*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1439
    • View Profile
I see that SpaceX is putting up satellites for Argentina, Indonesia, Tiawan, Bulgaria, Japan, and Malasia. Interesting that the zealots claim that that space is an international endeavor, yet a few organizations are relied on for access.

No different from any other endeavour where a particular supplier/provider has a unique selling point, or is more keenly priced than the competition, surely ... ?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Stop being foolish. You couldn't point one of these miniature disc's within 5 thousand miles of a sat, if in fact it could float in the same location 25,000 miles up. Which it can't, no such thing dog, pass the blunt again. Live TV broadcast, no fricken latency, no delay to cut the nude streaker or murder in progress. Once the signal is out, it's available. The things peeps are asked to believe....amazing !!!
Time for you to explain how the satellite dishes, that millions have, work.  Check the angles.  Identify the transmitter(s).

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1439
    • View Profile
Stop being foolish. You couldn't point one of these miniature disc's within 5 thousand miles of a sat, if in fact it could float in the same location 25,000 miles up. Which it can't, no such thing dog, pass the blunt again. Live TV broadcast, no fricken latency, no delay to cut the nude streaker or murder in progress. Once the signal is out, it's available. The things peeps are asked to believe....amazing !!!
Time for you to explain how the satellite dishes, that millions have, work.  Check the angles.  Identify the transmitter(s).

The oft-quoted suggestion is that it's driven by "cell towers" or other ground-based transmitters.

Having lived through the era of analogue and digital terrestrial TV, and seen the evidence of those living south of the transmitter pointing aerials north, toward it, and others to the west of it pointing aerials east toward it, I now see absolutely every domestic satellite dish in the land pointing broadly south.

Having seen for myself how main transmitters fail to reach valley areas and such, and how repeater transmitters were used to fill in areas, this requirement has gone, and all dishes point to the same spot, with no or much-reduced issues from high ground in the way, except in the north, the furthest point from the transmitter in the sky.

And, as I suggested above, anyone can take a portable satellite rig, operate it in the vicinity of a local ground tower, and show the world whether or not they can get a usable signal from it. Just pick up one of the channels broadcast by the local satellite provider, but which is absent from the terrestrial TV listings.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
What is satellite transmission? Nothing more than transmitters shooting data (flaring out) into the sky and supposedly hitting this fake sat that never moves (like the earth) and beams down all sorts of data.

Now 1958- 1962 US and Russia started sending nukes up to the firmament (ie molten glass) to one, try to find it's weakness (windows to heaven where the floods came from). They found that these electromagnetic charges floated around for a long long time creating an electromagnetic field that "data" could bounce off of back to flat earth!!! In come Chemtrails in early 1970's where these nano-particles could be used for same purpose along with others like blocking the sun to a degree, weather modification, weaponry ect., so we have Chemtrails usually daily covering our skies with these metal particles (smaller than the human eye can detect) staying aloft over a month.

Transmit away, now go smoke the Blunt !

The thousand of weather balloons sent aloft daily monitor the electromagnetic field all day.

Satan is soooo weak, Kingdom seekers rule !!!

https://www.globalresearch.ca/chemtrails-aerosol-and-electromagnetic-weapons-in-the-age-of-nuclear-war-4/5617879

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Now just try a little common sense. Why do rockets tip over after they go airborne a few miles? The excuse is this is to get it to its intended angle to fall around the globe at this magical degree when infact it's to prevent it from crashing into the firmament where everyone could see it explode on collision. Now think hard here: wouldn't it be wise to get on up super high quickly out of thicker atmosphere where drag is less THEN tilt over sideways to proper angle around globe saving tons of fuel...Ah less weight for rocket, less cost....no no tip over and get out of sight THEN plop in the ocean !!!

Fooled again....puff puff !!!
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Now just try a little common sense. Why do rockets tip over after they go airborne a few miles?
Lot's of information here if you want to actually know the answer rather than arguing from a position of ignorance/incredulity

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4085/does-the-space-shuttle-fly-straight-up-when-leaving-earth

The headline is the craft needs to achieve a horizontal velocity of 18,000mph - the horizontal velocity is the key thing to achieve orbit, so the path needs to be curved to achieve that.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
ha ha exactly what one would expect. Satan coming up with scientific BS excuses why we hide the dome. plop plop always ends in the drink !!!
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Jet and rocket engines are limited by atmospheric pressure - little or no atmospheric pressure means no thrust and no flight , hence we see the curved paths of rockets .

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1439
    • View Profile
Jet and rocket engines are limited by atmospheric pressure - little or no atmospheric pressure means no thrust and no flight , hence we see the curved paths of rockets .

If that's the case, why would any space agency or private space operator bother to do anything? If the craft which everyone can clearly see being launched do not do what they say they will, why would they bother building them?

Answer - they're doing it because their customers are actually getting what they asked for - satellites placed into orbit, supplies delivered to the ISS, etc. 


Observe the SpaceX first stage being brought back into port, as I posted above. It's clearly not an illusion, for someone went out and videoed it for real, in the flesh, along with the personnel working on it. Do you really think they're doing this just for show? 
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
They went to Mars in the movies, I know it's just a movie but they filmed it from real adventures in space landing humans on Mars recently.  shhh don't tell anyone.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Why would one believe you could land a rocket back on land or sea safely when you can't even make bullet proof glass or a car that exits a garage by itself? I witnessed a new car unable to get out of a garage, we all laughed at the fool who paid for garbage hype.  puff puff
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 897
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Now just try a little common sense. Why do rockets tip over after they go airborne a few miles? The excuse is this is to get it to its intended angle to fall around the globe at this magical degree when infact it's to prevent it from crashing into the firmament where everyone could see it explode on collision. Now think hard here: wouldn't it be wise to get on up super high quickly out of thicker atmosphere where drag is less THEN tilt over sideways to proper angle around globe saving tons of fuel...Ah less weight for rocket, less cost....no no tip over and get out of sight THEN plop in the ocean !!!

Fooled again....puff puff !!!

Science is your friend if you could just open your eyes and close the book of myths.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 897
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Jet and rocket engines are limited by atmospheric pressure - little or no atmospheric pressure means no thrust and no flight , hence we see the curved paths of rockets .

You might want to go back to 4th-grade science and look into Newton's laws.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Dear Tom

I'm probably a lot older than you. Here's some science ! Back when the dinosaurs roamed we watched TV with these funky rabbit ears, now we point this stupid round disc thingy in a direction and get the same thing only a box monitors our outflow of evil MONEY.

What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Jet and rocket engines are limited by atmospheric pressure - little or no atmospheric pressure means no thrust and no flight , hence we see the curved paths of rockets .

You might want to go back to 4th-grade science and look into Newton's laws.

I do remember those laws of motion . Thrust is a reactive force . No atmospheric pressure or launch pad then no reaction and no acceleration .

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Wait so how do these fake sats slow down after being jettisoned from the rocket? Then how do they correct slight orbital movement? You scientist can't even agree now can you?

One day we all wake up and figure out its all about money and us being controlled. Set yourself free and live happily ever after for eternity :)
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 897
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Jet and rocket engines are limited by atmospheric pressure - little or no atmospheric pressure means no thrust and no flight , hence we see the curved paths of rockets .

You might want to go back to 4th-grade science and look into Newton's laws.

I do remember those laws of motion . Thrust is a reactive force . No atmospheric pressure or launch pad then no reaction and no acceleration .

Fail:

Thurst is reactive yes, as in for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The only difference in a rocket engine efficiency in an atmosphere and one in a vacuum is the size and shape of the bell.  It does not have to push against anything. 
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Dear Tom

I'm probably a lot older than you. Here's some science ! Back when the dinosaurs roamed we watched TV with these funky rabbit ears, now we point this stupid round disc thingy in a direction and get the same thing only a box monitors our outflow of evil MONEY.
Why do you have a problem understanding satellite communication?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile

[/quote]

Fail:

Thurst is reactive yes, as in for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The only difference in a rocket engine efficiency in an atmosphere and one in a vacuum is the size and shape of the bell.  It does not have to push against anything.
[/quote]

Yeah that's right . Back in the day we were shown that as air pressure dropped then the big stage one  Saturn V rocket was jettisoned and the narrower longer stage two nozzles were more efficient - and so on to the stage three , smaller still .

We were also shown that to work in a vacuum the nozzle would have to be very small and infinitely long .

Your last sentence defies logic since you already admit that thrust is a reactive force - the exhaust flow needs pressure to produce thrust .

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 897
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile


Fail:

Thurst is reactive yes, as in for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The only difference in a rocket engine efficiency in an atmosphere and one in a vacuum is the size and shape of the bell.  It does not have to push against anything.
[/quote]

Yeah that's right . Back in the day we were shown that as air pressure dropped then the big stage one  Saturn V rocket was jettisoned and the narrower longer stage two nozzles were more efficient - and so on to the stage three , smaller still .

We were also shown that to work in a vacuum the nozzle would have to be very small and infinitely long .

Your last sentence defies logic since you already admit that thrust is a reactive force - the exhaust flow needs pressure to produce thrust .
[/quote]

Have you ever shot a gun?   Did you feel recoil?  What were you feeling?   The same goes for a high-pressure water hose.   What are you feeling when the nozzle is pushed back in your hand?  Not air resistance, you are feeling the opposite reaction of the water leaving the nozzle. 

This is really simple science.   
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.