensions to and off the moon. I have stated what I believe them to be and you have not. You are trying to change ‘this  challenge into a critique of the moon bounce method, veering off into allegations of conspiracy, that is not the challenge and under your own rules unless you stick to the challenge YOU LOOSE.

What you need to do before we can progress is state your believed distance and dimensions along with the methodology used. This is not a debate on moon bounce or conspiracy. If you fail to do this I will judge you to have lost, according to your own rules. And as a result I will have ripped you a new one.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2019, 01:48:27 AM »
As this is a debate forum it may be a good time to remind all of what is expected in an honest and open debate. These are the words borrowed from a well known writer on the topic.

Two intellectually-honest tactics
There are only two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Here is a list of the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics.

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined.

The most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefined put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined.

There is nothing wrong with calling someone, for example, a liar when he is, in fact, a liar. Don’t tell me it’s ad hominem. That’s #50. You can’t just say it though. You must prove it.

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent. Political people on TV often use the phrase “But the real question is___” or “What the American people are really interested in is___” as a preface to changing the subject.

3. a. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias. Essentially, these all say that the opponent is prohibited from commenting on the topic in question because of what’s in their resume or not in their resume or because of some possible bias.

b. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is like tactic number 2 changing the subject; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers” or in my case, books—questioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponent’s facts or logic wrong is it invalid. If my facts or logic are wrong, my motive may be why. But let’s cut out the middleman of why my facts or logic are wrong and just point exactly what the error is. Pointing out the suspicious motive obliquely admits there is no error; it’s just an attempt to insinuate an error by innuendo. Don’t say why I’m wrong; say where I’m wrong.

c. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of. For example, Professor David Romer of Cal did a study that found coaches should go for a first down far more often and kick far less on fourth down; Some coaches laughed and rejected his findings because he is a “professor,” turning the report sideways when reading it, dismissing Romer as “Ivory Tower.” If Romer is wrong, it is because of an error or omission in his facts or logic; not because he is a college professor. Conspicuous by its absence in the coach’s protests is any evidence of errors or omissions in Dr. Romer’s analysis.

d. My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot. Your resume being bigger than mine suggests a possible reason why I might make a mistake, but that does not absolve you from having to point out the specific error or omission in facts or logic that I made. The fact that I might make a mistake because of insufficient training or experience is not proof that I did make a mistake, and your trying to imply that it is dishonest.

e. Your resume is not big enough for you to comment on this and my resume is irrelevant to whether I can ban you from the discussion by pointing out the inadequacy of yours. This is an admitted know-nothing banning you from the discussion on the grounds that you do not know enough.

4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2: changing the subject

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to successfully by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.”

The opposite is also intellectually dishonest: ignoring facts that already are in evidence.

6. Hearsay: debater cites something he heard, but has not confirmed through his own personal observation or research from reliable sources, e.g., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s allegation that a Bain Capital investor whom he refused to name told him that Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes for ten years. He later admitted he had no basis—and bragged, “He didn’t win did he?”

7. Unqualified expert opinion: debater gives or cites an apparently expert opinion which is not from a qualified expert; in court, an expert must prove his qualifications and be certified by the judge before he can give an opinion

8. Sloganeering: Debater uses a slogan rather than using facts or logic. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming; Rich Dad Poor Dad’s “Don’t work for money, make money work for you,” is a classic example. Coaches frequently rely on cliches, a less rhetorical form of slogan, to deflect criticism. Jesse Jackson was the champ of this form of dishonesty, e.g., “Up with hope. Down with dope.”

9. Motivation end justifies dishonest means: debater admits he is lying or using fallacious logic, but excuses this on the grounds that he is motivating the audience to accomplish a good thing and that end justifies the intellectually-dishonest means. Bad real estate gurus use this one a lot.

10. Cult of personality: debater attempts to make the likability of each debate opponent the focus of the debate because he believes he is more likable than the opponent

11. Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present. A Facebook poster demanded that I debate American “hegemony” with him regarding the Boston Marathon bombers’ motives. I refused on the ground that hegemony was too vague a term. He then “proved” it was not vague by posting the dictionary definition of hegemony. If a word having a dictionary definition proves it’s not vague, then every single word in the English language is not vague because they all have dictionary definitions. Which raises the question of why the word “vague” itself exists. Debates where any party is allowed to use vague terms last forever, are circular, and settle nothing.

12. Playing on widely held fantasies or fears: debater offers facts or logic that support the fantasies or fears of the audience thereby triggering powerful desires to believe that override normal desire for truth or logic

13. Claiming privacy with regard to claims about self: debater makes favorable claims about himself, but when asked for details or proof of the claims, refuses to provide any claiming privacy; true privacy is not mentioning them to begin with; bragging then refusing to prove the claims is silly on its face and it is a rather self-servingly selective use of the right of privacy. This is also big with bad real estate investment gurus.

14. Scapegoating: debater blames problems on persons other than the audience; this is a negative version of playing on widely-held fantasies; it plays on widely-held animosities or dislikes. Hitler’s blaming the Jews for everything that was wrong was the classic example. Politicians blame their opponents for everything that is wrong.

15. Arousing envy: debater attempts to get the audience to dislike his opponent because the audience is envious of something that can be attributed to the opponent; see the 2012 campaign against Romney.

16. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like Leftists calling government spending “investment.” “Life” and “choice” are words that have been warped by abortion antagonists.

17. Citing over-valued credentials: debater accurately claims something about himself or something he wants to prove, but the claim made is one that attempts to get the audience to over-rely on a credential that is or may be over-valued by the audience; for example, some con men falsely point to government registration of a trademark or corporation as evidence of approval by the government of the con man’s goods or services

18. Claiming membership in a group affiliated with audience members: debater claims to be a member of a group that members of the audience are also members of like a religion, ethnic group, veterans group, and so forth; the debater’s hope is that the audience members will let their guard down with regard to facts and logic as a result and that they will give their alleged fellow group member the benefit of any doubt or even my-group-can-do-no-wrong immunity, also called “affinity fraud”

19. Accusation of taking a quote out of context or “cherry picking:” debater accuses opponent of taking a quote that makes the debater look bad out of context. All quotes are taken out of context—for two reasons: quoting the entire context would take too long and federal copyright law allows “fair use” quotes, but not reproduction of the entire text.

Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. The classic example would be the movie review that says, “This movie is the best example of a waste of film I have ever seen,” then gets quoted as “This movie is the best...I’ve ever seen.”

Any debater who claims a quote misrepresents the author’s position must cite the one or more additional quotes from the same work that supply the missing context and thereby reveal the true meaning of the author, a meaning which is very different from the meaning conveyed by the original quote that they complained about.

Furthermore, other unrelated quotes that just suggest the speaker is a nice guy are irrelevant. The discussion is about the offending quotes, not whether the speaker is a good guy. The missing context must relate to, and change the meaning of, the statements objected to, not just serve as character witness material about the speaker or writer.

Merely pointing out that the quote is not the entire text proves nothing. Indeed, if a search of the rest of the work reveals no additional quotes that show the original quote was misleading, the accusation itself is dishonest.

This was done to Mitt Romney in 2012 when he said that as a consumer he liked to be able to fire people at service providers, by giving his business to one of their competitors, so they would be more motivated to do a good job. It was taken out of context as proof he liked to fire people in general when he was a boss. In the documentary The Best of Enemies about the William F. Buckley, Jr. versus Gore Vidal debates in 1968, Vidal frequently uses isolated quotes from Buckley that misrepresented by being taken out of context.

“Cherry Picking” means nothing more than a person has taken one or more items from a longer list. The sneer with which the phrase is used implies that the items chosen were less worthy than one or more that were not chosen. Probably, it would be hard to arrive at a consensus on what should be in and what should be out.

20. Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute, but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate. Obama can hardly get through a paragraph without committing this violation. Straw-man arguments are easy to spot. They almost all use the phrase “those who.” The antidote to the straw-man tactic? Demand the attacker identify one or more of “those” by name. If he or she fails to do so, you are free to state that their implication that such people ever existed is a lie.

21. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact.

*

Shifter

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12234
  • ASI
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2019, 02:11:20 AM »

Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact.

Not always the case. It can equal 10. Or 11. It can also equal 22 in a non arithmetic sense. More information is needed.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2019, 03:13:11 AM »

Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact.

Not always the case. It can equal 10. Or 11. It can also equal 22 in a non arithmetic sense. More information is needed.

If you wish to debate this point then please do by starting your own discussion. The topic of this debate is the moon its diameter and distance.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2019, 04:49:44 AM »
Asking me to demonstrate something about FE appears out of scope of "Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on". Should we assume that you have conceded now?

*

sokarul

  • 16581
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2019, 04:52:09 AM »
Did you explain, with evidence support, how far away the moon is?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2019, 04:57:20 AM »
Let's reverse this situation:

You guys: "Tom, tell me something that FE beats RE on"

Tom: 'What prooooof did Newton have???"

No, that doesn't work to address the question. ::)
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 11:58:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2019, 04:57:42 AM »
Quote
Should we assume that you have conceded now?

Nothing to concede is there? If one side claims the Sun and Moon are just 32 miles across and 3000 miles away but cannot explain clearly why then that in itself is a confession on the FE side that nobody knows what they are talking about.

Tom I will ask you this question:  How do you differentiate between proof and evidence?  Because to me Newton never actually proved anything but provided evidence as a way of explaining what he observed.  To the best of his knowledge at the time.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 05:00:28 AM by Solarwind »

*

sokarul

  • 16581
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2019, 04:58:44 AM »
You guys: "Tom, tell me something that FE beats RE on"

Tom: 'What prooooof did Newton have???"

No, that doesn't work to address the question. ::)
So yes the thread is over. You concede you can’t back up the claimed FE distance to the moon.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17478
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2019, 05:02:16 AM »
It shouldn't matter if the FE proof is a sentence without evidence. You should be able to show how RE beats FE. This was specifically stated and expected. If the topic is distances, tell us how RE beats FE on that.

Are you guys going to man up or concede?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 05:03:55 AM by Tom Bishop »