Nostr Web Client

You're doing the very thing I have pointed out. Why would you move on to another topic if this one hasn't been fully addressed?

Fine. Radio waves.

Does FM largely rely on line of sight for receiving a signal? Is FM radio wave propagation reliant on input power to reach longer distances? Can you achieve line of sight FM transmission over distances further than 30 miles?

Is the high frequency wave band of FM able to even propagate over extremely long distances, or would it dimish before reaching its destination? Its the same argument that suggesting if the earth was flat, why can't I see Europe from America? Is that perhaps to do with the visibility being proportional to atmospheric humidity and temperature?

Are there any line-of-sight systems that have achieved much longer distances? Can you achieve reliable long distance communication with systems such as LoRa without line of sight?

vinney...axkl 5mo ago 💬 1

I'm not doing the thing you said.

I'm saying "hm yea, it looks like the pendulum thing is true. wow, weird ... okay there are about 100 other experiments left to take a look at as we keep a tally. next up...."

I appreciate that you moved along now. we will update our beliefs and priors intermittently along the way.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sovereign Being 5mo ago

I read that as you agreeing that the experiment was to demonstrate motion, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with the results. That's why I considered it still 'open' in this context. Just a miscommunication.

The radio wave topic relates to shape. If you think there are other good experiments to look at for motion, I am of course open to hearing them. I have probably heard most since the strongest proofs tend to be presented the most often.

I'm sure the day will come when someone presents some solid refutations and I can finally move on. There are two fundamental points of discussion - one is for shape, the other is for motion.

I think the argument for a stationary Earth - regardless of shape - has the most compelling evidence, or lack thereof to support motion.

The argument for a 'level topographical plane' may not be as strong, but there are enough problems relating to observational experiments that can reasonably put it into question, too. I am fully aware of how stupid it sounds. I think a select few observations are what primarily draw people into it.