Re: Satellites
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2014, 08:58:48 PM »
If the earth is flat, then how do satellites work, flat earth weirdos?
Most of the communications attributed to satellites can also be accomplished via towers on the surface.  Many flat earth models also allow for "stratellites" and even satellites, suspended in a circular orbit above earth in the aetheric whirlpool.

I personally believe that satellites exist, and do circle above the earth, but not at the claimed altitudes.
So at what altitudes are they, geostationary and orbiting ones?  Clearly GPS and satellite TV works.

GPS satellites have many different orbits, all consistent with a spherical earth.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 09:03:46 PM by inquisitive »

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2014, 12:27:36 AM »
If the earth is flat, then how do satellites work, flat earth weirdos?
Most of the communications attributed to satellites can also be accomplished via towers on the surface.  Many flat earth models also allow for "stratellites" and even satellites, suspended in a circular orbit above earth in the aetheric whirlpool.

I personally believe that satellites exist, and do circle above the earth, but not at the claimed altitudes.
So at what altitudes are they, geostationary and orbiting ones?  Clearly GPS and satellite TV works.

GPS satellites have many different orbits, all consistent with a spherical earth.

Welcome to TFES, Inquisitive. 

I do not know the altitudes.  Clearly GPS and satellite television work, but neither of these are evidence of a spherical earth in and of themselves.  I'm also not certain if people are outright lying about satellite orbits, of if the data relating to those orbits is simply incorrect. 

However, as the mathematics relating to the altitudes of the earth and moon are fairly straightforward and show that these objects circle roughly 3000 miles above the surface, it stands to reason that satellite/stratellite orbits (particularly geostationary ones, some of which are stated to be over 20,000 miles) would necessarily be at or below this altitude. 

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9854
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2014, 04:59:40 AM »
Tintagel-Are you aware that the methodology that shows the sun to be 3,000 miles in altitude is completely flawed and in fact shows a variable altitude, depending on the angle you measure from?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2014, 08:35:09 AM »
Why would anyone lie or provide incorrect figures?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2014, 01:55:22 PM »
Tintagel-Are you aware that the methodology that shows the sun to be 3,000 miles in altitude is completely flawed and in fact shows a variable altitude, depending on the angle you measure from?

Of course I am.  It's the reason I started researching the EA.  The methodology isn't completely flawed, it becomes more flawed as the angle of light from the sun gets closer to horizontal.

Why would anyone lie or provide incorrect figures?

The potential reasons for lying are many, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  As for incorrect figures - one would provide incorrect figures, most likely, because they're simply mistaken.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2014, 02:30:43 PM »
Tintagel-Are you aware that the methodology that shows the sun to be 3,000 miles in altitude is completely flawed and in fact shows a variable altitude, depending on the angle you measure from?

Of course I am.  It's the reason I started researching the EA.  The methodology isn't completely flawed, it becomes more flawed as the angle of light from the sun gets closer to horizontal.

Why would anyone lie or provide incorrect figures?

The potential reasons for lying are many, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  As for incorrect figures - one would provide incorrect figures, most likely, because they're simply mistaken.
We look forward to your peer reviewed figures and the reasons for lying.  Until then we must assume you are wrong.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9854
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2014, 02:39:15 PM »
Tintagel-Are you aware that the methodology that shows the sun to be 3,000 miles in altitude is completely flawed and in fact shows a variable altitude, depending on the angle you measure from?

Of course I am.  It's the reason I started researching the EA.  The methodology isn't completely flawed, it becomes more flawed as the angle of light from the sun gets closer to horizontal.

The methodology is completely flawed.  The altitude changes to some extent from degree to degree.  It does reach the point of absurdity at the angles you reference, but if it does not make any accurate predictions it is obviously not viable.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15340
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2014, 04:40:00 PM »
Until then we must assume you are wrong.
Um, no. We must not.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2014, 08:51:09 PM »
Tintagel-Are you aware that the methodology that shows the sun to be 3,000 miles in altitude is completely flawed and in fact shows a variable altitude, depending on the angle you measure from?

Of course I am.  It's the reason I started researching the EA.  The methodology isn't completely flawed, it becomes more flawed as the angle of light from the sun gets closer to horizontal.

Why would anyone lie or provide incorrect figures?

The potential reasons for lying are many, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  As for incorrect figures - one would provide incorrect figures, most likely, because they're simply mistaken.
We look forward to your peer reviewed figures and the reasons for lying.  Until then we must assume you are wrong.

I'm not certain who this "we" you're referring to is.  Let me clarify something for you.  Here at the Flat Earth Society, we depend upon directly observed phenomena and empirical evidence.  We say the earth is flat because the earth appears flat.  I would ask you, ever the inquisitive one, how much of what you call "knowledge" is based upon things you have been taught, or shown, or told "by convention, we say." 

When I first came to the Flat Earth Society I was as skeptical as you.  Clearly the earth can't be flat, how can all of science be wrong?  But my bemusement turned to fascination, and that turned to (ironically enough) inquisitiveness, and I started to question myself - what do I actually *know* to be true? 

I answer a lot of questions with "I don't know."  Many of us do.  Some accuse us of side-stepping issues, but really, in the Zetetic sense, the ability to admit that I don't know only demonstrates our devotion to Zetetic science and empirical evidence.  I adore admitting that I don't know the altitudes of satellites, because it reminds me that I'm not basing my picture of the world on meaningless data fed to me from sources who claim to be reputable. 

Those who do that, in my opinion, demonstrate a truly tragic lack of curiosity and wonder. 

If you come here rapid-firing second-hand information in the guise of actual evidence in every thread coupled with smug quips in reference to our (in your opinion) faulty conclusions, then I will happily respond with an eyeroll and a suggestion that you take stock of your own limited experience, and remind yourself to admit that at the end of the day, you don't know either.  Not really. 

Re: Satellites
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2014, 09:15:12 PM »
OK, but I see how satellite TV works and my GPS satnav and tablet app show satellites orbiting the sky.  This would indicate a spherical earth to me.  Plus the views from space.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2014, 10:55:32 PM »
Your Satnav and tablet show exactly what they were programmed to show, nothing more.  Also, are you serious about "views from space"?  You must be new here. 

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2014, 11:27:35 PM »
OK, but I see how satellite TV works and my GPS satnav and tablet app show satellites orbiting the sky.  This would indicate a spherical earth to me.  Plus the views from space.
Have you experienced a view from space with your own eyes?  I doubt it.  Satellite TV and GPS technology isn't dependent upon a spherical earth to work.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9854
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2014, 11:32:53 PM »
Tintagel-You say you base your views on experience and empirical evidence yet in this thread you said the altitude of the sun was 3,000 miles based on a purely mathematical model. This is inconsistent to say the least and makes it very difficult to have a clear conversation since you are effectively shifting your evidential goal posts.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2014, 11:41:59 PM »
Your Satnav and tablet show exactly what they were programmed to show, nothing more.  Also, are you serious about "views from space"?  You must be new here.
So how do they know my location? They also work on aircraft over the oceans.

My satellite TV dish points into the sky, there is a big hill in the way of any ground based transmitter.  And dishes on the south coast point south.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2014, 12:01:54 AM »
Your Satnav and tablet show exactly what they were programmed to show, nothing more.  Also, are you serious about "views from space"?  You must be new here.
So how do they know my location? They also work on aircraft over the oceans.

My satellite TV dish points into the sky, there is a big hill in the way of any ground based transmitter.  And dishes on the south coast point south.
How does my phone know my location when the GPS is turned off?

Also, it is not that big of a deal that your dish points at the sky.  Broadcast antennas are tall.  It would impress me more if your dish did not point upwards. 

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9854
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2014, 12:07:49 AM »
Your Satnav and tablet show exactly what they were programmed to show, nothing more.  Also, are you serious about "views from space"?  You must be new here.
So how do they know my location? They also work on aircraft over the oceans.

My satellite TV dish points into the sky, there is a big hill in the way of any ground based transmitter.  And dishes on the south coast point south.
How does my phone know my location when the GPS is turned off?

Also, it is not that big of a deal that your dish points at the sky.  Broadcast antennas are tall.  It would impress me more if your dish did not point upwards. 

The angle my satellite dish is pointed at approximately 135 degrees to the ground, the broadcast tower would need to be kms in height. There is no such structure. The closest tower is the CN tower at 550m and my dish is pointed well above and to the left of it.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2014, 12:17:20 AM »
The angle my satellite dish is pointed at approximately 135 degrees to the ground, the broadcast tower would need to be kms in height. There is no such structure. The closest tower is the CN tower at 550m and my dish is pointed well above and to the left of it.
135 degrees to the ground?  90 degrees is straight up.  I feel like you are just making numbers up now to make yourself seem credible. 

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2014, 12:49:35 AM »
Tintagel-You say you base your views on experience and empirical evidence yet in this thread you said the altitude of the sun was 3,000 miles based on a purely mathematical model. This is inconsistent to say the least and makes it very difficult to have a clear conversation since you are effectively shifting your evidential goal posts.

False.  I can find my own latitude, and use that to measure the angle of the sun just as Eratosthenes did.  I have done this myself, these findings are based upon experience and my own understanding of geometry.  This is the process by which the altitude of the sun is found.

Explained here.  Click to enbiggen.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2014, 12:52:10 AM »
The angle my satellite dish is pointed at approximately 135 degrees to the ground, the broadcast tower would need to be kms in height. There is no such structure. The closest tower is the CN tower at 550m and my dish is pointed well above and to the left of it.
135 degrees to the ground?  90 degrees is straight up.  I feel like you are just making numbers up now to make yourself seem credible.
Round earth folks are quick to point out that radio waves can be bounced off the 'atmosphere' to prove a round earth.  However, when one points out that the same concept can explain why their precious parabolic dishes are aimed at the atmoplane to receive a different sort of radio signal, they cry foul.  You can't have it both ways, round earthers.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9854
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2014, 01:09:06 AM »
Tintagel-You say you base your views on experience and empirical evidence yet in this thread you said the altitude of the sun was 3,000 miles based on a purely mathematical model. This is inconsistent to say the least and makes it very difficult to have a clear conversation since you are effectively shifting your evidential goal posts.

False.  I can find my own latitude, and use that to measure the angle of the sun just as Eratosthenes did.  I have done this myself, these findings are based upon experience and my own understanding of geometry.  This is the process by which the altitude of the sun is found.

Explained here.  Click to enbiggen.

Tintagel-You say you base your views on experience and empirical evidence yet in this thread you said the altitude of the sun was 3,000 miles based on a purely mathematical model. This is inconsistent to say the least and makes it very difficult to have a clear conversation since you are effectively shifting your evidential goal posts.

False.  I can find my own latitude, and use that to measure the angle of the sun just as Eratosthenes did.  I have done this myself, these findings are based upon experience and my own understanding of geometry.  This is the process by which the altitude of the sun is found.

Explained here.  Click to enbiggen.


How do you find your latitude?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.