#### markjo

• 7023
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #60 on: February 13, 2014, 07:34:11 PM »
It's an approximation.  The amount of curvature is proportional to the sun's horizontal distance from the observer. so minimizing this distance makes the most accurate approximation.  In fact, observations made at the same time on the same day at different latitudes could prove to be an effective way to measure the rate of curvature due to EA, though I strongly suspect it will be similar to what has been assumed to be the rate of earth's curvature by Eratosthenes.  I believe his measurements weren't wrong, he was simply wrong about what was doing the curving.  Still, his change in latitude was only 7 degrees or so, so triangulating the sun's altitude from this small distance may be pretty accurate.
This leads to a Catch-22 situation.  You can't know what the height of the sun is without knowing the rate of curvature due to the EA and you can't know the rate of curvature due to the EA if you don't know the height of the sun.  So, in effect, you can't prove that light even bends because of some sort of electromagnetic acceleration.

However, there is good news.  If you can show how an EA would bend light, then there is surely a Nobel Prize in your future.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

#### Antonio

• 22
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #61 on: February 15, 2014, 06:40:52 AM »
It's an approximation.  The amount of curvature is proportional to the sun's horizontal distance from the observer. so minimizing this distance makes the most accurate approximation.  In fact, observations made at the same time on the same day at different latitudes could prove to be an effective way to measure the rate of curvature due to EA, though I strongly suspect it will be similar to what has been assumed to be the rate of earth's curvature by Eratosthenes.  I believe his measurements weren't wrong, he was simply wrong about what was doing the curving.  Still, his change in latitude was only 7 degrees or so, so triangulating the sun's altitude from this small distance may be pretty accurate.
I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate. The "best FE theorists" don't accept RE distance measurements, so any RE map is useless. As you didn't measure yourself the distance from your home to equator and assert that the light from any object is bended, how can you, using the "zetetic method", get a valid measurement of the sun's height ?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 07:08:33 AM by Antonio »

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15539
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #62 on: February 15, 2014, 12:37:11 PM »
I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate.
Doesn't matter. It's its perceived location that's used for positioning, regardless of where Polaris might really be.

The "best FE theorists" don't accept RE distance measurements, so any RE map is useless.
Sorry, could you provide a reference for that?
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.

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #63 on: February 15, 2014, 03:13:07 PM »
I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate.
Doesn't matter. It's its perceived location that's used for positioning, regardless of where Polaris might really be.

Correct.  And it is the perceived position that aligns with the lines of latitude, not its actual position.  I don't have to know the rate of light's curve to determine the perceived position of an object; I only have to look at it.  Knowing the actual position of Polaris wouldn't help at all in this case.

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #64 on: February 15, 2014, 08:02:05 PM »
I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate.
Doesn't matter. It's its perceived location that's used for positioning, regardless of where Polaris might really be.

Correct.  And it is the perceived position that aligns with the lines of latitude, not its actual position.  I don't have to know the rate of light's curve to determine the perceived position of an object; I only have to look at it.  Knowing the actual position of Polaris wouldn't help at all in this case.

Sure it would. It would tell you if light curved or if you were just making extra unnecessary assumptions to support your world view.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2014, 02:42:44 AM »
I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate.
Doesn't matter. It's its perceived location that's used for positioning, regardless of where Polaris might really be.

Correct.  And it is the perceived position that aligns with the lines of latitude, not its actual position.  I don't have to know the rate of light's curve to determine the perceived position of an object; I only have to look at it.  Knowing the actual position of Polaris wouldn't help at all in this case.

Sure it would. It would tell you if light curved or if you were just making extra unnecessary assumptions to support your world view. reality.
Fixed.

#### Antonio

• 22
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #66 on: February 17, 2014, 05:40:33 PM »
I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate.
Doesn't matter. It's its perceived location that's used for positioning, regardless of where Polaris might really be.

Correct.  And it is the perceived position that aligns with the lines of latitude, not its actual position.  I don't have to know the rate of light's curve to determine the perceived position of an object; I only have to look at it.  Knowing the actual position of Polaris wouldn't help at all in this case.
As I understand, you agree with RE distance measurements, do you ?

To sum up
I open my window, I see a flat portion of earth, this is compelling evidence of a flat earth.
I open my windows, look at polaris, but in fact, it's an illusion, still matching perfectly a spherical geometry. The real location is unknown, but for sure, it's not at the place it seems to be.
Doesn't matter, as the affecting phenomenon is absolutely invariable and predictable, even if -so far- no mathematical function can describe it.

You still haven't answered to my question. How do you really know the distance from your house to equator ? How did you calculate the sun's distance from your house?

#### inquisitive

• 1093
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #67 on: February 17, 2014, 10:15:28 PM »
How do you know any distance?  Does Australia really exist?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15539
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #68 on: February 17, 2014, 11:23:28 PM »
Does Australia really exist?
I've been to Australia and I can confirm that no, it doesn't.
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.

#### inquisitive

• 1093
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2014, 08:46:43 AM »
Meanwhile, TV stations use satellites to get pictures back from Crimea.

#### jroa

• 3094
• Kentucky Gentleman
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2014, 11:31:01 AM »
Yeah, because TV transitions must only come from outer space.

#### inquisitive

• 1093
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2014, 12:17:18 PM »
Yeah, because TV transitions must only come from outer space.
Unless you can come up with a documented alternative.  Do not say relays.  You cannot set up an instant connection from a war zone or other location.

#### jroa

• 3094
• Kentucky Gentleman
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2014, 12:33:14 PM »
Are you saying that it is not documented that video can be sent by anything but a Satellite?  Also, how long do you think it would take to setup a few relay stations?

#### markjo

• 7023
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2014, 02:13:03 PM »
Are you saying that it is not documented that video can be sent by anything but a Satellite?
Like a true FE'er, you keep avoiding the point.  No one is denying that there are several methods of long distance telecommunication.  The argument is that there are some situations (such as live reports from active war zones or other remote locations where there is no suitable telecommunication infrastructure) where satellite communication is the only viable option.

Also, how long do you think it would take to setup a few relay stations?
If that's going to be your rebuttal, then perhaps you tell us.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

#### jroa

• 3094
• Kentucky Gentleman
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2014, 02:27:32 PM »
I could set up a repeater in just a few minutes.  Plus, it could be that they already have permanent signal relays in place.  They have had a long time to create an infrastructure.

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #75 on: March 06, 2014, 02:38:50 PM »
Meanwhile, TV stations use satellites to get pictures back from Crimea.

Satellites are possible and, in my opinion, exist.  This doesn't prove anything about the earth's shape.

#### Antonio

• 22
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #76 on: March 06, 2014, 02:50:25 PM »
Meanwhile, TV stations use satellites to get pictures back from Crimea.

Satellites are possible and, in my opinion, exist.  This doesn't prove anything about the earth's shape.
Ok, so let's forget the previous point.
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ? (feel free to plot it on a FE map)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 02:53:24 PM by Antonio »

#### Tintagel

• 531
• Full of Tinier Tintagels
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #77 on: March 06, 2014, 03:47:37 PM »
Meanwhile, TV stations use satellites to get pictures back from Crimea.

Satellites are possible and, in my opinion, exist.  This doesn't prove anything about the earth's shape.
Ok, so let's forget the previous point.
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ? (feel free to plot it on a FE map)

That's what a circular orbit looks like when projected onto a mercator style map.  On the flat earth map that wave type pattern just becomes a circle above the earth, just as it does around a spherical earth.  I'm at work right now or I'd whip up a graphic for you.

#### Rama Set

• 9914
• Round and round...
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #78 on: March 06, 2014, 04:56:00 PM »
How does a satellite remain in the air on a FE?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### inquisitive

• 1093
##### Re: Satellites
« Reply #79 on: March 06, 2014, 05:22:49 PM »
Are you saying that it is not documented that video can be sent by anything but a Satellite?  Also, how long do you think it would take to setup a few relay stations?
Why do you keep saying people say only by a particular method?

A few relay stations - what would these consist of to get pictures from a remote part of Iraq to New York?

Have you seen tv news trucks in a narrow street with satellite dishes pointing to the sky?  Please see numerous links to companies that make the equipment plus satellite receivers used by ships in the middle of oceans.