Cool Mission?

 Radio waves are waves of sound.

To question, you need to be smart enough to know what the question is…

You’re either a special kind of stupid.  Or a special kind of troll?

Somethings claimed, especially by you, don’t need to be “debunked” because the claims are self evident in the claims wrongness. 

Radio waves are waves of sound.

Radio waves travel at the speed of light.

According to you, radio waves are sounds waves.

Sound waves travel at the speed of___________?

Think about it.

And then let it sink it.

To question, you need to understand that you don't know.

To decide you do know, and then to be wrong, is not only stupid but arrogant. Stupid and arrogant is a really bad fit. To research requires humility, even if you disagree with the bias of those you research.

Pretty simple really. Broadcast satellites are in geostationary orbit above the equator as has already been shown and explained to you. On a round earth, the farther north (or south) you are, obviously the lower the angle of the dish.

Missing the point where it is simply not practical do any of this on a round Earth. 30° of latitude or longitude is 30° of curvature hill. Waves travel in a straight line meaning longwave is worthless.

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/

Radio waves are electromagnetic waves at a longer wavelength than microwaves. Both microwaves and radio waves are electromagnetic waves that require line of sight for communication. While electromagnetic waves can travel through some surfaces, like walls, it is generally thought that “earth’s curvature is a direct block to line-of-sight communication. When enough distance separates the two radio stations so that their antennas fall behind the curvature, the Earth itself blocks the transmitted signals from the receiver.”  This fact confused the father of radio, Guglielmo Marconi. On 12 December 1901 he was able to make the first long distance Morse code wireless communication between St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada, and the Poldhu Wireless Station, Cornwall, England. That radio signal was transmitted a distance of more than 2,000 miles across the Atlantic ocean. Such a transmission is an impossibility on a spherical earth. Indeed, it would be blocked by a 126 mile high bulge, if the earth were a sphere. Because Marconi thought the world was a sphere, and he understood that radio waves travel in a straight line, he was at a loss to explain how the radio waves traveled more than 2,000 miles on a globular earth.

How do long waves go across the Earth? Do they too require the aid of satellites?

Think about it logically. Under the ionosphere bounce stratagem, radio waves travel through the atmosphere until the atmosphere gets extremely thin (it is then called the ionosphere), and when those radio waves reach that thinnest part of the atmosphere, they bounce off and return to earth. Now, the modern scientists are not sure where the bouncing takes place, because the height of the ionosphere ranges from 50 miles to 600 miles in altitude. Does that make sense? No.

Radio waves, like light waves, are electromagnetic waves, and thus follow similar rules of refraction as they travel through the atmosphere. In most cases, the atmosphere refracts electromagnetic waves, it does not bounce (i.e., reflect) them. But reflection of radio waves as an explanation for long distance radio communication is not out of the question. The issue is what is reflecting the waves. It certainly cannot be reflected by a thin upper atmosphere. There must be something with much more physical density.

The modern myth of the ionosphere-bounce theory is completely impeached by the practice of what is known as moon-bounce, or earth-moon-earth (EME) communication...

Actually, why I chose to talk about this is that it creates a great fork here:

1. Either we have to accept that the Earth is flat and thus we don't need to bounce but can transmit across the Earth.
2. Or the bounce theory is true. In which case, you cannot send or receive signals from satellites.
3. Or the Earth is flat AND we have satellites, but all of them are within our atmosphere and below the bounce point.

Take your pick~ 

The article goes on to say that the only way the moon bounce theory can work is if the moon is within our atmosphere (as the Bible mentions it is) which brings up a point. How are you to know whether satellites are inside or outside our atmosphere, when you can't even prove to me for certain that your own moon is outside our atmosphere rather than inside?  After all, you can take pictures of it with a rather basic camera.

Could we fly to the moon in a plane rather than a spaceship?

So no, I don't deny the moon landing, but travel to Mars is impossible.

Sound waves travel at the speed of___________?

Think about it.

And then let it sink it.

Why would that sink anything?

It bothers you, not me, that they travel at the speed of sound.

I know that most of our systems are a monopoly, and we actually get cable, not radio broadcast for television. Radio broadcast is reserved for internet freq and radio, which is why internet is at a lag in areas without towers nearby.
TV is typically cable not satellite. That's why they link all these cords to your wall for hooking you up to satellite, and why if you switch to cable, they don't disconnect any of these. Satellite is only cable plus radio frequency. 

You think your systems are more sophisticated than they are.

The chosen astronauts come back to earth to report that instead of finding God, they found an empty, hostile, and blackest of black voids. Of course, outer space as portrayed by NASA is not real; it is religious mythology. Indeed, NASA has never explained how the special ceremonial garb, called space suits, that have no lead linings, can protect their astronauts (priests) from the dangerous x-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays that are alleged to exist in outer space.

Unless... they never really went anywhere?

Cool mission, bro.

What is notable is that the LORAN system required that the radio signal be sent straight out to sea to ships on the water. There could be no bouncing of the signals off the firmament. The water, being flat, offered no obstacle to the LORAN radio signals. The system required that the radio signals be sent horizontal to the water. For the system to work, the ships needed to receive at least two intersecting radio signals from two different towers. From those two signals they obtained their first line of position on their shipboard LORAN instrument. The shipboard LORAN instrument then needed to receive two separate signals from two other towers to obtain a second line of position. Where those two lines of position intersected gave the ship a fix on its position at sea. The captain would then plot his position on his shipboard LORAN chart.

The LORAN-C system had the capacity to send signals more than 2,000 miles out to sea. Assuming towers at a height of 1,366 feet above sea level, if the earth were a globe, the LORAN-C system would only be able to send radio signals 45 miles out to sea, before having the signals blocked by the earth’s curvature. And that 45 mile distance assumes that the signals are being sent out from the tallest tower in the United States. That means that if the earth were a globe, a ship 2,000 miles away from the towers would have the LORAN-C signals blocked by an impenetrable 1,955 foot long, 115-mile high, hump of water rising above the height of the LORAN-C radio signals.

There may very well be objects in the atmosphere that perform the functions of what are today called satellites. But these satellites are not in outer space; they are actually tethered beneath massive helium balloons, floating very high in the atmosphere. Indeed, a little-known fact is that NASA annually consumes millions of cubic feet of gaseous helium that it uses to fill balloons to carry satellites into the upper atmosphere. (NASA Awards Agency-wide Helium Contract, CONTRACT RELEASE C14-036, September 25, 2014, https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/september/nasa-awards-agency-wide-helium-contract/
 See also NASA Awards Helium Contract, CONTRACT RELEASE : C09-045, Sept. 8, 2009, https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/sep/HQ_C09-045_Helium_Contract.html  )

Of course, NASA has a ready cover story for this massive helium consumption by what is supposed to be a space agency. In its publically posted 2014 document awarding the helium supply contract, NASA reported its reason for needing helium.

Helium is used throughout NASA as a cryogenic agent for cooling various materials and in precision welding applications, as well as lab use. Helium also is used as an inert purge gas for hydrogen systems and as a pressurizing agent for ground and flight fluid systems of space vehicles.

Notice that there is no mention of using helium for balloon projects. But in the 2015 report to Congress, the Secretary of the Interior explained in detail one of the reasons NASA needed helium. It was a reason that NASA did not mention in its public notice of the helium contract. The 2015 Congressional report states that “[h]elium is used at all NASA Field Centers, as well as at NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) for their balloon campaigns in Antarctica and in the United States.” The real reason NASA needs helium is to fill balloons for floating objects in the upper atmosphere that they falsely portray as satellites located in outer space.

Google, which is a company with a market capitalization of more than 700 billion dollars, with deep ties to the CIA, is certainly capable of launching space satellites, if space were real. Google has, instead, decided to forgo the facade of launching space satellites. Instead, Google has embarked on a program to launch atmospheric satellites tethered to helium balloons to provide worldwide internet service.

Weather balloons. Not shiny metallic satellites. Though they may exist, they're drones not orbiting space stuff.

To question, you need to understand that you don't know.

How about the question I asked first…

For these east coast satellite dishes pointed to the line of sight single acquisition of EchoStar 16 broadcasting in Ku band…

Now.  What tower would these satellite dishes on the east coast aim to to receive a Ku band microwave signal from satellite EchoStar 16 in the sky?  Notice how you can use the signal to locate the position of the satellite in the sky by the position of multiple dishes…






Dish positioning from: https://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-usa.html



For the LORAN system, you should read how it actually works so you wouldn’t keep looking stupid….

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Range and accuracy
Edit
During the day the ionosphere only weakly reflects shortwave signals, and LORAN was usable at 500–700 nautical miles (930–1,300 km) using the groundwaves. At night these signals were suppressed and the range dropped to 350–500 nautical miles (650–930 km). At night the skywaves became useful for measurements, which extended the effective range to 1,200–1,400 nautical miles (2,200–2,600 km).[31]

Big difference in a broadcasting with a “LORAN” system at 1.85 and 1.95 MHz. Vs a signal in the line of sight Ku band at 12 to 18 gigahertz (GHz)

Huge difference in how much information can be transmitted at 2 MHz vs 12 GHz.
 
Please.  By all means.  Explain how a signal at 2 MHz can carry full audio surround sound and a 4K picture….  Compared to what is possible with a 12 GHz signal.

Are you too dense to understand that your question has been answered?

These are "projections" not data.  The area is getting a signal from aerial "satellites" (blimps, solar powered  planes, and drones) and projecting the information as a mockup. Is the mockup true? No, but it is accurate. The area is picking up a signal, but lying to you about where it's coming from.

Quote

Sound waves travel at the speed of___________?

Think about it.

And then let it sink it.

Why would that sink anything?

It bothers you, not me, that they travel at the speed of sound.

I know that most of our systems are a monopoly, and we actually get cable, not radio broadcast for television. Radio broadcast is reserved for internet freq and radio, which is why internet is at a lag in areas without towers nearby.
TV is typically cable not satellite. That's why they link all these cords to your wall for hooking you up to satellite, and why if you switch to cable, they don't disconnect any of these. Satellite is only cable plus radio frequency. 

You think your systems are more sophisticated than they are.

As you said Sound waves travel at the speed of sound.

Radio waves travel faster than the speed of sound.  It's easy to test and verify.

Sound travels at roughly  1mile/4.69s  or 1km/2.91s.

FM Radio has a general radius of 25miles, although it can be picked up further dependent on specifics.

AM Radio has a general radius of 100miles, and at night can be picked up hundreds of miles away as a result of the waves bouncing off the ionosphere.

FM Radio at 25 miles from the source, if it travelled at the speed of sound, would have a delay of  117 seconds or 1 minute 57 seconds.

AM Radio at 100 miles from the source, if it travelled at the speed of sound, would have a delay of roughly 469 seconds or 7 minutes 49 seconds.


The radio station antenna that broadcasts my local MLB (Major League Baseball) Team is roughly 5 miles from the stadium.  Your understanding of radio waves would mean, that while I'm at the stadium, if I turn on the radio, the broadcast that I'm hearing would be from something that happened over 28 seconds ago (23 seconds to travel distance + 5 second FCC broadcast delay in the USA)  I can attest to you, that while there is a reaction delay from the time the announcer sees the play and speaks it in the microphone from what can be seen live, the time from them speaking the words into the microphone and it being heard over the radio is heard instantaneously after the 5 second delay and not another 23 seconds later.


Radio waves are not sound waves.


Radio waves travel at the speed of light.

You're "testing and verifying" by throwing numbers at me.  This is not the same as facts.

Today 356,982 got sick from COVID.
Oh I'm sorry, I made that number up!

You see, when it comes to arbitrary numbers, they are arbitrary.

Do we know the number of the speed of sound? Okay, how? What's that? Scientists came up with it?
And we can prove it's that number and not any other number, how exactly?!?

Maybe sound is faster than they say it is.
Maybe light is slower.

We only have propaganda about sonic booms.

Including from fighting games.



At the end of the day, you have nonsense about frequencies traveling at the speed of light. By what force is a plain old radio frequency traveling faster than a space ship? What is propelling it?

Shuttles must travel between 17,500 and 27,500 mph (28,000 and 28,000 kilometers per hour) to stay in motion under low Earth orbit, just like any other object.

Speed of light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

671 million miles per hour

A radio wave would have to be propelled by more force than a rocket. Nothing like this happens.

In actuality, there are several speeds of radio waves, and the notion that it could achieve this speed is a weighted dice calculation. That is, the number works out to that because they make it work out to that. But there is nothing intrinsically causing radio waves to travel this speed. These are sound waves.

Now, maybe radio waves manage to travel several machs (the speed of sound is 761.2 mph, assuming normal gas pressure) of speed, but the speed of light is significantly more even than mach 100.

The diameter of Earth is 7899.86 mi. That is, to travel from one end of Earth to another (assuming the Earth is flat) at a speed regarded as instantaneous, would be only 28,439,496 mph. Well below light speed.

That's about Mach 37,361 but nowhere near the bizarrely high speed of light (Mach 880,991.09).

But more likely, the signal is alot less, because we aren't delivering from across the world regularly.

The thing is, satellite signals are pathetic, often taking minutes to load, in order to create a buffer where multiple minutes of feed can load.

We can't even get an over to instantly heat nachos. And this is using a thermal heat frequency, it still takes 15 minutes to preheat.

You think you can can get radio waves across the entire world instantly? Nuh.

Are you too dense to understand that your question has been answered?

These are "projections" not data.  The area is getting a signal from aerial "satellites" (blimps, solar powered  planes, and drones) and projecting the information as a mockup. Is the mockup true? No, but it is accurate. The area is picking up a signal, but lying to you about where it's coming from.

The ones in your delusion?  There is no evidence such a network exists for the broadcasting of EchoStar 16.  Where all satellite dishes point to the same spot to tune to EchoStar 16.

You just don’t get Ku band and line of sight.  And it makes you look brain dead.

There is no such network as you describe for satellite phones in the pacific.

There was definitely no such network in the Midwest for the use of our satellite dish in the 1980’s

There was definitely no such network for the 1964 Olympics in Japan.

And there was definitely no such network for Sputnik as its signal came and went as it travelled around the globe.  And the Doppler shift in its broadcast.

To question, you need to understand that you don't know.

To decide you do know, and then to be wrong, is not only stupid but arrogant. Stupid and arrogant is a really bad fit. To research requires humility, even if you disagree with the bias of those you research.

Yes very stupid and arrogant indeed. 
Like people who reject anything that doesn't line up with their fantasy.
Like people who lie constantly and make claims about things they have no clue about.  Like you with  satellites, completely stupid.
Keep making claims to support your idiotic ideas to make your miserable life feel better. 
Truly pathetic really.  I am glad you admitted to this.   

You're "testing and verifying" by throwing numbers at me.  This is not the same as facts.

Interesting. Where exactly have you shown any evidence or facts? You are just throwing around blimps, solar powered planes, and drones. Are you not? Where is your evidence for this? Where are your facts? Or are you just "throwing" this all around?

To question, you need to understand that you don't know.

And you asserting pure nonsense, like the claim that radio waves are sound waves; demonstrates that either you don't know and don't know that you don't know, or that you are intentionally spreading falsehoods.

To decide you do know, and then to be wrong, is not only stupid but arrogant.

So you are saying you are stupid and arrogant?

Radio waves are part of the EM spectrum.
They are electromagnetic waves, not sound waves.
That means they can travel through the vacuum of space.

Missing the point where it is simply not practical do any of this on a round Earth.

And yet another delusional assertion, with absolutely nothing of substance to back it up.

You spoute pure garbage to try and pretend the direction satellite dishes are pointing somehow refutes satellites, and when that is shown to be delusional garbage, you just immediately jump to more garbage.

A single satellite in geostationary orbit, providing coverage to a very large area is vastly more practical than covering that same large area with loads of towers.

long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat

Spouting this already refuted garbage wont help you.

Especially note how it doesn't have any reference at all from Marconi. Instead it just asserts pure garabge for him.

Your dishonest source even knows the explanation, but rejects it as a myth.

If it was simply that Earth was flat, then you should have consistent reliable transmission, with the waves observed to come from quite close to the ground.
But in reality, the reliability varies dramatically as it depends on the composition of the ionosphere.

1. Either we have to accept that the Earth is flat and thus we don't need to bounce but can transmit across the Earth.
2. Or the bounce theory is true. In which case, you cannot send or receive signals from satellites.
3. Or the Earth is flat AND we have satellites, but all of them are within our atmosphere and below the bounce point.
Take your pick~

1 - Which then causes so many other problems it isn't funny. We now need to explain what satellite dishes are pointing towards, why there is coverage from "satellites" in the middle of the ocean with no cell coverage and no towers in range, why long distance radio communication allegedly using the ionosphere is not consistent, and so on. You also need to explain the contradiction between some magic causing things to appear to sink vs being able ot have straight line communication. In short, you are far worse off by accepting this fantasy.
2 - It isn't anywhere near that simple, primarily because just like your delusional nonsense you want to pretend it is all or nothing. The fact that radiowaves can penetrate solid walls while light will reflect off it demonstrates that different materials will interact differently with different regions of the EM spectrum. This means it is entirely possible for some frequencies of radio waves to reflect of the ionosphere while others pass stragiht through. So no, we can accept the fact that SOME radio signals (with the appropriate frequency) can reflect off the ionosphere, while others will pass through to reach satellites in space.
3 - Which still leaves you with countless problems for a FE, including needing vastly more satellites to make the dishes point in the direction they are meant to for a RE, not a FE.

So I pick none of your 3 garbage options, as they are all garbage.
Instead I will pick 4:
Accept the fact that Earth is round, with satellites in space. Accept that the ionosphere, which contains lots of charged particles, is capable of reflecting some frequencies of radio waves, but not all.
Radio waves for HAM radio are capable of being reflected by the ionosphere, and thus can propagate beyond the curvature of Earth.
But the frequencies used for satellite communication are not reflected by the ionosphere, and thus can go straight through to a satellite in space.

The article goes on to say that the only way the moon bounce theory can work is if the moon is within our atmosphere

Yes, it spouts more delusional nonsense.
Who cares?

How are you to know whether satellites are inside or outside our atmosphere, when you can't even prove to me for certain that your own moon is outside our atmosphere rather than inside?

By observing the angle to it, in various locations around Earth.
The only sane model which produces the observed attributes of the moon is that of a round Earth with the distance to the moon many times the size of Earth.
So unless you want to say Earth's atmosphere extends up 400 000 km, the moon is outside of Earth's atmosphere.

And as rockets have been launched up to well below that alittude, yet clealry above any significant atmosphere (as observed by the sky appearing black during the day, and seeing the blue below the rocket), it demonstrates that the moon is well outside any significant atmosphere of Earth.

Could we fly to the moon in a plane rather than a spaceship?

No.

Why would that sink anything?
It bothers you, not me, that they travel at the speed of sound.

Because sound waves travel at the speed of sound, no more than a few hundred m per second.
But radio waves travel vastly faster, at closer to 300 million m per second.
This demonstrates that radio waves are not sound waves.
This can easily be observed by a walky talky, or with the long distance HAM radio.

For example, in your delusional article you quoted, it states a distance of over 2000 miles. According to wikipedia it was 2200 miles, or 3500 km, which is 3 500 000 m.
Travelling at the speed of sound, of ~350 m/s, that works out to be ~10 000 s, or 166 minutes, or 2.8 hours.

TV is typically cable not satellite. That's why they link all these cords to your wall for hooking you up to satellite, and why if you switch to cable, they don't disconnect any of these. Satellite is only cable plus radio frequency.

Which just further demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of how it works.

LORAN system

Which also used reflections from the ionosphere.

Google, which is a company with a market capitalization of more than 700 billion dollars, with deep ties to the CIA, is certainly capable of launching space satellites, if space were real. Google has, instead, decided to forgo the facade of launching space satellites. Instead, Google has embarked on a program to launch atmospheric satellites tethered to helium balloons to provide worldwide internet service.

You mean a program it decided to scrap?

Are you too dense to understand that your question has been answered?

Are you too dense to understand that it hasn't been?

It is quite clearly not getting data from any tower.
If you want to appeal to magicaly arial satellties, you would need so many of them it isn't funny.

Do we know the number of the speed of sound? Okay, how?

Yes, we do know the number.
We know because of measurements of it.
You can measure it in several different ways.

With an accurate enough setup, you can build a small sonar device, and see how long it takes for sound waves to bounce off a wall.

Or, you can team up with some people (or just deploy stations yourself), and observe very loud sounds, like lightning, and see how long it takes to reach various stations.
For best results, also have a setup to record the direction it is coming from.
Then with 2 stations, you can pinpoint the location it came from (assuming it wasn't on a line directly connecting them). And you can then use the distance from that location to each of the stations, along with the time lag between detection, to calculate the speed of sound.

So it is entirely withing your reach.

This will also demonstrate just how much faster light is than sound.

But really, the only reason you are claiming it is sound is so you can pretend that it can't go through the atmosphere.
To disprove this, you just need to get a radio transmitter, and put it in a vacuum chamber, and start pumping out the air while listening to it to see if it can.

Maybe sound is faster than they say it is.
Maybe light is slower.

Maybe you are just looking for pathetic excuses to reject reality, excuses which you cannot substantiate at all.

By what force is a plain old radio frequency traveling faster than a space ship?

The exact same "force" that results in light waves travelling faster than a torch or a candle.
Or perhaps a better anaology would be the "force" that results in radio waves from a stationary transmitter moving much faster than that stationary transmitter.

They are emitted from whatever object is emitting the at the speed of light.

A radio wave would have to be propelled by more force than a rocket.

Why?
As its rest mass is 0, it needs no force.
It is only when you get in

In actuality, there are several speeds of radio waves

Do you mean different speeds through different mediums, or is this just more delusional BS?
Do you have anything at all to back this up?

the notion that it could achieve this speed is a weighted dice calculation.

No, it is based upon simple observations.

These are sound waves.

Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 22, 2022, 08:47:36 AM

Are you too dense to understand that your question has been answered?

These are "projections" not data.  The area is getting a signal from aerial "satellites" (blimps, solar powered  planes, and drones) and projecting the information as a mockup. Is the mockup true? No, but it is accurate. The area is picking up a signal, but lying to you about where it's coming from.

The ones in your delusion?  There is no evidence such a network exists for the broadcasting of EchoStar 16.  Where all satellite dishes point to the same spot to tune to EchoStar 16.

You just don’t get Ku band and line of sight.  And it makes you look brain dead.

There is no such network as you describe for satellite phones in the pacific.

There was definitely no such network in the Midwest for the use of our satellite dish in the 1980’s

There was definitely no such network for the 1964 Olympics in Japan.

And there was definitely no such network for Sputnik as its signal came and went as it travelled around the globe.  And the Doppler shift in its broadcast.

Such a network exists just for cellphone towers.

But you have already proven you would prefer to take other people's work for it than do your own exploration.

We have a (1) network of cell towers, (2) fiber optic wires, (3) blimps, (4) weather balloons, (5) and solar-powered aerial platforms.

What on earth do we need satellites in orbit for?

1. You can't repair them once sent up.
2. There is a literal electromagnetic barrier that shorts out electronics
3. Compared with broadcasting objects in the troposphere or stratosphere, it is alot farther to broadcast
4. There isn't any advantage to being in space
5. NASA admitted they use helium. It's time you admitted the thing is a sham

In 1964, there was an underwater cable line.

In Sputnik, there were radio towers. More importantly, it was repeatedly stated that you could see Sputnik with the naked eye. An object only about 2 ft around. About as bright as a street light. When Earth's atmosphere ends at roughly 100km (62.13712 miles).

I dunno if you're trying to fool me (it won't work!) or are really that stupid, but I can't see a street light from 60 miles away, nor an object only 2 ft around. Not at night or day.

Such a network exists just for cellphone towers.

Not in the middle of the ocean, where you can get GPS coverage.

We have a (1) network of cell towers, (2) fiber optic wires, (3) blimps, (4) weather balloons, (5) and solar-powered aerial platforms.

You left out satellites.

What on earth do we need satellites in orbit for?

To provide coverage over a vast area from a single transmitter.

1. You can't repair them once sent up.
2. There is a literal electromagnetic barrier that shorts out electronics
3. Compared with broadcasting objects in the troposphere or stratosphere, it is alot farther to broadcast
4. There isn't any advantage to being in space
5. NASA admitted they use helium. It's time you admitted the thing is a sham

1 - You can, but it is rarely done.
2 - Pure BS.
3 - Considering the range covered, it is a small price to pay compared to the alternative of so many trasmitters it isn't funny.
4 - There are plenty of advantages.
By being in space, away from Earth, they can cover a much larger range. They can be up high without needing any support or any significant amount of fuel to keeping them in location. They are not affected by weather (the satellite itself, not the signal)
5 - Which doesn't mean all satellites are fake.

It is time you stopped looking for pathetic excuses and started accepting reality.

In 1964, there was an underwater cable line.

TELEPHONE!
Not TV.
Do you understand the difference?

In Sputnik, there were radio towers. More importantly, it was repeatedly stated that you could see Sputnik with the naked eye. An object only about 2 ft around.

You have tried this delusional BS before.
The size doesn't matter. What matters is how bright it is compared to the night sky.
Considering how dark the sky is, that isn't that hard. Reflecting light from the sun, even off a small object, will be bright enough.
Again, consider a single illuminated pixel on an otherwise dark screen, from a considerable distance.
That is far too small to resolve but you can easily see it from how bright it is compared to the background.

I dunno if you're trying to fool me (it won't work!) or are really that stupid

No, we aren't that stupid, and aren't trying to fool you. It is quite clear that the FEers have already fooled you quite a lot.

If electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of sound, what’s the explanation for seeing lightning before hearing thunder? Or why you see a far off explosion or gunshot or volcano eruption, or avalanche, before hearing it?

Radio waves are not electromagnetic waves.

They are in the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum. The part of longer waves and lower energy.

 The spectrum starts at the speed of sound (or even at subsonic frequency), moves to shortwave radio (several times the speed of sound), then microwave (several times several times the speed of sound), then infrared (several times several times several times...), then the light spectrum, then ultraviolet, xrays, and gamma radiation. Light spectrum presumably moves at the speed of light. Contrary to the assertion that "nothing moves faster than the speed of light" such a speed limit only exists arbitrarily like the speed of light itself. These things are tachyon particles if they move faster than light.

Light moves faster than sound, so you hear thunder after lightning.

Didn't you know that?

If all of the spectrum moves at the same rate (absurd), there is no reason for shorter or longer waves. But they don't and there is.

Radio waves are not electromagnetic waves.

They are in the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum. The part of longer waves and lower energy.

 The spectrum starts at the speed of sound (or even at subsonic frequency), moves to shortwave radio (several times the speed of sound), then microwave (several times several times the speed of sound), then infrared (several times several times several times...),

Holly shit…

Do you know the difference between the speed the electromagnetic wave travels through a space or vacuum?  vs it’s wavelength?

Wait. You said earlier that radio waves are sound waves.

Now you’re saying they are different, but that radio waves travel the same speed as sound waves?

Bulmabriefs clearly a troll.

Good job keeping us entertained!

But just like satire, it can only go on so long before it gets boring and repetitive.

You've reached it. Try someting new.

Radio waves are not electromagnetic waves.
They are in the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Do you realise just how stupid those 2 statements are when taken together?

The EM spectrum is the spectrum for EM waves.
Every wave on it is an EM wave.
So if radio waves are on that spectrum, then they are EM waves.

All waves on it travel at the speed of light.

Great job contradicting yourself.

The spectrum starts at the speed of sound

No. Notice how sound isn't even on there?
The spectrum varies with frequency and wavelength, not speed.

If all of the spectrum moves at the same rate (absurd), there is no reason for shorter or longer waves. But they don't and there is.

And more delusional garbage.

That is like saying if all sound moves at the same rate, there is no reason for different frequencies.
There are 3 main characteristics of waves, the speed v, the frequency f, and the wavelength l (should be lambda, but can't be bothered with greek today).
These characteristics are related:
v=f*l

The simple way to understand this is with sound waves, and how they are made with speakers.
It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly you oscilate the speaker, the sound waves will propagate away at the speed of sound in that medium.
If you do so at a low frequency, this will give a large wavelength wave.
If you do so at a high frequency, this will give a short wavelength wave.
But the speed the waves travel at is the same.

The same applies to light.
It doesn't matter if you have high frequency or low frequency, the speed is the same.

The only distinction is when you have dispersion, with slight variations in the speed with frequency.
But that isn't linear. It isn't a simple case of higher frequencies go faster. In fact, it can even have a peak at a certain frequency, with other frequencies being slower (both higher and lower frequencies).

   

Quote from: bulmabriefs144

Radio waves are not electromagnetic waves.
    They are in the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Do you realize just how stupid those 2 statements are when taken together?

A mule is an equine. But it is not a zebra.

Things can be in a similar family but not be the same thing.

Radio waves have no electrical charge. They have no magnetic charge. Therefore they are not electromagnetic, and do not travel at light speed. But they are featured as part of the "electromagnetic spectrum". Even though they are sound waves, and not at all either electrical or magnetic.

Blame scientists for putting there, but since they are there, I will not deny they are there. Only say that they aren't electromagnetic.

Wait. You said earlier that radio waves are sound waves.

Now you’re saying they are different, but that radio waves travel the same speed as sound waves?

Other way around. Radio waves are a type of sound, but they may be (or may not be) traveling at faster than the speed of sound. They do not however travel at the speed of light.

[
Radio waves have no electrical charge. They have no magnetic charge. Therefore they are not electromagnetic, and do not travel at light speed.

You are stupid, or a troll…

What makes a crystal radio work…

A crystal radio receiver, also called a crystal set, is a simple radio receiver, popular in the early days of radio. It uses only the power of the received radio signal to produce sound, needing no external power. It is named for its most important component, a crystal detector, originally made from a piece of crystalline mineral such as galena.[1] This component is now called a diode.

Crystal radios are the simplest type of radio receiver[2] and can be made with a few inexpensive parts, such as a wire for an antenna, a coil of wire, a capacitor, a crystal detector, and earphones (because a crystal set has insufficient power for a loudspeaker).[3] However they are passive receivers, while other radios use an amplifier powered by current from a battery or wall outlet to make the radio signal louder. Thus, crystal sets produce rather weak sound and must be listened to with sensitive earphones, and can receive stations only within a limited range of the transmitter.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio

Crystal radio transducer

A transducer is the name given to the item that converts the electrical signals to audio sounds that can be heard. For a crystal radio headphones are suitable – the signal level is not sufficient to drive a loudspeaker because of there crystal radio does not have any amplification and even with a good antenna the signal levels are not sufficient to drive a loudspeaker.

Typically high impedance headphones or an earpiece are needed. The low impedance ones common today are not suitable.

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/radio/radio-receivers/how-does-crystal-radio-work.php

Note.  Added…..

Why would old radio sets use vacuum tubes…🧐

Quote

   

Quote from: bulmabriefs144

Radio waves are not electromagnetic waves.
    They are in the low end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Do you realize just how stupid those 2 statements are when taken together?

Things can be in a similar family but not be the same thing.

Which in no way helps defend the stupidity of your claim.
The EM spectrum is a spectrum of EM waves.
So if you say radio is on the EM spectrum, you are saying they are EM waves.

To further your analogy, the EM spectrum is the family Equidae. radio waves are zebras.

Radio waves have no electrical charge. They have no magnetic charge.

EM waves do not have electrical or magnetic charge.
For the wave idea, they are variations of the EM field, which propagates through space.
Likewise, a photon of visible light has no electrical nor magnetic charge.

The reason they are EM waves, is because they interact with electric and magnetic charges (because they are a distortion of the EM field propagating through space).
For example, radio waves are picked up by an antenna which consists of a conductor, typically a metal wire.
As the wave interacts with the antenna, it causes the electrons in the wire to move back and forth at the same frequency as the EM wave, and with an amplitude proportional to the EM wave.
Likewise, if you have an electron in a wire moving back and forth, it will interact with the EM field to generate a wave propagating outwards. (A directional antenna will do so in a particular direction, typically through the use of constructive interference.

This can be utilised to send information.
On one end, an electric circuit moves electrons in a wire to change the electric field and cause radio waves to propagate outwards.
On the other end, the waves move electrons in a wire around, which is then picked up by a circuit and amplified.

Conversely, with sound, the waves are emitted by a speaker, which is vastly different to an antenna.
The waves are picked up by a microphone, which is vastly different to an antenna.

So yet again, you are just looking for pathetic excuses to reject reality.

Therefore they are not electromagnetic, and do not travel at light speed.

They are electromagnetic waves, and thus travel at the speed of light.

Even though they are sound waves

Repeating the smae delusional BS will not help you.

They are not sound waves.
They travel at a vastly greater speed than sound, and they can propagate through a vacuum while sound cannot.
They can be polarised, while sound cannot.

Other way around. Radio waves are a type of sound, but they may be (or may not be) traveling at faster than the speed of sound. They do not however travel at the speed of light.

If they were sound, they would have to travel at the speed of sound.

That spectrum includes low frequency. Such as the frequencies that would be called subsonic because they are not only below the speed of sound, but below the speeds humans can normally hear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound

Such sounds are sometimes felt (not usually heard), prior to an earthquake.

A spectrum where all components are moving at the same speed is not a real spectrum.

The electromagnetic spectrum moves from subsonic non-magnetic not very energetic, faster-than-light very electromagnetic very energetic.

Radio is on the side that is considered sound, not light.

It's satellite propaganda that you think such things move as fast as they do. And it's thanks to alot of prerecorded stuff that things seem to travel across the Earth by wavelength. But these are slower than you think, which is why bandwidth isn't all that hot in small towns. The truth is, you've got a good network helping things look like they are hooked up to a satellite. They weren't.

That spectrum includes low frequency. Such as the frequencies that would be called subsonic because they are not only below the speed of sound, but below the speeds humans can normally hear.

Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.
That spectrum only include EM radiation. These are EM waves, which travel at the speed of light.
Yes, you can get incredibly low frequency, but that doesn't mean they travel any slower.

Human's don't hear speeds, they hear frequencies.
Even the article you link doesn't refer to them as subsonic, because they are not subsonic. These sound waves still travel at the speed of sound.

A spectrum where all components are moving at the same speed is not a real spectrum.

Why? Because you don't like it?

The electromagnetic spectrum moves from subsonic non-magnetic not very energetic, fast-than-light very electromagnetic very energetic.

Again, pure delusional BS.
The EM spectrum describes EM radiation which travels at the speed of light.

You repeating the same delusional BS while ignoring the refutation of it will not help your case.
It just shows how dishonest and delusional you are.

If you wish to claim such utter garbage, how about you start actually defending it, instead of just repeating the same delusional garbage.
Why do radio waves still pass through a vacuum?
Why do antennas which transmit and receive radiation look nothing like speakers and microphones?
Why do radio waves travel just as fast as light, and much faster than sound?

You desperation to reject reality, to try and prop up further rejection of reality just demonstrates how desperate you are and how much of reality you need to reject to pretend your position could work.

No, not because I "don't like it". Because a spectrum is a measure of variation.

Here's an LGBT spectrum concerning gayness.

Totally gay--Mostly homosexual with hetero flings--Perfectly bisexual--Mostly hetero with gay flings--Totally hetero

Variation. As you can see, even though the hetero person is not LGBT, they are on this spectrum. What have we learned here? Oh right, nothing cuz y'all are idiots.

But what we should have learned is that a spectrum can start with the opposite extreme of what is measured, and that it gradually moves to an ideal.

So if if everything on the spectrum moves at light speed and everything is electromagnetic, we don't have a spectrum. Sorry. But the spectrum moves from sound to light to energy.

No, not because I "don't like it". Because a spectrum is a measure of variation.

And in this case, it is a measure in the variation by frequency or wavelength.
But they are all EM waves.
Varying frequencies, to give different effects, without needing a change in speed, still makes a useful spectrum.

You don't need a variation in speed to produce a spectrum.

What have we learned here?

That you will use whatever dishonest BS you can to deflect from and reject reality?

So if if everything on the spectrum moves at light speed and everything is electromagnetic, we don't have a spectrum.

Again, spouting the same delusional BS because you don't like it doesn't make it true.
As they have different frequencies, which cause them to interact with matter in a different way, we still have variation and thus have a spectrum.
Again, it doesn't need to change to sound, nor does it need to change to speed to be a spectrum.

Again, all the evidence demonstrates that radio waves are EM waves.
Ignoring all that to repeat the same delusional BS wont help you.

No, not because I "don't like it". Because a spectrum is a measure of variation.

Then how does a crystal radio work?

How does a radio with vacuum tubes work? 

Seeing radio waves with a light bulb

https://makezine.com/article/maker-news/seeing-radio-waves-with-a-light-bul/


Using a low power amateur radio transmitter and a simple light bulb receiver circuit, we see how radio waves and electromagnetic induction transmit energy and signals wirelessly through the air. We also see how dipole and Yagi antennas radiate their energy in different patterns. Read on to build your own dipole receiving antenna

cb fluorescent light trick

To be fair, the vacuum tubes in a radio are for amplification, not for receiving the signal.

To be fair, the vacuum tubes in a radio are for amplification, not for receiving the signal.

Not if “radios” worked off sound waves….   They would be a block to the “received” sound.  If the circuitry in a radio along bulmabriefs144 delusion somehow was like the string in a tin can phone…..


Either way.  Just drives home how ridiculous bulmabriefs144 delusions or trolling has become.