Yeah. It's easy to take a picture of them through a telescope. Here's one I took in my backyard. Or NASA took somewhere. I don't remember which.
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk133/FlatEarthSki/iss-d3.jpg)
*photo compliments of FESSA
How do you know that the light in the sky is in space?
How do you know that the light in the sky is in space?
Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:
- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
This object is clearly moving very fast, because it travels around the world in 90 minutes (visit any satellite tracking website). If we transform the ISS's orbit onto a FE map we get this:
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ghazwozza/ISSorbit.png)
The yellow ellipse is the ISS's orbit.
If we estimate its size, it's roughly a circle 20,000km across, which means it travels 20,000*Pi km in 90mins which gives a speed of about 40 kms/s.
We can clearly see through a telescope that the object is not aerodynamic and it is not glowing due to atmospheric friction. Therefore, it must be above the atmsphere.
How do you know that the light in the sky is in space?
Now there is only one light in the sky? ???
From my vantage point I obviously can't tell how high up the ISS is. The official figure is ~335km, which one person can not easily verify alone. But I am sure if two people got together and measured the exact position of the ISS at the same point in time, its height could be calculated easily.
Well if you believe in your theory so much you could do the experiment to provide some good solid evidence that you are right. and right after that you can take your telescope and take some pictures of some kids at that beach 33mi away.QuoteFrom my vantage point I obviously can't tell how high up the ISS is. The official figure is ~335km, which one person can not easily verify alone. But I am sure if two people got together and measured the exact position of the ISS at the same point in time, its height could be calculated easily.
So the only way to know if the ISS is in space is through a hypothetical parallax experiment no one has ever conducted on the ISS?
QuoteFrom my vantage point I obviously can't tell how high up the ISS is. The official figure is ~335km, which one person can not easily verify alone. But I am sure if two people got together and measured the exact position of the ISS at the same point in time, its height could be calculated easily.
So the only way to know if the ISS is in space is through a hypothetical parallax experiment no one has ever conducted on the ISS?
Well, it's the only way we can easily verify it, yes. And the beauty of it is that anyone can do it with a bit of team work. All we need to do is find two people willing to work together to find a common time when the ISS is visible for them, check that the given coordinates for that time are correct, and then we can do the math. This could even be done multiple times if necessary to satisfy the skeptics.
QuoteWell, it's the only way we can easily verify it, yes. And the beauty of it is that anyone can do it with a bit of team work. All we need to do is find two people willing to work together to find a common time when the ISS is visible for them, check that the given coordinates for that time are correct, and then we can do the math. This could even be done multiple times if necessary to satisfy the skeptics.
Let us know when you guys decide to get your act together and organize this event.
Since such an event would be relevant to this discussion, I believe it could be organized right here in this thread. People just need to state their location and possible ISS sighting times, so we can find "sighting buddies".
I'm located in Germany near Braunschweig (no, I'm not german), and my sighting data is:
I'm located in Germany near Braunschweig (no, I'm not german), and my sighting data is:
I've been to Brunswick. It's rather pleasant, though my favourite area of Germany remains Garmisch-Partenkirchen.
If the two people looking at the ISS were not too far away from each other, say 400-500km, the curvature of the Earth would not be so bad to completely throw the calculations off.
hill height = 6371 - cos(D / 40041,47 * 180) * 6371
QuoteWell, it's the only way we can easily verify it, yes. And the beauty of it is that anyone can do it with a bit of team work. All we need to do is find two people willing to work together to find a common time when the ISS is visible for them, check that the given coordinates for that time are correct, and then we can do the math. This could even be done multiple times if necessary to satisfy the skeptics.
Let us know when you guys decide to get your act together and organize this experiment.
QuoteWell, it's the only way we can easily verify it, yes. And the beauty of it is that anyone can do it with a bit of team work. All we need to do is find two people willing to work together to find a common time when the ISS is visible for them, check that the given coordinates for that time are correct, and then we can do the math. This could even be done multiple times if necessary to satisfy the skeptics.
Let us know when you guys decide to get your act together and organize this experiment.
If we do and the results confirm the existence of the ISS and its claimed altitude, will you then admit that the world is indeed round?
Only if it's repeatable.
Actually on second thought, no, your idea will not work. The distance to celestial bodies are triangulated differently depending on whether a Flat Earth or a Round Earth is assumed. For example, simple triangulation can be used to calculate the sun to be 3,000 miles above the earth or 93 million miles above the earth depending on the earth model we assume.
On the distance to the sun on an FE, for example: On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun must be an equal distance above the equator.
The base line in any operation being horizontal and always a carefully measured one, the process becomes exceedingly simple. Let the altitude of the Sun be taken on a given day at 12 o'clock...
QuoteSince such an event would be relevant to this discussion, I believe it could be organized right here in this thread. People just need to state their location and possible ISS sighting times, so we can find "sighting buddies".
Actually on second thought, no, your idea will not work. The distance to celestial bodies are triangulated differently depending on whether a Flat Earth or a Round Earth is assumed. For example, simple triangulation can be used to calculate the sun to be 3,000 miles above the earth or 93 million miles above the earth depending on the earth model we assume.
On the distance to the sun on an FE, for example: On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun must be an equal distance above the equator.
The same data an be used under the assumption of an RE, with a little extra trig to account for the curvature between the points, to calculate the sun to be 93 million miles away.
QuoteIf the two people looking at the ISS were not too far away from each other, say 400-500km, the curvature of the Earth would not be so bad to completely throw the calculations off.
...
Hence after 311 miles the earth drops about 12.2 miles.
Now, I'm aware that there's involved math to more accurately calculate this sort of thing over long distances. If anyone can provide a more accurate method let me know.
Yeah. It's easy to take a picture of them through a telescope. Here's one I took in my backyard. Or NASA took somewhere. I don't remember which.Oh yeah, because making the claim that amateurs who see and/or photograph the space station are all liars in cahoots with NASA is SUCH a strong argument. Come to a florida star party or public viewing and I'll show you just how wrong this claim is in person.
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk133/FlatEarthSki/iss-d3.jpg)
*photo compliments of FESSA
All kinds of things. This was before the days of the internet. You had to get star charts or books/pamphlets about satellite flyovers, comets, planets, etc. There is plenty of room for operator error. Not even accounting for weather. The last thing an observer thinks when he misses a pass is "It's not there." They attribute it to any of the other causes that might cause them to miss the event.How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time? And weather? And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"? You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there! Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.
That's because the baseline necessary for such a calculation of the sun's position is HUGE, therefore the differences of flat/curved earth will greatly affect the result. The baseline needed for the ISS is relatively small, even a few miles will do, so the difference between an assumed flat and an assumed curved earth will be small as well. Sorry Tom, this excuse will not work in this case because ISS is relatively close to the observer (relative to the sun, moon, etc). In fact, if you're trying to observe the ISS passing in front of the sun (if you attempt to do this without proper protection, don't blame me for going blind), your corridor for being able to see it happen is only a mile or two wide. That's how quickly and how drastically parallax will change the apparent position of the ISS. With the use of two telescopes you could use observers who are only separated by a few miles to see the effect of parallax and calculate the distance.QuoteSince such an event would be relevant to this discussion, I believe it could be organized right here in this thread. People just need to state their location and possible ISS sighting times, so we can find "sighting buddies".
Actually on second thought, no, your idea will not work. The distance to celestial bodies are triangulated differently depending on whether a Flat Earth or a Round Earth is assumed. For example, simple triangulation can be used to calculate the sun to be 3,000 miles above the earth or 93 million miles above the earth depending on the earth model we assume.
If anyone else is interested in doing this I live in florida and will be attempting to view the station tomorrow morning about about 5am, weather permitting.
I've already contacted an acquantance of mine who lives in southern Germany (near Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg). With a bit of luck, I'll be able to get the it verified this Sunday.
Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.
Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.
Planned mass hysteria. Good one. ::)
Even if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that wasSatellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.
Planned mass hysteria. Good one. ::)
Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.
Even if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that wasSatellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.
Planned mass hysteria. Good one. ::)
Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.
Even if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that wasSatellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.
Planned mass hysteria. Good one. ::)
Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.
How do you know it's the ISS? How do you know that it's not a shooting star or a meteor?
How do you know it's the ISS? How do you know that it's not a shooting star or a meteor?
How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time? And weather? And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"? You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there! Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.
Shooting stars steark across the sky for a very short time while the ISS will be a point in the sky that moves across it pretty quicklyEven if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that wasSatellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.
Planned mass hysteria. Good one. ::)
Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.
How do you know it's the ISS? How do you know that it's not a shooting star or a meteor?
Not counting weather, I've never missed the ISS or shuttle when I've gone out to view them. In some cases I fail to get my telescope set up and focused in time for the pass, or my computer gives me the blue screen of death just before the pass, but even when that happens I still end up visually seeing the ISS pass overhead visually right on time, on the predicted path, every time.How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time? And weather? And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"? You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there! Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.
So you've honestly never missed the object that you went out to view that night (ISS or satellite)?
Not counting weather, I've never missed the ISS or shuttle when I've gone out to view them. In some cases I fail to get my telescope set up and focused in time for the pass, or my computer gives me the blue screen of death just before the pass, but even when that happens I still end up visually seeing the ISS pass overhead visually right on time, on the predicted path, every time.How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time? And weather? And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"? You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there! Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.
So you've honestly never missed the object that you went out to view that night (ISS or satellite)?
I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.
I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.
I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.
I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.???
Why? Are you going to offer arguments, or simply state your personal opinion like we give a damn?
So things are allowed to orbit the Sun, but not orbit the Earth?
The earth is a very different body for one; it's an infinite (or near-infinite) plane which bisects the universe.
Since there is no gravity in FE theory, why the hell would the other planets orbit the sun?
Because of their gravitational field, silly.
Since there is no gravity (and thus no gravitational fields) in FE theory, why the hell would the other planets orbit the sun, silly?
Since there is no gravity (and thus no gravitational fields) in FE theory, why the hell would the other planets orbit the sun, silly?Because planets don't orbit around the Sun in the FE theory, silly.
The retrograde motion of the planets suggests that they are orbiting the sun.
Because planets don't orbit around the Sun in the FE theory, silly.
But the specific underlying mechanism for Gravitation is unknown to present human knowledge.
However, I've always suspected that the mechanism for Gravitation in the universe is electromagnetic in nature.
Please, review the FE diagram before you even debate.The retrograde motion of the planets suggests that they are orbiting the sun.Because planets don't orbit around the Sun in the FE theory, silly.
Needs more consistency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency).
Please, review the FE diagram before you even debate.
ENaG.
All the orbits are above the earth; and whenever a spectator stands in such a position that a planet is moving from right to left, he has only to wait until it reaches the end or part of its orbit nearest to him, when, as it turns to traverse the other side of the orbit, it will, for a time, pass in a direction to which the line of sight is a tangent. A good illustration will be found in an elliptical or circular race-course. A person standing at some distance outside the course would see the horses come in from the right, and pass before him to the left; but on arriving at the extreme arc they would for a time pass in the direction of, or parallel to, his line of sight, and would, therefore, appear for a time not to progress, but on entering the other side of the course would appear to the spectator to move from. left to right, or in a contrary direction to that in which they first passed before him.
Can you see them orbit the Sun? Is that what we see? No. So no.
Can you see them orbit the Sun? Is that what we see? No. So no.
Actually... it IS what we see - transit of Venus from 2004:
(http://home.comcast.net/~fxmurphy/VenusTransit.gif)
Hey, check me out, I can post unattributed, animated gif images too!
I actually really want to buy stuff to see that... Next one after that is in about 200 years I think...
It doesn't matter what the .gif shows. If you will interpret it as nothing more than 'a black thing blocking a big orange thing then moving', then so be it. Venus still transits the Sun. I would have imagined that a fair number of people here caught the 2004 transit, although I imagine that a large portion of you here are American, and thus were not in a brilliant position to view it.
Is that Mercury or Venus? Considering the size of sun VS planet in that pic, Mercury and Venus are pretty damn small according to FET.Venus. Venus is much smaller than the sun.