### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - Mickey Mouse

Pages: [1]
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: South Pole
« on: June 08, 2015, 02:16:06 AM »
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.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: South Pole
« on: June 08, 2015, 02:14:14 AM »
'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.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: South Pole
« on: June 07, 2015, 06:36:29 PM »
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?

Quote
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.

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.

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: South Pole
« on: June 07, 2015, 06:33:25 PM »
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?

Quote
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.

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: South Pole
« on: June 07, 2015, 01:56:06 AM »
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.

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The results of my experiment to prove the shape of the Earth
« on: June 07, 2015, 12:19:21 AM »
Lack of integrity?  Why.  Reading over the entire thread, we see where he explained exactly what was done to the photos.  Then offered many times to redo the experiment including any FE supporters, yet no one would do so.  The data in the experiment shows that the face of the sun as seen from two spots very far from each other (on at sunrise and one at sunset), was the same.  This using the two bigger sunspots, means that it is far enough away as to the distance apart that the two photos were taken from had no change in the suns face.  Meaning it is very far away.  If the sun is very far away, the entire FE hypothesis falls apart.  This is why you seek to discredit him, and are unwilling to perform the experiment again.  Clear troll tactics.  Are there any real FE supporters out there really?  So far all I see are trolls.

Side note, I am glad to see this site get more traffic as of late.  I have been lurking a bit.  Perhaps you will not need to reform with the other site.

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: DIY Coriolis demo
« on: June 07, 2015, 12:09:27 AM »
The sad part is no flat Earther will understand why they did it in a swimming pool.  They do not understand things like controls to remove outside influences.  Or why they let them sit for an entire day to try to cut out any motion left over from the filling of the pool.

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The beach experience; Habemus Casum
« on: June 07, 2015, 12:04:41 AM »
I have.  You are wrong.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: South Pole
« on: June 07, 2015, 12:03:52 AM »
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.

Pages: [1]