61

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM »

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 27, 2023, 10:57:33 AM »

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude! The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 20, 2023, 03:50:25 PM »

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Ok. Well allow me to clarify.
IF you take the position that criticising the military is bad then do so consistently. It can't be bad for Biden to do it and OK for Trump, just because he happens to like Trump and not like Biden. This is the logical inconsistency I'm highlighting. Tom routinely shows double standards and logical inconsistency, he'll defend person A to the hilt because he likes person A, person A is on his side. But if person B does the exact same thing, or often something much less serious, then Tom will hold it up as evidence that person B is terrible. Because person B isn't on his side. It's pretty silly.

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 20, 2023, 12:34:43 PM »

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned...

Are you struggling with logical consistency?

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 20, 2023, 09:59:40 AM »

AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

As Lord Dave says, this isn't really a contradiction. On that particular issue Trump wanted to take credit for the vaccine but he'd conditioned his disciples to distrust the mainstream. So he had to give somewhat mixed messages - saying how safe it was and that people should take it but also saying it was up to people to decide. So I understand why they were conflicted when their glorious leader was telling them contradictory things. I guess that explains why 55% of Republicans took the vaccine.

For Democrats it was 88 percent, so to say they just slavishly followed the advice without question isn't true either. But the messaging was clearer that they should take the vaccine.

(source
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-demographic-breakdown-vaccinated-u-s-n1277514 )

Obviously it's not a literal cult but it does have some of the hallmarks. We've all seen the mental gymnastics you've done to be an apologist for everything Trump says or does, no matter how egregious, while falling over yourself to criticise everything the people you don't like do. You've even admitted it here where you've talked about who is and isn't allowed to criticise the military. Either criticising them is bad or it isn't, it shouldn't matter who does it. But, to you, it's not about what people do it's about who does it. Biden bad, Trump good. Everything they do is filtered through that ridiculous black and white world view. Try some nuance.

66

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 20, 2023, 08:31:15 AM »

Health Canada's response so far is essentially "this is fine"

Probably because they're basing their conclusions on evidence and expertise rather than screaming headlines from sites which pander to their particular biases?

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 19, 2023, 10:07:07 AM »

They boo for the covid vaccine.

So....
Obama <military<Trump<Covid vaccine hate.

Ha. Yes, that was an interesting one. Quite a difficult one for Trump to know how to pitch.
He had to take credit for the vaccine while talking to a load of conspiracy theorists who he is encouraged to distrust the mainstream. Tricky.

68

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 19, 2023, 06:07:34 AM »

So basically cult of personality overrides respect for others.

Ie. They love Trump more than they respect the military.

Kinda scary.

It is scary but is it really news?
Trump supporters are basically a cult, they’ll whoop and cheer at pretty much anything he says. It’s not “Trump says stuff that’s true”, it’s “it’s true because Trump said it”. It is pretty scary.

Back in reality of course much of what Trump says demonstrably isn’t true, but his supporters are far too detached from that for it to matter.

69

Flat Earth Media / Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record

« on: October 02, 2023, 03:23:20 PM »

I know more about it than you.

Is your dad also able to beat up my dad? Seriously, dude. You sound like a 5 year old.

And provide all the other missing info that I pointed out while you're at it.

I have asked you multiple questions several times which you have failed to answer, you are in no position to demand answers to anything.

And provide the math model for the 830 mile test too.

The ways signals can propagate that distance have been explained. If you don't understand them or refuse to believe them because they don't fit your worldview then I don't know how else to help you.

The fact that the LoRa documentation gives calculations about how the curve of the earth needs to be accounted for in order to keep the Fresnel zone clear of obstructions is not a contradiction to the fact that on occasion further distances can be achieved. Again, the reasons for that have been explained. You keep ignoring the question about why this record is noteworthy. The inverse square law is a red herring, if the earth were flat and the signal powerful enough to travel the distance then this result would be expected. Why does it only happen in certain atmospheric conditions?

I look forward to your explanation for a few of the "bunch of reasons" why increasing altitude improves range - although the LoRa documentation has already explained it.

70

Flat Earth Media / Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record

« on: October 02, 2023, 11:07:20 AM »

it's obvious to me that it has to be line-of-sight assuming it's a directional antenna and assuming no curvature or else it doesn't work, does it?

It's ironic that you above said that I "don't really know anything about the subjects that you involve yourself in", and then you say stuff like this which shows a complete ignorance of how these signals actual propogate.
It's also ironic that you keep bemoaning "math models", when in this statement you're presuming a simple model of a FE where all signals travel is a perfectly straight line. That IS a simplified model, it's not how things work in the real world.

The answer to your question above is they didn't account for the curve of the earth in this experiment. I've provided a few sources, I'm sure you can find plenty more if you're interested, which explains how signals can propagate further than the line of sight between two points. You bemoan these as "math models", but you're happy to accept the "math model" of a Flat Earth where signals must have line of sight to propagate.

Which leads me back to the questions you're carefully ignoring. If the earth is flat why is this news? This would be expected behaviour and would be reproducable consistently. And why does increasing the height increase the range. You said there were a "bunch or reasons", go on then, name a few and explain. You mentioned the inverse square law above. Increasing the altitude of the transmitter increases the distance to the receiver, so that should make the signal weaker and harder to receive, no?

71

Flat Earth Media / Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record

« on: September 30, 2023, 12:37:53 PM »

Your problem is that you're always talking out of your ass and you don't really know anything about the subjects that you involve yourself in.

Your problem is you'll leap on anything which you think backs up your worldview but you don't look in to the wider context.
For example, you know that first link is from a site explaining how data is transmitted from satellites to earth? 
Your other problem is you don't answer questions when they get too hard and you just ignore bits which aren't convenient.
You're happy to accept the LoRa result as a slam-dunk for FE, but just ignore the parts of their documentation where they talk about accounting for the curve of the earth.
You say there are a "bunch of reasons" why higher altitude increases range but don't provide a single one or any explanation of it.

And your continued ignoring of my questions about why this result is noteworthy or why the atmospheric conditions are a factor is noted.

Some more stuff to read here about how signals can travel further than line of sight.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.02802.pdf

72

Flat Earth Media / Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record

« on: September 30, 2023, 11:25:21 AM »

No, the gateway is the endpoint in this case. You ASSuming that there was an unmentioned third transmitter acting as a relay on some unspecified mountain is just wishful thinking unfortunately.

It wasn't an assumption, it was something I saw about this which made me think that. But having looked again I would concede I've misunderstood.
However, according to this:

https://hackaday.com/2023/09/15/new-lora-distance-record-830-miles/

The conductive surface of the sea makes an excellent aid to propagation, and from amateur radio experience we’d guess that tropospheric conditions aided by the summer weather would have something to do with it too.
Radio amateurs on those coasts and islands chase those conditions and live in hope of making a rare UHF contact across the ocean to the Americas or the Caribbean. The difference in their respective frequency allocations notwithstanding, we wonder whether the same might be possible using LoRa given a fortuitous atmosphere.

Why would this depend on atmospheric conditions? Why are long distance connections rare? If the earth is flat this is expected, isn't it? Why is this the record? What's to stop the signals going further all the time?

There's a bunch of reasons for that that have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth

Do go on. What reasons? On a FE two buoys at sea level would always have line of sight between them. Why is it news or noteworthy that this occurred?

EDIT: The LoRa documentation gives some details of calculations needed because of earth's curvature
https://lora.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

73

Flat Earth Media / Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record

« on: September 28, 2023, 08:31:14 PM »

One called AATW presumes that with no evidence. The company clearly states everything was done at sea level using line-of-sight.

The evidence is in the articles you posted.

They state that the signal went via a gateway in the Canary Islands, not directly between the two end points. It was the LoRaWAN that broke the record, not LoRa.
So while yes those two end points were at sea level, the location of the gateway in the Canary Islands is not stated.
But why would the signal have to be relayed via anywhere if there was line of sight between the two sea level buoys? If the earth is flat why is this even news? And why does raising altitude of the nodes increase their range? That just makes them further away.

74

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: SSL

« on: September 28, 2023, 02:59:40 PM »

Hmm. Weird. It's not doing it now.

75

Suggestions & Concerns / SSL

« on: September 28, 2023, 02:36:39 PM »

Has your certificate expired? I'm getting warnings about the site not being secure.

76

Flat Earth Media / Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record

« on: September 26, 2023, 09:55:55 AM »

From your second article:

LoRa’s range depends on “radio line-of-sight.” Radio waves in the 400- to 900-MHz range may pass through some obstructions, depending on their composition, but will be absorbed or reflected otherwise.  This means that the signal can potentially reach as far as the horizon, as long as there are no physical barriers to block it. Elevating LoRa devices—placing them on rooftops or mountaintops, for example—will maximize their range

Why would elevating them increase their range on a FE? That would just make them further away because Pythagorus.
This record was LoRaWAN, not LoRa. The headline says "New LoRa world record", but the article makes it clear it was via the LoRaWAN:

he new world record was set by installing LoRaWAN trackers on a fishing boat Estrela de Sesimbra and on its buoys on the Sesimbra coast, Portugal. The tracker was able to make contact with a gateway in the Canarian Islands

So it went via a gateway which one presumes was at some elevation - as the article you posted states, that increases range - and so could receive and relay the signal.

If the earth were flat this wouldn't be remarkable, this would be expected. The fact it's newsworthy tells you something...

77

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 25, 2023, 01:51:26 PM »

If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.

And how on earth could anyone do that? Even if they were presented, how would you know they were used? LIGO mention accounting for the earth's curve on their website.
Your response is a predictable "nuh-uh!".

I've said this to you before, you set the bar of proof insanely high for anything which doesn't fit your worldview. Anything which does you seem to happily accept because you saw a YouTube video which says it. It's good to question things, but you seem to do so extremely selectively.

78

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 22, 2023, 10:46:29 AM »

lol The "Turning Torso globe proofsie" is one of the most cherrypicked observations in history.

Cherrypicked is your get out of jail free card for any observation which doesn't match what you want to believe.
In what sense is it cherry picked? Are there lots of observations of this building from similar distances where you can see all of it?

You can even clearly see how it seems to get compressed not only due to perspective but due to atmospheric conditions as well. Otherwise damn, did the curvature do that too?

I didn't notice that but feel free to demonstrate that. But yes, the atmosphere does have an effect on observations. Certainly at the furthest distances the building is less clear because of visibility. What's your explanation for where the rest of the building has gone? Why does more of it disappear with increasing distance?

If things were really following the imaginary exponential curve that globers desperately believe exists, things would gradually tilt exponentially as well along with it. There are zero observations that show any tilt whatsoever. I wonder why?

Indeed. At the furthest distance the building would be tilted away from you. At an angle of...0.45 degrees. You're surprised that's basically impossible to discern?

Not to mention that they desperately have to dimiss the many long-distance observations that match FE

Can you provide an example?

79

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 22, 2023, 09:10:51 AM »

You think the horizon is caused by obstruction

I don't know if I'd say "caused". It's the result of the earth being a globe. That means the sea slopes away from you which limits how far you can see.
It also means that as objects move away they will disappear from the bottom first as they go over that curve and eventually you won't be able to see them at all. Like an object going over a hill.
I thought what Dual1ty was saying is that this doesn't actually occur but instead if you zoom in you can "restore" the whole object. You can't. Certainly not always. That's what the photos were intended to demonstrate, as does the Turning Torso video.

You lack an understanding of what's being said

I'd invite you to consider who I was replying to. He has a habit of declaring things without explanation or evidence.
So sure, it's possible I misunderstood him. From past experience asking questions doesn't yield much of a sensible reply.

This discussion concerns the horizon.

Dual1ty didn't use the word horizon. He said
"if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view".
That's what I was originally responding to.

Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT

It's not the same argument because the two discussions are about different things.
The previous one was about the differences between a RE horizon and a FE one. This is about whether ships really disappear from the bottom first.

You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.

I routinely come to different conclusions to you. You seem to struggle when I don't immediately come to think you are very very right about things.
When you explain things clearly and present evidence and I can see you are right - as you did in that previous thread - then sure, I change my position.
When you're vague, just tell me I'm wrong and don't answer questions then it's a more difficult conversation.

80

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 15, 2023, 03:51:43 PM »

You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors

I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors. The images both showed a boat where the bottom was clearly not visible.
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
The context being honk saying "The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window."
Duncan replying "The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd."
And then Dual1ty saying "it can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view"

I assumed that Dual1ty was claiming that boats don't really disappear below the horizon, they just get too small to see, the bottom merges with the sea and with optical zoom you can bring them back in to view. That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.

I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time.

Fair question. As I've told you, I post here partly because it's a diversion during downtime at work and partly because I don't like to see bullshit go unchallenged.
I guess it's the same reason I've engaged with Tom a fair bit in my time here. He's obviously wrong about a load of stuff, it is frustrating to see him dig his heels in harder and harder no matter how clearly he's shown to be wrong, but it's something to do and I can't let such nonsense stand without correction.

you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end.

Well obviously I don't regard it as nonsense and therefore don't accept I've been corrected.
Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.

I'm struggling to see what we are arguing about here. I've seen the FE claim that boats don't really sink from the bottom first, optical zoom restores them. It isn't true. It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction, they do disappear and that's what I was trying to demonstrate.

Even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time.

Literally in the post you're replying to I outlined some work I did on this at a recent trip to the seaside.
BUT...it's not just about the cost of getting there, it's also about having the right optics and they aren't cheap. I have a mid-range camera and the zoom is OK, but when I was trying to do some tests I didn't get anything conclusive.

You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"
I'm not sure that's quite true although I don't think our approaches are a million miles apart.
I believe your philosophy is you have to check everything out for yourself. Mine is that doing that isn't possible - I either don't have the equipment, competence or knowledge to do that. I take a more evidence based approach, and I don't think the only evidence admissible is what I've personally observed.