geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #80 on: June 15, 2016, 04:26:29 AM »
It takes more than someone writing some equations on a white board for how it might happen to prove that photons are bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground.

Try harder.

you seem happy enough to use mathematics to support your own positions.  i don't get it's good enough for you but not for me.

that said, you're correct that mathematics alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that the physical process described by those mathematics are real.  that's fair.  that leads me to my question, which is 100% genuine: what would you count as valid evidence/proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?  be as general or as specific as you like.

I've never used an equation alone as evidence for anything in the physical world. That's just stupid and childish. My standard for you is that your evidence must not be stupid and childish.

Do you include the method or the equation used for estimating the distance to the horizon due to the curvature of the earth in your statement ?
It has been used for years in planning the spacing of microwave relay statiions, the range of certain radars and the navy uses it in their training manuals for lookouts.
Are you saying this is stupid and childish ?  Yes ? or No ?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 03:01:47 AM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2016, 12:56:28 PM »
i get that you're saying that mathematics alone will not persuade you that the mechanism described is real.  that's fair.  so my question is: what would you count as valid evidence/proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

it's not a trick question.  you say that you've seen no evidence that ducting is a plausible explanation for these radio phenomena.  since you find the evidence presented thus far unsatisfactory, then it would be helpful to know what kind of evidence you might find persuasive, or what to you would count as good evidence.

Good question.  I think many of us would like to know what evidence might be accepted.  In fact, several of us have asked this very question in one form or another on other specific topics, and gotten nowhere.  I think it is an effect of how the Zetetic way of thinking differs from the scientific method.  To do proper work under the scientific method requires one to think about 'result X will support my hypothesis, result Y will prove it wrong, result Z will be inconclusive' while Zetetic method intentionally and explicitly rejects the idea of forming a hypothesis and then testing it.


it's not a one-way street, either.  you could ask me a similar question about this subject, or any other, and it would be a fair question.

This is good too, and we round earthers have often answered this without being asked in the spirit of "Here is what I would need to come to the FE side, now it's your turn."  Another null result.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

İntikam

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2016, 08:14:45 AM »
There are some users here that answering instead of people altought when writers waiting from an answer somebody else.

I'm thinking they as some viruses. I don't know why the management feeding them but we don't need to listen these anthropophagi whose interfere everything is related or not associated with him.

I'm strongly recommended to ignore them whose answering instead of anybody else. And it is interesting somebody who find on writers some pathological problems just caused by believing some theories does not pay attention about this pathology.


« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 08:16:16 AM by İntikam »

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2016, 09:33:38 AM »
There are some users here that answering instead of people altought when writers waiting from an answer somebody else.

I'm thinking they as some viruses. I don't know why the management feeding them but we don't need to listen these anthropophagi whose interfere everything is related or not associated with him.

I'm strongly recommended to ignore them whose answering instead of anybody else. And it is interesting somebody who find on writers some pathological problems just caused by believing some theories does not pay attention about this pathology.
Hi Inti, you do realise that this is a public forum don't you?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #84 on: June 17, 2016, 12:11:56 PM »


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)"

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???


*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #85 on: June 17, 2016, 03:06:21 PM »


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)"

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???

Venuses problem is, she hasn't commented on a conversation that Inti' was having with someone else, thereby triggering the "don't butt in on my discussion" clause that he as arbitrarily introduced to filter out all you barbarians.

As I am not yet deemed to have transgressed, I would imagine your request for your message to be seen is now fulfilled, as to whether I will have activated a retribution for circumvention remains to be seen.   
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #86 on: June 17, 2016, 11:10:22 PM »


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)"

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???

Venuses problem is, she hasn't commented on a conversation that Inti' was having with someone else, thereby triggering the "don't butt in on my discussion" clause that he as arbitrarily introduced to filter out all you barbarians.

As I am not yet deemed to have transgressed, I would imagine your request for your message to be seen is now fulfilled, as to whether I will have activated a retribution for circumvention remains to be seen.
Thanks. I hope I'm not getting too personal, but I suspect that Venus's gender might be the same as your own.

*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #87 on: June 18, 2016, 10:07:50 AM »


Can you give a message to  "İntikam". He won't talk to:
"ignored: rabinoz, Rounder, TotesNotReptilian, andruszkow, Unsure101, Lord Dave (i don't see what you write)

"Venus" is not on the list and is feeling very "let down" at not being on the "Roll of Honour"!

Come to think of it, you must have been shirking to still excluded!

We think he is being very immature and childish in refusing to read any contrary views, but what can we do?

 ??? ??? All "Lord Dave" did was to claim that nuclear weapons were real - touchy, touchy. Maybe "İntikam" should ask the Japanese what they think! ??? ???

Venuses problem is, she hasn't commented on a conversation that Inti' was having with someone else, thereby triggering the "don't butt in on my discussion" clause that he as arbitrarily introduced to filter out all you barbarians.

As I am not yet deemed to have transgressed, I would imagine your request for your message to be seen is now fulfilled, as to whether I will have activated a retribution for circumvention remains to be seen.
Thanks. I hope I'm not getting too personal, but I suspect that Venus's gender might be the same as your own.

Why are my ears burning??

I just see Intikam's ignoring people as a total refusal to let anyone's else's views, observations or proofs for a Round Earth perhaps change his mind ... some people have an incredibly hard time admitting they are wrong ... that's why flat earthers cannot be considered as Scientists, because scientists are always prepared to look at new evidence and either change or modify their theories according to that evidence... In fact that is the whole BASIS or Science ... that's why we can presume that there would not be one person with a science degree among the whole bunch of them.

Rab, I was sort of enjoying being undercover ... now you've blown my disguise  8)
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #88 on: June 18, 2016, 12:32:52 PM »

Why are my ears burning??

Rab, I was sort of enjoying being undercover ... now you've blown my disguise  8)

"Why are my ears burning??" That's easy! It's because we've been talking about you behind your back! Just tryng hard to get you a promotion!
Sorry about the "undercover" bit - I didn't know there was a secret!

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #89 on: June 18, 2016, 01:38:15 PM »
You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.

That coming from a guy who didn't know that HAM radio receivers could pick up signals hundreds or thousands of miles away?
I never said that, did I? I gave you an example of a wavelength used by HAM operators that is dependent of line of sight.

Keep digging though.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #90 on: June 18, 2016, 03:14:36 PM »
You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!
Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.

That coming from a guy who didn't know that HAM radio receivers could pick up signals hundreds or thousands of miles away?
I never said that, did I? I gave you an example of a wavelength used by HAM operators that is dependent of line of sight.

Keep digging though.

There have been several examples of equipment and systems that are dependent on line of sight. I listed a radar system and a microwave relay system that are dependent on line of sight. It's just a fact of life in the real world because the fact of life that the earth is a globe in the real world.




*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #91 on: June 18, 2016, 04:32:45 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #92 on: June 18, 2016, 04:36:17 PM »
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf

From the abstract:

Quote
Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.

It looks like they are observing radio waves bouncing off the atmosphere, so it is in fact demonstrating that skywave is a real phenomenon. 

So they are modifying the theory, so what?  To what degree was it inaccurate before?  At what level of accuracy do you consider a theory to be strong?  How does its level of accuracy compare with the predictions made by your own theory?  Which one is stronger?

If they have to modify the theory to match the observations it means that the theory didn't really work. A good theory can predict things, and matches reality. It's quite a blow to the narrative that we have this strong and verified theory of sky waves that has been around for many years.

Rama Set

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #93 on: June 18, 2016, 07:12:48 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

Rama Set

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #94 on: June 18, 2016, 07:14:08 PM »
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf

From the abstract:

Quote
Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.

It looks like they are observing radio waves bouncing off the atmosphere, so it is in fact demonstrating that skywave is a real phenomenon. 

So they are modifying the theory, so what?  To what degree was it inaccurate before?  At what level of accuracy do you consider a theory to be strong?  How does its level of accuracy compare with the predictions made by your own theory?  Which one is stronger?

If they have to modify the theory to match the observations it means that the theory didn't really work. A good theory can predict things, and matches reality. It's quite a blow to the narrative that we have this strong and verified theory of sky waves that has been around for many years.

So unless you get it right the first time, it can never be correct?  I hope you understand how preposterous that is.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #95 on: June 18, 2016, 10:19:59 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.
You really DO believe in magical coincidences don't you?
  • You claim "some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others" - by EXACTLY the right amount (really) to match the microwave tower spacings based on the Globe earth radius? But these ranges very from 70 km of less up to over 350 km!

  • The sun (AND moon) stay the SAME size from sun (or moon) rise to sun (or moon) set "due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer"  - by EXACTLY the right amount (really). "The intense rays of light[/b]" OF THE MOON? And this "magnification" manages to keep the apparent size to exactly that expected on the Globe.

  • The sun and moon appear to rise and set behind the horizon, yet we are told "Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west." Just EXACTLY the right "perspective" REALLY!
  • We are told by Rowbotham that the sun "appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east", but if you look at the Flat Earth map Rowbotham, and most others, used the sun is ALWAYS far south of England - more magic?

And if goes on and on, magical coincidences pile magical on coincidences, just to explain observations that fit together perfectly with a rotating Globe!

Quote from: William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347)
Occam's Razor
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" and
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora". or "In vain, takes place over the course of what can be done by a few" (Maybe your Latin is better than Google's"!)
The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I think that we need some new "Razor" stating "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the least magic should be selected." Mind you even old Ockham wasn't far off!

Tom, I know you love your magic and will never change, but just possibly I might encourage others to think for themselves, and not blindly sallow the "authority of the SacredTexts.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #96 on: June 19, 2016, 11:53:39 PM »
Other than childish rants and assumptions, do you have any proof that its exactly the right amount?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #97 on: June 19, 2016, 11:56:39 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.

Rama Set

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #98 on: June 20, 2016, 12:08:28 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.

Is this a haiku or something?  We are talking about transparency to various radio transmission frequencies. Please get back to us will relevant evidence.

Inb4light=radio

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #99 on: June 20, 2016, 01:13:19 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

Evidence?

I looked at a very distant mountain in broad daylight and it was somewhat dark and muddied.

Is this a haiku or something?  We are talking about transparency to various radio transmission frequencies. Please get back to us will relevant evidence.

Inb4light=radio

Its a proof of the statement that some ranges of photons are affected by atmospheric opacity.