The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 03:42:33 PM
-
...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?
-
...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?
Maybe because they are in different orbits?
Why would you put a space station in a similar orbit to other objects which could destroy he ISS with a collision? It was probably thought of in advance, and is called careful planning.
What evidence do you have that the ISS is faked, as is the hoax about satellites?
Very often we get asked to prove a statement made, so I challenge you to prove irrefutably that they are hoaxes.
-
Because most of them are fairly small and they're spaced out hundreds of miles apart, so you can't see them with the naked eye from the ISS.
-
...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?
Because the ISS is in a LOW orbit, with its viewing window, the cupola, facing toward Earth. Thus, the viewing window is facing AWAY from any satellite in a higher orbit.
Because, even though some may be in closer orbits, there's still millions upon millions of cubic kilometres, on average, between them.
Do the maths. Calculate the volume of space available between low orbit and high orbit. Divide that by the number of active satellites, or even by total number of trackable objects.
End result is millions of cubic kilometres, on average, for each.
They're all out of camera range.
-
ISS orbits at 408 km in the sky. The majority of satellites orbit in medium or high Earth orbits, putting them 20,000+ km above the Earths surface. Why would you expect to see any of these sats in a picture of Earth taken from the ISS?
That said, I recall someone pointing out capture of a low orbit sat once or twice, but at the speeds both the sat and ISS are traveling, their meeting time would be very short, and odds of capture within the ISS camera feed unlikely. You aren't going to put a sat up there that could conceivably have a course that takes it regularly too close to the only thing up there with people in it after all.
-
...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?
Have you heard of Google? It took me 2 minutes to find the answer to this although others have covered it already
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-ISS-photos-show-any-of-the-thousands-of-satellites-orbiting-Earth-Is-it-a-matter-of-being-in-different-orbits
-
Search YouTube for "Soyuz GoPro", and there's oodles of videos of Soyuz approaching, moving around, and departing the ISS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxRYICJ9PgE
-
Most satellites are in orbits above the ISS. The ISS is in one of the lowest possible orbits. No cameras on the ISS point "out," they all show Earth.
Satellites are relatively small. Most working ones are the size of a car or so, maybe a bit smaller. Some are really big and the size of a bus. A lot of satellites, and nearly all debris, are smaller than a 1'x1' cube.
Space is VERY big. Like, CRAZY big. The distance between one satellite and its nearest could be several dozen kilometers. There's no way you'll ever see that satellite.
If most are above the ISS, and kinda small, and very, VERY far away, why should you see it?
Can you see people from a plane that's only 10 km up? Almost certainly not, unless you have a telescope or something. In fact, most vehicles aren't visible from that height. Objects the same size that could be dozens or hundreds (or even thousands) of kilometers away will be impossible to see.
-
I was hoping to find a streak of a satellite on time exposure/composites like this one, but I came up empty:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2251.html
I did find a photo of a meteor from the ISS, it's pretty impressive.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/18526403794_369738e1a9_o.jpg
It would be very difficult to get such a picture, Pickel, but it shouldn't be impossible, just not something anybody has intentionally set out to do.
-
When Plane Wave Media can seemingly "pick a satellite, any satellite", and capture it from Earth, why would there be any need at all for the ISS to do so?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYlsrBVhvng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG7gF1POfjY
-
Do the maths.
Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.
-
Do the maths.
Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.
OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...
Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km
(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)
Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;
(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339 cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007
Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669
Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =
2,906,465,742 cubic km each
-
Let's be absolutely as generous as we can be. Unrealistically so. Let's pretend all the satellites are on the surface of earth. How far apart would they be?
Surface area of a sphere: 4 pi r2
Radius of earth = 6,371km so the surface area of earth is, roughly:
4 x 3.14 x 6371 x 6371 = 509805890.96 square km.
There are more than 21,000 objects larger than 10 cm orbiting the Earth.
Source: https://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/
509805890.96 / 21000 = 24276.47
Square root of that is 155.8, so if they were evenly spaced they would each have a square of length 155km to themselves.
Now, they're probably not evenly spaced but the point is even in that completely unrealistic scenario there would be plenty of room.
There are lots of them but the space they occupy is very, very big.
-
Also if you think a large proportion will be geostationary, ie over the equator, for communications, and these are clustered around the equator, whereas the space station is not in a geostationary orbit, so misses a lot of them most of the time.
A lot of ther satellites are pretty small, so trying to see something small at a few hundred kilometres is hard, particularly if the sun is not reflecting off of it from solar panels etc.
They would likely be lost against the background stars, apart from different movement of course.
However there are plenty of shots and video and pictures of the space shuttle capturing and also launching, and servicing satellites. But i guess these are all from Nasa so are propaganda from the arch enemy..........
-
...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?
Engaging in rationalization - conjecture and speculation. Not sure if wise for proper flat earther.
But what I see and observe when I take-off in my plane, has always amazed me. At airport many many planes. As soon as you in the air - no planes to be seen! We pilots say Sky is big. Some call Big Sky theory.
Anyway I don't think you'll get very far with this as round earth assumptions obviously have something even bigger than the sky that objects are in - the assumed space of hundreds of kilometers above earth.
Think answers above prove my point that this not really good topic to enage in as flat earther.
-
Do the maths.
Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.
OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...
Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km
(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)
Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;
(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339 cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007
Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669
Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =
2,906,465,742 cubic km each
And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory where the globalists had no answer.
-
Do the maths.
Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.
OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...
Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km
(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)
Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;
(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339 cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007
Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669
Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =
2,906,465,742 cubic km each
And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory where the globalists had no answer.
Now hang on, friend.
how exactly does this mean an FE win? 2 billion cubic kilometers apart on average, plus them being difficult to see against the darkness of space, plus the overpowering reflected glow of the earth, makes for a difficult photo. If you're saying that's an absurd measurement, you do realize how large the earth is, right? Not only that, but we're operating on a sphere up to 6.9 thousand kilometers higher than that. It's a large area.
-
how exactly does this mean an FE win? 2 billion cubic kilometers apart on average ...
I think he meant...
[SARCASM]And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory ...[/SARCASM]
-
Understood. Carry on.
-
This argument is often raised for "space junk" too... There's about 30,000 objects 10cm or greater. Even if they all orbit at the same distance as the ISS, if they area all spread out evenly around the earth then each bit gets an area roughly the size of new jersey to itself. But space junk is mostly 800km above the earth, twice as high as the ISS... but i guess to be fair some times the ISS takes photos "upwards" or across the earth which would include areas of space above it's orbit... but still... New Jersey.
Out of 3600 functional satelites, 500 are in low earth orbit. The rest are at least 19,000km above the earth.. so whats the chances the ISS will see something the size of a satellite 18,600km away? Plus, that's only 3100 objects... so that's 10 New Jersey's as it is, but the height is greater, so that's an area about the size of Alaska, Texas, and California combined... per satellite. So good luck catching that out the window of the ISS on a Nikon D4!
But the 500 in low earth orbit... well, that's about one satellite for an area twice the size of Texas.
So why hasn't the ISS taken photos of satellites? Well it probably has: they would call those days "really really lucky days"
-
You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.
-
Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede?
-
...ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?
Have you any idea of how many satellites are in space, the distances between them and the speeds they are traveling at? The very fact you are asking the question demonstrates your severe lack of knowledge of that area.
-
Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede?
There is literally no reason to make this post. It adds nothing to the thread. If that is what you think it means, then great. If you want to shitpost, do it in AR/CN. Warned.
-
Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede?
This actually annoys me. Please stop things like these.
-
Since no FE'ers have replied, does this mean they concede?
There is literally no reason to make this post. It adds nothing to the thread. If that is what you think it means, then great. If you want to shitpost, do it in AR/CN. Warned.
I beg to differ, in a discussion with two opposing parties it is essential to know if the proof laid out by one party fully satisfies the other. Do they feel that they are wrong (and said information proves them wrong) or do they feel the argument presented isnt relevent to the discussion and hence do not reply. The question is concede or back off. If it is concede then no further proof is necessary, if unanswered because (A) they feel it irrelevant or (B) They didnt understand it or thought it was a pile of brown stuff, then more discussion is required. I hope that explains the point. If I recieve no answer, then let me know if it is for reason (A) or (B) or that you concede.
-
I did not mean to annoy anyone. I just wanted some FE'ers to post. It is boring to see a on side discussion.
-
I did not mean to annoy anyone. I just wanted some FE'ers to post. It is boring to see a on side discussion.
I see your point.
-
You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.
I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?
-
You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.
I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?
I thought you had to be further up to be "in orbit"
-
The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.
-
The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.
Well what about how when a satellite dips below the horizon, then rises from the opposite. On a globe that would work, but not on a flat plane.
-
You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.
I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?
No, because airplanes don't travel at orbital speeds, they don't follow Kepler's laws, and they don't stay in the air indefinitely. That said, airplanes CAN prove the world is round using flight times.
-
The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.
Well what about how when a satellite dips below the horizon, then rises from the opposite. On a globe that would work, but not on a flat plane.
Planes can dip below the horizon and end up on the opposite side. They're not in orbit, so why is a satellite?
You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.
I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?
No, because airplanes don't travel at orbital speeds, they don't follow Kepler's laws, and they don't stay in the air indefinitely. That said, airplanes CAN prove the world is round using flight times.
Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.
Also, plans would follow Kepler's laws, if they existed, since Kepler's laws would govern the orbit of the Earth, which would govern airplanes. If they magically don't follow Kepler's laws, then perhaps you should explain why.
-
The idea that you can see something from the ground, regardless of its distance, does not prove in any way that it is in some kind of orbit around a globe.
... but the behaviour of the ISS, when observed from the ground, does. Just seeing it doesn't. What you see when you do see it does.
-
Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.
You mean the airlines themselves, and the hundreds of passengers on each flight who rely on their being on time? I would think that they'd be reliable.
Also, planes would follow Kepler's laws, if they existed, since Kepler's laws would govern the orbit of the Earth, which would govern airplanes. If they magically don't follow Kepler's laws, then perhaps you should explain why.
Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.
-
Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.
Also, plans would follow Kepler's laws, if they existed, since Kepler's laws would govern the orbit of the Earth, which would govern airplanes. If they magically don't follow Kepler's laws, then perhaps you should explain why.
How about flight distances corroborated by ships? And people on ships who actually measure the distances from one place to another? Our distances verify the flight distances.
-
have a look at these 2 images and make the connection
-
We do see satellites cross in front of the moon, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h5XprYoLho
I don't know what the "star" is in the first picture, but I'd be interested in an original source for that image if you have it.
-
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
-
If that's a star in the first picture, then where are the others which belong in the same constellation? The observer DID establish which constellation they were looking at, didn't they? Or at least record date/time of observation?
Or is that not the point you're trying to make?
-
Planes can dip below the horizon and end up on the opposite side. They're not in orbit, so why is a satellite?
First of all, nice job admitting planes dip below the horizon! Also, nice job admitting satellites exist. Because if a satellite wasn't in orbit, how would it stay up? Ever heard of gravity much? Or is it just "heavy"? Being in orbit allows the satellite to continuously fall towards the Earth, but at an angle so that it never crashes down to Earth. Airplans on the other hand, were built to fly, giving them their own propulsion.
-
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
-
Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.
If planes aren't in orbit than RET is wrong, because in RET everything is always in orbit around something else. In RET, a plane would be in orbit around the Sun, just like the rest of the Earth. How are you supposed to defend RET if you don't even understand your own rules?
Planes can dip below the horizon and end up on the opposite side. They're not in orbit, so why is a satellite?
First of all, nice job admitting planes dip below the horizon! Also, nice job admitting satellites exist. Because if a satellite wasn't in orbit, how would it stay up? Ever heard of gravity much? Or is it just "heavy"? Being in orbit allows the satellite to continuously fall towards the Earth, but at an angle so that it never crashes down to Earth. Airplans on the other hand, were built to fly, giving them their own propulsion.
If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up? It has its own propulsion, and so do your supposed "satellites" and yes, things do dip below the horizon, but only as an optical illusion. The horizon as it is understood in RET doesn't actually exist.
-
I'm confused, why does it dip below the horizon and it's an optical illusion, mind elaborating on this concept?
-
If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up? It has its own propulsion, and so do your supposed "satellites" and yes
Are helicopters in orbit?
Sorry, fella, but you clearly don't understand what orbit is. You're criticising a model you do not understand.
First I suggest you go learn what orbit is, then you'll understand why aircraft and balloons and helicopters aren't in orbit but satellites are.
-
If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up? It has its own propulsion, and so do your supposed "satellites" and yes, things do dip below the horizon, but only as an optical illusion. The horizon as it is understood in RET doesn't actually exist.
...As I had explained before, the satellites are always falling towards earth, because of the way they were launched, they continue doing so at an angle. And do you have zero clue how airplanes work? You know, thrust, lift? Simple things that most of society understand?
-
You know, we can see satellites orbiting from the ground... They clearly aren't faked. You don't even have to be on the ISS to see them. We can also see the ISS from the ground.
I can also see airplanes from the ground, are you about to tell me airplanes prove the world is round because they're in orbit?
Thats a very odd logic you are employing! We know most commercial airlines fly at around 37,000 ft at a ground speed of around 575mph, give or take depending upon wind speeds. The ISS on the other hand is traveling at a speed of around 17,000 mph an altitude of over 130,000 ft. If you were really serious about checking out the reality of the ISS and it’s orbit, or not, it would be a relatively simple matter.
http://www.isstracker.com
There are a few websites that do real time tracking. All you would need to do is have a number of spotters at locations along its flight path on particular days. As it’s a weather dependent study it might take a couple of weeks, to record all the data, but you would answer the question both regarding satelites and the shape of the earth.
The fact that flat earthers are always going on about doing research, but complain about being resource poor, here is an ideal study to undertake which would require minimum resources. Why has this simple study never been done? Is it because flat earthers would be terrified by the results!
-
Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.
If planes aren't in orbit than RET is wrong, because in RET everything is always in orbit around something else. In RET, a plane would be in orbit around the Sun, just like the rest of the Earth. How are you supposed to defend RET if you don't even understand your own rules?
Planes can dip below the horizon and end up on the opposite side. They're not in orbit, so why is a satellite?
First of all, nice job admitting planes dip below the horizon! Also, nice job admitting satellites exist. Because if a satellite wasn't in orbit, how would it stay up? Ever heard of gravity much? Or is it just "heavy"? Being in orbit allows the satellite to continuously fall towards the Earth, but at an angle so that it never crashes down to Earth. Airplans on the other hand, were built to fly, giving them their own propulsion.
If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up? It has its own propulsion, and so do your supposed "satellites" and yes, things do dip below the horizon, but only as an optical illusion. The horizon as it is understood in RET doesn't actually exist.
Have you ever flown before? Have you ever watched a sunset?
It’s all very well taking part in a debate, but putting forward nonsensical statements, like your own does not really help in taking the debate forward.
-
Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.
If planes aren't in orbit than RET is wrong, because in RET everything is always in orbit around something else. In RET, a plane would be in orbit around the Sun, just like the rest of the Earth. How are you supposed to defend RET if you don't even understand your own rules?
From the rest frame of Earth, planes are not in orbit. We don't simulate planes and satellites relative to the Sun, we just assume that they follow Earth's momentum with negligible deviation, and model their velocity relative to Earth. In this regard, satellites follow Kepler's laws, but not planes. Planes are not in orbit.
If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up? It has its own propulsion, and so do your supposed "satellites"
Planes have lifting surfaces that actively counteract gravity. Satellites are going too fast to hit the ground so they just fall in circles.
-
Not to mention that orbiting is fundementally being in freefall.
You're falling towards the center because of gravity, but there's no friction in space, so inertia and velocity keep you traveling faster than you can fall, so you repeatedly 'miss' the thing you orbit around.
When in orbit, folks still experience gravity, but they fall as fast as the spacecraft they are inside of, so they experience "zero g".
Aeroplanes can preform that same action, but they do it inside the atmosphere, so it is flight.
They do not skid through space with nothing to slow them down, they push off the air and propel themselves forward, as you have acknowledged.
However, satellites have no propulsion. Once they're put up there, there's nothing to stop the leftover momentum from the rocket, so they stay in orbit.
It's an understandable misconception.
-
If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
-
Well, it's been awful. Have a nice life.
-
If planes aren't in orbit than RET is wrong, because in RET everything is always in orbit around something else. In RET, a plane would be in orbit around the Sun, just like the rest of the Earth. How are you supposed to defend RET if you don't even understand your own rules?
By that logic, if a butterfly flaps it's wings in Japan, then we have to account for that in every other scientific experiment, and if we don't, then we don't understand how butterflies work. If we don't understand how butterflies work, how can we possible defend anything!
You could quite easily calculate the forces of gravity on a plane from the sun, the moon, mars, jupiter, polaris, anything you want. But it's obvious those forces are negligible... By far the most important forces for a plane are gravity (towards earth), lift, thrust, and air density i.e. resistance to that thrust. The earth is really really really heavy... a plane is not. Given the atmosphere moves with the earth, and planes exist in that atmosphere, that's all the plane cares around.
In one way, as a complete system, then yeah everything on earth is in orbit around the sun. But that's just one way of looking at it. The atmosphere is tiny... roughly one millionth of Earth’s mass... so is the atmosphere orbiting the sun? Erm, in some ways, but for all intents and purposes, it's the solid mass of the earth itself which is in orbit around the sun. Everything else is just "hanging out" and hardly gives a crap about that orbit. The atmosphere, and planes, only care about gravity towards the earth. If you shot a plane in to space at the same distance as the earth from the sun (and nowhere near the earth), it would very slightly be attracted to the sun but just end up flying away for every. So obviously no, a plane is NOT in orbit around the sun... the only thing that's keeping it in roughly the same path as earth's orbit is that the plane is being pulled towards the earth and affected by the atmosphere.
The only thing that's keeping the atmosphere on the earth is the gravitational pull towards the earth: the atmosphere is not in orbit around the sun, it just follows the same path as the earth's orbit around the sun. So yes: from a simplistic "path" point of view, everything is on the same path as the earths orbit, and for the sake of argument, most people would just say "everything orbits the sun". As for "everything orbits something else".... that's not a universal law, i.e. if the universe consisted of only two masses, then they could just be attracted to each other and stick together permanently, or if they were moving for some reason they might be attracted to each other then begin orbiting each other. And obviously our sun formed when objects stopped spinning around something, and were attracted to each other in to one giant blob. But our sun orbits the black hole at the centre of the galaxy.. and apparently our galaxy doesn't really orbit anything: we're on a collision course with the andromeda galaxy. So there's that to look forward to... But yeah, asteroids usually orbit something (usually the sun) or sometimes asteroids from outside our solar system swing by to say hi, usually because they've escaped an orbit from a nearby sun. Things don't HAVE to orbit anything, they just fly around attracted to other masses. If they end up circling that mass, we call it an orbit.
But... getting back to satellites. They clearly couldn't stay in the air without generating "lift" and they can't generate lift without fuel, and they can't get fuel without returning to earth or being refuelled mid air (and obviously no one has ever witnessed that, and pretty sure every single amateur astronomer is not in on the "RE conspiracy"). OK they could be solar powered... but they would then need to be lower enough in to the atmosphere to get that lift from their wings. Satellites are much higher than the atmosphere, so they would need lift from rockets. That requires a lot of fuel.
Plus you realise there are geosynchronous satellites right? So there goes the giant solar wing idea... They would need to just sit there, rockets blazing, keeping them in one position, year after year. Again: amateur astronomers. You should see a blazing stationary rocket during day light, night time, 24 seven.
-
Flight times provided by "trustworthy internet sources" I'm sure.
As I said in other thread, last year 4,000,000,000 air passengers with zero deaths (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9237.msg147903#msg147903). Occam's Razor and some knowledge of the human race would tell us they would complain if the planes didn't run on time!!!
If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up?
Sorry, fella, but you clearly don't understand what orbit is.
And do you have zero clue how airplanes work?
He's just trolling. Mostly RE trolls here.
To get back to original post:
If there are supposedly thousands of satellites orbiting earth, why hasn't the ISS ever captured them on video? Maybe because both the ISS and satellites in general are hoaxes and the alleged ISS video footage of space is faked?
What I see and observe when I take-off in my plane, has always amazed me. At airport many many planes. As soon as you in the air - no planes to be seen! We pilots say Sky is big. Some call Big Sky theory.
-
If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
So someone starts a topic with a claim that the Holocaust is a hoax. That claim is still there, right at the start of this thread. Anyone who reads the thread can see it. A normal person would regard that as being far more significant that the rubbish she was spouting about satellites, which was debunked almost immediately. (Second post in this thread).
This is her signature Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.
My emphases.
I would have thought that a sensible, rational moderator would have thought "Oh, maybe allowing people to put forward explicit Holocaust denial is a bad thing for our movement. It will cause people to characterise us as a bunch of Nazis". Instead, we are treated to people being banned permanently for pointing it out.
I don't expect this post to get a different reaction, btw. However, when someone decides that denying the great crime of the twentieth century is less significant than a rambling nonsense thread about how satellites work, it says a lot about what kind of movement this is.
-
If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
So someone starts a topic with a claim that the Holocaust is a hoax. That claim is still there, right at the start of this thread. Anyone who reads the thread can see it. A normal person would regard that as being far more significant that the rubbish she was spouting about satellites, which was debunked almost immediately. (Second post in this thread).
This is her signature Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.
My emphases.
I would have thought that a sensible, rational moderator would have thought "Oh, maybe allowing people to put forward explicit Holocaust denial is a bad thing for our movement. It will cause people to characterise us as a bunch of Nazis". Instead, we are treated to people being banned permanently for pointing it out.
I don't expect this post to get a different reaction, btw. However, when someone decides that denying the great crime of the twentieth century is less significant than a rambling nonsense thread about how satellites work, it says a lot about what kind of movement this is.
Well said.
-
If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
So someone starts a topic with a claim that the Holocaust is a hoax. That claim is still there, right at the start of this thread. Anyone who reads the thread can see it. A normal person would regard that as being far more significant that the rubbish she was spouting about satellites, which was debunked almost immediately. (Second post in this thread).
This is her signature Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.
My emphases.
I would have thought that a sensible, rational moderator would have thought "Oh, maybe allowing people to put forward explicit Holocaust denial is a bad thing for our movement. It will cause people to characterise us as a bunch of Nazis". Instead, we are treated to people being banned permanently for pointing it out.
I don't expect this post to get a different reaction, btw. However, when someone decides that denying the great crime of the twentieth century is less significant than a rambling nonsense thread about how satellites work, it says a lot about what kind of movement this is.
No one here cares what people's personal beliefs are as long as you follow the rules. I really don't understand what is so hard about that for some of you to understand. Also, this post has nothing to do with the thread. You are on a long string of warnings and bans already. I will give you one more, but the next step is a permanent ban. Given that you still haven't figured out how this place works, I don't have much hope that you will gain any self-awareness before your next post. But again, one more chance.
Well said.
Refrain from "me too" posts that don't any anything to the topic or discussion. Warned.
-
If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
So someone starts a topic with a claim that the Holocaust is a hoax. That claim is still there, right at the start of this thread. Anyone who reads the thread can see it. A normal person would regard that as being far more significant that the rubbish she was spouting about satellites, which was debunked almost immediately. (Second post in this thread).
This is her signature Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.
My emphases.
I would have thought that a sensible, rational moderator would have thought "Oh, maybe allowing people to put forward explicit Holocaust denial is a bad thing for our movement. It will cause people to characterise us as a bunch of Nazis". Instead, we are treated to people being banned permanently for pointing it out.
I don't expect this post to get a different reaction, btw. However, when someone decides that denying the great crime of the twentieth century is less significant than a rambling nonsense thread about how satellites work, it says a lot about what kind of movement this is.
No one here cares what people's personal beliefs are as long as you follow the rules. I really don't understand what is so hard about that for some of you to understand. Also, this post has nothing to do with the thread. You are on a long string of warnings and bans already. I will give you one more, but the next step is a permanent ban. Given that you still haven't figured out how this place works, I don't have much hope that you will gain any self-awareness before your next post. But again, one more chance.
Well said.
Refrain from "me too" posts that don't any anything to the topic or discussion. Warned.
My intention was to abandon this group due to unfair moderation but I made a mistake popping my head round the door (hopefully wont happen again). Holocaust deniers are the scum of the earth, so I had to make this post. You dont care about peoples beliefs with regards to this, the rest of the world does. Banning anyone for stating this makes you one. Deleting this post or moving it somewhere else so people dont read it, makes you one. Not dealing with people who post regarding this makes you one. Either operate as a responsible moderator or pass the job on to someone else.
-
If I may, allow me politely disagree: my comment was to help others see the lack of credibility of the op, which is important when discussing pretty much anything, and thus is very relevant. Plus there’s no way to further derail this topic: the question has been answered and flat-heads have nothing to respond (as usual).
Hmm, the OP is a Holocaust denier... As I’ve pointed out before, it seems to be a trend among flat-heads (not all, I know, but a bit too many for it not to be a sign). Just sayin’...
So, I will give you one last warning to refrain from off-topic posting, derailing threads, etc. You are on 3 bans already, next one is permanent.
So someone starts a topic with a claim that the Holocaust is a hoax. That claim is still there, right at the start of this thread. Anyone who reads the thread can see it. A normal person would regard that as being far more significant that the rubbish she was spouting about satellites, which was debunked almost immediately. (Second post in this thread).
This is her signature Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.
My emphases.
I would have thought that a sensible, rational moderator would have thought "Oh, maybe allowing people to put forward explicit Holocaust denial is a bad thing for our movement. It will cause people to characterise us as a bunch of Nazis". Instead, we are treated to people being banned permanently for pointing it out.
I don't expect this post to get a different reaction, btw. However, when someone decides that denying the great crime of the twentieth century is less significant than a rambling nonsense thread about how satellites work, it says a lot about what kind of movement this is.
No one here cares what people's personal beliefs are as long as you follow the rules. I really don't understand what is so hard about that for some of you to understand. Also, this post has nothing to do with the thread. You are on a long string of warnings and bans already. I will give you one more, but the next step is a permanent ban. Given that you still haven't figured out how this place works, I don't have much hope that you will gain any self-awareness before your next post. But again, one more chance.
Well said.
Refrain from "me too" posts that don't any anything to the topic or discussion. Warned.
My intention was to abandon this group due to unfair moderation but I made a mistake popping my head round the door (hopefully wont happen again). Holocaust deniers are the scum of the earth, so I had to make this post. You dont care about peoples beliefs with regards to this, the rest of the world does. Banning anyone for stating this makes you one. Deleting this post or moving it somewhere else so people dont read it, makes you one. Not dealing with people who post regarding this makes you one. Either operate as a responsible moderator or pass the job on to someone else.
I will assume that since this post has remained here and unchanged, no one here is a holocaust denier....good!
I will try not to pop my head round the door anymore. See you at the Bronie convention at the end of July, Pete (aka Twilight sparkle) your costume was a real knock out last time.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2018, 10:35:38 PM
Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.
-
Yes. It's really stupid to have signature like that about holocaust.
It's quite painful for me, because my grandad died in Auschwitz ( from Polish Oświęcim)
He used to work at loundry and then he was shot by Germans nazis.
I have visited Auschwitz couple of times and I'm getting sick of people who said it did not happen.
Shame on you
-
What does this have to do with satellites?
I don't think junker really cares either way about your moral outrage and efforts to limit freedom of speech. This isn't Germany. Who cares what that person puts into their profile text? Take it to the lower forua.
-
What does this have to do with satellites?
I don't think junker really cares either way about your moral outrage and efforts to limit freedom of speech. This isn't Germany. Who cares what that person puts into their profile text? Take it to the lower forua.
Since no one is outraged at your outrage to our outrage and the satellite thing was debunked on the first page shall we call this the end?
I know, I promised to go and I will, just couldn't help replying to Tom as I think he is such a good bloke...............Quote
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19320.60 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19320.60)
-
My intention was to abandon this group due to unfair moderation but I made a mistake popping my head round the door (hopefully wont happen again). Holocaust deniers are the scum of the earth, so I had to make this post. You dont care about peoples beliefs with regards to this, the rest of the world does. Banning anyone for stating this makes you one. Deleting this post or moving it somewhere else so people dont read it, makes you one. Not dealing with people who post regarding this makes you one. Either operate as a responsible moderator or pass the job on to someone else.
Keep the off-topic rants in AR, please. You obviously have no understanding how this forum works. There are plenty of other places online where you can espouse your moral outrage, let me suggest you go there to do it.
I will assume that since this post has remained here and unchanged, no one here is a holocaust denier....good!
I doubt anyone here actually is a holocaust denier, however, you are continuing to derail the thread with your pearl clutching. You claim to be leaving, but go ahead and have a 3rd and final warning for low-content posting in the upper fora (should you decide to return). A short ban will be the next step, followed by progressively longer bans.
Yes. It's really stupid to have signature like that about holocaust.
It's quite painful for me, because my grandad died in Auschwitz ( from Polish Oświęcim)
He used to work at loundry and then he was shot by Germans nazis.
I have visited Auschwitz couple of times and I'm getting sick of people who said it did not happen.
Shame on you
Please refrain from off-topic posting as it only derails the thread even more. Warned.
-
What does this have to do with satellites?
I don't think junker really cares either way about your moral outrage and efforts to limit freedom of speech. This isn't Germany. Who cares what that person puts into their profile text? Take it to the lower forua.
Since no one is outraged at your outrage to our outrage and the satellite thing was debunked on the first page shall we call this the end?
I know, I promised to go and I will, just couldn't help replying to Tom as I think he is such a good bloke...............Quote
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19320.60 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19320.60)
Oh wow, you just can't help yourself. Have a few days off to review the rules. If you decide to come back, try following those rules.