Cool Mission?

Let us suppose that this radio (which is invisivle and inaudible) is real and part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Again.   Radio directly causes current flow in a conductor because the wave carries a magnetic property. Sound waves do not directly induce current in conductors.  The sound wave has to be used to mechanically agitate a magnet next to a coil of an electrical circuit.  Agitate/vibrate a magnet in a supplied electrical field.

Or use piezoelectric (pressure electricity) effect like in ultrasound transducers.

The transducer probe generates and receives sound waves using a principle called the piezoelectric (pressure electricity) effect, which was discovered by Pierre and Jacques Curie in 1880. In the probe, there are one or more quartz crystals called piezoelectric crystals. When an electric current is applied to these crystals, they change shape rapidly. The rapid shape changes, or vibrations, of the crystals produce sound waves that travel outward. Conversely, when sound or pressure waves hit the crystals, they emit electrical currents. Therefore, the same crystals can be used to send and receive sound waves. The probe also has a sound absorbing substance to eliminate back reflections from the probe itself, and an acoustic lens to help focus the emitted sound waves.
https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~jharlow/teaching/phy138_0708/lec04/ultrasoundx.htm

You

Where is it written that to be part of the electromagnetic spectrum you must ignore a vacuum?

Why are you always wanting to appeal to authority? 

Again.  Radio waves travel across the void of space as proven by radio astronomy. 

Or that it must be working at light speed?

What speed would light travel at?  And what speed should other items part of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at?

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

Not sure if that is true or not. 

One.  You have no credibility.

Two. Science has progressed with better equipment and understanding since Hertz. 

Where flat earth “science” has stagnated and can’t even produce a provable consensus on the distance to the sun.

Whereas, I showed a video where sound resulted from heat.

Why wouldn’t a mechanical process cause heat.  And visa versa? 

Where items magically “grow” under thermal expansion.  Crazy heat causes mechanical stress. 

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.

And there are video’s of rockets working and propelling objects in the void of space.

These things showed that yes regular sound can interact with magnets, at least when it is attached to a vibrating metal object.

Why wouldn’t a mechanical wave like sound not produce mechanical vibrations in a system of magnets.  That’s how magnets in the right electrical circuit work.  They are mechanical moved.  The magnet physically moves to push / pull electrons in a circuit.  The magnet is still, the magnet doesn’t move electrons.  Like how a stopped magnet in a generator doesn’t produce a current.  A microphone is a “generator” that produces a current flow from the mechanical energy of sound. Like a AC generator produces current flow from a spinning magnet.  Microphone, vibrating magnet.  Generator, spinning magnet.

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.

Meaning / unintelligible word salad.

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.

No.  The frequency has more “hills” and “valleys” for a given time.  More cycles per second. Therefor, more information can be sent in a given amount time.

1G would be me trying to send out a Morse code.  5G would be a skilled Mores code operator sending and receiving Morse code.

Speed can be independent of data rate.

Take two runners that run at the same speed.  One runner can only run with a dictionary.  Vs a runner with the same speed carrying a whole set of encyclopedias.  That’s 3G vs 5G. 

Radar works because it is based on real practical science.

Radar works because it works.  Science is the understanding how it works, and how to make equipment like radar gear.

We are literally copying the way bats do it,

Bats use sound and echo location.  Not radar.  Saying bats use radar is an oversimplification, and an inappropriate figure of speak. Or figurative speak.

Bat Echolocation

Bats can see as well as humans can, but they have evolved a sophisticated method of using sound that enables them to navigate and find food in the dark called echolocation. Bats produce echolocation by emitting high frequency sound pulses through their mouth or nose and listening to the echo. With this echo, the bat can determine the size, shape and texture of objects in its environment. Bat echolocation is so sophisticated that these animals can detect an object the width of a human hair.

https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/plants_wildlife/bats/batelocu.aspx

Not All Bats Echolocate
About 70% of all bat species worldwide have this ability. Also, bats aren't the only animals that use echolocation. Whales, dolphins, porpoises, oilbirds and several species of shrews, tenrecs, and swiftlets use a similar technique.

https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/plants_wildlife/bats/batelocu.aspx

It’s sound. There is a reason sonar uses sound like whales and bats.  Sound carries well in water, water shields radar.  Radar being electromagnetic is near useless underwater. 

They look like blimps and such. You wouldn't even notice anything other than a blimp landing.

I use normal eye sight, cameras,  binoculars, and telescopes to look for things like blimps and weather balloons. 


I even live near an airport, and drive by it two or three times weekly just to see what’s on the runway/tarmac.

It’s a big deal to see a blimp when they fly over.  And I have never seen a blimp at the airport.

And have never seen just floating “platforms” with parabolic dishes.

And the weather balloons if the light is right aren’t sitting stationary.

I don’t think I’ve even seen aircraft with parabolic dishes flying about.

How many of these floating platforms have you stated should be in existence to provided the same coverage EchoStar 16 for the continental USA? About two for every state?  Stationary?  Over 100 floating platforms that should be catching sunlight on clear days ?  That would have to be avoided by air traffic.  That have to be stationary and have directional antennas for broadcasting.


And yet you cannot provide any evidence they are there.  Right now actively broadcasting.

Floating platforms that cannot be proving any services that make satellite dish installation guides useful in your delusion.  Like this one?


How to Install a Satellite Dish
https://www.wikihow.com/Install-a-Satellite-Dish


Something a rural hick can use?  But a flat earther doesn’t understand and can’t debunk in how it would fit over 100 floating platforms to mimic the continental coverage provided by EchoStart 16.

Radio waves are sound waves.

Nope…

Why isn't radar used underwater instead of sonar if radio waves are faster than sound waves?

http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~huynhqlinh/olympicvl/tailieu/physlink_askexpert/ae456.cfm.htm

Why not use radar underwater? The catch is that radar uses radio waves in the microwave frequency range, or approximately one centimeter in wavelength. This wavelength range is used because it is easier to direct the waves with small antennas in narrow beams. Unfortunately, Microwaves are strongly absorbed by sea water within feet of their transmission. This renders radar unusable underwater.

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

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

Because radio waves do not travel well through good electrical conductors like salt water, submerged submarines are cut off from radio communication with their command authorities at ordinary radio frequencies.

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

Funny sounds travels through water so sonar can be used.  But water makes electromagnetic waves like radar and radio waves impractical and inefficient to use underwater? 

Technology in Focus: Underwater Electromagnetic Propagation

https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/underwater-electromagnetic-propagation

Theory

Electromagnetic propagation through water is very different from propagation through air because of water's high permittivity and electrical conductivity. Plane wave attenuation is high compared to air, and increases rapidly with frequency. With a relative permittivity of 80, water has among the highest permittivity of any material and this has a significant impact on the angle of refraction at the air/water interface.

Bulmabriefs.

I would really appreciate it if you'd respond with evidence of your claims.

But on the subject of radar, the range is actually limited (I think they said 158 km)

This is not true. Evidence please. Where did you hear this? Who is 'they'? Range varies based on wavelength, power of transmitter, sensitivty of receiver, target RCS (radar cross section), field of view (i.e. height above the surrounding terrain) and capability of the data processing. The 23cm wavelength radar I use at LHR displays targets well over 220km, and will go significantly further if we turn off the suppressing filters.

so either there are small buoys out in sea meant to act as radar repeaters, or the plane itself has limited radar.

This is nonsense. Evidence please. There are remote radar heads on land (usually on hills/mountains), and possibly a few around the world on such structures as oil/gas rigs etc. What do you mean by the 'plane itself has limited radar'? Commercial aircraft will have weather radar, which in some modern cases can detect coastlines, changes in land goegraphy. It will not detect other aircraft.

Otherwise, they are totally blind in the middle of the ocean

Again, this is nonsense. Aircraft can of course fly in areas of zero radar coverage, thousands do so every day over oceans, and areas such as Australia. Aircraft do not require radar to navigate.

and have to make strange stops so that they are always near areas that have radar.

Not true. Evidence please.

What is your experience and qualification in aviation and radar systems? I'll mention again that I'm an air traffic controller in the UK with 25 years experience, and am on the team that specifies the requirements for ATC radar systems, their development and testing, and represent the UK on various international aviation radar working groups. I'm also doing an MA in military history specialising in the UK's and Germany's air defence radar systems in the Second World War.

Nothing you've claimed of radar in this thread is actually true. Please, where are you finding this? Or is this just something you've come to yourself?

Quote from: Stash on January 26, 2023, 01:47:40 PM

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.

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

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.

As of 28 January 2023, over eighty countries have operated artificial satellites.

LM isn't allowed to sell to China, Russia, & N.Korea.

All you have to do, is for once, provide some evidence. For instance, produce proof that LM sells geostationary stratolite blimps and platforms to the 80 countries with satellites.

Produce proof that the 80 countries actually have stratolites up there and maintain them.

That's all you have to do. Enough rambling, evidence!

Otherwise, it's just you speculating about carnies and such which means literally nothing.

I am saying that it is a carny trick for several reasons, not because it's convenient.

It's really just 1 reason, you can't handle reality, and radio helps destroy your fantasy.
Because of that you are making excuses to pretend you have reasons, but you don't.

1 - No switch has been made.
The wireless transmission of power is radio waves. It measured that speed. There was no bait and switch, and you can create a much better experiment. Again, the everyday use of RADAR relies upon the speed of radio waves.
2 - Lots of people explaining why you are wrong doesn't mean you are right. If some idiot came out and decided that most grass is bright magenta, and loads of people said they were wrong, and provided photos of grass and so on, that "mob" doesn't make green grass a carny trick.
3 - Again, that is old systems. More modern systems can get away with very little energy. So little you then claim it is fake.
4 - YOU can repeat it. You just choose not to because it would destroy your fantasy.

So no, none of those pathetic excuses of yours work.

You don't believe the experiment, because doing so would destroy your fantasy.
You don't want to recreate the experiment or anything similar to it, because doing so would destroy your fantasy.
You want to dismiss it at all costs.

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?

Maxwell's equations, and mountains and mountains of evidence.
Again, RADAR relies upon radio waves propagating at the speed of light.
EM waves are waves in the EM field. They are not waves propagating through a material medium and thus they don't need a medium to propagate.

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

They were suggested by Maxwell, and later confirmed by experiment.

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.

Where?
You provided a video on a few simple things that can be done with tuning forks, and another showing sound waves can move a physical magnet.

That is not showing sound can give a reading on a device for finding electricity sockets, nor one where sound resulted from heat.

These things showed that yes regular sound can interact with magnets, at least when it is attached to a vibrating metal object.

You mean it demonstrates waves involving the motion of a physical substance, can move a physical object?
So what.
That in no way demonstrates that sound can replace EM waves. Sound is not electromagnetic.
It does not interact directly with a conductor to induce an electrical signal.

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.

Again, pure BS.
The issue is not the speed, it is the bandwidth.

Radar works because it is based on real practical science.

Yes, including the speed of radio waves, something you reject.

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.

Or, they can use GPS.

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.

No, it is paranoid delusional to extrapolate from that to falsely claiming that there are no satellites in space.

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

And notice how the quote is not the same.
Notice how Lockheed isn't claiming that it is cheaper than satellites?
Notice how neither claims it is cheaper than satellites to cover a large area?

Ohhhh I dunno the same way blimps, helicopters, fighter planes, and other airborne objects stay stationary.

Pretty much none of those remain stationary.
Fighter planes need to move forwards to generate lift.
Most airborne objects will be blown by the wind.

Moreover, dishes don't need a fixed midair object if they can pick up more signals than you think.

They require fairly good aiming, or the signal is incredibly poor.
More wilful ignorance of reality wont help you.

And they obviously can, or there wouldn't be different types of satellites.

And more delusional garbage.
There are different types of satellites due to the vastly different purposes they provide.

A GPS satellite is quite different to a TV satellite.
So no, the existence of different types of satellites doesn't magically mean a satellite dish can pick up a signal from a different direction than they are pointing.

As well as traditional airship types. Read btwn the lines here

i.e. as well as traditional blimps or balloons.
That is not saying that they are currently using these for faking satellites.
You are just showing your own delusions.

Radio waves are sound waves.

You understand why you see a muzzle flash at night before you hear the shot?

You understand why you see the flash of lighting before you hear thunder.

You do understand the flash of lightning which is light is electromagnetic, also lighting produces radio waves which are electromagnetic.  They travel faster than sound. 

How Does the Lightning Detector Work?

https://support.acurite.com/hc/en-us/articles/360010936494-How-Does-the-Lightning-Detector-Work-

The lightning detector system uses a radio that listens for lightning at 500 kHz, it listens for a particular radio signal pattern. The lightning signal pattern is generated by the electrical “spark”, that is the lightning itself.

How does a Personal Lightning Detector Work?

Have you ever heard the crackling of a lightning strike on your AM radio? A lightning strike has a distinct waveform that can be processed and analyzed by detector hardware and software.

https://ambientweather.com/faqs/question/view/id/3609/

I have been driving.  Seen a flash of lighting and heard the static it causes on the radio at the same time.  Then heard the resultant thunder clap whole seconds later on.  What’s the rule of thumb.  Each second between the lighting flash and hearing the thunder is about a mile in distance.  Seven second gap between seeing the flash of lighting and hearing the thunder means the lighting was about seven miles away.

Sorry.  A little real world proof radio travels faster than sound. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 30, 2023, 05:28:01 AM

Let us suppose that this radio (which is invisivle and inaudible) is real and part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Again.   Radio directly causes current flow in a conductor because the wave carries a magnetic property. Sound waves do not directly induce current in conductors.  The sound wave has to be used to mechanically agitate a magnet next to a coil of an electrical circuit.  Agitate/vibrate a magnet in a supplied electrical field.

But this is exactly what we saw here.



The coil is giving off an electromagnetic charge. But the sound here (yes and the metal, as it is pulled to the magnet) bolsters this charge.

If it is only the tuning fork, he at one point does stop the fork for comparison.

No tuning fork, just metal coil thingy: 3.20 to 3.40
Tuning fork (stopped): 4.80 to 6.40
Tuning fork (vibrating): 12.10 to 75.98
Tuning fork (hit by accident): 121.04 (sometimes even higher)
No tuning fork and plastic speaker: 2.40 to 2.90
Tuning fork and plastic speaker (at range): 2.60 to 3.20
Tuning fork and speaker (grabbed by magnet): 7.40 to 12.80
Just finger tapping and speaker: 7.19 to 11.44

Yes, it was the metal near the uninsulated current, as noted when the metal still gave a charge when stopped. But it was when the metal vibrated near the uninsulated coil thingy that we got real charge. The insulated speaker mostly blunted this effect, because it was metal vibrating against metal, in other words an electromagnetic reaction, not merely and electrical transfer reaction.
But he was able to stimulate the speaker just by finger pressing and creating a clicking sound. I'm sure there was closing the internal stuffs of the speaker, but the more sound made by clicking, the more vibration stimulated the current.

This is a good experiment. Control, test for alternate ideas (stopping the tuner hitting the tuner, and using a less conductive device), and visible results.



Heat can also be converted into electricity as shown by this goofball running a computer for awhile on the excess heat of his computer. I love this guy, or I would have shown a more conventional test of thermal electricity.

I saw no meters in Hertz's experiment, there was no control, it was just a flashy bit on circumstantial observation that had no actual tests or proofs.
 "This thing moves a charge to that thing, so this must be electromagnetic." Okay, but is this thing radio? Is it it moving at the speed of light? Have we proven electromagnetic reaction or just that current can transmit.

 Again, as you say. Have we proven ANYTHING from Hertz's experiment? No, not really. I didn't see no control from this.

Now, did that stop ppl from assuming radio can be transmitted in waves instead of just wires as before? No it didn't. But that really has as much much to do with sound being vibrations, and radio creating charge sound as anything else.

If radio produced no vibrations, it would not be able to move except through direct current such as wire. But it can connect to my walkman radio or my kindle, giving me radio or WiFi when not plugged to anything. These are vibrations.
No vibration, no current at range. If radio is not vibration (sound), all this falls apart. Heat, light, sound, all of this is connected.

These systems are unified, and it's time to stop pretending they aren't.

The coil is giving off an electromagnetic charge. But the sound here (yes and the metal, as it is pulled to the magnet) bolsters this charge.

Easy.  The tuning fork looks like its made of steal.

The steel of the fork is probably magnetized to some extent.



Please try with aluminum tuning fork.

Why doesn’t the person’s voice cause any change in readings with the coil?


In fact.   The person keeps referring to a magnetic field from the tuning fork.  Like the tuning fork is magnetized.  Is that false?


Anyway…

Radio waves are sound waves.

You understand why you see a muzzle flash at night before you hear the shot?

You understand why you see the flash of lighting before you hear thunder.

You do understand the flash of lightning which is light is electromagnetic, also lighting produces radio waves which are electromagnetic.  They travel faster than sound. 

How Does the Lightning Detector Work?

https://support.acurite.com/hc/en-us/articles/360010936494-How-Does-the-Lightning-Detector-Work-

The lightning detector system uses a radio that listens for lightning at 500 kHz, it listens for a particular radio signal pattern. The lightning signal pattern is generated by the electrical “spark”, that is the lightning itself.

How does a Personal Lightning Detector Work?

Have you ever heard the crackling of a lightning strike on your AM radio? A lightning strike has a distinct waveform that can be processed and analyzed by detector hardware and software.

https://ambientweather.com/faqs/question/view/id/3609/

I have been driving.  Seen a flash of lighting and heard the static it causes on the radio at the same time.  Then heard the resultant thunder clap whole seconds later on.  What’s the rule of thumb.  Each second between the lighting flash and hearing the thunder is about a mile in distance.  Seven second gap between seeing the flash of lighting and hearing the thunder means the lighting was about seven miles away.

Sorry.  A little real world proof radio travels faster than sound. 

You should understand what your actually linking too…

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 30, 2023, 07:11:23 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 30, 2023, 05:28:01 AM

Let us suppose that this radio (which is invisivle and inaudible) is real and part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Again.   Radio directly causes current flow in a conductor because the wave carries a magnetic property. Sound waves do not directly induce current in conductors.  The sound wave has to be used to mechanically agitate a magnet next to a coil of an electrical circuit.  Agitate/vibrate a magnet in a supplied electrical field.

But this is exactly what we saw here.

No it isn't.
What we saw was the sound waves moving a magnet (or just the motion of the metal near the magnet moving the magnet) inside the coil which in turn induced a current.
Effectively the same principle as a microphone.

Remove that magnet and it wont work.

So no, it is not exactly what we saw.
We saw sound behaving exactly like modern science says.

Radio waves don't need the magnet (they can even work with a single wire).

This is a good experiment. Control, test for alternate ideas (stopping the tuner hitting the tuner, and using a less conductive device), and visible results.

A good experiment (to prove your BS) would be to remove the magnet.
So far, this just shows you need something to bridge the gap between sound and electricity.
The magnet functions as a good bridge. The speaker does not due to a poor impedance mismatch.

Heat can also be converted into electricity

As it is done in many different ways, by highly specific things.
In this case it was a Seebeck device.

I saw no meters in Hertz's experiment

Again, if you don't like it, you can do it yourself.
Or use a more modern version like RADAR.

Stop just looking for pathetic excuses to ignore everything that is know about radio.
If you don't like it, do the test yourself.

If radio produced no vibrations, it would not be able to move except through direct current such as wire.

Pure BS.
Radio does not need to vibrate any material medium.
It does not need to produce any sound to operate.

You continually asserting delusional BS because you can't handle reality wont change that.

These systems are unified, and it's time to stop pretending they aren't.

Sound and radio are quite different.
It is time for you to stop pretending radio is sound.

The steel of the fork is probably magnetized to some extent.
Please try with aluminum tuning fork.

Thanks for pointing that out.

But aluminium will still have issues.
Moving a conductor near a magnet will cause a force due to eddy currents.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 31, 2023, 08:50:58 AM

The steel of the fork is probably magnetized to some extent.
Please try with aluminum tuning fork.

Thanks for pointing that out.

But aluminium will still have issues.
Moving a conductor near a magnet will cause a force due to eddy currents.

I was trying to figure out how to address that.  I have a metal detector and should have put two and two together.  I was more down the road of Inductive proximity sensors, but hung up on the AC / oscillating current being provided.  And was trying to work out how the volt meter was being employed in the video and its circuit with high resistance, and it being connected to a coil.  When I think of coil, I think more about current measurement? 

I was trying to figure out how to address that.  I have a metal detector and should have put two and two together.  I was more down the road of Inductive proximity sensors, but hung up on the AC / oscillating current being provided.  And was trying to work out how the volt meter was being employed in the video and its circuit with high resistance, and it being connected to a coil.  When I think of coil, I think more about current measurement?

My understanding is that it will produce a current, however as there is no complete circuit, this results in a large voltage build up at the ends of the coil which can then be read by the voltmeter.
As the fork oscillates back and forth, it induces currents in opposite directions so the voltage switches polarity, allowing it to be read by an AC voltmeter.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 31, 2023, 01:11:21 PM

I was trying to figure out how to address that.  I have a metal detector and should have put two and two together.  I was more down the road of Inductive proximity sensors, but hung up on the AC / oscillating current being provided.  And was trying to work out how the volt meter was being employed in the video and its circuit with high resistance, and it being connected to a coil.  When I think of coil, I think more about current measurement?

My understanding is that it will produce a current, however as there is no complete circuit, this results in a large voltage build up at the ends of the coil which can then be read by the voltmeter.
As the fork oscillates back and forth, it induces currents in opposite directions so the voltage switches polarity, allowing it to be read by an AC voltmeter.

Its acting like a little open generator.  Where the voltage meter is just measuring the electrical potential.  I was trapped into thinking that high impedance circuit completed between the coil and voltmeter was some how “driving” the coil. 

The voltmeter is in parallel with the coil to measure AC potential.  Like if you measured DC voltage across a battery free of a circuit.

  But the meter is also making a complete circuit, and the only complete circuit with a voltage generator and the meter’s own high resistance.

I was just overthinking.  The coil and vibrating metal of the tuning fork are the only things causing electrical potential. 

 But it’s just measuring the potential. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 30, 2023, 05:52:11 AM

They look like blimps and such. You wouldn't even notice anything other than a blimp landing.

I use normal eye sight, cameras,  binoculars, and telescopes to look for things like blimps and weather balloons. 

I even live near an airport, and drive by it two or three times weekly just to see what’s on the runway/tarmac.

It’s a big deal to see a blimp when they fly over.  And I have never seen a blimp at the airport.

And have never seen just floating “platforms” with parabolic dishes.

Learn to read. Like, seriously.

I never said blimps were the only means of transmission.

Remember, you guys say that a powerful broadcast device can be fixed to space shuttles that can be broadcast hundreds of thousands of miles away from the moon or Mars. If you can attach that and have such a broadcast, you most certainly can build broadcast stations on anything.

Hmmmm, I bet you've seen some things near that meet this criteria. They are called planes.

 And there is no reason why "satellites" must be stationary. Dishes pick up multiple signals, and while the upload and download speed may be strongest while such things "orbit" overhead, they can get signals from towers just fine.

 "The police can predict your phone’s location by using the data from 3 cell towers. Triangulation is useful to find where something is."

 You do not need satellites to trace location, only overlap of signals.



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

As my research as indicated there are a plethora of platforms that can mimic satellite utility, so lets review.

1. Land-based technologies. Loran (long range navigation)
2. GPS uses Cell-tower triangulation not Satellites
3. High Altitude Airships (HAA)
4. High Altitude Platforms (HAP)
5. Lighter-than-air vehicles (LAV)
6. High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE)
7. High Altitude Long Operation (HALO)
8. StratSat
9. Airborne Relay Communication (ARC)
10. HeliPlat which connects to the HeliNet System
11. High Altitude Shuttle System (HASS)
12. Small Balloon Systems (SBS)
13. Nano Balloon Systems (NBS)
14. Google Loon System
15. Stratospheric Platform Systems (SPS)
16. High Altitude Long Endurance Demonstrator (HALE-D)
17 Undersea Cable
18. DARPA Integrated Sensor is Structure or ISIS

So as you see there are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost. All 18 platforms I’ve mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to continually risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do. Based on the previous five frauds revealed in part 1, the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.

Which is more probable. That satellites exist but NASA seems incapable of confirming their existence or simply they do not exist at all? Occam’s Razor makes it simple, they don’t exist at all!!

You most definitely have seen some of these "satellites" as they flew past. They were everything from planes to helicopters.

Produce proof that the 80 countries actually have stratolites up there and maintain them.

That's all you have to do. Enough rambling, evidence!

:rolls_eyes:

You first.

Estimates seem to vary on the number of satellites in supposed orbit. The latest number to date is 1265 functioning satellites with as many as 370,000 pieces of space-junk whizzing around at speeds of up to 22,000 mph.

Produce evidence that there this much junk in outer space.

You're doing a part-whole fallacy.

But I've actually produced several smaller evidences where yes indeed weather balloons do go up and satellite information can be attached to it. Also shown that both military and media companies have an interest in such technologies. Also shown that there are a number of vehicles (and for that matter towers that can do the job). There do not have to be the same models of systems in 80 countries, they can use whatever technology is locally available.

You've ignored these because aren't some legendary whopper evidence that with totally changes everyone's mind. Sorry, but that's not how things work here. Part-whole fallacy.

Provide a single piece of evidence (and only one) that there are this many satellites in space. If that one isn't good enough to convince me, you fail forever and have to give up.

Besides which, there already is evidence. I can walk less than two town blocks and see evidence of celltower triangulation. In my small town there are at least two visible towers within a four block radius. It is quick obvious that no "stratolites" are even needed. Some do exist, but there are 18 technologies that are cheaper than space satellites. Occam's Razor.

And there is no reason why "satellites" must be stationary.

Your wilful ignorance of the reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Satellite dishes need to be carefully aimed to pick up a particular signal.
If it is not aligned properly the signal is crap or not there at all. That shows that whatever is transmitting to these dishes need to be fairly stable.
If they moved around all over the place, the dish would have a wildly fluctuating signal.

Dishes pick up multiple signals, and while the upload and download speed may be strongest while such things "orbit" overhead, they can get signals from towers just fine.

Stop just asserting delusional BS.
Try justifying your delusional BS for once.

As my research as indicated there are a plethora of platforms that can mimic satellite utility, so lets review.

Lets review:
SO far no technology has been provided as a viable alternative to satellite coverage for a very large area.
Nothing has been provided to demonstrate that satellites are fake, or any of the delusional BS you spout.

The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost.

You mean the most glaring aspect of trying to fake it would be cost, where faking it would cost vastly more.
That is the reason why Google abandoned its balloon project.

Based on the previous five frauds revealed in part 1

The only fraud you have revealed is yourself.

the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.

There are plenty of photos and videos of the ISS.

But this is really just you making up pathetic excuses to try and dismiss reality.
If they were videos of them on the ground, you would dismiss them as not satellites.
If they were videos of them in space, you would dismiss them as fake as "there is nothing to take the video"

Which is more probable. That satellites exist but NASA seems incapable of confirming their existence or simply they do not exist at all?

Or that YOU are incapable of confirming their existence or choose not to.
And it isn't that they simply do not exist at all. The alternative would be a massive global conspiracy with countless land based or high altitude transmitters to fake the observations and transmissions of satellites.

The simplest option is that YOU are incapable or unwilling to confirm their existence.

You first.

You have been provided plenty of proof of the existence of satellites, you just reject it.

You've ignored these because aren't some legendary whopper evidence that with totally changes everyone's mind. Sorry, but that's not how things work here. Part-whole fallacy.

No, we have pointed out that they don't support your claims.

These technologies exist independent of satellites.
Their existence doesn't magically make satellites fake.

If that one isn't good enough to convince me, you fail forever and have to give up.

You have made it clear that NOTHING will convince you, as you don't give a damn about the truth and will reject or dismiss any evidence that shows you are wrong.
So why would anyone accept that BS demand of yours?

there are 18 technologies that are cheaper than space satellites. Occam's Razor.

Prove it. Don't just assert delusional BS, actually prove they are cheaper, including to provide the coverage that satellites do.
Otherwise Occam's Razor says that satellites exist, and you can't accept reality.

There are 3 methods for pinpointing the location of Tracki GPS tracker using geo-location data.

1. Global Positioning System (GPS) capability, use signals from satellites to pinpoint location very accurately.
2. Wi-Fi by tracking routers MAC ID. If Tracki GPS tracker can't find a GPS signal it will listen to all the WiFi routers around and report their MAC ID to our servers which have access to a mapping of worldwide WiFi routers and their location, accuracy is about 100-300 feet.
3. The less-accurate method is often called “Cell Tower Triangulation”, referring to how the cell towers calculate the tracker’s geophysical location.

You have real trouble with logic, don't you?

Nearby signals overlapping in three or more locations will ALWAYS trump distant signals from space. The distance creates too wide a net, and too much of a lag.

You can duplicate this with the other type of broadcasting, that of catching fish. Tossing three nets to trap nearby fish will always work far better than trying to haul in deep sea fish netting from up top. A cell-based signal is always more accurate, whatever else is true of all this, simply because proximity creates a tighter zone. The reason one might have satellites in space is to cover wider area, but not for GPS. And honestly, at a certain height, cost creates diminishing return. Ionosphere and other fields disrupt signals. Atmospheric satellites will always give a better signal than space satellites as distance means disruption.

Someday you should actually think about the crap you tell me. It makes no sense.

You have real trouble with logic, don't you?

No, that would be you, a severe problem, where you can't even make a coherent thought, and because of how utterly delusional the garbage you spout is, you feel the need to continually jump topic because you can't defend any of your claims.

Nearby signals overlapping in three or more locations will ALWAYS trump distant signals from space. The distance creates too wide a net, and too much of a lag.

No it wont.
Firstly, just on efficiency, a simple system of 24 satellites compared to a ridiculous number of cell towers can make satellites vastly more attractive.
The 24 satellite system needed for GPS covers almost the entire world (poor coverage near the poles).
But according to google, the US needs 307 000 cell towers, just to provide the limited coverage they do.

So satellites sure look a lot more attractive.

But more importantly, that lag is what is used to determine position.
By knowing the difference in time from the broadcast from the satellite to when you pick it up, you can determine how far away it is, and then by using those distances and known positions for several satellites you can calculate your position.

Conversely, cell towers, based upon what towers pick up the signal, is quite poor.

Someday you should actually think about the crap you tell me. It makes no sense.

You intentionally refusing to understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for everyone else.
The fact you need to continue to jump between topics and spout the same refuted delusional BS shows that your crap doesn't work.

Learn to read. Like, seriously.

Changing the subject like a little coward?  You need to finish this hot mess you started.  I bet completion is a real problem for you…

Anyway.   Time for you to adult and admit you were greatly mistaken. Totally mistaken. 

Radio waves are not sound waves.

Radio waves are sound waves.

You understand why you see a muzzle flash at night before you hear the shot?

You understand why you see the flash of lighting before you hear thunder.

You do understand the flash of lightning which is light is electromagnetic, also lighting produces radio waves which are electromagnetic.  They travel faster than sound. 

How Does the Lightning Detector Work?

https://support.acurite.com/hc/en-us/articles/360010936494-How-Does-the-Lightning-Detector-Work-

The lightning detector system uses a radio that listens for lightning at 500 kHz, it listens for a particular radio signal pattern. The lightning signal pattern is generated by the electrical “spark”, that is the lightning itself.

How does a Personal Lightning Detector Work?

Have you ever heard the crackling of a lightning strike on your AM radio? A lightning strike has a distinct waveform that can be processed and analyzed by detector hardware and software.

https://ambientweather.com/faqs/question/view/id/3609/

I have been driving.  Seen a flash of lighting and heard the static it causes on the radio at the same time.  Then heard the resultant thunder clap whole seconds later on.  What’s the rule of thumb.  Each second between the lighting flash and hearing the thunder is about a mile in distance.  Seven second gap between seeing the flash of lighting and hearing the thunder means the lighting was about seven miles away.

Sorry.  A little real world proof radio travels faster than sound. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 31, 2023, 09:57:05 PM

Learn to read. Like, seriously.

Changing the subject like a little coward?  You need to finish this hot mess you started.  I bet completion is a real problem for you…

Anyway.   Time for you to adult and admit you were greatly mistaken. Totally mistaken. 

Radio waves are not sound waves.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 16, 2020, 09:05:51 AM

Radio waves are sound waves.

You understand why you see a muzzle flash at night before you hear the shot?

You understand why you see the flash of lighting before you hear thunder.

You do understand the flash of lightning which is light is electromagnetic, also lighting produces radio waves which are electromagnetic.  They travel faster than sound. 

See? Here you carnies are doing bait-and-switch again.

A flash of lightning or a muzzle flash produces LIGHT waves. And btw, these things are connected! When a thunderbolt flashes, you can supposedly count the number of seconds to determine how far away, and whether it is getting closer or farther. That is, when a lightning bolt hits, light and sound at ground zero are identical (though you don't wanna get close enough to test that), and as light and sound travel, they travel at different rates.

Radio, if it exists, does so on a wavelength that can neither be seen nor heard. In fact, many of these frequencies are synthetic, they don't occur naturally. You are a carny yourself if you tried to call waves of light as radio waves.



Look at where radio is. Now light is over there. We can demonstratably show that light and sound are in relation to each other, through the behavior of light/sound with lightning or gunfire. Now, I'm going to add to this model so you get it.


Basically, the faster the wavelength, the more energetic, and the less reactive to medium. Subsonic waves are so reactive that they can sometimes interact with the ground itself, flowing through it as seismic waves. On the other end of the spectrum, x-rays and gamma are high energy and pass through even human bodies. 

You also proved that the sound of the device tested by Hertz might have traveled much slower, had Hertz been able to hear it. The man is a fraud, and you helped me prove it.

Thank you. 

See? Here you carnies are doing bait-and-switch again.

You’re the one that made the delusional declaration that radio waves are sound waves.  Which has what to do with the opening post of this thread.


You

A flash of lightning or a muzzle flash produces LIGHT waves.

Which is electromagnetic radiation.

And btw, these things are connected!

Because energy is being released.  And one form of release is electrons going from a high energy state to a lower energy state.

Whenever an electron moves from one of these energy levels to another it must either gain or lose some energy. If the electron gains energy this is called an absorbance and if it lost energy this is called an emittance. In both cases an energy particle called a PHOTON is absorbed or emitted and thus light is absorbed or emitted. Different elements have different energy levels so that is why different elements emit or absorb different amounts (wavelengths) of light.

https://www.chem.fsu.edu/chemlab/chm1020c/lecture%203/03.php

Wonder what phenomenon causes radio waves?

Electromagnetic waves are radiated by electric charges when they are accelerated.[1][2] Radio waves, electromagnetic waves of radio frequency, are generated by time-varying electric currents, consisting of electrons flowing through a metal conductor called an antenna which are changing their velocity and thus accelerating.[3][2] An alternating current flowing back and forth in an antenna will create an oscillating magnetic field around the conductor. The alternating voltage will also charge the ends of the conductor alternately positive and negative, creating an oscillating electric field around the conductor. If the frequency of the oscillations is high enough, in the radio frequency range above about 20 kHz, the oscillating coupled electric and magnetic fields will radiate away from the antenna into space as an electromagnetic wave, a radio wave.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmitter

There’s that word again.  Electron.  “consisting of electrons flowing through a metal conductor called an antenna which are changing their velocity and thus accelerating”

You

When a thunderbolt flashes, you can supposedly count the number of seconds to determine how far away, and whether it is getting closer or farther. That is, when a lightning bolt hits, light and sound at ground zero are identical (though you don't wanna get close enough to test that), and as light and sound travel, they travel at different rates.

Ok.

I’m discussing the radio waves created by lighting, the principle how lighting detectors work.  And why I see a flash of lightning and it simultaneously causes radio static on my car’s radio.

Then I hear the thunder seconds later.

I have been driving.  Seen a flash of lighting and heard the static it causes on the radio at the same time.  Then heard the resultant thunder clap whole seconds later on.  What’s the rule of thumb.  Each second between the lighting flash and hearing the thunder is about a mile in distance.  Seven second gap between seeing the flash of lighting and hearing the thunder means the lighting was about seven miles away.

Sorry.  A little real world proof radio travels faster than sound.

Minor correction: each second between lightning flash (or crackle on the radio caused by it) and hearing its thunder is about 1,000 feet in distance. This is because the speed of sound in air is a bit over 1,000 feet per second and speed of EM radiation is almost a billion feet per second.

The rule of thumb is five seconds difference between flash and boom is about a mile.

Hearing the crackle on radio at the same time you see the lightning flash says that light and radio waves travel at the same speed or so nearly the same speed that you can't tell the difference. The sound of thunder generated by that same lightning stroke arrives noticeably later, indicating that sound travels noticeably slower.

as light and sound travel, they travel at different rates.

Yes, and radio waves travel at the speed of light, not sound.
And notice how all the sound travels at the same rate. You don't have a particular speed for high frequency sounds and then a different speed for low frequency.

We can demonstratably show that light and sound are in relation to each other, through the behavior of light/sound with lightning or gunfire.

And we can do the same with radio, with the use of simple radio based devices.
There are plenty of examples demonstrating radio waves travelling much faster than sound, which you simply ignore because you want to pretend radio is sound so you can pretend your irrational hatred of reality is justified.

Now, I'm going to add to this model so you get it.

Your image failed to load. But I assume you are doing some delusional garbage like sticking sound on the EM spectrum.
It doesn't matter how many times you wish to try this delusional BS, sound is not an EM wave.


Basically, the faster the wavelength, the more energetic, and the less reactive to medium.
[/quote]
Complete delusional BS.
Sound waves require a medium. EM waves do not.
Faster makes absolutely no sense when applied to wavelength.
The wavelength is the length of the wave, it can be longer and shorter, but not faster or slower.

But more damaging, the interaction of a particular EM wave with a medium is quite complex, depending on what the medium is.
The simple fact that we can have red, green and blue filters shows this simple idea of yours is delusional garbage with no connection to reality.
If your garbage was true, then either anything that blocks red light must also block green and blue light, or anything that blocks blue light must also block red and green light.

The man is a fraud, and you helped me prove it.

Again, the only one who is a fraud here is you.
You are yet to demonstrate any fault with what Hertz provided, nor the countless modern examples which clearly demonstrate that you are spouting delusional garbage.

The point being, if light and sound were divorced (e.g. sound is not affected by EM radiation of light), then no matter how bright the light is, and how much electrical energy is put off, the sound will be no louder. In other words, it will not carry several miles to be heard when you count. Fun fact, it can carry up to 30 miles.
https://housegrail.com/how-far-away-can-you-hear-thunder/
If sound is not electromagnetic, the energy of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot affect it. But it can! Sound can react to other vibrations, including heat, light, and electrical or magnetic charge. We know this precisely because the energy can project such sound well beyond what the decibels say it can.

Thunder is about 120–130 decibels, a jet engine is 160dB on takeoff. Yet despite the fact that a jet takeoff can literally deafen you (150dB is the threshold for temporary deafness), you don't hear jet takeoff for miles on end.

And no, it isn't "well it's just louder near the center" as I've been near the center. It was loud, but not that loud. It's that it carries through the air because of interaction with light and energetic electrical fields. The sound is propelled by the lightning. A shock wave.

Thunder is about 120–130 decibels, a jet engine is 160dB on takeoff. Yet despite the fact that a jet takeoff can literally deafen you (150dB is the threshold for temporary deafness), you don't hear jet takeoff for miles on end.

How do you know that thunder is about 120–130 decibels and a jet engine is 160dB on takeoff? Did you measure these?

The point being, if light and sound were divorced (e.g. sound is not affected by EM radiation of light), then no matter how bright the light is, and how much electrical energy is put off, the sound will be no louder.

Why?
Asserting pure nonsense wont help you.

Lightning is the air breaking down and ionising to conduct a very large surge of electricity. That plasma emits a lot of light which makes it bright, and the current flow massively heats the air which causes a very significant expansion which causes sound.

This doesn't mean sound is affected by light. It means they are both caused by the same thing.

If sound is not electromagnetic, the energy of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot affect it. But it can!

Stop just asserting delusional BS. Provide evidence for your claim.

Thunder is about 120–130 decibels

Citation needed. A very important thing to include is how far from the source it is.
If one sound is 200 db at 1 m, and other is 100 db at 1 km, then at 2 km the stated 100 db sound will be louder.

Also note that thunder is not a point source. It is a line. This causes the drop off to be different.
And importantly, there is the consideration of altitude.
A jet engine at takeoff is typically quite low to the ground and can have the sound blocked by nearby buildings.
Lightning is in the air and you can often have an almost direct line to it, so nothing to block the sound.

It's that it carries through the air because of interaction with light and energetic electrical fields. The sound is propelled by the lightning. A shock wave.

If that delusional garbage was true, there wouldn't be a delay.
The fact the light travels almost instantly, while the sound can take a few seconds demonstrates quite clearly that neither is propelling the other.

If sound is not electromagnetic, the energy of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot affect it.

What are you babbling about.

Lighting makes an electromagnetic pulse.  Part of that pulse is radio waves that disrupts radio broadcasts.  Causes static in your car’s radio simultaneously as the flash is seen.  Then the sound of thunder comes whole seconds later. 

The sound of thunder is from the sudden expansion and collapse of the atmosphere from the heat of the large electrical arc called lightning.

Thunder is created when lightning passes through the air. The lightning discharge heats the air rapidly and causes it to expand. The temperature of the air in the lightning channel may reach as high as 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit, 5 times hotter than the surface of the sun. Immediately after the flash, the air cools and contracts quickly. This rapid expansion and contraction creates the sound wave that we hear as thunder.

https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-science-thunder

You can actually make a lightning detector.

This is one you can make.

http://techlib.com/electronics/lightningnew.htm

Notice what is missing from the circuitry.  A microphone and a speaker. 

There is an antenna and a tuning circuit that has the detector tuned to receive electromagnetic radiation waves in the form of radio waves.  Not sound.

This new lightning detector circuit uses a single inductor tuned circuit to receive static pulses from lightning at a frequency near 200 kHz. The need for a tapped tuned circuit is eliminated by employing a very high input impedance RF amplifier that uses a darlington transistor. The amplifier is micro-power and the whole circuit draws only about 200 uA from two alkaline D cells, hardly denting the shelf life. The flasher portion of the circuit is similar to the earlier versions only the polarity of the transistors is reversed. As a result the output pulses momentarily go to ground from a normally-high state.

http://techlib.com/electronics/lightningnew.htm

The detector is handy because the indicating LED flashes from the faster “static pulses from lightning at a frequency near 200 kHz” being detected before the slower sound waves of thunder are heard.

It also shows radio waves are electromagnetic. They are what induce a current in the antenna of the detector.  Not sound waves.


Sorry.  Only a flat earther can lie about well established reality. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 01, 2023, 05:53:52 PM

Thunder is about 120–130 decibels, a jet engine is 160dB on takeoff. Yet despite the fact that a jet takeoff can literally deafen you (150dB is the threshold for temporary deafness), you don't hear jet takeoff for miles on end.

How do you know that thunder is about 120–130 decibels and a jet engine is 160dB on takeoff? Did you measure these?

I did not.

Sorry.  Only a flat earther can lie about well established reality.

What, you get to cite secondhand facts as though they are proof, but I do not? How unfair!

If I can look up things online, and you get to reject them and say "how do you know?" Yet you get to rant on and on about how I'm "lying" about established reality.

Either one is true, but you have to pick:
1. We can take secondhand facts and use them, because other people's reports can be trusted
2.There is no established reality, and scientist guess at things.

The only way out of this is to understand that reality is like a storybook that isn't all done yet. Some things have proved, and some people say have been proved but are actually conjecture that they brought along with other observations. So stop with with the "Who are you to question established science?!? I am Science the Great and Powerful!" rubbish.

 I can see that curtain just fine, and I'm not fooled by the bluster. Some things aren't proved and I will question them. But you don't get to accuse me of lying unless you're willing to admit the same for any theory that hasn't actually been established.

That means your heroes Newton, Eistein, Darwin, Hertz, and Hawking can all also be lying whenever they make statements that haven't actually been supported by the facts.
The facts told Darwin that there was environmental evolution. The same as some of the catastrophism scientists and Lamarck (who today is only now with epigenetics making a comeback but they still refuse to believe this can be passed on) proposed.
But did he write this? No, he wrote some rubbish about natural selection even though he had never seen any such mechanism. Today, evolutionists teach the theory as though it's a viable alternative to creation.
Uhhh yeah things can evolve but they can't do the impossible. What is the impossible? Randomly go from raw chemicals to fully formed cell. You could leave that abiogenesis vat for centuries, and the only way you'd get life is if a bacteria crawled into it and started slurping on the primordial broth. Randomly going from fish to land dwellers (the mechanism for lungs and gills most be complete, especially in the amniotic stage).

 But to be honest, I've heard both sounds too. Jetplane sound was loud enough that you knew when the plane took off from inside the plane.
But yet hundreds of planes taking off a day, and the sound is completely blocked inside the airport. I've waited for hours inside an airport before. The only sound I heard was something like, "For you safety, please carry all luggage before leaving. Any unattended luggage will before regarded as suspicious. We apologize for your inconvenience," on auto-loop every fifteen minutes for two hou before my folks left. Airplanes? No, I didn't hear them take off even though we weren't far off.

Thunder? Heard even in the supposedly soundproof (as I'm sure you'll say next) area of the airport. Heard when it's up close too, loud but not deafening. It know that these numbers track.



You can hear both the plane and the storm here. The difference is from across town, you can't hear the planes anymore, but storms you can hear for miles away.