>>19283062as usual you are racing along because you think you've noticed some kind of inconstancy in what im saying. You haven't, which is why you're resorting to ignoring the parts you dont like.
The radio LOS calculator is as accurate as it can be, given that its using an average for the refraction effect. But thats all its including in the calculation. No inclusion of any of the other effects which can result in radio transmissions going farther than normal.
>Includes an imaginary value that is never observable on that altitude.you're missing the fact that on a spherical earth the transmissions do indeed pass through air a lot closer to the ground. see picrel.
>It shows 5000 meters curve so somehow that refraction bent it perfectly without side effects over a 1000 m differenceis the path of light being changed by the grand total of a few tenths of a degree over that distance so hard to accept?
