Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AATW

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 208  Next >
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...

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.

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?

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.

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)"
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.'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.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 14, 2023, 03:48:14 PM »
You seem to be mistaking age with competency.
I'm not, but there is some correlation between those two things. No-one is as sharp in their late 70s as they are at their prime.

Here is Donald Trump to set you straight
Well, he's nice and impartial. I note he doesn't cite which poll so is this just more stuff he's just making up? He does do that, you know.

Does he mean this poll, maybe?

More than three-quarters of respondents in a new US poll said Joe Biden would be too old to be effective if re-elected president next year.
But as many people in the survey said the 80-year-old Biden was “old” and “confused”, so a similar number saw his 77-year-old likely challenger, Donald Trump, as “corrupt” and “dishonest”.

So yeah, a lot of people to think Biden is too old. I'm one of them. I happen to think Trump is too, not as many people agree with that but they're not exactly giving ringing endorsement of him either. Only his cult members are doing that.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 14, 2023, 01:37:43 PM »
Don't get me pissed off because it's not gonna be pretty.
What are you going to do, type in all caps?

He didn't lose everything, it doesn't sound like he was even there or lost anything. He's just whining about rich celebrities asking ordinary people for money.
He has a point to be fair, but it's nothing to do with this thread.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 14, 2023, 10:48:15 AM »
And you studied it... how?
I bet he's dOnE hIs OwN rEsEaRcH.
Yes, I do mean watched a load of YouTube videos. In his world that seems to pass for independent thought. Weird.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 14, 2023, 08:07:29 AM »
And he needs to tell me what evidence is when he hasn't the faintest.
Of course I know what evidence is. It's something which confirms what you want to believe.
Anything that doesn't do that isn't evidence.
Simple! :)

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 14, 2023, 06:48:46 AM »
Well, if you presented actual evidence I would not dismiss it. So you need to try harder.
Your definition of "actual evidence" is "something which confirms which you want to believe". Anything else you just dismiss without explanation.

I already know that evidence doesn't exist
QED :)

You probably know nothing about 9/11 anyway since you were probably born around that time by my estimations.
I'll add this to the ever growing list of things you're wrong about :)

But anyway, yes, that pilot, or whoever, made a statement.
And by "that pilot" you mean some person who the YouTuber claims emailed him but wishes to remain anonymous so there's no way of checking his credentials, determining whether he really was a pilot or even if he exists at all. But that's the level of evidence you'll accept when something confirms your worldview. Anything that doesn't is dismissed immediately.

Oh, and btw, forgot to say that he's no longer anonymous.
He was at the time of the YouTube video you presented, but you didn't care about that. He was saying something which fitted your narrative so no further questions. :)

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 13, 2023, 07:36:52 PM »
Oh wow, that's definitely evidence of those 1.8 million tons
Where did that figure come from?
The Twin Towers weighed around 500,000 tons:,its%20own%20zip%20code%3A%2010048.

Your original claim was that there was “barely any rubble left”. This is incorrect, multiple sources testify to that.

It’s hilarious how you hand wave away anything which doesn’t fit your narrative. Compare and contrast with a video you posted the other day which you claimed was real testimony. The video was some YouTuber who claimed he had information from a retired pilot who’d emailed the YouTuber but wanted to remain anonymous. That’s the level of evidence you’ll accept when something does fit your narrative. Embarrassing.

I also noticed that this webpage was seemingly created in 2021 and not 2001 or 2002. Of course, I'm sure it's just coincidence.
Coincidental with what? Why does it matter when the article was written?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 13, 2023, 06:27:37 PM »
There was certainly a lot of dust which was not healthy to breath.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  But you have not begun to establish the mass of material needed to produce that dust so as to claim it was an appreciable porting of the total building mass.

The evidence speaks for itself. Can you show me the 1.8 million tons? Where did they go?
Staten Island

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 13, 2023, 09:43:31 AM »
One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 11, 2023, 12:00:26 PM »
A physical measurement of the ball would be swell. No need to measure the whole ball, a few miles would be enough.
I have literally no idea what you mean by that. You understand that the earth isn't a perfect sphere, right?
So what would a few miles of "physical measurement of the ball" involve and what would it demonstrate?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 11, 2023, 10:38:26 AM »
Imagine having to pretend that this is normal
You understand that Trump will be older than Biden is now at the end of his term if he becomes the next president?
Trump does seem more "with it" than Biden, admittedly - there's other reasons I wouldn't want him being US president. But the whole idea of you electing guys in their 70s to run the country is ludicrous. It has to be one of the most stressful jobs in the country, and you're giving it to people who in pretty much any other career would be long since retired and for good reason - no-one is as sharp in their 70s as they are in their prime.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 10:24:22 AM »
lol I'm not looking down at anything
Well, you've agreed there is horizon dip. So by definition you are looking down but it's not in a way you can perceive. The horizon is, to all intents and purposes, straight in front of you. Which is what you'd expect on both a RE and a FE.

I simply observe the horizon rising with me
Well, sure. But what I'm not understanding is why you think that's an issue for RE.
As I said, observe a hill which is a few miles away from you. Then move 10m to the right. Assuming you can still see the hill has it significantly moved with respect to you? Of course it hasn't, because it's miles away. This is basic parallax.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 09:25:05 AM »
No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.
I honestly don't understand why you think this is impossible. The horizon is around 3 miles away, at a normal height on a beach. There is an angle you're looking down at it, but if you're standing on a beach it's so small it's basically impossible to discern. As you ascend that angle does change but very slowly. I did some quick calculations:
2m - 0.0225°
10m - 0.0507°
100m - 0.101°
So it effectively looks like it's at the same position until you get to a significant altitude.

All you have to do to understand this is to drive somewhere and observe that while things on the side of the road whip by quickly, hills a few miles away barely seem to move. They're not moving with you, they're just far away so it takes longer for their position relative to you to change.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 09:13:49 AM »
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored
You assert this with no evidence
No I don't. I provided examples. You may dispute the quality of that evidence, and that's fine, but to state I provided "no" evidence is incorrect.
As I've said, I accept the first picture isn't particularly good evidence, I think the second one is better and the Turning Torso video - posted elsewhere - is better still.

and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.
I'm not insisting on anything, but I'm not even clear what you're arguing here. You said previously that
"The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there" - from that it doesn't sound like you dispute the sinking ship effect actually happens, so what are you arguing about? The start of this was when Dual1ty said
"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, though."

He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?

Once again, you assert this without evidence.
I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller?  ???

Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet
It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast. Although I did show the results of an experiment I conducted in my front room which demonstrated that objects can be "restored" with optical zoom and demonstrated that it's nothing to do with sinking ships. While we're here, I did actually take some photos during a recent trip to the seaside of a wind farm out to sea, but the results weren't particularly conclusive - I suspect because the turbines weren't far enough away. So it's not like I've made no effort.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 08:28:54 AM »
Horizon rises with you also
This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways

The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.

I didn't say it doesn't "dip" - I said it rises with you, which is a fact.

Horizon being apparently below eye level does not debunk that fact. So as always, your "FE debunking" fails the reality test, and you fail to understand what is being said.
It's a common FE claim that "horizon rises to eye level". It doesn't and that can be demonstrated in multiple ways shown in the link I provided.
I thought that's what you were asserting. If not then fine. But I'm not clear why you think this is a problem for a globe earth.
When you say it "rises with you" - the horizon is miles away even at viewer heights close to sea level. So of course when you ascend it doesn't dip noticeably. Why would it?
But I would suggest that the angle dip to the horizon and the distance to the horizon are both consistent with a globe morel. There may be FE explanations, but neither of these things are a problem for RE, it's what you'd expect to observe - you can see further over the curve with more height and the angle you look down at the horizon increases - the latter of these being hard to perceive but can be measured. Why do you think that's an issue?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 08:06:28 AM »
Horizon rises with you also
This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways

The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 208  Next >