Ham Radio and Moonbounce

Hai all.

Not sure if anyone has attacked this one. I am an amateur radio enthusiast, I have 2 callsigns, 2E1JJM and M3JJM - you can look this up with the RSGB and with Ofcom - the UK's governmental body for communications.

It occured to me that a while ago I was trying something nicknamed "moonbounce" - also known as EME or earth to moon to earth communications. Effectively, a ham radio user has a very directional form of an antenna, normally a Yagi beam that produces a very directional and efficient emission, aims it rather accurately at the moon using various calculations, and can then gauge roughly where the signal will arrive on earth after bouncing off the moon. Most importantly, there is a time delay in this which is quite measurable, and the curvature of the earth plays a part in this.

In my case I was using a standard standard Cushcraft Yagi beam on the 6 metre wavelength band, aka 50MHz. With a low discharge of power, 50 watts to be specific on my 2E1JJM callsign, I successfully achieved bounce from southern england to another user in russia, more specifically leningrad with the callsign RN3LLP (this corresponds to central russia). Now I know the rough distance that my transmissions took due to the time lag bouncing off the moon - and these only agree with a slight curve of the earth's face. On top of that, my communications would not have got so far on such a large wavelength transmission with relatively minimal power if the earth was flat.

On top of this, ham radio users using much larger wavelengths, like the 40m and 17m bands, know roughly how far their signal will go due to their emissions (depending on their antenna) being a proportionate resonate distance of their wavelength that can be targetted with specific angles using directional antennas at the top layers of the atmosphere (F2 layer specifically) and then reflect off the atmosphere. Using this method, one can work out how far a single atmospheric reflection will take a signal back down to sea level depending on time of day (the atmosphere rises and sinks with sunlight exposure due to temperature fluctuations); and crucially how long it will take, using speed of light calculations. This certainly confirms a round earth.

On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission. I have in fact witnessed my father doing this (his radio license allows more power, G0WKL is his callsign), on a completely omnidirectional HF dipole (proving that you don't even need my specifications to do it) made by cushcraft (an R8, available here http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/CUSHCRAFT_HF_Vertical_Antennas.html) with about 190W of power on the 40m band.

Let me re-iterate. Directional Electromagnetic radition that circumnavigates the earth, is NOT possible on a dual flat plane of reflection; let alone omnidirectional. It would be emitted to into space. A dual spherical plane of reflection (i.e. RE) is the only way without using ridiculous reflection repeater arrays positioned at incredibly lucky points along your "ice wall", to produce the effect I have described above. Goto any Ham radio forum and ask if HF circumnavigation is possible and if anyone has experienced it. No end of people have - I am not the only one. The ham radio community is so small, that NASA or any of your government agencies wouldn't even consider ploughing the tens of billions required to reproduce this effect on a flat plane; it would be impossible to recreate successfully for every user without someone seeing something weird like 500m tall resonant reflectors for each wavelength (we're talking nearly millions of combinations here with the various angles) on the edge of your ice wall, or as we call it, Antarctica.

Your assumptions are wrong, before we tackle your actual message, here are some things to think about, julian.

It was found that "the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer ... It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth's atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception."

The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.

Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations. These fluctuations were studied by S. Newcomb, who wrote: "I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatic phenomenon presented by the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action of any known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some action in nature hitherto unknown." They are not explainable by the forces of gravitation which emanate from the sun and the planets.

The barometric pressure, julian, also tells us that things are not as they seem on this Earth.

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: "The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth?s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.""

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

Now, julian, you must take into account the existence of the Heavenly Dome, which separates the Sun/Moon/Planets/Stars orbits from our atmosphere:

On the Heavenly Dome subject:

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/ftrad.html

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/flatearth.htm

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm

The existence of this Dome explains all your concerns expressed in your message...

It was found that "the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer ... It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth's atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception."

Air pressure and thus F2 layer height alteration has no effect on EME. The majority of EME communications use UHF, 22Ghz and so on, and the wavelength of these signals is too short to be reflected by the F2, the only plausible change would be some refraction, however as you have cited yourself, the change would be minute.

The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.

I don't disagree with this and never said anything to insinuate otherwise.

Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations. These fluctuations were studied by S. Newcomb, who wrote: "I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatic phenomenon presented by the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action of any known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some action in nature hitherto unknown." They are not explainable by the forces of gravitation which emanate from the sun and the planets.

Again, while I'm not sure I totally agree with this - I am not insinuating otherwise. The effect I am describing has virtually nothing to do with this.

The barometric pressure, julian, also tells us that things are not as they seem on this Earth.

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

Yes, the cause is known. Sunspots. That's what HF communications are going through an exceptionally unique period of propagation at the minute as we are at the low of the sunspot cycle (which is 11 years long). During these 11 years, HF propagation declines and increases proportionately to the sunspot cycle. My father being a radio ham for nearly 50 years, and myself for 10, we have both witnessed this widely accepted explanation for the linear and predictable variation in EM propagation. You can't disprove this one.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: "The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth?s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.""

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

This is another fact that you are twisting. These two times of day are well known - and they occur around the time of sunrise and sunset, where the suns heating effect on the earth changes the F2 layer's height and density. The maxima you are talking about are known in the ham community as grey propagation times. It lasts for about 30 minutes each time and gives rise to exceptional propagation on mid wavelength bands such as 6m, allowing normally VHF signals to act as HF signals. Hence it's nicknamed the crossover band. They are not fixed, and their time changes around the world depending on longitude and time of year. There are plenty of sources on the internet which can tell you when these periods will be and where, well in advance of them occuring. They are always right. How else would someone in the UK talk to someone in the US on the 6m band? Jeez.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

Now, julian, you must take into account the existence of the Heavenly Dome, which separates the Sun/Moon/Planets/Stars orbits from our atmosphere:

On the Heavenly Dome subject:

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/ftrad.html

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/flatearth.htm

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm

The existence of this Dome explains all your concerns expressed in your message...

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, apart from that MYTH is not submissable evidence. On top of that, it does not resolve the issue of directional transmissions circumnavigating a flat earth. It's just not possible.

You quote Immanual Velikovsky (a scholar at best not a scientist), that used to use the bible and such other works of fiction in his "scientific" works. None of his conclusions are backed by actual fact or proof, more conjecture and fiction.

Julian makes some very good points which proove the spheroid earth which you cannot contridict by merely copying and pasting some rubbish published 70 years ago by a fiction writer.

Velikovsky had five university degrees under his belt, and was Einstein's best friend, in fact there were roommates at Princeton.

In 1955, after Einstein's death, there was a single book open on his desk: Worlds in Collision, which he admired greatly.

Velikovsky quotes the scientific facts which cannot be accounted for in the round earth theory.

julian, the radiation pressure over those spots IS LOWEST on the surface of the Sun, about 1/10000 of the atmospheric pressure on Earth; at this time, scientists do not know what causes the relation between the sunspots and weather pattern changes on Earth. If it is not due to radiation, what other cause could there be? This question is answered only in the correct model of the flat earth, which does include the black sun, which gives off energy/aether to the visible sun.

You wrote: This is another fact that you are twisting. These two times of day are well known - and they occur around the time of sunrise and sunset, where the suns heating effect on the earth changes the F2 layer's height and density.

Exactly, but the other way around.

Here is the quote I presented to you:

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: "The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth?s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.""

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Read carefully.

The Dome is substantial evidence, once I prove to you the earth is flat, as I have done in my pictures, taken all over the Lake Ontario, English Channel, and Strait of Gibraltar. Please read the Nasa Fake Space Program to see how nobody has been able to ascend beyond 15 km.

E/M circumnavigation on a flat earth was done and proved by none other than Nikola Tesla, please read the Tunguska 1908 explosion thread; a ball lightning produced in Tesla's laboratory in New York exploded over the river Tunguska on the opposite side of the flat earth.

E/M circumnavigation on a flat earth was done and proved by none other than Nikola Tesla, please read the Tunguska 1908 explosion thread; a ball lightning produced in Tesla's laboratory in New York exploded over the river Tunguska on the opposite side of the flat earth.

The otherside of the flat earth? You mean the dark side?
Oh no wait you are mixing his spherical world with your flat world!

You seem to love Einstein yet many of his works prove the spherical shape of the earth and disprove many of the arguments for the flat world. Velikovsky only had one degree in medical science?
Where is your source of info?

I believe that you have no concept of science and I also have discredited your source.
Please give a good reason for this 'heavenly dome', and what it is?

danwood, you are new here. There is no underside. Velikovsky had 5 scientific degrees.

My theory of the flat earth can be found here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0

As for Einstein:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=601.0

Your high school bull session message needs lots of improvement...

You cannot cite these forums.
And you did say the opposite side of the earth, indicating your dark energy side instead of russia.
BTW Tesla was a bit of a crackpot who did do some really good work in electromagnetism.

I mean a real source of information, something that is respected in the scientific community.
I am educated in physical sciences and have a degree, this is probably more than you could dream of.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

And I just told you, that's not true. Go out and buy an HF transceiver and test that out for yourself; you'll be bitterly disappointed.

Edit: Just to clarify what I mean, as I don't think it's got through your skull, go here: http://www.spacew.com/www/realtime.php

And a quote from that page:

The area between the two lines (shaded a lighter shade than the night-time sector) is known as the grayline and has special significance to radio communicators. Signals which travel inside the grayline region often experience significant improvements in propagation because of the loss of ionization in the D-region as the Sun sets. However, because the higher F-regions of the ionosphere remain strongly ionized for longer periods of time, signals with higher frequencies are able to travel to greater distances with less attenuation when they are within the grayline.  

This maxima, CHANGES with the pitch of the earth's axis as it rotates the sun throughout the year, it is not a fixed time, so cut the crap with your 10am 10pm because it ISN'T TRUE. That website is maintained by a private company, who are individuals and have programmed that realtime projection using their independent measurements: http://www.spacew.com/AboutUs.html ...there is nothing conspiracy bound there!

As for this Velikovsky - look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

One concrete degree in medicine and other paths of study all within the medical field bar a bit of maths at a Russian college (surprisingly famous for their space travel by the way), mostly relevant to psychotherapy and psychiatry. Hardly EM Physics.

Utter tripe you are talking and you'll have to eat it once you try it rather than reading from a book written by a Russian crackpot, that has very dubious interpretations of the pasts events. Even in his own "Worlds in Collision" book, he states that the EARTH ROTATES. On top of that, he suggested that Venus had got close enough to earth and exchanged atmospheric gas, and then somehow the two planetary bodies separated and ended up in their current orbit! What! Chances are, Einstein read it because he found it so funny.

I'll give you another one - I live near a company that builds satellites independently. Zero funding from the government - and I've seen these things in clean rooms with my own eyes. The technology in them is REAL, I have seen it with my own eyes. They have no government funding, only what they get for privately selling satellites, and that is not enough money to actually mock the 15 or 20 odd pieces they have put into orbit, and then construct the things, and then on top of that, get a profit to make faking it all slightly worthwhile.

As for the Tunguska Event, Tesla's experiment was performed during one of robert peary's expeditions to the north pole right? Yeah Peary didn't leave NY till 6 days after the Tunguska Event. That ain't proof that EM circumnavigation is possible - it is only a crackpot theory to try and explain the event.

The heavenly dome doesn't explain how one could transmit a highly directional signal, aimed within .5 of a degree, and then receive it at the exact opposite angle on a secondary antenna moments later. If your heavenly dome theory is even plausible, the signal would actually bounce right back at you before it could come from behind you, meaning it could and would be received on the primary transmission antenna first. I will try and reproduce this effect next time the conditions are right - I doubt it's going to work though....

Quote from: julianmartin on June 08, 2009, 04:39:50 PM

I am an amateur radio enthusiast, I have 2 callsigns, 2E1JJM and M3JJM - you can look this up with the RSGB and with Ofcom - the UK's governmental body for communications.

Thankyou for your cooperation. A NASA snatch squad has been sent to your address. Enjoy Gitmo sucker!

"NASA snatch squad"?

LOL.

(We've all seen "Capricorn One", haven't we?)

Your high school bull session message needs lots of improvement...

"Bull" as in bull-shit?

You just can't avoid getting personal and derogatory, can you?

Your patronising attitude towards other people does not enhance your academic standing (speaking as a professional academic).

Editted to correct grammar.

On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission.

Wow - that is amazingly cool.

(If you are an A1 nerd like me, that is!)

Quote from: julianmartin on June 08, 2009, 04:39:50 PM

On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission.

Wow - that is amazingly cool.

(If you are an A1 nerd like me, that is!)

Yeah, it is pretty cool when it happens - I'll admit it's a rare occurrence, only happened twice or three times to me, but I know plenty of people who regularly do it by accident on long DX missions to get contact with really elusive and rare callsigns.

Love it how no FE believers can put a plausible argument against what I have said above. I totally win. Buddhism would do you lot good, learn to appreciate the world given to you, rather than arguing with every factual physical assignment presented to you.

It's disgusting that you all devote your lives to a theory that is obscure and ultimately has little gain if it was actually correct. Collectively, I see a negative way of life between you that merely encourages misanthropic tendencies. If this ever actually takes off, do you know what it will do to society? Particularly to people that have very fragile and easily influenced minds? It's a shameful existence.


If any FE's live in the southern half of the UK, I would love to meet up for dinner, I will pay, just for the interest I have in meeting someone that genuinely believes this stuff, and to have a good hearty debate about it over a good Bordeaux.

Love it how no FE believers can put a plausible argument against what I have said above.

OK, so I'll have a go then (I am a Round Earther):

Your signal isn't travelling around a round Earth - it is travelling to The Great Ice Wall at the edge of the flat Earth and simply reflecting off the very high mountains back to you (we know that the mountains are very high, at least 100 km, becuase they have to stop the whole of the atmo-plane from diffusding off into space over the egde.)

It's disgusting that you all devote your lives to a theory that is obscure and ultimately has little gain if it was actually correct.

I think that the theory has excellent academic merit - but only as an exercise in getting people to think for themselves rather than just accepting what they read in school text books as fact.

this ever actually takes off, do you know what it will do to society? Particularly to people that have very fragile and easily influenced minds? It's a shameful existence.

It would encourage people to think for themselves which is no bad thing?

If any FE's live in the southern half of the UK, I would love to meet up for dinner, I will pay, just for the interest I have in meeting someone that genuinely believes this stuff, and to have a good hearty debate about it over a good Bordeaux.

Can I change my affiliation if there is free wine on offer?

Thinking for yourself is fixing your toilet rather than getting a plumber in to do it. FE theory merely reduces trust and faith in humanity.

As for bouncing off the ice mountains - not true as the signal would be receivable by the transmission antenna rather than the secondary antenna oppositely polarised to receive the signal coming from behind you - in my experiment, this is not possible.

As for changing allegiance for free wine - you sell out

Thinking for yourself is fixing your toilet rather than getting a plumber in to do it.

In which case I fail as a free thinker!

FE theory merely reduces trust and faith in humanity.

At its very worst I agree - the way that Flat Earthers tend to dismiss all Round-Earth evidence as a fabrication ("if I haven't seen it myself then it's not true" = the core of Zeteticism) does, indeed, erode the value of humanity's common purpose.

As for bouncing off the ice mountains - not true as the signal would be receivable by the transmission antenna rather than the secondary antenna oppositely polarised to receive the signal coming from behind you - in my experiment, this is not possible.

My ship is well and truly sunk, then!

So: are there any more (genuine) Flat-Earth objections to this Round-Earth evidence?

Edit: Zeteicism -> Zeteticism

The heavenly dome doesn't explain how one could transmit a highly directional signal, aimed within .5 of a degree, and then receive it at the exact opposite angle on a secondary antenna moments later. If your heavenly dome theory is even plausible, the signal would actually bounce right back at you before it could come from behind you, meaning it could and would be received on the primary transmission antenna first. I will try and reproduce this effect next time the conditions are right - I doubt it's going to work though....

Love it how no FE believers can put a plausible argument against what I have said above. I totally win.

I am boucing this (two days later) to see if any Flat Earthers can explain how you can send a radio signal off into The World, flat or otherwise, and then receive it again a few seconds later from the opposite direction (i.e right behind you).

I told you, millions of reflectors at every angle along the ice wall that CANNOT BE SEEN! Invisible! And it was $2 cheaper than going into space, so then NASA and the rest of the world leaders thought hey - why bother going to ALL the trouble of going to space. $2 can buy us an extra doughnut or three. And then when their system doesn't quite work...the global leaders will think, ah well, the ham radio enthusiast will assume the conditions aren't good enough.

Oh but don't forget that the signal is reflected several times so it arrives behind you....at a decent amplitude still as well!!! It's all very clever, and no-one can quite explain it because the theory hasn't been developed yet, but trust me it is true I promise..!

 

Looks like I might have genuinely added to FE theory....oops. I'll clarify for a second...I am joking, seriously. But am I?

Julian, welcome to the forum. I am posting for the first time, I have tried to avoid the forums and have preferred to mainly discuss FE/RE theory among other scholars. These forums, as with most internet forums, tend to be filled with extremely juvenile conversatoins. However, your question rises above the rather basic intellectual capacity demonstrated by typical round earthers.

The explanation to your question is not explained by reflections fro mthe ice shelf, as this would result in reverse polarity and ultimately destructive intereference of the EM radiation. Rather, the explanation is from the curvature of the atmosphere. The earth itself has a flat surface, in 3 dimensions ressembling to the shape of a thin cylinder, however the atmosphere retains curvature due to the meniscus affect. Without getting into the intense mathematical complexities which are neccessary to fully describe the phenomenon, the basis can be easily explained due to difference in cohesion between the bulk gas molecules vs cohesion of the gas/earth interface (which occurs at the edge of the earth, or the ice shelf). The cohesive forces within the molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the atmosphere and the ice shelf, causing the gaseous atmosphere to assume a convex shape.

A similar affect can be seen in everyday life. If you fill a glass with water, the top of the water will form a concave meniscus. if you fill the glass with mercury, the liquid will show a convex meniscus (the latter being analogous to the atmosphere/ice shelf interface). In the case of the flat earth, the raised ice shelf which encircles the surface of the earth acts as the  "walls" which interact with the atmosphere. Thus, while the earth is still flat, the atmosphere maintains a concave curvature.

An alternative, less accepted theory is due to the temperature gradient between the ice shelf and the bulk land. The cold temperatures from the ice shelves cause gas particles at the edge of the earth to have a colder average temperature than those in the center, creating a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. The Maxwell-Boltzmann relations dictate that the temperature gradient will result in a corresponding convex meniscus of the atmosphere (think of it this way: hot gas rises, cool gas falls. The gas over the ice shelf is cold, as you move away from the ice shelf the gas in the atmosphere heats up and rises, creating a convex lens).

Thus, while the earth is flat the atmosphere is not. This is a fact overlooked by many round earthers who are quick to dismiss FE facts because they dont have the capacity to evaluate the complexities of advanced scientific theory.  If the appropriate complex Euler wave equation is satisfied. reflection from the curved atmosphere will cause EM radiation to encircle the earth and ultimately return 'behind' the point of transmission .

reflection from the curved atmosphere will cause EM radiation to encircle the earth and ultimately return 'behind' the point of transmission .

Could you provide us with a quick diagram of the path that the radio waves take, please?

I am unsure if you are suggesting that they actually pass underneath the Flat Earth or not.

The Maxwell-Boltzmann relations dictate that the temperature gradient will result in a corresponding convex meniscus of the atmosphere

A thought arises:

The Arctic, which lies at the very centre of the Flat Earth, is also very cold ...

So how does this affect the shape of your proposed atmo-planic / atmo-spheric "meniscus"?

And how does that, in turn, affect the propagation (motion) of our circum-navigating radio waves?

Julian, welcome to the forum. I am posting for the first time, I have tried to avoid the forums and have preferred to mainly discuss FE/RE theory among other scholars. These forums, as with most internet forums, tend to be filled with extremely juvenile conversatoins. However, your question rises above the rather basic intellectual capacity demonstrated by typical round earthers.

The explanation to your question is not explained by reflections fro mthe ice shelf, as this would result in reverse polarity and ultimately destructive intereference of the EM radiation. Rather, the explanation is from the curvature of the atmosphere. The earth itself has a flat surface, in 3 dimensions ressembling to the shape of a thin cylinder, however the atmosphere retains curvature due to the meniscus affect. Without getting into the intense mathematical complexities which are neccessary to fully describe the phenomenon, the basis can be easily explained due to difference in cohesion between the bulk gas molecules vs cohesion of the gas/earth interface (which occurs at the edge of the earth, or the ice shelf). The cohesive forces within the molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the atmosphere and the ice shelf, causing the gaseous atmosphere to assume a convex shape.

A similar affect can be seen in everyday life. If you fill a glass with water, the top of the water will form a concave meniscus. if you fill the glass with mercury, the liquid will show a convex meniscus (the latter being analogous to the atmosphere/ice shelf interface). In the case of the flat earth, the raised ice shelf which encircles the surface of the earth acts as the  "walls" which interact with the atmosphere. Thus, while the earth is still flat, the atmosphere maintains a concave curvature.

An alternative, less accepted theory is due to the temperature gradient between the ice shelf and the bulk land. The cold temperatures from the ice shelves cause gas particles at the edge of the earth to have a colder average temperature than those in the center, creating a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. The Maxwell-Boltzmann relations dictate that the temperature gradient will result in a corresponding convex meniscus of the atmosphere (think of it this way: hot gas rises, cool gas falls. The gas over the ice shelf is cold, as you move away from the ice shelf the gas in the atmosphere heats up and rises, creating a convex lens).

Thus, while the earth is flat the atmosphere is not. This is a fact overlooked by many round earthers who are quick to dismiss FE facts because they dont have the capacity to evaluate the complexities of advanced scientific theory.  If the appropriate complex Euler wave equation is satisfied. reflection from the curved atmosphere will cause EM radiation to encircle the earth and ultimately return 'behind' the point of transmission .

I'll nip at your second theory initially. Maxwell-Boltzman distribution can pretty much only be applied to molecular bodies. EM waves (yes I know about wave particle duality but the frequency isn't high enough here to get consistent proof that it could be treated as a particle) won't react in the same way. I would expect potentially different refraction angles due to temperature changes, which would be accounted for by M-B distribution, but not to a massive change that you are suggesting. Finally, it is WIDELY accepted that MB returns incorrect values when the ionosphere is specifically involved - whether you were talking about gases this high up, I'm not sure, even so, the EM wave would still have to act more like a particle if you don't mean ionosphere heights - which as you know, it can't.

As for the first theory - yes I know full well that reflections from the ice shelf are pretty much impossible, chances are anyway, amplitude would be so low at this point due to the incidence densities that it would be unlikely that destructive interference would be gained in the first place - but yes I agree, should it get this far, the latter would effectively end the signal.

Now I am going to assume you are correct with your theory for why the atmosphere is convex, as in my theory it is also, so for my side of the debate, this has little effect (just so you know, I did actually think the FE atmosphere was convex anyway, but it didn't occur to me to think why.). Where I think your argument is flawed however, is your application of Euler's Wave Equation....I'm fairly certain it cannot be derived correctly for electromagnetic waves as there is no way to model the medium, and I also can't think of a circumstance with an EM wave that would have a rational boundary condition. Hence the equation you are actually looking for...is the Electromagnetic Wave Equation, which is similar, (second order partial differential equation etc), but it's derived from Maxwell's equations funnily enough, and describes how an EM wave travels through a medium or vacuum...which as I'm sure you will agree, is vitally important to describing this phenomenon properly, due to the variations of the layers in the ionosphere; and its application holds firm for my argument as well.

Julian, welcome to the forum. I am posting for the first time, I have tried to avoid the forums and have preferred to mainly discuss FE/RE theory among other scholars. These forums, as with most internet forums, tend to be filled with extremely juvenile conversatoins. However, your question rises above the rather basic intellectual capacity demonstrated by typical round earthers.

The explanation to your question is not explained by reflections fro mthe ice shelf, as this would result in reverse polarity and ultimately destructive intereference of the EM radiation. Rather, the explanation is from the curvature of the atmosphere. The earth itself has a flat surface, in 3 dimensions ressembling to the shape of a thin cylinder, however the atmosphere retains curvature due to the meniscus affect. Without getting into the intense mathematical complexities which are neccessary to fully describe the phenomenon, the basis can be easily explained due to difference in cohesion between the bulk gas molecules vs cohesion of the gas/earth interface (which occurs at the edge of the earth, or the ice shelf). The cohesive forces within the molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the atmosphere and the ice shelf, causing the gaseous atmosphere to assume a convex shape.

A similar affect can be seen in everyday life. If you fill a glass with water, the top of the water will form a concave meniscus. if you fill the glass with mercury, the liquid will show a convex meniscus (the latter being analogous to the atmosphere/ice shelf interface). In the case of the flat earth, the raised ice shelf which encircles the surface of the earth acts as the  "walls" which interact with the atmosphere. Thus, while the earth is still flat, the atmosphere maintains a concave curvature.

An alternative, less accepted theory is due to the temperature gradient between the ice shelf and the bulk land. The cold temperatures from the ice shelves cause gas particles at the edge of the earth to have a colder average temperature than those in the center, creating a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. The Maxwell-Boltzmann relations dictate that the temperature gradient will result in a corresponding convex meniscus of the atmosphere (think of it this way: hot gas rises, cool gas falls. The gas over the ice shelf is cold, as you move away from the ice shelf the gas in the atmosphere heats up and rises, creating a convex lens).

Thus, while the earth is flat the atmosphere is not. This is a fact overlooked by many round earthers who are quick to dismiss FE facts because they dont have the capacity to evaluate the complexities of advanced scientific theory.  If the appropriate complex Euler wave equation is satisfied. reflection from the curved atmosphere will cause EM radiation to encircle the earth and ultimately return 'behind' the point of transmission .

Meniscus effect isn't possible with a gas. Attractive forces between particles have been overcome by the kinetic energy of the particles which is why it is a gas. Fluid mechanics can describe a viscous effect approaching a wall but the viscosity for gases and the thickness of the atmosphere would make this a pointless exercise. Escape velocity is achieved by helium gas as gravity does not sufficiently affect the lightweight particles.

Now I am going to assume you are correct with your theory for why the atmosphere is convex, as in my theory it is also, so for my side of the debate, this has little effect (just so you know, I did actually think the FE atmosphere was convex anyway, but it didn't occur to me to think why.). Where I think your argument is flawed however, is your application of Euler's Wave Equation....I'm fairly certain it cannot be derived correctly for electromagnetic waves as there is no way to model the medium, and I also can't think of a circumstance with an EM wave that would have a rational boundary condition. Hence the equation you are actually looking for...is the Electromagnetic Wave Equation, which is similar, (second order partial differential equation etc), but it's derived from Maxwell's equations funnily enough, and describes how an EM wave travels through a medium or vacuum...which as I'm sure you will agree, is vitally important to describing this phenomenon properly, due to the variations of the layers in the ionosphere; and its application holds firm for my argument as well.

Maxwell's Equations are, indeed, fundamental to modern EM theory - we had to learn how to derive them from first priniples for my Applied Physics B.Sc.

Serious, serious maths, and quite easily the hardest module exam that I ever took - I still come out in a cold sweat at their mere mention ...

So kingkool, you've just been owned by 3 people with an understanding of complex physics...I think so far that makes this thread RE: 2 v FE: 0. (RE: 3 if you include moonbounce)

julian, the radiation pressure over those spots IS LOWEST on the surface of the Sun, about 1/10000 of the atmospheric pressure on Earth; at this time, scientists do not know what causes the relation between the sunspots and weather pattern changes on Earth. If it is not due to radiation, what other cause could there be? This question is answered only in the correct model of the flat earth, which does include the black sun, which gives off energy/aether to the visible sun.

To summarise you are saying "Scientists don't know what causes the relationship between sunspots and weather patterns, so is could "only" be down to a Flat Earth".

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

13. Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

julian, when it comes to atmospheric science, you are out of your league here...please do your homework before posting...

What I wrote IS TRUE...

The diurnal pressure variation has been recorded for hundreds of years now...as you should know...my friend...

Let us take as an example Taiwan. Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25?N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.

Do you understand these things Julian? And then why the crap from your last message...

The CAUSE of this variation is unknown, although it is described officially as being caused by waves in the upper atmosphere.

Therefore, julian, your comments are a trademark of the fact that you have in fact NOT STUDIED this things, mabye at all...

Now, here is the paradox: The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Velikovsky was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century; notwithstanding the crackpot comments made by "scientists".

Please read Worlds in Collision carefully, you will discover the 1000+ references which prove that the Earth stopped from its axial rotation several times in the past; this could have happened only in a flat earth system, that is, the stars/sun changing the orbit above the earth; had the Earth stopped from the axial rotation, it would have crashed into the void, cosmic space immediately, not being able to restart its rotation.

Your superficial comments on this subject show that you have never studied the past catastrophism theories, and do not understand, for example, the cause of the extinction of the mammoths.

The first e/m signal to reach above the flat earth and back, was sent by none other than Nikola Tesla in 1883.

It is perfectly explainable, if we take into account the aether layer which lies beneath the Dome.

Your research on the Tunguska explosion is deplorable, julian; how could you bring Peary into the equation? That explosion had nothing to do with Peary's trips to the NP, please study before posting here.

Here is the best proof of the fact that the surface of the Earth is flat, and that e/m signals can be sent above it:

Tunguska, 1908, Siberia, June 30, 7:14 am

The famous explosion, seen all the way to London, Antwerp, Stockholm and Irkutsk was caused by the ball lightning experiments of Nikola Tesla, see:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/starting%20pages.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm

Here is what the particle accelerator (actually, vortex accelerator) laboratory looked like, built in 1899, by Nikola Tesla:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/fig6.gif
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/fig10.jpg

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the ball lightning over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.

The explosion took place at approximately 6 kilometers above the river Tunguska...with no crater found...



NOW THE PROOF THAT NOT ONLY THE EXPLOSION WAS SEEN FROM IRKUTSK, BUT ALSO THE TRAJECTORY OF THE BALL LIGHTNING:

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:
...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.
All the inhabitants of the village ran out into the street in panic. The old women wept, everyone thought that the end of the world was approaching...

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE FROM TUNGUSKA TO IRKUTSK (455 METERS IN ALTITUDE) IS ACTUALLY 67.5 KILOMETERS!!!

ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE ANYTHING ON A ROUND EARTH.

NOW LET US INCREASE THE DISTANCE TO 7000 KILOMETERS.

The proof that the explosion was observed, immediately, in London, Antwerp, and Stockholm:

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night?Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-tunguska-mystery-100-years-later

On the night of 30 June and 1 July, the sky throughout Europe was strangely bright. Throughout the United Kingdom, over 3000 miles from the point of impact, it was possible to play cricket and read newspapers by the glow from the night sky.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/148819-Tunguska-the-Horns-of-the-Moon-and-Evolution

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

MORE NEWSPAPERS ACCOUNTS FROM LONDON:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.(33)
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla?s power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.(

?To the Editor of the Times.?
?Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o?clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1? (1908 )

?TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.?
?Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o?clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.?

The visual obstacle between London and Tungusk IS OVER 9000 KILOMETERS IN HEIGHT! THE EXPLOSION AT TUNGUSKA PROVES CLEARLY THAT THERE IS NO CURVATURE OVER A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 7000 KILOMETERS IN DISTANCE.

ON A ROUND EARTH, BETWEEN TUNGUSKA AND LONDON YOU WOULD HAVE 1000 HIMALAYA MOUNTAINS STACKED ONE ON TOP OF ANOTHER TO HAVE A VISUAL OBSTACLE OF 9000 KM, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

YOU WOULD NOT SEE ANYTHING FROM AN EXPLOSION THAT TOOK PLACE AT AN ALTITUDE OF 6-8 KM, IF YOU WERE IN LONDON, MINUTES AFTER THE EXPLOSION, ON A ROUND EARTH; ONLY ON A FLAT EARTH IS THAT POSSIBLE.

The explanation to your question is not explained by reflections fro mthe ice shelf, as this would result in reverse polarity and ultimately destructive intereference of the EM radiation. Rather, the explanation is from the curvature of the atmosphere. The earth itself has a flat surface, in 3 dimensions ressembling to the shape of a thin cylinder, however the atmosphere retains curvature due to the meniscus affect. Without getting into the intense mathematical complexities which are neccessary to fully describe the phenomenon, the basis can be easily explained due to difference in cohesion between the bulk gas molecules vs cohesion of the gas/earth interface (which occurs at the edge of the earth, or the ice shelf). The cohesive forces within the molecules are stronger than the adhesive forces between the atmosphere and the ice shelf, causing the gaseous atmosphere to assume a convex shape.

To summarise you are saying "Gasses (including the atmosphere) exhibit the meniscus effect".

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

1. Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.

The meniscus effect is caused by capillary action, a phenomenon only associated with liquids.

Quote from: levee on June 09, 2009, 06:53:21 AM

julian, the radiation pressure over those spots IS LOWEST on the surface of the Sun, about 1/10000 of the atmospheric pressure on Earth; at this time, scientists do not know what causes the relation between the sunspots and weather pattern changes on Earth. If it is not due to radiation, what other cause could there be? This question is answered only in the correct model of the flat earth, which does include the black sun, which gives off energy/aether to the visible sun.

To summarise you are saying "Scientists don't know what causes the relationship between sunspots and weather patterns, so is could "only" be down to a Flat Earth".

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

squirter, we can find a junior forum for you, if needed...

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume.(15) But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

12. Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

13. If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

You see, squirter, this undermines immediately your heliocentric system...that is why I brought it up...

Here is a short version of the Faint Young Sun Paradox:

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html

Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'

A supersite which shows the errors in radiodating with uranium/iron carbonates made by S. Mojzsis in investigating the faint young sun paradox:

http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf