Moonbounce echo delay - Need answer from FE'ers

This person has successfully echoed signals off the moon.  His website contains an account of the first echo he achieved on April 26, 2005.  He states that "Echoes return approximately 2.5 seconds".

How is that time delay realistically possible with the FE model of the heavens?  

In FE, this would also put the Sun at (minimum) 250,000 miles, as they "orbit each other".    This directly contradicts the late Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's estimations.

Perhaps the DEF interferes with light's travel?

Perhaps the DEF interferes with light's travel?

To slow it down by a factor of ~80 would certainly be interfering.

It would also cause enormous refraction when the light enters and exits the DEF.

Our view of the heavens would also be massively distorted because of this.

How would we know how light behaves in space, if we have never been to space to study it?

oh, come on, Tom. ever heard of vacum chambers? large areas or rooms with artificial vacum that is exactly like outer space?

not to mention your absurd assumption that all space travel is totally fake...

How would we know how light behaves in space, if we have never been to space to study it?

Assuming that we have never been into space... We can only base our calculations on what happens to light that is not in space.  We know that space is likely to be a vacuum because the air gets thinner the higher we go.  We know how light behaves in a vacuum.   We also know that gravity decreases as we get higher. 

This leaves the list of known and theoretical things that could dramatically effect light extremely small (zero?)

The point is that you have to make a judgement, based on all the evidence.  If you still believe that the moon is 3000 miles away, after someone has bounced EM waves off it in 2.5 seconds, then that is your judgement.

A question:  How can the late Dr. Samuel Rowbotham say the sun is 3000 miles away if we don't know "how light behaves in space"?

How would we know how light behaves in space, if we have never been to space to study it?

So why would it slow down by huge amounts? How would you know how light behaves in space, if we have never been to space to study it?

oh, come on, Tom. ever heard of vacum chambers? large areas or rooms with artificial vacum that is exactly like outer space?

not to mention your absurd assumption that all space travel is totally fake...

You assume that a vacuum is exactly like "outer space".  This is a bit hasty of an assumption. 

oh, come on, Tom. ever heard of vacum chambers? large areas or rooms with artificial vacum that is exactly like outer space?

What evidence do you have showing that outer-space exists as a vacuum? For all we know outer space exists as an ocean of quantum molasses.

A question:  How can the late Dr. Samuel Rowbotham say the sun is 3000 miles away if we don't know "how light behaves in space"?

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has determined the altitude to the Sun through means of Astronomical Parallax.

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

This doesn't work, and you know it doesn't. It's equally effective at proving that the sun is distant on a RE as it is at proving the sun is close on a FE. You need to stop using this argument.

...while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

But how does the great Dr. R know that space is not effecting the path of light when it is at 45 degrees?  (e.g. there is no massive refraction by the hugely light-slowing "DEF")

My point is that Dr R has made an assumption about space and light.  The same assumption that I am making.  -That local "space" doesn't do anything very much to light waves.

You are effectively challenging Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's assumption about space! 
 

Not to mention Tom, that for a DEF to affect light, you are again implying some form of a photon-photon interaction. Light ALWAYS travels at the speed of light through vacuum, and the only way it can travel slower is if there is a solid object that absorbs and then re-emits light. In space, light must travel at c, and you fail. All massless particles must travel at c. Period.

What evidence do you have showing that outer-space exists as a vacuum? For all we know outer space exists as an ocean of quantum molasses.

Because quantum molasses, genius, would crash into the Earth due to gravitation. You are implying that space is made of mass. In which case, why isn't said mass observed? Surely it would crash pretty quick down?

Cosmic radiation, solar wind.

That does nothing. Photons are not affected by other photons, and mass would be infinitely more likely to absorb it. Furthermore, the density of the solar wind is too low.

Quantum Molasses.  I like it

Responses by the FE proponents in this thread make it abundantly clear that they are unable to see reason or listen both sides of an argument. The dismissal of broad field scientific fact and the production of fanciful theories(Molasses? please) illustrate this.

For some reason I can't stop reading this forum. No matter how devoid of reason the posts are I am always entertained.

Keep up the work, good and bad.

this shows how little FErs know about technology and science.

I really don't understand how stellar mechanics operate in a FE model. The density variations of the atmosphere must be insane, and there's nowhere to put the southern axis that the stars rotate around. Not to mention the problems of keeping everything up there.

I just had some quantum molasses with my friend this morning. They tasted like atoms.

Quantum Molasses.  I like it

Yeah, me too. I think it's got a better ring to it than quantum foam.

So do we have a conclusive answer to the OP?

Slowing the speed of light by 80 times is quite a margin.  This would surely create massive refraction and nullify the methods used to calculate the earth-moon distance at 3000 miles.

Does anybody have a resolution for this?

Aether and quantum foam, molasses, sponges are constantly used without basis to cover FE problems against RE. This isn't really new.