Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
geostationary satellites
« on: December 16, 2021, 01:47:28 AM »
On RE, they are stationary in particular spot directly over the equator. They get shot up at the exact speed and direction to be in orbit at that spot. This is consistent with RET math and physics. The web site:

https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/customer/dishPointer.jsp

tells you where to aim the dish, thus giving you a pointer to the satellite. Point wrong, no tv signal. So we have multiple pointers at a satellite from different places, thus the point where the aiming lines cross gives the location of the satellite.

Where are these satellites on FE? if they are at the equator, how do they stay up? Will the lines intersect on FE? IF you take the elevation from San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, will the lines meet at the same point?

I submit that the lines will not cross with FE geometry, and this makes no sense. I wonder how FE explains geostationary satellites.
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2021, 04:31:41 PM »
This is consistent with RET math and physics.

This is the interesting part of the RE/FE debate on this subject.  Either we're all being lied to and they are actually using FET math and physics or RET math and physics just magically work even though the earth is flat.

As to geostationary satellites, there's a little more to just sending them up at the right height and velocity.  They are actually launched using a elliptical transfer orbit and then brought into a circular orbit using subsequent mini-burns.  Somehow, all that RE math just works even though the earth is flat.

https://www.planetary.org/articles/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2066
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2021, 08:43:17 PM »
Geostationary satellites are not practical under the flat earth scenario.  Once they are in position, they would have to keep accelerating up to remain in position relative to the surface of the earth.  That would require fuel and/or a push by the ‘dark energy’.  There are some other observed real-world discrepancies as well.  When you watch the needed elevation settings to keep a dish pointing at a satellite over the earth’s equator while on a moving object, like a ship, those readings do NOT match what would be expected on a flat surface.  The satellite signal ‘sets’ behind the horizon and the signal is lost as the required dish elevation must get lower & lower as the ship moves away from the satellite’s zenith point over the equator.  That would not happen on a flat earth.  All of this has been personally observed in the Zetetic manner countless times.
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2021, 12:02:36 AM »
Geostationary satellites are not practical under the flat earth scenario.  Once they are in position, they would have to keep accelerating up to remain in position relative to the surface of the earth.  That would require fuel and/or a push by the ‘dark energy’.  There are some other observed real-world discrepancies as well.  When you watch the needed elevation settings to keep a dish pointing at a satellite over the earth’s equator while on a moving object, like a ship, those readings do NOT match what would be expected on a flat surface.  The satellite signal ‘sets’ behind the horizon and the signal is lost as the required dish elevation must get lower & lower as the ship moves away from the satellite’s zenith point over the equator.  That would not happen on a flat earth.  All of this has been personally observed in the Zetetic manner countless times.

As light curves due to mumbojumbo medium, I'm sure signal from sattelites experience the same, it curves, on a flat earth.

Not sure, why they use word curve so much in their explanation about flat earth, curious.

Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2021, 12:07:37 AM »
Oh, and if you have few FE friends in different countries, you can call them, time and track https://findstarlink.com/ for example. They are not as visible anymore, binoculars will do, but they do travel across flat earth, then teleport to other side and start over. It's magic!

Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2021, 11:25:09 AM »
If the flat earth were moving, wouldn't it eventually collide with all those satellites? 
And what keeps satellites at a constant distance from the earth's surface if it's constantly
moving towards them?  We throw a ball into the atmosphere and the earth collides with
it, so why not satellites?  An apple can be likened to a small satellite as far as physics goes.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2066
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2021, 06:40:30 PM »
Under FET the satellites would all have to have a large fuel source and rocket motors in order to maintain a constant 9.81 m/s upwards acceleration rate.  This requirement would greatly shorten the life of any satellite.  The INMARSAT and the newer KVH TracPhone satellites have been in orbit for years so this invalidates the UA argument in one simple shot. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2021, 11:10:43 PM »
Under FET the satellites would all have to have a large fuel source and rocket motors in order to maintain a constant 9.81 m/s upwards acceleration rate.  This requirement would greatly shorten the life of any satellite.  The INMARSAT and the newer KVH TracPhone satellites have been in orbit for years so this invalidates the UA argument in one simple shot.
This isn’t true.
The idea in FET is that the earth “shields” objects on and above it from whatever force it is which causes the acceleration. But that shielding only works up to a certain altitude so if you could get a satellite above that then it would be subject to the same force that the earth is so would accelerate along with the earth and this remain at a constant altitude above it.

I don’t think anything else about geostationary satellites works with the FE model though.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2066
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2021, 01:34:20 AM »
I can understand the fallacy of the earth ‘shielding’ the dark energy.  Mostly the geosynchronous satellites are above the equator.  That would mean the dark energy would have to go around the edge of the earth and come all the way back inside then turn 90 degrees again and provide a push upwards to the satellites.  This push would have to be quite exact to match the upwards acceleration of the earth.  The energy would have to be ‘smart’ as well.  There are different sized satellites up there so the dark energy couldn’t provide a specified push per square foot.  Each push would have to be customized for each individual satellite.  On the trip from the earth’s edge toward the equator the dark energy would have to avoid interacting with all the other satellites up there and the space stations.  Some other mechanism would also be necessary to do the dark energy diversions and that mechanism would also have to be accelerating upwards as well. All these tricks would have to be accomplished without producing any signal interference.  That’s quite a large order and would take a very ‘imaginative’ mind to understand and believe how this could all work. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2021, 03:02:14 AM »
...The idea in FET is that the earth “shields” objects on and above it from whatever force it is which causes the acceleration.
From where is this accelerative [tending to cause acceleration] force sourced?  How is it defined
and what are the values of its constants?  We know that F = ma from Newton's 2nd law.  We know
the mass of the spherical earth (5.972 × 10^24 kg) but we haven't yet, apparently, determined the
mass of the (or 'a') flat earth.  What estimates have been made of the mass of a flat earth, and who
made them, and more importantly, what is that figure?

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But that shielding only works up to a certain altitude so if you could get a satellite above that then it would be subject to the same force that the earth is so would accelerate along with the earth and this remain at a constant altitude above it.
What forms, or could form,  this alleged "shield"?  And why would the shield suddenly open up and
allow so many satellites to return to the earth's surface over many decades?


*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2066
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2021, 03:06:05 AM »
There’s a major problem with geosynchronous satellites under the FET.  Satellites will have different masses when in orbit over the earth.  Even an individual satellite’s mass will change as the fuel aboard burns off to make small position adjustments from time to time.  This means that dark energy will have to somehow adjust its force upwards to maintain the constant 9.81 m/s acceleration rate.  How can the dark energy have the intelligence (or programming) to make these fine adjustments?
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2021, 04:13:59 PM »
Under FET the satellites would all have to have a large fuel source and rocket motors in order to maintain a constant 9.81 m/s upwards acceleration rate.  This requirement would greatly shorten the life of any satellite.  The INMARSAT and the newer KVH TracPhone satellites have been in orbit for years so this invalidates the UA argument in one simple shot.
This isn’t true.
The idea in FET is that the earth “shields” objects on and above it from whatever force it is which causes the acceleration. But that shielding only works up to a certain altitude so if you could get a satellite above that then it would be subject to the same force that the earth is so would accelerate along with the earth and this remain at a constant altitude above it.

I don’t think anything else about geostationary satellites works with the FE model though.

The fuel source would not be required to maintain relative elevation to earth, it would be required to adjust the orbit.  Take the ISS as an example.   On FE, the ISS doesn't simply orbit the pole as the sun and moon do. On a FE, the ISS orbits a point which is itself orbiting around the pole.  Fuel would constantly be required to maintain this orbit about an orbit. (Insert ad-hoc FE explanation here.)
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2066
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2021, 04:57:40 PM »
The INMARSAT and KVH satellites try to remain stationary above a particular location above the earth.  If the earth were flat and accelerating at 9.81 m/s upwards towards the satellite then, in order to maintain a fixed altitude above a specified location, all the geosynchronous satellites would have to accelerate at the same 9.81 m/s.  The energy required to maintain the acceleration could come from fuel aboard the satellite or from the same ‘dark energy’ that powers the earth’s upward acceleration.  Both of these possibilities are not practical or likely. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: geostationary satellites
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2021, 08:06:29 PM »
When I first looked at FE web sites/youtube in 2015, there were a lot of explanations involving fascinating technology. One of them was gps satellites held up by giant invisible balloons. Some FE would propose things like "stratalites", NASA ice wall patrol, etc, and then REs would immediately post many reasons why the explanation failed. The FE explanation was often hilarious, and then REs would enjoy showing off their knowledge and logic.
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".