The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: alex on May 19, 2015, 10:47:37 AM
-
I have one more question:
Does the South Pole exists in the flat earth theory?
If not, what about the people claiming to have been to the South Pole? Do the all deliberately lie on behalf of a great conspiracy?
-
I have one more question:
Does the South Pole exists in the flat earth theory?
If not, what about the people claiming to have been to the South Pole? Do the all deliberately lie on behalf of a great conspiracy?
They were either lieing or mistaken about where they were.
-
So the South Pole does not exist in FET? It would be great if I could get a definite 'yes' or 'no' or 'unknown' from the FES community...
-
What exactly do you mean by "the South Pole"?
This should help you get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_(disambiguation)
-
I am referring to the southernmost point on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole
-
I am referring to the southernmost point on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole
Then no, because south does not converge on a point in FET, at least according to the most widely accepted map of the Flat Earth. It is possible, of course, to construct a map of a Flat Earth such that there does exist such a point, and given that nobody has yet accurately mapped the Earth, it is impossible to give you a definitive answer.
-
However, the place commonly believed to be the South Pole does exist. It's just that its description as "the southernmost point on Earth" is not applicable.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
-
I am referring to the southernmost point on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole
Then no, because south does not converge on a point in FET, at least according to the most widely accepted map of the Flat Earth. It is possible, of course, to construct a map of a Flat Earth such that there does exist such a point, and given that nobody has yet accurately mapped the Earth, it is impossible to give you a definitive answer.
Where is the most widely accepted map and how has it been verified?
-
You'd think that polar explorers trying to ascertain the position of the Geographic South Pole would have noticed the sun not appearing to rotate around their position;
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090921065737AApFBeH
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Spellcheck please.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Spellcheck please.
No low content posting plese!
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
And just why exacley is spaceflite imposibel in the duel earth thoery? All you have do to is make a rockit ship go boom and flys into the sky! So plese tell me o wise won (sarcasim obvz)!
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
Exacley! You can take your telascope owtside and see the sattalites for shentons sake!!! The conspiracey is just a flippin mith and shows the apitame of ignorence. Even are societys fownder amitid that the photos were reel when he said "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool an untrained eye"!
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at. Or even yours.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at. Or even yours.
Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at. Or even yours.
Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.
Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at. Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at. Or even yours.
Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.
Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at. Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.
Sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship
I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at. Or even yours.
Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.
Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at. Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.
Sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship
I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.
We know what they are, I would like you to explain where your satellite dish receives a signal from. Frequency and location please.
As in http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/DirecTV-USA-119W.html Any problems with that?
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at. Or even yours.
Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.
Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at. Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.
Sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship
I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.
We know what they are, I would like you to explain where your satellite dish receives a signal from. Frequency and location please.
As in http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/DirecTV-USA-119W.html Any problems with that?
It receives a signal from one of those entities, in the approximate direction it is faced. I am not capable of walking along radio waves, I'm not sure what else you're expecting.
You understand that the fact space travel is impossible is kept secret, right?
-
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B. Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites. Prove otherwise with verified details. My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish.
This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/ Show it is wrong.
Could you give the location of eg. 119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
If you do not like my reply then please give details of the location dishes in your area are pointing at. Or even yours.
Balloons, towers, aircraft, airships... I don't see why I need to follow radio waves for who-knows how long to show they are not coming from space. You are the one making the claim here, please provide actual proof.
Please provide a link that describes the object your, or someone else's, dish is pointing at. Be it Balloons, towers, aircraft, or airships.
Sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship
I have asked you to provide proof several times already. I am answering your questions, please answer mine. Radios predate space travel.
We know what they are, I would like you to explain where your satellite dish receives a signal from. Frequency and location please.
As in http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/DirecTV-USA-119W.html Any problems with that?
It receives a signal from one of those entities, in the approximate direction it is faced. I am not capable of walking along radio waves, I'm not sure what else you're expecting.
You understand that the fact space travel is impossible is kept secret, right?
Clearly the transmitter has to be stationary relative to the receiver so that rules out the last 3. Dishes point upwards at a 90degree elevation near the equator so that rules out ground based transmitters.
No links about the technology then? What about the lyngsat site?
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
Maybe you just don't understand it.
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.
No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.
No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.
Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.
No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.
Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?
Ask anyone in the industry. You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.
No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.
Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?
Ask anyone in the industry. You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.
They're transmitters. The transmitter isn't important, the vessel is.
If you're not going to answer any of the questions I ask you, why should I answer yours?
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.
No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.
Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?
Ask anyone in the industry. You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.
They're transmitters. The transmitter isn't important, the vessel is.
If you're not going to answer any of the questions I ask you, why should I answer yours?
Please state the actual location of a satellite transmitter you receive.
Not that difficult to calculate the angles and prove them ccrrect based on a round earth.
-
You've been given links about the technology, and all they need to be is relatively stationary, or able to pick up each others' routes, even if what you say is true. There is also no reason it couldn't be more than one of them.
As for lyngsat, you do know that something is not automatically true just because it's on the internet, right?
Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing.
So not one link to details of how your satellite reception works. Must have been difficult for the installer.
I have answered your questions. You could always try paying attention to mine one of these days.
Do you understand that, something high above a flat surface, will be viewed as higher if you assume the surface is curved? The installer is given figures that assume a round earth. On a flat earth, they would point to something in the atmosphere. You haven't even begun to show this isn't the case.
No, the angles only work on a round earth from many locations to geostationary satellites above the equator.
Evidence?
I have also shown why geostationary satellites are absurd. Are you going to respond?
Ask anyone in the industry. You have not provided details of the transmitters you receive with your dish.
They're transmitters. The transmitter isn't important, the vessel is.
If you're not going to answer any of the questions I ask you, why should I answer yours?
Please state the actual location of a satellite transmitter you receive.
How? It takes more than an angle. I'd need a dish which I knew was pointing at the same transmitter, and then even you could calculate it.
So, provide two angles, and a reason to think they're pointing at the same transmitter, and it'll be easy to supply. The problem is you can't be sure that any two dishes are indeed pointing at the same transmitter: some maybe, but then you're just left with a ridiculous amount of trial and error.
The fact is what you're asking is mathematicaly impossible. You should know that.
-
Provide details from a satellite broadcaster. They give locations. eg 119deg west above the equator. 35786km high.
-
Provide details from a satellite broadcaster. They give locations. eg 119deg west above the equator. 35786km high.
Why don't you do it yourself? If it's feasible, and you can be sure two dishes are pointed at the same satellite, it's fairly basic trigonometry. You have the distance between the two, and two angles. You just need to extend the lines and find at what height they meet.
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
Anyway, microwave signals are line of sight. Meaning they do not bend around, the atmosphere has a low impact on them. The wavelength for them is about as wide as a rain drop, hence heavy rainstorms blocking them. They cannot travel through thick trees, and the dish has to be aligned very precisely to obtain a usable signal. If you do not believe me, have someone watch the TV while you just push on the reflector a bit. DO NOT BEND IT too much, try not to knock it off signal.
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).
Actually, geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth. Not to mention the earth's orbit around the sun and the solar system's orbit around the galactic core, etc.
-
True, but stationary as far as the ground receiving point is concerned. So I have chosen a bad wording there then. But my point is that a blimp, balloon, helicopter, etc. cannot maintain an absolutely stationary position relative to the ground for a very long time, especially from a very high altitude with no GPS to help you maintain the position. But hey GPS must be all towers too according to the logic here. I guess none of them have ever been out far away from cell towers in say a desert, or pretty far out into the ocean. I guess GPS doesn't work there... wait a minute, how the hell did my little Garmin know where I was during those times.
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.
If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.
If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.
If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?
The explanations I've seen are ludicrous: hence why I am asking the question. If, as you insist, it's so easy to find a good answer to my questions, why are you incapable of providing one?
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.
If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?
The explanations I've seen are ludicrous: hence why I am asking the question. If, as you insist, it's so easy to find a good answer to my questions, why are you incapable of providing one?
Which ones don't you like?
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
You obviously didn't read my post correcting the poor choice of phrasing there.
Also people answered you all the time, you just flew off the handle when anyone disagreed with you, or showed your failed logic. You just do not get what a discussion is do you. You can not agree and still be responding to a claim. You just never back up any claims you make, we ask you for clarification and you start insulting people's ability to read.
-
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers). Triangulate the signals from different sources. Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector. All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers). Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now? Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer? I think so.
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.
If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?
The explanations I've seen are ludicrous: hence why I am asking the question. If, as you insist, it's so easy to find a good answer to my questions, why are you incapable of providing one?
What makes you think they are ludicrous? I guess you do not accept anything that doesn't involve air not being real, or fairies being a hoax, or clouds being a projection. Unless everything has to do with aether, you do not accept it. I know you say the aether talks to you, sort of, but voices in your head do not count as evidence.
-
Which ones don't you like?
I have explained my reasons in this thread. I am not going to repeat myself for you.
You obviously didn't read my post correcting the poor choice of phrasing there.
I understand frames of references The absurdity with being absolutely sttaionary remains, as I have explained.
we ask you for clarification and you start insulting people's ability to read.
When I have already given the justification, then yes, I will criticize your ability to read: especially if, as often happened, the answer to the questions people were asking was in the very post they were quoting. The fact is, many of you are not remotely interested in FET. You reject what we say on principle, you skim our posts, don't take any of it in, don't consider it, don't think, and either resort to an insult or a stock response in open ignorance of what's been said. So, yes, I did lose my temper quite a bit.
Can we please stop discussing this? It is not relevant and it's clear you've already made up your mind no matter what I (the only person who knows what's happening in my head) say.
What makes you think they are ludicrous?
And this is a perfect example of why I criticize your ability to read.
-
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.' Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.
Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
-
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.' Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.
Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.
What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.
-
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.' Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.
Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.
What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.
Your error bars that you mentioned can easily be corrected though. Please do not mistake difficulty with impossibility.
-
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.' Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.
Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.
What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.
Your error bars that you mentioned can easily be corrected though. Please do not mistake difficulty with impossibility.
I said: "Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing."
Error bars were only one reason: also, by definition, they cannot be corrected for: that's what error bars are, the distance from the expected result. The only way to correct for them constantly would be a near infinite amount of fuel on the satellite.
And the fact is, even if satellites were possible, they wouldn't be used for this: the difficulty in doing so is absurd, for very little gain.
-
Sorry all of that is just hand waving. Details are important in these types of maneuvers and you generalize them to the point of saying nothing meaningful.
Here is a link to a laypersons description of the maneuver:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html
Feel free to discuss details from this. In the meantime, I am going to hunt down a document from the technical standpoint.
-
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.' Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.
Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.
What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.
Your error bars that you mentioned can easily be corrected though. Please do not mistake difficulty with impossibility.
I said: "Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing."
Error bars were only one reason: also, by definition, they cannot be corrected for: that's what error bars are, the distance from the expected result. The only way to correct for them constantly would be a near infinite amount of fuel on the satellite.
And the fact is, even if satellites were possible, they wouldn't be used for this: the difficulty in doing so is absurd, for very little gain.
Your hint is incorrect, as they are being used and as for now you cannot give a valid alternative for them. Geostationary orbits have been explained to you before, yet you do not understand them, we get that. They are outside of the atmosphere, hence little or no friction to slow them, they are moving at a speed that matches the Earths spin, how does this work you say, well if it is moving fast enough in one direction with pretty much zero friction then it will continue to move at that speed. It is also being pulled towards the Earth by gravity, but with the speed it is traveling somewhat perpendicular to the Earth, it basically falls around the Earth. It is only achievable above the equator since it is orbiting in the same direction as the Earth is spinning (geostationary that is).
I would love to see your reasons why this is not achievable without hokey pokey reasoning like the aether will not allow it. Since I have shown you several times how towers/stratellites/balloons won't work for it. I have explained how the signal works since also, showing how it is a line of sight signal, meaning it travels relatively straight with little dispersal.
So please, since I have put the effort into explaining how it works for satellites, show me your vast knowledge about satellite transmissions and how they come from somewhere else.
-
Also further explain your errors bars please. don't just say you have explained them, you have just said it isn't possible. Show me that you know what the hell you are talking about, because right now you are still showing me how stupid you are.
-
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.' Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.
Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.
What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? If the transmitters were anywhere other than the stated satellite positions many people would have found them by measuring the angles.
Clearly accepting the existance of satellites puts an end to the whole flat earth idea, hence the resistance to the fact.
-
Your hint is incorrect, as they are being used and as for now you cannot give a valid alternative for them.
I have given a valid alterative. Until you can explain what's wrong with more than assertion, you cannot reject them.
well if it is moving fast enough in one direction with pretty much zero friction then it will continue to move at that speed.
Do you understand what 'pretty much' means? There is friction, there are external force (such as gravity), and there's the matter of even getting them to the exact altitude at the exact speed: which is going to be impossible to predict from earth because you won't know the details of air currents. If you're off a fraction of a degree, a long-term orbit can't be achieved.
Plus if you really want to go a no friction route, then the satellite should still be ascending upwards, with no friction to stop it: there's no way they could predict the exact speed of the satellite at that exact point enough to give off the exact thrust in the exact opposite direction to prevent that. You rely on the external force of the earth's gravity to somehow do so: which would have a completely different effect depending on the satellite's relative location and velocity. It can't be predicted.
Since I have shown you several times how towers/stratellites/balloons won't work for it
No, you haven't. You apparently don't think balloons can control their altitude or position, that towers can't emit any form of signal (especially given we know signals can bounce off part of the atmosphere, to a tower could provide a signal that seems to come form above), that airships are constantly buffeted by the thinner air at high altitudes enough to knock them completely off course...
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.
If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.
If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.
Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.
If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.
Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.
We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.
If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.
Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.
We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.
No, you are being just as theoretical as everyone else, exept you just asume your theories are facts.
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.
If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.
Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.
We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.
So, yet again, please provide evidence that what we see now could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter. Please stop evading every question I ask.
-
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea. To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.
You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.
How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA? http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287
I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.
If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.
Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.
We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.
So, yet again, please provide evidence that what we see now could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter. Please stop evading every question I ask.
We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations. Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?
As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter. It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.
Please, please show details of equivalent systems if you believe they exist.
-
We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations. Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?
Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.
As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.
Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.
It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.
Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.
-
We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations. Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?
Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.
As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.
Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.
It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.
Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.
We know that an area of coverage of a transponder uses the same frequency for all locations within it. Is there a specification for a multichannel tv SFN which anything other than a single satellite would have to use?
-
We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations. Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?
Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.
As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.
Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.
It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.
Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.
We know that an area of coverage of a transponder uses the same frequency for all locations within it. Is there a specification for a multichannel tv SFN which anything other than a single satellite would have to use?
Are two transmitters incapable of using the same frequency? Why?
-
We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations. Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?
Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.
As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.
Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.
It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.
Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.
We know that an area of coverage of a transponder uses the same frequency for all locations within it. Is there a specification for a multichannel tv SFN which anything other than a single satellite would have to use?
Are two transmitters incapable of using the same frequency? Why?
The same frequency can be used for digital terrestrial broadcasts but this is not what is used for satellite broadcasts, because they come from one transmitter and do not have SFN decoding, unless you can find it in the spec.
OK with measurements from 4 locations for accuracy? Clearly 2 would give a wrong location depending on the shape of the earth so by using 4 or more we can calculate both the shape of the earth and the location of the transmitter.
-
Are two transmitters incapable of using the same frequency? Why?
Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?
(http://buphy.bu.edu/~duffy/PY105/35c.GIF)
-
The same frequency can be used for digital terrestrial broadcasts but this is not what is used for satellite broadcasts, because they come from one transmitter and do not have SFN decoding, unless you can find it in the spec.
None of that explains how we know the signals come from one transmitter. You just assert it.
OK with measurements from 4 locations for accuracy? Clearly 2 would give a wrong location depending on the shape of the earth so by using 4 or more we can calculate both the shape of the earth and the location of the transmitter.
So long as we know the signals come from the same transmitter, as I have said before. Three would be enough: you get three separate measurements.
Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?
Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.
-
Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?
Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.
It's relevant because 2 transmitters sending signals on the same frequency will interfere with each other in very predictable ways. That's why transmitters generally use different frequencies.
-
Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?
Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.
It's relevant because 2 transmitters sending signals on the same frequency will interfere with each other in very predictable ways. That's why transmitters generally use different frequencies.
And how are Single Frequency Networks synchronised?
... using the GPS network...
-
Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?
Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.
It's relevant because 2 transmitters sending signals on the same frequency will interfere with each other in very predictable ways. That's why transmitters generally use different frequencies.
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
-
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
The receiver would have to compensate. Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?
-
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
The receiver would have to compensate. Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?
Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
-
If, if, satellite tv came from balloons or similar you would see dishes pointing in different directions. However in the northern hemisphere they all point southish.
And there might be some documentation explaining how it works...
-
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
The receiver would have to compensate. Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?
Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
Why should there be a conspiracy about how satellite tv works? Who is in on it?
-
If, if, satellite tv came from balloons or similar you would see dishes pointing in different directions. However in the northern hemisphere they all point southish.
And there might be some documentation explaining how it works...
So balloons/airships/towers are to the south. Unless you have some reason why that's impossible, that seems to be a pointless admission.
Establishing it's possible under your worldview is nowhere near enough. You're insisting that this makes Flat Earth Theory impossible: so, why is it impossible for an in-atmosphere system to function? That's the question you need to answer.
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
The receiver would have to compensate. Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?
Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
Why should there be a conspiracy about how satellite tv works? Who is in on it?
The conspiracy is the satellites: space travel. It would likely just be the higher-ups who launch the satellites that are in on it: they know the position, they can compensate. All the mechanisms would be simple to adapt.
-
If, if, satellite tv came from balloons or similar you would see dishes pointing in different directions. However in the northern hemisphere they all point southish.
And there might be some documentation explaining how it works...
So balloons/airships/towers are to the south. Unless you have some reason why that's impossible, that seems to be a pointless admission.
Establishing it's possible under your worldview is nowhere near enough. You're insisting that this makes Flat Earth Theory impossible: so, why is it impossible for an in-atmosphere system to function? That's the question you need to answer.
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
The receiver would have to compensate. Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?
Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
Why should there be a conspiracy about how satellite tv works? Who is in on it?
The conspiracy is the satellites: space travel. It would likely just be the higher-ups who launch the satellites that are in on it: they know the position, they can compensate. All the mechanisms would be simple to adapt.
Any details of any (just one is a start) positions of these objects. Triangulation of dish angles shows satellite positions.
Higher-ups? What about the engineers and scientists who design, build and maintain satellites?
Who builds the other objects? Company name please.
-
I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
How do you know? You seem to not know a lot of things about how this would work, yet claim to know for a fact that it would. This is a big problem.
I know that my satellite dish must point at a very narrow point in the sky. If it moves a mm or two, no reception whatsoever; not a gradient of reception quality, like you get from a radio receiver moving in and out of a reception area. There is no tower or other such land-based fixture in its line of sight, so you can disqualify that notion. I can see no balloons or airships hanging in view either. Perhaps an air borne transmitter would be too small for me to see, but how do you keep it geo-stationary in a turbulent atmosphere? I don't know. How does it stay fuelled? It requires much more fuel to remain airborne in the atmosphere than it would in space. All these land based solutions are incredibly problematic to me Can you answer any of these concerns? Even hypothetically?
-
If, if, satellite tv came from balloons or similar you would see dishes pointing in different directions. However in the northern hemisphere they all point southish.
And there might be some documentation explaining how it works...
So balloons/airships/towers are to the south. Unless you have some reason why that's impossible, that seems to be a pointless admission.
Establishing it's possible under your worldview is nowhere near enough. You're insisting that this makes Flat Earth Theory impossible: so, why is it impossible for an in-atmosphere system to function? That's the question you need to answer.
If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.
The receiver would have to compensate. Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?
Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
Why should there be a conspiracy about how satellite tv works? Who is in on it?
The conspiracy is the satellites: space travel. It would likely just be the higher-ups who launch the satellites that are in on it: they know the position, they can compensate. All the mechanisms would be simple to adapt.
Any details of any (just one is a start) positions of these objects. Triangulation of dish angles shows satellite positions.
Higher-ups? What about the engineers and scientists who design, build and maintain satellites?
Who builds the other objects? Company name please.
Triangulation of dishes pointed at the same transmitter will show the location. How else do you expect me to get an answer?
If you cannot think of any possible way to find an answer to a question, why ask it?
Those who design and build satellites are responsible for the crucial mechanisms. It's compartmentalized: everyone would think someone else was behind the "go to space," section.
This is just speculation, mind you. I am not in on the conspiracy, I do not know the details, why are you acting as though I should?
Many companies make balloons and airships. I do not know which one is employed.
I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.
How do you know? You seem to not know a lot of things about how this would work, yet claim to know for a fact that it would. This is a big problem.
I know that my satellite dish must point at a very narrow point in the sky. If it moves a mm or two, no reception whatsoever; not a gradient of reception quality, like you get from a radio receiver moving in and out of a reception area. There is no tower or other such land-based fixture in its line of sight, so you can disqualify that notion. I can see no balloons or airships hanging in view either. Perhaps an air borne transmitter would be too small for me to see, but how do you keep it geo-stationary in a turbulent atmosphere? I don't know. How does it stay fuelled? It requires much more fuel to remain airborne in the atmosphere than it would in space. All these land based solutions are incredibly problematic to me Can you answer any of these concerns? Even hypothetically?
I do not know the details of how a combustion engine works: I know my car goes.
I do not know the location of a balloon: and they may be clear, or sky-colored, so it would be hard to see. It would not take too much fuel to remain aloft, much less have a small motor to keep it in roughly the same position. Don't forget, satellites are made to be as light as possible: supposedly to make ascesion to space easier. It would not take too much fuel to keep something so light up.
They may be solar powered: in that case, it would keep going. Or perhaps they use wind power, so the more turbulent it is, the easier it will be for them to keep in a fixed location.
-
JRowe - why not make some effort to find the location of a balloon etc. Then come back and tell us where one is.
-
I do not know the details of how a combustion engine works: I know my car goes.
Not really a good comparison. The in-atmosphere system you are talking about is completely clandestine to the point where there is literally no public knowledge about it; I see hundreds of cars working every day and have a decent sense of the overall mechanics of an IC engine. On the other hand, you can not give any firm details on how such a system should work, only the role it needs to fulfill. How do you know such a system is possible and able to remain extremely clandestine?
I do not know the location of a balloon: and they may be clear, or sky-colored, so it would be hard to see.
Sky-coloured? For what conditions in the sky? For what time of day? Clear is out unless you are aware of how to make a transparent radio transmitter.
It would not take too much fuel to remain aloft, much less have a small motor to keep it in roughly the same position.
It would have to run 24 hours a day for long periods of time though.
Don't forget, satellites are made to be as light as possible: supposedly to make ascesion to space easier.
Light being a relative term of course. The GOES-R satellite, a weather satellite weighs 2800kg. More than a car.
It would not take too much fuel to keep something so light up.
So how light is light in this case? 1000kg? 500kg? The details matter when making assertions like this.
They may be solar powered: in that case, it would keep going. Or perhaps they use wind power, so the more turbulent it is, the easier it will be for them to keep in a fixed location.
Well you can discount solar power as it would be reflective at certain angles, greatly reducing the ability for it to remain hidden, remember they need to operate over controlled airspace without detection. Wind power is also unlikely as it could not adjust to turbulence as quickly as you would need since there would be an inefficiency in power transfer.
-
JRowe - why not make some effort to find the location of a balloon etc. Then come back and tell us where one is.
@Jrowe-This is a good idea. You complain about not having resources, but all you would need to do in this case is take a mediocre telescope and scan the extremely small portion of sky that a satellite dish is required to point at to function.
-
JRowe - why not make some effort to find the location of a balloon etc. Then come back and tell us where one is.
I'd need much more information than I currently have: there's quite an area of sky covered by one dish, which a powerful telescope would take ages to cover, likely missing several details: and what would the point be anyway? I couldn't work out any facts about it except "in that general direction," and even if I uploaded a photo you'd insist it was just a regular balloon or airship or whatever. I see no reason to waste time doing something utterly pointless.
How do you know such a system is possible and able to remain extremely clandestine?
I have explained how it is possible, and people are able to keep secrets: so it is possible. The reason I know it is the case, is that it is a consequence of how I know the world to be.
Sky-coloured? For what conditions in the sky? For what time of day? Clear is out unless you are aware of how to make a transparent radio transmitter.
The sky is blue. Clouds will conceal it on other days: and even an approximate colour will make it hard to spot. Sunrise/sunsets are the only time it might be easier to see, but it's hard to make out details then anyway.
It's the balloon that needs to be clear, the radio transmitter would be far too small to spot.
So how light is light in this case?
I don't know, I don't have one sitting in my backyard. Only part of a satellite is required: much of a satellite's weight would be protective casing (from meteors and the like).
Well you can discount solar power as it would be reflective at certain angles
From above. Who cares? You might not have noticed, but we see things in the sky from below. Besides, there wouldn't be too much visible anyway.
Wind power is also unlikely as it could not adjust to turbulence as quickly as you would need since there would be an inefficiency in power transfer.
It could be a combination of both, easy.c
-
JRowe - why not make some effort to find the location of a balloon etc. Then come back and tell us where one is.
I'd need much more information than I currently have: there's quite an area of sky covered by one dish, which a powerful telescope would take ages to cover, likely missing several details: and what would the point be anyway? I couldn't work out any facts about it except "in that general direction," and even if I uploaded a photo you'd insist it was just a regular balloon or airship or whatever. I see no reason to waste time doing something utterly pointless.
How do you know such a system is possible and able to remain extremely clandestine?
I have explained how it is possible, and people are able to keep secrets: so it is possible. The reason I know it is the case, is that it is a consequence of how I know the world to be.
Then look at the direction of a number, more the better, of dish receivers and note the elevation and azimuth. You will then be able to calculate the transmitter location
How can the satellite TV industry not know where the satellite transmitters are?
-
JRowe - why not make some effort to find the location of a balloon etc. Then come back and tell us where one is.
I'd need much more information than I currently have: there's quite an area of sky covered by one dish...
Incorrect. Satellite dishes are parabolic and therefore highly directional. Dishes need to point to within 1 degree of the satellite for best reception. This greatly narrows down the area of sky that needs to be scanned.
-
I have explained how it is possible, and people are able to keep secrets: so it is possible.
It is possible to create Jesus because people can create things. Nice logic.
The reason I know it is the case, is that it is a consequence of how I know the world to be.
Where in "how you know the world to be" is the part where you can be wrong?
-
JRowe - why not make some effort to find the location of a balloon etc. Then come back and tell us where one is.
My step father used to work at an army balloon station in Florida keys. According to what they told him about it, it was used to broadcast TV signals to Cuba. It was a secret place and guarded.
-
Then look at the direction of a number, more the better, of dish receivers and note the elevation and azimuth. You will then be able to calculate the transmitter location
How can the satellite TV industry not know where the satellite transmitters are?
How many times must I repeat the same answer for you to acknowledge and respond to it? This is exactly the reason I left the other site.
We will need to know that the dishes point to the same satellite, and all the satellite industry need to know is direction: there are many points that exist in one direction.
I have said both of these things before.
Incorrect. Satellite dishes are parabolic and therefore highly directional. Dishes need to point to within 1 degree of the satellite for best reception. This greatly narrows down the area of sky that needs to be scanned.
How much sky do you think is covered by one degree, once you go out to a sufficient distance? 'Narrows down' doesn't mean much.
Where in "how you know the world to be" is the part where you can be wrong?
Well that's a completely different topic. I have evidence for my theories, it's as simple as that. That evidence would need to be contradicted or overruled for me to be wrong.
-
<Cut out complaining>
We will need to know that the dishes point to the same satellite, and all the satellite industry need to know is direction: there are many points that exist in one direction.
I have said both of these things before.
Incorrect. If you understand how triangulation works then you would know that you can definitively determine the altitude of a transmitter using three different points.
How much sky do you think is covered by one degree, once you go out to a sufficient distance? 'Narrows down' doesn't mean much.
Using an altitude of 173,000 feet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon), you get an area of sky equal to 7.2 million ft2. Using a telescope with 150X optical zoom, means you would need to reposition your telescope 150 times to cover the entire area. You would obviously want to be thorough, so perhaps you study one area per day. Even if you go back and check everything twice, you still end up spending approximately 1 year scanning the sky in order to unearth the greatest conspiracy suspected to exist. What are you waiting for?
FYI, the answer to how many of these transmitters would be needed to cover the the Earth: 762 at the altitude of 173,000 ft.
I have evidence for my theories, it's as simple as that. That evidence would need to be contradicted or overruled for me to be wrong.
You have no empirical evidence for a clandestine system of intra-atmospheric radio transmitters that perfectly duplicate the operation of a geo-stationary satellite system. To claim otherwise is profoundly dishonest and somewhat contradictory; if you have evidence of it, with no means of unearthing the conspiracy to speak of, in what way is it clandestine?
-
Incorrect. Satellite dishes are parabolic and therefore highly directional. Dishes need to point to within 1 degree of the satellite for best reception. This greatly narrows down the area of sky that needs to be scanned.
How much sky do you think is covered by one degree, once you go out to a sufficient distance?
One degree of sky is about twice the angular diameter of the sun or moon. Wow, such a daunting task for someone committed to finding the truth. ::)
-
Then look at the direction of a number, more the better, of dish receivers and note the elevation and azimuth. You will then be able to calculate the transmitter location
How can the satellite TV industry not know where the satellite transmitters are?
How many times must I repeat the same answer for you to acknowledge and respond to it? This is exactly the reason I left the other site.
We will need to know that the dishes point to the same satellite, and all the satellite industry need to know is direction: there are many points that exist in one direction.
I have said both of these things before.
Incorrect. Satellite dishes are parabolic and therefore highly directional. Dishes need to point to within 1 degree of the satellite for best reception. This greatly narrows down the area of sky that needs to be scanned.
How much sky do you think is covered by one degree, once you go out to a sufficient distance? 'Narrows down' doesn't mean much.
Where in "how you know the world to be" is the part where you can be wrong?
Well that's a completely different topic. I have evidence for my theories, it's as simple as that. That evidence would need to be contradicted or overruled for me to be wrong.
Please give some examples of the information a satellite installer has.
-
Then look at the direction of a number, more the better, of dish receivers and note the elevation and azimuth. You will then be able to calculate the transmitter location
How can the satellite TV industry not know where the satellite transmitters are?
How many times must I repeat the same answer for you to acknowledge and respond to it? This is exactly the reason I left the other site.
We will need to know that the dishes point to the same satellite, and all the satellite industry need to know is direction: there are many points that exist in one direction.
I have said both of these things before.
Incorrect. Satellite dishes are parabolic and therefore highly directional. Dishes need to point to within 1 degree of the satellite for best reception. This greatly narrows down the area of sky that needs to be scanned.
How much sky do you think is covered by one degree, once you go out to a sufficient distance? 'Narrows down' doesn't mean much.
Where in "how you know the world to be" is the part where you can be wrong?
Well that's a completely different topic. I have evidence for my theories, it's as simple as that. That evidence would need to be contradicted or overruled for me to be wrong.
Please give some examples of the information a satellite installer has.
Still waiting.
-
This thread is so far from the OP topic. However this thread has inspired me to make some basic solid models of a Round earth with satellites (specifically Directv satellites) accurate down to a mile in distances, and .01 Degrees.
I'll use my personal home location as one of the points, and I'll pick 3 other positions around the mainland USA. If someone wants to send me (PM please) your home co'ords I'll include them in my model also (the co'ords will not be visible on the model).
The reason I plan to use my home location is so that I can confirm the actual positioning of my DirecTV dish with the declared position based on the DirecTV literature. If those are the same we can assume other will be consistent.
I will build both models without taking any real world measurements. Then I will measure and compare to see which is more accurate. I suspect it will show the RE model to be consistent with real world conditions and claims, but I will not know until I have completed the modeling and can compare it with real world data.
I think this model will be useful in illustrating other points as well.
FE'ers this is your chance to provide me with any data you think should be included in the FE model, as well as any measurements you can provide about DirecTV dishes you might have at home. All I need to know about your position for modeling purposes is your Zip code.
RE'ers this is your chance to provide me with any data you think should be included in the RE model, as well as any measurements you can provide about DirecTV dishes you might have at home. All I need to know about your position for modeling purposes is your Zip code.
I'll probably start another thread once I have the models built so it does not take over this thread.
Thanks to the participants in this thread for inspiring me to some action.
-
I've been in hospital, sorry for the slow reply.
Incorrect. If you understand how triangulation works then you would know that you can definitively determine the altitude of a transmitter using three different points.
Triangulation only works if you know that what each site points towards is the same thing. I have said this before.
You have no empirical evidence for a clandestine system of intra-atmospheric radio transmitters that perfectly duplicate the operation of a geo-stationary satellite system. To claim otherwise is profoundly dishonest and somewhat contradictory; if you have evidence of it, with no means of unearthing the conspiracy to speak of, in what way is it clandestine?
Those would be a consequence of the theory, and not an assumption. There is quite a difference. If space travel is impossible, then satellites do not exist. My evidence is for the fact that space travel is impossible, and it stems from the fundamentals of my theory.
Please give some examples of the information a satellite installer has.
Did you read? They know the direction that the satellite has to face. If you disagree, please share what else they are required to know, and why.
Back from the hospital, and apparently all I need to do is repeat myself. This is getting as tedious as it was on the other site.
-
Triangulation only works if you know that what each site points towards is the same thing. I have said this before.
The thing is you can create an infinite number of required extra transmitters when you assume the dishes are not all receiving from the same point. This is obviously absurd and can be discarded.
Those would be a consequence of the theory, and not an assumption. There is quite a difference. If space travel is impossible, then satellites do not exist. My evidence is for the fact that space travel is impossible, and it stems from the fundamentals of my theory.
I just reread every post of yours in this thread and you have given zero evidence that space travel is impossible. You have given caveats and objections and, I suppose, assume that they are infallible? I don't know. But yeah, no empirical evidence.
Did you read? They know the direction that the satellite has to face. If you disagree, please share what else they are required to know, and why.
Back from the hospital, and apparently all I need to do is repeat myself. This is getting as tedious as it was on the other site.
*yawn*
-
The thing is you can create an infinite number of required extra transmitters when you assume the dishes are not all receiving from the same point. This is obviously absurd and can be discarded.
Can I expect any justification for this assertion? Remember, you have to show that it's necessary, not that some idiot could come up with it. Many homes in the same area could point towards the same stratellite: the slight change in location is irrelevant at these distances.
I just reread every post of yours in this thread and you have given zero evidence that space travel is impossible. You have given caveats and objections and, I suppose, assume that they are infallible? I don't know. But yeah, no empirical evidence.
Of course not in this thread, I did explicitly say that we were getting off topic: even more off topic than we already were. If you want to get onto space travel as a whole, that's a topic for another thread. If you want to talk with me about it, learn about the Dual Earth model. It clearly predicts movement will become nearly impossible the higher you go. (In the Dual Earth thread, there is also a section dedicated to evidence).
When you can respod to my reasoning, rather than blithely assert, I will be happy to discuss this with you. If you are not going to be willing to dedicate any time to reading about the model, then why should I answer your questions if you have no desire to learn?
-
Nah, it looks like you are up to the same old tricks. I think you will be blocked here as well.
-
Nah, it looks like you are up to the same old tricks. I think you will be blocked here as well.
If you're not going to answer my questions, just say so. I answer all of yours.
-
Nah, it looks like you are up to the same old tricks. I think you will be blocked here as well.
If you're not going to answer my questions, just say so. I answer all of yours.
You're pathetically stupid.
"photos from space are fake and it's well-known" - Still for the months y'all can't prove why are they fake instead of just "they look fake and CGI"...
And how is the space travel impossible? You only used "evolution" as a prove, but you can't simply understand that whole evolution concept is based on randomness.
And - Nazis did already fly up to space. If they were at war with whole world, why would they still be in the conspiracy with USA and stuff? Your theories are dumb, admit it. And the only guy who only makes assertions instead of proper evidences are you.
Tak, ty tępy, ssący końskiego kutasa śmieciu.
-
Oh joy. You're here. Learn the Dual Earth model, then you'll see space travel can't happen. Otherwise, try to engage in an actual conversation rather than insulting.
-
Oh joy. You're here. Learn the Dual Earth model, then you'll see space travel can't happen. Otherwise, try to engage in an actual conversation rather than insulting.
Hahaha, I'm not going to learn something that is false. Or... you will finally somehow prove it to be true. Space travel is complitely possible and I don't see anything that makes it impossible. If space travel is in fact impossible, then whole Cold War based on space exploration makes no sense and USA and USSR were good old friends. And that seems... stupid.
No i nie zapominaj o tym, że jesteś szmatławą kurwą.
-
You're pathetically stupid.
Watch the personal attacks LogicalKiler, it's against forum rules.
-
You're pathetically stupid.
Watch the personal attacks LogicalKiler, it's against forum rules.
That's the only way I can call him :P.
-
Hahaha, I'm not going to learn something that is false. Or... you will finally somehow prove it to be true.
How do you know I haven't if you refuse to learn about it?
-
Hahaha, I'm not going to learn something that is false. Or... you will finally somehow prove it to be true.
How do you know I haven't if you refuse to learn about it?
I did read about it, thanks. It saved me a lot of money on my new home. I built a 400 square foot house and simply pumped it full of aether to enjoy 4,000 sq ft of living space. Too bad you didn't patent the aether. You'd be a very rich man.
-
Flat earth exhibits two maps which are said to be "flat earth maps"
The unipolar map depicts Antarctica as the "ice rim".
The bipolar map depicts Antarctica as a continent.
Both are simply really just two different maps made from two different projections of the globe.
These would seem to contradict flat earth theory ?
Of course another FE theory is that a flat earth map of the entire earth has not been produced.
Does the FES also consider well known maps of the continent of Antarctica as fakes, as well as aerial and satellite photographs of Antarctica ?