*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #60 on: September 27, 2016, 05:09:17 AM »
It just really amazes me that no what experiment someone suggest that Tom will shoot it down.  It seems to me it is either too expensive, too hard, or will not offer 100% proof of the shape of the Earth.

He will not observe the ISS of a period of time, will not try to figure out where satellite dishes are pointed, will not take a long exposure photo of a part of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be located.  Cost nothing but time except for the photograph since a camera will be needed.  A camera costing under $200 should be good enough.

For someone claiming to be trying to discover the truth about the world around us he certainly seems very reluctant to do anything beyond fudging some numbers on a experiment and posting a video of where it is really hard to tell what is going on.  Just a vid of people shooting a laser at a target over the water. Then offers no data, results or conclusions.

I guess one way to protect a belief is not to make any serious attempt of finding out if you are right.
I tried giving him something that cost nothing to do and would offer evidence if satellites exist. 

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6940
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #61 on: September 27, 2016, 02:53:12 PM »
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2016, 03:09:18 PM »
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.
As usual, you provide some very carefully thought out words that mislead, as intended.

'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

You dispute the fact of satellite locations so it is up to you to prove that location of satellites as shown by the elevation and azimuth required for a particular location is incorrect.  You are unable to provide any proof of a transmitter for a satellite dish receiver being anything else, no manufacturer, designer etc.

geckothegeek

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2016, 07:39:08 PM »
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.
As usual, you provide some very carefully thought out words that mislead, as intended.

'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

You dispute the fact of satellite locations so it is up to you to prove that location of satellites as shown by the elevation and azimuth required for a particular location is incorrect.  You are unable to provide any proof of a transmitter for a satellite dish receiver being anything else, no manufacturer, designer etc.

It has been my observatiion (maybe it's  just an idea -  I make no  claims  for it being a theory or hypothesis or anything else).LOL
Tom Bishop and Samuel Birley Rowbotham have something in common. :
They are/were both skilled in " As usual , you provide some very carefully thought out words that mislead, as intended."

And I think it SHOULD be the responsibility of the FLAT EARTHERS to do the the research to either prove flat earth or disprove round earth.
Just  who is really the lazy one ?
For example I did a little research on the Amateur Radio Operator's "Moon Bounce"  to prove the distance from the earth to the moon was approximately 238,150 miles ("Round Earth") and disprove the distance was  3,000 miles  ("Flat Earth"). Same for some research on the astronomical observatory laser measurements.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2016, 08:07:45 PM by geckothegeek »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6940
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #64 on: September 27, 2016, 11:08:05 PM »
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4272
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #65 on: September 28, 2016, 12:26:53 AM »
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.

Choosing random spots around the satellite assumes that they have customers in those locations, when a French satellite probably just has French customers who watch French TV. The only valid angles would be in France, unless it can be demonstrated that the satellite is detectable in other countries too.

Even if it was determined that some satellite dishes are pointing high it the sky, it could just be argued that the ionosphere stretches high in the sky.

It could also be argued that some satellites are actually high altitude pseudolite technologies.

So, really, it's a complete waste of time for me. It doesn't matter where the dish is pointing. Something can be argued to justify it. It's really up to you to come up with something incontrovertible, not for me to argue against myself.
Back to stratellites so soon, Tom? 

Tom, I'm not sure if you understand the implications of the distances and angles involved between 22,000 mile high satellites and (let's be generous and say) 100,000 foot high stratellites.  It's generally accepted that a satellite dish must be aimed to within 1 degree of the transmitter in order to receive a reliable signal.  Well, for a geostationary satellite, that means every dish within about a 390 mile radius would be pointing to within 1 degree of each other.  On the other hand, if those dishes were pointing at stratellites, then that 1 degree radius shrinks to about 3/10 of a mile.  If "satellite" companies were actually using stratellites, then the different angles required would be pretty obvious even within a small town.  That is, unless you're suggesting that the sky is littered with stratellites.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #66 on: September 28, 2016, 03:20:19 AM »
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #67 on: September 29, 2016, 05:28:05 PM »
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.
Still no response from Tom.  He must now accept the published and verified information is correct, geosynchronous satellite are used for communication.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4272
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #68 on: September 29, 2016, 06:51:18 PM »
- Obligatory 9/11 conspiracy tie-in at the end.
Did the video mention chemtrails?
I hear that chemtrails can enhance troposcatter.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6940
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #69 on: September 30, 2016, 03:09:46 AM »
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.

How do you know what the angles show or do not show?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4272
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #70 on: September 30, 2016, 03:20:27 AM »
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.

How do you know what the angles show or do not show?
Tom, why do you suppose that satellite dishes need to be pointed at very specific angles?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

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

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #71 on: September 30, 2016, 01:49:02 PM »
How do you know what the angles show or do not show?

Well, you can go to your satellite TV provider's web site and get the numbers yourself.  Here is the DirecTV site, for example.  There you can get the alt/az orientation required to point your dish at their satellite.  I think we can all agree that these numbers actually result in TV signals being received, because it would be quite foolish of a TV provider to give you ncorrect aiming coordinates.  Some day when I have some free time, I will compare several sets of aiming angles and figure out where they commonly point on RE vs on FE, much like we do with the sun and moon.

If I've understood troposcatter correctly, the transmit path angle is pretty much the same as the reflected path angle.  Maybe not exactly the same, as with optical reflection, but close.  Given that, we should be able to determine the location of Tom's proposed satellite-impersonating troposcatter transmitters, and go see if they're really there!
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #72 on: October 02, 2016, 12:20:14 AM »
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.

Here you go.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67971.msg1827639#msg1827639

I am a bit lazy and figured some RE would eventually do something with the ISS or satellites to determine their altitudes/locations. My patience paid off in this case for the ISS.

I tackled this proposal once on the other forum.  I took a look at some projected ISS transits over the United States, looking for one for which I could pick two observers with simultaneous and directly opposite observing locations.  I found one on March 6, 2016 that fit the bill: it had a maximum apparent elevation at 5:00:40am Spokane WA time, and 5:59:39am El Paso TX time. 

Maximum elevation only 61 seconds apart, that's the best I could do for a simultaneous observation, and those observers in those two locations would have been looking pretty much directly at each other.  This is important, because it means the angles of elevation from each location can be used to calculate the elevation above ground of the object being observed. 

Spokane and El Paso are 1237 miles apart, according to Google Maps "Distance Measure" tool.  (I understand that an FE supporter might challenge that distance as being tainted by RE math, and I'll come back to that.)  According to the ISS Astroviewer page (links at the bottom) an observer in Spokane will see the ISS rise to a maximum elevation of 14° above the horizon to the South East, while the El Paso observer will see it at 21° to the North West.  Taking for the moment a flat-earth model, we thus have an obtuse triangle with a side and two angles known, we can calculate the rest. 

The angle formed at the vertex occupied by the object in the sky is 145°.  The Law Of Sines allows us to calculate the line-of-sight distances to the object to each observer.  The Spokane leg of the triangle is 772.9 miles, and the El Paso leg is 521.7 miles.  From there, we can calculate the height above ground of the object using the Law of Sine again, for each observer's angle.  The result is 186.97 miles high.  This is far, far higher than any known aircraft has ever flown, or ever could fly.

Possible objections:
1) Maybe the elevations are wrong?  I think we can take the projected elevation angles as accurate (instead of going out and observing it ourselves) because if they were not it would be very easy to expose the error, and should have been done by now.  Amateur astronomers use these online resources without reporting massive errors, after all.
2) Maybe the distance from Spokane to El Paso is wrong?  Perhaps it is, I'll grant you that.  Let's say we call it 1 'ground unit' of unknown distance and do the math that way.  We end up with the object being at an elevation of 0.15 ground units.  Or put another way, Spokane and El Paso are 6.5 times as far apart as the object's elevation.  Commercial aircraft typically operate with a ceiling of 42,000 feet, or 8 miles.  The aircraft with the highest known operating ceiling ever, the American SR-71 spy plane, could fly as high as 85,000 feet, or 16 miles.  Even if my ground unit measurement is less than 1237 miles, it is not off by enough to bring those cities close enough (104 miles) for an SR-71 to appear at 14° from one and 21° from the other.
3) One minute difference in observation time is huge when the object is visible for only four minutes.  Seems like it is, yes.  However, the object sweeps across the sky in a fairly flat curve, especially as viewed from Spokane.  It rises from 10° to 14° and falls back to 10° during the transit.  Doing the math again with Spokane's lowest elevation still yields an elevation of 149.46 miles, far too high to be any airplane we know about.

Spokane: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-117.4260466&lat=47.6587802&name=Spokane
El Paso: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-106.4850217&lat=31.7618778&name=El%20Paso
« Last Edit: October 02, 2016, 03:59:04 AM by Woody »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2016, 01:25:00 AM »
If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it.
I am a bit lazy and figured some FE would eventually do something with the ISS or satellites to determine their altitudes/locations. My patience paid off in this case for the ISS.
And here is the thread on THIS board from which I was quoting myself on THAT board.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice