The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Leopold on April 18, 2017, 12:10:43 PM
-
So I searched the forums and read various threads on this subject but none really answered the question or gave good justifications. My question is, how can you claim that satellites do not exist when we have satellite TV, GPS, and satellite communications?
First of all, the satellite industry is significant, and exists all across the world in both public and private industry. Are you suggesting that all of the hundreds of thousands of people who are/were related to the SATCOM world across numerous countries, some of which are enemies, are all in on the conspiracy, and in that time, not one of them ever outed the industry as a myth? And if it was a lie, and a conspiracy, why intentionally make the market so big for it which would only bring more people into it and therefore make it more likely to be discovered?
Aside from the conspiracy aspect, when I lived in England and we had SkyTV via dish. We lived on a very large hill and our dish was pointed near vertical (within 15 degrees) towards the sky. If we moved the the dish more than 5 degrees in any direction the signal was virtually garbage.
Additionally, anyone who has ever used satellite internet knows that there is latency compared to traditional wired networks. This is because, even though radio waves move at near the speed of light, they still have to travel nearly 45,000 miles (round trip) for the typical GEO satellite. This causes a roughly 500–700 ms from the user to the ISP, or about 1,000–1,400 ms latency for the total round-trip time (RTT) back to the user. Compared to the typical 15-40 ms latency experienced by users of other high-speed Internet services, such as cable or VDSL, a 1 to 1.5 second lag is noticeable. But if satellites aren't real, and the signal doesn't have to travel dozens of thousands of miles, this lag wouldn't exist. And if you want to suggest that someone along the way could be artificially increasing the latency to perpetuate the conspiracy, know anyone on satellite internet could do a trace-route to validate the latency manually
-
Any discussion of satellites needs to show documented details of transmitter locations, essential for receiver alignment. eg for UK Sky 28.2E above the equator in a geosynchronous orbit.
-
Any discussion of satellites needs to show documented details of transmitter locations, essential for receiver alignment. eg for UK Sky 28.2E above the equator in a geosynchronous orbit.
Well I haven't lived there for over four years now, so I couldn't supply that. But speaking purely hypothetically, and you can assume that this scenario is entirely fictitious if that helps, is there any flat earth theory that could explain the scenario I described? I'm not trying to convince other people, I want to know for myself. If you can provide a theory, I would like to hear it. If such a scenario could not co-exist with a flat earth theory, and so the scenario must be fake, I am ok with that response as well, at least then I'll know.
i'm not trying to be scientific, I'm trying to wrap my head around the layers and layers of conspiracy that would have to be present for satellites to not actually exist and hear you guys out on your explanation. The concept is intriguing, but the intrigue seems to die out the more threads I read. I see a trend of when someone asks a difficult question, a single issue with that question is pointed out, no matter how minor, and the entire question is disregarded, even if otherwise valid. And for challenging questions that aren't critiqued, they seem to be outright ignored. Honestly, even an answer of "We don't know, we aren't well funded, we're working on it" would be sufficient, at least it's honest.
At the very least, you have to admit that you are in the absolute tiniest of minorities in this belief. So, whether fair or not, the onus is more on you to defend and prove your claim rather than just disregarding or ignoring questions that question or challenge things in a forum specifically labeled for debate. Overall, for a debate forum, there seems to be little of it present that I can find.
-
They don't need to be well funded to go out and gather some quite simple data. For example, with a consumer grade camera you can document the locations of these satellites. Here is a list of such satellites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit) (may not be complete). You can point a camera at the celestial equator and take a long exposure photo. The stars will form 'star trails' but there will be a few dots that remain fixed. Those are geostationary satellites.
For example:
(https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~1534006.jpg)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)
There's actually a cool demonstration in that gif. You will notice that most of the stationary dots in the frame form a line. This is the celestial equator. There are a couple, however, orbiting off that line. These are satellites orbiting at some inclination to the equator, and therefore are not geostationary, but instead are geosynchronous. They orbit in sync with a given longitudinal line on the moving surface of the earth, but they move north-to-south over the course of each orbit. Several examples are visible in this image. Find Alphasat, in white text on the left and positioned below Eutelsat 25B. Unlike the conga line of the other satellites, Alphasat is A) not in line, and B) obviously moves upwards (north) across the frame. Move to the right a little bit and find Eutelsat 16C, black text. It moves down (south) but not very much, you have to look closely. Find Astra 2D, black text right of center, about 1/3 in from the right side of the frame. This one makes a visible shift downward (south) in the frame. There's another, unidentified satellite that begins near the "0" at the end of the Meteostat 10 label. It also moves south over the course of the gif.
-
Thanks for sharing these photos. I also will often see small white objects that look like stars in the night sky that are moving steadily across the background of stars, which it seems would be satellites in non-synchronous orbits.
I found this reference useful:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/page2.php
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
The calculations for dish alignment are based on a round earth.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
And if satellites are real and are up there in space, then maybe some of the pictures they take are real also:
https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+photos+of+earth&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb1Jfp6q7TAhUH62MKHUPNC00Q_AUIBygC&biw=1496&bih=864#imgrc=4q4oTm18u64dMM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsnlNqcjNeE
Some of the images are so beautiful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UceRgEyfSsc
-
The calculations for dish alignment are based on a round earth.
Yes, and they work exactly as engineered.
-
The calculations for dish alignment are based on a round earth.
Yes, and they work exactly as engineered.
All of this is what I'm talking about. Where's the debate? The only real debate I've seen on these threads are heavy in science, and I'm not a scientist, nor do I care to research in order to contribute to debates out there that are already over my head. But I've seen so much talk by flat earth theorists asking how someone rational cannot see the facts in front of them. Well, here's your chance. For me, satellites are the easiest point of entry to debate, and there are a ton of questions that a layman such as I can ask that no flat earth theorists seem to want to tackle. My impression thus far is that flat earth theorists are quick to jump to point out any flaw in your question (without actually answering it), get bogged down in math to the point where the original question is completely devoid of meaning, or just ignore really simple questions like these, which, if the Earth was flat, should be easy to answer. But given the lack of any counterpoints or debate, how do you expect a rational person to assume anything other than that it is due to no rational explanation existing, and therefore the Earth is in fact round?
-
But given the lack of any counterpoints or debate, how do you expect a rational person to assume anything other than that it is due to no rational explanation existing, and therefore the Earth is in fact round?
Bingo!
Quite apart from the question of their very existence, another problem is observing them (for those FE’ers that don’t dispute their reality, just their trajectory). As you no doubt know they are visible in the sky, but only for a few hours before sunrise and after dark. According to what I understand it’s dark at night because the thickness of the atmosphere cloaks the sun (as it doesn’t set below the horizon), but somehow light is still available to light them (and noctilucent clouds) up.
From a RE perspective this is natural as the height of both the satellites and clouds are such that they would catch light from a sun below the horizon.
-
Excuse me for reviving an old thread, but it's an interesting topic. We know there are satellites up there as we point communications dishes at them (I have first hand experience as a Radio Office on ships in the early days of Inmarsat communications) and they work. You aligned the antenna according to azimuth and elevation charts, and they worked. You can find them on the internet, and Tom doesn't need to question their accuracy as I personally have verified that they work. You can use these charts to calculate the height of the satellite as about 22000 miles, assuming the earth is round. However, if you assume the earth is flat, you can do some simple trig and you'll find the altitude is much much lower. So, on the assumption that the existence of satellites and what we can observe from them on earth (flat or round) doesn't prove the matter either way, can you give me an explanation as to what keeps them up ?
-
So, on the assumption that the existence of satellites and what we can observe from them on earth (flat or round) doesn't prove the matter either way, can you give me an explanation as to what keeps them up ?
That's the big question. Globular earth plus gravity gives a beautifully elegant explanation of why satellites stay up. What's the FE zexplanation?
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
A couple of little question, how big is the balloon that supports the 450 tons of the ISS, how does being suspended below a balloon enable it to keep a precise and predictable track across the sky, and can you direct me to which of the balloon launches in your linked list, shows the ISS launch or any launch with that payload?
Assertions are one thing, evidence is needed to back up those assertions.
Roger
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
A couple of little question, how big is the balloon that supports the 450 tons of the ISS, how does being suspended below a balloon enable it to keep a precise and predictable track across the sky, and can you direct me to which of the balloon launches in your linked list, shows the ISS launch or any launch with that payload?
Assertions are one thing, evidence is needed to back up those assertions.
Roger
Football field size. They are lifted with assistance of cranes
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
A couple of little question, how big is the balloon that supports the 450 tons of the ISS, how does being suspended below a balloon enable it to keep a precise and predictable track across the sky, and can you direct me to which of the balloon launches in your linked list, shows the ISS launch or any launch with that payload?
Assertions are one thing, evidence is needed to back up those assertions.
Roger
Football field size. They are lifted with assistance of cranes
And your proof is ?
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
Do you have any proof of this claim? There are currently over 2000 satellites in orbit - why can't we see these massive balloons? If they are as low as 40k feet, they would be visible. Also, don't forget that that is right in the neighborhood of where airliners fly. (40K) passengers would surely see these massive balloons. Also, most satellites move very rapidly across the sky. Explain how a balloon can do this.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
A couple of little question, how big is the balloon that supports the 450 tons of the ISS, how does being suspended below a balloon enable it to keep a precise and predictable track across the sky, and can you direct me to which of the balloon launches in your linked list, shows the ISS launch or any launch with that payload?
Assertions are one thing, evidence is needed to back up those assertions.
Roger
Football field size. They are lifted with assistance of cranes
OK - so the mass of the ISS is 400 tonnes - and it's 100 meters across - slightly larger than a football field. If they used hydrogen as their "lift gas" (it's lighter than helium). At sea level,it takes about 1 cubic meter of hydrogen to lift 1 kg of payload. So the balloon would need to be at least 400,000 cubic meters. However, at 40,000 feet, where the air is thinner, the balloon needs to be bigger. At the upper limits of balloon capability - they expand to 700 times their launch volume. So the balloon that hold up the ISS would be 280 million cubic meters.
If it's spherical (it would have to be) then it would be about a half a kilometer across!
Now - you can use this site: https://spotthestation.nasa.gov to find a time when the ISS will fly over where you live at a time when you can see it...with your own eyes. It looks like a bright white dot - but if you get some binoculars - you can actually see the shape of the thing. It's like a letter 'H'. That's a 100 meter letter H. Now - where is the half kilometer balloon? There should be a circle above the ISS's "H" shape that's four times bigger.
If the thing isn't at orbital altitude - the balloon would look something close to the size of the moon.
So, no - the ISS isn't held up by balloons...that's a guess - and it's a stupid one.
Aside from anything else - you can see satellite zooming across the sky - much MUCH faster than an airliner...how would something with the drag coefficient and fragility of a balloon possibly be able to move that fast?
Buuuuullllll-shit.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
A couple of little question, how big is the balloon that supports the 450 tons of the ISS, how does being suspended below a balloon enable it to keep a precise and predictable track across the sky, and can you direct me to which of the balloon launches in your linked list, shows the ISS launch or any launch with that payload?
Assertions are one thing, evidence is needed to back up those assertions.
Roger
Football field size. They are lifted with assistance of cranes
OK - so the mass of the ISS is 400 tonnes - and it's 100 meters across - slightly larger than a football field. If they used hydrogen as their "lift gas" (it's lighter than helium). At sea level,it takes about 1 cubic meter of hydrogen to lift 1 kg of payload. So the balloon would need to be at least 400,000 cubic meters. However, at 40,000 feet, where the air is thinner, the balloon needs to be bigger. At the upper limits of balloon capability - they expand to 700 times their launch volume. So the balloon that hold up the ISS would be 280 million cubic meters.
If it's spherical (it would have to be) then it would be about a half a kilometer across!
Now - you can use this site: https://spotthestation.nasa.gov to find a time when the ISS will fly over where you live at a time when you can see it...with your own eyes. It looks like a bright white dot - but if you get some binoculars - you can actually see the shape of the thing. It's like a letter 'H'. That's a 100 meter letter H. Now - where is the half kilometer balloon? There should be a circle above the ISS's "H" shape that's four times bigger.
If the thing isn't at orbital altitude - the balloon would look something close to the size of the moon.
So, no - the ISS isn't held up by balloons...that's a guess - and it's a stupid one.
Aside from anything else - you can see satellite zooming across the sky - much MUCH faster than an airliner...how would something with the drag coefficient and fragility of a balloon possibly be able to move that fast?
Buuuuullllll-shit.
No just no. Find something else to do with your time. You are not very good at this. Unless this is what you get paid to do is to spew Bs on this site
-
No just no. Find something else to do with your time. You are not very good at this. Unless this is what you get paid to do is to spew Bs on this site
Great reply! You really showed him! Still waiting on your proof of these balloons...
-
I thought that was somebody’s talking to Gary !!!
So Gary, where’s your proof. Where’s the photos, where’s your calculations, otherwise I too am going have to cry Bullshit as well.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
A couple of little question, how big is the balloon that supports the 450 tons of the ISS, how does being suspended below a balloon enable it to keep a precise and predictable track across the sky, and can you direct me to which of the balloon launches in your linked list, shows the ISS launch or any launch with that payload?
Assertions are one thing, evidence is needed to back up those assertions.
Roger
Football field size. They are lifted with assistance of cranes
OK - so the mass of the ISS is 400 tonnes - and it's 100 meters across - slightly larger than a football field. If they used hydrogen as their "lift gas" (it's lighter than helium). At sea level,it takes about 1 cubic meter of hydrogen to lift 1 kg of payload. So the balloon would need to be at least 400,000 cubic meters. However, at 40,000 feet, where the air is thinner, the balloon needs to be bigger. At the upper limits of balloon capability - they expand to 700 times their launch volume. So the balloon that hold up the ISS would be 280 million cubic meters.
If it's spherical (it would have to be) then it would be about a half a kilometer across!
Now - you can use this site: https://spotthestation.nasa.gov to find a time when the ISS will fly over where you live at a time when you can see it...with your own eyes. It looks like a bright white dot - but if you get some binoculars - you can actually see the shape of the thing. It's like a letter 'H'. That's a 100 meter letter H. Now - where is the half kilometer balloon? There should be a circle above the ISS's "H" shape that's four times bigger.
If the thing isn't at orbital altitude - the balloon would look something close to the size of the moon.
So, no - the ISS isn't held up by balloons...that's a guess - and it's a stupid one.
Aside from anything else - you can see satellite zooming across the sky - much MUCH faster than an airliner...how would something with the drag coefficient and fragility of a balloon possibly be able to move that fast?
Buuuuullllll-shit.
No just no. Find something else to do with your time. You are not very good at this. Unless this is what you get paid to do is to spew Bs on this site
Wow! An impressive rebuttal of my math...er...not.
-
I thought that was somebody’s talking to Gary !!!
So Gary, where’s your proof. Where’s the photos, where’s your calculations, otherwise I too am going have to cry Bullshit as well.
The ISS may not be as big as they claim. The only way to prove any of this is through having a top secret clearance and a need to know basis. In other words we are all wasting time with calcs.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
Surely he does not really believe this. Really.... You just....I mean....Nope. You can not really believe this.
It is so hard to figure out what is going on here on this site. I can never tell if the post and person posting is just trolling, or an actual believer of the Flat Earth. I am convinced that this Forum has to be just Round Earth proponents, but some take to trolling, and some take to answering.
I wish you could all see how hard I hit my forehead with my hand when I read the balloon thing. Come on... There are some silly things about Flat Earth, but giant balloons. LOL.... I must of missed that explanation in the Wiki.
-
Surely he does not really believe this. Really.... You just....I mean....Nope. You can not really believe this.
It is so hard to figure out what is going on here on this site. I can never tell if the post and person posting is just trolling, or an actual believer of the Flat Earth. I am convinced that this Forum has to be just Round Earth proponents, but some take to trolling, and some take to answering.
I wish you could all see how hard I hit my forehead with my hand when I read the balloon thing. Come on... There are some silly things about Flat Earth, but giant balloons. LOL.... I must of missed that explanation in the Wiki.
Yes, it does seem difficult to believe that someone could actually be this ignorant and stupid. This is also sounding very similar to a thread I had with someone claiming that GPS used balloons.
I am really starting to get back in the mindset that no one here actually believes the Earth is flat, just screwing around and trolling. If that is the case, I really don't understand why someone would actually find it to be amusing enough to be worth the effort to build a website and start populating it with BS.
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
Satellites are real and you do not have the need to know basis of the truth behind satellites. Yes your company may manufacture the satellites and think they are being "launched" into orbit but that is not really true. They are not in space but are typically kept in the sky by very large hydrogen balloons. They range in elevation between 40,000 to 80,000 feet in the air.
Here is one of the stations where balloon launches occur. Look at the bottom for schedule of past launches. http://stratocat.com.ar/bases/37e.htm
Please note the MIR launches which are pieces of the ISS which is also on a balloon.
Surely he does not really believe this. Really.... You just....I mean....Nope. You can not really believe this.
It is so hard to figure out what is going on here on this site. I can never tell if the post and person posting is just trolling, or an actual believer of the Flat Earth. I am convinced that this Forum has to be just Round Earth proponents, but some take to trolling, and some take to answering.
I wish you could all see how hard I hit my forehead with my hand when I read the balloon thing. Come on... There are some silly things about Flat Earth, but giant balloons. LOL.... I must of missed that explanation in the Wiki.
People belive some crazy stuff. From religion to shape shifting lizard aliens.
-
Yeah, giant hydrogen balloons really takes the biscuit. As people have already said, the position of satellites is very precise, and balloons get blown by the winds. Especially really big balloons. You’d see the balloons above the satellites, especially big satellites like the ISS. Hydrogen balloons have a limited life. The hydrogen weeps through the membrane (think how quickly a helium party balloon goes flat) so they have a limited life span. Some satellites have been up there for well over 10 years.
Top secret security clearance on a need to know basis is the sort of phrase a 10 year old comes out with.
You can go and watch satellite launches. You can go and see these huge, expensive rockets being launched yourself. Why would anybody put on a ridiculously expensive stage show, then go and dangle their satellite off a balloon.
-
For some reason, flat Earther's must feel better about themselves by coming up with an explanation. Regardless of how stupid and implausible.
-
Yeah, giant hydrogen balloons really takes the biscuit. As people have already said, the position of satellites is very precise, and balloons get blown by the winds. Especially really big balloons.
I will suggest looking up how much wind there is at the edge of the atmosphere.
You’d see the balloons above the satellites, especially big satellites like the ISS. Hydrogen balloons have a limited life. The hydrogen weeps through the membrane (think how quickly a helium party balloon goes flat) so they have a limited life span. Some satellites have been up there for well over 10 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/6y1qnu/this_1985_balloononastick_that_has_never_lost_its/
Top secret security clearance on a need to know basis is the sort of phrase a 10 year old comes out with.
You can go and watch satellite launches. You can go and see these huge, expensive rockets being launched yourself. Why would anybody put on a ridiculously expensive stage show, then go and dangle their satellite off a balloon.
Because they need to fake the concept of space travel in order to achieve military dominance. Did you think NASA was started at the birth of the Cold War to conduct innocent science?
-
Yeah, giant hydrogen balloons really takes the biscuit. As people have already said, the position of satellites is very precise, and balloons get blown by the winds. Especially really big balloons.
I will suggest looking up how much wind there is at the edge of the atmosphere.
You’d see the balloons above the satellites, especially big satellites like the ISS. Hydrogen balloons have a limited life. The hydrogen weeps through the membrane (think how quickly a helium party balloon goes flat) so they have a limited life span. Some satellites have been up there for well over 10 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/6y1qnu/this_1985_balloononastick_that_has_never_lost_its/
Top secret security clearance on a need to know basis is the sort of phrase a 10 year old comes out with.
You can go and watch satellite launches. You can go and see these huge, expensive rockets being launched yourself. Why would anybody put on a ridiculously expensive stage show, then go and dangle their satellite off a balloon.
Because they need to fake the concept of space travel in order to achieve military dominance. Did you think NASA was started at the birth of the Cold War to conduct innocent science?
1. It doesn’t matter how much wind there is up there, it’s getting them to the right place in the first place. Wind on the way up !
2. Reddit.com ? Not exactly a reliable source of evidence
3. Of course NASA was a key player during the space race which was part of the Cold War. However, why every country (with space technology) participate in this charade ? The Cold War is over !
-
1. It doesn’t matter how much wind there is up there, it’s getting them to the right place in the first place. Wind on the way up !
And you don't think it's possible to put some mode of transporation on there?
2. Reddit.com ? Not exactly a reliable source of evidence
It is a pretty striking example.
3. Of course NASA was a key player during the space race which was part of the Cold War. However, why every country (with space technology) participate in this charade ? The Cold War is over !
Incorrect. The Cold War never ended. Look at the proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia. Vladimir Putin himself says that it never ended (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1336669).
-
1. Possible, yes. Practical, no. Why do you think air ships have never become a practical form of transport ?
2. You can’t cite a single photo on Reddit.com as evidence when you poo-poo timeanddate.com
3. The question was why does every country participate in the charade. China for example ? They aren’t involved in the Cold War.
-
Because they need to fake the concept of space travel in order to achieve military dominance. Did you think NASA was started at the birth of the Cold War to conduct innocent science?
Please tell me, how does one achieve military dominance by faking space travel?? The soviets were ahead of us in the space race and would have known that we were full of shite. Once again, you make an unsubstantiated claim that makes zero sense.
-
It's ridiculous - no matter what - it takes roughly a cubic meter of hydrogen or helium to lift a kilogram of "stuff". At altitude, that expands to 700 cubic meters.
So - 700 cubic meters...for ONE kilogram.
That means that for ANY satellite, the associated balloon would be VASTLY bigger than the satellite. You can see satellites whizzing overhead with the naked eye...if they had vast balloons attached to them (and especially if they were as low as FE'ers seem to be implying) - you'd see them VERY clearly - they'd be larger than a jet airplane looks to be. We'd see HUNDREDS of large round objects drifting across the sky all the time.
We don't see that.
Ergo there are no satellites held up with balloons.
Do the maths, crazy FE people!
-
Yeah, giant hydrogen balloons really takes the biscuit. As people have already said, the position of satellites is very precise, and balloons get blown by the winds. Especially really big balloons.
I will suggest looking up how much wind there is at the edge of the atmosphere.
You’d see the balloons above the satellites, especially big satellites like the ISS. Hydrogen balloons have a limited life. The hydrogen weeps through the membrane (think how quickly a helium party balloon goes flat) so they have a limited life span. Some satellites have been up there for well over 10 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/6y1qnu/this_1985_balloononastick_that_has_never_lost_its/
Top secret security clearance on a need to know basis is the sort of phrase a 10 year old comes out with.
You can go and watch satellite launches. You can go and see these huge, expensive rockets being launched yourself. Why would anybody put on a ridiculously expensive stage show, then go and dangle their satellite off a balloon.
Because they need to fake the concept of space travel in order to achieve military dominance. Did you think NASA was started at the birth of the Cold War to conduct innocent science?
Please provide proof of your claims. Burdon of proof is on you.
-
Because they need to fake the concept of space travel in order to achieve military dominance. Did you think NASA was started at the birth of the Cold War to conduct innocent science?
So did everyone believe the Earth was flat before NASA was founded in 1958 to start the conspiracy?
-
1. It doesn’t matter how much wind there is up there, it’s getting them to the right place in the first place. Wind on the way up !
And you don't think it's possible to put some mode of transporation on there?
What sort of transportation can push a big balloon at 17,000 mph for years?
Incorrect. The Cold War never ended. Look at the proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia. Vladimir Putin himself says that it never ended (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1336669).
I agree with Tom Bishop. Hell hath frozen over.
-
1. It doesn’t matter how much wind there is up there, it’s getting them to the right place in the first place. Wind on the way up !
And you don't think it's possible to put some mode of transporation on there?
What sort of transportation can push a big balloon at 17,000 mph for years?
Incorrect. The Cold War never ended. Look at the proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia. Vladimir Putin himself says that it never ended (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1336669).
I agree with Tom Bishop. Hell hath frozen over.
The balloons are never in orbit - they are floating at 80,000 to 120,000 feet in the air. Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification. The balloons when observed during daytime look like a shiny silver dollar.
-
The balloons are never in orbit - they are floating at 80,000 to 120,000 feet in the air. Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification. The balloons when observed during daytime look like a shiny silver dollar.
Please cite the source for the technical details listed here.
-
The balloons are never in orbit - they are floating at 80,000 to 120,000 feet in the air. Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification. The balloons when observed during daytime look like a shiny silver dollar.
Please cite the source for the technical details listed here.
And photographic evidence of these balloons looking like shiny silver dollars
-
Stare at the supposed ISS live feed for a few days straight on Red Bull. I guarantee you that you will never see one of the supposed 1000's of satellites up there. Why?
They're FAKE !
-
1. It doesn’t matter how much wind there is up there, it’s getting them to the right place in the first place. Wind on the way up !
And you don't think it's possible to put some mode of transporation on there?
What sort of transportation can push a big balloon at 17,000 mph for years?
Incorrect. The Cold War never ended. Look at the proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia. Vladimir Putin himself says that it never ended (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1336669).
I agree with Tom Bishop. Hell hath frozen over.
The balloons are never in orbit - they are floating at 80,000 to 120,000 feet in the air. Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification. The balloons when observed during daytime look like a shiny silver dollar.
Why not 40,000-80,000 feet anymore? Have you done some more research or did you realize your initial guess was retarded?
-
Stare at the supposed ISS live feed for a few days straight on Red Bull. I guarantee you that you will never see one of the supposed 1000's of satellites up there. Why?
They're FAKE !
They are widely spread out, mostly moving in the same general direction, not at each other, and they are fairly small. Oh yeah, and space is kind of big.
-
1. It doesn’t matter how much wind there is up there, it’s getting them to the right place in the first place. Wind on the way up !
And you don't think it's possible to put some mode of transporation on there?
What sort of transportation can push a big balloon at 17,000 mph for years?
Incorrect. The Cold War never ended. Look at the proxy war in Syria between the US and Russia. Vladimir Putin himself says that it never ended (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1336669).
I agree with Tom Bishop. Hell hath frozen over.
The balloons are never in orbit - they are floating at 80,000 to 120,000 feet in the air. Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification. The balloons when observed during daytime look like a shiny silver dollar.
Yeah, you're a troll. Before you said 40-80K, once that became obviously not possible, you switched to 80-120K. And I'm not seeing any shiny silver dollars in the sky, so....
-
Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification.
Like a telescope, maybe? Good thing there are lots of people with telescopes capturing the ISS (https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/07/photographer-catches-space-station-transiting-the-moon/) when it transits in front of the moon.
(http://assets.cdn.spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/03184837/Station_Moon_transit.jpg)
And other people (well, probably the SAME people) doing the same thing (http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_transit_2010.html) during solar transits.
(http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_2010_crop.jpg)
You know what nobody ever sees? Balloons!
-
Even if such a balloon existed and were invisible, how can it go 30 times faster than a jetliner?
-
Cool pics Rounder, like the second one. Obviously an older pic while the shuttle was still in service.
-
https://www.space.com/38766-jpss1-weather-satellite-launch-success.html
A polar-orbiting satellite with data transmission. First of 4. Data should help with more accurate weather predictions. Actual data to be processed by NOAA.
-
Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification.
Like a telescope, maybe? Good thing there are lots of people with telescopes capturing the ISS (https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/07/photographer-catches-space-station-transiting-the-moon/) when it transits in front of the moon.
(http://assets.cdn.spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/03184837/Station_Moon_transit.jpg)
And other people (well, probably the SAME people) doing the same thing (http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_transit_2010.html) during solar transits.
(http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_2010_crop.jpg)
You know what nobody ever sees? Balloons!
I couldn't stop laughing at these two pics. I'm telling you, drink enough kool-aid, snort enough chemtrails and you will believe this stuff. 1/2 of society is borderline tarded. I've been to walmart.
-
Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification.
Like a telescope, maybe? Good thing there are lots of people with telescopes capturing the ISS (https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/07/photographer-catches-space-station-transiting-the-moon/) when it transits in front of the moon.
And other people (well, probably the SAME people) doing the same thing (http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_transit_2010.html) during solar transits.
You know what nobody ever sees? Balloons!
I couldn't stop laughing at these two pics. I'm telling you, drink enough kool-aid, snort enough chemtrails and you will believe this stuff. 1/2 of society is borderline tarded. I've been to walmart.
Do you have anything constructive to say, or do you insist on flooding all these posts with your nonsensical postings?
-
Nothing is in orbit ever. If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification.
Like a telescope, maybe? Good thing there are lots of people with telescopes capturing the ISS (https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/07/photographer-catches-space-station-transiting-the-moon/) when it transits in front of the moon.
And other people (well, probably the SAME people) doing the same thing (http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_transit_2010.html) during solar transits.
You know what nobody ever sees? Balloons!
I couldn't stop laughing at these two pics. I'm telling you, drink enough kool-aid, snort enough chemtrails and you will believe this stuff. 1/2 of society is borderline tarded. I've been to walmart.
Do you have anything constructive to say, or do you insist on flooding all these posts with your nonsensical postings?
I'm not the one that flooded the thread with the biggest joke pictures in the world. How could the mods allow such a thing? he he You might as well just pasted on some little cartoon figures of pluto and elmo chasing him. Those are funnier than Bugs Bunny reruns.
-
I'm not the one that flooded the thread with the biggest joke pictures in the world.
Oh goody, J-Child’s mommy gave him/her back his/her internet privileges.
The problem I knew I was facing when I posted those images: that they are not easy for a skeptic to attempt to duplicate. (Not that J-Child seems likely to try, having rejected them a priori) The equipment required is not inexpensive, and it requires some effort and planning to be in the right place, at the right time, telescope aimed at the right spot, etc. Much easier to mock and ridicule. The strength of those images, however: they come from all over the globe, from people unaffiliated with any of the evil acronyms, and anyone who is honestly seeking the truth CAN duplicate them. Sure, the required telescope and camera aren’t cheap, but they’re not super expensive either, a couple hundred bucks could set you up. It’s not like the “lasers off the moon reflector” test, for example, which cannot be done with consumer grade equipment.
-
I'm not the one that flooded the thread with the biggest joke pictures in the world.
Oh goody, J-Child’s mommy gave him/her back his/her internet privileges.
Plenty of sources online to find when ISS is visible from any location and some will tell you when to see it move in front of the moon or sun. Anyone who actually wanted to learn could just go see for themselves. Some people are not interested in anything other than making stupid trolling comments. You just have to ignore them, except when you find responding to be entertaining.
Speaking of which, there was a great video on YT of a guy that did the math and went to a spot where ISS would be visible crossing the sun during the August 2017 eclipse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4)
-
I'm not the one that flooded the thread with the biggest joke pictures in the world.
All you need is a pair of cheap binoculars - I'm sure you could borrow a pair if you don't own them - check that website for the dates and times when ISS will be overhead - and look with your own eyes. The ISS usually crosses the sky over a period of 3 to 5 minutes in the early evening, when you look in the right direction at the right time, it's unmistakable because it's moving faster than anything else in the sky.
You can easily make out the "H" shape of the solar panels and confirm that there is not a balloon half the size of the moon attached to it.
If you're going to claim something as outrageous as this - and you're not prepared to go out and simply look at the sky on the right evening - then your random guesswork and opinions are worth precisely nothing. Why devalue your own intellect to this degree? Do you really WANT people to think you're stupid...because that's how it's looking right now.
It's like someone claiming that all cows are purple with pink and blue spots - and then refusing to believe a photo of a cow that someone shows them - and absolutely refusing to go out and look into a nearby field where black and white cows are clearly standing. Someone who did that could be justifiably called "stupid". This is EXACTLY what you're doing.
All FE'ers should go look at the ISS through binoculars one evening and ask themselves how something so profoundly un-aerodynamic could be possibly be moving at the speed it clearly moves.
Or maybe you just don't want to see it? Like my granddaughter sticking her fingers into her ears and singing "La-la-la-la-laaa...not listening" when we tell her it's bedtime.
-
All you need is a pair of cheap binoculars - I'm sure you could borrow a pair if you don't own them - check that website for the dates and times when ISS will be overhead - and look with your own eyes. The ISS usually crosses the sky over a period of 3 to 5 minutes in the early evening, when you look in the right direction at the right time, it's unmistakable because it's moving faster than anything else in the sky.
You can easily make out the "H" shape of the solar panels and confirm that there is not a balloon half the size of the moon attached to it.
If you're going to claim something as outrageous as this - and you're not prepared to go out and simply look at the sky on the right evening - then your random guesswork and opinions are worth precisely nothing. Why devalue your own intellect to this degree? Do you really WANT people to think you're stupid...because that's how it's looking right now.
It's like someone claiming that all cows are purple with pink and blue spots - and then refusing to believe a photo of a cow that someone shows them - and absolutely refusing to go out and look into a nearby field where black and white cows are clearly standing. Someone who did that could be justifiably called "stupid". This is EXACTLY what you're doing.
All FE'ers should go look at the ISS through binoculars one evening and ask themselves how something so profoundly un-aerodynamic could be possibly be moving at the speed it clearly moves.
Or maybe you just don't want to see it? Like my granddaughter sticking her fingers into her ears and singing "La-la-la-la-laaa...not listening" when we tell her it's bedtime.
I wish we could pin that response, sums up so much so well.
If he took your advice and saw the ISS, he would probably claim NASA hacked his binoculars.
-
All FE'ers should go look at the ISS through binoculars one evening and ask themselves how something so profoundly un-aerodynamic could be possibly be moving at the speed it clearly moves.
Or maybe you just don't want to see it? Like my granddaughter sticking her fingers into her ears and singing "La-la-la-la-laaa...not listening" when we tell her it's bedtime.
Ah, this would be the same sort of situation where I repeated asked Tom to stick his head out of his window and check the validity of dateandtime.org for himself by watching the time of sunset. I don't think he ever responded to that suggestion.
-
All FE'ers should go look at the ISS through binoculars one evening and ask themselves how something so profoundly un-aerodynamic could be possibly be moving at the speed it clearly moves.
Or maybe you just don't want to see it? Like my granddaughter sticking her fingers into her ears and singing "La-la-la-la-laaa...not listening" when we tell her it's bedtime.
Ah, this would be the same sort of situation where I repeated asked Tom to stick his head out of his window and check the validity of dateandtime.org for himself by watching the time of sunset. I don't think he ever responded to that suggestion.
Yes - exactly. These are very desperate people - trying SO hard to maintain this one theory that they are prepared to shut their minds to the hundreds of crazy things they have to say to defend it.
-
Question about satellites : If they are real and you have over 10k satellites in space which mean that they are easy to make and easy to place them in orbit for their desire purpose .... so then tech giant like google why they will invest in loon project ?? why not google will make one time satellites which do job and no maintenance free too , LOL , mostly NASA do maintenance on ISS inside under water pools but never seen any other company did maintenance on their so called satellites ?
https://x.company/loon/
-
This thread made me join. haha.
Good question OP. I'm a communications tech. I work for a top 10 defense contractor that manufactures satellites and launches them from the Space Coast. Basically, the satellite acts as a repeater. The transmission comes from our earth stations, include voice and data, and transmitted to the satellite which then streams the data (repeats) back towards earth, where a properly pointed dish can receive. The dishes typically are able to send/receive data and the communication to/from the satellite and earth station is two-way, bi-directional.
I have installed commercial dishes for end users (gov't, military, gas and oil rigs, ships). I assure you that they work when pointed correctly at the sky, and don't work if they're just inches off. There's an entire procedure involved in pointing and setting a dish as well as math helps on getting the angles correct. Once linked up, I can send test messages to a Network Ops Center where a tech verifies my data and sends me out a test reply which I also verify.
I also work with microwave (ground to ground stations), fiber, central office, network, PSPC radio, backbone, etc. I'm a tech, not an engineer, so my 25 years of experience involves the installation and maintenance of comm equipment. My work involves correctly pointing, provisioning, and testing large scale wireless communication devices.
FE'rs need to work this info into their model somehow, because satellites exist and are in use all over our flat earth. There's no need to be afraid to admit that they are real.
i have few Question , i will be thankful if you could explain it for me ,
1 ) so you people make satellites , am wondering which material you people use for casing , in thermosphere temperature is 1500 ~ 2000 Celsius , so how it can with stand that much of temperature ?
2 ) In theory there can not be heat transfer in space because its empty nothing there , to transfer heat , so when these satellites are hit by sun rays they will heat up and their temperature should be raising because there is nothing in space where heat could be transfer , so how you people keep it cool ?
3 ) also how you people are lunching satellite in orbit ? i guess rocket will go up and acquire desire speed and then it need to release satellite from its bay in allocated orbit , correct ? so Question is how rocket can acquire speed in space ? because we know newton 3rd law action and reaction , in space there is only one body which is rocket there is no second body to react like on ground we have that air which push planes etc , so how that propulsion is possible in vaccum ? also according to thermodynamics expansion of gases in vaccum result zero work , because nothing to displace ...
4 ) so these satellites all are geostationary or what ? because you said if their is inch difference in alignment it will not work , so you have satellite in orbit which is in motion and ball earth is also in motion , so for dishes alignment the satellite should be in sync 100% with ball earth speed if there is even 0.1% difference in speed , theoretically the alignment should be effected and it suppose to be keep increasing...
sorry for bad english , and too many question , hope i will get answers , thanks
-
Question about satellites : If they are real and you have over 10k satellites in space which mean that they are easy to make and easy to place them in orbit for their desire purpose .... so then tech giant like google why they will invest in loon project ?? why not google will make one time satellites which do job and no maintenance
Several reasons, actually
- Start with cost. Each satellite costs millions of dollars to build, more millions to launch, and can never be touched again. Right now, each of Google's balloons cost tens of thousands of dollars to fly, but as Google pushes its research forward, that price will likely go down. So even at today’s higher-than-it-will-be price, you can fly literally thousands of balloons for the price of EACH satellite.
- End with purpose. The job Loon is doing is completely different from the job satellites are doing. Loon is providing “last mile” access to the internet. You simply cannot provide that from space. Loon connects local, on-the-ground users to the bigger system, users who don’t have equipment capable of transmitting all the way to a satellite. It’s like asking “we already have eighteen wheelers, why would anybody need roller skates?”
-
i have few Question , i will be thankful if you could explain it for me ,
1 ) so you people make satellites , am wondering which material you people use for casing , in thermosphere temperature is 1500 ~ 2000 Celsius , so how it can with stand that much of temperature ?
While the thermosphere is very hot, there is very little heat transfer due to the very thin atmosphere.
2 ) In theory there can not be heat transfer in space because its empty nothing there , to transfer heat , so when these satellites are hit by sun rays they will heat up and their temperature should be raising because there is nothing in space where heat could be transfer , so how you people keep it cool ?
In space, heat does not transfer like it does on Earth as you mentioned. It is transferred via radiation. (think high energy particles coming from the sun) I think temps swing from roughly -250 to + 250 degrees.
3 ) also how you people are lunching satellite in orbit ? i guess rocket will go up and acquire desire speed and then it need to release satellite from its bay in allocated orbit , correct ? so Question is how rocket can acquire speed in space ? because we know newton 3rd law action and reaction , in space there is only one body which is rocket there is no second body to react like on ground we have that air which push planes etc , so how that propulsion is possible in vaccum ? also according to thermodynamics expansion of gases in vaccum result zero work , because nothing to displace ...
You do not understand Newton's 3rd law. There is no need to displace or push against anything. Thrust is caused by particles leaving the propulsion device. When a particle accelerates away from the exhaust nozzle, an equal/opposite force is applied to the ship. That is what provides the thrust.
4 ) so these satellites all are geostationary or what ? because you said if their is inch difference in alignment it will not work , so you have satellite in orbit which is in motion and ball earth is also in motion , so for dishes alignment the satellite should be in sync 100% with ball earth speed if there is even 0.1% difference in speed , theoretically the alignment should be effected and it suppose to be keep increasing...
Millions of people have aligned their satellite dishes with little difficulty. Satellite TV has been around for decades and works just fine. Accuracy of alignment probably comes down to how the signal is being broadcast.
-
Well this thread is a huge dumpster fire, with the ISS being held in the sky with giant magic indestructible invisible balloons hurtling across the sky at unfathomable speeds with unlimited amounts of fuel and propulsion, people refusing to use a set of binoculars and people claiming images that anyone could take are fake.
Just another day on the internet.
-
https://twitter.com/NASA_TESS/status/974373998204157954 (https://twitter.com/NASA_TESS/status/974373998204157954)
Video of some conspirators (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy) at work?
-
Stare at the supposed ISS live feed for a few days straight on Red Bull. I guarantee you that you will never see one of the supposed 1000's of satellites up there. Why?
They're FAKE !
Actually found this recent video where they faked it again. It's horrible to watch. I mean fast forward to 1:25:41, you can see they have placed a string of satellites in 'space'. So funny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdjCwo6d3Q
-
Actually found this recent video where they faked it again. It's horrible to watch. I mean fast forward to 1:25:41, you can see they have placed a string of satellites in 'space'. So funny!
So ... do you think Iridium (and SpaceX's other named customers, such as Orbcomm, Thaicomm, the US Military, NASA, etc.) are;
1 Being fooled by SpaceX?
2 In on the fakery, too?
3 Other
???
-
Stare at the supposed ISS live feed for a few days straight on Red Bull. I guarantee you that you will never see one of the supposed 1000's of satellites up there. Why?
They're FAKE !
Actually found this recent video where they faked it again. It's horrible to watch. I mean fast forward to 1:25:41, you can see they have placed a string of satellites in 'space'. So funny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdjCwo6d3Q
So you're insisting that since these satellites are in view of each other, but the ISS is not in view of any other satellites, that these both must be fake?
Naturally, if a single launch puts several satellites in orbit, it will place them in very similar places with very similar velocities. They are within view of each other because they were put up at the same time by the same launch in the same place. They stay near each other because they all have the same altitude and thus orbit at the same rate in the same direction. Satellites are often put up in groups like this because it is far cheaper than using an additional rocket launch for each one.
The ISS, on the other hand, was assembled from several launches, none of which, to my knowledge, contained parts for any other satellites. The ISS was a big project; I don't think they had any room for unrelated satellites. The ISS can see no fellow satellites because it was not near anything else to begin with, and the probability of it just happening to pass near enough another one to see it and have the other one pass in front of a running video camera is incredibly slim. Remember that LEO satellites are dispersed over an area slightly bigger than the surface area of the entire Earth, and that most are travelling in a similar direction with a similar speed (eastward at about 30,000 km/hr).
-
Looking at the probability of encountering other satellites, if you could wander around up there at random ....
Radius of Earth = 6378km, Orbital height of ISS = 408km, Total radius of a sphere at this height = 6786km (R)
Surface area of a sphere at ISS height = 4*pi*R squared = 578,385,438 sq km
No of operational & defunct satellites = approx 3700
Therefore;
Average area for each satellite (assuming all at ISS height) = 156,320 square km, or a square of almost 400km side length, IF they were all at this height.
But they're not. Height differences between orbits can be hundreds of km. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy Tesla went out to around 6,950km before leaving Earth orbit
Even if we assume them all at the same height with an average size of 5 metres on each side, then each is a target of 0.025 sq km within that 156,320 square km ...... or 0.000016% of the available space. Not surprisingly, they are easy to miss.
Space is big. Really big.
-
So you're insisting that since these satellites are in view of each other, but the ISS is not in view of any other satellites, that these both must be fake?
They posted a pic of supposedly the next 10 (https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/974744947780935686 (https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/974744947780935686)). I think they are just using the same pic over and over.
-
They posted a pic of supposedly the next 10 (https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/974744947780935686 (https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/974744947780935686)). I think they are just using the same pic over and over.
Why would you expect to be able to differentiate between them?
Is it any different from looking at cars coming off a production line? Without seeing the chassis number, options list, etc, how would you tell one from the other (assuming the same paint colour)