[Dual1ty]

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.

I know more about it than you. I said: where is the antenna pointing. Either provide the info that they didn't or stfu with your rhetorical BS.

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

And provide the math model for the 830 mile test too. Otherwise go bother someone else with your rhetorical garbage.


You:

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.

Also you:

The answer to your question above is they didn't account for the curve of the earth in this experiment.

Plain for everyone to see that you just make shit up as you go.

[AATW]

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.

[Action80]

lets call it 40,000 F-16 pilots worldwide; some aces, some not the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer.

^Unbelievable this poster here on a flat earth forum has the gall to compare an actual pilot to a dull kitchen knife.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Yes, I admit to some embarrassment about posting on an FE forum. 

Anywho, I worked with pilots on a daily basis; not sure where your experience is drawn from.  Good to know you hold them in such high esteem though, as most astronaut pilots are former fighter pilots, 

[Gonzo]

Yes, I admit to some embarrassment about posting on an FE forum. 

Anywho, I worked with pilots on a daily basis; not sure where your experience is drawn from.  Good to know you hold them in such high esteem though, as most astronaut pilots are former fighter pilots,

Me too, pilots and ATCs. There’s a bell curve for any characteristic, and for pilots (especially military pilots) you’d expect that curve to be offset from the general population for certain characteristics, but there will still be outliers as in any sample. That surely isn’t news to anyone?

To be honest the text in that video seems like it’s written by a DCS (or even a Falcon 4!) gamer who’s done 2+2 and made 974.9.