International Space Station
« on: May 16, 2020, 03:42:20 AM »
With even a simple telescope, it's possible to see the international space station zoom through the sky, if only for a moment. The outline is very clear, and depending on the quality of the optics, atmospheric conditions, etc., quite a lot of detail can be made out.
This, on top of the fact that you can get the precise location of it at any given time, is pretty damning evidence for a flat earth.


How does the flat earth hypothesis explain the consistency of the ISS orbit and the easily obtained details when viewed through a telescope?
If not in orbit, it is propelled by a force other than gravity, and if so, what is this force? There needs to be at least three forces at work for it to rotate in a circle above the plane. And upward force to keep it suspended, and at a minimum two forces to move it in a circular fashion. Conventional fuel burning would need eventual refueling, which doesn't occur.

It cannot be a mere weather balloon as I've seen suggested by some FE'rs, and I don't think any explanation given by flat earth hypothesis will follow the Zetetic method, but I hope to be shown otherwise!

Also, the myriad other satellites need an explanation although it's usually harder to discern visual details on them, given their various respective sizes and distances from the earth.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2020, 04:10:45 PM »
How does ISS stay in orbit ? How do you know how far away it is when you see it pass by ?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2020, 04:19:58 PM »
How does ISS stay in orbit ? How do you know how far away it is when you see it pass by ?

It stays in orbit the same way anything else does, by being boosted fast enough to enter a stable orbit. There is a complication with it being so low that the atmosphere slows it down, so it has to boost itself up a bit every now and then.

You can see exactly how high it is at any one time live here - https://www.astroviewer.net/iss/en/

I've taken pictures of the ISS many times, good enough to see the solar panels and the main body. Usually because it's not directly overhead the distance was 300-400 miles.

If you want to see it for yourself you can see when it will be passing overhead - https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/

I have yet to see a coherent FE theory on what the ISS is, or how it stays up there. Once you see it with your own eyes it's clear it's not a weather balloon or someone shining a laser pointer on the dome.

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2020, 04:20:11 PM »
How does ISS stay in orbit ? How do you know how far away it is when you see it pass by ?

Several questions were just asked of FE with respect to the ISS. Your response is then to ask questions of RE. This implies:

a) you do not have answers to the questions, and so you are trying to

b) shift the burden of proof

Fine with me! I accept the implication that you lack these answers. But feel free to correct me :)

Answers to YOUR questions:

By gravity.

One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2020, 04:38:27 PM »


One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance? 

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2020, 04:56:43 PM »


One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance?

No parallax. Hard to explain without math.

Gravitational force keeps ISS in centripetal acceleration. You can express that in terms of its speed. Speed can be expressed in terms of the time period.

Then by knowing the radius of the earth, that’s gives you the altitude.
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2020, 05:04:32 PM »


One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance?

No parallax. Hard to explain without math.

Gravitational force keeps ISS in centripetal acceleration. You can express that in terms of its speed. Speed can be expressed in terms of the time period.

Then by knowing the radius of the earth, that’s gives you the altitude.

You did a great job of explaining without math!   I had to read it twice, but I think I get it.  Thanks!

So, the elements needed would be to know how much gravitational force there is (I guess the gravitational constant?), how fast the satellite is going, the size of the earth, and with all of these elements, there's basically only one altitude it could be at?


Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2020, 05:55:34 PM »


One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance?

No parallax. Hard to explain without math.

Gravitational force keeps ISS in centripetal acceleration. You can express that in terms of its speed. Speed can be expressed in terms of the time period.

Then by knowing the radius of the earth, that’s gives you the altitude.

You did a great job of explaining without math!   I had to read it twice, but I think I get it.  Thanks!

So, the elements needed would be to know how much gravitational force there is (I guess the gravitational constant?), how fast the satellite is going, the size of the earth, and with all of these elements, there's basically only one altitude it could be at?

The only variables you need numbers for are: Earth radius, time period, Earth mass, Newton’s gravitational constant.

What I have explained previously is really just how you derive kepler’s third law. A quick google if you are interested.

This explanation holds for circular orbits, but also describes the semi major axis for elliptical orbits. Since ISS orbit has rather low eccentricity, the difference between its semi major and minor axes are small.
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2020, 06:03:06 PM »
How does ISS stay in orbit ? How do you know how far away it is when you see it pass by ?

Several questions were just asked of FE with respect to the ISS. Your response is then to ask questions of RE. This implies:

a) you do not have answers to the questions, and so you are trying to

b) shift the burden of proof

Fine with me! I accept the implication that you lack these answers. But feel free to correct me :)

Answers to YOUR questions:

By gravity.

One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Gravity will pull it to earth . Gravity does not provide centripetal acceleration. Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

You have no  independent way of proving what you say . Angular velocity doesn't give you distance. It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

Even Kepler couldn't explain where he derived his "laws" from. They are not natural laws.

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2020, 06:19:07 PM »
Gravitational constant does not change, but the radius in the gravity equation could change if the orbit was more like an oval. The laws themselves are natural, but we don’t know why they are the way they are. There’s another inverse law equation for electromagnetism, just with a different constant and units. Science seems to easily explain the how, like through these equations, but has a difficult time explaining the why. Just because you don’t know the why doesn’t mean you certainly don’t know the how.

Now you’re saying it’s a hologram because the ISS really does seem to be explained by the simple explanations laid out in this thread. You have a preconceived notion or subconscious assumption that things like the ISS exists to trick you, and you must cover that belief with some explanation, all while also tricking yourself that your logic is justified by extreme scrutiny of others’ explanations through “the zetetic method”.

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2020, 06:25:14 PM »
I think somerled may be correct.  Its a plane.  Its been travelling at over 7 km per second since 1998.  Need to get me some of that fuel. 

Or a balloon.  A really aerodynamic, pointy, balloon. 

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2020, 06:50:32 PM »
I think somerled may be correct.  Its a plane.  Its been travelling at over 7 km per second since 1998.  Need to get me some of that fuel. 

Or a balloon.  A really aerodynamic, pointy, balloon.

Yeah you watched it all the way eh . Angular velocity tells you nothing about distance .

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2020, 07:25:28 PM »
Gravity will pull it to earth . Gravity does not provide centripetal acceleration. Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

You have no  independent way of proving what you say . Angular velocity doesn't give you distance. It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

Even Kepler couldn't explain where he derived his "laws" from. They are not natural laws.

You have zero evidence it's a plane, balloon or whatever. You are literally saying you have no idea what it is, but are very sure it's something else. With nothing to back it up.

If it was a balloon it would have to be moving at a minimum of 2,500mph and even you would have to admit no balloon can go that fast.

The gravitational constant does not change, that's why it's a constant. It would be very helpful if you educated yourself on the theories you are trying to disprove.

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2020, 07:28:26 PM »
I think somerled may be correct.  Its a plane.  Its been travelling at over 7 km per second since 1998.  Need to get me some of that fuel. 

Or a balloon.  A really aerodynamic, pointy, balloon.

Yeah you watched it all the way eh . Angular velocity tells you nothing about distance .

Have you ever herd of a derivative

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2020, 08:18:11 PM »
How does ISS stay in orbit ? How do you know how far away it is when you see it pass by ?

Several questions were just asked of FE with respect to the ISS. Your response is then to ask questions of RE. This implies:

a) you do not have answers to the questions, and so you are trying to

b) shift the burden of proof

Fine with me! I accept the implication that you lack these answers. But feel free to correct me :)

Answers to YOUR questions:

By gravity.

One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Gravity will pull it to earth . Gravity does not provide centripetal acceleration. Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

You have no  independent way of proving what you say . Angular velocity doesn't give you distance. It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

Even Kepler couldn't explain where he derived his "laws" from. They are not natural laws.

This is in disagreement with history, with every physics textbook I have personally read, and fundamental physics.

Since you requested an independent verification of what I said, I googled derivation of kepler’s third and below find the first return from a university:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/KeplersLaws.htm

These topics are covered in Undergraduate physics courses all over the world. If you wish, I can extend my list of references if you wish to cross reference.

Now. You claim all of this is false. Can you please provide sources that back up your claim?

I would also be happy to reference Kepler’s original writings on this subject, if you wish to pursue your claim that “he didn’t know where he derives his laws from.” I happen to own a copy :)
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 08:20:41 PM by BRrollin »
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: International Space Station
« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2020, 09:32:15 PM »
Gravity will pull it to earth

It will try to.
Throw a stone horizontally and it will land some distance in front of you.
Fire a bullet and it will land much further from you.
If two people did those things at the same time then which would hit the ground first, the stone or the bullet?
It’s counter intuitive but they’d hit the ground at the same time (ignoring air resistance and assuming the bullet doesn’t go far enough that the earth’s curve is a significant factor.)
They hit at the same time because gravity pulls both of them to earth at the same rate, the bullet goes further because it is going faster and so can travel horizontally further in the time.

What if you had a more powerful gun which shot the bullet faster? It would go further still. Now, if you imagine we live on a globe (I know, but humour me) then the ground would slope away from you. Let’s ignore hills and mountains. You should be able to see that if you shoot the bullet fast enough then the bullet would never land, it would fall but as it falls the ground slopes away. Get the speed right and it would go all the way around the earth (assuming it maintains a constant speed so ignoring air resistance). That is how orbit works.

Quote
Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

Here you have quite succinctly shown you don’t understand English or science.
An oxymoron is two adjacent words which contradict one another. These do not.
The Gravitational constant is, as the name suggests, constant. The gravitational force the earth exerts in a body is not constant.

Quote
It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

And where is your evidence for that?
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 BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2020, 11:30:43 PM »
Gravity will pull it to earth

It will try to.
Throw a stone horizontally and it will land some distance in front of you.
Fire a bullet and it will land much further from you.
If two people did those things at the same time then which would hit the ground first, the stone or the bullet?
It’s counter intuitive but they’d hit the ground at the same time (ignoring air resistance and assuming the bullet doesn’t go far enough that the earth’s curve is a significant factor.)
They hit at the same time because gravity pulls both of them to earth at the same rate, the bullet goes further because it is going faster and so can travel horizontally further in the time.

What if you had a more powerful gun which shot the bullet faster? It would go further still. Now, if you imagine we live on a globe (I know, but humour me) then the ground would slope away from you. Let’s ignore hills and mountains. You should be able to see that if you shoot the bullet fast enough then the bullet would never land, it would fall but as it falls the ground slopes away. Get the speed right and it would go all the way around the earth (assuming it maintains a constant speed so ignoring air resistance). That is how orbit works.

Quote
Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

Here you have quite succinctly shown you don’t understand English or science.
An oxymoron is two adjacent words which contradict one another. These do not.
The Gravitational constant is, as the name suggests, constant. The gravitational force the earth exerts in a body is not constant.

Quote
It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

And where is your evidence for that?

I’ll add that you can compute the muzzle speed needed to put a bullet in orbit if fired horizontally:

v=/sqrt{GM/R}

This neglects air resistance, which would kill that orbit very quickly.
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2020, 07:30:31 AM »
Gravity will pull it to earth

It will try to.
Throw a stone horizontally and it will land some distance in front of you.
Fire a bullet and it will land much further from you.
If two people did those things at the same time then which would hit the ground first, the stone or the bullet?
It’s counter intuitive but they’d hit the ground at the same time (ignoring air resistance and assuming the bullet doesn’t go far enough that the earth’s curve is a significant factor.)
They hit at the same time because gravity pulls both of them to earth at the same rate, the bullet goes further because it is going faster and so can travel horizontally further in the time.

What if you had a more powerful gun which shot the bullet faster? It would go further still. Now, if you imagine we live on a globe (I know, but humour me) then the ground would slope away from you. Let’s ignore hills and mountains. You should be able to see that if you shoot the bullet fast enough then the bullet would never land, it would fall but as it falls the ground slopes away. Get the speed right and it would go all the way around the earth (assuming it maintains a constant speed so ignoring air resistance). That is how orbit works.

Quote
Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

Here you have quite succinctly shown you don’t understand English or science.
An oxymoron is two adjacent words which contradict one another. These do not.
The Gravitational constant is, as the name suggests, constant. The gravitational force the earth exerts in a body is not constant.

Quote
It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

And where is your evidence for that?

The gravitational constant ,big G , is not constant . Do some research. Start here if you wish . Article from New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24180-strength-of-gravity-shifts-and-this-time-its-serious/

There's loads more on tinterweb .

Watched the ISS plane fly over last night 11.40pm. Ridiculously bright for an object 250mls or so away . Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

Are there orbital parameters for iss that allow for the alledged spin of the earth ? Surely it must be constantly accelerating ?

Earth travels around the sun , according to theory , at 66,600mph, devilish number that . Now that is 18.5 miles per second or 30kms .Iss travels at 7kms we are led to believe . How does it keep up ? How does it maintain its orbit? How do the geostationary satellites ,thousands of miles away , cope with earths motions ? There is no wonder it took a scifi writer to dream up such nonsense or nonscience.

There is no magic velocity ,in globe theory , that allows a satellite to orbit a planet , it either escapes or is pulled back to earth .
If there is ,where is the magic formula?




*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2020, 12:10:51 PM »
The gravitational constant ,big G , is not constant . Do some research. Start here if you wish . Article from New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24180-strength-of-gravity-shifts-and-this-time-its-serious/
That's just a news article speculating, it's not a paper.  You can find all sorts of things in the tinterweb.

I'm going to point you to the The Round Earth Wiki for where to find answers to all your questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant


Watched the ISS plane fly over last night 11.40pm. Ridiculously bright for an object 250mls or so away . Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection


Are there orbital parameters for iss that allow for the alledged spin of the earth ? Surely it must be constantly accelerating ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed


Earth travels around the sun , according to theory , at 66,600mph, devilish number that . Now that is 18.5 miles per second or 30kms .Iss travels at 7kms we are led to believe . How does it keep up ? How does it maintain its orbit? How do the geostationary satellites ,thousands of miles away , cope with earths motions ? There is no wonder it took a scifi writer to dream up such nonsense or nonscience.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+satelites+stay+up&oq=how+do+satelites+stay+up

Also, the Number of the Beast is 616 according to the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. The value of 666 is likely a translation error.

There is no magic velocity ,in globe theory , that allows a satellite to orbit a planet , it either escapes or is pulled back to earth .
If there is ,where is the magic formula?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: International Space Station
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2020, 12:15:04 PM »
Gravity will pull it to earth

It will try to.
Throw a stone horizontally and it will land some distance in front of you.
Fire a bullet and it will land much further from you.
If two people did those things at the same time then which would hit the ground first, the stone or the bullet?
It’s counter intuitive but they’d hit the ground at the same time (ignoring air resistance and assuming the bullet doesn’t go far enough that the earth’s curve is a significant factor.)
They hit at the same time because gravity pulls both of them to earth at the same rate, the bullet goes further because it is going faster and so can travel horizontally further in the time.

What if you had a more powerful gun which shot the bullet faster? It would go further still. Now, if you imagine we live on a globe (I know, but humour me) then the ground would slope away from you. Let’s ignore hills and mountains. You should be able to see that if you shoot the bullet fast enough then the bullet would never land, it would fall but as it falls the ground slopes away. Get the speed right and it would go all the way around the earth (assuming it maintains a constant speed so ignoring air resistance). That is how orbit works.

Quote
Gravitational constant , oxymoronic name, changes with altitude according to the inverse square law and pulls to the centre of mass or so the theory goes.

Here you have quite succinctly shown you don’t understand English or science.
An oxymoron is two adjacent words which contradict one another. These do not.
The Gravitational constant is, as the name suggests, constant. The gravitational force the earth exerts in a body is not constant.

Quote
It 's a plane, balloon satellite, or whatever lighter than air craft they want to wow you with . It's a hologram maybe. It isn't what OP thinks it to be.

And where is your evidence for that?

The gravitational constant ,big G , is not constant . Do some research. Start here if you wish . Article from New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24180-strength-of-gravity-shifts-and-this-time-its-serious/

There's loads more on tinterweb .

Watched the ISS plane fly over last night 11.40pm. Ridiculously bright for an object 250mls or so away . Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

Are there orbital parameters for iss that allow for the alledged spin of the earth ? Surely it must be constantly accelerating ?

Earth travels around the sun , according to theory , at 66,600mph, devilish number that . Now that is 18.5 miles per second or 30kms .Iss travels at 7kms we are led to believe . How does it keep up ? How does it maintain its orbit? How do the geostationary satellites ,thousands of miles away , cope with earths motions ? There is no wonder it took a scifi writer to dream up such nonsense or nonscience.

There is no magic velocity ,in globe theory , that allows a satellite to orbit a planet , it either escapes or is pulled back to earth .
If there is ,where is the magic formula?

The value G MAY not be constant. But this is speculative if you read the article carefully.

You are mistaken. There is such a velocity: v=\sqrt{GM/r}, which was given in the post above your reply.

Why do you think satellites care about the earth spinning? Do you suspect there is a force exerted by a spinning object? Does the earth care that the sun spins?

It is difficult to reply properly when your statements are vague. What does it mean for satellites to “cope” with earth’s motions?
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey