Cool Mission?

Stash, you have not understood me. Yes, I do respect pragmatic experiments. But they have to be on the level. "I have proved that radio is electromagnetic (by making an awful device where it isn't likely to be able to stat on without burning)."

Then use a more modern version, which uses an antenna.

And they used the idea that radio have waves to send out radio signals. Since modern radio does tend to conduct on metal, I suppose you could say radio is electromagnetic, but that same logic extends to sound with a pair of metal tuning forks, making sound also electromagnetic, or radio actually sound.

It isn't simply that it conducts on metal.
It is that you need a conductor to send it out and receive it.
A radio device picks up radio waves not by a microphone, but with an antenna, typically a conductive piece of metal or other conductor in which the electrons are moved by the EM waves.

And at that moment, there is no proof that what he sent out was actually a radio signal and not an electrical discharge.

What he sent out was deemed to be radio waves.

The only way around that is to claim a specific definition of radio waves, such as the now standard one of EM waves with a frequency less than 300 GHz.

So he most certainly demonstrated that radio waves are electromagnetic in nature.

There is no proof that radio travels in a vacuum.
There is no proof that radio travels at light speed.

Ignoring the evidence doesn't magically make it go away. It makes you wilfully ignorant.

You haven't proven yet that radio isn't in fact traveling at the speed of sound.

You have been provided with plenty of experiments you can do to test that, yet you refuse to do them, or accept the results of other experiments.

And frankly, it's amateur at how unclean this tech is. It probably also gave out radiation.

Yes, such as electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves.
However the initial experiments probably put out fairly broad spectrum EM radiation, including visible light.

I never said I was doing an experiment on this. I said there is a walking mass of claims which haven't been proven.

Because you are so desperate to reject reality.
In reality, there are a collection of conclusions, backed up by mountains of evidence.

Again, the every day use of RADAR relies upon the known velocity of radio waves.

I'm not a Luddite.

No, you just hate reality, and want to cling to a fantasy. So you will reject any part of reality which goes to destroying that fantasy of yours.

Technology should attempt to lower wasted energy.

Which is why modern radio devices are much better.

These are claims that assume the arc of energy was radio. Faraday created similar effects with electrical arcing.

Do you understand what was happening here?

It isn't the little arc that is the radio wave.
The radio waves are being generated by that arc, and transmitted to the other coil.

No, a side effect of his experiment which used entirely too much power (and with probably have ignited if it were on longer) was electromagnetic interference

i.e. a side effect of his experiment was radio waves (electromagnetic interference)?

he assumed the radio and the electricity were one in the same. It's a side effect. A side effect that later manufacturers have removed, because it's dangerous. And that's why I hate it, and refuse it as proof.

No, he didn't assume they were the same. He knew they were related.
That moving electrons will modify the electric and magnetic field, produce waves, which travel outwards and are capable of being picked up.

The electric arc was the side effect, which is not needed in modern devices.

So why don't you just admit the real reason you hate it and refuse it as proof?
Because you want to pretend that your delusional fantasy is true, and accepting the truth about radio waves brings you one step closer to the destruction of your fantasy.

Just like how you wont engage with simple math based upon your delusional garbage about the moon, because you know it will destroy your fantasy.

Stash, you have not understood me. Yes, I do respect pragmatic experiments.

Apparently, you really don't. Because any experiment that contradicts your personal narrative - One I might add has ZERO experimental credibility - is immediately deemed 'carny' or foolish or crap. Without so much as actually researching what it is you rail against. Extremely lazy of you.

For one, do you think Hertz is the only person in history to test, experiment, measure this? That's what I mean by lazy. You have ZERO expertise in the matter, but simply toss out a century of experimentation and actual usage. I mean come on, talking radar for a second, if it didn't work like it is said to work, it would be wrong, the world over, and things would be crashing into things left, right, and center.

Step out of your narrative and actually examine the world and how it functions, whether you like it or not is neither here nor their.

That said, a quick search finds others measuring radio waves and their velocity in more modern times and with different, more modern methodologies. If you took half a second to take the blinders off, you might just actually learn something. 

(1955) A Measurement of the Velocity of Propagation of Very-High-Frequency Radio Waves at the Surface of the Earth

The velocity of propagation of electromagnetic waves was measured at t he surface of the earth, using a radio-wave interferometer operating at a frequency of 172.8 Mc. The measured phase velocity, converted to velocity in vacuum, or the "free-space" value, was found to be 299795.1 ± 3.1 km/sec. The uncertainty of ± 3.1 km/sec includes a 95-percent confidence interval for t he mean, plus an estimated limit to the systematic error of ± O.7 km/sec.

Measurements of the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic waves have been carried out by a large number of investigators over a long period of time and by various methods [1 to 10]¹ The primary object of their work has been to obtain an accurate value of the "free-space" velocity of electromagnetic, waves for use both in theoretical and practical applications of this fundamental constant.

The complete system used to make the phase velocity measurements is shown in block form in figure 4. As in figure 1, R I and R2 are the two receiving points (antennas) between which the radio wave phase velocity was measured; the transmission from radio transmitter To combines with the signal from TI (or T2) to produce heterodyne-frequency signals at RI and R2. Radio transmitter TI and T2 were located on the extensions of the straight line through R I and R2 and provided signals on which the phase-velocity measurements were made.
Two types of receiving antennas were used : (l) vertically polarized, unbalanced quarter-wave antennas with base at ground level, and (2) balanced horizon tall polarized, half-wave antennas approximately) /4 above the ground.



Pick up a copy of The Velocity of Light And Radio Waves
By K. D. Froome, L. Essen 157 pp. Academic, New York, 1969

At the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, time-standard authorities Keith D. Froome and Louis Essen have pioneered modern measurements of the vacuum speed of electromagnetic waves, a constant of unique theoretical and practical importance. Including their own work, they have presented a well balanced survey of the field in an excellent monograph, much of which can be understood by the scientific generalist.

Independently verified using a different methodologies and modern techniques over many years by many different scientists. 299795.1 ± 3.1 km/sec. Everyone seems to be right in the same ballpark in terms of results. Go figure.

What experiments have you done? What measuring have you done? What did you come up with? What is the velocity of light and radio waves. Do tell.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 26, 2023, 05:41:47 AM

Stash, you have not understood me. Yes, I do respect pragmatic experiments. But they have to be on the level. "I have proved that radio is electromagnetic (by making an awful device where it isn't likely to be able to stat on without burning)."

Then use a more modern version, which uses an antenna.

The point being that they apparently use this brokenness as "proof" that radio is electromagnetic, and then they in turn try to sneak in proof that hasn't actually been proven.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 26, 2023, 05:41:47 AM

And they used the idea that radio have waves to send out radio signals. Since modern radio does tend to conduct on metal, I suppose you could say radio is electromagnetic, but that same logic extends to sound with a pair of metal tuning forks, making sound also electromagnetic, or radio actually sound.

It isn't simply that it conducts on metal.
It is that you need a conductor to send it out and receive it.

A radio device picks up radio waves not by a microphone, but with an antenna, typically a conductive piece of metal or other conductor in which the electrons are moved by the EM waves.

Sorry, but it is totally possible to create sound resonance through the use of energy. A current of electrical energy is simply matter in motion at the fourth state of matter. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)



Vibration of objects hitting something equals sound. Electrical current is vibrating molecules. These molecules excite the metal and produce something that cannot be seen or heard.  None of this from Hertz proves anything.




Heat increases the motion of molecules as shown in the image above. These molecules create resonance which makes sound. So no, we cannot prove that this is electromagnetic conduction or a resonance reaction from a current from Hertz's test. Not without more tests that can rule out things. But since he's dead, we can't run more tests!

(Loads more of these quotes of back and forth, more than I can respond to, or want to for that matter)

You know, I really really love it when people pick at my arguments a segment at a time. It really makes me feel listened to.
That was sarcasm. The point of writing is to create a persuasive thesis (which means whole paragraphs are meant to be taken all at once), when people start pulling at entire paragraphs sentence by sentence, I'm basically swamped with topics to respond to. 

Maybe I'll do it to you. Only instead of giving you questions, I'll reduce everything you say to nonsense or memes.

It isn't

Yes it is.

simply

that

What? What is that?

it

conducts on metal

This kind of metal?


No? Then stop doing it. Address one or two points, not a laundry list of quoting me line by line, and expecting me to want to respond. But then, that was your intention all along, for me not to be able to respond.

The point being that they apparently use this brokenness as "proof" that radio is electromagnetic, and then they in turn try to sneak in proof that hasn't actually been proven.

No, we accept the evidence from before, and recognise there are better, more modern version.

Sorry, but it is totally possible to create sound resonance through the use of energy.

Again, you are going about it the wrong way around.
It is that it is both sent and received by metal.

But since he's dead, we can't run more tests!

You can run more tests. You don't need him to be alive to run tests.
A key part of science is building upon the work of others.
That is taking what they know, and running more experiments.

Maybe I'll do it to you. Only instead of giving you questions, I'll reduce everything you say to nonsense or memes.

You mean now that you have had each of your points refuted, and you can't come up with anything to defend your BS, you will just ignore the rest and resort to childish BS.

If you want to stick to a few points, provide no more than a few points, rather than your typical mountain of BS with so many faults it isn't funny.

If you want a simple summary:
Hertz was able to wireless transmit power.
This was something created by an electrical circuit, and which was received and provided electrical power.
This wireless transmission of power was called radio waves.
This is electromagnetic in nature. Even if you want to call it an EMP.

We have plenty more evidence since Hertz, including the everyday use of RADAR which relies upon the speed of radio waves being known.
We also have other experiments further demonstrating it can't be sound.
This includes the fact that it can be polarised, something you cannot do with sound propagating through air, but can do with EM waves.
And it can propagate through a vacuum, something sound cant.
A modern antenna can pick up the radio waves and modern electronics can directly view the resulting signal.
This includes being picked up by things which don't pick up sound.

So there is nothing supporting the idea that radio waves are sound, and plenty to support the fact that the are EM waves.

Likewise, for your prior garbage about the moon:
To see something it needs to be either bright enough to be noticed compared to the background, or have enough contrast and a large enough angular size to be resolved, and nothing can block the view.
So for a moon, using the RE numbers, it will most certainly be visible when nothing is blocking the view, and is roughly equivalent to a 1 cm object at a distance of 1 m.

The numbers you used are clearly pure garbage as it would mean the moon would take up 45 degrees of your FOV when directly overhead, and shrink to around 1 degree when over a point when it is appearing to set (and it should still appear high in the sky).

The fact that over a 24 hour period, everyone who can see it sees it as roughly the same size clearly demonstrates the distance to the moon must be many times the size of Earth.
So your arbitrary numbers are pure BS, which are far worse than the empirical numbers RE uses.

Unlike Hertz, this guy does straightforward experiments.



0. Tuning forks respond to vibrations, including the vibrations caused by heat or energy.
1. Sound is vibration and can disrupt air or water.
2. Computer monitor shows sound waves visually, using the the shadows to show a backboard (that light is interacting with sound doesn't hurt). Ditto for strobe light.
3. Sound can be picked up as a frequency in machines, showing that anything with a frequency
4. Tuning fork transfers sound in the same way Hertz was about to transfer "radio waves". With alot of wasted energy on his part, as I've commented before.
5. This resonance works for other things than just sound. Don't believe me? Besides the laser light, the reason a microwave explodes is because it is echoing microwave waves back at the device. Of course, you'll probably also have a melted fork. All frequencies are on the electromagnetic spectrum. But not all frequencies travel at the speed of light, not all frequencies bypass a vacuum.
6. Two disharmonic forks can create interference. Radio frequencies can get static.
7. You can measure the height of resonance to determine wavelength of sound. Yet here's the problem of Hertz. He had crude tools, and no modern measurement devices, and he most definitely did not have 340,000 km measurement for the 340,000 km/s result. He had a crude device producing electronic resonance and only measured 15 or so ft away.
8. Sine curve is depiction of frequency. Frequency of light/frequency of sound, same difference, the sound waves can be displayed. There's no real gap here in these experiments between electromagnetic frequency of light and for sound behaves. You can use a tuning fork vs both.
9. Sound is also harmonic. You can use it for music.
10. Forget his last one, it's a repetition of 9. But they showed him heating a fork earlier, let's talk about that. Besides thermoharmonics, there is also resonance with electrical signals. If you replaced the set of nonhairy balls in Hertz's experiment with a couple of tuning forks, you would probably see this same electronic resonance but with regular sound.



It picks up a charge. The vibration reacts with the coils in the magnet! Sound does have electromagnetic frequency! (It just gets stopped by a vacuum as the molecules move too slow or something, but otherwise there is no difference)

But Herpes didn't do this. Why not? Well as a Freemason (like all Freemasons, his presence in the roster is irrelevant, it's that he is working towards evil is apparent), he wanted to produce evil disharmonic signals like all radio waves. Such  waves are now resonating off your brain, causing you to believe utter nonsense. Like that you can refute my points, just because you say you have.

Prove that sound is not also in the electromagnetic spectrum.
(We showed that sound waves can be picked up by electrical measuring devices (as well as oscilloscopes))

Prove that radio is not also (ultrasonic) sound.

 And if it's not sound, prove it actually exists.

The day you buy and read my books is the day I might consider shopping for yours.

Ok, would love to. You've written a book about all this stuff? Perhaps it explains what you're attempting to convey better than your posts here. Where can I read it?

The book I recommended earlier on this thread isn't 'my' book, but it is ackowldged to have a good introduction for the mechanisms behind radar.

In the mean time, you can tell me how radar, sound, light, and radio are all related the way you say. Even though radar has a limited range like sound, whereas I'll give you that radio can travel significantly across the world while sound can't. But radar can't be broadcast like radio (to the best of my knowledge. it can't be translated into light or sound like radio. It's pretty well identical to a bat's scream in all matters except range. I could believe maybe radio is different from sound (though not moving at light speed in a vacuum) but radar is another story.

Well, that's the thing. You were the one claiming radar was like sound, so therefore they are related and possibly, in your mind, the same thing. Unless I'm missing something? I wasn't claiming that. I was trying to explain that it could be confusing because people often use the words 'bounce', 'reflect' when talking about radar, and compare radar to sound (bats and dolphins) in order to simplify it all. Radar, radio, light, microwaves are all EM radiation. There is no doubting this. it's measurable, known, and forms the basis for many of the technologies we use in everyday life. Sound is not EM radiation. Sound propagates through a medium by the movement and vibration of that very medium. This is not how EM radiation propagates.

In the UK, Robert Watson-Watt and his team in the UK were some of the first people to develop radar before the Second World War (there were other teams developing radar (us Brits called it 'Radio Detection and Ranging, or RDF back then, and not radar - there's a hint in that title)). The first experiments used a BBC radio transmitter.

Radar is a function. Not a discrete radiation. Radars can use the same wavelengths as radio. You can have VHF radios (FM, 88-107MHz), and VHF radars (usually used for long range early warning), HF radios (long range comms, radio hams etc) and HF radars (usually ground penetrating radars used for geophyisical research and archaeology), UHF radios (your usual 'brick' walkie talkies, etc) and UHF radars (long range ATC radars). The trick with radar is transmitting a signal, and then detecting the re-emissions from the target with a receiver antenna. If you just broadcast the 'radar' then that's radio!

We can prove that light is in the electromagnetic spectrum. We can prove microwaves and x-rays are real from their effect on the human body and on meat. Similar with UV and infrared.

And we have microwave radars. And microwave radios. As well as microwave ovens. The function can vary, they all use similar frequncies of EM radiation.

But you know what? We have no actual proof radio waves even exist, do we? If radio waves are not sound then we can't hear them. They aren't light either. White light and prismatic light and even black light are all able to be detected.  But there is no human means of detecting radio waves. They have to be translated into radio shows or music or TV or GPS. Radio has no presence in this world without being shaped into something else. These are non-energetic waves that seem to not exist. Much like the crap said to justify satellites/radio/etc.

If you put a radio in a vacuum case, the sound would cease, but you would have no way of knowing whether the radio signal continued or not. Oh right, you can have bars.  as though bars are a reliable gauge of what is going on. We can't even be sure if radio is actually what is measured.

I can't tell if you're actually being serious here.

Prove that radio is not also (ultrasonic) sound.

A simple faraday cage proves your full of crap.

I can walk into a metal building and have no cellphone signal/service to the nearest cellphone tower.  And still hear outside noise/traffic.


A faraday cage that blocks radio signals is designed very differently than acoustic tiles/sound proofing.

You just look utterly ridiculous. 

Prove that radio is not also (ultrasonic) sound.

 

Radio, it’s just electromagnetic radiation.  It causes noise/interference in electrical circuits without the need to be converted to mechanical waves. The electromagnetic wave acts directly on the electrons in the conductor of the circuits.

In reception, an antenna intercepts some of the power of a radio wave in order to produce an electric current at its terminals, that is applied to a receiver to be amplified. Antennas are essential components of all radio equipment.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)

There is no need to convert the energy to a mechanical form.  The radio waves directly causes current to flow in conductors.


Where, like an Ultrasound machine.  A transducer converts the electricity to a mechanical wave, then the “echo” is converted from a mechanical wave to electrical current.

Ultrasound Transducers, Piezoelectric Transducers, Piezo Ceramic Components for OEMs

A piezoelectric transducer converts mechanical energy into electrical energy and vice versa; its operation range can cover DC to high frequency of several MHz

https://www.pi-usa.us/en/products/piezo-transducers-sensing-ultrasound/?onl_goog_pic_Transducer&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0az90P3n_AIVgA-tBh2PoggKEAAYAiAAEgKqFfD_BwE

Or for a microphone and a speaker you need “external” magnets.

A microphone converts sound into a small electrical current. Sound waves hit a diaphragm that vibrates, moving a magnet near a coil.


https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-does-a-microphone-pick-up-sounds/amp/

For a sound wave to be converted to an electrical current, the mechanical wave must hit something that can make a magnetic vibrate in the presence of an electrical field usually provided by a coil. The magnetism hast to be provided, not part of the sound wave.

Because electromagnetic waves are literally electrical with magnetism in one wave, it directly induces current in conductive materials.

Simple.  Sound must use mechanical energy to make a magnetic vibrate in an electrical field to procure current.  Or a piezoelectric transducer.

Radio waves don’t need an external magnet or piezoelectric transducer.  Since the wave is electrical, not mechanical, and brings its own “magnetism” can directly introduce a current in conductive materials.

Paper is actually a good insulator against electricity, and not very interactive with radio waves.  Use paper as a diaphragm in a speaker with a magnetic attached, it produces sound waves from the magnetic interacting with a coil and alternating electrical current. 

Shoot radio waves at paper all day long with no magnetics attached, paper’s not going to do crap.  With enough radio energy might catch on fire? 


How would a tuning fork made out of plastic make radio waves?  It’s not going to make a great sound, but it still will make sound. 
 

Unlike Hertz, this guy does straightforward experiments.

Unlike you, many people have actually done experiments.

And many people other than Hertz have done the relative experiments using various and modern methodologies and come up with the same answer...That you are wrong...

(1955) A Measurement of the Velocity of Propagation of Very-High-Frequency Radio Waves at the Surface of the Earth

The velocity of propagation of electromagnetic waves was measured at t he surface of the earth, using a radio-wave interferometer operating at a frequency of 172.8 Mc. The measured phase velocity, converted to velocity in vacuum, or the "free-space" value, was found to be 299795.1 ± 3.1 km/sec. The uncertainty of ± 3.1 km/sec includes a 95-percent confidence interval for t he mean, plus an estimated limit to the systematic error of ± O.7 km/sec.

Measurements of the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic waves have been carried out by a large number of investigators over a long period of time and by various methods [1 to 10]¹ The primary object of their work has been to obtain an accurate value of the "free-space" velocity of electromagnetic, waves for use both in theoretical and practical applications of this fundamental constant.

The complete system used to make the phase velocity measurements is shown in block form in figure 4. As in figure 1, R I and R2 are the two receiving points (antennas) between which the radio wave phase velocity was measured; the transmission from radio transmitter To combines with the signal from TI (or T2) to produce heterodyne-frequency signals at RI and R2. Radio transmitter TI and T2 were located on the extensions of the straight line through R I and R2 and provided signals on which the phase-velocity measurements were made.
Two types of receiving antennas were used : (l) vertically polarized, unbalanced quarter-wave antennas with base at ground level, and (2) balanced horizon tall polarized, half-wave antennas approximately) /4 above the ground.



Pick up a copy of The Velocity of Light And Radio Waves
By K. D. Froome, L. Essen 157 pp. Academic, New York, 1969

At the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, time-standard authorities Keith D. Froome and Louis Essen have pioneered modern measurements of the vacuum speed of electromagnetic waves, a constant of unique theoretical and practical importance. Including their own work, they have presented a well balanced survey of the field in an excellent monograph, much of which can be understood by the scientific generalist.

Independently verified using a different methodologies and modern techniques over many years by many different scientists. 299795.1 ± 3.1 km/sec. Everyone seems to be right in the same ballpark in terms of results. Go figure.

Unlike Hertz, this guy does straightforward experiments.

Because you can hear sound.
Now try it with something you cannot directly see or hear.

However, note that they use the same kind of experiment as Hertz, number 7, where they used the frequency and wavelength to determine the speed of sound.
Why accept that, but then object so strongly to Hertz?

0. Tuning forks respond to vibrations, including the vibrations caused by heat or energy.
1. Sound is vibration and can disrupt air or water.
2. Computer monitor shows sound waves visually, using the the shadows to show a backboard (that light is interacting with sound doesn't hurt). Ditto for strobe light.
3. Sound can be picked up as a frequency in machines, showing that anything with a frequency
4. Tuning fork transfers sound in the same way Hertz was about to transfer "radio waves". With alot of wasted energy on his part, as I've commented before.
5. This resonance works for other things than just sound. Don't believe me? Besides the laser light, the reason a microwave explodes is because it is echoing microwave waves back at the device. Of course, you'll probably also have a melted fork. All frequencies are on the electromagnetic spectrum. But not all frequencies travel at the speed of light, not all frequencies bypass a vacuum.
6. Two disharmonic forks can create interference. Radio frequencies can get static.
7. You can measure the height of resonance to determine wavelength of sound. Yet here's the problem of Hertz. He had crude tools, and no modern measurement devices, and he most definitely did not have 340,000 km measurement for the 340,000 km/s result. He had a crude device producing electronic resonance and only measured 15 or so ft away.
8. Sine curve is depiction of frequency. Frequency of light/frequency of sound, same difference, the sound waves can be displayed. There's no real gap here in these experiments between electromagnetic frequency of light and for sound behaves. You can use a tuning fork vs both.
9. Sound is also harmonic. You can use it for music.

0 - But not radio waves.
2 - They can, with the appropriate software. Light does not directly interact with sound.
3 - Yes, using a microphone of some form.
4 - No, tuning forks use sound to transfer it, Hertz used radio waves. This was directly exciting the electrons, rather than vibrating the entire fork.
5 - Pure BS. Only EM waves are on the EM spectrum. Sound is NOT on the EM spectrum, and EM waves travel at the speed of light, and can go through a vacuum.
The reason microwaves explode is because you are dumping in lots of energy with no where for it to go, so it overheats the microwave.
7 - You can determine the velocity by knowing the frequency and wavelength. That is what Hertz did, and what you objected to. Why repeat the same dishonest garbage which is directly refuted by your video? Your video did not need 345 m to determine the speed of sound. They only need 1.2. The sample applies to radio waves. If you know the frequency and wavelength you can determine the velocity.
8 - Yes, you can display the frequency for both as a sine wave. The difference is what is happening physically. One big difference is that one is a transverse wave while the other is longitudinal.

It picks up a charge. The vibration reacts with the coils in the magnet! Sound does have electromagnetic frequency!

Wrong again.
The vibrations move the magnet, this moving magnet induces a current in the wire.

Try it with just a normal wire, or a coil of wire without a magnet. You wont get the same result.

So no, sound does not have "electromagnetic frequency". Sound waves, in air, can be picked up by devices to convert them into electrical signals.

it's that he is working towards evil is apparent

Working towards things which as a side effect demonstrate your delusional garbage is delusional garbage is not evil.
I get it, you hate reality, and Hertz because there experiments destroy your delusional garbage.
But that doesn't make him evil or working towards evil.

And if it's not sound, prove it actually exists.

It has been proven to exist beyond any doubt.

Once more, RADAR relies upon the known properties of radio waves. A key one is its velocity. If the velocity was wrong, RADAR would be wrong, in would give incorrect positions.
So we know that radio waves travel at the speed of light.
You continually ignoring everything that demonstrates you are wrong will not help you.

If radio waves didn't exist so much of the technology used in modern society wouldn't work.

Your wilful ignorance of reality will not change it.

And I guess you realise you have no out for your moon BS so you will just ignore it now?

@Gonzo

No, the books are religion and fiction books. They're on Amazon. Look up Mune Shinri and Oracle of Tao. They include portions mentioning flat Earth. I have never written a "debunking Round Earth" book though.

The videos I posted above show that light, sound, and other frequencies all show in fact that regular old sound is actually quite able to interact with the electromagnetic spectrum. And in fact heat and sound are magnetic.
https://theconversation.com/magnetic-fields-can-control-heat-and-sound-39154

And yes, I'm always semi-serious. It's serious enough. We don't know that. We have other people's word, and that constitutes proof in some people's minds (particularly Stash and DataOverload). But people have been known to lie to push agenda or to make money.

This is why I call this carny crap. If you've ever been to a carnival, you see games of skill where it looks legit but isn't. They throw rings on bottles, but the guy throwing the ring to show you that it can be done throws a ring from closer and the ring is 1.5x the size of the others. It's not enough to notice when watching, but it's enough make you think you have a chance of winning. Or they employ a plant who wins at it easily. Or they give you an easy win, and then the later ones are bait and switch.
Yes, I'm serious we have experts claiming that something is proven. We have consensus. We don't actually have proof. Like in a carnival, you can dress a person up to be an expert or regular person, depending on what you are going for. You can in turn have many people in the media all say "Einstein/Hawking/Galileo is so brilliant" instead of letting their work speak for itself, if alot of people say this loudly, people believe it. As for consensus, alot of assholes agreeing isn't science. That's politics. RE has all the hallmarks of a carnival scam:
1. Bait and switch (you have science that proves one thing, as in Hertz's tests, but you claim it proves another)
2. Fabricated mob (the enforced consensus of RE)
3. Plants (you'll see this occasionally, where people parody FE, or are fake Flat Earthers)
Like the ring the carnival guy switched out, there is a false equivalence where he claims that radio is proves an electromagnetic frequency so that means it goes at the speed of light (in a vacuum). But again, suppose I told you there is a giant tick ready to attack you. It's 50 ft tall. But you can only detect it with this tool of mine, but I left it at home, sorry. Plausible? Hell no. Yet this is precisely the logic of radio. We haven't proven it is not ultrasonic sound. We haven't proven that it's a real thing as these might be another thing entirely.
Is it a reasonable instinct to not want to be frauded after seeing someone (in a movie) give his entire rent money to try to win a carny game? Is it reasonable to say "let me see those rings?" Especially since NASA alone makes billions a year.

 The bait and switch here is that sound does react in many similar ways to radio, but the science here treats radio as different from sound, and like light. No, radio has more similarities to sound than light, and being electromagnetic is NOT an automatic indication that something will travel at the speed of light. "Radio is sound" might be an oversimplifying, but radio very much does not transmit at the speed of light. This is why sound is being excluded from electromagnetic theory even though it DOES react to magnetic fields, because it shows a hole in the theory that all magnetic signals travel at the same speed (light speed).

Question: if all electromagnetic waves are equal, why is 5G closer to the microwave range? Why risk health issues if radio waves are fast enough to reach the entire world at the speed of light?

Because electromagnetic waves are NOT all the same speed. Their speed has to do with the wavelength and frequency. The shorter the wavelength, the faster the frequency.

Regular sound does not react inside a vacuum. Radio might. Light does. This doesn't mean it's not electromagnetic. It means that the waves of sound are not energetic enough. Sound and heat are both at wavelengths where if they don't have a medium, they can't carry. Heat gives off thermal radiation, but yet normal heat (not the fiction of rocket fuel that stays lit in anoxic zones) shuts off without air as a medium. In other words, sound and heat are at a similar wavelength, though their speed might be different.

Electromagnetic means reacting with electricity and magnets. Which regular sound does in these experiments. It also gives a wavelength that can carey along electrical wires as though it were a charge. Energy is energy. This is why this is a carny trick.
Because it uses the ability to conduct in a vacuum (not an indication of electromagnetism) as a disqualification for sound, because it is inconvenient to the smoke and mirrors job they want.

But if you have a live wire, and shut off all are and suck it out will the wire continue spark. The definition of electromagnetism above seems to say it will, what do science forums say?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/178831/can-electricity-flow-through-vacuum

Clearly, σ=0 in a vacuum - electric fields do not spontaneously cause currents to flow. Thus, in this sense, the vacuum is not a conductor at all. Even everyday insulators have low but non-zero values of σ.

Thus, the resistance of the vacuum is in fact, infinite, as long as we define resistance in terms of the response of the charge carriers of a material. In this sense, we might say that it is an insulator - there are no charge carriers.

So electromagnetic doesn't mean "able to magically bypass a vacuum". Quite the contrary. Some other factor than electromagnetic charge is involved in the motion of particles in a vacuum.

Electricity is a flow of electrons. Electrons can flow across a vacuum. The problem with doing this over a long range is that you need a force to get the electrons to travel across the vacuum.

In a CRT the cathode is heated, which gives the electrons the energy they need to escape the cathode. A large electric field then accelerates the free electrons across the vacuum and onto a target (screen). In this case, other fields are also used to steer the beam to get an optimal picture.

If you have a different system - imagine an anode and a cathode in a vacuum seperated by a small distance - with no deliberate heating taking place - then the potential difference (ie potential energy or voltage) between the two electrodes must be large eneough that the electrons can "leap" between them. They need to leap because the vacuum is a perfect insulator and so there is no medium in which they can flow (like through a metal conductor) so they must aquire all of the energy necessary to cover the distance before they can escape the cathode. Larger gap to be traversed implies larger potential difference required to get the electrons to make the leap.

As I said before, "It means that the waves of sound are not energetic enough." Sound lacks the energy, as does heat (even though it gives off a great deal of energy, flame tends to snuff for some reason). But just as a spark from a live wire resists in a vacuum, just as ignition and sound are snuffed, this is not an indication of electromagnetism.
 It's a lack of power, sufficient to bypass the vacuum. Radio is doing the same thing to sound as a CRT is doing to light, charging and pressurizing it to make it flow. This isn't an automatic pass that the two travel at the same speed, any more than a subsonic pulse weapon and a microwave travel at the same speed.

That is, even with air resistance, the resistance of a vacuum is more, not less. So this fallacious idea that frequencies can travel faster in a vacuum is backwards and wrong. They travel despite a vacuum, not better because of it. 

 "Rockets can travel X mph on Earth but they can travel so much faster in space." No. No they can't. Neither can radio waves perform better from a satellite in space than they can on Earth's atmosphere. Even assuming space travel and satellites are possible, everything Hollywood (and it is Hollywood, not science, that you've been listening to) tells us is wrong. Zero atmosphere is heavy not light. It's resistant not limitless motion. And things like photons work despite a vacuum, not better because of one. Lastly vacuum pressure is different from a true vacuum.

"Radio is sound" might be an oversimplifying, but radio very much does not transmit at the speed of light. This is why sound is being excluded from electromagnetic theory even though it DOES react to magnetic fields, because it shows a hole in the theory that all magnetic signals travel at the same speed (light speed).

Why don't you replicate the more modern experiments and tell us what your findings are. Thus far, you're just rambling about fraud and conspiracy, of which you have no evidence.

(1955) A Measurement of the Velocity of Propagation of Very-High-Frequency Radio Waves at the Surface of the Earth

The Velocity of Light And Radio Waves
By K. D. Froome, L. Essen 157 pp. Academic, New York, 1969

Your only argument is, "Everyone is lying..." It's getting kind of boring. I mean, what makes you think the people in the videos you posted (which don't even remotely support your unfounded claims anyway) are on the up and up? The question is, who isn't lying? Seems like the only answer to you is you.

Perform some modern experiments, (a bunch are outlined in the links above) if you don't like Hertz and let us know what you come up with. In the mean time, the everything you don't agree with is a carnival scam is, well, laden with confirmation bias.

Bulmabriefs,

So your belief in a flat earth is faith-based? Am I understanding you correctly?

I say again, please, where is your evidence that radio does not travel at the speed of light? You claim the speed of EM radiation varies according to frequency and wavelength. Please, again, where are you getting this from? Where’s the evidence?

The videos I posted above show that light, sound, and other frequencies all show in fact that regular old sound is actually quite able to interact with the electromagnetic spectrum. And in fact heat and sound are magnetic.

No they don't. Not in the slightest.

The video shows a physical object, the tuning fork, is capable of blocking the path of light, with the vibration of the fork causing it to move in an out of the path of the light.
When it was further away, it does not have that effect as the sound itself cannot interact with the light.
Likewise, later on it demonstrated that sound waves are capable of moving a magnet, which will induce an electrical signal in a coil of wire. Without the magnet you don't get that result.

So no, the videos you provided do not show that sound can interact with the EM spectrum.

Likewise, your latest link doesn't show heat or sound are magnetic.
It shows that a magnetic field is able to affect material properties.

And yes, I'm always semi-serious. It's serious enough. We don't know that. We have other people's word

Again, no one is stopping you from re-creating the experiment or performing similar experiments.

Yes, I'm serious we have experts claiming that something is proven. We have consensus. We don't actually have proof.

No, in science we have evidence.
But what is more damning for you is that you will happily accept anything that fits your narrative, without question.
But as soon as it shows you are wrong, you dismiss it as fake.

This shows an incredibly dishonest double standard.

1. Bait and switch (you have science that proves one thing, as in Hertz's tests, but you claim it proves another)

No, you claim it proves another.
Yet you cannot provide what it allegedly proves. Instead you juts want to pretend that radio is some other magical thing to pretend that what Hertz observed and measured wasn't radio.

Yet this is precisely the logic of radio.

Again, pure BS.
There have been plenty of tests on radio that demonstrate it is an EM wave, with all the standard properties of EM waves, such as its ability to traverse a vacuum, that it travels at the speed of light, that it can be polarised and so on.
There are even some you can easily do yourself.
But you don't want to test it, you want to dismiss it all so you can pretend your delusional BS is true.
Even going as far as claiming radio might not even be real, again deflecting from what it actually and then ignoring everything that uses radio.

Is it reasonable to say "let me see those rings?" Especially since NASA alone makes billions a year.

It is not reasonable when you refuse to do anything to test it for yourself and will reject any evidence that is provided to you.

The bait and switch here is that sound does react in many similar ways to radio, but the science here treats radio as different from sound, and like light.

This is because sound and EM waves are both waves. They both behave in a manner common to all waves.
But there also differences.
Sound (in air) is a longitudinal wave propagating through a medium by the motion of that medium.
Light is a transverse wave propagating through the electromagnetic field (and often has enough energy to also easily see the particle nature of light).

So the things in common with all waves, such as having a wavelength and frequency, which can be multiplied together to get a velocity, refracting and diffracting and so on, will be seen in both.
But properties in common with all EM waves, but not sound, such as the ability to polarise it and the ability to traverse a vacuum, will be seen in visible light and radio, but not in sound.

No, radio has more similarities to sound than light

Pure BS.
Just what similarity does it have to sound, which isn't also shared by light?

"Radio is sound" might be an oversimplifying

It isn't oversimplifying, it is pure garbage.

radio very much does not transmit at the speed of light.

Based upon what?
So far all the evidence shows that it does travel at the speed of light.
You have provided nothing to show it travels at any other speed.
So far all you have provided is your wilful ignorance of reality to claim it might not.

Question: if all electromagnetic waves are equal, why is 5G closer to the microwave range?

The VELOCITY is equal.
That doesn't mean they are equal in all regards.

For the purpose of data transmission, frequency plays a big role.
As a massively oversimplified example, consider data being transmitted as simple pulses of on and off.
If you have a low frequency, such as 1 Hz, then to send a bit of data (a single 1 or 0) you need to leave enough time for that wave. If you are switching it on and off faster than that, you will have a higher frequency sent instead. So assuming you allow a single wave, that would be a data transmission rate of 1 b/s, which is incredibly slow.

If instead you bump it up to 5 GHz, that would give you 5 billion bits per second, or 5 Gb/s (Which would be ~600 MB/s).

So they aren't doing it for the speed of the wave, which would equate to ping, they are doing it for the data rate.

Their speed has to do with the wavelength and frequency. The shorter the wavelength, the faster the frequency.

And just like in the video you provided, he velocity is the product of wavelength and frequency. With all EM waves having the same speed in a vacuum.
That means the shorter the wavelength, the faster the frequency.
But compared to sound waves, you can have a shorter wavelength soundwave, with a slower frequency than a corresponding EM wave, because of the much lower velocity.

Regular sound does not react inside a vacuum. Radio might. Light does. This doesn't mean it's not electromagnetic. It means that the waves of sound are not energetic enough.

And more nonsense.

Sound doesn't travel through a vacuum because it needs a medium to propagate.
A sound wave is that medium moving back and forth.
No medium, no sound propagation.
Conversely, radio waves do not rely upon a medium so have no difficulty travelling through a vacuum.

This has NOTHING to do with the wavelength.

Electromagnetic means reacting with electricity and magnets. Which regular sound does in these experiments.

No it doesn't,
An EM wave means it propagates as a change in the electromagnetic field. It doesn't simply mean it interacts with electricity or magnets.
Sound interacting with magnets by physically moving them due to the air pushing against it doesn't make it electromagnetic.

Some other factor than electromagnetic charge is involved in the motion of particles in a vacuum.

It isn't the motion of particles, it is a change in the electromagnetic field.

As I said before, "It means that the waves of sound are not energetic enough."

No, it doesn't.
You are comparing waves with electrons. They are quite different.
EM waves are not motion of charged particles.

That is, even with air resistance, the resistance of a vacuum is more, not less. So this fallacious idea that frequencies can travel faster in a vacuum is backwards and wrong. They travel despite a vacuum, not better because of it.

And more dishonest BS.
ELECTRICAL resistance is 0 in a vacuum as there are no charge carriers.
That is quite different to air resistance, or anything to do with EM waves.

Even your own source made it clear than in a vacuum once the electron is going, there is nothing to resist it:

Firstly, there is no retarding force on any charged particle with constant velocity in vacuum. To this extent, no extra work is required in maintaining a constant current through any surface in vacuum.

That is saying that if there are charged particles flowing, there is no resistance.

Yeah, the argument du jour seems to be that since the ring toss at your local traveling carnival is a scam, all of science is a scam too. Compelling.

It might be easier if Bulmabriefs says if there’s anything scientific he/she actually does agree with.

I just showed you stuff that I accept as science. An actual unified theory of vibrations, wherein we accept that ultrasonic waves are responsible for what you call radio. That all light, heat, and sound is in the electromagnetic field, yet not all wavelengths have equal speed. That the reason some work in a vacuum and not others is that they do not have sufficient energetic force to overcome vacuum. That objects in a vacuum are slowed not hastened, meaning space travel is highly improbable or impossible, even before we talk about buoyant pressure issues and risk of the shuttle exploding or stalling, and the only means of space travel would be possible if there are a series of "rainbow bridges" (or atmospheric connections between worlds), since otherwise both pressure variations and the vacuum would either explode the ship first or  eventually exhaust any forward motion of the ship rather than taking it along 300,000+ mph. Since you have yet to prove otherwise, and resort to a bunch of fake charts published in magazines, let's talk about "trusting the science."

You believe in scientism. Not science.

Scientism is a religion, whereupon atheist carnies convince you that the latest fad pop science is actually science.

Ohhh sure, we have had plenty of tech advances over the past few years. But some of these are scams, or outright infringements on our personal dignity. Climate theory. 5G. Trips to Mars. Nonsense diseases that try to dictate forced injections. Fad drugs that are actually poisons.

So look, yesterday, I was in the bathroom, and I saw something fly pass. I thought it was a plane but then realized this is a rocket exiting where you see it go offstage, flying past us, before finding a forest to land.
These rockets that people see just outside the city going up? They fly past us. Then they start heading down. Scam.

Also outside our town, we have fairly decent net in the town center (enough to watch Hulu and Netflix, though maybe not enough to livestream video games). Celltowers and wifi receptors, since "satellites" are impractical here without drawing attention. We got a new wifi modem after Hulu lagged for the Rookie, and now it's slightly slower. Entirely to do with the box picking up nearby signals and not from space. Scam. In the meantime microwave (5G) satellites make us sick, and we blame it on COVID.

Electric cars? They take 10+ hrs to charge and while they don't visibly pollute, power plants tell a different story. Scam.

These examples of scientism use alot of flash and not much substance. You were all like "Dude, my Faraday Cage will prove you wrong." Sorry getting in a jungle gym where electricity bounces off you is a neat effect, but it doesn't actually prove anything. Alot of wasted power that the cities can use for other projects like providing heat or light to struggling families. These scams cost in taxes what puts people in the threshold of homelessness over the theshold. There are more people living under bridges than there were fifty years ago, despite more money being spent on taxes "to help the poor". Because of more money spenr in taxes, that the taxpayer now owes (even though it isn't their debt, but the government's).

Every expensive pipedream costs the taxpayer money they don't have, that gets them evicted. Now, I don't even pay taxes, as I haven't had real income in about three years, but I have seen some serious wastes of money, and some of it came from the sinking ship that is Elon Musk. Along with NASA. All of these scams are expensive, and thus create human suffering.

Whether science works or not is built on whether it is cost efficient. Real satellites (the atmospheric kind) are built on pennies for every dollar supposedly spent on to build ones "in space". Now I have already told you numerous times why it is inefficient to attempt to put satellites in space, and I don't believe for a second they do it. They build stealth satellites just past where radar can detect the source and say it's in space, pocketing the difference in money. That's money that the taxpayer should get back. Obviously not me, but the taxpayer, like my friends and family. And you for that matter. Which leads me to wonder, why are you propping up a scam that steals money from your own wallet? Don't you understand NASA steals from you too? Or do you work for NASA?

They build stealth satellites just past where radar can detect the source and say it's in space, pocketing the difference in money. That's money that the taxpayer should get back. Obviously not me, but the taxpayer, like my friends and family.

What's your evidence again for the stealth satellites? Or is it something that you came up with?

You don't pay taxes?

Is there any mainstream science/tech you do believe is real?

I just showed you stuff that I accept as science. An actual unified theory of vibrations, wherein we accept that ultrasonic waves are responsible for what you call radio.

That isn't science. That is you rejecting science.
That is your fantasy.

That objects in a vacuum are slowed not hastened, meaning space travel is highly improbable or impossible, even before we talk about buoyant pressure issues and risk of the shuttle exploding or stalling, and the only means of space travel would be possible if there are a series of "rainbow bridges" (or atmospheric connections between worlds), since otherwise both pressure variations and the vacuum would either explode the ship first or  eventually exhaust any forward motion of the ship rather than taking it along 300,000+ mph. Since you have yet to prove otherwise, and resort to a bunch of fake charts published in magazines, let's talk about "trusting the science."

And that is more delusional crap, which is not only delusional crap, but is self contradictory.

As the vacuum doesn't slow motion, that means the vacuum would not exist the forward motion of the ship.

It has been explained repeatedly why that garbage of yours is wrong, evidence has been provided to show it is wrong.
And so far, all you have done to go against that is dismiss it as fake or a con, or just flee from it or ignore it.

Your wilful ignorance of reality, does not change reality.
It doesn't make all those things you reject not science.

These examples of scientism use alot of flash and not much substance.

Because you have no substance to back up your crap.

All of these scams are expensive, and thus create human suffering.

If you want to talk about human suffering, look at all the crap you are promoting.
Your ideology would have kept us in the dark ages. We wouldn't have electricity and the benefits that come with it.
Modern medicine wouldn't exist, and countless people would suffer and die.
Your wilful rejection of climate change is going to cause untold suffering.

Real satellites (the atmospheric kind) are built on pennies for every dollar supposedly spent on to build ones "in space".

We have already shown how that is pure BS.

Now I have already told you numerous times why it is inefficient to attempt to put satellites in space

Again, that is the issue. You repeatedly "tell us" things, without justify it.
Stop just spouting delusional BS, and instead try justifying your delusional BS.

With your last attempt to justify your delusional BS you pretended that a gram and a pound were the same.

Which leads me to wonder, why are you propping up a scam that steals money from your own wallet?

We aren't.
Your hatred of reality doesn't make it a scam.
I am thankful for what satellites provide.


Just look at this latest pile of crap from you.
Just irrational hatred.
Nothing even coming close to an argument to defend your BS.
Nothing to refute the mountains of evidence that show you are wrong.
Just wilful ignorance of reality and hatred of it.

 "Rockets can travel X mph on Earth but they can travel so much faster in space.”

Rockets follow where comets travel. How do comets travel about the solar system and speed up when making a circuit around the sun. 

Whether science works or not is built on whether it is cost efficient. Real satellites (the atmospheric kind) are built on pennies for every dollar supposedly spent on to build ones "in space".

One.  In the thread about EchoStar 16, you couldn’t debunk the position of EchoStar 16 being in geosynchronous orbit 22,000 miles above the earth.

Two.  How is a helicopter safely going to get near a light weight balloon or floating platform? On a reliable and regular bases?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 23, 2023, 07:14:07 AM

65,000 ft is the typical height of a weather balloon.

You missed the point.  A balloon half the size of a court to lift a fake satellite and a cell phone.

Vs a floating platform with enough battery power to last a long winters night in freezing temperatures to duplicate the broadcast footprint of EchosStar 16 that something like 14,733 lbs.

By the way.  Started thinking about rotor wash and static electricity generated by a helicopter…

Quote

Picture: Helicopter creates turbulence forcing down hot air balloon

https://www.flightglobal.com/picture-helicopter-creates-turbulence-forcing-down-hot-air-balloon/74202.article

Circling the balloon created turbulence and forced it to land in a field some 20 km (12 miles) from the venue.

Quote

Helicopter Rotor Downwash – Excessive wind, FOD and brownouts, what are the risks?
What is helicopter rotor downwash?

Rotor downwash is a commonly ignored phenomenon that occurs during helicopter hover in close proximity to a ground surface. It has the potential to cause significant damage to nearby vehicles and objects, as well as people. Figure 1 shows the impact of helicopter rotor downwash while hovering over water and while landing in a dusty environment.




https://jjryan.com.au/index.php/helicopter-rotor-downwash-excessive-wind-fod-and-brownouts-what-are-the-risks/

Quote

The Real Dangers Of Encountering Rotor Wash
By Swayne Martin07/30/2016PreviousNext
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
  Share via Email
You're probably familiar with the dangers of wake turbulence. It's powerful, invisible, and can linger in the air for several minutes.

But what you may not know is that wake turbulence caused by the rotor wash of a helicopter is something to be equally aware of. Watch the video below to see the result of a pilot encountering the wake turbulence caused by a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter at 27 seconds into the video...

https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/the-dangers-of-encountering-rotor-wash/

Quote

The static electricity represents a serious issue during helicopter hoist operations as the helicopter in hover builds up permanently huge electrical charge.
The way to solve the problem is to allow the static electricity to discharge before any person gets in contact with the helicopter.
For that reason, during hoist operation, it is recommended to connect to the hoist hook a wire long enough to discharge static electricity before personnel on ground grasps the hook or personnel on the hook touch the ground.

https://www.kong.it/en/product/staticdischarge/

Between rotor wash and static electricity around a platform of electronics.  How is a helicopter going to dock up to a balloon or lightweight floating platform.


So.  Now you have to show it’s possible to safely repair a light weight floating platform or balloon from helicopter time after time…

Vs a satellite placed in orbit that doesn’t need maintenance and doesn’t need the infrastructure for maintenance for 5 to 15 years? 

Well, I pay sales tax.

But I don't have any income to speak of. And I don't have any medical. And I really have property either. You can't really pay what you don't have. I'm not exactly dodging taxes, I legit don't have any income.

I showed you several times (which you chose to ignore) how Lockheed Martin has several high altitude platforms, blimps, and other devices. And is quoted on the record mentioning this stuff. And how their name is even on Wikipedia under the Misty stealth satellite project.

You accuse me of denying reality, but just stuff that I present, you pretend it doesn't exist.

CDs, DVDs, lightbulbs, the printing press, rubberized roof sealants (keeps the rain out of our house), most electronic devices, epoxy, ICE cars.
Well, all tech is real, just some is patently dangerous or wasteful because it was more concerned with politicians pushing through "green" tech than actually testing whether the car you were buying might not burst into flames or spend 10 hours at the pump.

As for science, yeah I do. Buoyancy, momentum, terminal velocity, air resistance and friction, a real theory of electromagnetism (one that's different from yours obviously), the arc of the Earth's atmosphere (which is different from saying that the ground curves), thermodynamics, the idea that we have seasons and a year.

There is plenty of other stuff that I agree is real science. But I know the difference between that and bogus science. There is a difference in how bogus science is presented. If everyone HAS TO BELIEVE in it, it's not science. Science doesn't require belief, you can test it. Gravity is tricky because it appears to be real (you show me "gravity" by dropping objects in front of me, hoping I'll see logic when you smash glass jars like a vandal), but it's already got an explanation in buoyant phenomenon.
 When objects are lighter than a medium, they float. When objects are heavier than a medium, they sink. Propulsion partially overcomes this, but propulsion isn't magic, they use energy and when that's exhausted after monstrous expense, the device falls back down due to its weight. In turn, thick air means devices like balloons can burn more as they have more oxygen, thin air caps their flight. It's pretty obvious that an enormous object made of solid metal cannot reach "outer space" even if you could burn in thin or no air. Birds can fly, even massive jets can fly. They do so under these same rules, they are either lightweight, or they are creating huge thrust and flying at an altitude that is not do thin that they have to push with prpulsion to keep from sinking to a lower level.

Sorry, I'm geocentric but I don't "reject science." I don't even reject the idea that a species can evolve to environment. I do however reject the idea of fitness for survival, and I really reject the idea of evolution somehow explaining the creation of this universe. And I am definitely skeptical of things I cannot see, or can see but is already justified by other explanation. When I look out at our yard, it is flat as far as I can see. If I were to take a level to it, it would continue to be flat. Yes, construction can make the ground around houses that isn't level into something level. But you'd kinda be abe to tell the difference between a house on a plain and a slope. That you like to gaslight ppl and tell them that their house they've lived in for years is not "really" on level ground but on a slope, don't you think I'd notice erosion?

Lastly, fuck your Echostar 16. I do not know about it, I do not care about it, and you've yet to prove it's in space. I can't debunk it, because you say I can't? I have already shown how easy it is with a clean picture to make fake satellites. "But your think has a white outline!" Yes, because I didn't spend hours erasing every last background. So what? Your satelite is not where you think it is, or your telescope wouldn't see it.

 Gravity is tricky

Then…. What causes…


High tide

Low tide

Tide to come in

Tide to go out

Tidal flooding

Tidal bores

The tide coming in makes it harder for costal boats going down river to the ocean.

Causes comets to propel about the solar system

Causes comets to speed up when approaching the sun.


The phoneme in the Cavendish experiment.

How does a cellphone accelerometer work.

(Listing random science stuff I accept as true or false)

Oh yeah, I forgot one.

Scientists telling us, "Eventually we'll find a cure for death."

Sorry, but no. 

Not only do I have zero belief that you will ever manage such a thing, but neither should you manage such a thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/17/ageing-process-is-irreversible-finds-unprecedented-study
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/science-technology/immortality-is-mathematically-impossible-new-research-finds-58983

First off, if there isn't a money pit to swallow up funds, that would pretty much be it. Since the general public has zero idea how one would even go about this, you could say you were researching drugs all you want. Unlike other paths of research, they expect it to be difficult so you could likely be set for life with a few medicines that seem to prolong life slightly. Nobody would even blame them for failing. That's an easy way to make a career.

Second, if even a percent of humanity were to be immortal, we would exhaust resources far more than the supposed overpopulation ever would.

Third, there's only one (quick) way to test whether someone is immortal. Guess what it is. Give up? You have to kill them.

High tide

Low tide

Tide to come in

Tide to go out

Tidal flooding

Tidal bores

Gravity has nothing to do with tides!

You are using it as a catch-all. Gravity (when we even admit it exists) does exactly one thing. It causes objects to fall. It is not a pull on one object against another, or I by virtue of being heavier than something could do this:


A force does one thing, and one thing only. If we start having forces have multiple effects, what we are really talking about is many forces, none of which we understand, so we lump them all together and name them "gravity." Nice try, but no.

Neither the moon nor the sun have ever had any influence on the tides.

Oh yeah, I forgot one.

Scientists telling us, "Eventually we'll find a cure for death."

You’re quoting a news article, quoting a futurologist?

Ok, a lot to unpack here.

One, note the use in the first few paragraphs of words like ‘believe’ and ‘probably’ and ‘might’ and ‘could be done’.

Two, futurologist does not equal scientist. A futurologist is someone who attempts to predict what will happen in the future, predicting trends etc etc.

I’d recommend applying a little critical thinking next time you see a news story.

Well, I pay sales tax.

But I don't have any income to speak of. And I don't have any medical. And I really have property either. You can't really pay what you don't have. I'm not exactly dodging taxes, I legit don't have any income.

I wasn't implying you're a tax dodger, and I apologize if I came off that way, just curious as to how you don't have to pay taxes.

I showed you several times (which you chose to ignore) how Lockheed Martin has several high altitude platforms, blimps, and other devices. And is quoted on the record mentioning this stuff. And how their name is even on Wikipedia under the Misty stealth satellite project.

I didn't ignore. It's just that your explanations/examples don't meet with reality and evidence.

As in:

- How do they remain stationary?
- How are they (in reality) maintained, fueled, etc.?
- How come no one has ever seen them going up or coming down as there would need to be a lot?
- How do the vast majority of the world have such contraptions, not just the US?

As for Lockeed Martin's High Altitude Platforms (HAPs), why would you believe anything from them considering they are a major Defense and NASA contractor?

And, evidence is required, not just you speculating. Back it up.

As well, though HAPs don't quite exist yet, the proposed technology is still reliant on Satellites in Space:

You accuse me of denying reality, but just stuff that I present, you pretend it doesn't exist.

Yes, and there's a reason for that. Example, you denied that Kindles, smartphones, etc. have accelerometers and how they work. When you were overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary, you simply defaulted to, "Well, they are lying..." Without any evidence.

That is what is known as "denying reality". You could try to produce some evidence as to their lying, etc., but you have none. You're literally just saying that. Not good enough as your personal opinion is neither here nor there in this case.

Extremely long-winded diatribes about carnie midway game scams and pet food fraud do not constitute evidence.

The idea that we have seasons and a year.

Yes, we do have them. But you have no idea how they work on your earth. On ours, we do.

Lastly, fuck your Echostar 16. I do not know about it, I do not care about it, and you've yet to prove it's in space. I can't debunk it, because you say I can't? I have already shown how easy it is with a clean picture to make fake satellites. "But your think has a white outline!" Yes, because I didn't spend hours erasing every last background. So what? Your satelite is not where you think it is, or your telescope wouldn't see it.

I'm guessing this is a typo and you meant, "...or your telescope would see them."

Well, in fact our telescopes do see them, really big ones. Here's the biggest one up there as seen through a telescope:

I showed you several times (which you chose to ignore) how Lockheed Martin has several high altitude platforms, blimps, and other devices. And is quoted on the record mentioning this stuff. And how their name is even on Wikipedia under the Misty stealth satellite project.

And what you have failed to do is demonstrate that they are a viable alternatives to satellites.
We aren't saying it doesn't exist, just that it is a much worse idea than a satellite, except for very limited purposes.

As for science, yeah I do. Buoyancy, momentum, terminal velocity, air resistance and friction, a real theory of electromagnetism (one that's different from yours obviously), the arc of the Earth's atmosphere (which is different from saying that the ground curves), thermodynamics, the idea that we have seasons and a year.

And a lot of that isn't science. Instead it is your delusional fantasy.
Delusional nonsense which you have no evidence to support.

But I know the difference between that and bogus science.

And let me guess, the difference is that "bogus science" (which is really the real science you hate) is anything which doesn't fit your delusional fantasy?

Science doesn't require belief, you can test it.

And you most certainly can with the science you are rejecting, you just choose not to.
For gravity, there is the simple test of dropping objects, but there are also more complex tests like the Cavendish experiment. You could easily recreate a simple version of that, like plenty of students do in high school, but you choose not to because you don't want gravity to be real.
For radio, you can carry out similar experiments to Hertz, or use much more modern devices.
You can easily test if it is able to go through a vacuum by getting a vacuum chamber, putting a device inside it that will either emit radio waves or pick them up and visually display a response, and then seeing if you can pick up the radio waves. If you are worried about the device being damaged by the vacuum, you can also get a pressure vessel, put the device inside the pressure vessel at 1 atmosphere, and then put the pressure vessel inside the vacuum chamber.
You can use modern devices to directly measure the speed of light, including by the use of radio waves.

You can easily test these things yourself. No one is demanding you just believe.
You just want to pretend they are demanding you just believe so you can pretend your wilful rejection of reality is justified.

More complex setups are required for other things, but you could easily join a hobby rocket group and launch a rocket into space (sub-orbital, so it will fall back down). Or you can try going all out and building an orbital rocket.

Gravity is tricky because it appears to be real (you show me "gravity" by dropping objects in front of me, hoping I'll see logic when you smash glass jars like a vandal), but it's already got an explanation in buoyant phenomenon.

No it doesn't.
Buoyancy is explained by gravity, not the other way around.
We know what causes the buoyant force on an object, the pressure gradient in the fluid.
This pressure gradient is observable and measurable.
This will apply an upwards force on object.

You have no explanation at all for what causes this pressure gradient, not why it doesn't just force everything to fly up.

But gravity provides this explanation.
The pressure gradient exists because of the weight of the fluid above.
This pressure gradient then directly causes the upwards buoyant force.

This buoyant force not only makes lower density objects go up, it also reduces the weight of heavier objects.
i.e. a ball of steel will measure to weigh less under water than above water.

It's pretty obvious that an enormous object made of solid metal cannot reach "outer space"

Good thing they aren't made of solid metal.
It is pretty much a hollow shell which is then filled with fuel and oxidiser.

Sorry, I'm geocentric but I don't "reject science."

Yes you do.
You reject any science which doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.

You have no rational basis for this objection. Instead you continue to repeat the same irrational nonsense which has already been refuted.
When evidence is presented, all you can do is dismiss it as fake.

And I am definitely skeptical of things I cannot see

Unless it fits into your delusional fantasy, at which point you will happily accept it, and accept any level or poor evidence, even obviously fake evidence.

That you like to gaslight ppl and tell them that their house they've lived in for years is not "really" on level ground but on a slope, don't you think I'd notice erosion?

The one gaslighting here is you.
Yet again, you blatantly lie about what level means and dishonestly misrepresent the RE as if it is just a massive slope.

If Earth was a perfect sphere (and not rotating), then it would have a level surface. It wouldn't be a slope.
If your position was based upon evidence and rational thought, you wouldn't need to repeatedly make this pathetic misrepresentations.

Lastly, fuck your Echostar 16. I do not know about it, I do not care about it, and you've yet to prove it's in space. I can't debunk it, because you say I can't? I have already shown how easy it is with a clean picture to make fake satellites. "But your think has a white outline!" Yes, because I didn't spend hours erasing every last background. So what? Your satelite is not where you think it is, or your telescope wouldn't see it.

And more delusional crap.
Why would a telescope be unable to see it?

You are using it as a catch-all. Gravity (when we even admit it exists) does exactly one thing. It causes objects to fall. It is not a pull on one object against another, or I by virtue of being heavier than something could do this

And once more, pure BS.
Gravity, as a fundamental force of nature, is an attraction between mass (or for a more accurate one, an attraction between energy, but that part becomes complex and isn't needed in most situations).

For small objects on Earth, this is typically experienced as objects falling to Earth.
But for objects in space with a large horizontal velocity (specific to the altitude they are at), it causes them to orbit Earth.
And for a very large object like the moon and sun, it also applies significant tidal forces which can distort the water on Earth.

This is not being used as a catch-all.
It is being used as a simple force. At the simplest level, an attraction between masses.

Neither the moon nor the sun have ever had any influence on the tides.

Then what is the more credible explanation of tides, why comets travel, and the phoneme in the Cavendish experiment?

Is it listed with the “flat earth scientists” consensus on the distance to the sun?  And where is the sun in relationship to the Van Allen Belts?  And how was their strength measured?  And what forms the Van Allen Belts?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 26, 2023, 05:41:47 AM

Stash, you have not understood me. Yes, I do respect pragmatic experiments.

Apparently, you really don't. Because any experiment that contradicts your personal narrative - One I might add has ZERO experimental credibility - is immediately deemed 'carny' or foolish or crap. Without so much as actually researching what it is you rail against. Extremely lazy of you.

For one, do you think Hertz is the only person in history to test, experiment, measure this? That's what I mean by lazy. You have ZERO expertise in the matter, but simply toss out a century of experimentation and actual usage.

I mean come on, talking radar for a second, if it didn't work like it is said to work, it would be wrong, the world over, and things would be crashing into things left, right, and center.

I am saying that it is a carny trick for several reasons, not because it's convenient. Carnies use tricks to mess with people, and get their money.
1. Follow the Lady (also known as bait and switch) - the queen of hearts is put in with three cards and the cards are moved around at high speed. Particularly ruthless carnies have a fourth card and switch the queen out of the table. In Hertz's experiment, we are led to believe it proves one thing, but a switch has been made.
2. Come one, come all (involve the crowds) - Carnies often get the mob to pressure people to give up their money. In the same way, that this is is how frauds creep into science. The people involved convince the public there is consensus. Or that the person who made this discovery is brilliant. But when regular people meet with discoveries, they hit a brick wall known as peer review. In other words, the peer review process is so corrupt that many of the people prominently displayed on science journals later have to retract their finding, but it is too late. The public "knows" about the fraud, not the later result.
3. Light show (flash over substance) - one of the ways that I'm sure this is a trick is that it uses alot of energy to make an impressive result. This result is for the people watching. But the result leaves alot of questions about whether it was radio that day which was transmitted. Yes, due to some of Hertz's principles we can now use cellphones. But while Hertz was busy distracting us with the flash of his experiment, he added in alot of assumptions that had nithing to do with what he just showed.
4. Let's pick someone from the audience (involve a plant) - that this was repeated can mean it was honestly repeated. But more likely, we had a series of people doing the same sloppy flashy science and getting the same results.

So no, I don't believe in the results of radio experiments from Hertz, so I'm going to toss it out. And I don't accept several scientists who might have been in league with his findings. And I certainly don't trust random pictures you dug up.

Let us suppose that this radio (which is invisivle and inaudible) is real and part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Where is it written that to be part of the electromagnetic spectrum you must ignore a vacuum? Or that it must be working at light speed?

Neither of these things were tested when Hertz made his giant toaster to transfer electricity.

Whereas, I showed a video where sound resulted from heat. I showed another video where sound from a tuner gave a reading on a device that I have seen used to find electricity for sockets, connected to a coil. These things showed that yes regular sound can interact with magnets, at least when it is attached to a vibrating metal object.

I happen to know that regular sound does not travel at the speed of light, so if regular sound does affect electricity and magnet then there is no requirement that some object being electromagnetic be at all a proof that it travels at the speed of light. In other words, the reason we are upgrading frequencies from 3G to 5G isn't because "5G is cooler" but because some electromagnetic signals are faster than others.

Radar works because it is based on real practical science. We are literally copying the way bats do it, and then adapting it so a machine can do it. I dare to say this is real science.
But on the subject of radar, the range is actually limited (I think they said 158 km), so either there are small buoys out in sea meant to act as radar repeaters, or the plane itself has limited radar. Otherwise, they are totally blind in the middle of the ocean, and have to make strange stops so that they are always near areas that have radar.

- How do they remain stationary?
- How are they (in reality) maintained, fueled, etc.?
- How come no one has ever seen them going up or coming down as there would need to be a lot?
- How do the vast majority of the world have such contraptions, not just the US?

As for Lockeed Martin's High Altitude Platforms (HAPs), why would you believe anything from them considering they are a major Defense and NASA contractor?

It is precisely because they are a major defense contractor working for NASA that we can assume their involvement in projects regarding atmospheric satellites. That was the exact topic they were working on with Misty, and they are quoted.

https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/

This updated concept of a proven technology takes lighter-than-air vehicles into a realm that gives users capabilities on par with satellites at a fraction of the cost (1 to 2 orders of magnitude less). The HAA will also integrate reconfigurable, multi-mission payload suites. HAA is significantly less costly to deploy and operate than other airborne platforms, and supports critical missions for defense, homeland security, and other civil applications. Its operational persistence eliminates the need for in-theater logistic support. In position, an airship would survey a 600-mile diameter area and millions of cubic miles of airspace.

But you say, this is from THAT website. Surely Lockheed Martin says otherwise.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products.html

As a global security, innovation, and aerospace company, the majority of Lockheed Martin's business is with the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. federal government agencies. In addition, Sikorsky (a Lockheed Martin Company) provides military and rotary-wing aircraft to all five branches of the U.S. armed forces along with military services and commercial operators in 40 nations. The remaining portion of Lockheed Martin's business is comprised of international government and commercial sales of products, services and platforms

Ohhhh I dunno the same way blimps, helicopters, fighter planes, and other airborne objects stay stationary. It's only because you think the Earth rotates at a constant high speed that objects have to constantly move with an orbit in order to stay in place. Moreover, dishes don't need a fixed midair object if they can pick up more signals than you think. And they obviously can, or there wouldn't be different types of satellites.
When they need to descend, most of these "satellites" do not look like what you've been programmed to see. They look like blimps and such. You wouldn't even notice anything other than a blimp landing. There is typically a Goodyear blimp presence in baseball games, and the wifi reception near a game tends to be great. They use the same fuel as other balloons, blimps, and choppers (much of what Lockheed Martin makes are blimps and choppers, including models that are basically portable broadcast devices with missiles, preventing things like satellite outages for missile guidance, because they create the signal themselves to help with guidance).
Maybe because as a defense contractor, it is part of their job to maintain secrecy? They could take off in remote areas and land in other remote areas. My dad showed a couple of places outside Williamsburg where there were old bases, and traffic kinda diverted around the area. Besides which, if satellite dishes can pick up far more signals than you realize, surely they can look like anything including helicopters flying overhead.
https://www.airship-association.org/cms/node/22

A number of organisations are beginning to explore the use of LTA vehicles for different roles in today's society. As well as traditional airship types, the last few years have seen some interest in exploring new concepts which combine static lift with an increased use of dynamic lift, using either airfoil or rotorcraft technology to increase their lifting capabilities. These hybrid systems have only recently reached the prototyping stage.

As well as traditional airship types. Read btwn the lines here, they are admitting that you see these things all the time, you just don't understand what you are seeing.
And didn't you read Lockheed Martin's quote? They operate in over 40 countries. And they probably sell to many countries, meaning even more have their products with a paint job and a few modifications.