[douglips]

I'm glad to hear you accept NORAD tracking IDs. I couldn't find one for a launch today, but the GRACE satellite is in a polar orbit, NORAD id 27391.

https://www.n2yo.com/?s=27391

[Mr. Potatohead]

Why are you so fixated on them going over a pole?  And they only appear to travel in waves because that is their 3D elliptical path around the earth projected on to a 2D surface.

To have absolute proof that they can.
Right now I don't think they can because they don't.
If they don't then why?
And a FE answers that question why.

This is inaccurate, as there are quite a lot of satellites that do orbit over the poles, including the Iridium satellite constellation, which has over 60 active satellites orbiting over the poles, and has been orbiting for over 2 decades. These satellites are used for data coverage to satellite phones (along with other uses) and disproves your theory. The site you showed only seemed to be able to show a single satellite at a time, meaning that it would be very time consuming to find any polar orbiting satellites, which is probably why you didn't find any. Most satellites will generally not orbit over the poles as it uses more energy to orbit in a completely different direction to the rotation of the Earth, and it is difficult to get permanent coverage from a polar orbiting satellite. Hopefully this helped.

[Tumeni]

Look at SpaceX's launches. They go East from Florida when aiming for non-polar orbits, and South from Vandenberg when aiming for polar orbit with the likes of Iridium.

BTW, they have around 14 more scheduled for this year, including two more Falcon Heavy launches (i.e. the Tesla in space wasn't a fluke, nor a hoax)

[Buran]

And SpaceX literally just launched a satellite into an orbit around the poles today.

That is great news. Give us its NORAD ID so we can track it.

You have google like everyone else. I'm sure you're smart enough to find it. You still didn't answer how an object could orbit a flat plane. That wasn't sarcasm, I'm genuinely interested.

[retlaw]

I'm glad to hear you accept NORAD tracking IDs. I couldn't find one for a launch today, but the GRACE satellite is in a polar orbit, NORAD id 27391.

https://www.n2yo.com/?s=27391

Douglips your the man. Thanks. Would have taken weeks looking for one that does that.

So I clicked on Grace and sure enough it shows it going over the poles so I watched it do a whole revolution and weird things came up.

You can click on the box on the bottom of the screen that says "show foot print".
I take it that its the area the satellite works for on earth. But when you watch the area it changes massively from the poles to the equator. Makes no sense. And I do mean its a mass difference in size. Why isn't it the same cover size everywhere? Watch it and see for yourselves.

Other things stuck out at me as weird, one is the land mass size.
It shows Greenland the same size if not bigger then Africa.
Greenland is 2.15 million km2 and Africa is 30.37 million km2.
Greenland can fit into Africa 15 times yet on the tracking system they make it close to the same size.
Far away from a honest representation.
Whats up with that?

So I looked at South America, Its 17.94 million km2, just over half the size of Africa but the maps shows the same result which makes South America bigger then it should be against Africa.  To me its not as drastic as the Greenland size different but it looks to be at lease 30% difference.

Then there is the distance the satellite is traveling. When you mark its travel route things get interesting.
Mark the distance it travels from the equator to the turning point at the poles, its the same distance from the top of Greenland to the top of Antarctica.
Then if you put a string on a globe from the top of Greenland to the top of Antarctica and then transfer the string to the equator and over the pole to measure the distance to where the tuning point is for the satellite the string goes right past the poles and indicates the satellite is turning around half way between the pole and the equator.
If this was the case then why doesn't that area that it turns around in light up as the satellites foot print as I described.
Grace is very confusing.

[Milford Cubicle]

You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat

[retlaw]

You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat

Its hard to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.

[Milford Cubicle]

You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat

Its had to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.

Its complicated but I'll try to explain.

Im not a map maker by trade so I couldnt personally make one. But the globe map is rubbish as hundreds of planes go the wrong route very often and have to turn and go back to get their bearings. This because of navigation bias that increases quantum uncertainty the further the distance is between locations. Islands or continents have higher density than much of the ocean so they will have more atoms with particles in a superposition. Meaning the continents or land masses have higher overall probability of being in either two places at once (not very likely but this what causes a lot of planes to get confused about where their destinations are). Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means it is difficult to know position and momentum at the same time.

Since continents moment-ems are fairly static their position is also less certain. This makes a non-dynamic fixed distance global map of the earth unworkable. Now there is some complicated quantum geometry involved which I wont do into know, but you can use it to calculate a workable probability of distance range between destinations which varies enormously depending on land density at take of points. and density and superposition variations on the route between points. This will calculate a likely trajectory for navigating between positions and continents. There is still much we dont know like why pilot confusion and flight path reversals are particularly high around the region of China. Maybe you might be able to explain that? As renowned scientific and quantum innovator Deepak Chopra once wisdom-ed "We are all energies as one and with an entangled existence in the probabilistic nature of quantum fields" The laws of physics are much more simple than Einsteins UNWORKABLE model. Maths makes things a workable model if you discard antiquated notions that do not unify in a single theory. Things are a workable model if you open your mind to wonderful dynamism of the quantum world. Its mostly statistics really. So usable maps are  constructed on a journey by journey basis as the routes are dynamic based upon my stated variables. Globalist maps are not helpful apart from on an aesthetic level. Just because a globe looks pretty sure as hell doesn't make it reality. And worth noting the dome is usually transparent when then suns second spotlight isn't reflecting back off it.

[Curious Squirrel]

You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat

Its had to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.

Its complicated but I'll try to explain.

Im not a map maker by trade so I couldnt personally make one. But the globe map is rubbish as hundreds of planes go the wrong route very often and have to turn and go back to get their bearings. This because of navigation bias that increases quantum uncertainty the further the distance is between locations. Islands or continents have higher density than much of the ocean so they will have more atoms with particles in a superposition. Meaning the continents or land masses have higher overall probability of being in either two places at once (not very likely but this what causes a lot of planes to get confused about where their destinations are). Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means it is difficult to know position and momentum at the same time.

Scientific sounding jabbering aside, how about some evidence for your first claim here, at the very least. Then we can maybe tackle how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't applicable at the scales being discussed. But first I would just LOVE to see anything corroborating this idea that hundreds of planes 'turn and go back to get their bearings' with some unmentioned frequency, and this happens more often above China.

[Opeo]

You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat

Its hard to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.

You're running into the same problem that's plagued cartographers for centuries — how to make a 2D representation of the surface of a 3D object. Google and N2YO use what's called a Mercator projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection) which has the benefit of conserving ship bearings (moving in a straight line in reality will cause you to move in a straight line on the map) but it has the flaw of drastically distorting the area of land the further away from the equator it gets.

If the N2YO website used a 3D globe instead of a map, it would be harder to read but Greenland would the right size and the satellite's foot print would stay a constant size.

[Westprog]

You are not taking into account that maps are only workable on an earth that is shaped roughly flat

Its had to take anything into account that would make a 1500% difference between Greenland and Africa.
From there model to real life size.

Its complicated but I'll try to explain.

Im not a map maker by trade so I couldnt personally make one. But the globe map is rubbish as hundreds of planes go the wrong route very often and have to turn and go back to get their bearings. This because of navigation bias that increases quantum uncertainty the further the distance is between locations. Islands or continents have higher density than much of the ocean so they will have more atoms with particles in a superposition. Meaning the continents or land masses have higher overall probability of being in either two places at once (not very likely but this what causes a lot of planes to get confused about where their destinations are). Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means it is difficult to know position and momentum at the same time.

Scientific sounding jabbering aside, how about some evidence for your first claim here, at the very least. Then we can maybe tackle how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't applicable at the scales being discussed. But first I would just LOVE to see anything corroborating this idea that hundreds of planes 'turn and go back to get their bearings' with some unmentioned frequency, and this happens more often above China.

I can just imagine this at a cartographer's conference. "Does your proposed projection take account of quantum uncertainty?"

[retlaw]

I just watched the ISS do a orbit around earth on http://www.n2yo.com/

I printed out a FE map and then marked the ISS orbit on a FE.

If you look at the orbit of the ISS on an ball earth you will see it does waves. Why and how it does it I don't know.
If you look at the obit of the ISS on the flat earth then you will see it does a oval/circle type orbit.

What I also want to point out is that both the satellite tracking google earth maps are not accurate and the FE map is not accurate.
I make these conclusions based on square km's of land mass.

Australia – 7.69 million km2
Africa - 30.37 million km2
South America - 17.84 million km2
North America - 24.71 million km2
Greenland - 2.166 million km2

Africa and South America are relatively close, google search states 2,575 km apart from closest points.
If I use google earth ruler I get 2859.5 km.
9.94% difference

Both maps show sizing errors based on the land sq. km.
The ball earth shows more drastic errors then the FE maps.



My guess here is the FE map orbiting cycle of the ISS would be more of a perfect circle if the FE maps are corrected to size and scale.

[Opeo]

I just watched the ISS do a orbit around earth on http://www.n2yo.com/

I printed out a FE map and then marked the ISS orbit on a FE.

If you look at the orbit of the ISS on an ball earth you will see it does waves. Why and how it does it I don't know.
If you look at the obit of the ISS on the flat earth then you will see it does a oval/circle type orbit.

What I also want to point out is that both the satellite tracking google earth maps are not accurate and the FE map is not accurate.
I make these conclusions based on square km's of land mass.

Australia – 7.69 million km2
Africa - 30.37 million km2
South America - 17.84 million km2
North America - 24.71 million km2
Greenland - 2.166 million km2

Africa and South America are relatively close, google search states 2,575 km apart from closest points.
If I use google earth ruler I get 2859.5 km.
9.94% difference

Both maps show sizing errors based on the land sq. km.
The ball earth shows more drastic errors then the FE maps.



My guess here is the FE map orbiting cycle of the ISS would be more of a perfect circle if the FE maps are corrected to size and scale.

Here you go friend: http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=25544#TOP

Here's the ISS's orbit projected over a globe: it's a perfect ellipse. The sin wave on a map is the result of this phenomenon:


And as mentioned above, trying to take measure accurate distances on a flattened out version of the surface of a sphereoid is obviously going to have some distortion. Try your math again on a globe (or a 3D model of one) and it'll all add up.

[retlaw]

That explains the wave on a ball earth.
Interesting how a ball and flat earth can still maintain an objections obit.

The math was done on a global ruler so why should it not be accurate? They state it accounts for the curvature of the earth.

Why does google earth portray Greenland 1500% bigger then in real life?
If I hired a map maker and they gave 1500% inaccuracy they would be fired a long time ago.

Why is it when I go to WIKI and punch in Greenland that they have a global earth giving the accurate size of Greenland to the rest of the world yet the satellite tracking systems don't?

WIKI having more accurate information them the space program is a giant joke all in itself.

I have a slow old grandpa of a computer with windows xp and it only has days to go before being replaced.
When I clicked on the site link you posted above I got the back ground picture under the worded script first for a few seconds before it loaded the wording on top of the picture of the earth as the underlay.
Believe it or not the picture was of a flat earth.

[retlaw]

I captured the back ground photo of the satellites tracking site.
Put a flat edge on the horizon. Dead flat.
At a claimed 8 inch per mile on the curved earth surface there should be a curve visible to the eye.

[inquisitive]

I captured the back ground photo of the satellites tracking site.
Put a flat edge on the horizon. Dead flat.
At a claimed 8 inch per mile on the curved earth surface there should be a curve visible to the eye.

What is the distance between the 2 ends of the picture?  What curve size would you expect?

[Opeo]

That explains the wave on a ball earth.
Interesting how a ball and flat earth can still maintain an objections obit.

The math was done on a global ruler so why should it not be accurate? They state it accounts for the curvature of the earth.

Why does google earth portray Greenland 1500% bigger then in real life?
If I hired a map maker and they gave 1500% inaccuracy they would be fired a long time ago.

Why is it when I go to WIKI and punch in Greenland that they have a global earth giving the accurate size of Greenland to the rest of the world yet the satellite tracking systems don't?

WIKI having more accurate information them the space program is a giant joke all in itself.

I have a slow old grandpa of a computer with windows xp and it only has days to go before being replaced.
When I clicked on the site link you posted above I got the back ground picture under the worded script first for a few seconds before it loaded the wording on top of the picture of the earth as the underlay.
Believe it or not the picture was of a flat earth.

As I explained above, it's impossible to create a flat map that's completely accurate in every way, because the Earth isn't flat. Cartographers instead have to chose one or two things to do accurately and accept that the rest will be skewed.

Do you want area to be accurate like you've been mentioning? You can use a Mollweide projection:

In this areas are right but the shape of landforms at high latitudes is pretty skewed.

Do you want easy determination of latitude and longitude? You can use an equirectangular projection which maps longitude to the x-axis and latitude to the y-axis:

But this also skews the shapes pretty drastically.

Google and many others use a Mercator projection which conserves straight lines. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

You're trying to use the inability of a 2D map to accurately show the whole Earth as a knock against the globe Earth theory, but honestly it's huge evidence for it. Ever wonder why there's no universally agreed upon flat Earth map? It's because one is physically impossible.

Last thing: I know you purposefully chose an image with as little horizon showing as possible to try to prove your point, but even still you can see a faint curve if you put up a straight edge. The edges here are slightly further away from the red line than the middle.

[Opeo]

I captured the back ground photo of the satellites tracking site.
Put a flat edge on the horizon. Dead flat.
At a claimed 8 inch per mile on the curved earth surface there should be a curve visible to the eye.

I grabbed a higher quality picture from the website and got out photoshop to do some pixel counting to prove it to you. This is only a tiny percentage of the horizon so it's hard to see, but the curve is still there.

Also notice, if this were the whole Earth it would be incredibly small. Either that or that's the world's largest and tallest cloud.

[retlaw]

Does that picture have an elevation and a location that it was shot at?
I am not computer smart enough to access it if it had. maybe you are. I am old.

If we can find those then maybe we can figure out how long that horizon is.
At 8 in drop per mile then 10 miles of horizon should have a 6.66ft drop. (number of the beast)

I would think that the horizon in the photo is at least 100 miles long.
If it is then that is a 66.6ft difference.

[retlaw]

I found a much better example to use then the top photo.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosphere.html



The Earth's atmosphere is an extremely thin sheet of air extending from the surface of the Earth to the edge of space. The Earth is a sphere with a roughly 8000 mile diameter; the thickness of the atmosphere is about 60 miles. In this picture, taken from a spacecraft orbiting at 200 miles above the surface, we can see the atmosphere as the thin blue band between the surface and the blackness of space.