Cool Mission?

  • 577 Replies
  • 37890 Views
*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #120 on: December 24, 2022, 05:53:25 AM »
It's a smoke and mirrors show.

The guy setting up a dish plugs up a line (you now are connected to cable without a cable box), and then "hooks up" the satellite to make it look like the satellite is connected. If it is connected, it gets a small extra radio signal, but nothing much.

Cable runs on electricity, electricity runs at light speed through fiber optics across the world. Radio... does not.

You get "satellite" stations from your cable provider, but faster speed and reception than you get from actually doing satellite hookup.



These people are getting real satellite hookup because they live in a motor home. Care to guess how shitty their reception will be? I predict better than nothing, but plagued with lag and static.

If DIY satellite were any good, everyone would live in a motor home. Well I'm sorry but these people were better off calling the cable company.

 "Omg, it's a crystal tube! It must be better cuz Mr ScienceMan says radio waves move at the speed of light in a vacuum." Of course I don't know what a vacuum is, which is why I confuse a vacuum cleaner for the vacuum of space, but I'm sure that I'm smart enough to know why this works and why bulmabriefs144 is wrong. I'm totally not distracted by shiny objects and big numbers.

To their credit, frequencies have gotten better thanks to better triangulation, and our internet is not the joke it was when we moved here. But we do have refresh rates when internet is working especially with Hulu. We are certainly not getting light speed broadcasts from space.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2022, 06:07:24 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #121 on: December 24, 2022, 07:15:20 AM »
It's a smoke and mirrors show.

The guy setting up a dish plugs up a line (you now are connected to cable without a cable box), and then "hooks up" the satellite to make it look like the satellite is connected. If it is connected, it gets a small extra radio signal, but nothing much.

Cable runs on electricity, electricity runs at light speed through fiber optics across the world. Radio... does not.

You get "satellite" stations from your cable provider, but faster speed and reception than you get from actually doing satellite hookup.



These people are getting real satellite hookup because they live in a motor home. Care to guess how shitty their reception will be? I predict better than nothing, but plagued with lag and static.

If DIY satellite were any good, everyone would live in a motor home. Well I'm sorry but these people were better off calling the cable company.

 "Omg, it's a crystal tube! It must be better cuz Mr ScienceMan says radio waves move at the speed of light in a vacuum." Of course I don't know what a vacuum is, which is why I confuse a vacuum cleaner for the vacuum of space, but I'm sure that I'm smart enough to know why this works and why bulmabriefs144 is wrong. I'm totally not distracted by shiny objects and big numbers.

To their credit, frequencies have gotten better thanks to better triangulation, and our internet is not the joke it was when we moved here. But we do have refresh rates when internet is working especially with Hulu. We are certainly not getting light speed broadcasts from space.



What a pile of steaming word salad you just regurgitated. 

If you watched the video.  The TV is made for the set up and has the satellite receiver built into the unit.

Seriously.  Are you here to make flat earth beliefs look stupid?   Because you’re doing a number one job of it.   

What does signal strength at the receiver have to do with triangulation?

What does Hulu have to do with my satellite TV in the 80’s? 


Or satellite broadcasting relay over the pacific for the 1964 Olympics from Japan.


Or the moving broadcasting of Sputnik and the signal’s  Doppler shift in 1957.  And how it and a rocket stage visibly changed the night sky orbiting earth.


Or how a crystal radio set destroys your delusion radio waves are sound waves.   Or that radio waves can light up a fluorescent lightbulb.


Or satellite phones work in the middle of the pacific.

Or that satellite dishes on the east coast of the United States pointed out to sea get a satellite signal with no possible correlating cellphone tower. 

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #122 on: December 24, 2022, 09:29:26 AM »
Bulmabriefs, you really need to do some research on how radar (of all wavelengths) works. Your claim regarding differing speeds along the EM spectrum is completely impossible, unless every single radar out there is wildly inaccurate, to factors of ten to one hundred. Which given that radars are regularly calibrated against known distances, just isn’t the case.

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #123 on: December 24, 2022, 01:47:59 PM »
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.
Old audio amplifiers (and even some new ones for audiophiles) use vacuum tubes.
It has nothing to do with where the signal comes from.

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #124 on: December 24, 2022, 01:56:48 PM »
It's a smoke and mirrors show.
And we aren't buying your show.
Yet again you spout delusional BS.

The guy setting up a dish plugs up a line (you now are connected to cable without a cable box), and then "hooks up" the satellite to make it look like the satellite is connected.
Just what cable do you think is being connected?
You are aware you still need power? And you need to have a cable between the satellite dish and whatever is using it.

Yet again you are just spouting whatever delusional BS you can to pretend your fantasy is true.
We get it, you can't find an actual fault, so you just spout whatever BS you want to reject reality.

Again, if that satellite dish was picking up sound, as you falsely claim radio is, why does it look nothing at all like a microphone?

Cable runs on electricity, electricity runs at light speed through fiber optics across the world. Radio... does not.
And more delusional BS.

Fibre optics is light, not electricity.
Cable, actual metal cable, using electricity for the signals. And due to various things aspects of the cable (e.g. inductance, capacitance), it typically doesn't quite run at light speed.
Fibre optics uses light in a fibre optic wave guide. Because of reflections along the wave guide, it still doesn't run at light speed, and it is running in glass which has a slower speed of light anyway.
Radio travels at light speed, without wires.

You get "satellite" stations from your cable provider, but faster speed and reception than you get from actually doing satellite hookup.
But you can get it WITHOUT a cable, from a satellite.
So where is it coming from?

If DIY satellite were any good, everyone would live in a motor home.
Why?
Are you saying the sole basis for your choice of home is how good satellite is?

You really do love spouting delusional BS don't you?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #125 on: December 24, 2022, 08:47:06 PM »
It's a smoke and mirrors show.

The guy setting up a dish plugs up a line (you now are connected to cable without a cable box), and then "hooks up" the satellite to make it look like the satellite is connected. If it is connected, it gets a small extra radio signal, but nothing much.

Cable runs on electricity, electricity runs at light speed through fiber optics across the world. Radio... does not.

You get "satellite" stations from your cable provider, but faster speed and reception than you get from actually doing satellite hookup.



These people are getting real satellite hookup because they live in a motor home. Care to guess how shitty their reception will be? I predict better than nothing, but plagued with lag and static.

If DIY satellite were any good, everyone would live in a motor home. Well I'm sorry but these people were better off calling the cable company.

 "Omg, it's a crystal tube! It must be better cuz Mr ScienceMan says radio waves move at the speed of light in a vacuum." Of course I don't know what a vacuum is, which is why I confuse a vacuum cleaner for the vacuum of space, but I'm sure that I'm smart enough to know why this works and why bulmabriefs144 is wrong. I'm totally not distracted by shiny objects and big numbers.

To their credit, frequencies have gotten better thanks to better triangulation, and our internet is not the joke it was when we moved here. But we do have refresh rates when internet is working especially with Hulu. We are certainly not getting light speed broadcasts from space.



What a pile of steaming word salad you just regurgitated. 

If you watched the video.  The TV is made for the set up and has the satellite receiver built into the unit.

Seriously.  Are you here to make flat earth beliefs look stupid?   Because you’re doing a number one job of it.   

What does signal strength at the receiver have to do with triangulation?

What does Hulu have to do with my satellite TV in the 80’s? 


Or satellite broadcasting relay over the pacific for the 1964 Olympics from Japan.


Or the moving broadcasting of Sputnik and the signal’s  Doppler shift in 1957.  And how it and a rocket stage visibly changed the night sky orbiting earth.


Or how a crystal radio set destroys your delusion radio waves are sound waves.   Or that radio waves can light up a fluorescent lightbulb.


Or satellite phones work in the middle of the pacific.

Or that satellite dishes on the east coast of the United States pointed out to sea get a satellite signal with no possible correlating cellphone tower.

Omg, crystal tube! That's the answer to our problems! I'll just bring up a crystal tube and bulmabriefs144 will be stumped.

And you know how this works, of course.

So like I worked for computer stuff with a lady. Tbh, I was slightly better than novice but I needed the money. Mostly I was helping her archive travel pictures and then turned them into a DVD slideshow.

But when we wanted to use the internet, for some reason she had a dish, and there was a tower right across the river from her. We could see it. No dice.

She had cable with like 900 channels, yet her internet relied on signal. They'd give her lame excuses, and I didn't know internet, so the best I could do is call the people. No satellite, no real signal. Cable worked, the dish she had didn't. Wanna explain that? It literally cut out service And they'd tell me that the storm knocked out the satellite. No, the storm knocked out the TOWER.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #126 on: December 24, 2022, 09:49:21 PM »
It's a smoke and mirrors show.

The guy setting up a dish plugs up a line (you now are connected to cable without a cable box), and then "hooks up" the satellite to make it look like the satellite is connected. If it is connected, it gets a small extra radio signal, but nothing much.

Cable runs on electricity, electricity runs at light speed through fiber optics across the world. Radio... does not.

You get "satellite" stations from your cable provider, but faster speed and reception than you get from actually doing satellite hookup.



These people are getting real satellite hookup because they live in a motor home. Care to guess how shitty their reception will be? I predict better than nothing, but plagued with lag and static.

If DIY satellite were any good, everyone would live in a motor home. Well I'm sorry but these people were better off calling the cable company.

 "Omg, it's a crystal tube! It must be better cuz Mr ScienceMan says radio waves move at the speed of light in a vacuum." Of course I don't know what a vacuum is, which is why I confuse a vacuum cleaner for the vacuum of space, but I'm sure that I'm smart enough to know why this works and why bulmabriefs144 is wrong. I'm totally not distracted by shiny objects and big numbers.

To their credit, frequencies have gotten better thanks to better triangulation, and our internet is not the joke it was when we moved here. But we do have refresh rates when internet is working especially with Hulu. We are certainly not getting light speed broadcasts from space.



What a pile of steaming word salad you just regurgitated. 

If you watched the video.  The TV is made for the set up and has the satellite receiver built into the unit.

Seriously.  Are you here to make flat earth beliefs look stupid?   Because you’re doing a number one job of it.   

What does signal strength at the receiver have to do with triangulation?

What does Hulu have to do with my satellite TV in the 80’s? 


Or satellite broadcasting relay over the pacific for the 1964 Olympics from Japan.


Or the moving broadcasting of Sputnik and the signal’s  Doppler shift in 1957.  And how it and a rocket stage visibly changed the night sky orbiting earth.


Or how a crystal radio set destroys your delusion radio waves are sound waves.   Or that radio waves can light up a fluorescent lightbulb.


Or satellite phones work in the middle of the pacific.

Or that satellite dishes on the east coast of the United States pointed out to sea get a satellite signal with no possible correlating cellphone tower.

Omg, crystal tube! That's the answer to our problems! I'll just bring up a crystal tube and bulmabriefs144 will be stumped.

And you know how this works, of course.

So like I worked for computer stuff with a lady. Tbh, I was slightly better than novice but I needed the money. Mostly I was helping her archive travel pictures and then turned them into a DVD slideshow.

But when we wanted to use the internet, for some reason she had a dish, and there was a tower right across the river from her. We could see it. No dice.

She had cable with like 900 channels, yet her internet relied on signal. They'd give her lame excuses, and I didn't know internet, so the best I could do is call the people. No satellite, no real signal. Cable worked, the dish she had didn't. Wanna explain that? It literally cut out service And they'd tell me that the storm knocked out the satellite. No, the storm knocked out the TOWER.

Hmmm, a sample size of one with crappy internet service and the next thing you know, the entirety of space usage and exploration is garbage.

I had a toaster once that stopped working. Electricity through wires is a sham and there's no power really coming through those wires. They all lie. Everything runs off of minuscule batteries using ancient tech they are hiding from us. The power companies are just duping us all into paying them monthly for something that doesn't even exist. Lies, all of it!

Yeah, that's a compelling argument.

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #127 on: December 24, 2022, 10:05:20 PM »
She had cable with like 900 channels, yet her internet relied on signal. They'd give her lame excuses, and I didn't know internet, so the best I could do is call the people. No satellite, no real signal. Cable worked, the dish she had didn't. Wanna explain that? It literally cut out service And they'd tell me that the storm knocked out the satellite. No, the storm knocked out the TOWER.
Explain what?
Your lame story which you have so few details for and no evidence of?

How about you address the fact that radio waves can propagate through a vacuum, and they are emitted and received by antennae, not speakers and microphones.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #128 on: December 25, 2022, 01:48:15 AM »
Bulmabriefs, you really need to do some research on how radar (of all wavelengths) works. Your claim regarding differing speeds along the EM spectrum is completely impossible, unless every single radar out there is wildly inaccurate, to factors of ten to one hundred. Which given that radars are regularly calibrated against known distances, just isn’t the case.

You just assume that reading secondhand accounts of liars will somehow equal the truth.

Let us assume one Hertz is equal to the speed of sound. And a kiloHertz is equal to 1000 of those and a MegaHertz is equal to 1000 of those, and the track 1:1 in terms of speed.

The speed of light is at 671 million mph, according to science.

At one MHz, you reach 746,000,000 mph. With me so far? So already, we are talking about faster than light particles (or someone has been LYING) and a typical radio broadcast is between 88.1 MHz and about 107.9 MHz.

Maximum speed by this calculation: 80,493,400,000.

Just one problem. This now moves faster than light and you haven't even gotten to light speed. This would put light in a speed of faster than light, making this model obviously wrong.

Obviously, there is NOT a 1:1 exchange of 1 Mach per Hertz. So moving on, let's start with the assumption that 1 Hertz is the speed of sound, and 1000 Hertz is the speed of sound + 1000 (rather than multiplied) One kiloHertz is now a much more reasonable 1000 (+767 mph for speed of sound), and 1 MHz is 1000*1000 (+767), making the maximum radio signal 107,900,767 mph.

This is not light speed. To be fair, it is roughly 1/6 of light speed, but we are in more reasonable territory.

For reference, AM frequency is 535 to 1,705-kHz making its maximum speed by this scale 1,706,767 mph or well below light speed.

If we then set light spectrum (btw, we still haven't accounted for the speed of microwave radiation waves) to in the 671,000,000 range, we now have things like gamma radiation as tachyon particles.

We probably have to adjust speed again because microwave throws things off.

Sorry but even a best guess estimate of radio waves puts them below light speed.

So you can go fuck your crystal tubes, as you DON'T know what you are talking about.

Quote
Hmmm, a sample size of one with crappy internet service and the next thing you know, the entirety of space usage and exploration is garbage.

When your science is based on hoax, that's exactly what it is. So until you can prove to me that propulsion is possible in a real vacuum (not a vacuum cleaner, which has air), we're stuck at the point where shuttle has lift off but never escapes Earth. We can maybe say the moon landing's real (if we put the Moon within Earth's atmosphere) but any satellites also must be in Earth's atmosphere (making them those susp helium balloons that NASA uses, instead of the supposed space satellites).



And here we have demonstration of "liftoff" with a banana.

They told us that they made it!
« Last Edit: December 25, 2022, 01:54:52 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #129 on: December 25, 2022, 02:25:20 AM »
Let us assume one Hertz is equal to the speed of sound.
Why would we do something as delusional as that?

Hz is a measure of frequency, not velocity.
The unit Hz is equivalent to SI base units of 1/s.
This is different to velocity, which has base units of m/s.
If you want a velocity from frequency, you also need to know the wavelength.
This is a fairly simple equation as well, v=f*l.
For example, if you have 35 cycles per second (35 Hz), and each cycle has a wavelength of 10 m, then the velocity that must be travelling at is 10 m * 35 /s = 350 m/s.


So no, lets instead take something like 350 m/s as the speed of sound.
It doesn't matter if the frequency is 1 Hz, 100 Hz, 1 kHz, 1 MHz, and so on, the speed is still 350 m/s.

Again, this is a fairly simple for you to test yourself.
Build a simple sonar device, and then use different frequencies and see if it tells you a different distance do to a different speed.

So already, we are talking about faster than light particles (or someone has been LYING)
That someone is you.
You are lying by pretending frequency is a measure of velocity.

I'm not going to believe those lies due to how obvious they are.

I will stick to reality, where speed is measured in m/s, and frequency is measured in Hz = 1/s.

Just one problem.
Again, YOU.
You are the problem; spouting delusional nonsense, and trying to back it up with more delusional nonsense.

Lets try it honestly shall we?
We have a radio wave with a frequency of 100 MHz. What is it's velocity?
Well we could just appeal to the speed of light, but I doubt you would like that.
Instead, we can use its wavelength.
Radio waves with a frequency of 100 MHz would have a wavelength of approximately 3 m.
So this gives us a velocity of 3 m * 100 000 000 /s = 300 000 000 m/s. i.e. the speed of light.

Obviously, there is NOT a 1:1 exchange of 1 Mach per Hertz.
That's right, as that entire concept is delusional BS.

There is not an exchange at all.
Sound waves travel at the speed of sound, regardless of frequency.
EM radiation travels at the speed of light, regardless of frequency.

Sorry but even a best guess estimate of radio waves puts them below light speed.
No, it doesn't.
Your delusional BS, which is so far removed from a "best guess estimate" places them at stupid speeds.
But that is just your delusional BS.

When your science is based on hoax, that's exactly what it is.
You mean like your hoax where you pretend frequency is a measure of velocity?
As opposed to real science which recognises that the velocity of a sound wave or an EM wave has a negligible frequency dependency?

So until you can prove to me that propulsion is possible in a real vacuum
Well I already asked you a simple question to demonstrate that which you fled from, because you knew you couldn't answer it honestly without demonstrating that you know you are spouting delusional BS.

Here it is again:
Say you have 2 weights. Between these weights there is a spring and a string.
The string is quite tight, so much so that it is compressing the spring.
What happens when the string breaks?

Note, in air, this would be that the spring pushes the blocks apart.
So what happens in free fall in a vacuum?

Do you accept that the spring will still expand, pushing the blocks apart, i.e. propelling them away from each other?
Or do you assert that by pure magic, the spring will magically remain compressed, with nothing to keep it compressed?

we're stuck at the point where shuttle has lift off but never escapes Earth.
No, you are stuck at that point due to your wilful ignorance.
That has no impact on us or reality.
We can still move past your wilful ignorance and accept that craft can go to space, and even orbit in space.
We don't need to accept your delusional BS which you assert with no justification or rational thought.

And here we have demonstration of "liftoff" with a banana.
You mean we have a further demonstration of your dishonesty or wilful ignorance.

If you go straight up, you can go to space, but not to orbit.
If you want to orbit Earth, rather than crashing back down, you need sideways velocity.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #130 on: December 25, 2022, 03:53:26 AM »
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.
Old audio amplifiers (and even some new ones for audiophiles) use vacuum tubes.
It has nothing to do with where the signal comes from.

Where in a tube radio is a sound wave ran through a vacuum tube to be amplified?   

Where in a radio or audio amplifier is the electrical signal converted to  a sound wave to be ran through a vacuum tube.

It very much has to do with what can be amplified by a vacuum tube.  Vacuum tubes more or less work by warming up and freeing up electrons across a vacuum.  If I remember right. Something about an abode and cathode.  Now.  How would that work with a radio in the delusion radio waves are only sound waves.

Here.  Will make it easy for you.  Schematic of a tube radio.  For the delusion of radio waves are sound waves.   Show where the sound waves are gathered by an antenna and the sound waves directly “ran” through a vacuum tube.  And how a sound wave without being converted to an electrical current with a microphone could be ran through a vacuum tube. 



I see where an antenna can produce a flow of electrons that can be manipulated by vacuum tubes.  I don’t see where the radio is using sound waves ran through a vacuum tube. 

Again, just highlights how ridiculous the delusion radio waves are sound waves. 

By the way.. Vacuum tubes can be used to amplify an electrical current.

How pure sound waves are “amplified” without a microphone to converted the sound waves  to an electrical current…

amphitheatre
Quote
In modern usage, an amphitheatre is a circular, semicircular or curved, acoustically vibrant performance space, particularly one located outdoors. Contemporary amphitheatres often include standing structures, called bandshells, sometimes curved or bowl-shaped, both behind the stage and behind the audience, creating an area which echoes or amplifies sound, making the amphitheatre ideal for musical or theatrical performances.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphitheatre#Modern_amphitheatres

Megaphone
Quote
The sound is introduced into the narrow end of the megaphone, by holding it up to the face and speaking into it, and the sound waves radiate out the wide end. A megaphone increases the volume of sound by increasing the acoustic impedance seen by the vocal cords, matching the impedance of the vocal cords to the air, so that more sound power is radiated. It also serves to direct the sound waves in the direction the horn is pointing. It somewhat distorts the sound of the voice because the frequency response of the megaphone is greater at higher sound frequencies.

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

Vs electric megaphone
Quote
electric megaphone, which uses a microphone, an electrically-powered amplifier and a folded horn loudspeaker to amplify the voice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone


So.  Yes.   It very much has to do with what a vacuum tube can and how it amplifies.  They amplify an electrical current.  Like an electrical current from a microphone.  They don’t amplify sound waves moving through the atmosphere.  Unless picked up by a microphone and converted to an electrical current.


Looking forward to your long pointless rebuttal so it can be ignored.


Merry Christmas Jack

« Last Edit: December 25, 2022, 03:57:53 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #131 on: December 25, 2022, 10:29:49 AM »
Bulmabriefs, you really need to do some research on how radar (of all wavelengths) works. Your claim regarding differing speeds along the EM spectrum is completely impossible, unless every single radar out there is wildly inaccurate, to factors of ten to one hundred. Which given that radars are regularly calibrated against known distances, just isn’t the case.

You just assume that reading secondhand accounts of liars will somehow equal the truth.

Let us assume one Hertz is equal to the speed of sound. And a kiloHertz is equal to 1000 of those and a MegaHertz is equal to 1000 of those, and the track 1:1 in terms of speed.

The speed of light is at 671 million mph, according to science.

At one MHz, you reach 746,000,000 mph. With me so far? So already, we are talking about faster than light particles (or someone has been LYING) and a typical radio broadcast is between 88.1 MHz and about 107.9 MHz.

Maximum speed by this calculation: 80,493,400,000.

Just one problem. This now moves faster than light and you haven't even gotten to light speed. This would put light in a speed of faster than light, making this model obviously wrong.

Obviously, there is NOT a 1:1 exchange of 1 Mach per Hertz. So moving on, let's start with the assumption that 1 Hertz is the speed of sound, and 1000 Hertz is the speed of sound + 1000 (rather than multiplied) One kiloHertz is now a much more reasonable 1000 (+767 mph for speed of sound), and 1 MHz is 1000*1000 (+767), making the maximum radio signal 107,900,767 mph.

This is not light speed. To be fair, it is roughly 1/6 of light speed, but we are in more reasonable territory.

For reference, AM frequency is 535 to 1,705-kHz making its maximum speed by this scale 1,706,767 mph or well below light speed.

If we then set light spectrum (btw, we still haven't accounted for the speed of microwave radiation waves) to in the 671,000,000 range, we now have things like gamma radiation as tachyon particles.

We probably have to adjust speed again because microwave throws things off.

Sorry but even a best guess estimate of radio waves puts them below light speed.

So you can go fuck your crystal tubes, as you DON'T know what you are talking about.

Quote
Hmmm, a sample size of one with crappy internet service and the next thing you know, the entirety of space usage and exploration is garbage.

When your science is based on hoax, that's exactly what it is. So until you can prove to me that propulsion is possible in a real vacuum (not a vacuum cleaner, which has air), we're stuck at the point where shuttle has lift off but never escapes Earth. We can maybe say the moon landing's real (if we put the Moon within Earth's atmosphere) but any satellites also must be in Earth's atmosphere (making them those susp helium balloons that NASA uses, instead of the supposed space satellites).



And here we have demonstration of "liftoff" with a banana.

They told us that they made it!

I’m an air traffic controller with 25yrs experience and am considered a subject matter expert on ATC radar systems. I represent the UK on European and international working groups on aviation radar systems.

If speed of radiation of differing wavelengths varied, the radars I use every day at Heathrow airport would paint aircraft on my screen miles away from their actual location. And yet they don’t. So how does that work? Is it coincidence?

You make a lot of assumptions. On what are you basing these, please?

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #132 on: December 25, 2022, 01:36:08 PM »
Where in a tube radio is a sound wave ran through a vacuum tube to be amplified?
Where in a tube radio is a radio wave ran through a vacuum tube to be amplified?
No where.

What is amplified is an electrical signal inside a circuit.
It doesn't matter if that electrical signal is from a radio wave picked up by an antenna or a sound wave picked up by a microphone.

It very much has to do with what can be amplified by a vacuum tube.  Vacuum tubes more or less work by warming up and freeing up electrons across a vacuum.  If I remember right. Something about an abode and cathode.
Yes, it has to do with what can be amplified by the vacuum tube. Not where the signal came from.

Yes, they do operate with a cathode, typically heated, which ejects electrons which flow through the vacuum of the tube, with the amount going through controlled by what is called a gate in a modern transistor, but I believe they were referred to as valves for vacuum tubes.

Not that it is electrons that are travelling through it, not sound waves, not radio waves.
They amplify electrical signals in a circuit.

Here.  Will make it easy for you.  Schematic of a tube radio.  For the delusion of radio waves are sound waves.   Show where the sound waves are gathered by an antenna and the sound waves directly “ran” through a vacuum tube.  And how a sound wave without being converted to an electrical current with a microphone could be ran through a vacuum tube.
The distinction is in the input.
Notice a key part of what you said:
"Show where the sound waves are gathered by an antenna"
As that is the important part. Antennae pick up radio waves. Microphones pick up sound waves.
But once they are converted to an electrical signal, the vacuum tubes don't give a damn.

But this means the focus should be on the antenna, what is used to pick up the signal, not what is used to amplify it once you have an electrical signal.

By the way.. Vacuum tubes can be used to amplify an electrical current.
Yes, which is what they are being used for in the schematic you provided.
They aren't being used to amplify radio waves.
They are being used to amplify signals in an electronic circuit.

They are also used in audio amplifiers. Here is a simple schematic:


Notice that it just has 2 points on the left for the input? As it doesn't care if that input is coming from a radio wave or a microphone, or a signal generator or anything else.

So.  Yes.   It very much has to do with what a vacuum tube can and how it amplifies.  They amplify an electrical current.
That's right, an electrical current, not a radio wave.
So no, they don't help demonstrate that radio waves are not sound waves.
They don't amplify radio waves moving through the atmosphere.

Looking forward to your long pointless rebuttal so it can be ignored.
If you don't want to be rebutted, you should have just accepted the correction, rather than doubling down.
If radio waves were actually sound waves, and antennae where actually microphones, the vacuum tubes in the circuit would not care.
The simple fact is vacuum tubes amplify electrical signals. Not sound waves, not radio waves.
They are pointless to bring up in a discussion on if radio waves are sound waves.

What you should focus on is the antenna, and the fact that the antenna is not a microphone, nor a speaker (for the transmitting side).

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #133 on: December 25, 2022, 02:36:37 PM »
Let us assume one Hertz is equal to the speed of sound.
Why would we do something as delusional as that?

We are assuming that to show you how the bullshit assertion that radio = speed of light is just that much bullshit.  You would have to displace light spectrum from the speed of light.

Hz is a measure of frequency, not velocity.
The unit Hz is equivalent to SI base units of 1/s.
This is different to velocity, which has base units of m/s.
If you want a velocity from frequency, you also need to know the wavelength.
This is a fairly simple equation as well, v=f*l.
For example, if you have 35 cycles per second (35 Hz), and each cycle has a wavelength of 10 m, then the velocity that must be travelling at is 10 m * 35 /s = 350 m/s.

m/s is the measure of bullshit. First its insistence on the metric system is like a giant red flag that someone is trying to disguise the actual rate of speed but not using miles or even kilometers. Second, the number of meters something travels per second (be reminded that a meter is roughly a yard, why the hell should the number of yards something travels in one second matter?)

But we have websites to decode your bullshit.  Right below this, I will go to a website and convert m/s to mph.


So no, lets instead take something like 350 m/s as the speed of sound.
It doesn't matter if the frequency is 1 Hz, 100 Hz, 1 kHz, 1 MHz, and so on, the speed is still 350 m/s.

Can I quote you on that?

350 m/s? Exactly?

https://www.calculateme.com/speed/meters-per-second/to-miles-per-hour/350

350 Meters per Second = 782.92770 Miles per Hour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

The speed of sound is 767 miles per hour.



I gave you a reasonable result. A result which btw put radio waves at 1/6 the speed of light.

Despite my dubious opinion about the ability to propel frequencies at this speed, I played devil's advocate, and asserted a reasonable measurement that should make you happy. You disagreed with me just to be an ass.

You tried to bullshit me by telling me that all Hertz, kiloHertz, and MegaHertz measures the same (even if they are not units of movement, you guys routinely use gravity in places where it shouldn't go, and the fact remains that these frequencies are different from each other). Only you didn't do your own math. So now you've wound up with the result you get. None of them measuring that far past the speed of sound. Because you refused to humor me, now all results point exactly where I originally said they would.

Radio is sound waves.

And you just proved it.  C:-) 



Now, would you like to adjust your statement?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2022, 03:30:15 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #134 on: December 25, 2022, 03:15:20 PM »
We are assuming that to show you how the bullshit assertion that radio = speed of light is just that much bullshit.  You would have to displace light spectrum from the speed of light.
Your assumption is entirely baseless, so it in no way demonstrates any issue with radio waves travelling at the speed of light.
What you are effectively saying there is that you are blatantly lying to pretend there is a problem.

m/s is the measure of bullshit.
No, it is a measure of speed, it is measured in units of length divided by units of time.
You not liking that because it so easily demonstrates that you are spouting pure BS doesn't change that fact.

First its insistence on the metric system is like a giant red flag
Good thing it doesn't need the metric system.
You can use whatever system you want, as long as it is a unit of length divided by a unit of time.
That could be m/s, the SI base units, or it could be grains per hourglass flip.

why the hell should the number of yards something travels in one second matter?
If you want to discuss speed, that will be how far something travels per unit time.

Can I quote you on that?
350 m/s? Exactly?
No, not exactly. Approximately.
No measurement is ever exact.

The speed of sound varies depending on the medium.
For air this includes things like the temperature and pressure.

So if you are trying to set up a pathetic strawman where you complain that the number wasn't exist, that would be entirely pointless.
More importantly, it is a completely pointless deflection from the issue.

I gave you a reasonable result. A result which btw put radio waves at 1/6 the speed of light.
No, you gave delusional BS which was not reasonable at all.
Trying to boldly lie to claim that the speed of sound is linearly proportional to the frequency of the sound is not reasonable at all.

Despite my dubious nature about the ability to propel frequencies at this speed, I played devil's advocate, and asserted a reasonable measurement that should make you happy.
Why would your entirely dishonest BS make anyone other than you happy?
You weren't playing devil's advocate. You were spouting delusional BS to pretend there is a problem.

If you were going to play "devils advocate" against your position you would accept that sound travels at the speed of sound regardless of frequency and EM waves travel at the speed of light regardless of frequency; and that there is only a very small dependence on frequency, with that not being linear like you want to pretend.
But that would mean you have no excuse to reject reality. So of course you wouldn't do that as you have no interest in playing devils advocate against yourself. Instead you wish to spout whatever delusional dishonest BS you can to pretend reality is wrong.

You disagreed with me just to be an ass.
No, I disagreed with you because you were spouting pure BS which made no sense at all and doesn't match reality at all.

You tried to bullshit me by telling me that all Hertz, kiloHertz, and MegaHertz measures the same.
No, I said that the frequency does not significantly change the velocity. That a 1 Hz sound wave has the same speed as a 1 MHz sound wave. But they still have a different frequency. And note, that is sound waves travel at the speed of sound. EM waves travel at the speed of light.

So now you've wound up with the result you get. None of them measuring past the speed of sound. Because you refused to humor me, now all results point exactly where I originally said they would.
And more delusional BS.
SOUND waves travel at the speed of sound.
There is no requirement for other waves, which are not sound waves, to travel at the speed of sound.
EM waves, which are NOT sound waves, do NOT travel at the speed of sound. Instead, they travel at the speed of light.

So no, you have the same problem you have been avoiding.
Radio waves travel at the speed of light, not the speed of sound.
Radio waves propagate through a vacuum while sound waves do not.
Radio waves are sent and received by antennae, conductive metal wires while sound waves are sent and received by speakers and microphones which contain diaphragms which move the air or are moved by the air.

In short, radio waves are NOT sound waves. They are EM waves.

Radio is sound waves
Repeating the same delusional BS with no justification and ignoring the refutations of that BS will not help you.

And you just proved it.  C:-)
No, I proved you were spouting dishonest BS, that your pathetic excuse for how radio waves can travel faster than sound while being sound waves is pure delusional BS.
So now, with no rational response, you just resort to more dishonest BS.

If radio waves were sound waves, they would travel at the speed of sound.
In reality, they travel much faster, so they are not sound waves.
Your claim that they are sound waves is just a pathetic blatant lie to pretend satellites in space can't work.
It is truly pathetic, and the way you try to justify it with such blatantly obvious lies shows how truly pathetic it is and how far removed from reality it is.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2022, 03:17:00 PM by JackBlack »

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #135 on: December 25, 2022, 05:57:13 PM »
By your own assertion, you told me that one Hertz, 100 Hertz, one kiloHertz, and one MegaHertz all have the same movement of frequency, and all of them you stated move at "not exactly, but approximately" 350 m/s.

That is approximately but not exactly the speed of sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound
Quote
The speed of sound in air is about 343 metres per second

Meanwhile, if you wanted to say a more "approximate" speed for radio being roughly the speed of light? 299,792,458 m/s.
Seems to make 350 m/s kinda less significant, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
So, lemme repeat. Do you want to revise your statement?

...Cuz if you don't, you have to admit that you yourself admitted that radio is sound. You won't, but that's kinda what you said.
...And if you do, I am obliged to ask you how you arrived at that new number? Oh right, because I told you what the right number was.

Yes, I'm a bastard. But I'm not the one trapped by his own words.

« Last Edit: December 25, 2022, 06:41:14 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #136 on: December 25, 2022, 07:11:30 PM »
By your own assertion, you told me that one Hertz, 100 Hertz, one kiloHertz, and one MegaHertz all have the same movement of frequency, and all of them you stated move at "not exactly, but approximately" 350 m/s.
You really do love misrepresenting things don't you?

I said SOUND WAVES of any frequency will travel at the speed of sound, roughly 350 m/s through air.
The important requirement is that they are SOUND WAVES.
Not any arbitrary waves, but SOUND WAVES!

Got it?

Radio waves ARE NOT SOUND WAVES!
That means they will not travel at the speed of sound.
As they are EM waves, they will travel at the speed of light.

So, lemme repeat. Do you want to revise your statement?
No.
Do you want to try being honest for once and honestly respond to what I have said?

My statement has been clear, radio waves are EM waves.
EM waves travel at the speed of light, regardless of frequency.
Sound waves travel at the speed of sound, regardless of frequency.

Radio waves, being EM waves will travel at the speed of light, not the speed of sound.

No where have I indicated that radio waves are sound waves or that they travel at the speed of sound.
That is your delusional BS not mine.

So just what is there for me to revise?
That I don't agree with your delusional BS?

Cuz if you don't, you have to admit that you yourself admitted that radio is sound.
No, I wouldn't. Not in the slightest as I have NEVER indicated anything like that.

Again, it is YOUR delusional BS that the frequency determines the speed.
In reality, the type of wave determines the speed.

A 1 MHz sound wave will travel at the speed of sound.
A 1 MHz radio wave will travel at the speed of light.

Likewise,
A 1 Hz sound wave will travel at the speed of sound.
A 1 Hz radio wave will travel at the speed of light.

Notice again, it is the TYPE of wave which determines the speed.

Once more, it is your delusional garbage that the frequency determines the speed.
Delusional garbage you need to try and pretend radio waves are sound waves even though they travel much faster than sound.

But that is just your delusional garbage which I am under no obligation to accept.

Yes, I'm a bastard.
Yes, a lying bastard.
One that can't respond to what has actually been said, so instead you just spout delusional BS.

Now, going to try being honest for once, or will you continue with this dishonest BS?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #137 on: December 25, 2022, 10:22:49 PM »
I'm watching Kitchen Nightmares. The owner Joe talks about how he has the greatest food, and it's farm to table, and that he has fresh fish. Frozen food, and he buys from the store. The farm is there, but it's all a hoax. Ramsey tells him that he has seen the freezer and that the food is too expensive too. He seems to take none of it in.

Same here.

I've misrepresented nothing. In your own words, you mentioned radio going at what is the speed of sound. I called you out on it. Just like this deadbeat, you just deflect and make excuses. Sorry, but I'm not misrepresenting you. This is exactly what you said.

Radio waves are in the electromagnetic spectrum. But they are in the low end of it.  Now you double down and say the same frequency is somehow magically at the speed of light because it's a different type. If frequency has no input, then it has no meaning. If we are saying that sound and radio have the same vibrational energy but not the same heat, speed, or anything else, they do not have the same frequency!!!  Either we are describing a difference in frequency, or you are spewing bullshit.

"Radio waves ARE NOT SOUND WAVES!"

Now, you may say that radio waves are different from sound waves in that they are not affected by medium. That is to say, as electromagnetic data, they are not affected by air resistance. But frequency measures something! It measures the number of repetitions for rise and fall.
/\__/\__/\__/\
vs
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
for example. An object at a higher frequency is traveling at a greater speed.  Its EM status does not, however, guarantee it travels at the speed of light. What it might guarantee (if indeed radio and sound are different) is that sound is reduced in its rate by distance, while electromagnetic is not. What do I mean by this? 

I mean that if a radio wave were projected at light speed, it would stay at light speed (if radio waves are indeed able to be projected at light speed), while sound waves reduce in speed due to air resistance. If radio waves are not at light speed (as they should not be due to their frequency), they stay at their current speed again. But frequency determines momentum which in turn means wave speed.

So if radio frequencies are really at light speed, what can we expect?

Quote
Radio waves are a kind of electromagnetic radiation and therefore travel at the speed of light. At this speed, a beam of light could circle the Earth at the equator more than 7 times in one second. The reason it takes so long for radio messages to travel through space is because space is incredibly big.

"Space is incredibly big." Right. So radio waves can circle Earth 7 times over (I used that exact measurement in a book, discussing teleportation), but wait no they can't with radio waves because outer space is too big? Really?!? No air resistance, it should travel the same in air as in a vacuum.  What is really slowing them down?

Radio waves are sound waves. Or maybe ultrasound waves but definitely not moving at light speed. And you've contradicted yourself, as I've said air resistance (and not gravity) is the cause of projectiles falling or breaking down, while you told me gravity causes stuff to fall. But here you have radio waves that ignore air resistance that somehow can't just travel across the Earth without the aid of satellites.

I'm not misrepresenting you. You're selling your customers storebought frozen meat at a farm to table.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2022, 10:40:15 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #138 on: December 25, 2022, 10:56:21 PM »
I've misrepresented nothing.
You have blatantly lied about my position, and about reality.
I would call that misrepresentation.
There is NOTHING that I have said that indicates radio waves are sound waves, yet you boldly proclaim that is what my statements mean.
That is you misrepresenting.

In your own words, you mentioned radio going at what is the speed of sound.
Where?
How about instead of these pathetic lies you try providing a quote?
As I said nothing of the sort.
I said sound waves go at the speed of sound, while radio waves, being EM waves, go at the speed of light.

Just like this deadbeat, you just deflect and make excuses. Sorry, but I'm not misrepresenting you. This is exactly what you said.
That would be you.
You are asked simple questions which demonstrate your delusional BS is wrong, and you respond with blatant lies.
You get called out for lying about what I have said, and you just repeat the same pathetic lies.

Radio waves are in the electromagnetic spectrum. But they are in the low end of it.
And they are still are EM waves, which travel at the speed of light.

Now you double down and say the same frequency is somehow magically at the speed of light because it's a different type.
No, it is the same type as other EM waves.
It is different to sound waves.


If frequency has no input, then it has no meaning.
Frequency has a meaning.
For sound waves, they cause pitch, where you can tell the difference between a high frequency note and a low frequency note.
For light, they carry different amounts of energy and interact with matter in different ways.

That does not require them to travel at a different speed.

If we are saying that sound and radio have the same vibrational energy
We aren't. That is your delusional BS.
I am saying radio waves are EM waves. You are the one trying to claim they are sound waves.

But frequency measures something! It measures the number of repetitions for rise and fall.
/\__/\__/\__/\
vs
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
for example.
And it measures it per unit time.

A wave with a frequency of 1 Hz oscillates once per second at a given location.
A wave with a frequency of 1 kHz oscillates 1 thousand times per second.

In order to get the speed of propagation from that frequency you also need the wavelength.

What it might guarantee (if indeed radio and sound are different) is that sound is reduced in its rate by distance, while electromagnetic is not.
Both follow an inverse square law, where the wave spreads out.
But neither wave loses speed. The speed may change if it goes into a different medium, but it doesn't lose speed.

So you are now just spouting more delusional BS.

If radio waves are not at light speed (as they should not be due to their frequency)
Repeatedly spouting the same delusional BS wont help you.
The frequency doesn't mean it isn't travelling at light speed.
It travels at light speed because it is an EM wave.

But frequency determines momentum which in turn means wave speed.
No it doesn't.

That relation only works when you have a massive particle, i.e. a particle with mass, travelling at some velocity significantly below the speed of light.
With the common relation momentum=mass*velocity.
But with a wave, that does not hold.

"Space is incredibly big." Right. So radio waves can circle Earth 7 times over (I used that exact measurement in a book, discussing teleportation), but wait no they can't with radio waves because outer space is too big? Really?!? No air resistance, it should travel the same in air as in a vacuum.  What is really slowing them down?
And this is more blatant misrepresentation from you.
Why not provide the full quote. Here is the part you left out:
Quote
The distances to be traveled are so great that even light or radio waves take a while getting there. It takes around eight minutes for radio waves to travel from the Earth to the Sun, and four years to get from here to the nearest star.

The distance to the sun is 150 000 000 km.
Earth is practically nothing compared to that.
So radio waves take quite a while to reach the sun, due to the distance involved.
There is nothing slowing them down.

Radio waves are sound waves.
Continually repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.

If they were sound, they would be picked up by a microphone not an antenna.
If they were sound, they would be emitted by a speaker not an antenna.
If they were sound, they would travel at the speed of sound, not vastly faster.

And you've contradicted yourself
Where?
You spouting delusional BS, which I have called out as delusional BS does not mean I have contradicted myself.
It means I have contradicted you.

But here you have radio waves that ignore air resistance that somehow can't just travel across the Earth without the aid of satellites.
Because Earth gets in the way.
You can't send radio waves straight through Earth.

I'm not misrepresenting you.
Yes you are.
You are blatantly lying about what I have said and falsely claiming I have contradicted myself.
All while being entirely incapable of providing quotes to support your lies.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #139 on: December 25, 2022, 11:01:29 PM »
"Radio waves ARE NOT SOUND WAVES!"

That's funny, because I can HEAR radio waves when I turn on the radio. So, I'm hearing not sound being broadcast, but electromagnetism reconstructing sound back together? Right...

What do you hear when spinning some vinyl on your turntable?

That's also funny, because when I ask the difference between sound waves and radio waves, I get a stock answer from NASA. Correct, behind every coverup is NASA.

Radio waves were first predicted by the theory of electromagnetism proposed in 1867 by Scottish mathematical physicist James Clerk Maxwell.[4] His mathematical theory, now called Maxwell's equations, predicted that a coupled electric and magnetic field could travel through space as an "electromagnetic wave".
German physicist Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory,[5] showing that they exhibited the same wave properties as light.


1867.

NASA: Founded July 29, 1958

91 years before NASA. Hmmm, how might NASA be behind this travesty of a lie in science?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #140 on: December 26, 2022, 06:08:17 AM »
"Radio waves ARE NOT SOUND WAVES!"

That's funny, because I can HEAR radio waves when I turn on the radio. So, I'm hearing not sound being broadcast, but electromagnetism reconstructing sound back together? Right...

What do you hear when spinning some vinyl on your turntable?

That's also funny, because when I ask the difference between sound waves and radio waves, I get a stock answer from NASA. Correct, behind every coverup is NASA.

Radio waves were first predicted by the theory of electromagnetism proposed in 1867 by Scottish mathematical physicist James Clerk Maxwell.[4] His mathematical theory, now called Maxwell's equations, predicted that a coupled electric and magnetic field could travel through space as an "electromagnetic wave".
German physicist Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory,[5] showing that they exhibited the same wave properties as light.


1867.

NASA: Founded July 29, 1958

91 years before NASA. Hmmm, how might NASA be behind this travesty of a lie in science?

Properties doesn't necessarily mean speed. Also, radio waves might have some of the properties of light, but it doesn't have them all.

Light can bypass barriers such as glass screens. Light can brighten areas (radio waves cannot). Light and radio bypass mediums. This doesn't mean they travel at remotely the same speed.
And certainly if radio waves did travel at the speed of light, that would be a thing that would mean awesome internet clarity, and perfect satellite television. But it's around there that we get into lie territory, before all that we were using half-truths to prop up the idea that light and radio are basically the same. We are told that the reason radio doesn't travel like light is "space is very big."
Different frequency does mean different speed. Just because radio frequency acts a little like light doesn't mean it is light.

Quote
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple to be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!
So do not be afraid of them. For there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, and nothing hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops.

Just as radio imitates light, so the imitators of Christ are not on the level of Jesus, but only a lower frequency. Just radio broadcasts picture and sound, so must I broadcast truth from the rooftops when I see it. And the truth is either that you're being scammed or part of the same scam.

91 years before NASA. You're a rube who thinks this is actually about NASA. NASA is just how they make money. This is about godless Freemasonry and getting you to accept the nWo, as they put it in wrestling.

The nWo is about power. It promises money/power to those who serve its causes but what it delivers is enslavement. You are a servant. And a fool, who believes things that are not so because they sound reasonable. Never questioning. You will die with the words "Why?!?" on your lips as the things you though were a good deal ( electric cars, solar energy, wokeness) all turned into a nightmare.
Quote
Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power.
The false kings of this world always follow this model. Then they find themselves overthrown.
https://displaced.zone/why-dictatorships-fail/
They are overthrown because they silence and kill those who tell them the truth.

Quote
What do you hear when spinning some vinyl on your turntable?

Nothing. The vinyl has to actually be scratched by a needle. Otherwise, I hear nothing besides the record turning.

 Such a record was recorded in a process that never made any sense to me. How does the recording correctly create indents for the record? How does any of this work correctly?

What if we aren't talking about actual transmission at all, but facsimile technology?
https://faxauthority.com/how-a-fax-machine-works/
 We are told "of course your voice sounds like that" when a recording leaves a strange tinny sound instead of our voice. But maybe it doesn't?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2022, 06:30:31 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #141 on: December 26, 2022, 06:39:20 AM »
"Radio waves ARE NOT SOUND WAVES!"

That's funny, because I can HEAR radio waves when I turn on the radio. So, I'm hearing not sound being broadcast, but electromagnetism reconstructing sound back together? Right...

What do you hear when spinning some vinyl on your turntable?

That's also funny, because when I ask the difference between sound waves and radio waves, I get a stock answer from NASA. Correct, behind every coverup is NASA.

Radio waves were first predicted by the theory of electromagnetism proposed in 1867 by Scottish mathematical physicist James Clerk Maxwell.[4] His mathematical theory, now called Maxwell's equations, predicted that a coupled electric and magnetic field could travel through space as an "electromagnetic wave".
German physicist Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory,[5] showing that they exhibited the same wave properties as light.


1867.

NASA: Founded July 29, 1958

91 years before NASA. Hmmm, how might NASA be behind this travesty of a lie in science?

Properties doesn't necessarily mean speed. Also, radio waves might have some of the properties of light, but it doesn't have them all.

Having determined the wavelength, Hertz could determine the speed if he could determine the frequency. He was able to determine the frequency from the known laws of electricity. Then he calculated that the speed of the waves was equal to the speed of light, as Maxwell had predicted.

He literally performed experiments and measured. And it's not like it's never been done again in the last 150+ years.

What experiments have you performed? What have you measured? Please post your findings otherwise you are just making shit up. Which seems to be your go to.


Light can bypass barriers such as glass screens. Light can brighten areas (radio waves cannot). Light and radio bypass mediums. This doesn't mean they travel at remotely the same speed.

Why?

And certainly if radio waves did travel at the speed of light, that would be a thing that would mean awesome internet clarity, and perfect satellite television. But it's around there that we get into lie territory, before all that we were using half-truths to prop up the idea that light and radio are basically the same. Different frequency does mean different speed. Just because radio frequency acts a little like light doesn't mean it is light.

Who said it was light? Things that travel at relatively the same speed have to be the same thing?

Just as radio imitates light, so the imitators of Christ are not on the level of Jesus, but only a lower frequency. Just radio broadcasts picture and sound, so must I broadcast truth from the rooftops when I see it. And the truth is either that you're being scammed or part of the same scam.

What? Are you off your meds again? ???

91 years before NASA. You're a rube who thinks this is actually about NASA. NASA is just how they make money. This is about godless Freemasonry and getting you to accept the nWo, as they put it in wrestling.

I'm not the rube who thinks it's actually about NASA, you are. You literally wrote, "Correct, behind every coverup is NASA."

How is that me being the rube and you not?

And now we've moved to the Ye Olde "Freemasonry New World Order" bit. Yeah, all of science, tested, measured, is all lies because of those evil Free Masons...

Oh my, you are trite and boring.

Now, what do you hear through your speakers when spinning some vinyl on your turntable? Radio waves?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #142 on: December 26, 2022, 07:18:16 AM »
Hahaha no, I'm not off my meds.

Quote
Having determined the wavelength, Hertz could determine the speed if he could determine the frequency. He was able to determine the frequency from the known laws of electricity. Then he calculated that the speed of the waves was equal to the speed of light, as Maxwell had predicted.

These scientists aren't predicting. They are using doctored results to get things to turn out like they want.

He calculated the speed of the waves, even though radio waves cannot be seen or heard. Sure he did. Actual light can be seen. Radio waves, therefore, are not light.

So, did Heinrich Hertz set up any radio equipment 299,792,458 metres away from the original broadcast? No? Then how does he know that it really can travel 299,792,458 metres per second? He sees that light and radio behave similarly, so he just writes a blank cheque to the notion that they are the same in every regard.

I used the analogy of Jesus and his disciples for a reason. Jesus's disciples were said to also be able to perform healings and drive out demons. Could they walk through walls or change form (as described of Jesus after his death)? No. Could they walk on water? Peter tried yet failed at it. They are only imitations.



Radio is not the same as light. We have no proof that it is, only the statements of Hertz and the prediction of Maxwell.

Quote
Who said it was light? Things that travel at relatively the same speed have to be the same thing?

Who said they travel at the same speed? They have "similar properties" so they of course travel at the same speed, you say. He "proved" this using a crude bit of metal, and a broadcast system.



Quote
Hertz had positioned the oscillator about 12 meters from a zinc reflecting plate to produce standing waves. Each wave was about 4 meters long.
Using the ring detector, he recorded how the wave's magnitude and component direction varied. Hertz measured Maxwell's waves and demonstrated that the velocity of these waves was equal to the velocity of light.

Wait, how? Yes, I am sure this experiment looked very impressive. But if it is only from short distances, I'm afraid you only proved that radio travels much faster than sound.  At greater distances we may have a much different result. What can you "prove" from 12 meters away?

So again, did Heinrich Hertz set up any radio equipment 299,792,458 metres away from the original broadcast? If not, then we only know that it was fast, like light. Not that it was fast as light.

In the mean time, we have definite lag from these signals because "space is big."  Definitely not because radio signal is slow.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2022, 07:55:14 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #143 on: December 26, 2022, 08:24:32 AM »
Hahaha no, I'm not off my meds.

Quote
Having determined the wavelength, Hertz could determine the speed if he could determine the frequency. He was able to determine the frequency from the known laws of electricity. Then he calculated that the speed of the waves was equal to the speed of light, as Maxwell had predicted.

These scientists aren't predicting. They are using doctored results to get things to turn out like they want.

What's your evidence that the gazillion times this has been tested/used are all resultant of "doctored results"? Or are you just making shit up again?

He calculated the speed of the waves, even though radio waves cannot be seen or heard. Sure he did. Actual light can be seen. Radio waves, therefore, are not light.

No one has said radio waves are light. Are you sure about the meds thing?

So, did Heinrich Hertz set up any radio equipment 299,792,458 metres away from the original broadcast? No? Then how does he know that it really can travel 299,792,458 metres per second? He sees that light and radio behave similarly, so he just writes a blank cheque to the notion that they are the same in every regard.

Because we've been beaming shit all over the globe over very long distances all the time and they all can be measured.

Yeah, Hertz, the Freemason NASA shill, just made up shit for you to expose with all of your expertise and experimentation. Totally makes sense and not at all extreme arrogance combined with lunacy on your part.

Where does all of this hyper-arrogance come from?

Speaking of NASA, are you still on the "Correct, behind every coverup is NASA," kick even though NASA didn't exist until the late 1950's?

I used the analogy of Jesus and his disciples for a reason. Jesus's disciples were said to also be able to perform healings and drive out demons. Could they walk through walls or change form (as described of Jesus after his death)? No. Could they walk on water? Peter tried yet failed at it. They are only imitations.

Completely bizarre and wildly irrelevant.

Radio is not the same as light. We have no proof that it is, only the statements of Hertz and the prediction of Maxwell.

And a million experiments and measurable usage all over the globe for a century+. Yeah, that's all.

And your proof is....? All we have are batshit crazy statements from you. Why should anyone believe your statements over someone else who actually studied such things, experimented with such things, all of which have been shown to work as predicted for 100+ years in, around, and through tens of millions of devices?

I think I'll go with Hertz and not some off-her-meds rando in a double-wide who thinks anime is real.

Now, what do you hear through your speakers when spinning some vinyl on your turntable? Radio waves?

And are you just trolling or are you really this arrogant?

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #144 on: December 26, 2022, 09:09:06 AM »

I’m an air traffic controller with 25yrs experience and am considered a subject matter expert on ATC radar systems. I represent the UK on European and international working groups on aviation radar systems.

If speed of radiation of differing wavelengths varied, the radars I use every day at Heathrow airport would paint aircraft on my screen miles away from their actual location. And yet they don’t. So how does that work? Is it coincidence?

You make a lot of assumptions. On what are you basing these, please?

How? Based on the real science of echolocation, on which radar is based. Radio is like light until conveniently it has to behave like sound. Meanwhile, real sound behaves like this:


The radar hits the airplane, and projects the radar signal back to the air traffic control station. Simple as that.

Meanwhile, such things don't work on a round Earth where curvature disrupts signals.

I assume that you are able to track a plane from takeoff to destination? I don't know the effective range of radar, but...

https://sage-answer.com/what-is-the-maximum-range-of-radar/

158km.  So any plane within that should be able to be detected. If however, it moves outside that, I would have to assume there are other radar systems overlapping yours to make sure the plane is on track, no?

Radar will give you an accurate image, but not a limitless range. Such waves must be supplemented by towers and other systems. Obviously, radar does not travel at the speed of light across the Earth. So radar is not radio, or radio is far more limited than we have claimed.
The same article that told me about radar limits mentioned physical limits to radar from the engineering standpoint, and how to double the signal, for some reason you need 16 times as much stuff.

But this doesn't seem to be the case.

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/
Quote
It seems that Time Magazine was trying to play down the distance of the 1915 radio transmissions by focusing on the shorter 2,000-mile Arlington-to-Paris radio transmission and omitting mention of the much longer 4,900-mile Arlington–to-Honolulu radio communication. That makes no sense if the objective of the article was to explain the monumental achievement on that day one hundred years earlier. But it makes perfect sense to play down the significance of the 1915 achievement if the objective is to hide proof that the earth is flat.

The inherent illogic and contradiction in the ionosphere-bounce theory make it a flawed and inconvenient explanation for long-range radio transmissions. But it is all modern science has, so they just go with it. A straight line transmission on a spherical earth from the Arlington Naval Radio Station to Honolulu (or Paris for that matter) would be impossible. Perhaps Time Magazine did not want to reveal or explain the longer 4,900 mile Arlington-to-Honolulu radio transmission because it reveals too much; i.e., it is stronger evidence that the earth is flat.

We are able to project such waves across the Earth. Where was the curvature in all of this?

So easy, it was just repeated from satellites curving over the Earth, correct? Well, no. Even if you could predict satellites (satellites ALWAYS fail as an explanation as they run afoul of the Uncertainty Principle),

Quote from: Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which the values for certain pairs of physical quantities of a particle, such as position, x, and momentum, p, can be predicted from initial conditions.
(satellites would necessarily need to be in a fixed position, or you would never be able to hit them)
this still fails to satisfy as an explanation. Why not?

Quote
It seems that all supposed satellite signals are actually signals from land-based towers. For example, this author’s wife has a “satellite” radio in her car. We have noticed that when traveling over a mountain road that rises in elevation approximately 2,000 feet above the foot of the mountain, we always lose the “satellite” reception on the radio as we reach the top of the mountain. It seems odd to lose reception from an alleged “satellite” that is supposed to be overhead as one rises in elevation. The radio receiver should be closer to the supposed “satellite” and thus receive a stronger signal the higher we rise in elevation. We have noticed that at the same moment that we lose satellite reception, we also lose cell phone tower reception. I infer, therefore, from the simultaneous loss of cellular phone reception and “satellite” radio reception that the “satellite” radio transmissions are not actually broadcast from satellites at all, but are broadcast via cellular towers.

It seems this inference is correct. Any satellite being above us should give a frequency even stronger atop a mountain than at its base. However, the reverse is true. Such a thing can only be true if such signals are land-based.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2022, 09:34:17 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #145 on: December 26, 2022, 09:33:46 AM »

I’m an air traffic controller with 25yrs experience and am considered a subject matter expert on ATC radar systems. I represent the UK on European and international working groups on aviation radar systems.

If speed of radiation of differing wavelengths varied, the radars I use every day at Heathrow airport would paint aircraft on my screen miles away from their actual location. And yet they don’t. So how does that work? Is it coincidence?

You make a lot of assumptions. On what are you basing these, please?

How? Based on the real science of echolocation, on which radar is based. Radio is like light until conveniently it has to behave like sound.

You missed the point entirely...

If speed of radiation of differing wavelengths varied, the radars I use every day at Heathrow airport would paint aircraft on my screen miles away from their actual location. And yet they don’t. So how does that work? Is it coincidence?

And go ahead and trans-splain to an AT controller how things really work in his world. You obviously know way more than he does.

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #146 on: December 26, 2022, 03:17:12 PM »
Properties doesn't necessarily mean speed.
Yet you want to pretend that frequency does mean speed, and without it meaning speed it has no meaning.
Great job showing you have been spouting BS.

Light can bypass barriers such as glass screens.
So can radio waves.
But the barriers each can pass will vary.

Light can brighten areas (radio waves cannot).
Yes it can, it just doesn't brighten it with visible light.
Just like if you illuminate an area with red light, it doesn't brighten the area with all colours.

And certainly if radio waves did travel at the speed of light, that would be a thing that would mean awesome internet clarity, and perfect satellite television.
Why?
Again you spout delusional garbage with no justification at all.

Speed is only one aspect.
And that relates directly to ping.
So travelling at the speed of light would just mean a low ping, if you were the only one using it, and it was a duplex link.

But to have perfect TV would require infinite bandwidth.
Having awesome internet or TV would require a large bandwith.

But it's around there that we get into lie territory
Yes, where you start spouting blatant lies because you can't defend your delusional BS.

We are told that the reason radio doesn't travel like light is "space is very big."
And another blatant lie from you.
You weren't told that it doesn't travel like light.
You were told that it takes a long time for radio waves to traverse space, e.g. from Earth to the sun or from Earth to Mars.
And that applies to light as well.

Stop lying.

Different frequency does mean different speed.
Repeating the same delusional BS, with no justification at all, will not help you. It just shows how dishonest you need to be to pretend your BS is correct.

Just as radio imitates light
Radio doesn't imitate light.
Radio waves and light are both EM radiation.

so must I broadcast truth from the rooftops when I see it
So why are you spouting so much dishonest BS?
Even after your dishonesty is called out, you repeat the same dishonest BS.

And the truth is either that you're being scammed or part of the same scam.
The truth is that you are blatantly lying to us.
The question is why.
Have you been scammed by FE conmen, are you a FE conman trying to scam people, or are you a pathetic troll?

Such a record was recorded in a process that never made any sense to me.
It not making sense to you doesn't matter at all.
Lots of things seem to make no sense to you.

These scientists aren't predicting. They are using doctored results to get things to turn out like they want.
You not liking reality doesn't mean reality is doctored.

He calculated the speed of the waves, even though radio waves cannot be seen or heard.
Yes, by the use of instruments.
Real scientists don't just use their eyes and ears. They use instruments for precision measurements.

Actual light can be seen.
Visible light can be seen.

So, did Heinrich Hertz set up any radio equipment 299,792,458 metres away from the original broadcast?
So you still fail to understand how speed works?
They do not need to measure how far it travels in 1 second to determine the speed.

As a simple example, if you set up a reflector such that it goes back and forth, you can count how many times it goes back and forth in a given amount of time, you can use that to determine the speed.

I used the analogy of Jesus and his disciples for a reason.
Because you need to cling to fairy tales because you can't handle reality?

We have no proof that it is
You mean you reject all evidence that shows you are wrong.
You are free to recreate the experiments.

Or you can just accept how radar is used.
If the speed of light was wrong, all distances produced by radar would be massively incorrect.

So no, there is plenty of evidence. We are not simply relying upon statements of Hertz and Maxwell.

Wait, how?
As explained.
A standing wave was setup with a known wavelength.
He then measured the frequency by measuring the change in amplitude over time.
By knowing the frequency and wavelength you can determine the speed.

If not, then we only know that it was fast, like light. Not that it was fast as light.
Your wilful ignorance does not prevent us from knowing that radio waves travel at the speed of light.

*

JackBlack

  • 22470
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #147 on: December 26, 2022, 03:42:18 PM »
How? Based on the real science of echolocation, on which radar is based. Radio is like light until conveniently it has to behave like sound.
You mean where it has to behave like virtually all waves, where it will reflect off objects?
Light does that as well.

The radar hits the airplane, and projects the radar signal back to the air traffic control station. Simple as that.
No, you leave out a key part.
Radio waves are emitted at a particular time.
Some time later they bounce off the aircraft.
And then some more time later they are detected.
The time between them being emitted and detected gives a time of flight, and the velocity of the waves along with that time of flight gives the distance. Specifically t=2*d*v.

If the velocity was wrong, the distances calculated would be wrong.

The widespread use of radar demonstrates your claims are delusional BS.

Meanwhile, such things don't work on a round Earth where curvature disrupts signals.
And more dishonest BS.
The curvature of Earth provides a limitation on the range.

Using the simple approximation of h=d^2/2R, at an altitude of 10 km (~35 000 ft), that would give a range of ~357 km.
As well as that, there are power limitations, as the radar will follow an inverse square law both, on the way to the object, and on the way back. So after enough distance the signal wont be detectable.

Obviously, radar does not travel at the speed of light across the Earth. So radar is not radio, or radio is far more limited than we have claimed.
Why repeat the same delusional BS?
RADAR is radio. That is even literally the first word. RAdio detection and ranging.
Why does it's limited range mean it doesn't travel at the speed of light?
If I hold a flashlight in Sydney, it can't be seen in London.
Does that mean light doesn't travel at the speed of light?

The same article that told me about radar limits mentioned physical limits to radar from the engineering standpoint, and how to double the signal, for some reason you need 16 times as much stuff.

But this doesn't seem to be the case.
And more dishonest BS.
It doesn't say doubling the signal. It says doubling the range.
And that is quite simple, by just considering the 2 paths of the beam, how it is reflected, and the inverse square law.

First you have the beam from the transmitter to the object.
If you double the distance to the object, then the power drops by a factor of 4 due to the inverse square law. (As 4 is 2^2).
Then due to the nature of how the object reflects, you can consider it as a source, as it takes the power it receives and spreads it out in all directions.
This means you again apply the inverse square law. In order to make double the distance you will need 4 times the power. That means that the source will need to send 4 times the power to that location.

So overall, you need to have the object reflect 4 times the power, to make the distance, and you need to multiply that by 4 again for the signal going there.
and 4*x=16.
So you need 16 times the power to double the range.

If you wish to claim it "doesn't seem to be the case", how about you try explaining why rather than just asserting more BS without justification.


We are able to project such waves across the Earth. Where was the curvature in all of this?
Your article already knows how. It just blatantly lies because it is interested in propping up its delusional fantasy with no concern for the truth.

satellites ALWAYS fail as an explanation as they run afoul of the Uncertainty Principle
And more delusional BS, asserted without justification.

For example, this author’s wife has a “satellite” radio in her car.
Does she?
Or is this author just blatantly lying like they have previously?

Again, GPS is a quite simple demonstration.
I can get GPS coverage in the middle of no where, even though I have no cell coverage at all.


*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #148 on: December 26, 2022, 04:57:07 PM »
bulmabriefs144 doesn't seem to understand how Geostationary Orbits work.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2791
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #149 on: December 27, 2022, 06:10:15 AM »
Oh I see. Now you're claiming they're geostationary orbits.

The geostationary orbit assumes the absurd premise that because the (1) Earth is round, (2) Earth spins at 1000+ mph, (3) tilts 21.5 to 24.5 degrees, (4) orbits 67,000 mph,   (5) while the sun itself drags the Earth long its path around the Milky Way, (6) the satellite and in fact all satellites are locked to this speed and irregularity without an excess of propulsion simply by trailing along with momentum or something when any source of fuel would exhaust itself trying to keep up with that, (7) and we haven't mentioned precession or eccentric orbits that Earth sometimes gets to explain away some other bullshit hole in the round Earth theory.

That's a hard fail for Occam's Razor. Either inevitably, the geostationary orbit isn't as good as we think it is and the object drags somewhere and progressively gets more and more off year after year, or we have to admit that not only is geostationary orbit a huge brag on the part of humans, but this entire premise of all this shit Earth does is complete crap.

Here's a simpler one. Satellite dishes are not attuned to a specific satellite in the sky. We can accept the Earth is round, but all of this works alot better if it's not, especially because then we can throw all the crap about matching orbit with a peculiar orbit out the window.

 We can accept that satellites are fixed in the sky, either by being weather balloons, or by simply being locked in place as floating solar-powered platforms. Or that dishes just pick up random signals. You can even accept as I do that the reason "satellite" is so easy for dishes to pick up is they are picking it up from celltowers on Earth.

 And you haven't explained when an overhead object chooses to cut out at high altitude but not at low altitude (behavior again more in line with celltowers than overhead satellites especially those supposedly in space), but instead decide to to use the same tone as "Someone has a case of the Mondays" when mentioning me not understanding geostationary orbit.

Of course I don't understand. There's no way such objects can match orbit with all the bullshit Earth does.



« Last Edit: December 27, 2022, 06:28:01 AM by bulmabriefs144 »