[stack]

Observing the ISS is very easy as long as you are in the right place. There are numerous websites that will tell you when and where exactly to look for the ISS. If you are in a location on earth where observing the ISS is impossible, you can simply look for smaller satellites. Though this is harder to do, it is still very possible.

I still have no idea why this is so difficult.

Things in the sky come and go from view.

It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

I think the question is how do these ISS trackers know exactly when it will be viewable by you in your location, when it will come into view and when it will leave your view? And you're saying that it's clouds that determine this. So how do these trackers know when there will be clouds obscuring your view?

And just as a side note, the trackers are predicated on the ISS' 90 minute orbit around a globe earth, so it is somewhat relevant to the shape of the world.

I wrote it could have been occulted by clouds due to an initial misunderstanding of what the OP was stating.

Regardless, the comings and goings of overhead objects circling over our heads isn't based on the shape of the earth. The trackers can predict this just like someone can say what time the sun will appear.

Not exactly. The trackers are based upon Kepler's orbital mechanics:

How Tracking the International Space Station Works
In the Keplerian model of orbital mechanics, named after Johann Kepler (1571-1630), six elements are needed to characterize a distinct orbit:

Orbital inclination – the orientation of the orbit with respect to Earth’s equator.
Right ascension of the ascending node – the location of the ascending and descending orbit locations with respect to Earth's equatorial plane.
Argument of perigee – the location of the low point of the orbit with respect to Earth's surface.
Eccentricity – the shape of the orbit.
Mean motion – the average speed of the orbit (sometimes semi-major axis is specified instead, which is half the length of the orbit ellipse, and is related to mean motion by an equation).
Mean anomaly – the angular location of the object along its orbit.

[Action80]

Transfiguring the shape of an object performing a figure eight series of overlapping patterns as a path above a flat plane can be accomplished just such a way, yes.

[stack]

Transfiguring the shape of an object performing a figure eight series of overlapping patterns as a path above a flap plane can be accomplished just such a way, yes.

Not unless you want to include earth's gravitational force which is a part of Keplers calculations - Kepler orbits used by the ISS tracker as evidenced above.

Kepler orbit
The shapes of large celestial bodies are close to spheres. By symmetry, the net gravitational force attracting a mass point towards a homogeneous sphere must be directed towards its centre. The shell theorem (also proven by Isaac Newton) states that the magnitude of this force is the same as if all mass was concentrated in the middle of the sphere, even if the density of the sphere varies with depth (as it does for most celestial bodies). From this immediately follows that the attraction between two homogeneous spheres is as if both had its mass concentrated to its center.

Smaller objects, like asteroids or spacecraft often have a shape strongly deviating from a sphere. But the gravitational forces produced by these irregularities are generally small compared to the gravity of the central body. The difference between an irregular shape and a perfect sphere also diminishes with distances, and most orbital distances are very large when compared with the diameter of a small orbiting body. Thus for some applications, shape irregularity can be neglected without significant impact on accuracy. This effect is quite noticeable for artificial Earth satellites, especially those in low orbits.

[Action80]

Simply providing equations that match the transfiguration methods doesn't mean that is what is occurring.

The mythical g doesn't exist.

[stack]

Simply providing equations that match the transfiguration methods doesn't mean that is what is occurring.

The mythical g doesn't exist.

It exists in Kepler's calculations and is used in part to predict where the ISS is and low and behold, that's where it is. So I guess it does exist after all. Unless you have a different predictive calculation up your sleeve. Perhaps for where and when obscuring clouds will be.

[Action80]

Simply providing equations that match the transfiguration methods doesn't mean that is what is occurring.

The mythical g doesn't exist.

It exists in Kepler's calculations and is used in part to predict where the ISS is and low and behold, that's where it is. So I guess it does exist after all. Unless you have a different predictive calculation up your sleeve. Perhaps for where and when obscuring clouds will be.

The measure of speed of fall doesn't ascribe a cause, so it is just another number.

If you're going to continue to harp about a self-acknowledged misunderstanding of the OP that led to my first reply, then it is certainly a continued troll on your part.

[Realestfake]

I don’t see why it isn’t as simple as:

“Oh look, a clear photo of the ISS with a walmart telescope. This must mean orbits are real and therefore the earth is a globe.” (Yes, I know the talking points for this inside and out. I have been with secular FE groups for years. That doesn’t mean I think they hold any water.)



Luckily, for most people this is enough. Much easier to conclude that it is simply an object in a boring, explainable and predictable orbit instead of the multiple “alternate explanations”.

I can’t imagine living a life where I am convinced that everyone is lying about space being fake, and simultaneously having to admit that they’ve thought of everything from accurately faking the ISS floating overhead, onboard videos, constant launches, etc. Sounds like a maddening way to live.

[stack]

Simply providing equations that match the transfiguration methods doesn't mean that is what is occurring.

The mythical g doesn't exist.

It exists in Kepler's calculations and is used in part to predict where the ISS is and low and behold, that's where it is. So I guess it does exist after all. Unless you have a different predictive calculation up your sleeve. Perhaps for where and when obscuring clouds will be.

The measure of speed of fall doesn't ascribe a cause, so it is just another number.

If you're going to continue to harp about a self-acknowledged misunderstanding of the OP that led to my first reply, then it is certainly a continued troll on your part.

You believe you can simply, as you put it, "Transfiguring the shape of an object performing a figure eight series of overlapping patterns as a path above a flap plane can be accomplished just such a way." So I'll help you out and show how that might look. (Actually some other people did, but I'll show their work here).
Dave McKeegan on YT took the Kepler globe version of the ISS's trackable & observable path and plotted it on the AE North Pole Centered map that some FEr's tend to refer to as the flat earth model. So the big "IF" here is whether you ascribe to the aforementioned AE map as an accurate model of the flat plane that is earth. I don't know if you do, but anyway...

Here's the Globe version of the ISS orbital path, completing a full orbit once every 92.9 minutes minutes, 15.49 orbits per day, at a steady and consistent speed of 17,100 MPH, relying on Kepler's orbital mechanics and earth's supposed sphericity and rotation.



Here's the same ISS Kepler orbital path "transfigured" on to the AE North Pole Centered flat earth model...



Notice a couple of things:
- What forces are causing the ISS to circle above the flat earth model in that sort of spirograph manner?
- What forces are causing the ISS to have to speed up and slow down to match what is observed, traveling the distance it is observed to travel and coming into view and exiting view at accurate and predictable times for specific locations?

[Action80]

I don't know what forces are causing any of it and it is not even a question posed by the OP.

The OP is about visibility.

[stack]

I don't know what forces are causing any of it and it is not even a question posed by the OP.

The OP is about visibility.

I was simply responding to this:

Transfiguring the shape of an object performing a figure eight series of overlapping patterns as a path above a flap plane can be accomplished just such a way, yes.

And the answer is that this is what it would look like:



You apparently don't know how the ISS could follow that path, which is fine. But as a part of visibility, we don't see the ISS speed up and slow down, which is required by the particular flat earth model above. Whereas the globe model...



...answers both questions, we don't observe it speed up and slow down and it going beyond the curve is why is appears and disappears at predicted intervals. The FE model above answers neither.

If astrophotographer Andrew McCarthy can resolve and capture this image below using an ISS tracker and a very powerful telescope, on a flat earth he should be able to do the same and get an image from very far away. But he can't, because the ISS eventually drops below the horizon. Globe earth has an explanation for that. I don't believe I've seen an FE reason as to why it disappears. At least so far, something about possibly a cloud getting in the way or simply how "Things in the sky come and go from view". With a 4000mm lens on a flat earth I should be able to see them "go" way, way beyond the visible horizon.


The photo was captured from a remote section of Highway 79 in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert. McCarthy calculated the transit-viewing location using transit-finder.com, headed out to the spot late at night, and then set up his 14-inch telescope with a focal length of 4000mm to achieve an incredible amount of detail when the transit occurred at 11pm.

For my location, using this ISS tracker, looks like my best flyover viewing opportunity will be on April 20th at 6:23 AM and ending at 6:34 AM with a maximum altitude of
El (alt): 63.73°
Mag: -2.1
Dist to sat: 468.9 km

The ISS in that time viewing window will have traveled approximately 2,150 miles across earth. With Mr McCarthy's 4000mm lens, on a flat earth, as evidenced by the power of that lens and the resulting transit image above, I should be able to see the ISS way farther than 2,150 miles. But I can't for some reason. There's a hard stop at 6:34 that no lens can bring the ISS back into view. I can't figure out what would cause that on a flat earth.

[Action80]

snip (for brevity)

How can you state the graphic provided is an accurate representation of what it would look like?

Seems to me the graphic for even the globe earth is off by quite a bit.

In the graphic for the azimuthal projection it does slow down and speed up.

Seems like it was portrayed that way by the artist on purpose.

I don't see why you would choose to label it as "required," if it is actually using the same mathematical inputs.

ETA: It seems you think (if the earth was flat) it needs to slow down and speed up due to matching either viewer location and the given timelines provided by the tracking website.

Some points in response:

• The path could be transfigured incorrectly in terms of relationship between the sky and surface below. I didn't notice any perigee or apogee depicted in either gif. (And after looking at both gifs, I can definitely see the path over South America as rendered in both gifs do not match.)
• If the guy (I assume McKeegan made them both) who made the gifs knows the speed is constant, then you'll need to contact him to find out why he made a false representation.

ETA (even further): The station must be 40° above the horizon to be visible (only at night, mind you).

Evidently, exposure to sunlight during the day leads many to believe the sun is infinitely bright and would illuminate the entirety of the earth's flat plane at all times.

That's just nonsense.

ETA: You evidently did not watch the video from which you pulled these gifs, as you incorrectly attribute them to Dave McKeegan.

So it seems both of you are providing commentary on things you have no clue about. I mean, McKeegan believes Janosch Gaia is a real name, for chrissakes!

[Pete Svarrior]

Yes, I know the talking points for this inside and out. I have been with secular FE groups for years.

Then why do you so consistently get them wrong; like, not even remotely in the ballpark? Is it intentional, since you self-certify your knowledge as extensive?

[stack]

snip (for brevity)

How can you state the graphic provided is an accurate representation of what it would look like?

You've made some valid points here. Let me see if I can address them.

Seems to me the graphic for even the globe earth is off by quite a bit.

In the graphic for the azimuthal projection it does slow down and speed up.

Seems like it was portrayed that way by the artist on purpose.

It was portrayed that way to show that, especially in the southern hemiplane, the ISS would have to speed up to cover the wider than globe distances to stay on time with the tracker as opposed to the steady, constant 17,000 mph, 90 minute orbit, on a globe. I'll get to "off by quite a bit" in a second.

I don't see why you would choose to label it as "required," if it is actually using the same mathematical inputs.

ETA: It seems you think (if the earth was flat) it needs to slow down and speed up due to matching either viewer location and the given timelines provided by the tracking website.

Yes, exactly.

Some points in response:

• The path could be transfigured incorrectly in terms of relationship between the sky and surface below. I didn't notice any perigee or apogee depicted in either gif.
  

Because it's basically irrelevant:
Perigee altitude   413 km (256.6 mi) AMSL
Apogee altitude   422 km (262.2 mi) AMSL

(And after looking at both gifs, I can definitely see the path over South America as rendered in both gifs do not match.)[/li][/list]

It's kinda hard to say because visually, perspectively, it's a compare of apples and oranges, or perhaps, more like an orange and pancake.



I don't believe it's intended to be exact. Just what the approximate path would be if you had to plot it from a globe to an AE map. Pretty close I would say. As well, taking the orbital path of the GEDI satellite which follows the exact orbital path as the ISS, same speed, intentionally, over a period of weeks and months, both the ISS and GEDI have many more finite arcs than depicted in the short less than a day gifs...

• If the guy (I assume McKeegan made them both) who made the gifs knows the speed is constant, then you'll need to contact him to find out why he made a false representation.

I don't know what part you are referring to that is false. It's not just McKeegan who says the ISS speed is constant, everyone does.

ETA (even further): The station must be 40° above the horizon to be visible (only at night, mind you).

Correct, at ground level. Though it's worth noting you will only get NASA's Spot the Station alerts when the ISS is passing over with a maximum height of at least 40 degrees, this is because the ISS will be visible above most landscapes at this height.

But at altitude, with a bangin' 4000MM lens I still would expect to be able to see it much, much farther away on a flat earth, but we still can't. Because for some reason it arcs below a horizon no matter how far away.

This guy does astrophotography and set up a scenario where he imaged the ISS from 39,000 feet.


After doing some estimates and calculations on his position at the time of the pass, Mahlmann did some test shots with his GoPro HERO 4, used his sweatshirt to block out cabin light, and then captured 10 minutes of 30 second exposures when the ISS was supposed to be flying by.
Once had the frames — and while still soaring at 39,996 feet — Mahlmann took the camera’s microSD card, combined 12 of the 30 second exposures together with StarStax, and then tweaked the final result in Adobe Lightroom. Voila! A photo from a plane showing the ISS soaring by as a light trail/

And not quite, dark, yes. Nighttime, not required. The ISS is only visible because it reflects sunlight. It isn't bright enough to be seen in the middle of the day and the best time to view the ISS is either at dawn or dusk, mind you.
https://www.space.com/how-to-track-the-international-space-station

[Action80]

"The space station is visible because it reflects the light of the Sun – the same reason we can see the Moon. However, unlike the Moon, the space station isn't bright enough to see during the day. It can only be seen when it is dawn or dusk at your location. As such, it can range from one sighting opportunity a month to several a week, since it has to be both dark where you are, and the space station has to happen to be going overhead"

"It needs to be dark where you are and the space station needs to be overhead in order for you to see it."

Both quotes appear on the tracking site.

Dark outside = night outside.

In the end, the fact there are objects over our heads has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. I think there is quite a bit of evidence pointing out the lines of travel have been transcribed from the celestial sphere above to the flat plane below, a notable example being found in Giza. Transcribing a celestial spherical path to a flat surface will result in some errors.

[stack]

"The space station is visible because it reflects the light of the Sun – the same reason we can see the Moon. However, unlike the Moon, the space station isn't bright enough to see during the day. It can only be seen when it is dawn or dusk at your location. As such, it can range from one sighting opportunity a month to several a week, since it has to be both dark where you are, and the space station has to happen to be going overhead"

"It needs to be dark where you are and the space station needs to be overhead in order for you to see it."

Both quotes appear on the tracking site.

Dark outside = night outside.

It can be dark at dawn. Does dawn = night? I think there's a reason why we have two different words for two different times, mind you.

night
noun
1. the period of darkness in each twenty-four hours; the time from sunset to sunrise.

dawn
noun
1. the first appearance of light in the sky before sunrise.

In the end, the fact there are objects over our heads has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. I think there is quite a bit of evidence pointing out the lines of travel have been transcribed from the celestial sphere above to the flat plane below, a notable example being found in Giza. Transcribing a celestial spherical path to a flat surface will result in some errors.

Oh contrare mon frere, it has everything to do with the shape of the earth.
In this case, NASA designed, engineered, constructed, and deployed the ISS to orbit the earth in a predictable, observable manner based upon Kepler orbital mechanics, gravity, etc, predicated on a globe earth. So when said predictable and observable orbits are transcribed down on to what I personally consider the most popular FE model/map, (Again, my assumption) the AE NP centered one, the orbits become somewhat of a spiralgraph. Considering that globe earth has an explanation as to how the orbits appear the way they do on a spherical earth, what is the explanation for how the orbits appear on an FE? What's pushing the ISS around an FE in the way we observe if the world is, in fact, flat?

It's not just "some errors", it's a completely different model/pattern requiring speed changes which are not observed. If you can account for that, then I think you would have something there.

[Action80]

"The space station is visible because it reflects the light of the Sun – the same reason we can see the Moon. However, unlike the Moon, the space station isn't bright enough to see during the day. It can only be seen when it is dawn or dusk at your location. As such, it can range from one sighting opportunity a month to several a week, since it has to be both dark where you are, and the space station has to happen to be going overhead"

"It needs to be dark where you are and the space station needs to be overhead in order for you to see it."

Both quotes appear on the tracking site.

Dark outside = night outside.

It can be dark at dawn. Does dawn = night? I think there's a reason why we have two different words for two different times, mind you.

Not hardly.

night
noun
1. the period of darkness in each twenty-four hours; the time from sunset to sunrise.

dawn
noun
1. the first appearance of light in the sky before sunrise.

Providing sources contradicting your stated position is not helpful for you.

In the end, the fact there are objects over our heads has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. I think there is quite a bit of evidence pointing out the lines of travel have been transcribed from the celestial sphere above to the flat plane below, a notable example being found in Giza. Transcribing a celestial spherical path to a flat surface will result in some errors.

Oh contrare mon frere, it has everything to do with the shape of the earth.
In this case, NASA designed, engineered, constructed, and deployed the ISS to orbit the earth in a predictable, observable manner based upon Kepler orbital mechanics, gravity, etc, predicated on a globe earth. So when said predictable and observable orbits are transcribed down on to what I personally consider the most popular FE model/map, (Again, my assumption) the AE NP centered one, the orbits become somewhat of a spiralgraph. Considering that globe earth has an explanation as to how the orbits appear the way they do on a spherical earth, what is the explanation for how the orbits appear on an FE? What's pushing the ISS around an FE in the way we observe if the world is, in fact, flat?

It's not just "some errors", it's a completely different model/pattern requiring speed changes which are not observed. If you can account for that, then I think you would have something there.

I already addressed this earlier.

Given some end parameters, the math can be plugged in to work out.

Representing the shape of the ellipses in a false rendering to meet particular placements of reported sightings to show how "FLAT EARTH" cannot "POSSIBLY BE," is just the smoke and mirrors style of some RE adherents.

Janosch Gaia (the actual creator of those gifs) and McKeegan have no idea what the actual pattern would look like over a flat earth.

[stack]

"The space station is visible because it reflects the light of the Sun – the same reason we can see the Moon. However, unlike the Moon, the space station isn't bright enough to see during the day. It can only be seen when it is dawn or dusk at your location. As such, it can range from one sighting opportunity a month to several a week, since it has to be both dark where you are, and the space station has to happen to be going overhead"

"It needs to be dark where you are and the space station needs to be overhead in order for you to see it."

Both quotes appear on the tracking site.

Dark outside = night outside.

It can be dark at dawn. Does dawn = night? I think there's a reason why we have two different words for two different times, mind you.

Not hardly.

night
noun
1. the period of darkness in each twenty-four hours; the time from sunset to sunrise.

dawn
noun
1. the first appearance of light in the sky before sunrise.

Providing sources contradicting your stated position is not helpful for you.

My goodness, you sure do ride or die when it comes to semantics. In my world, dawn is not night and dusk is not night, neither are they day. Your world happens to be different, apparently. I guess we should get rid of such non-differentiating words such as dawn, dusk, sunrise, sunset and just stick with day or night. Who needs them anyway?
Then we could change that phrase to something that more agrees with you to make you happy - Changing the phrase to read, "...isn't bright enough to see during the day. It can only be seen when it is dawn or dusk night at your location."

In the end, the fact there are objects over our heads has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. I think there is quite a bit of evidence pointing out the lines of travel have been transcribed from the celestial sphere above to the flat plane below, a notable example being found in Giza. Transcribing a celestial spherical path to a flat surface will result in some errors.

Oh contrare mon frere, it has everything to do with the shape of the earth.
In this case, NASA designed, engineered, constructed, and deployed the ISS to orbit the earth in a predictable, observable manner based upon Kepler orbital mechanics, gravity, etc, predicated on a globe earth. So when said predictable and observable orbits are transcribed down on to what I personally consider the most popular FE model/map, (Again, my assumption) the AE NP centered one, the orbits become somewhat of a spiralgraph. Considering that globe earth has an explanation as to how the orbits appear the way they do on a spherical earth, what is the explanation for how the orbits appear on an FE? What's pushing the ISS around an FE in the way we observe if the world is, in fact, flat?

It's not just "some errors", it's a completely different model/pattern requiring speed changes which are not observed. If you can account for that, then I think you would have something there.

I already addressed this earlier.

Given some end parameters, the math can be plugged in to work out.

Representing the shape of the ellipses in a false rendering to meet particular placements of reported sightings to show how "FLAT EARTH" cannot "POSSIBLY BE," is just the smoke and mirrors style of some RE adherents.

Janosch Gaia (the actual creator of those gifs) and McKeegan have no idea what the actual pattern would look like over a flat earth.

Yes, Gaia made the original but for some reason he had the flat earth revolving like a globe earth. Which, in my experience, is anathema to FEr's. So McKeegan simply fixed it by not having the flat disc rotate.

Do you know what the predictable and observable orbital pattern would look like over a flat earth? If not, how do you know that Gaia and McKeegan are wrong, have no idea?

[Action80]

My goodness, you sure do ride or die when it comes to semantics. In my world, dawn is not night and dusk is not night, neither are they day. Your world happens to be different, apparently. I guess we should get rid of such non-differentiating words such as dawn, dusk, sunrise, sunset and just stick with day or night. Who needs them anyway?
Then we could change that phrase to something that more agrees with you to make you happy - Changing the phrase to read, "...isn't bright enough to see during the day. It can only be seen when it is dawn or dusk night at your location."

Your issue is with the tracking website, not me.

Yes, Gaia made the original but for some reason he had the flat earth revolving like a globe earth. Which, in my experience, is anathema to FEr's. So McKeegan simply fixed it by not having the flat disc rotate.

Do you know what the predictable and observable orbital pattern would look like over a flat earth? If not, how do you know that Gaia and McKeegan are wrong, have no idea?

I know they are wrong because the models are not matching the spots where it is observed, nor each other.