More on radio signals

  • 25 Replies
  • 4528 Views
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
More on radio signals
« on: June 14, 2009, 01:37:51 PM »
Here is a question primarily for our resident "ham radio" expert Julian Martin:

Is it possible to measure with a reasonable degree of accuracy the angle (bearing) from which an in-coming radio signal is coming from?

If yes, then please comment on this experiment:-

Take three radio enthusiasts in three far-flung parts of The World, for example: London, UK; New York, USA; and Cape Town South Africa.

They each in turn transmit a radio signal to the other two ...

And everyone measures the two angles from which they receive signals their two incoming signal (which for "radio ham" 1 we can call A1.1 and A1.2 ).

They each then subtract their two receiving angles (e.g A11-A12 for "radio ham" 1) to calculate the angle made by the two sides that mmet at their corner of the globe-spanning triangle.

They then sum the three corner angles and ...

If the sum is 180 degrees then they have proved that The Earth is flat over the space inbetween them in accordance with Euclidian geometry ...

But if the angle is more than 180 degrees then they have proved that The Earth is curved over the space inbetween them in accordance with non-Euclidian geomerty.

If this experiment would work in practice, could it be a simple, elegant and definitive way of determining the true shape of The Earth - an experiment that Flat and Round Earthers can agree upon?


"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2009, 08:45:16 PM »
Being a pilot-in-training, a flight enthusiast, and a military trained RF tech, I can tell you that with the proper equipment, YES; one can get a bearing on the source of an incoming signal.  Think of it as one-way radar (radio direction and ranging).  When you receive the signal, if you have a directional antenna, you will know which way it's coming from by the direction your antenna is pointed when the amplitude is at it's peak.  An old method of navigation over seas and other areas is to take a bearing on a radio signal from two or more known points.  Somebody correct me, but I think it was called "bird-dogging" or something similar.

I see nothing wrong this this experiment.  The results would be accurate.  If I'm not mistaken, the longer the distances between the 3 stations, the more accurate the angular measurements would be, and the greater the geometric effect.  The funny thing is that the curvature of the Earth will create problems with certain transmission types at long distances, but the details of that kind of thing is where Julian's level of expertise is needed.  I just thought I'd provide what info I could.

I like this one.  I bet we get little mirrored insects flying in formation to "bend" the transmission signals or something.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2009, 01:40:17 AM »
Being a pilot-in-training, a flight enthusiast, and a military trained RF tech, I can tell you that with the proper equipment, YES; one can get a bearing on the source of an incoming signal. 

As soon as you said "military" I remembered how the Nazis used to use radio direction finding to triangulate the location of spies in occupied Europe during WWII.

I like this one.  I bet we get little mirrored insects flying in formation to "bend" the transmission signals or something.

I now recall how a few of us tried to use the direction of Sun-rise and Sun-set on The Equinox to prove a round Earth, as these should be due East and due West which cannot happen with a Flat Earth Sun circling overhead:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=683.0

But Tom Bishop just sais that "celestial light" bends horizontally as well as vertically, left it at that ans went away feeling that he had destoyed our arguments.

It's hard to win against such sloppy logic ...
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2009, 10:03:23 AM »
I now recall how a few of us tried to use the direction of Sun-rise and Sun-set on The Equinox to prove a round Earth, as these should be due East and due West which cannot happen with a Flat Earth Sun circling overhead:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=683.0

But Tom Bishop just sais that "celestial light" bends horizontally as well as vertically, left it at that ans went away feeling that he had destoyed our arguments.

It's hard to win against such sloppy logic ...
It's not just hard, it's absolutely impossible because i's not just "sloppy", it's not logic at all.  It's nothingness.  "Celestial light bends" is a claim that is not backed up by any actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides) and therefore has no place in a scientific discussion.

It is this incessant need to inject non-scientific nonsense into the debate that characterizes the prominent figures of this forum, this movement and all Grand Conspiracy theorists.  The will literally do ANYTHING to avoid a direct and precise debate on a purely scientific level.  The know that they cannot possibly compete there, so they drag the discussion down into an intellectual gutter.  The poison every thread with off topic noise.  The haul out impossible claims with zero evidence, and then shout repeatedly that they really do have evidence without showing anything but the claim itself and others who believe it.  Beyond that, the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") is the only other "argument" used as far as I can tell.
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2009, 07:16:28 AM »
Yes, this is most definetly possible. You could either use a field strength measurement tool to detect where the signal is strongest (it might be out by a couple of degrees depending on atmospheric conditions and wavelength of the signal), or a thing called a Bellini Tosi Goniometer, which used to be present on all manner of maritime vessels to find the bearing of a transmitting radio station (sometimes used to find lighthouses in poor conditions and so on)

more info here: http://www.astrosol.ch/thisandthat/5379039a840e79e07/index.html

So yes...quite possible to accurately sense where a signal is coming from. The argument FE'ers would take might well complain about compass bearings and such like. But in theory you could compare the bearings against each other, perhaps include a control...and bob's your uncle, that's one very very solid argument. Nice one :)

edit: Just while I am thinking about it, how much bearing deviation would you expect over a round earth 3 Tesla? anything less than 5 would be acceptable error for field strength meters. I can't say how accurate the bellini tosi systems are as I've never actually used one. I'll ask my father - he has many a time.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 07:23:49 AM by julianmartin »

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2009, 07:57:48 AM »
Oh crap! Again!

Here is the original text:

Quote from: julianmartin on June 16, 2009, 07:16:28 AM
So yes...quite possible to accurately sense where a signal is coming from. The argument FE'ers would take might well complain about compass bearings and such like. But in theory you could compare the bearings against each other, perhaps include a control...and bob's your uncle, that's one very very solid argument. Nice one Smiley

The compass bearings, or absolute directions, don't really matter - you just measure two angles and subtract them to calculate the angle at your corner of the triangle.

Quote from: julianmartin on June 16, 2009, 07:16:28 AM
edit: Just while I am thinking about it, how much bearing deviation would you expect over a round earth 3 Tesla? anything less than 5 would be acceptable error for field strength meters. I can't say how accurate the bellini tosi systems are as I've never actually used one. I'll ask my father - he has many a time.

Good question - I'd have to work out what theb theoretical result would be for a real triangle over a round earth and see how much more than 180 degrees the angle sum would be.

-------------------------------

And here is my dumb-ass modification:

Good question - I'd have to work out what theb theoretical result would be for a real triangle over a round earth and see how much more than 180 degrees the angle sum would be.

I haven't forgotten about this - I'm still looking for a globe (of The Earth) so that I can measure some approximate angles ...
« Last Edit: June 18, 2009, 01:36:25 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2009, 08:28:59 AM »
Alright...well more expensive direction finding kit looks in the region of 10k US dollars.

given...you would want all three stations to have a device capable of this, that's an awful lot of money for the commerically sold equipment capable of doing this very accurately. I read that fishing trawlers are all using this sort of technology. Got any mates that are into commercial fishing?!

I guess once we know roughly what sort of deviation to expect, it'd be possible to work out whether a device I could build myself will be sufficiently accurate.

?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2009, 10:16:23 AM »
Ladies and Gentlemen...

I give you an actual conversation with real meaning!!

[APPLAUSE] all around.

Well done to everyone.  Where's the designated hijacker for this thread?  It's a race to see if the hard scientific content of it will get too great for them to be willing, or if they will hop in and take us for a ride.  We shall see...

OOPs... I'M the hijacker!!  DOH!
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.

(Thanks, Daniel.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2009, 01:36:46 AM »
Good question - I'd have to work out what theb theoretical result would be for a real triangle over a round earth and see how much more than 180 degrees the angle sum would be.

I haven't forgotten about this - I'm still looking for a globe (of The Earth) so that I can measure some approximate angles ...
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2009, 08:48:39 AM »
Epic...can't wait  ;D

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2009, 01:47:39 AM »
Good question - I'd have to work out what theb theoretical result would be for a real triangle over a round earth and see how much more than 180 degrees the angle sum would be.

I haven't forgotten about this - I'm still looking for a globe (of The Earth) so that I can measure some approximate angles ...

Whilst I have yet to find a globe ...

I have thought of something that might improve the experiment:

I think that our triangle(s) should pass over as little land as possible so as to avoid the complicating factor of mountains (one less thing for Flat Earthers to object too).

So here are a couple of possible triangles on a Flat Earth Map:

"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2009, 02:52:41 AM »
Unfortunately I'm in the UK so won't be able to participate in any of them really...but if we switch the point on africa to the point where I am, we won't be crossing any mountain ranges, so I don't see a problem there?

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2009, 01:24:48 PM »
Oooo - just found this site:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distance.html

Type in two locations and it gives you bearings!

Cardiff measured from New York = 52.1?
Lagos measured from New York = 93.5?
Angle at New York = 41.4?

New York measured from Cardiff = 286.4?
Lagos measured from Cardiff = 171.3?
Angle at Cardiff = 115.1?

New York measured from Lagos = 310.4?
Cardiff measured from Lagos = 354.5?
Angle at Lagos = 44.1?

Sum of angles = 41.4? + 115.1? + 44.1? = 200.6?

I.e. a lot more than 180? which should leave plenty of margin for error.

(Could you check my maths, please?) (*)

So will this be do-able, do you think?

* Edit: I find the result to be much higher than expected, hence my desire for you to check my maths.

Mind you - if you imagine a triangle with one point at the North Pole, one on The Equator at 0 degrees longitude and the third point on The Equator at 90 degrees longitude the sum of the angles would be 3 x 90 = 270 degrees.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 03:23:53 PM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2009, 04:45:14 PM »
Sup 3T.

Sorry only just seen this - had a bit to drink so won't break out the calculator right now. Going to have to draw it out on a map and get a protractor to get my head round it to be sure which I will do in the morning.

See what you mean though...that's far more deviation than I was expecting too...

If however it's correct. I am sure this is WELL within the margin of error, for even very rudimentary methods. Huzzah! It might take me a couple of weeks to find some people in the right area and convince them to build a Bellini-Tosi device to do this stuff...!!! Still, if it works, this is the final blow for flat earth theory. Thankyou electromagnetic radiation!

One thing that does worry me is that the bearings will be relevant to the north pole right? Which is invalid to FE'rs? Or is it the south pole that's a load of tosh? I can't be bothered to wade through the FAQ again as it was such a load of tripe.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42424
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2009, 06:53:38 PM »
The north pole is considered to be the center of the FE map.  However, don't count on any FE'er to commit to providing a reliable distance from one city to another.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2009, 10:40:53 PM »
Luckily distance is irrelevant here, it's where the points are in relation to each other that's important....FE should give a very clear cut 180 degree combined angle.

Edit: I think my couple of drinks last night made me lose perception 3T, 200 degrees isn't so ridiculous; only 20 degrees above expected FE outcome....given you have 3 jumps to deal with, thats only just under 7 degrees deviation per jump across the earth...quite plausible I think?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 10:43:08 PM by julianmartin »

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2009, 01:55:23 AM »
Mind you - if you imagine a triangle with one point at the North Pole, one on The Equator at 0 degrees longitude and the third point on The Equator at 90 degrees longitude the sum of the angles would be 3 x 90 = 270 degrees

Here is a diagram that illustrates this nicely.

(Where "diagrams" are graphical aides to help understanding which your average Flat Earther is either too lazy or too stupid to make.)



The yellow triangle is made up of the "as the crow flies", shortest distance paths taken over a Flat Earth ...

And the red shape is made up of the "as the crow flies", shortest distance paths taken over a Global Earth - a non-Euclidian triangle in 3D.

Note that the angle sum is 180 degrees for the yellow triangle ...

But it is 270 degrees for the red shape (note 3 x right angles).

Edit: added shortest distance.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 03:32:46 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2009, 02:01:52 AM »
Still, if it works, this is the final blow for flat earth theory. Thankyou electromagnetic radiation!

Never understimate the power of a Zealot's mind to invent an almost plausible reason why they do not have to accept your evidence that they are wrong.

Expect "light bends horizontally as well as vertically" ...

(The same lame, yet hard-to-falsify excuse that was used to explain why the sunrise and sunset angles are all wrong on The Equinox) ...

Or "all radio hams are part of the conspiracy"!

But we will have performed an experiment to satisfy ourselves - and that will be reward enough.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2009, 02:36:21 AM »
Still, if it works, this is the final blow for flat earth theory. Thankyou electromagnetic radiation!

Never understimate the power of a Zealot's mind to invent an almost plausible reason why they do not have to accept your evidence that they are wrong.

Expect "light bends horizontally as well as vertically" ...

(The same lame, yet hard-to-falsify excuse that was used to explain why the sunrise and sunset angles are all wrong on The Equinox) ...

Thus:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=683.msg32315#msg32315

Edit - quote it in case .net goes offline again:

John Davis
Administrator
Forum Member

Posts: 489

Flat Earther

Re: Equinox sunrise/sunset experiment: discussion and conclusions    

I've always held that all astronomical data including sunrises/sunsets is due to light being bended by aether in such a way that it appears to spherical, depending on your location and the "time".

This would adequately explain this.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 02:38:15 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2009, 01:58:37 PM »
Do any Flat Earthers have any objections to this experiment?

Will you just dismiss the results because "radio waves bend horizontally", or some such?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2009, 02:17:20 PM »
Do any Flat Earthers have any objections to this experiment?

Will you just dismiss the results because "radio waves bend horizontally", or some such?
Of course they will dismiss the results. If they can make light bend to fix FET, then they can make radio waves bend as well. Even if they couldn't come up with some unsupported physics to explain contradictions proven by your experiment, they would simply come to the conclusion that you are a conspirator.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2009, 03:05:00 PM »
Do any Flat Earthers have any objections to this experiment?

Will you just dismiss the results because "radio waves bend horizontally", or some such?
Of course they will dismiss the results. If they can make light bend to fix FET, then they can make radio waves bend as well. Even if they couldn't come up with some unsupported physics to explain contradictions proven by your experiment, they would simply come to the conclusion that you are a conspirator.

Then why are we (Round Earthers) here?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2009, 04:06:02 PM »
Do any Flat Earthers have any objections to this experiment?

Will you just dismiss the results because "radio waves bend horizontally", or some such?
Of course they will dismiss the results. If they can make light bend to fix FET, then they can make radio waves bend as well. Even if they couldn't come up with some unsupported physics to explain contradictions proven by your experiment, they would simply come to the conclusion that you are a conspirator.

Then why are we (Round Earthers) here?
I don't know about you, but I get really bored at work sometimes.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42424
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2009, 04:08:37 PM »
Do any Flat Earthers have any objections to this experiment?

Will you just dismiss the results because "radio waves bend horizontally", or some such?
Of course they will dismiss the results. If they can make light bend to fix FET, then they can make radio waves bend as well. Even if they couldn't come up with some unsupported physics to explain contradictions proven by your experiment, they would simply come to the conclusion that you are a conspirator.

Then why are we (Round Earthers) here?
I don't know about you, but I get really bored at work sometimes.
It is amazing what some people will do when they're bored, isn't it?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2009, 03:29:41 AM »
Do any Flat Earthers have any objections to this experiment?

Will you just dismiss the results because "radio waves bend horizontally", or some such?
Of course they will dismiss the results. If they can make light bend to fix FET, then they can make radio waves bend as well. Even if they couldn't come up with some unsupported physics to explain contradictions proven by your experiment, they would simply come to the conclusion that you are a conspirator.

Then why are we (Round Earthers) here?
I don't know about you, but I get really bored at work sometimes.

Thanks for making me smile!

(Me too, by the way.)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: More on radio signals
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2009, 02:00:30 AM »
I am sure this is WELL within the margin of error, for even very rudimentary methods. Huzzah! It might take me a couple of weeks to find some people in the right area and convince them to build a Bellini-Tosi device to do this stuff...!!! Still, if it works, this is the final blow for flat earth theory. Thankyou electromagnetic radiation!

Good luck with this experiment - the results should be very interesting.

Have fun with it too - science should always be fun!
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)