Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #60 on: June 14, 2016, 03:28:35 AM »
Arguments from personal credulity are feeble. That's all you have. You cannot address the actual mechanisms so you resort to feeble arguments. End of story.

I cannot address the mechanisms because they are so absurd. An image bouncing off of the surface of the earth? Ridiculous. An image bouncing off of the atmosphere itself? Ridiculous. Multiple times in both directions, while staying intact? Outrageous.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

Which is more absurd, over the horizon radar/communication or magical magnification because light (only of a certain intensity and angle though) "catches on the atmosphere"? 

In fact, why don't we expand on "light catching on the atmosphere and being magnified" and apply it directly to the conversation at hand.  If your magical magnification idea holds true, it only stands to reason that radio and radar frequencies can be bounced over the horizon, without loss of signal integrity simply because it is (as you pointed out yourself) all photons.

Before you try to argue too much about intensity keep in mind that the average headlight operates between 60 and 150 watts whereas radio/radar operates across a spectrum of 100 mW up to 50 kW (depending on use/purpose).  If a headlight operating somewhere between 60 and 150 watts is enough to "catch on the atmosphere" and be magnified, it follows that any radio/radar operating at or above this range would be subject to the same magnification.

In the short time I've been part of this site I've never seen you address anything, even your own ideas, in any way that lends credibility to anything you say let alone offers any type of proof for what you say is true or false.

My washing machine is about 500 Watts, should it magnify in the atmosphere too?  ???

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

I am SO happy to hear you say this!  I look forward to reminding you of this post every time you try to tell us how the photons from the sun do not travel in a straight line, at sunset for example.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

You have clearly never worked with radar.  I have (Navy) and you are simply wrong.  You can pick up aircraft at much greater distance than ships on the surface, because ships at distance X are over the horizon while aircraft in the air at distance X are not (distance X being a function of the height of the radar dish).  And because, in your own words "photons simply travel in a straight line", they don't reach an over-the-horizon ship.

The surface near the sea is a lot denser than the altitude airplanes may fly at. Of course some types of radar more susceptible to atmospheric opacity may see an airplane easier than a ship.

How am I to know what should or shouldn't be affected by magical magnification?  That idea is yours and you seem to be able to bend the rules to best fit whatever proclamation you are trying to make.  It's kind of like your own little game of Calvinball wherein the only real rules are that the rules are made up as you go along and rules cannot be used twice.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #61 on: June 14, 2016, 03:39:01 AM »
Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

There are no "magical fairies" in the real world (globe, round, etc.) . There are facts and evidence of such things as line--of-sight, skip and all forms of electro-magnetic science.Radio signals and laser beams can and have been bounced off the moon for approximate or accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon is just one example of facts and evidence of something that flat earthers deny. It can get a bit complex, too.

 No, there are no "magical fairies" in the real world, but there are plenty of "magical fairies" in the flat earth world....flat discs, universal accelerations, ice rings, et cetera, et cetera and so forth. If you don't take flat earth seriously it can get so absurd that it can get hilariously funny.....And at least some people have a lot of reasons to do so and do so.LOL.

You have already embarrassed yourself quite enough in this thread with the EM-is-not-photons thing. I would suggest developing a sense of shame and refrain from posting in this thread ever again.
[/quote)

I have nothing to be embarassed about. I have just posted examples of facts and evidence of how things operate in the real world. If you want to deny them, that seems to be the method of most flat earthers . If it gives you any satisfacfion , so be it. I don't think I'm alone in thinking there are some persons who are an embarassment to the FES.

In case you are unaware of the shape of the earth, it is a sphere, a globe , etc. The earth once again is not some imaginary flst disc.

I think we should take a poll.
Which of these is worse ?
(1) jroa
(2) Tom Bishop
(3) The Three Stooges
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 03:48:36 AM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6053
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #62 on: June 14, 2016, 03:41:03 AM »
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Your skepticism is so unreasonable in this case that it is absurd. You obviously did not read my post anyway, because I referred to a form of Skywave that depends on a near vertical angle of incidence to broadcast over obstructions at distances not achievable via Skywave.

So, unless you have a reasonable position, other than, "it's absurd", there is nothing more to be said. Your skepticism is founded on nothing more than personal incredulity, and ignores reams of pages devoted to the topic. You obviously have not investigated a jot in to it or you would know this. Your objection to the existence of Skywaves is feeble. Please come back when you have a position of substance. In the meantime read this or this or contact them. If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

geckothegeek

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #63 on: June 14, 2016, 04:00:57 AM »
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Your skepticism is so unreasonable in this case that it is absurd. You obviously did not read my post anyway, because I referred to a form of Skywave that depends on a near vertical angle of incidence to broadcast over obstructions at distances not achievable via Skywave.

So, unless you have a reasonable position, other than, "it's absurd", there is nothing more to be said. Your skepticism is founded on nothing more than personal incredulity, and ignores reams of pages devoted to the topic. You obviously have not investigated a jot in to it or you would know this. Your objection to the existence of Skywaves is feeble. Please come back when you have a position of substance. In the meantime read this or this or contact them. If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?
[/quote

There is plenty of evidence for real things in the real world. But where is there ANY evidence for ANYTHING in the flat earth world ?
Another good source of information is the American Radio Relay League.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #64 on: June 14, 2016, 04:52:47 AM »
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
No Tom, the burden of proof clearly lies with you.
The 5th post in this topic:
Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!
You claim that a body of science is "made up", yet you provide no proof that the science does not work, is made up or fails.
Clearly the optimum "Zetetic" approach would be to disprove this with some form of evidence, not just saying it is Ridiculous.

If I just said that
Quote
Flat Earth believers have to make up mysterious Shadow Objects to explain lunar eclipses, no matter how absurd.
Consider the height of the moon, the sun & moon somehow are suspended above a flat-disc-earth without crashing/falling back down again, yet everything else falls back down. Ridiculous
You wouldn't let me get away with that without providing demanding some form of proof?
Would you?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #65 on: June 14, 2016, 11:45:54 AM »
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.


And you know better than all the engineers who design these microwave links! They design using the globe figures, and it works!

Do you realise how patently ridiculous it is to claim that "some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others" is the answer to some links being limited to 50 km and others can traverse 360 km?

And, if the "some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others" applies to light, just how is it possible that we can predict in advance sunrise and sunset times years in advance to good accuracy?

Do you know something, I simply refuse to believe the amazing co-incidences you present us with all the time:
  • We have "magnification by glare" keeping the sun and the moon exactly the size expected with the globe earth (ie almost no change in size).

  • We have the limited transparency of the atmosphere making the sunrise, moonrise, sunrise and sunset times exactly the times expected using the globe model.

  • We perspective (and whatever else I don't know) making the sun appear to set below the horizon, exactly as expected on the globe model.

  • We have bendy light (or something like that) making the direction of the summer sunrises and sunsets in the southern hemisphere (yes HERE) appear to be in the SE and SW respectively, instead of the NE and NW as expected from the "Ice-Wall map".

  • We have the varying transparency of the atmosphere making the ranges of the microwave links just what the engineers expected using the globe values.
All this because "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat".
You know what, I'll stick with a rotating Globe Earth where everything ties in together, with having to resort to all these co-incidences!








*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6941
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #66 on: June 14, 2016, 06:16:40 PM »
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

i have twice now posted such evidence for your perusal.  that you pretend it doesn't exist speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

Math != proof

Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
Your skepticism is so unreasonable in this case that it is absurd. You obviously did not read my post anyway, because I referred to a form of Skywave that depends on a near vertical angle of incidence to broadcast over obstructions at distances not achievable via Skywave.

So, unless you have a reasonable position, other than, "it's absurd", there is nothing more to be said. Your skepticism is founded on nothing more than personal incredulity, and ignores reams of pages devoted to the topic. You obviously have not investigated a jot in to it or you would know this. Your objection to the existence of Skywaves is feeble. Please come back when you have a position of substance. In the meantime read this or this or contact them. If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?

I see some links containing some refraction math. A lot of people can write some math for hypothetical phenomena. Where is the proof that the phenomenon is actually occurring?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6941
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #67 on: June 14, 2016, 06:19:33 PM »
Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.
No Tom, the burden of proof clearly lies with you.
The 5th post in this topic:
Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!
You claim that a body of science is "made up", yet you provide no proof that the science does not work, is made up or fails.
Clearly the optimum "Zetetic" approach would be to disprove this with some form of evidence, not just saying it is Ridiculous.

If I just said that
Quote
Flat Earth believers have to make up mysterious Shadow Objects to explain lunar eclipses, no matter how absurd.
Consider the height of the moon, the sun & moon somehow are suspended above a flat-disc-earth without crashing/falling back down again, yet everything else falls back down. Ridiculous
You wouldn't let me get away with that without providing demanding some form of proof?
Would you?

The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Quote
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of  the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition.  These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

Burden of Proof

From  X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy.  If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..

 Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course  leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course  ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course  X  exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 06:25:32 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6053
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #68 on: June 14, 2016, 06:41:40 PM »
I see some links containing some refraction math.

No you don't.  You didn't even examine them!  Pathetic.

Quote
A lot of people can write some math for hypothetical phenomena.

Please provide evidence for this positive claim.

Quote
Where is the proof that the phenomenon is actually occurring?

With HAM radio operators around the world.  With the people at GIRO.  With physicists who study plasma physics.  All over the place really.  This is not magic fairies, this is something that is happening everyday!  Try investigating!  Start with this phenomenom, which I mentioned earlier and you ignored:


NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"

This is a real thing that happens, it is described by the math I linked you to, is goverenwhich is derived from Maxwell's equations.  Now what is the problem?  How is this hypothetical if people in the real world are doing this, it has been meticulously modeled and replicated thousands of times all based on a rock solid set of physical laws?  How is that in any context "absurd"?  What is your basis for calling this "absurd" other than your refusing to believe it?

You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #69 on: June 14, 2016, 09:07:36 PM »
Math != proof

if proof of the soundness and validity of the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves, as they relate to ducting, are not persuasive to you, then ok i guess. 

what would you consider valid proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #70 on: June 14, 2016, 11:52:28 PM »
The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic
Thank you Tom!
You claim that the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves are false; since you are the claimant, prove it!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6941
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #71 on: June 15, 2016, 12:42:16 AM »
The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic
Thank you Tom!
You claim that the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves are false; since you are the claimant, prove it!

Skepticism is a negative claim, and has no burden of proof. Claiming that photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground to reach a far off destination and then back again is a positive claim, which requires proof.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6941
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #72 on: June 15, 2016, 12:46:11 AM »
With HAM radio operators around the world.  With the people at GIRO.  With physicists who study plasma physics.  All over the place really.  This is not magic fairies, this is something that is happening everyday!  Try investigating!  Start with this phenomenom, which I mentioned earlier and you ignored:


NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"

This is a real thing that happens, it is described by the math I linked you to, is goverenwhich is derived from Maxwell's equations.  Now what is the problem?  How is this hypothetical if people in the real world are doing this, it has been meticulously modeled and replicated thousands of times all based on a rock solid set of physical laws?  How is that in any context "absurd"?  What is your basis for calling this "absurd" other than your refusing to believe it?

I don't see any evidence here, just a lot of hand waving.

Math != proof

if proof of the soundness and validity of the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves, as they relate to ducting, are not persuasive to you, then ok i guess. 

what would you consider valid proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #73 on: June 15, 2016, 12:53:47 AM »
With HAM radio operators around the world.  With the people at GIRO.  With physicists who study plasma physics.  All over the place really.  This is not magic fairies, this is something that is happening everyday!  Try investigating!  Start with this phenomenom, which I mentioned earlier and you ignored:


NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"

This is a real thing that happens, it is described by the math I linked you to, is goverenwhich is derived from Maxwell's equations.  Now what is the problem?  How is this hypothetical if people in the real world are doing this, it has been meticulously modeled and replicated thousands of times all based on a rock solid set of physical laws?  How is that in any context "absurd"?  What is your basis for calling this "absurd" other than your refusing to believe it?

I don't see any evidence here, just a lot of hand waving.

Math != proof

if proof of the soundness and validity of the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves, as they relate to ducting, are not persuasive to you, then ok i guess. 

what would you consider valid proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

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.
VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6941
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #74 on: June 15, 2016, 12:58:36 AM »
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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #75 on: June 15, 2016, 01:02:28 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 have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6053
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #76 on: June 15, 2016, 01:11:04 AM »
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?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #77 on: June 15, 2016, 01:16:37 AM »
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.
And that's how the Scientific approach differs from your Zetetic approach.

Science is all about
a) Devising a theory
b) Making an observation
c) revising the theory
d) repeating the observation, etc.

Your Zetetic approach seems to consist of
a) Making a wild claim
b) Inventing some abstract concept that could support it
c) Ignoring all scientific evidence that disproves it
d) Calling everyone that disagrees heathens/satanists
e) Demand that everyone provide proof of the science that rejects the original Zetetic idea
f) Rejecting all proofs provided
g) Refusing to provide any proof or said Zetetic idea on the basis that it is not up to you to provide any proof
h) Using circular logic to state that the concept invented in b) proves that a) must be true
i) Ignoring all scientific evidence that disproves b)
j) iterate for all eternity...


Did you even bother to read the paper?
Quote
...Measurements from a high resolution SODAR are used to show the complex structure and characteristics of elevated ducts...
Their observation proves the existence of elevated ducts.
Next step, revise the theory, then rinse and repeat...

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6941
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #78 on: June 15, 2016, 01:37:44 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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Line of sight communication
« Reply #79 on: June 15, 2016, 02:08:49 AM »
I've never used an equation alone as evidence for anything in the physical world. That's just stupid and childish.

on this page of earth not a globe, a page i have seen you reference many times, robotham asserts that "IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile...Any work on geometry or geodesy will furnish proofs of this declination."

in other words, your belief in the convexity of water is both quantitatively and qualitatively based on geometry and its associated mathematics.

if it is not, then on what do you base this belief about the physical world?

My standard for you is that your evidence must not be stupid and childish.

haha good one.  my question was very sincere, though.  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.

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. 
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 02:16:52 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.