1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHere is another thing you can't explain or rationalize in your flatasssness: XM radio. My car has XM, FM, and AM. FM I get as long as I am within reach of the tower, maybe 20 or 30 miles and then lose it because it is a ground station. Same with AM pretty much except better and further reception at night because of the F layer high up in the ionosphere that reflects back to Earth those low frequency signals, but not so much at 100 megahertz, which is more line of sight, with some exceptions so usually you lose FM pretty quickly. Not so XM because the stations are 8000 miles high and there are a number of them because a single satellite would also lose signals as it passes out of range but if you have a dozen of them with different timing, there will almost always be at least one in range of your radio.
The funny thing about perspective is that you have idea what you are talking about.
We can see objects far more than a few hundred miles away.
I haven't found physical support for it, but I have read several accounts of visibility between 18,946' Pico Cristóbal Colón, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia and 12,240' Paramillo... a distance of 30 ...[text shortened]... uestion is: how can we see the moon and the sun at the same time in the same sky, both overhead?
So you go under a bridge, you lose XM but not FM or AM usually.
Get out from under the bridge or overpass the signal comes back immediately.
Even trees with leaves causes loss of signal of XM because the trees block the line of sight but FM comes in fine if you are within range. BIG difference.
I recently went from Allentown Pa near where I live, up highway 80 to Cleveland to visit friends and never lost XM the whole way, over 500 miles but you can bet your boopie FM gets lost after 30 or so miles so you keep having to hunt up FM signals on the radio and going west on 80 there is not much in the way of nearby FM and when you do find one, doing 80 MPH on the interstate, you get to listen for MAYBE 30 minutes and goodbye station. Not so XM, one satellite or another is always in line of sight from the transmitter, more accurately the transponder which picks up a signal from a big dish aimed at them and that satellite rebroadcasts the signals back to Earth and not just one channel but hundreds of channels at the same time.
And no loss of signal all the way from Allentown to Cleveland except like I said, going under an overpass or big trees in a forest close the road.
Don't expect your flatassser buddies have any kind of rational for that, preferring like you no doubt to just ignore this whole post because you have NO explanation for that
except that Earth is a globe and there ARE satellites you can see and in my case, hear every day. For instance, today coming home from work in my long commute, 80 miles one way, I listened to 'Symphony hall' channel and they had just started Beethoven's 9th symphony which I listened to pretty much ALL of it on the way home, no loss of signal except for those damned overpasses which causes signal loss for a couple of seconds because the signal comes from pretty much straight overhead as opposed to the ACTUAL ground stations of AM and FM which comes from side to side more or less hugging the ground and with FM almost line of sight except where atmospheric conditions allows it to deflect off mountains and hills and such and hug the lower elevations for a few miles more than line of sight, a well known phenomena. But they lose it further out which doesn't happen with XM because the signal comes from overhead directly from the satellite to the antenna on your car or portable radio which only works if you are outdoors, the signal would mostly get lost in a house because it is pretty weak and is more or less at the limit of commercial viability at best so it doesn't take much covering the antenna like overpasses or leaves or trying to listen indoors, the signal is just not strong enough for that, the power of each satellite is around 100 watts, far weaker than almost ANY FM or AM station, even our local AM at 1470 in Allentown is 5000 watts. And you lose that one within 20 miles or so with the crappy antennas on cars these days. But not so XM as long as you can see the sky you get signal.
Good luck rationalizing that one but of course you will just ignore that along with every other objection I come up with, actually using my own mind.
Originally posted by sonhouseOkay...
Here is another thing you can't explain or rationalize in your flatasssness: XM radio. My car has XM, FM, and AM. FM I get as long as I am within reach of the tower, maybe 20 or 30 miles and then lose it because it is a ground station. Same with AM pretty much except better and further reception at night because of the F layer high up in the ionosphere that ...[text shortened]... ll just ignore that along with every other objection I come up with, actually using my own mind.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe earth would not be "dominating in the moon's sky". The distance from the moon to the earth is more than 60 times the earth's diameter. Now, considering that the distance from the earth to the sun is 107 times the sun's diameter, I would wager that the apparent size of the earth seen from the moon is only about 1.75 times the apparent size of the sun as seen from earth. Even at double the apparent size, this is hardly "dominating in the moon's sky".
This perspective also suggests how dominating the earth would be in the moon's sky--- nothing at all like the images NASA has produced from the moon.
Originally posted by SuzianneWe have already gone over that in great detail. He just ignores it and saves up to bring the same stupidity in at a later date perhaps thinking we won't remember. He can't explain XM radio either so he just ignores it like the troll he really is.
The earth would not be "dominating in the moon's sky". The distance from the moon to the earth is more than 60 times the earth's diameter. Now, considering that the distance from the earth to the sun is 107 times the sun's diameter, I would wager that the apparent size of the earth seen from the moon is only about 1.75 times the apparent size of the sun a ...[text shortened]... en from earth. Even at double the apparent size, this is hardly "dominating in the moon's sky".
Originally posted by SuzianneDid you see the lunar eclipse NASA produced, the one linked?
The earth would not be "dominating in the moon's sky". The distance from the moon to the earth is more than 60 times the earth's diameter. Now, considering that the distance from the earth to the sun is 107 times the sun's diameter, I would wager that the apparent size of the earth seen from the moon is only about 1.75 times the apparent size of the sun a ...[text shortened]... en from earth. Even at double the apparent size, this is hardly "dominating in the moon's sky".
According to that so-described animation, the earth would literally cover the entirety of the moon's sky.
Take a look.
It's illuminating.
Don't use math for this one: look at what they produced.
With their cameras.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are so full of shyte you don't know which end your mouth is any more. Earth is 8 K miles across, the moon 2K. Earth is a quarter million miles away from the moon. So at best Earth would look a couple times bigger. You are really getting desparate now.
Did you see the lunar eclipse NASA produced, the one linked?
According to that so-described animation, the earth would literally cover the entirety of the moon's sky.
Take a look.
It's illuminating.
Don't use math for this one: look at what they produced.
With their cameras.
Originally posted by sonhouseCheck out an AT&T video "The Transistor: a 1953 documentary anticipating its coming impact on technology."
We have already gone over that in great detail. He just ignores it and saves up to bring the same stupidity in at a later date perhaps thinking we won't remember. He can't explain XM radio either so he just ignores it like the troll he really is.
If you pay close attention, you'll notice a major problem...
Originally posted by sonhouseLook.
You are so full of shyte you don't know which end your mouth is any more. Earth is 8 K miles across, the moon 2K. Earth is a quarter million miles away from the moon. So at best Earth would look a couple times bigger. You are really getting desparate now.
At.
The.
Video.
NASA produced it, not anyone else.
They used their own camera.
Look at the video.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHard to imagine. Must have been top secret. 😉
Playing on the world-wide radio...
Once you hear it, it is hard to transist.
It's equally hard to imagine a Paris-to-Virginia-to-Hawaii broadcast.
In 1915.
While I have you on the line. You said in a post on the previous page this: Did you see the lunar eclipse NASA produced, the one linked? I don't seem to be able to find that link.
Originally posted by josephwTop of page 82...
Hard to imagine. Must have been top secret. 😉
While I have you on the line. You said in a post on the previous page this: [b]Did you see the lunar eclipse NASA produced, the one linked? I don't seem to be able to find that link.[/b]
And here:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif
It's embarrassing, really: both in the length of time and depth of absurdity we've been swallowing this idiocy.