Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460331 > unrolled thread

Apollo 11

Started bynumbernumber1964@gmail.com
First post2018-06-04 15:44 -0700
Last post2018-06-22 16:12 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 187 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-04 15:44 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-06-04 23:09 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 19:58 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 08:26 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-06 16:03 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-06-06 09:13 -0700
            Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-06 17:05 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 11:53 -0700
              Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-06 20:09 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 06:06 -0700
                  Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 07:35 -0700
                    Re: Apollo 11 intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 05:56 -0700
                      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:53 -0700
                        Re: Apollo 11 intuitionist1@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 15:36 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 10:12 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:39 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-07 13:40 -0400
      Re: Apollo 11 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-07 10:46 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:29 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 13:23 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 08:36 -0700
          Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:56 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:17 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 20:57 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:19 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-07 15:47 -0400
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:22 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:51 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:54 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-07 14:47 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-08 17:03 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:40 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:41 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:00 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:45 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 22:06 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 10:37 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:59 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:29 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:54 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 22:14 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-09 15:10 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 22:15 -0700
            Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-12 18:38 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 16:33 -0700
              Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 21:33 -0700
                Re: Apollo 11 Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-17 11:36 +0000
                  Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 10:29 -0700
                    Re: Apollo 11 John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:08 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:29 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-08 15:26 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-09 15:13 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 17:26 -0700
            Re: Apollo 11 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-10 17:41 -0700
              Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-12 18:50 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 Zandra Sobczak <acako@raswa.bo> - 2018-06-12 18:48 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:27 -0700
                Re: Apollo 11 Pasquale Broman <lqs@basq.ce> - 2018-06-13 20:36 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:21 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:36 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:23 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:25 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:36 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:27 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:34 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-11 10:37 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:40 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:56 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:42 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:56 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:23 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-11 14:45 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:25 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:57 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:50 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:51 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:55 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 13:29 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:45 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 13:36 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:49 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:31 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:00 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:35 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:36 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:17 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 19:47 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:37 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:19 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 13:50 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 15:45 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:29 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 23:21 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:55 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:58 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 17:09 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 17:12 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:31 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 17:15 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 17:20 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 19:03 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 18:17 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 20:17 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:02 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 20:07 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:03 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:05 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:02 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Werner Ballard <db@ocowak.br> - 2018-06-14 15:58 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 11:01 -0700
            Re: Apollo 11 Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-14 21:10 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-14 23:39 +0200
              Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 08:48 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:44 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:19 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 16:55 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-14 19:21 -0500
          Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 17:31 -0700
            Re: Apollo 11 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-15 11:58 -0500
        Re: Apollo 11 Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-14 18:23 -0700
          Re: Apollo 11 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 22:48 -0400
            Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 22:23 -0700
          Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 22:25 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:22 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:29 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 08:45 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 13:36 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 15:45 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 08:50 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 17:13 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 17:46 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 17:21 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 17:28 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 11:24 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 12:42 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 13:26 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 12:54 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 13:21 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 13:29 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 13:36 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 14:30 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Werner Ballard <db@ocoak.bn> - 2018-06-16 14:51 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 14:53 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 21:11 -0700
        Re: Apollo 11 Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-19 17:55 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:25 -0700
            Re: Apollo 11 Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-20 10:37 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:33 -0700
                Re: Apollo 11 Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-29 23:04 +0000
                  Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-29 20:26 -0700
                    Re: Apollo 11 Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-06-30 13:08 +0000
                      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 18:33 -0700
                        Re: Apollo 11 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-30 22:00 -0400
                          Re: Apollo 11 Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 10:57 +0000
                        Re: Apollo 11 Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 11:00 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 20:39 -0700
            Re: Apollo 11 Oren Woodcock <uw@woswiw.lw> - 2018-06-27 10:51 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 11:35 -0700
              Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 14:18 -0700
                Re: Apollo 11 Oren Woodcock <uw@woswiw.lw> - 2018-06-28 09:09 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 15:05 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 21:12 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 14:17 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 22:44 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:29 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 16:37 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 19:39 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 15:53 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 23:21 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 15:58 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-20 07:31 +0200
        Re: Apollo 11 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-20 09:31 -0500
          Re: Apollo 11 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-20 19:21 +0200
          Re: Apollo 11 Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-20 18:37 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:35 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 16:47 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-19 16:50 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 19:42 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-20 08:57 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 15:40 -0700
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 09:48 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 13:21 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 06:08 -0700
      Re: Apollo 11 Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 16:12 -0700

Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10  Next page →

#462783

FromEdward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-27 11:35 -0700
Message-ID<7fd7ddea-f5b6-4aa7-abb9-0df4d2938bc8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#462767
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 6:51:41 AM UTC-4, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> Steve BH wrote:

> > 
> > It's those Commies doing missions at other planets instead of exposing
> > the West's fakes, who need to buy a brain. I guess they decided on fakes
> > of their own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program
> 
> Apparently "those commies" are in front of everything. You are babbling.

And you do not know how to read sarcasm.  8^)
Enjoy,
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462794

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-27 14:18 -0700
Message-ID<086b0f91-24e2-45bd-9955-f1db360a690a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#462767
On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 3:51:41 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> Steve BH wrote:
> 
> >> > It's better to say how much better a radiotelesope dish is from a
> >> > simple dipole detector on a cell tower.
> >> > The biggest dish used during Apollo 11 was the 210 foot military dish
> >> > in the US, which NASA used during landing. Which was good because for
> >> > some seconds the rotation of the LM during landing lost them their
> >> > directional
> >> 
> >> Dish parabola antennas are focusing the power in near proximity, that's
> >> why are used in reception, not transmission. Those stupid umbrellas in
> >> the pictures indicated the moon landing was fake. Buy a brain.
> > 
> > It's those Commies doing missions at other planets instead of exposing
> > the West's fakes, who need to buy a brain. I guess they decided on fakes
> > of their own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program
> 
> Apparently "those commies" are in front of everything. You are babbling.


A dozen countries are involved in space programs using radio communication with probes farther than the Moon. That's not babbling. Do you deny it? Do you think they are all "pretending" to communicate with probes that aren't there, or that cannot in reality be heard? 

Don't babble, now. Say clearly what you mean. Use short declarative sentences, and I'll critique YOU.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462832

FromOren Woodcock <uw@woswiw.lw>
Date2018-06-28 09:09 +0000
Message-ID<ph28km$d7j$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#462794
Steve BH wrote:

>> Apparently "those commies" are in front of everything. You are
>> babbling.
> 
> 
> A dozen countries are involved in space programs using radio
> communication with probes farther than the Moon. That's not babbling. Do
> you deny it? Do you think they are all "pretending" to communicate with
> probes that aren't there, or that cannot in reality be heard?

Good point, I read some pictures allegedly from Alaska. You just can't say 
for sure. Take a look.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461661

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-18 15:05 -0700
Message-ID<5224ded6-fa67-4c8b-94ba-b4dce0ce0ef3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#460331
Also, a S-band 2 Ghz 1kW radio wave that propagates one hundred mile. What is the power after this S-band 1kW radio wave propagates the said distant is? Furthermore, while your at it what is the power of a 2 Ghz 1kW radio wave after propagating 238,000 miles. If you cannot answer these questions why don't you just shut up and look a porn and stop bothering me. Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461690

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-18 21:12 -0700
Message-ID<5a349302-fec6-4a49-aaa6-1d966ed83ddc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461661
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 3:05:37 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Also, a S-band 2 Ghz 1kW radio wave that propagates one hundred mile. What is the power after this S-band 1kW radio wave propagates the said distant is? Furthermore, while your at it what is the power of a 2 Ghz 1kW radio wave after propagating 238,000 miles. If you cannot answer these questions why don't you just shut up and look a porn and stop bothering me. Thank you.

Read the two articles and explanation I posted for you, or else stop bothering ME. I understand this problem and you are still totally clueless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461743

Fromfurthermore7990662@gmail.com
Date2018-06-19 14:17 -0700
Message-ID<a910cc3b-e0a2-4655-826d-27ea6f712477@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#460331
Why is it so so hard to post the dispersion rate of a radio wave verses the distance? 

Also, there is a limit to everything but NASA does not seem to believe this. Example, if someone said that they drank 100 gallons of beer in one day and had 50 MIT physicists verify this fact would you not be skeptical. ALso, if a person said that they fucked 5,000 women in one month would you also not wonder. And, if a little boy that was six years old said he was a pitcher on a baseball team when he was 13 would you not think something was wrong? There are what 30,000 physicists on this earth today and they all still believe in the tooth fairy and wet their beds and wish they had their mommies rather then their significant other and they blame Trump for everything. Mirror are hard to hide from. You should take a close look once and a while.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461756

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-19 22:44 +0000
Message-ID<pgc10u$tgo$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#461743
<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why is it so so hard to post the dispersion rate of a radio wave verses the distance? 
> 
> Also, there is a limit to everything but NASA does not seem to believe
> this. Example, if someone said that they drank 100 gallons of beer in one
> day and had 50 MIT physicists verify this fact would you not be
> skeptical. ALso, if a person said that they fucked 5,000 women in one
> month would you also not wonder. And, if a little boy that was six years
> old said he was a pitcher on a baseball team when he was 13 would you not
> think something was wrong? There are what 30,000 physicists on this earth
> today and they all still believe in the tooth fairy and wet their beds
> and wish they had their mommies rather then their significant other and
> they blame Trump for everything. Mirror are hard to hide from. You should
> take a close look once and a while. 
> 

I don’t think incredulity is a good indicator that something is wrong. It
just means you don’t know how it works. So look it up. Read. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461776

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-19 16:29 -0700
Message-ID<9b6bc067-2726-4152-ae51-ea8fb2e9feb9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461743
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 2:17:05 PM UTC-7, furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is it so so hard to post the dispersion rate of a radio wave verses the >distance? 


========


We gave you dispersion of radio waves with distance in half a dozen different messages. You could not understand them.

The principle is a flashlight can be seen for a father distance (in the beam direction) than just the same flashlight bulb, but naked with no reflector.

Even though both follow the same 1/r power law. 

Radio waves work the same. 

You are too stupid to understand even this much, which is 10 year-old level.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461779

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-19 16:37 -0700
Message-ID<f98a4775-969c-4de2-9608-414187c7b5be@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461743
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 2:17:05 PM UTC-7, furthermo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why is it so so hard to post the dispersion rate of a radio wave verses the distance? 
> 


Radio waves in vacuum disperse as light does: as 1/r^2.

A parabolic reflector turns a bulb into a flashlight or headlight, which can be seen along the beam for a far longer distance than with no reflector. Radio waves work the same way. I am amazed you cannot understand this. A 10 year-old with a flashlight could understand it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461800

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-19 19:39 -0700
Message-ID<60a435ac-f9a7-4efd-bed2-5e3a50383a7d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461743
We gave you dispersion of radio waves with distance in half a dozen different messages. You could not understand them. 

The principle is a flashlight can be seen for a father distance (in the beam direction) than just the same flashlight bulb, but naked with no reflector. 

Even though both follow the same 1/r field strength law,  1/r^2 intensity law. 

Radio waves work the same. 

You are too stupid to understand even this much, which is 10 year-old level.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461758

Fromfurthermore7990662@gmail.com
Date2018-06-19 15:53 -0700
Message-ID<38fea0e4-7acb-4d5a-849a-9b0f8d77731c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#460331
I don’t think incredulity is a good indicator that something is wrong. It 
just means you don’t know how it works. So look it up. Read. 

__________________________________________________


What about the earth being the center of the solar system or the earth was flat. Astrologer knew before astronomers that the sun was the center of the SS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461768

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-19 23:21 +0000
Message-ID<pgc362$10ji$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#461758
<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don’t think incredulity is a good indicator that something is wrong. It 
> just means you don’t know how it works. So look it up. Read. 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 
> What about the earth being the center of the solar system or the earth
> was flat. Astrologer knew before astronomers that the sun was the center of the SS.
> 

And how did they know that? Gut feel? Intuition? 
Think about where knowledge comes from.  

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461761

Fromfurthermore7990662@gmail.com
Date2018-06-19 15:58 -0700
Message-ID<35fb23c1-f2fe-4aa6-9f3d-272290032570@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#460331
Here's someone that confirms my statements.


"More artificial theories have been tried out, assuming that the real truth lies somewhere between these two limiting cases: that the ether is only partially carried by the moving bodies. But they all failed! Every attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving CS with the help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these motions, proved unsuccessful. Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative." (Weaver, p. 145).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461806

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2018-06-20 07:31 +0200
Message-ID<e90abe8b-1c3c-70b0-c9e6-ad15869337b7@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#461761
furthermore7990662@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's someone that confirms my statements.

Not at all.  You are just unable to read comprehensively.

> "More artificial theories have been tried out, assuming that the real
> truth lies somewhere between these two limiting cases: that the ether is
> only partially carried by the moving bodies. But they all failed! Every
> attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving CS with the
> help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these
> motions, proved unsuccessful. Thus arose one of the most dramatic
> situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether
> led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative." (Weaver, p.
> 145).

Your citation is severely lacking precision.  The quotation is also
reformatted and misattributed.

As a Web search uncovers easily, this text is in fact from

Albert Einstein & Leopold Infeld (1938): Evolution of Physics. Simon and
Schuster, 1966. p. 175.  <https://books.google.com/books?id=lWEmNBaHCJMC>

<https://books.google.com/books?id=lWEmNBaHCJMC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%22More+artificial+theories+have+been+tried+out,+assuming+that+the+real%22&source=bl&ots=Q68PEUFyb9&sig=S5meTh1JIRMQwUXdfxJ8uwNKIns&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil-v60vuHbAhWJhKYKHcfcB5AQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22More%20artificial%20theories%20have%20been%20tried%20out%2C%20assuming%20that%20the%20real%22&f=false>

Einstein & Infeld are basically saying there, correctly, that all ether
models had failed.  (I do not find a definition for “CS”, but all statements
make sense if “CS” is replaced by “frame(s) of reference”.)

Special and general relativity explain all observations geometrically,
without the need of assuming an ether.

Which is why nobody but historians and you crackpots is talking about an
ether anymore, exactly 140 years after the null result of the
Michelson–Morley experiment.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461825

FromTom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date2018-06-20 09:31 -0500
Message-ID<yJWdnf5cafzZ-LfGnZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#461806
On 6/20/18 12:31 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>  (I do not find a definition for “CS”, 

Coordinate system, a more general term than "frame of reference".

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461875

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2018-06-20 19:21 +0200
Message-ID<b1f7985e-7235-ed46-39bf-ff92b9d3ec9c@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#461825
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/20/18 12:31 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>  (I do not find a definition for “CS”, 
> 
> Coordinate system, a more general term than "frame of reference".

Ah, thanks.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461888

FromZprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce>
Date2018-06-20 18:37 +0000
Message-ID<pge6t7$hl1$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#461825
Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/20/18 12:31 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>  (I do not find a definition for “CS”,
> 
> Coordinate system, a more general term than "frame of reference".
> Tom Roberts

You forget the man posses no brain, making a simple association based on 
given context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461937

FromSteve BH <sbharris@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-20 15:35 -0700
Message-ID<1f5be44c-9c9d-4379-95ca-f16ce2fbbcef@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#461888
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:37:31 AM UTC-7, Zprávn Udoucih wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> > On 6/20/18 12:31 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>  (I do not find a definition for “CS”,
> > 
> > Coordinate system, a more general term than "frame of reference".
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> You forget the man posses no brain, making a simple association based on 
> given context.

Says the guy who thinks the Americans, Russians, Europeans, Japanese and Chinese are all participating in a giant space radio antenna conspiracy. Riiiiight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461782

Fromcarleto4157990662@gmail.com
Date2018-06-19 16:47 -0700
Message-ID<f283dc60-fab7-4b99-8a63-9bb4a19d61cc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#460331
Even though both follow the same 1/r power law...

________________________________________________________


Where do you get this value 1/r that is proportional to the power. Did you make is up?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461783

Fromcarleto4157990662@gmail.com
Date2018-06-19 16:50 -0700
Message-ID<b33de27e-8341-4fa9-8744-fc070fed8570@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#460331
Radio waves in vacuum disperse as light does: as 1/r^2...

_______________________________________________________________



A laser that propagates 2 meters does not lose more than half it's intensity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web