# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: BillyBob on January 17, 2014, 02:12:42 PM

Title: Satellites
Post by: BillyBob on January 17, 2014, 02:12:42 PM
If the earth is flat, then how do satellites work, flat earth weirdos?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on January 17, 2014, 04:41:42 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: BillyBob on January 17, 2014, 06:27:47 PM
Let me teach you a thing or two.  First of all, satellite dishes are directional.  This is important because it means that they point at the transmitter, which means it is in the sky.

Secondly, satellite transmissions are on a different frequency from radio transmissions.  You can not compare them.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on January 17, 2014, 07:04:32 PM
Let me teach you a thing or two.  First of all, satellite dishes are directional.  This is important because it means that they point at the transmitter, which means it is in the sky.

Secondly, satellite transmissions are on a different frequency from radio transmissions.  You can not compare them.

I'm aware of the way a parabolic dish functions, thanks.  I'm not certain how that has any bearing at all on my point.  Also, if satellites don't transmit radio frequencies, tell me, which part of the electromagnetic spectrum do they transmit in?  UV?  Gamma?  Of course they transmit radio frequencies.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: BillyBob on January 17, 2014, 07:10:39 PM
So, then, you agree that satellite dishes point at the transmitters?  Good to know that you agree that the transmissions are coming from outer space.

Also, I was referring to AM/FM transmissions, which is the normal way that people think of for radio transmissions.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on January 17, 2014, 07:22:33 PM
So, then, you agree that satellite dishes point at the transmitters?  Good to know that you agree that the transmissions are coming from outer space.

Also, I was referring to AM/FM transmissions, which is the normal way that people think of for radio transmissions.

The radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum encompasses much more than just the AM/FM range.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: BillyBob on January 17, 2014, 07:25:45 PM
Yes.  Now, could you please explain how this has anything to do with the shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on January 17, 2014, 07:33:31 PM
Yes.  Now, could you please explain how this has anything to do with the shape of the earth?
Nothing.  I'm just letting you know that the frequencies that satellites, stratellites, and local towers use for communication are, in fact, all radio signals, since you seemed a bit misinformed.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: BillyBob on January 18, 2014, 08:46:42 AM
The frequency of the transmission does not matter.  The fact that directional antennas point at the sky should be enough for you to agree that the signals are coming from outer space.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on January 18, 2014, 12:35:02 PM
The frequency of the transmission does not matter.  The fact that directional antennas point at the sky should be enough for you to agree that the signals are coming from outer space.

What part if this did you not understand?
I personally believe that satellites exist, and do circle above the earth, but not at the claimed altitudes.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: FlawlessLogic on January 27, 2014, 08:01:59 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.

FlawlessLogic here. I would like to point out that you claim to have an "aetheric whirlpool." Could someone please explain to me what that is and what the evidence is for it?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on January 27, 2014, 09:01:23 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.

FlawlessLogic here. I would like to point out that you claim to have an "aetheric whirlpool." Could someone please explain to me what that is and what the evidence is for it?

Tausami is more of an authority on aether than I, but essentially...

Aether is rushing upward past the earth, pushed by the UA just as the earth is.  Aether behaves similarly to a fluid as it does this, so as it rushes past earth from underneath, there is an aetherless void created above the earth.  The aether, high above earth, crashes together to fill this void, and in doing so creates a swirling whirlpool above the earth.

In this whirlpool, orbit is theoretically possible.  This model also postulate that the sun and moon float in this whirlpool.

I have done a little work on this model, but I'm not married to one interpretation over another.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: FlawlessLogic on January 27, 2014, 10:32:41 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.

FlawlessLogic here. I would like to point out that you claim to have an "aetheric whirlpool." Could someone please explain to me what that is and what the evidence is for it?

Tausami is more of an authority on aether than I, but essentially...

Aether is rushing upward past the earth, pushed by the UA just as the earth is.  Aether behaves similarly to a fluid as it does this, so as it rushes past earth from underneath, there is an aetherless void created above the earth.  The aether, high above earth, crashes together to fill this void, and in doing so creates a swirling whirlpool above the earth.

In this whirlpool, orbit is theoretically possible.  This model also postulate that the sun and moon float in this whirlpool.

I have done a little work on this model, but I'm not married to one interpretation over another.

So am I right in thinking of aether as a fluid? If so, the turbulence would also have some vertical components. Also, how would this fit in with the model of Earth with an infinite edge?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on January 28, 2014, 12:00:41 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.

FlawlessLogic here. I would like to point out that you claim to have an "aetheric whirlpool." Could someone please explain to me what that is and what the evidence is for it?

Tausami is more of an authority on aether than I, but essentially...

Aether is rushing upward past the earth, pushed by the UA just as the earth is.  Aether behaves similarly to a fluid as it does this, so as it rushes past earth from underneath, there is an aetherless void created above the earth.  The aether, high above earth, crashes together to fill this void, and in doing so creates a swirling whirlpool above the earth.

In this whirlpool, orbit is theoretically possible.  This model also postulate that the sun and moon float in this whirlpool.

I have done a little work on this model, but I'm not married to one interpretation over another.

So am I right in thinking of aether as a fluid? If so, the turbulence would also have some vertical components. Also, how would this fit in with the model of Earth with an infinite edge?

In most cases, it doesn't.  Generally, infinite plane theorists usually rely instead on the machinations of celestial gears to keep the heavens in motion.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: spank86 on January 28, 2014, 09:28:59 AM
Let me teach you a thing or two.  First of all, satellite dishes are directional.  This is important because it means that they point at the transmitter, which means it is in the sky.

worth noting that on a flat earth they would point a lot lower for any given distance than on a round earth.

Being as a flat earth wouldn't curve away from their line of sight.

You're probably well aware that the height of the object they point to is also dependent on the distance to the object so assuming the transmitter is on a flat earth and closer than our round earth information tells us then Tintagel's suggestions may have merit.

Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tau on February 02, 2014, 12:56:46 AM
Let me teach you a thing or two.  First of all, satellite dishes are directional.  This is important because it means that they point at the transmitter, which means it is in the sky.

worth noting that on a flat earth they would point a lot lower for any given distance than on a round earth.

Being as a flat earth wouldn't curve away from their line of sight.

You're probably well aware that the height of the object they point to is also dependent on the distance to the object so assuming the transmitter is on a flat earth and closer than our round earth information tells us then Tintagel's suggestions may have merit.

Unless you happen to believe in Electomagnetic Acceleration, of course. But that theory has its own problems, since it fails to conform to the results of the Bedford Level Experiment.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: spank86 on February 02, 2014, 01:06:15 AM
Unless you happen to believe in Electomagnetic Acceleration, of course. But that theory has its own problems, since it fails to conform to the results of the Bedford Level Experiment.
Not something I'm familiar with.

I think we can all agree that the bedford level experiment was not complete, it was an interesting experiment but would require repetition and alteration to be truly scientific and rigorous. That beign so I'm not against things that don't conform with it.

I'll look it up when I'm sober.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tau on February 02, 2014, 02:09:25 AM
Unless you happen to believe in Electomagnetic Acceleration, of course. But that theory has its own problems, since it fails to conform to the results of the Bedford Level Experiment.
Not something I'm familiar with.

I think we can all agree that the bedford level experiment was not complete, it was an interesting experiment but would require repetition and alteration to be truly scientific and rigorous. That beign so I'm not against things that don't conform with it.

I'll look it up when I'm sober.

Let's not get into Bedford. Derailment and all that.

You've probably heard of Electromagnetic Acceleration referred to as Bendy Light
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2014, 12:48:25 PM
Is billybob aware of atmospheric reflection?  Specifically bouncing radio signals off the ionosphere to get round the "curve" of the earth?

Cell towers as well as am/FM radio towers do this quite often.

Therefore, its not impossible that the aetheric whirlpool is causing a similar phenominon.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2014, 05:41:02 PM
On what grounds do you assert that Lord Dave?  Do you have some evidence?

It seems that Aether should be eminently visible if it can reflect EM waves. Can you provide a link to such observations?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set 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?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on February 11, 2014, 08:35:09 AM
Why would anyone lie or provide incorrect figures?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2014, 04:40:00 PM
Until then we must assume you are wrong.
Um, no. We must not.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg) (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set 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.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg) (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg)
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.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg) (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg)

How do you find your latitude?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on February 12, 2014, 01:53:44 AM
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on February 12, 2014, 04:08:18 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.
However, unless you live at 45 degrees latitude, you will not get the 3000 mile figure that Voliva did.  In fact, Rowbotham performed similar calculations in England (as documented in  chapter 5 of ENaG (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)) and concluded that the sun is no more than 700 miles high.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 12, 2014, 01:45:43 PM
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on February 12, 2014, 03:37:31 PM
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 12, 2014, 06:16:32 PM
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.

You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on February 12, 2014, 07:02:16 PM
You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

So, what was the point of your argument, then?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on February 12, 2014, 07:04:35 PM
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.

You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

The lines of latitude and longitude may have been assigned values of degrees with the assumption that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't make them less useful as a coordinate system.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 12, 2014, 07:14:04 PM
You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

So, what was the point of your argument, then?

That Tintagel is also making assumptions about the world but is not clearly accounting for them when presenting evidence.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 12, 2014, 07:24:33 PM
How do you find your latitude?

The angle of Polaris in the sky will yield latitude on a flat earth just as it would on a sphere.

No it won't. For all the same reasons the trigonometric method does not work for the altitude of the sun on a FE, it will not work to get your latitude. Unless you have an inconsistent distance interval between degrees.

EDIT: It is also worth mentioning that a coordinate system with 180 degrees per hemiplane does not work using any trigonometric calculations.

Really?  The angle of polaris in my sky indicates that my latitude is around 36 degrees.  Maps agree with this.  Seems like it works just fine.

You are aware that you are using RE definitions if a degree and latitude right?

The lines of latitude and longitude may have been assigned values of degrees with the assumption that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't make them less useful as a coordinate system.

It does in that the system you are using is applicable to a RE not a FE.  Calculations clearly show that you cannot have a consistent 111.2kms between degrees and a constant altitude of polaris.  In fact, the interval between degrees must increase as you go south.  Also, once you lose sight of Polaris, how do you find your latitude at that point?

You are assuming that the RE coordinate system is universally applicable.  It is not.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on February 12, 2014, 08:26:21 PM
The lines of latitude and longitude may have been assigned values of degrees with the assumption that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't make them less useful as a coordinate system.
Actually, it does.  For example, the lines in this drawing are 5 degrees apart, but the spacing at the bottom changes. This makes the RET definition of 1 degree of latitude being equal to 60 nautical miles inapplicable to a FET coordinate system.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/69n7v8.jpg)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on February 12, 2014, 08:53:51 PM
It does in that the system you are using is applicable to a RE not a FE.  Calculations clearly show that you cannot have a consistent 111.2kms between degrees and a constant altitude of polaris.  In fact, the interval between degrees must increase as you go south.  Also, once you lose sight of Polaris, how do you find your latitude at that point?

You are assuming that the RE coordinate system is universally applicable.  It is not.
Actually, it does.  For example, the lines in this drawing are 5 degrees apart, but the spacing at the bottom changes. This makes the RET definition of 1 degree of latitude being equal to 60 nautical miles inapplicable to a FET coordinate system.

So, one of you is saying that the spacing between the lines of latitude are consistent, and the other is saying that they are not consistent.  Which is it?  Both of you claim that the lines of latitude don't work when flattened to a plane - but there are flat maps with latitude and longitude on them available in every convenience store.  It's a coordinate system, nothing more.

I do not live in the southern hemidisc so I don't know how they find their latitude there. (I assume this is what you mean as many other round and flat earthers have said that polaris isn't visible there, I don't know for sure)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 12, 2014, 09:27:52 PM
Doubly bad that you cannot use Polaris to determine latitude below the equator.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on February 12, 2014, 09:33:13 PM
So, one of you is saying that the spacing between the lines of latitude are consistent, and the other is saying that they are not consistent.  Which is it?
We are both saying that latitude is consistent on a round earth, but not a flat one.

Quote
Both of you claim that the lines of latitude don't work when flattened to a plane - but there are flat maps with latitude and longitude on them available in every convenience store.  It's a coordinate system, nothing more.
First of all, you do understand that the "flat maps" that you are referring to are flat projections of a round earth, don't you?  Projections always introduce some sort of distortion on one axis or another.

Secondly, it's not so much that sighting Polaris can't work on flat earth, it's just that the results are not what have been observed for countless years.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on February 12, 2014, 10:01:08 PM
First of all, you do understand that the "flat maps" that you are referring to are flat projections of a round earth, don't you?  Projections always introduce some sort of distortion on one axis or another.

Secondly, it's not so much that sighting Polaris can't work on flat earth, it's just that the results are not what have been observed for countless years.
I find it more reasonable that globes are spherical projections of a flat earth, but we can agree to disagree on that point.

I'm still not sure what observations you're referring to.  Sighting polaris works to determine latitude, it's just that the lines of latitude were assigned values of degrees as if the earth were a sphere.  Just because you call the measurement degrees doesn't imply rotundity, and the fact that the process was developed by round earth thinkers doesn't make it less valid on a flat earth.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2014, 01:44:34 AM
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on February 13, 2014, 02:56:28 AM
I'm still not sure what observations you're referring to.  Sighting polaris works to determine latitude, it's just that the lines of latitude were assigned values of degrees as if the earth were a sphere.
Let me ask you this:  Do you agree that degrees of latitude are evenly spaced 60 nautical miles apart?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on February 13, 2014, 04:47:21 AM
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.

Not true, if the light is affected by the EA.  But that's an ongoing discussion in another thread.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2014, 11:32:12 AM
If there even is an EA.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Antonio on February 13, 2014, 11:41:44 AM
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.

Not true, if the light is affected by the EA.  But that's an ongoing discussion in another thread.

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you measure sun's alititude by triangulation if you assert that light doesn't travel in a straight line ?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on February 13, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.

Not true, if the light is affected by the EA.  But that's an ongoing discussion in another thread.

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you measure sun's alititude by triangulation if you assert that light doesn't travel in a straight line ?

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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Antonio 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 ?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior 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?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Antonio 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?

Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on February 17, 2014, 10:15:28 PM
How do you know any distance?  Does Australia really exist?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 06, 2014, 08:46:43 AM
Meanwhile, TV stations use satellites to get pictures back from Crimea.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 06, 2014, 11:31:01 AM
Yeah, because TV transitions must only come from outer space.  ::)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa 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?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Antonio 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)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 06, 2014, 04:56:00 PM
How does a satellite remain in the air on a FE?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive 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.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on March 06, 2014, 05:59:26 PM
How does a satellite remain in the air on a FE?
How do the moon and sun remain in the air?  These objects also circle above the earth.  Aetheric whirlpool?  Celestial gears?  I don't know for sure, as I haven't been up there.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 06, 2014, 08:15:37 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.
Where would you set up relay stations to cover the future invasion of Iran?  I have a sneaking suspicion that Iran wouldn't let the US forces use the ones that are already there.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 07, 2014, 11:20:52 AM
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.
Where would you set up relay stations to cover the future invasion of Iran?  I have a sneaking suspicion that Iran wouldn't let the US forces use the ones that are already there.

Here is a news broadcast of a reporter covering the invasion of Iraq.  Do you notice anything odd, like a bluescreen background and a fan blowing on a fake palm?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 07, 2014, 01:25:50 PM
Here is a news broadcast of a reporter covering the invasion of Iraq.  Do you notice anything odd, like a bluescreen background and a fan blowing on a fake palm?
So you're saying that every reporter that was embedded with the troops during the invasion of Iraq used a blue (or green) screen?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 07, 2014, 02:57:43 PM
So, you are saying that news broadcasts do not lie about sending satellite reports?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 05:46:42 PM
So, you are saying that news broadcasts do not lie about sending satellite reports?
One false report does not mean every one is.  This seems to be a FE tactic, it does not work.

Have you seen live news reports from the Ukraine, false?  I have seen live broadcasts using a sat truck, what do you think was happening?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 07, 2014, 06:03:06 PM
So, you are saying that news broadcasts do not lie about sending satellite reports?
No, that is isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying that it doesn't matter how many fake satellite broadcasts you bring up, all it takes is one real satellite broadcast to prove that the technology is real.

Here is a news broadcast of a reporter covering the invasion of Iraq.  Do you notice anything odd, like a bluescreen background and a fan blowing on a fake palm?
So you're saying that every reporter that was embedded with the troops during the invasion of Iraq used a blue (or green) screen?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 07, 2014, 08:31:19 PM
Whoops, here it is.

Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 08, 2014, 01:41:08 AM
Whoops, here it is.

Very nice, except that reporter wasn't covering the invasion of Iraq.  He was covering Scud missile attacks against Saudi Arabia.

Also:
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 08, 2014, 04:31:24 PM
Always CNN...
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2014, 11:46:56 AM
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.
Crude as hell, but here you go:

(http://i.omgomg.eu/satell)

It's a bit epicyclic, but that's to be expected.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on March 16, 2014, 03:11:53 AM
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.
Crude as hell, but here you go:

It's a bit epicyclic, but that's to be expected.

D'oh, dropped the ball.  Sorry about that, and thanks for the assist PP.  Pretty similar to what I would have done to illustrate what's happening.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Antonio on March 16, 2014, 07:11:31 AM
Thank you for your drawing PP, greatly appreciated.
The question is still standing :
Quote
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ?

Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on March 16, 2014, 02:55:06 PM
Thank you for your drawing PP, greatly appreciated.
The question is still standing :
Quote
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ?

Objects in orbit circle above the earth.  Plotting an actual satellite's path on the monopole map shows a path that is consistent with this.  A satellite's orbit around a spherical earth is circular, too, so it's hardly surprising that it should be the same over a planar one.  I'm not sure what's irrational here.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 16, 2014, 08:26:28 PM
Thank you for your drawing PP, greatly appreciated.
The question is still standing :
Quote
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ?
That satellite orbits once every 24 hours? Much like the sun and the moon do? Its likely its caught up in the same dark energy forces that power those objects. Its making the same path in the same timeframe albeit at a lower altitude.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 08:43:58 PM
How do you explain the orbit of GPS satellites and the ISS?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 16, 2014, 09:41:14 PM
They don't orbit. They are stationary. If they exist at all, and frankly, I'm sceptical.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 10:24:08 PM
They don't orbit. They are stationary. If they exist at all, and frankly, I'm sceptical.
Live pictures from the ISS tonight on UK TV.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 16, 2014, 10:27:27 PM
Yes. CGI and photoshop haven't yet been invented. ::)

In other news the planet of Alderaan has been destroyed.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 10:50:03 PM
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 16, 2014, 10:56:00 PM
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 16, 2014, 11:05:09 PM
Yes. CGI and photoshop haven't yet been invented. ::)

In other news the planet of Alderaan has been destroyed.
Sorry Thork but the Chewbacca defense is based on a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 11:30:21 PM
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.
An algorithm does not explain new Russian satellites appearing.

The display typically shows 15 satellites, where are they when you are in a valley?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 16, 2014, 11:33:56 PM
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.
An algorithm does not explain new Russian satellites appearing.

The display typically shows 15 satellites, where are they when you are in a valley?
Finding you via a skywave.

(http://2e0mca.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/skywave-diagram.jpg)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 16, 2014, 11:52:13 PM
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.
An algorithm does not explain new Russian satellites appearing.

The display typically shows 15 satellites, where are they when you are in a valley?
Finding you via a skywave.

(http://2e0mca.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/skywave-diagram.jpg)
Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rushy on March 17, 2014, 01:35:29 AM
Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.

How about explaining precisely why you think that it wouldn't work the way Thork pointed out. Then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 17, 2014, 01:42:28 AM
Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.

How about explaining precisely why you think that it wouldn't work the way Thork pointed out. Then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Hmmm...  Maybe it has something to do with timing.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Antonio on March 17, 2014, 07:13:17 AM
Thank you for your drawing PP, greatly appreciated.
The question is still standing :
Quote
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ?

Objects in orbit circle above the earth.  Plotting an actual satellite's path on the monopole map shows a path that is consistent with this.  A satellite's orbit around a spherical earth is circular, too, so it's hardly surprising that it should be the same over a planar one.  I'm not sure what's irrational here.

This implies that this projection is correct (the same projection on the bipolar map is quite.....weird) , and I see various issues there :

- the path is not really circular, indeed, unlike the stellar objects path,
- If you look carefully, you may notice the 5 minutes plots on the trajectory.  Look at the huge acceleration in the south part of the trip.
This may lead to two choices : either the satellite's speed is constant and the map is obviously invalid, or, as the trajectory seems to keep a near constant radius, some additional unknown and speed correlated forces are acting on the satellite, keeping it into the initial circular path while accelerating/decelerating it.

That satellite orbits once every 24 hours? Much like the sun and the moon do? Its likely its caught up in the same dark energy forces that power those objects. Its making the same path in the same timeframe albeit at a lower altitude.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)
Thank you for this drawing Thork

According to this site http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/spac0119.htm (http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/spac0119.htm), the orbits took 117 minutes to complete, which is consistent with low altitude objects orbit times. Clearly a lot faster than the sun. It also turns counter-clockwise, unlike the sun and the celestial objects. The orbit is clearly not north pole centered and finally, considering the point above, the orbit speed varies dramatically.
We can hardly say that the same forces are acting there.

Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 17, 2014, 08:54:40 AM
Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.

How about explaining precisely why you think that it wouldn't work the way Thork pointed out. Then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Because it uses accurate timing and location from a minimum of 4 satellites.  Bouncing off the sky would not give that.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 17, 2014, 09:23:45 AM
Bouncing off the sky would not give that.
Why do you think that?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 17, 2014, 09:29:34 AM
Bouncing off the sky would not give that.
Why do you think that?
Variable distance.  Relies on precise location of each satellite.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 17, 2014, 11:26:53 AM
Variable distance.
Use you words, inquisitive. Say what you mean, no one's gonna waste time trying to guess.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 17, 2014, 12:09:16 PM
Variable distance.
Use you words, inquisitive. Say what you mean, no one's gonna waste time trying to guess.
What do you mean?  How GPS works is well documented and used by millions of people and systems.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 17, 2014, 12:42:57 PM
What do you mean?
I mean that if you have a specific objection, you need to voice it. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously, and you're unlikely to see any replies that involve actual effort.

People aren't going to guess what you mean by saying "Nope, this won't work because variable distance lol". If you have something to say, just say it.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 17, 2014, 01:41:01 PM
What do you mean?
I mean that if you have a specific objection, you need to voice it. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously, and you're unlikely to see any replies that involve actual effort.

People aren't going to guess what you mean by saying "Nope, this won't work because variable distance lol". If you have something to say, just say it.
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 17, 2014, 02:51:53 PM
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.
That may well be so, but that does not mean you can carry on not explaining your own views. Hold yourself to your own standards first.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 17, 2014, 03:11:08 PM
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.
That may well be so, but that does not mean you can carry on not explaining your own views. Hold yourself to your own standards first.

Perhaps you should as well?

Flat earth distances must be different to round earth ones.
Nope.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 17, 2014, 03:16:36 PM
I'm glad that you noticed my mockery of him. Too bad you skipped out on the context and my previous remarks.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 17, 2014, 03:40:02 PM
I'm glad that you noticed my mockery of him. Too bad you skipped out on the context and my previous remarks.

I did not miss any context.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 17, 2014, 04:47:53 PM
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.
That may well be so, but that does not mean you can carry on not explaining your own views. Hold yourself to your own standards first.
My view is the published design information.  That is clear about how GPS works and not disputed by anyone.

GPS uses a known distance from the satellite, the ionisphere would not allow this as it is a variable height.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rushy on March 18, 2014, 01:31:49 AM
My view is the published design information.  That is clear about how GPS works and not disputed by anyone.

Hardly.

GPS uses a known distance from the satellite, the ionisphere would not allow this as it is a variable height.

This does not conflict with atmolayer location calculation. The more towers you are using concurrently, the more accurate a location prediction will be. If anything, this is a point for a flat Earth. When is the last time a GPS let you calculate position using only one satellite? I'll give you a heads-up... it won't.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2014, 02:44:40 AM
Which towers?  Where are they?  Who made them?  When were they deployed?  Is there any documentation for them whatsoever?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 18, 2014, 06:36:18 AM
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.

Thork doesn't need to do anything.  Why do you feel like you are entitled?  You feel like everyone just owes you something.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 06:46:01 AM
My view is the published design information.  That is clear about how GPS works and not disputed by anyone.

Hardly.

GPS uses a known distance from the satellite, the ionisphere would not allow this as it is a variable height.

This does not conflict with atmolayer location calculation. The more towers you are using concurrently, the more accurate a location prediction will be. If anything, this is a point for a flat Earth. When is the last time a GPS let you calculate position using only one satellite? I'll give you a heads-up... it won't.
We know GPS uses satellites and you need a minimum of 4 to calculate a pisition and altitude.

How many towers would an atmolayer system need to cover the entire earth? Would the atmolayer reflect 1.5GHz signals and how do you ensure a precise known transit time?  It would not work.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 18, 2014, 06:51:33 AM
How many towers are needed for my phone to tell me where I am?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 07:03:55 AM
How many towers are needed for my phone to tell me where I am?
Do you not know?  Basic maths.

The location service you have does not work in every country.  Or in the centre of oceans as discussed before.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 18, 2014, 07:05:48 AM
I see.  You don't know.  Thanks for nothing.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 07:08:19 AM
I see.  You don't know.  Thanks for nothing.
3 for location. 4 for altitude.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 18, 2014, 07:09:30 AM
What?  Can you explain how this can only be done with satellites?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 18, 2014, 07:35:41 AM
I did not miss any context.
I didn't say you missed it, merely that you skipped it. I accused you of malice, not stupidity.

It would not work.
Substantiate this claim.

Do you not know?  Basic maths.
Show your working and elaborate on the answer (well, once you presented it).
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 07:45:12 AM
What?  Can you explain how this can only be done with satellites?
The US wanted an accurate worldwide navigation system, only way to do it.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 07:47:44 AM
I did not miss any context.
I didn't say you missed it, merely that you skipped it. I accused you of malice, not stupidity.

It would not work.
Substantiate this claim.

Do you not know?  Basic maths.
Show your working and elaborate on the answer (well, once you presented it).
How about you come up with a proposal using the ionosphere and show how it would work. With enough design details for review.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 18, 2014, 07:51:55 AM
What?  Can you explain how this can only be done with satellites?
The US wanted an accurate worldwide navigation system, only way to do it.

I would love to have an accurate positioning system  as well.  I see that you are falling on your face now.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 18, 2014, 07:54:06 AM
How about you come up with a proposal using the ionosphere and show how it would work. With enough design details for review.
Why are you so afraid of backing up your claims? C'mon, pick one and write about it in more than one sentence. You can do it, inquisitive. I believe in you. You can finally prove that you're not a complete waste of time to all of us!
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 07:55:09 AM
What?  Can you explain how this can only be done with satellites?
The US wanted an accurate worldwide navigation system, only way to do it.

I would love to have an accurate positioning system  as well.  I see that you are falling on your face now.
What do you mean?  GPS is used by millions of people and systems across the world.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 07:57:32 AM
How about you come up with a proposal using the ionosphere and show how it would work. With enough design details for review.
Why are you so afraid of backing up your claims? C'mon, pick one and write about it in more than one sentence. You can do it, inquisitive. I believe in you. You can finally prove that you're not a complete waste of time to all of us!
I am not claiming that an ionosphere based system would work, it is for those that do to explain how with more than one picture.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 18, 2014, 08:55:40 AM
I am not claiming that an ionosphere based system would work
Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2014, 11:13:53 AM
I did not miss any context.
I didn't say you missed it, merely that you skipped it. I accused you of malice, not stupidity.

Funny that is what I was accusing you of!
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 18, 2014, 11:20:55 AM
Funny that is what I was accusing you of!
Yes, good thing I called you out on it. Anyway, please stop derailing this thread. Feel free to continue trying to trip me up via PM if you so desire.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 12:09:37 PM
Funny that is what I was accusing you of!
Yes, good thing I called you out on it. Anyway, please stop derailing this thread. Feel free to continue trying to trip me up via PM if you so desire.
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 18, 2014, 12:33:56 PM
How about you come up with a proposal using the ionosphere and show how it would work. With enough design details for review.
Why are you so afraid of backing up your claims? C'mon, pick one and write about it in more than one sentence. You can do it, inquisitive. I believe in you. You can finally prove that you're not a complete waste of time to all of us!
Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 18, 2014, 01:07:19 PM
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.
You have yet to substantiate that.

Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?
He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 01:53:20 PM
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.
You have yet to substantiate that.

Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?
He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.
What claims have I made that need substantiating?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2014, 02:05:04 PM
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.
You have yet to substantiate that.

Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?
He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.
What claims have I made that need substantiating?

You should assume you need to substantiate all of your claims upon request.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 18, 2014, 07:59:01 PM

(http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/NTX2-19.GIF)
As you can see there isn't one skywave. And each will have altered the carrier wave differently as it bends it at a different rate. Its therefore possible to work out your distance by seeing which skywave you picked up from the beacon and how long it took to reach you.

(https://forum.solidworks.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-131560-4452/SineWaveAlongSpline.png)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 08:20:20 PM
Signals above 30MHz are not returned and GPS uses 1.5GHz.  Also the path length cannot be measured which is essential.

Key thing is a system having an accuracy of a few metres.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 18, 2014, 08:34:23 PM
I just explained, you'd know the distance by which wave you picked up. You could tell by the shape of the wave.

GPS signals are returned. The proof is that you receive them.

Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 18, 2014, 08:44:21 PM
I just explained, you'd know the distance by which wave you picked up. You could tell by the shape of the wave.

GPS signals are returned. The proof is that you receive them.
GPS uses 1.5G, not from ionosphere, but satellites.  Has to be direct to know path distance.

How high is the ionosphere, to nearest metre and please confirm 1.5GHz reflects.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 18, 2014, 08:55:45 PM
Please remember the earth has a firmament. A crystalline canopy above our heads. The earth is flat.

(http://i57.tinypic.com/282qiqo.png)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2014, 08:57:33 PM
Please remember the earth has a firmament. A crystalline canopy above our heads. The earth is flat.

(http://i57.tinypic.com/282qiqo.png)

Citation required.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Thork on March 18, 2014, 08:58:57 PM
Citation required.

Quote from: Genesis 1:7
Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2014, 09:48:57 PM
I thought you were a Zetetic. Apologies.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 19, 2014, 05:30:48 AM
Funny that is what I was accusing you of!
Yes, good thing I called you out on it. Anyway, please stop derailing this thread. Feel free to continue trying to trip me up via PM if you so desire.
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.

Communication cannot occur unless satellites are real?  Didn't people communicate via radio waves long before these supposed satellites were invented?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 08:21:38 AM
Funny that is what I was accusing you of!
Yes, good thing I called you out on it. Anyway, please stop derailing this thread. Feel free to continue trying to trip me up via PM if you so desire.
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.

Communication cannot occur unless satellites are real?  Didn't people communicate via radio waves long before these supposed satellites were invented?
This is your standard answer to everything.  Nice try. Where does anyone say 'cannot'?

We did not have a 3m accurate worldwide location system or a 600 tv channel broadcast system to the whole country before satellites.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 19, 2014, 08:43:15 AM
There are many channels on TV that are not claimed to come from outer space.  Also, your position can be calculated without flying trashcans telling you where you are.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 08:53:17 AM
There are many channels on TV that are not claimed to come from outer space.  Also, your position can be calculated without flying trashcans telling you where you are.
So? What about those that do come from space.  As discussed before other options does not exclude a solution.

GPS is the only worldwide accurate system, as you know.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 19, 2014, 08:56:40 AM
So, you are claiming that signals you are told come from space proves that these signals have come from space?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 09:03:58 AM
So, you are claiming that signals you are told come from space proves that these signals have come from space?
All the tests prove it, unless you can show otherwise.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on March 19, 2014, 09:16:55 AM
Which tests?  Are you asking me to prove that non-existent tests prove something?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 09:28:08 AM
Which tests?  Are you asking me to prove that non-existent tests prove something?
Measure the dish angles for a particular satellite.  Look at how live tv is transmitted from war zones.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 19, 2014, 10:03:14 AM
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.
You have yet to substantiate that.

Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?
He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.
What claims have I made that need substantiating?
I've done a pretty good job when it comes to quoting the claims while making requests. In fact, the very post you've quoted features two of those. I made them bold and pink for your convenience.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.
You have yet to substantiate that.

Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work?  Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?
He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.
What claims have I made that need substantiating?
I've done a pretty good job when it comes to quoting the claims while making requests. In fact, the very post you've quoted features two of those. I made them bold and pink for your convenience.
Do you really doubt that satellites exist?  What do dishes point at, measure the angles to find the source.  Talk to people in the industry.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 19, 2014, 10:13:10 AM
Do you really doubt that satellites exist?  What do dishes point at, measure the angles to find the source.  Talk to people in the industry.
Why, why, why are you so reluctant to just back your claim up? Two can play that game, you know.

*ahem*

The Earth is hollow and we've known that for ages. Just look at satellite dishes, measure where they point. Talk to people in tinfoil hats. Also, your claims about satellites are untrue because of simple maths and set theory. Simple physics tells us that you must be wrong. Please explain how satellites have enough fuel to keep flying around the Earth.

This is what your posts look like. They include empty claims with no substantiation at all, pretend to refer to "basic" and "simple" stuff (but never in any specific way), and claim that others said what they didn't say. Do you understand how worthless that is in a discussion?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 10:16:12 AM
Do you really doubt that satellites exist?  What do dishes point at, measure the angles to find the source.  Talk to people in the industry.
Why, why, why are you so reluctant to just back your claim up? Two can play that game, you know.

*ahem*

The Earth is hollow and we've known that for ages. Just look at satellite dishes, measure where they point. Talk to people in tinfoil hats. Also, your claims about satellites are untrue because of simple maths and set theory. Simple physics tells us that you must be wrong. Please explain how satellites have enough fuel to keep flying around the Earth.

This is what your posts look like. They include empty claims with no substantiation at all, pretend to refer to "basic" and "simple" stuff (but never in any specific way), and claim that others said what they didn't say. Do you understand how worthless that is in a discussion?
So what would back up the claim or facts from millions who understand how they work, plus those who design and build them, are they wrong?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 19, 2014, 10:24:06 AM
So what would back up the claim or facts from millions who understand how they work, plus those who design and build them, are they wrong?
Perhaps Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement will be of some use to you.

Currently, you alternate between "responding to tone" and "contradiction", introducing an occasional straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) along the way. For people to start taking you seriously, you'd have to bump it up to "counterargument" or "refuation".

Very importantly, saying "millions of people believe/know it" is not a valid argument in this case. It's a common logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). The popularity of an idea does not say anything about its truth value.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 10:28:43 AM
The existance of satellutes is not an idea, it is fact.

How does your satellite tv service work?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 19, 2014, 10:31:50 AM
The existance of satellutes is not an idea, it is fact.
Then it should be very easy to prove, and I encourage you to do so.

How does your satellite tv service work?
Not much can be said about that, given that my satellite TV service doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 10:49:00 AM
The existance of satellutes is not an idea, it is fact.
Then it should be very easy to prove, and I encourage you to do so.

How does your satellite tv service work?
Not much can be said about that, given that my satellite TV service doesn't exist.
I suggest you refer to documents published by members of respected professional institutions and other organisations.  You could also contact the many companies in the industry to understand their products.

Have you seen how GPS works, which shows both US and Russian satellites?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 19, 2014, 10:57:30 AM
I give up. There's no point in trying to teach you proper debate if you're not willing to even try. Off to the ignore list you go.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on March 19, 2014, 11:37:51 AM
I give up. There's no point in trying to teach you proper debate if you're not willing to even try. Off to the ignore list you go.
There is not a lot to debate, nobody has explained an alternative.

Clearly GPS works according to all published documentation.  I see they will be using GPS to establish the location of possible plane wreakage 1500 miles from Australia.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rushy on March 21, 2014, 03:13:45 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on March 21, 2014, 12:24:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Are you saying that LORAN works according to the published GPS documentation?  ???
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 10, 2014, 11:53:38 AM
for that part about how the satellites keep running well have you ever done the thing where you swing a bucket fall of water around and the water stays in the bucket instead of falling out, well its sort of like that concept but replicated with space. oh and you should all play kerbal space program gives you a great idea on how round earth theory works
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 10, 2014, 12:20:06 PM
oh and 10 countries have launched space capable rockets with another 8 more on the way. So you FEers are saying every single official in those countries have lied, even one such as the soviet union, the esa, iran, uk, china, America, and others. You know they based icbms off space flight as well can you explain how they would work if they cant orbit
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tau on April 10, 2014, 03:32:32 PM
oh and 10 countries have launched space capable rockets with another 8 more on the way. So you FEers are saying every single official in those countries have lied, even one such as the soviet union, the esa, iran, uk, china, America, and others. You know they based icbms off space flight as well can you explain how they would work if they cant orbit

How many times have ICBMs been used in reality? Besides that, there are phenomena in FET which behave similarly to RET orbit. I can expand more on that if you wish.

for that part about how the satellites keep running well have you ever done the thing where you swing a bucket fall of water around and the water stays in the bucket instead of falling out, well its sort of like that concept but replicated with space. oh and you should all play kerbal space program gives you a great idea on how round earth theory works

Everyone here is aware of how RET works. Probably moreso than you are. We're quite well-versed in the subject. This is why we choose not to believe in it.

Also, centripetal force has nothing to do with RET orbit. Orbit is pure gravity. Centripetal force is more or less irrelevant.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: markjo on April 10, 2014, 04:26:42 PM
How many times have ICBMs been used in reality?
Russia just used one about a month or so ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 11, 2014, 12:18:05 PM
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg/220px-Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg theres two photos of icbms in use a peacekeeper re-entry with mirvs and a titan II

and heres a link to a photo of all the countries that can launch satellites not just nasa and it includes ones like north korea and the soviet union and china which would never cooperate with America they would rather expose the hoaxes http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Orbital_Launches.svg/800px-Orbital_Launches.svg.png
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tau on April 11, 2014, 05:37:21 PM
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg/220px-Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg theres two photos of icbms in use a peacekeeper re-entry with mirvs and a titan II

and heres a link to a photo of all the countries that can launch satellites not just nasa and it includes ones like north korea and the soviet union and china which would never cooperate with America they would rather expose the hoaxes http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Orbital_Launches.svg/800px-Orbital_Launches.svg.png

None of what you've said contradicts FET in any way. I suggest reading through the Wiki.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on April 11, 2014, 07:10:55 PM
There is essentially nothing in the wiki on the topic of space travel or satellites.  There are only two sentences on Space Tourism.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 11, 2014, 09:15:03 PM
well the wiki says nobody has entered space, are you saying the soviet union and America who would of rather started a nuclear war then work together made an agreement to fake everything they did and not expose the other. look at the list below, they are all countries that have made it to space are you saying every one of those launches were fake, theres over 2000 satellites from over 50 countries in orbit are you saying all those are fake.

1  Soviet Union[c] Sputnik 1 Sputnik-PS Baikonur, Soviet Union (today Kazakhstan) 4 October 1957
2  United States[d] Explorer 1 Juno I Cape Canaveral, United States 1 February 1958
3  France[f] Astérix Diamant A Hammaguir, Algeria 26 November 1965
4  Japan Ōsumi Lambda-4S Uchinoura, Japan 11 February 1970
5  China Dong Fang Hong I Long March 1 Jiuquan, China 24 April 1970
6  United Kingdom[g] Prospero Black Arrow Woomera, Australia 28 October 1971
— European Space Agency[h] CAT-1 Ariane 1 Kourou, French Guiana 24 December 1979
7  India Rohini D1 SLV Sriharikota, India 18 July 1980
8  Israel Ofeq 1 Shavit Palmachim, Israel 19 September 1988
—  Ukraine[c] Strela-3 (x6, Russian) Tsyklon-3 Plesetsk, Russia 28 September 1991
—  Russia[c] Kosmos 2175 Soyuz-U Plesetsk, Russia 21 January 1992
9  Iran [j] Omid Safir-1A Semnan, Iran 2 February 2009
10  North Korea Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 Unha-3 Sohae, North Korea 12 December 2012
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on April 12, 2014, 05:15:32 AM
for that part about how the satellites keep running well have you ever done the thing where you swing a bucket fall of water around and the water stays in the bucket instead of falling out, well its sort of like that concept but replicated with space. oh and you should all play kerbal space program gives you a great idea on how round earth theory works

Are you seriously trying to claim that centrifugal force keeps satellites in space?  I feel dumber now.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tau on April 12, 2014, 04:09:57 PM
well the wiki says nobody has entered space, are you saying the soviet union and America who would of rather started a nuclear war then work together made an agreement to fake everything they did and not expose the other. look at the list below, they are all countries that have made it to space are you saying every one of those launches were fake, theres over 2000 satellites from over 50 countries in orbit are you saying all those are fake.

1  Soviet Union[c] Sputnik 1 Sputnik-PS Baikonur, Soviet Union (today Kazakhstan) 4 October 1957
2  United States[d] Explorer 1 Juno I Cape Canaveral, United States 1 February 1958
3  France[f] Astérix Diamant A Hammaguir, Algeria 26 November 1965
4  Japan Ōsumi Lambda-4S Uchinoura, Japan 11 February 1970
5  China Dong Fang Hong I Long March 1 Jiuquan, China 24 April 1970
6  United Kingdom[g] Prospero Black Arrow Woomera, Australia 28 October 1971
— European Space Agency[h] CAT-1 Ariane 1 Kourou, French Guiana 24 December 1979
7  India Rohini D1 SLV Sriharikota, India 18 July 1980
8  Israel Ofeq 1 Shavit Palmachim, Israel 19 September 1988
—  Ukraine[c] Strela-3 (x6, Russian) Tsyklon-3 Plesetsk, Russia 28 September 1991
—  Russia[c] Kosmos 2175 Soyuz-U Plesetsk, Russia 21 January 1992
9  Iran [j] Omid Safir-1A Semnan, Iran 2 February 2009
10  North Korea Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 Unha-3 Sohae, North Korea 12 December 2012

Oh, has the history of the conspiracy not been added to the wiki?

Basically, the Soviets faked it first with Sputnik. The Americans didn't know they were faking it, so they tried to do the same. It didn't work and their only option was to also fake it. Neither side was aware that the other was faking until they were too deeply embroiled in the race to try to call the other out. It would have been mutually assured destruction. Other nations since have gone through the same process.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on April 12, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
well the wiki says nobody has entered space, are you saying the soviet union and America who would of rather started a nuclear war then work together made an agreement to fake everything they did and not expose the other. look at the list below, they are all countries that have made it to space are you saying every one of those launches were fake, theres over 2000 satellites from over 50 countries in orbit are you saying all those are fake.

1  Soviet Union[c] Sputnik 1 Sputnik-PS Baikonur, Soviet Union (today Kazakhstan) 4 October 1957
2  United States[d] Explorer 1 Juno I Cape Canaveral, United States 1 February 1958
3  France[f] Astérix Diamant A Hammaguir, Algeria 26 November 1965
4  Japan Ōsumi Lambda-4S Uchinoura, Japan 11 February 1970
5  China Dong Fang Hong I Long March 1 Jiuquan, China 24 April 1970
6  United Kingdom[g] Prospero Black Arrow Woomera, Australia 28 October 1971
— European Space Agency[h] CAT-1 Ariane 1 Kourou, French Guiana 24 December 1979
7  India Rohini D1 SLV Sriharikota, India 18 July 1980
8  Israel Ofeq 1 Shavit Palmachim, Israel 19 September 1988
—  Ukraine[c] Strela-3 (x6, Russian) Tsyklon-3 Plesetsk, Russia 28 September 1991
—  Russia[c] Kosmos 2175 Soyuz-U Plesetsk, Russia 21 January 1992
9  Iran [j] Omid Safir-1A Semnan, Iran 2 February 2009
10  North Korea Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 Unha-3 Sohae, North Korea 12 December 2012

Oh, has the history of the conspiracy not been added to the wiki?

Basically, the Soviets faked it first with Sputnik. The Americans didn't know they were faking it, so they tried to do the same. It didn't work and their only option was to also fake it. Neither side was aware that the other was faking until they were too deeply embroiled in the race to try to call the other out. It would have been mutually assured destruction. Other nations since have gone through the same process.

Citation needed.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 13, 2014, 11:09:29 AM
well the wiki says nobody has entered space, are you saying the soviet union and America who would of rather started a nuclear war then work together made an agreement to fake everything they did and not expose the other. look at the list below, they are all countries that have made it to space are you saying every one of those launches were fake, theres over 2000 satellites from over 50 countries in orbit are you saying all those are fake.

1  Soviet Union[c] Sputnik 1 Sputnik-PS Baikonur, Soviet Union (today Kazakhstan) 4 October 1957
2  United States[d] Explorer 1 Juno I Cape Canaveral, United States 1 February 1958
3  France[f] Astérix Diamant A Hammaguir, Algeria 26 November 1965
4  Japan Ōsumi Lambda-4S Uchinoura, Japan 11 February 1970
5  China Dong Fang Hong I Long March 1 Jiuquan, China 24 April 1970
6  United Kingdom[g] Prospero Black Arrow Woomera, Australia 28 October 1971
— European Space Agency[h] CAT-1 Ariane 1 Kourou, French Guiana 24 December 1979
7  India Rohini D1 SLV Sriharikota, India 18 July 1980
8  Israel Ofeq 1 Shavit Palmachim, Israel 19 September 1988
—  Ukraine[c] Strela-3 (x6, Russian) Tsyklon-3 Plesetsk, Russia 28 September 1991
—  Russia[c] Kosmos 2175 Soyuz-U Plesetsk, Russia 21 January 1992
9  Iran [j] Omid Safir-1A Semnan, Iran 2 February 2009
10  North Korea Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 Unha-3 Sohae, North Korea 12 December 2012

Oh, has the history of the conspiracy not been added to the wiki?

Basically, the Soviets faked it first with Sputnik. The Americans didn't know they were faking it, so they tried to do the same. It didn't work and their only option was to also fake it. Neither side was aware that the other was faking until they were too deeply embroiled in the race to try to call the other out. It would have been mutually assured destruction. Other nations since have gone through the same process.
so not one of those countries got it right, every single one, the same countries that developed nuclear fission and jets that can break the speed of sound easily cant build a rocket to go into space
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on April 14, 2014, 05:48:56 PM
Nobody said they can't go to space.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 15, 2014, 12:48:53 PM
Nobody said they can't go to space.
then why say theres a conspiracy about the shape of the earth
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Ghost of V on April 16, 2014, 12:48:06 AM
Nobody said they can't go to space.
then why say theres a conspiracy about the shape of the earth

Because there obviously has to be.  ::)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Tintagel on April 16, 2014, 12:49:27 AM
Nobody said they can't go to space.
then why say theres a conspiracy about the shape of the earth
No one says there is a conspiracy about the shape of the earth.  The Conspiracy, as it's called, refers to the conspiracy that manned spaceflight HAS occurred and has been happening since the 1950s.  Those who support it believe that it hasn't, and that those who propagate it do so using a spherical earth not because they're trying to cover up the truth about earth's shape, but because they're trying to continue fabricating a believable space program.

That said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't fully support that line of reasoning.  I think it's interesting, and surely lies have been told over the years, but on the whole I find it a little far-fetched and I believe there must be a more reasonable answer.  Perhaps I give people too much credit, I've done that before.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 16, 2014, 11:23:56 AM
Nobody said they can't go to space.
then why say theres a conspiracy about the shape of the earth
No one says there is a conspiracy about the shape of the earth.  The Conspiracy, as it's called, refers to the conspiracy that manned spaceflight HAS occurred and has been happening since the 1950s.  Those who support it believe that it hasn't, and that those who propagate it do so using a spherical earth not because they're trying to cover up the truth about earth's shape, but because they're trying to continue fabricating a believable space program.

That said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't fully support that line of reasoning.  I think it's interesting, and surely lies have been told over the years, but on the whole I find it a little far-fetched and I believe there must be a more reasonable answer.  Perhaps I give people too much credit, I've done that before.
why what does faking all the space related stuff what occurred in all these places that built rockets and stuff, why did all the rnd go into the space program if its fake why bother putting that much effort into a fake thing its really much harder to see that side then think they did
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: inquisitive on April 16, 2014, 01:04:44 PM
for that part about how the satellites keep running well have you ever done the thing where you swing a bucket fall of water around and the water stays in the bucket instead of falling out, well its sort of like that concept but replicated with space. oh and you should all play kerbal space program gives you a great idea on how round earth theory works

Are you seriously trying to claim that centrifugal force keeps satellites in space?  I feel dumber now.
How do you think they stay in space?
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on April 16, 2014, 02:35:46 PM
for that part about how the satellites keep running well have you ever done the thing where you swing a bucket fall of water around and the water stays in the bucket instead of falling out, well its sort of like that concept but replicated with space. oh and you should all play kerbal space program gives you a great idea on how round earth theory works

Are you seriously trying to claim that centrifugal force keeps satellites in space?  I feel dumber now.
How do you think they stay in space?

Through orbital mechanics.  It is not through centrifugal force.  Satellites are falling towards the Earth, but their lateral velocity is sufficient to create a trajectory where its altitude remains somewhat constant.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: pilot172 on April 17, 2014, 11:47:27 AM
for that part about how the satellites keep running well have you ever done the thing where you swing a bucket fall of water around and the water stays in the bucket instead of falling out, well its sort of like that concept but replicated with space. oh and you should all play kerbal space program gives you a great idea on how round earth theory works

Are you seriously trying to claim that centrifugal force keeps satellites in space?  I feel dumber now.
How do you think they stay in space?

Through orbital mechanics.  It is not through centrifugal force.  Satellites are falling towards the Earth, but their lateral velocity is sufficient to create a trajectory where its altitude remains somewhat constant.
yeah I read up on how they wwork its sort of like they fall but at the same time get to a point where they fall past the earth but are curved by the earths gravity
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on April 17, 2014, 06:47:39 PM
Not really, they supposedly fall at the same rate that they travel forward.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2014, 07:22:47 PM
Not really, they supposedly fall at the same rate that they travel forward.

No.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: jroa on April 17, 2014, 07:27:21 PM
Not really, they supposedly fall at the same rate that they travel forward.

No.

Well thank you for you insight, genius.  ::)
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2014, 07:39:27 PM
Not really, they supposedly fall at the same rate that they travel forward.

No.

Well thank you for you insight, genius.  ::)

No problem.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: BillyBob on April 26, 2014, 05:48:30 AM
Still no answers.  This seems to be a trait of The Flat Earth Society.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: nowheregirl on June 11, 2016, 12:36:22 PM
goldenmean.info explains the "whirlpool" theory. Dan Winter has been teaching implosion physics for a long time. He has been railroaded by the powers that be because he is revealing the true nature of reality.

When two membranes attract they either crash or they spin around each other. The  most efficient way water goes down a drain is if it organizes and spins. The sucking motion is caused by an empty space where matter is drained so to speak and this is how you get a black hole UNLESS matter is stablilized on both sides of this TORUS. It is like two tornadoes kissing. THey are both sucking in so they create zero point gravity at the center. Both sides are drawn into a bubble where there is a flat plane through the center. This plane is stable enough for different types of life forms to survive. Look at a galaxy. It is a flat plane with a black hole at the center but it is stabilized because of golden ratio. It's geometry sustains it and keeps it self organized. This is the very definition of LIFE. Lo Phi waves imploding non destructively.
Title: Re: Satellites
Post by: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 09:56:42 PM
goldenmean.info explains the "whirlpool" theory. Dan Winter has been teaching implosion physics for a long time. He has been railroaded by the powers that be because he is revealing the true nature of reality.

When two membranes attract they either crash or they spin around each other. The  most efficient way water goes down a drain is if it organizes and spins. The sucking motion is caused by an empty space where matter is drained so to speak and this is how you get a black hole UNLESS matter is stablilized on both sides of this TORUS. It is like two tornadoes kissing. THey are both sucking in so they create zero point gravity at the center. Both sides are drawn into a bubble where there is a flat plane through the center. This plane is stable enough for different types of life forms to survive. Look at a galaxy. It is a flat plane with a black hole at the center but it is stabilized because of golden ratio. It's geometry sustains it and keeps it self organized. This is the very definition of LIFE. Lo Phi waves imploding non destructively.
Now this is some resurrection! Brought back to life after over 2 years!

But, maybe someone can explain the rest of it to a tyro like me? Then I looked it up!

And
Quote from: Dan Winter
The message of "DaVinci Code" and "Holy Blood,Holy Grail" is actually quite simple and clear. The GRAIL is in the BLOOD. The question- from a scientific perspective is also simple- Is that true? Fortuneately for science - a hugely exciting path to investigating the question is emerging. Namely - the pure electrical geometry of how blood gets activated. Could this geometric answer - at the same time - be the pure electrical geometry of physics most pressing question? For physics - the most basic issue (usually called THE HOLY GRAIL OF PHYSICS) is the UNIFIED FIELD. To unify the fields for physics is in essence the pure electrical geometry of how ELECTROMAGNETISM becomes GRAVITY.
(Compression of charge can directly become ACCELERATION of charge - called Gravity).

I still have not the slightest idea, but it does give a clue as to why "has been railroaded by the powers that be because he is revealing the true nature of reality".

Yes, but I thought that in TFES gravity did not exist.

Guess I'll have to wait for the movie!