The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Curvature on August 10, 2020, 04:14:25 PM
-
Flat earthers believe that satellites supposedly don't exist. But tonight when I was outside, I saw an artificial satellite fly by. It was a faint dot moving quickly through the night sky. Way too fast for being an airplane. But if this was not a satellite orbiting the earth, then what was it? How would flat earthers explain these things?
-
What was the altitude of this dot?
-
How would you know? Satellites pass over all the time and are instantly recognisable for what they are. They vary in orbital distance (or height if you prefer) so unless you know which one you are looking at its impossible to tell how high it is just by visual appearance. Who cares anyway? You see it, it passes and then its gone again until the next one passes over.
Some are not even operational satellites as such but just space 'junk'
Regardless you don't need to know how high it is to recognise a satellite when you see one.
-
Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.
How do the RE explain UFOs?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2176071#msg2176071
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2272305#msg2272305
-
Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.
What sort of 'low altitude' would you be talking about? I have never heard of a collision between an airliner and a satellite!
If you click on the link below
https://heavens-above.com/AllSats.aspx
And then click on the name of each satellite it provides you with a chart of the path across the sky and gives details of the satellite orbit parameters including height.
Here is another very comprehensive source of information on satellites
www.calsky.com
-
And then click on the name of each satellite it provides you with a chart of the path across the sky and gives details of the satellite orbit parameters including height.
Right.
Can you explain to your readers the gravitational law used by these satellites to orbit at those altitudes?
Is it by any chance Newton's law of universal gravity?
Then, you got a huge problem, because this law of worth shit in outer space.
Or would you like me to bring here the Allais effect to prove my assertion?
-
Can you explain to your readers the gravitational law used by these satellites to orbit at those altitudes?
Is it by any chance Newton's law of universal gravity?
Then, you got a huge problem, because this law of worth shit in outer space.
Or would you like me to bring here the Allais effect to prove my assertion?
Who cares? The websites predict satellite passes. It is not there to provide a lesson on the physics of satellite orbits. All I know is that the predictions are entirely correct.. You can try and prove whatever you like but it won't change my position.
I'm going to hold back from this particular discussion since the OP was asking for the FE position on satellites.
-
Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.
How do the RE explain UFOs?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2176071#msg2176071
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2272305#msg2272305
The satellite was travelling at an incredible speed. How would it turn without crashing into the dome?
-
To 'crash' into the dome there would have to be a physical dome there. What makes you think there is such a dome?
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.
You can literally see them with your own eyes...
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite,
Really... what makes you so sure? Maybe your house faces the wrong way so you can't see them. A bit like the comet. Everyone else sees them.
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite,
Really... what makes you so sure? Maybe your house faces the wrong way so you can't see them. A bit like the comet. Everyone else sees them.
I've seen them. Taken pictures of them. I've even communicated with them. It's laughable to say they don't exist with no reasoning or evidence.
-
Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.
that's fascinating. how much lower is the altitude and what exactly are they orbiting on a FE?
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.
I accidentally saw the ISS fly over yesterday at about 4:30 local time. I went out to make photos of the night sky. Too bad I had just parked my car and had my camera not yet ready.
I've seen it about two dozen times now, sometimes I didn't look up the times and noticed it just looking up, other times I looked up when the next flyover would be and it would match the given times to the second.
Not that you would believe pictures anyway.
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.
I accidentally saw the ISS fly over yesterday at about 4:30 local time. I went out to make photos of the night sky. Too bad I had just parked my car and had my camera not yet ready.
I've seen it about two dozen times now, sometimes I didn't look up the times and noticed it just looking up, other times I looked up when the next flyover would be and it would match the given times to the second.
Not that you would believe pictures anyway.
I've got pictures of the ISS passing in front of the sun. With enough details to make out the solar panels.
How NASA could possibly fake the ISS using a plane is beyond me. I mean, they can't have a hundred planes flying all over a flat Earth matching an orbital path perfectly. And the shape of that thing, it's not like any plane. And it goes so damn fast. It's ground speed would be 2600 MPH! That's faster than a Blackbird by a lot, and much bigger.
Not to mention you can triangulate it's altitude with multiple observers, which is easy because it's very predictable where it is. Get two people to measure angles at the same time and there you go. How do you disprove that?
-
How would you know? Satellites pass over all the time and are instantly recognisable for what they are. They vary in orbital distance (or height if you prefer) so unless you know which one you are looking at its impossible to tell how high it is just by visual appearance. Who cares anyway? You see it, it passes and then its gone again until the next one passes over.
Some are not even operational satellites as such but just space 'junk'
Regardless you don't need to know how high it is to recognise a satellite when you see one.
Sure it's not Santa Claus out on a recon mission?
You saw a dot, therefor . . .
-
How would you know? Satellites pass over all the time and are instantly recognisable for what they are. They vary in orbital distance (or height if you prefer) so unless you know which one you are looking at its impossible to tell how high it is just by visual appearance. Who cares anyway? You see it, it passes and then its gone again until the next one passes over.
Some are not even operational satellites as such but just space 'junk'
Regardless you don't need to know how high it is to recognise a satellite when you see one.
Sure it's not Santa Claus out on a recon mission?
You saw a dot, therefor . . .
I've photographed the ISS, and it's far more than just a dot.
I'm pretty sure Santa's sleigh doesn't use massive solar panels. He does his work at night after all so it wouldn't make any sense. :)
-
You saw a dot, therefor . . .
if you were looking at something the same size as a bus directly above you from a distance of a couple of hundred miles up with mirrors reflecting the Sunlight down at you, what do you think you would see?
-
I take it you don't look up into the night sky very often then. Obviously not if you have never seen a satellite pass overhead. They move like aircraft do except they don't have any red/green navigation lights. Very, very common.
They look exactly like moving stars. How do I know they are not moving stars then I expect you will ask.. very simply because I know what I'm talking about. Unlike your good self it seems.
-
They look exactly like moving stars. How do I know they are not moving stars then I expect you will ask.. very simply because I know what I'm talking about. Unlike your good self it seems.
So you are saying the lights in the sky are not evidence that satellites exist, and that there are other explanations for them which you reject because you know they are satellites?
That is the point that was being made.
-
For those in Europe that want to watch the ISS fly over, I am in the red area in the Netherlands (albeit so that I live very close to the sea which is yellow/green) and can see it fly over without trouble.
(http://media.emmahkansson.se/2018/04/lightPollEurope-768x702.jpg)
-
So you are saying the lights in the sky are not evidence that satellites exist, and that there are other explanations for them which you reject because you know they are satellites?
OK if want to look at it that way then fair enough. I don't have a piece of string long enough to lasso one of those 'lights in the sky', pull it down to ground level and visually check whether its a satellite or not. When you've been studying the sky as long as I have you get to know what is what up there and that includes a lot of the less obvious stuff which I accept the 'layperson' might not recognise. I don't need to 'reject' any other explanation because I know what it is.
Do you get what I am saying now? And that applies equally to anyone else out there who wishes to deny satellites exist until they can drag one down from the sky.
-
OK if want to look at it that way then fair enough. I don't have a piece of string long enough to lasso one of those 'lights in the sky', pull it down to ground level and visually check whether its a satellite or not. When you've been studying the sky as long as I have you get to know what is what up there and that includes a lot of the less obvious stuff which I accept the 'layperson' might not recognise. I don't need to 'reject' any other explanation because I know what it is.
Do you get what I am saying now? And that applies equally to anyone else out there who wishes to deny satellites exist until they can drag one down from the sky.
You seem to not get what I am saying, and why Bullwinkle likely started that line of reasoning in the first place.
The OP went from "a faint dot moving quickly through the night sky" to it being a satellite and thus refuting FE.
The point is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not enough to conclude it is a satellite, nor to conclude Earth is round, you need a lot more.
I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm not saying you need to drag one down to see if it is real.
All I am saying is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not proof of satellites.
Do you get what I am saying now?
-
The point is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not enough to conclude it is a satellite
What else do you think something satellite sized would look like in the night sky then? The light you see comes from reflected sunlight from the solar panels and something that small from a couple of hundred km away is going to look like a tiny spec (dot) of light in the sky.
There are various websites which predict satellite passes. And not surprisingly all of them are accurate. What other evidence do you need?
Here's a bit more info on the subject for anyone interested.
http://www.satobs.org/
Note the first couple of lines.
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.
You can literally see them with your own eyes...
No. You are literally lying. They are not exist, so it is impossible to see.
-
There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.
I accidentally saw the ISS fly over yesterday at about 4:30 local time. I went out to make photos of the night sky. Too bad I had just parked my car and had my camera not yet ready.
Ahahaha! You globulards always can find such excuses. How funny. So you have learned its place, you can take it to the camera tonight. We trust you, You can do that! ;D
-
No. You are literally lying. They are not exist,
No, I am literally not lying. They do exist. I am not in the habit of lying. It might be the case that you have never seen one but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Denial on your part won't change that.
In many ways I will they didn't exist because for astrophotographers like myself they wreak havoc with my images :-( Poxy satellite trails spoiling sub after sub.
-
The point is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not enough to conclude it is a satellite
What else do you think something satellite sized would look like in the night sky then?
You don't seem to understand proof do you.
Asking what else a satellite would look like doesn't prove it is a satellite.
You need to ask what else would look like it.
Once more, I'm not saying it isn't a satellite.
I'm saying it isn't proof that it is a satellite.
No. You are literally lying. They are not exist, so it is impossible to see.
Except all the available evidence, including satellite TVs which require pointing fairly precisely at geostationary satellites; the photos and other information you can get from satellites, including GPS which relies upon satellites with quite well known positions, and actual photos of the ISS with enough of it resolved to clearly see it is the ISS quite clearly demonstrates that satellites DO exist.
You are the one lying here, like you do in almost every post you make.
You have no justification at all for your lie that satellites do not exist.
-
I'm saying it isn't proof that it is a satellite.
Ok so tell me what in your view would represent proof then.
-
No, I am literally not lying. They do exist. I am not in the habit of lying.
Iwas told it somebody else. But you are lying too.
It might be the case that you have never seen one but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Denial on your part won't change that.
This is logical. Because you globularist/evolutionalst/atheist people majoritly denying the God because you did not see it. Same logic. Satellites are your God, think it so.
You don't seem to understand proof do you.
I do. But you globularists don't know what a proof is. You are asking it to people and proving all you are knowing it wrong, except Smoke Machine. He is a globularist too, but a sane one, a smart one.
You have no justification at all for your lie that satellites do not exist.
No, I have. If it exist, so prove. You are showing either cartoon network products or your own supposedly experiences never experienced actually are not evidence or proof of anything.
-
No, I have. If it exist, so prove.
Ok you tell me what 'proof' you would be willing to accept. How do you prove that satellites exist?
At the moment in this discussion we have got Sandokhan who states that satellites do exist in FE but at 'lower altitude'
Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.
and you who are adamant that they don't exist. Two people who would each deny they are ever wrong with opposing views. You can't both be right can you?!?
-
How do you prove that satellites exist?
By observing it live by another satellite, the plane, the balloon, that is, by something comparable and can observe it.
There should also be a video containing the entire time from the launch of the satellite to orbit. However, the rockets carrying the supposedly satellites leave the broadcast shortly after they are launched, and the video continues with cgi animation. However, we know very well that many cameras can be placed on a rocket easily.
Those full video shoots are generally belonging to Space-x company, Nasa yet discovered that technology. and at the end of the video, we see the rocket hits into the dome and stop within a second - ignoring the laws of physics.
Your Rockets do not go into your supposedly space.
a) Hits the dome and stop immediately at the moment
b) goes through Antarctica, the world's free rocket dump
-
That all sounds very expensive and I don't personally own any rockets.
I think I'll stick with the look up and watch them passing across the sky approach. I know that won't suit you but you have to adapt your methods to suite your means don't you.
I don't know what the Space X annual budget is but I would hedge a bet that it is bigger than mine.
What is this dome that you are talking about made of anyway? Must be made of pretty tough stuff if it can stop a rocket in its tracks. Where can I get some?
-
I am looking same sky but not seing anything. It is just like your God only you can see and can not prove its existence.
SpaceX was just an amateur company tried to send rocket to space. They have discovered it hits the dome. NASA give them bribe actually. Those billions of dollar agreement means it. Also, NASA even have not that technology sending a rocket to the dome.
They do small rockets only go 100kms up. Their technology only includes to go up 100 kms is bigger than NASA technology goes supposedly millions of kms to the space but actually CN cgi.
Intense gas with liquid properties in some ways, I guess according to my observations.
-
I am looking same sky but not seing anything.
Again... just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. I was once standing outside in a queue for a theatre show and watching the ISS pass over. Plain as anything. No one else saw it because they weren't looking up at the sky. They didn't see it but I did.
-
Again... just because you don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.
Again... You are describing God. So you have became a believer, right?
-
I don't really know what 'God' is so how could I be describing God? God to me is a concept and not an entity as such. That's my understanding anyway. I'm sure you have your own interpretation.
-
I am looking same sky but not seing anything. It is just like your God only you can see and can not prove its existence.
SpaceX was just an amateur company tried to send rocket to space. They have discovered it hits the dome. NASA give them bribe actually. Those billions of dollar agreement means it. Also, NASA even have not that technology sending a rocket to the dome.
They do small rockets only go 100kms up. Their technology only includes to go up 100 kms is bigger than NASA technology goes supposedly millions of kms to the space but actually CN cgi.
Intense gas with liquid properties in some ways, I guess according to my observations.
If I had the money I'd totally pay to strap you to the side of a rocket launch so you can see space and satellites first hand. :P
So can you show me the mark on the dome where the rocket hit it? Got any evidence at all for any of your claims?
I've taken pictures of satellites. I've communicated with them directly. That's more direct evidence than anything you have claimed.
-
I don't really know what 'God' is so how could I be describing God? God to me is a concept and not an entity as such. That's my understanding anyway. I'm sure you have your own interpretation.
We are describing God as somebody created everything. It is just like my view to satellites. Satellite is a concept describing a network and not an entity as such.
-
I am looking same sky but not seing anything. It is just like your God only you can see and can not prove its existence.
SpaceX was just an amateur company tried to send rocket to space. They have discovered it hits the dome. NASA give them bribe actually. Those billions of dollar agreement means it. Also, NASA even have not that technology sending a rocket to the dome.
They do small rockets only go 100kms up. Their technology only includes to go up 100 kms is bigger than NASA technology goes supposedly millions of kms to the space but actually CN cgi.
Intense gas with liquid properties in some ways, I guess according to my observations.
If I had the money I'd totally pay to strap you to the side of a rocket launch so you can see space and satellites first hand. :P
So can you show me the mark on the dome where the rocket hit it? Got any evidence at all for any of your claims?
I've taken pictures of satellites. I've communicated with them directly. That's more direct evidence than anything you have claimed.
If I had enough mana point, I'd totally pay to strap you to the side of the otherside. >:D
You can't show me a real evidence of space because not exist, both we know it.
I can tell I have communicated with God and angels. Can not I? But I don't use it as an argument here.
That's more direct evidence than anything you have claimed.
You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use direct evidences.
Neither your being see the satellits, nor me seing God and angels are not valid evidences scientifically.
Do you get why you and others have not a chance to deceive me? I am not a believer, I am beyond a knower.
-
You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use direct evidences.
Yes, you don't use evidence, that is quite apparent.
My evidence counts more than your evidence because you are not actually presenting any evidence.
I have seen satellites. Taken pictures of them. Listened to them. Your counter evidence is nothing more than denial. You have no evidence of your own.
-
You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use them direct evidences.
Yes, you don't use evidence, that is quite apparent.
My evidence counts more than your evidence because you are not actually presenting any evidence.
I have seen satellites. Taken pictures of them. Listened to them. Your counter evidence is nothing more than denial. You have no evidence of your own.
Corrected. I have mistakenly not write the "them" word there. But it was clear I meant it. Anyway.
Reply the other parts or you have agreed as you admit the earth is flat!
-
Don't forget this! ;)
-
You see your mistake? Your evidence is not more than mine, equal or less. Objectively equal and in my side, not equal, mine is more true. Hence, I don't use them direct evidences.
Yes, you don't use evidence, that is quite apparent.
My evidence counts more than your evidence because you are not actually presenting any evidence.
I have seen satellites. Taken pictures of them. Listened to them. Your counter evidence is nothing more than denial. You have no evidence of your own.
Corrected. I have mistakenly not write the "them" word there. But it was clear I meant it. Anyway.
Reply the other parts or you have agreed as you admit the earth is flat!
Stop changing already quoted posts. If you want to correct yourself, just say so.
You still have zero evidence. I've seen satellites. I've recorded data directly from them. taken pictures of them.
You say they are not real, yet I have direct, personal experience with them. You have no evidence other than just saying over and over they are not real. Why should I believe you over my own eyes?
-
Stop changing already quoted posts. If you want to correct yourself, just say so.
You still have zero evidence. I've seen satellites. I've recorded data directly from them. taken pictures of them.
You say they are not real, yet I have direct, personal experience with them. You have no evidence other than just saying over and over they are not real. Why should I believe you over my own eyes?
Proof? Where is your experience proofs? Who has verified them being real?
Have you believe on God also? If so, why; if not, why?
Compare my and your attitude about the existance of satellites and God depends on direct and belief experiences. Where is difference? Satellite is your God. You claim it exists, but can not prove.
Then you tell: "We are not simulation! We are not simulation!" You! Are! 100%! simulation! with this inconsistent attitude.
-
Stop changing already quoted posts. If you want to correct yourself, just say so.
You still have zero evidence. I've seen satellites. I've recorded data directly from them. taken pictures of them.
You say they are not real, yet I have direct, personal experience with them. You have no evidence other than just saying over and over they are not real. Why should I believe you over my own eyes?
Proof? Where is your experience proofs? Who has verified them being real?
Have you believe on God also? If so, why; if not, why?
Compare my and your attitude about the existance of satellites and God depends on direct and belief experiences. Where is difference? Satellite is your God. You claim it exists, but can not prove.
Then you tell: "We are not simulation! We are not simulation!" You! Are! 100%! simulation! with this inconsistent attitude.
Well I've talked to astronauts on the ISS who commented on my pictures, and even asked me to take some more for them. That's pretty good proof for me. :)
What I believe in is between me and God, and none of your damn business.
The difference between your belief in God and my belief in satellites is I can point at a satellite and show someone else. I can take pictures and show them. I can point in the sky, and others can see what I see. That's the difference between science and religion.
If you can't deal with both of them, that's your problem.
-
I think I'll stick with the look up and watch them passing across the sky approach. I know that won't suit you but you have to adapt your methods to suite your means don't you.
Credulity is not a good argument.
-
Well I've talked to astronauts on the ISS who commented on my pictures, and even asked me to take some more for them. That's pretty good proof for me. :)
The astro -nots on the ISS are the most lying people on the earth. If they tell something then the opposite of it becomes more true. If they like your pictures so your pictures are fake like themselves.
What I believe in is between me and God, and none of your damn business.
So what I believe in is between me and satellites, why do you feel it your damn business?
The difference between your belief in God and my belief in satellites is I can point at a satellite and show someone else.
No you can not. This is not a difference. I can claim same thing too. This does not make a sense.
I can take pictures and show them.
No you can not. You can show your pictures only liars like you, like astro-nots ready to accept your lies, because they are already liars, one more lie, no problem in their side.
Ironically the possiblity I take the picture of God is more than you take a picture of satellites. Because, at least mine is real and I can try my chance.
I can point in the sky, and others can see what I see.
Sky, yes sky. You can show stars staying on the sky dome and we can see too. So what?
That's the difference between science and religion.
Guess this is not an argument shows the difference of science and religion. According to same mentality, I can point in the sky, and others can see what I see. So, religion beats the supposedly science, right?
If you can't deal with both of them, that's your problem.
You still have many problems I have show them above. Even globularists here aware your mistakes.
-
What I believe in is between me and God, and none of your damn business.
So what I believe in is between me and satellites, why do you feel it your damn business?
Because you are telling me that I'm a liar and not seeing what I am seeing.
That's the difference you can't seem to get.
If you want to open your mouth and start yelling that I'm a liar, then you get yelled at right back.
I have not once told you not to believe in God. I've not once said you're lying when you say you talk to Him. That's religion, that's your business. I respect your beliefs.
The moment you start trying to shout down everyone else and claim YOUR beliefs must be MY beliefs, that's a problem.
Remember, you came into this thread and started denying things and calling us liars. That's the difference.
-
I agree. You cannot start dictating what others should believe in, accusing others of being liars and then insist that whatever you believe in is right and everyone else should believe the same.
We all have our differences of opinion and that is what makes a debate. But downright attacks on others just because they have a different point of view is stepping across the line.
I too respect the right of others to believe in God and have their own interpretation of what they think God is. I have spoken to many others who come from different religious backgrounds. They respect my position and I respect theirs. It's just a shame that some apparently cannot bring themselves to do the same.
I also respect whatever Wise wishes to believe about satellites or whatever. As long as he understands that there is a difference between what he believes and what is real and true in some cases.
-
Ok so tell me what in your view would represent proof then.
Something that shows it is satellites rather than something else.
This is logical. Because you globularist/evolutionalst/atheist people majoritly denying the God because you did not see it. Same logic. Satellites are your God, think it so.
There is no evidence of gods except fictional stories. These gods and stories are mutually contradictory. Thus they cannot all be true. There is literally no other evidence for the existence of a god in reality. A god helps with no problem at all for reality. Thus there is no reason to believe in a god.
It is not merely a case of not seeing it. It is a case of there being no actual evidence for gods.
Unlike your imaginary fiend, there are mountains of evidence for satellites. Evidence you choose to ignore.
No, I have. If it exist, so prove.
You have been provided with plenty of evidence, evidence you choose to ignore.
So the burden now falls on you to disprove that evidence, something you have never done.
By observing it live by another satellite, the plane, the balloon, that is, by something comparable and can observe it.
You mean photos you would just dismiss as CGI?
Why not just be honest for once and admit that for NOTHING would be proof or evidence of the existence of satellites as that would show you are wrong.
we see the rocket hits into the dome and stop within a second - ignoring the laws of physics.
No, we have never seen that.
You have repeatedly asserted it, and even provided footage which you claim shows that, but they have been refuted every time.
I can tell I have communicated with God and angels. Can not I?
There is a big difference between just saying you can and actually being able to do it with others being able to test your claims.
Anyone can go out and get the required equipment (or build it themselves) and communicate with satellites and take photos of some.
Meanwhile, it is only believers that "talk" to gods, with believers in different, contradictory gods magically only "talking" to their god, with no way to show that they are actually talking to their god and no way for non-believers to replicate it.
Hence, I don't use direct evidences.
See, what that so hard to admit?
You don't care about evidence. You don't care about reality. All you care about is your false beliefs and pretending they are true. You will reject anything that shows they are false and happily misuse whatever you can to pretend they are true.
The astro -nots on the ISS are the most lying people on the earth.
Nope. Their lies are nothing in comparison to yours. You lie with every post you make.
They would just lie the same amount as normal people, with rare white lies.
If they tell something then the opposite of it becomes more true.
That makes no sense at all.
They say Earth exists, so according to you it doesn't?
Because, at least mine is real and I can try my chance.
That is just your baseless claim, with no supporting evidence. But again, there is plenty of evidence for satellites.
-
Ok so tell me what in your view would represent proof then.
Something that shows it is satellites rather than something else.
If two people separated at a distance took pictures of the satellite at the exact same time and compared it's position against background stars to determine parallax for distance, would that work?
-
Something that shows it is satellites
Unfortunately the majority of satellites (well all but one actually) are simply too small given their height to be directly visible as satellites even in telescopes. Only possible exception to this is during a transit of the Sun or Moon which turns the moving dot of light against the dark background of sky into a silhouette against a bright background.
http://astrophoto.fr/satellites.html
I wonder what other possibilities JB would like to suggest these moving stars that we all see in the sky (apart from Wise it seems) are if they are not satellites.
If two people separated at a distance took pictures of the satellite at the exact same time and compared it's position against background stars to determine parallax for distance, would that work?
Whilst that would provide an indication of height, I don't think it would 'prove' it was a satellite.
-
Unfortunately the majority of satellites (well all but one actually) are simply too small given their height to be directly visible as satellites even in telescopes.
You don't need a visual observation.
There are other methods of obtaining evidence.
Your eyes are not your only tools.
I wonder what other possibilities JB would like to suggest these moving stars that we all see in the sky (apart from Wise it seems) are if they are not satellites.
A plane or an asteroid/meteor skimming the atmosphere, just to name 2 options.
If two people separated at a distance took pictures of the satellite at the exact same time and compared it's position against background stars to determine parallax for distance, would that work?
Yes, a simple example would be the geostationary satellites used for satellite TV, with multiple receivers on Earth pointing to the same satellite and these paths indicating that each of these satellites is roughly 35 000 km above the equator of a round Earth.
You can get even better by using a camera to take a time-lapse photo of the night sky showing these presumed satellites in a ring around Earth, remaining stationary relative to the Earth, as they need to be to continue to have a fixed dish point to them, and more importantly, the lack of any such ring elsewhere in the sky, regardless of your location on Earth, ruling out the possibility of multiple such rings to try to produce the coverage of such satellites without using satellites.
That is far more compelling evidence than a faint dot moving across the sky.
-
You can get even better by using a camera to take a time-lapse photo of the night sky showing these presumed satellites in a ring around Earth, remaining stationary relative to the Earth, as they need to be to continue to have a fixed dish point to them, and more importantly, the lack of any such ring elsewhere in the sky, regardless of your location on Earth, ruling out the possibility of multiple such rings to try to produce the coverage of such satellites without using satellites.
OK so next could you either get that evidence for me and present it here or describe a method by which the average person with average equipment could do it for themselves.
-
Because you are telling me that I'm a liar and not seeing what I am seeing.
That's the difference you can't seem to get.
Wait wait. If I tell you I have take photo with God and angels, but forget to save it, what will you tell me?
If I tell you I went to the dome and see everything is flat, so what will you do other than calling me a liar?
I am simply defining the situation. You are talking something you can impossible, no way but you are lying about it.
If you want to open your mouth and start yelling that I'm a liar, then you get yelled at right back.
No, I do not want. Because I am telling true. I want to open my mouth and start yelling you are a liar! But it seems a problem in your side. It is my mouth, my yell !
I have not once told you not to believe in God. I've not once said you're lying when you say you talk to Him. That's religion, that's your business. I respect your beliefs.
God is not a belief in my side. He is scientific reality of the world. This is our difference.
When issue comes to satellites you call it as scientific matter, but when issue comes to God you define it as religion or belief. No, in my side he is not less real than you. So your existance is a belief too. Are you religion?
The moment you start trying to shout down everyone else and claim YOUR beliefs must be MY beliefs, that's a problem.
Guess the case is equal here. I am not shouting out more than you. But you are more forcing me to accept your beliefs about satellites.
Remember, you came into this thread and started denying things and calling us liars. That's the difference.
You are liar in my side. But it is your belief, you are free to believe satellites, it is not so different. But you are still a liar even in this post. I have just told my opinion, there was nothing about your business. My belief about satellites is me and satellites problem, it is not your business.
I respect your missbeliefs on supposedly satellites, no problem. It is not my business.
get the point now? I don't think so.
I came the thread not to call you are liars. I have came thread and told "satellites are not exist" There was nothing about you. But you, who first tried to convince me to accept your beliefs.
Stop hypocrisy! If you have a right to deny the God, so I have a right to deny the supposedly satellites. No difference. I am not forcing you to accept the God reality, and you can not force me to believe your missbeliefs about satellites. But you are doing it! You are doing opposite of your talkings!
-
You are talking something you can impossible, no way but you are lying about it.
No, what he is talking about is entirely possible. You just reject all the evidence for it.
God is not a belief in my side. He is scientific reality of the world. This is our difference.
No, the difference is that you outright reject science and instead replace with delusional beliefs like Earth being flat and reject all evidence that shows your beliefs are false.
When issue comes to satellites you call it as scientific matter, but when issue comes to God you define it as religion or belief.
As already pointed out, that is because satellites have mountains of objective, scientific evidence for their existence. Your god has none.
You are liar in my side.
There is no "side" in if someone is a liar. Either they are or they are not.
People disagreeing with your false beliefs does not make them a liar no matter how much you want it to.
-
No, what he is talking about is entirely possible. You just reject all the evidence for it.
Your approving him does not make stronger his position, but makes it weaker. Because you are photocopy of same lying machine.
No,...
Replying everything with no proves you are nothing but a denying machine.
As already pointed out, that is because satellites have mountains of objective, scientific evidence for their existence. Your god has none.
Nope. That is because your bosses have made up many fake photos about supposedly satellites, but we did not it. That's all. If I create one, "our God" can has too. But I am not a liar or fraudent. I need to take God's approve before take him a photo. Even I was did it, I am sure you atheists would deny it a way.
There is no "side" in if someone is a liar. Either they are or they are not.
So both you are liar.
You are a liar in my side.
You are not a liar in your opinion.
Result: You are a liar in my side. What do you suggest anything else?
People disagreeing with your false beliefs does not make them a liar no matter how much you want it to.
So you have agreed I am not a liar because of denying your atheist missbeliefs about satellites, right?
Keep continue this way, without insulting, swearing or racist hate speech, okay? I know it is hard in your side because you have you have not a real argument at the moment but only these remained.
-
Replying everything with no proves you are nothing but a denying machine.
Is that your way of admitting you are a denying machine?
That is because your bosses have made up many fake photos about supposedly satellites, but we did not it.
Photos are not the only evidence, and they are not only able to be obtained by the "bosses".
Stop acting like there is no evidence for satellites just because you choose to ignore it.
You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't magically mean there is none.
So if you want to LIE and claim there are no satellites, the burden is on you to prove it.
So both you are liar.
Nope still just you.
Again, there are no sides to liars.
People being against your side because you are wrong does not make them liars, no matter how much you want it to.
-
If satellites aren't real, then why are astronomers pissed at SpaceX for launching about 600 of them so far (out 12,000 planned) for their Starlink program? Those "satellites" have already photobombed pictures of NEOWISE.
(https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/spacex-starlink-satellites-photobomb-comet-neowise-picture-146478-7.jpg)
-
A plane or an asteroid/meteor skimming the atmosphere, just to name 2 options.
Is that the best you can do? You obviously don't have much experience of observing the night sky do you. That is not a problem. So read and learn....
1. Planes and satellites are easily distinguished because satellites have no red/green navigation lights. They can also vary in brightness as they rotate (did you ever see an iridium flare for example? They could go from below naked eye level to -8 magnitude (between Venus and the full Moon in just a second or two)). Sometimes they even disappear because they have gone into the Earths shadow. Hardly surprising since the Earths shadow is always above the horizon at night for what are hopefully obvious reasons.
2. It takes several minutes for a satellite to cross the sky. The average meteor is visible for just a couple of seconds. So slight speed difference.
So that's those 2 options discounted. What else do you reckon they might be?
-
A plane or an asteroid/meteor skimming the atmosphere, just to name 2 options.
Is that the best you can do? You obviously don't have much experience of observing the night sky do you.
Or I just realise there are other explanations.
Again, I'm not saying the alternatives are correct, all I am saying is that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof of satellites.
Now how about you stop with the insults.
-
Or I just realise there are other explanations.
Well if you are not sure of the difference between a satellite and a meteor then clearly you don't spend much time looking up at the night sky. I'm not insulting you (unlike certain people I could mention who seem to do nothing else) I am simply pointing out how the different types of celestial objects both natural and manmade are quite evident to those used to seeing them. I have been observing the night skies for over 40 years so I know what can be seen and what the various types of objects look like.
When I first got into astronomy I had never seen a satellite pass overhead because I didn't know what to look for. But as soon as I read about what they looked like I started seeing them all the time. Some are bright either because they are bigger or because they are placed in lower orbit.
If I didn't know what I was looking at then I would consider the possibilities but when you know what you are looking at you know. That's all there is to it. If I see something I don't recognise (it has happened once or twice in 40 odd years) I don't automatically think I've seen aliens flying around as some might. I apply the most likely explanation.
A moving 'star' passing over might not be proof enough to you that satellites exist but it is to me because I know what I'm looking at. If you don't accept that then that's up to you. I'm not going to waste any more time or effort arguing about it.
-
Well if you are not sure of the difference between a satellite and a meteor then clearly you don't spend much time looking up at the night sky.
And you still don't understand.
You need to approach it from the POV of a FE if you want it to work as proof for a FEer.
If I didn't know what I was looking at then I would consider the possibilities but when you know what you are looking at you know.
And that is the point I have made repeatedly and you have ignored repeatedly.
You know they are satellites so you don't care about any other possibility.
For those who do not accept the existence of satellites, they do not know they are satellites.
It also means your answer is entirely circular.
You know they are satellites, thus they are satellites.
If you need to know they are satellites to be able to conclude they are satellites, it cannot be used to prove they are satellites.
It proves nothing.
That means it is not proof of satellites.
Understand now?
-
Well if you are not sure of the difference between a satellite and a meteor then clearly you don't spend much time looking up at the night sky.
Your problem is that you know they are satellites
because you know they are satellites.
And for proof you said you looked at them.
-
Your problem is that you know they are satellites
because you know they are satellites.
Why is that a problem then?
According to your logic then when I look at the Moon I shouldn't be thinking 'hey look there's the Moon'.. I should be asking myself is that really the Moon or is it something else that just happens to look like the Moon. Because to me the sight of a satellite passing across the sky is as clear and obvious as looking at the Moon.
You know they are satellites so you don't care about any other possibility.
For those who do not accept the existence of satellites, they do not know they are satellites.
Well to those who don't accept the existence of satellites I would ask them simply why. If the FE mindset prevents you from accepting the existence of satellites then that's up to those concerned if they want to think like that. Just consider of all the aspects of life that rely obviously on satellites. They are too numerous to mention. Are you going to try and explain all those in some other way just because you refuse to accept the reality of satellites? You are just arguing about it for the sake of arguing about something.
-
Your problem is that you know they are satellites
because you know they are satellites.
Why is that a problem then?
According to your logic then when I look at the Moon I shouldn't be thinking 'hey look there's the Moon'.. I should be asking myself is that really the Moon or is it something else that just happens to look like the Moon. Because to me the sight of a satellite passing across the sky is as clear and obvious as looking at the Moon.
You know they are satellites so you don't care about any other possibility.
For those who do not accept the existence of satellites, they do not know they are satellites.
Well to those who don't accept the existence of satellites I would ask them simply why. If FE 'logic' prevents you from accepting the existence of satellites then that's up to those concerned if they want to think like that. When you consider of all the aspects of life that rely on satellites. They are too numerous to mention. You are just arguing about it for the sake of arguing about something.
While I absolutely agree that they are in fact satellites, I think where JackBlack and Bullwinkle are going is that the argument for FE is often "I see a flat ocean so Earth must be flat" which is comparable to "I know they are satellites therefore they are".
What makes them satellites? What I know is that they launch rockets from various places in the world and that you sometimes get live onboard footage and actually see the satellite being decoupled from the rocket that launched it. Also, GPS works and cannot be based on ground stations alone, since GPS works even in the middle of an ocean and on airplanes. So, GPS must be something else which logically is satellite based.
-
Your problem is that you know they are satellites
because you know they are satellites.
Why is that a problem then?
Lack of proof.
-
Lack of proof.
Let's add a couple of words on to the end of that sentence shall we to make 'Lack of proof in my opinion or that I will accept'.
As for the "I see a flat ocean so Earth must be flat"
This seems to be what flat Earth believers rely on. The old adage that whatever we see around us is true and real. Well we know that isn't true don't we (well I do at least) so arguing for a flat Earth just because you look out at the ocean and see an apparently flat surface means the Earth must be flat is simply not good enough.
If we start off at 10m height say we are seeing such a tiny fraction of the Earths surface as a whole that we will never be able to directly see any curvature. Not until we get to the level of very high altitude aircraft (60k ft plus) will we start to see the actual curvature of the Earth.
The centre of mass and therefore the centre of gravity of the Earth is at the core. In other words the centre of a sphere. So literally everything on the surface, including all those tiny little water molecules the oceans are made from is being pulled towards to centre of the Earth. That's why not surprisingly the pressure underwater increases with depth. Theres's a whole lot of water molecules pushing down on the ocean floor so the pressure down there is immense compared to the surface.
So the surface of the ocean is actually curved if you take into account the whole of the surface of the Earth. The tiny part that we can see from the deck of ship or from the top of a cliff or mountain is not visibly curved because the amount of curvature is so slight our eye/brain combo cannot detect it.
The air surrounding the Earth is also being pulled down towards the core of the Earth by gravity. That's why air pressure at the surface is a lot greater than high up. But air is a lot less dense that water so are not aware of that pressure in the same way that divers become aware of increasing pressure underwater.
The air is also very turbulent and very sensitive to any changes in temperature. That creates all sorts of turbulence and since turbulence alters the density of the air, that in turn alters the path of light waves over the surface. So all these tests for curvature or flatness at the surface with lasers on Earth are never going to provide a genuine result. Try the same experiment on the surface of the Moon where there is no atmosphere.
So Bullwinkle and JB can argue back as much as they like about satellites, flat oceans but it won't change the facts. What we see directly in nature is not always what is real.
-
Your problem is that you know they are satellites
because you know they are satellites.
Why is that a problem then?
What has been pointed out countless times.
Your argument is circular.
You are saying you know it is a satellite because you know it is a satellite.
There is nothing logical about that.
According to your logic
According to your "logic", I can pick any random object and claim that I know it is a pineapple.
I don't need to consider any other possibility, because I know it is a pineapple.
I know it is a pineapple, so it must be a pineapple.
Does that seem logical to you?
Or do you think a more thorough justification is required?
Because to me the sight of a satellite passing across the sky is as clear and obvious as looking at the Moon.
To me it isn't.
You are comparing an unresolved point of light to something which is easily resolved into a quite recognisable image.
Just consider of all the aspects of life that rely obviously on satellites.
Which then goes well beyond that simple visual observation.
Can you show it is a satellite based upon that simple visual observation alone, without using other evidence for satellites like GPS or satellite TV?
Because appealing to that (and other "aspects of life that rely obviously on satellites") to show satellites are real is basically making the same point you have been rejecting.
As for the "I see a flat ocean so Earth must be flat"
Why not actually address it, in the same manner you are supporting satellites.
They see a large body of water like that and "know" it to be flat, and they "know" it is flat, because they "know" it is flat.
They don't need to consider other options like a very large round Earth, because they "know" that the body of water, just like Earth, is flat.
So why should we accept your "I know they are satellites so they are satellites", but reject the FEers "I know it is flat so it is flat"?
-
I think it's a shear matter of a single observation without supplemental evidence is simply insufficient.
An observation of a sea that appears flat is not sufficient to claim the earth is flat. Just as a pinpoint of light streaking across the sky is not sufficient to claim proof of satellites. But when you start stacking the evidence, 'proof', as it were, the notion becomes more and more substantiated.
When Jane was still kicking around this place we did a cool exercise around what would be all the alternatives, as in what would it take, to fake the ISS. How do you simulate the observable features, size, distance, speed, predicted location, etc.? Getting to and from, life within it, broadcasts and such. It was extremely difficult. But it did tease out, or actually crossed out, just how impossible, in the aggregate, it would be to fake it. To have alternative explanations became madness.
So I think that's the point. A satellite can't be a satellite just because I know it's a satellite. As in, "What else could it be?" one needs to exhaust the "What else could it be?" and show the myriad ways it can only be what it is.
-
If satellites aren't real, then why are astronomers pissed at SpaceX for launching about 600 of them so far (out 12,000 planned) for their Starlink program? Those "satellites" have already photobombed pictures of NEOWISE.
(https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/spacex-starlink-satellites-photobomb-comet-neowise-picture-146478-7.jpg)
They thought it real or was playing game.
-
Is that your way of admitting you are a denying machine?
My way of telling you being a denying machine. Like everytime, you are missunderstanding a fact once again.
Photos are not the only evidence, and they are not only able to be obtained by the "bosses".
Boss want it, somebody like denspressure creates it, and you use it. System works this way. Without a boss nobody work.
Stop acting like there is no evidence for satellites just because you choose to ignore it.
Nope. There is no evidence because there is no evidence, not because I ignore it. I am open real evidences but you are providing zero.
You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't magically mean there is none.
You are admitting your own behave. You are trying to convince me without any real evidence but believe your supposedly dreamings. Obvioulsy there is nothing can be defined as evidence in your talkings, but only lies exist.
So if you want to LIE and claim there are no satellites, the burden is on you to prove it.
Ahahah! How funny! So I claim God is exist, then burden of proof him not being exist is on you to prove it, right? How funny you are. Guess your software mechanics add you a property let you do joke. ;D
Nope still just you.
Nope, both of you. You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't make you not a liar. You are still a liar whether or not you deny it.
Again, there are no sides to liars.
But you have. How can you explain why do you have a side when you are an obvious liar?
People being against your side because you are wrong does not make them liars, no matter how much you want it to.
You are lying. Because I did not told "people against my side make them liar". But people lying make them liar. You are simly lying. It is clear that no matter how you will be a liar on the future too, because you are programmed so. You have programmed to create lies and accuse FE'rs being liar.
-
Is that your way of admitting you are a denying machine?
My way of telling ouyr being a denying machine. Like everytime, you are missunderstanding a fact once again.
Photos are not the only evidence, and they are not only able to be obtained by the "bosses".
Boss want it, somebody like denspressure creates it, and you use it. System works this way. Without a boss nobody work.
Stop acting like there is no evidence for satellites just because you choose to ignore it.
Nope. There is no evidence because there is no evidence, not because I ignore it. I am open real evidences but you are providing zero.
You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't magically mean there is none.
You are admitting your own behave. You are trying to convince me without any real evidence but believe your supposedly dreamings. Obvioulsy there is nothing can be defined as evidence in your talkings, but only lies exist.
So if you want to LIE and claim there are no satellites, the burden is on you to prove it.
Ahahah! How funny! So I claim God is exist, then burden of proof him not being exist is on you to prove it, right? How funny you are. Guess your software mechanics add you a property let you do joke. ;D
Nope still just you.
Nope, both of you. You choosing to bury your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence doesn't make you not a liar. You are still a liar whether or not you deny it.
Again, there are no sides to liars.
But you have. How can you explain why do you have a side when you are an obvious liar?
People being against your side because you are wrong does not make them liars, no matter how much you want it to.
You are lying. Because I did not told "people against my side make them liar". But people lying make them liar. You are simly lying. It is clear that no matter how you will be a liar on the future too, because you are programmed so. You have programmed to create lies and accuse FE'rs being liar.
What about this on-rocket cam view footage is a lie to you?
-
There is no evidence because there is no evidence
There are mountains of evidence, evidence which choose to ignore because you have no interest in the truth at all.
You ignoring the evidence and lying by saying it doesn't exist won't magically mean it isn't there.
You dismissing evidence as fake with no justification at all doesn't magically make it fake.
Ahahah! How funny! So I claim God is exist, then burden of proof him not being exist is on you to prove it, right?
No, as there is no evidence for your god and you have made no attempt to provide any.
That is vastly different to satellites where you choose to ignore the evidence or dismiss it as fake, without any justification at all.
The burden of proof for satellites has been met. As such it now shifts to those who wish to deny it.
You are lying. Because I did not told "people against my side make them liar". But people lying make them liar. You are simly lying.
That is just another example of you lying.
You telling a lie doesn't magically make others a liar.
You lying about your motivations doesn't magically make others a liar.
-
A satellite can't be a satellite just because I know it's a satellite
A satellite is not necessarily a satellite even though I know its a satellite. Right... Ok. Whatever you say.
Please explain then why you accept that the Earth is flat just because your view of the ocean looks flat? Seems like there's a bit of selective cherry picking going on here. You are happy to accept just because the ocean look flat that is proof that the Earth is flat. But when I see a satellite pass overhead I shouldn't accept that as proof that it is a satellite just because it looks exactly like a satellite.
-
A satellite can't be a satellite just because I know it's a satellite
A satellite is not necessarily a satellite even though I know its a satellite. Right... Ok. Whatever you say.
Please explain then why you accept that the Earth is flat just because your view of the ocean looks flat? Seems like there's a bit of selective cherry picking going on here. You are happy to accept just because the ocean look flat that is proof that the Earth is flat. But when I see a satellite pass overhead I shouldn't accept that as proof that it is a satellite just because it looks exactly like a satellite.
You are so so so close to understanding why you're wrong.
-
Wrong about what exactly? How do you know I am wrong? How do you know you are right?
-
A satellite is not necessarily a satellite even though I know its a satellite. Right... Ok. Whatever you say.
Please explain then why you accept that the Earth is flat just because your view of the ocean looks flat? Seems like there's a bit of selective cherry picking going on here.
Yes, by you.
You are happy to accept that a satellite is a satellite because you know it is a satellite, while you reject the Earth being flat because people know it is flat.
Why the dishonest double standard?
You are happy to accept just because the ocean look flat that is proof that the Earth is flat.
While I can't comment for sure about stash, I am fairly sure he would agree with me when I say that that is not proof that Earth is flat.
The point of bringing it up (and my one about the pineapple) was to show just how flawed your argument is.
Both arguments are of the safe form. You happily accept the one that agrees with you, accepting that they are satellites and not caring about other possibilities; while you outright reject the one that doesn't agree with you, deciding that there are other possibilities that need to be considered which show it to be wrong.
So you are the one cherry picking here.
I say both (3 if you include my example with the pineapple) are wrong. They are not proof. They are nothing more than circular reasoning.
To be consistent you should either accept them both or reject them both. But you do neither.
So why should we accept your "I know they are satellites so they are satellites" while rejecting the FEers "I know it is flat so it is flat"?
Wrong about what exactly? How do you know I am wrong? How do you know you are right?
Maybe the same way you "know" it is a satellite.
And then because we know, that should be all the justification we need as that is what you seem to think.
-
while you reject the Earth being flat because people know it is flat.
Well I certainly reject the belief that the Earth is flat because I know it isn't. Those who do believe it is flat are simply rejecting the evidence that shows it is round. So I would be very interested to know who you claim 'knows' the Earth is flat. And how do those people 'know' the Earth is flat?
-
Who 'knows' the Earth is flat. And how do those people know the Earth is flat?
The FEers.
As you seem to be fine saying you "know" it is a satellite and thus "know" satellites are real because you "know" it's a satellite, why do FEers need anything more than their "knowledge" of being Flat to say it is flat?
Again, why the double standard?
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
-
So how do FEers know the Earth is flat? Is there some evidence that they are privy to which the rest of us are not? I suppose you would say you 'know' the Earth is flat if you reject through denial all the evidence that shows it isn't flat. What is the one piece of evidence you have and which has escaped me and the rest of the mainstream scientific community which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this Earth we live on is flat and not a sphere.
Where is there a photo for example that shows the flat Earth from space? There are plenty of photos showing a globe from space but of course you will reject all those won't you because they don't show what you believe to be true. So by default you will label all those as fake. East way out.
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
Absolutely not. Any more than you are not going to admit that the Earth is not flat. You have your beliefs and I have mine. So I guess we might as well end this stalemate and agree to differ.
-
So how do FEers know the Earth is flat? Is there some evidence that they are privy to which the rest of us are not? I suppose you would say you 'know' the Earth is flat if you reject through denial all the evidence that shows it isn't flat. What is the one piece of evidence you have and which has escaped me and the rest of the mainstream scientific community which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this Earth we live on is flat and not a sphere.
Where is there a photo for example that shows the flat Earth from space? There are plenty of photos showing a globe from space but of course you will reject all those won't you because they don't show what you believe to be true. So by default you will label all those as fake. East way out.
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
Absolutely not. Any more than you are not going to admit that the Earth is not flat. You have your beliefs and I have mine. So I guess we might as well end this stalemate and agree to differ.
I think the point is that you missed the point. A faint dot moving across the sky is not enough evidence for the existence of satellites. It's the pile on preponderance of evidence that matters. The point being, saying a faint dot is evidence, period, is not enough, especially considering your argument is that it is a satellite because it could be nothing else. Just like saying looking out at the flat sea is not enough evidence for a flat earth because ones argument is that nothing else could explain its appearance of flatness.
A lot more is required of both points of view. Does that make sense?
-
So how do FEers know the Earth is flat? Is there some evidence that they are privy to which the rest of us are not? I suppose you would say you 'know' the Earth is flat if you reject through denial all the evidence that shows it isn't flat. What is the one piece of evidence you have and which has escaped me and the rest of the mainstream scientific community which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this Earth we live on is flat and not a sphere.
Where is there a photo for example that shows the flat Earth from space? There are plenty of photos showing a globe from space but of course you will reject all those won't you because they don't show what you believe to be true. So by default you will label all those as fake. East way out.
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
Absolutely not. Any more than you are not going to admit that the Earth is not flat. You have your beliefs and I have mine. So I guess we might as well end this stalemate and agree to differ.
JackBlack is not a Flat Earth believer AFAIK. He's just trying to help you here in his own way.
The question you can ask yourself, and it's good to do this sometimes, is "Why do I know these fast moving dots are satellites?". And indeed you already gave an example by mentioning the photographs of Earth taken from space.
-
So how do FEers know the Earth is flat?
Again, why does it matter?
They "know" it is flat, just like you "know" it is a satellite.
There is no need to discuss any alternatives.
Once more, their simple arguments and observations of what they "know" to be a flat Earth to conclude Earth is flat are no less valid than you appealing to you "knowing" that it is a satellite to conclude it is a satellite.
I suppose you would say you 'know' the Earth is flat
Why would I say anything as ridiculous as that?
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
Absolutely not. Any more than you are not going to admit that the Earth is not flat.
Are you really that dense?
Did you not see me responding to wise, pointing out that his dismissal of all the evidence for satellites doesn't magically mean there isn't any?
Or the countless other thread I have posted in where I clearly argue in favour of a RE, and state that Earth is round repeatedly?
How I have pointed with several different arguments that Earth can't be flat?
Guess what, people objecting to a horribly flawed argument for a RE doesn't magically make them FEers.
If you aren't willing to accept that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real, then explain why we shouldn't apply the same standard to the observations and arguments of FE and just accept that Earth is flat?
Or better still, without appealing to any evidence other than that simple visual observation, explain how you know it is a satellite.
That means no appealing to things like GPS or satellite TV, or photos of the ISS, or photos of satellites taken from much closer. Just use that simple visual observation of a faint dot moving across the sky, and explain why it couldn't be anything else.
-
(https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/spacex-starlink-satellites-photobomb-comet-neowise-picture-146478-7.jpg)
I tried to look and see NEOWISE but there is too much light pollution in my area.
Did you take that pic?
-
Again, why does it matter?
They "know" it is flat, just like you "know" it is a satellite.
There is no need to discuss any alternatives.
One difference is I can look up a website (well several actually) detailing satellite passes and then watch them pass over exactly as predicted. The website contains details of what the satellite is, how bright it will be and the exact path the satellite will take through the sky. That's what I call evidence of what I see being a satellite. If the light I see is just some random 'dot in the sky' how would you be able to predict it? For example I can read a list of predicted passes of the ISS over several days and then go outside at the time listed and watch it go over. I can even aim a pair of binoculars or one of my telescopes at it and see the shape of the ISS. Hence confirming that's what it is. Confirmation of prediction by observation.
You on the other hand just apparently 'know' the Earth is flat. You won't provide any more specific detail than that because as both you and I know, you can't. Otherwise you would be able to tell me exactly how you know the Earth is flat. So is it a case of you can't or you won't?
That means no appealing to things like GPS or satellite TV, or photos of the ISS, or photos of satellites taken from much closer. Just use that simple visual observation of a faint dot moving across the sky, and explain why it couldn't be anything else.
So in other words only accept evidence that you can directly see and which tells you your belief could be true and ignore all the other evidence that shows it is not by declaring it to be somehow not relevant. That's how conspiracy theorists keep their beliefs alive isn't it.
-
One difference is I can look up a website
i.e. appeal to other sources?
No Thanks.
You think the faint dot is enough.
Unless you are willing to admit it isn't enough and that a faint dot flying through the sky is not proof of satellites.
You on the other hand just apparently 'know' the Earth is flat.
Still not paying attention are you, or are you just pretending to be this wilfully ignorant?
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
Absolutely not.
without appealing to any evidence other than that simple visual observation, explain how you know it is a satellite.
That means no appealing to things like GPS or satellite TV, or photos of the ISS, or photos of satellites taken from much closer. Just use that simple visual observation of a faint dot moving across the sky, and explain why it couldn't be anything else.
So in other words only accept evidence that you can directly see and which tells you your belief could be true and ignore all the other evidence that shows it is not by declaring it to be somehow not relevant. That's how conspiracy theorists keep their beliefs alive isn't it.
No, in other words, if you want to pretend the argument is valid, and that a faint dot flying through the sky is proof of satellites, then you cannot appeal to any other evidence to establish. Appealing to additional evidence would require admitting that a faint dot in the sky is NOT ENOUGH.
So can you do it with just the dot? If not, why not admit that the faint dot is not proof of satellites?
Because if you want to be rational, they are your options.
You either prove that it must be a satellite, without any extra evidence/proof, or admit that a faint dot is not proof of satellites.
So which will it be?
I take it you will take the third option of repeating the same nonsense and continuing to apply the same double standard?
-
OK let me just re-iterate this one more time.
1. I look up the predicted passes for the ISS through one or more websites. All agree on the dates and timings.
2. I go outside on said date and said time and look to the west where I know the ISS will appear from and I see a bright moving light in the sky getting higher and higher in altitude.
3. I aim my binoculars at said light and I can SEE the shape of the ISS in my binoculars complete with solar panels etc etc. So I have visual evidence that it is the ISS that I am looking at.
I have done this many, many times over the years and have even imaged it through a telescope. I can post you the image if you want. What more proof do I need that I am looking at an orbitting satellite?
-
So you picked option 3 like I thought you would.
OK let me just re-iterate this one more time.
1. I look up the predicted passes
And let me reiterate one more time.
YOU ARE USING MORE THAN A FAINT DOT FLYING THROUGH THE SKY!
Do you understand that?
Again, do you think that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites, or do you admit that it alone is not proof of satellites and that you need more?
If the former, that means you should be able to justify it without appealing to anything more.
No appealing to sites where you can look up when you should be able to see the ISS or any other satellite.
No appealing to using binoculars to actually make out resolvable detail of the ISS.
Do you understand that a well resolved ISS such that you can make out lots of details is nothing like an unresolved faint dot?
What more proof do I need that I am looking at an orbitting satellite?
I am not asking you for MORE PROOF.
I am asking you to justify your claim that the faint dot alone is proof.
That means no extra proof, just the faint dot.
Justify, without any extra evidence of satellites that the faint dot is in fact a satellite, or admit that it isn't proof of satellites.
Understand this time?
-
OK let me just re-iterate this one more time.
1. I look up the predicted passes for the ISS through one or more websites. All agree on the dates and timings.
2. I go outside on said date and said time and look to the west where I know the ISS will appear from and I see a bright moving light in the sky getting higher and higher in altitude.
3. I aim my binoculars at said light and I can SEE the shape of the ISS in my binoculars complete with solar panels etc etc. So I have visual evidence that it is the ISS that I am looking at.
I have done this many, many times over the years and have even imaged it through a telescope. I can post you the image if you want. What more proof do I need that I am looking at an orbitting satellite?
You didn't mention the visual evidence as in binoculars earlier. That would indeed be proof that at least the ISS exists.
I have also seen it with binoculars, looks cool although I think it is way cooler to be on board than to see it :)
-
Again, do you think that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites
As I said and I will keep on saying. If I can look up satellite passes on a website and then watch them as they pass over on the date and at the time predicted then that is evidence that what I am seeing is the satellite. First stage prediction, second stage observation.
The fact that the satellite visually looks just like a moving star is irrelevant to confirming it is a satellite. For you perhaps not but it is to most people (outside of the flat Earth community at least). Something that is as large as a domestic fridge or small car viewed from a couple of hundred of km away and reflecting sunlight towards me is not going to present itself as anything more than a point of light in the sky is it. Surely even you realise that. I know what you're getting at. And yes when we see a plane pass over we can visibly see it is a plane. Planes though are bigger than satellites and much nearer the ground. We know from experience how big the plane actually is and when it appears smaller than our little finger in the sky that gives us a direct indication of distance. A plane flying low looks bigger than a plane flying at high altitude.
I am sure that many people who are less experienced in astronomy and do not realise that you can see satellites passing over with the naked eye have seen them without realising what they are. I often attend public observing evenings held by my local astronomy group and whenever I point out a satellite passing over their reaction is one of amazement and excitement. Not once have I had anyone respond with 'OK then... prove to me that's a satellite.!' Mind you none of them thinks the Earth is flat either but that's another matter. They respect my knowledge and accept what I tell them as the truth. Especially when we show them the prediction of an ISS pass in advance and then we see it right on cue.
Obviously you are different to all those people.
-
Again, do you think that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites
As I said and I will keep on saying. If I can look up satellite passes on a website
As I said, and I will keep on saying:
A FAINT DOT IS NOT ENOUGH!
You seem to subconsciously accept this, but outright refuse to admit it.
The fact that you keep bringing up extra evidence with every post you make shows you know that the faint dot is not enough.
If you truly thought the faint dot was enough you wouldn't bring up anything extra.
You claimed that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof that it is a satellite.
In order for this to be the case, you can't use extra evidence of satellites.
A prediction of where a satellite should be based upon looking it up in a database and confirming that prediction is not simple a faint dot moving through the sky.
Do you understand that?
Appealing to this prediction means you are not accepting that the faint dot is proof of satellites.
So will you finally admit what you already know to be true?
Are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
The fact that the satellite visually looks just like a moving star is irrelevant to confirming it is a satellite.
It isn't a matter of confirming it is a satellite. It is a matter of PROVING it is one.
That means you don't start with the assumption that it is a satellite.
You start without knowing what it is and then prove that it is a satellite.
Something that is as large as a domestic fridge or small car viewed from a couple of hundred of km away and reflecting sunlight towards me is not going to present itself as anything more than a point of light in the sky is it. Surely even you realise that.
Once more, do you not understand what you have argued yourself into?
That would be an argument to prove that a satellite would appear as a faint dot.
That is not what you need to defend.
What you need to defend is that a faint dot is a satellite.
Again, it is like the FEers claiming that that is what the FE horizon, or what a body of water would look like on a FE, to claim that this somehow proves that Earth is flat.
Perhaps a better example would be those claiming that there are rats on mars or mice in rocket launch videos.
After all, that is what one would look like.
It is also like those who claim big foot must be real because of some out of focus smudge in the background of a photo.
Saying X would look like Y in no way proves that Y must be X.
Again, do you understand that?
I know what you're getting at. And yes when we see a plane pass over we can visibly see it is a plane.
It really doesn't seem like you do, because you keep failing to address the issue.
Not once have I had anyone respond with 'OK then... prove to me that's a satellite.!'
That in no way establishes it as proof of satellites.
Again, that would be like FEers presenting a photo as proof of Earth being flat, to their fellow FEers and them not asking for proof that it shows Earth is flat.
Regardless, it is a very different situation.
They merely had a satellite pointed out to them. They didn't have you claim that that faint dot alone proves that satellites are real and proves that Earth is round.
-
It isn't a matter of confirming it is a satellite. It is a matter of PROVING it is one.
So what to you then is the difference between confirming something and proving something. The Cambridge dictionary for example defines the word confirm as:
to prove that a belief or an opinion that was previously not completely certain is true:
So if I have confirmed that this 'faint dot in the sky' to use your words is a satellite then by definition I have also proved it haven't I. Not sure what other proof you need. You can't 'prove' that the Earth is flat can you. Well you probably think you can. If you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat then I will believe you and accept it is flat.
I have already told you that these 'faint dots in the sky' (not my words I should add) are not aircraft or meteors as you have previous speculated so what else do you think they could be if they are not necessarily (in your opinion) satellites? Aircraft of course follow specific flight paths which you become very familiar with when you have lived in the same place for a long time. These moving dots in the sky do not follow those same flight paths. The ISS always moves from west to east.
One last point - would you be willing to argue your case for proving satellites exist outside of this forum? Perhaps on a mainstream astronomy forum for example?
-
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
Absolutely not.
Look, a satellite . . .
(https://i.imgur.com/8ivscat.jpg)
-
If that is supposed to be a photo then what equipment was used to take it? I know it isn't by the way because the background is far, far too smooth and even. You could easily create your 'satellite' by using MS Paint and drawing a grey rectangle and then clicking the mouse to produce a white dot in it. Good try though.
Look - another satellite (the ISS no less). One that I took myself. Using 10" RC telescope, a ZWO ASI290M high frame rate camera and SharpCap image capture software.
https://postimg.cc/B879CxB1
-
So what to you then is the difference between confirming something and proving something.
Perhaps I should have been more clear:
There is a difference between:
According to this site there should be a satellite passing overhead which appears there.
Hey look a faint white dot just like a satellite should appear.
I guess that site was right.
i.e. confirming there is a satellite using a faint white dot.
and:
Hey look a faint white dot. That MUST be a satellite. Satellites are real and Earth is round.
i.e. proving the faint white dot is a satellite.
i.e. there is a big difference between trying to use the faint white dot to confirm satellites among lots of other evidence, and going from just the faint white dot to conclude it must be a satellite.
Not sure what other proof you need.
It is quite simple, what I have already asked for repeatedly.
Clearly explain HOW THE FAINT WHITE DOT ALONE IS PROOF, or admit that it isn't proof.
If you need to appeal to any other evidence of satellites or observations of satellites, you fail.
You can't 'prove' that the Earth is flat can you. Well you probably think you can. If you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat then I will believe you and accept it is flat.
And again you show that you aren't paying attention to what I am saying at all.
How hard is it to penetrate your skull and make you realise that I am not a FEer?
I know Earth is round. I know satellites are real.
But that doesn't magically mean a faint white dot is proof.
I have already told you that these 'faint dots in the sky' (not my words I should add) are not aircraft or meteors as you have previous speculated
And you telling me doesn't magically make it so.
The entire justification for you dismissing aircraft is that they don't have the right colour lights.
So if someone was flying a plane without those lights, either due to a faulty light, or to intentionally deceive, what would it look like?
Is it possible for someone to be a flying a plane and produce the same light pattern as expected for a satellite?
And now you also throw in that they follow regular flight paths. You are aware there are no magical laws of physics preventing them from flying other paths?
The pricks at Qantas decided to draw a stupid kangaroo after flying over the city a few times.
But I guess by your reasoning that couldn't have been a plane because it didn't follow the right flight path.
I wonder what it was?
Not a plane, not a satellite, not a meteor. I guess aliens is the only option left.
One last point - would you be willing to argue your case for proving satellites exist outside of this forum? Perhaps on a mainstream astronomy forum for example?
I would be willing to argue my case that a faint white dot is not proof of satellites anywhere.
But outside this forum, it would likely have a bigger impact due to people realising just how foolish your argument/claim is when it is of the same form as those of FEers and those who claim rats of mars, mice in rocket engines, and Big foot. It would be far more likely to be seen as completely ridiculous.
Look - another satellite (the ISS no less).
https://postimg.cc/B879CxB1
That isn't a faint white dot, and thus is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Bullwinkle's "photo" is far more relevant.
-
You are quite right. My photo ìs not a faint white dot. It is what the bright white moving dot the naked eye sees when the ISS passes over becomes when it observed or imaged in a telescope. Hence it is directly relevant to proving my point.
What Bullwinkle has posted is just a drawing of a grey rectangle with a white dot in it. At least mine is a real photo that I have taken of an actual satellite.
Telescopes have been used on several occasions to supposedly prove the Earth is flat so by that I will conclude that images taken through telescopes of objects either on land or in the sky are admissible as evidence.
I will agree with you that the moving starlike points of light in the sky are not directly recognisable as satellites. I know they are because knowledge gained from experience tells me they are. But someone who doesn't have the knowledge that I do would not automatically think 'O look there's a satellite'. They might even describe them as a UFO. It is still a satellite though even if it isn't immediately apparent with the naked eye alone.
However FEers seem to use the above as an excuse to deny that satellites exist.
-
Look, a satellite swarm . . .
(you can even see Saturn)
(https://i.imgur.com/KptHFL1.jpg)
-
If you restrict yourself to one, single piece of evidence and ignore everything else then of course you can't be sure of anything.
If all I know about my desk is how much it weighs, can I say it's a desk for sure?
Of course not, but if I want to know if my computer is sitting on a desk or a fire breathing dragon I am going to use all the evidence I can gather. It's shape, how it looks, smells, feels and weight too. Once I have all of these I can know for certain it's not a dragon.
So a single dot in the sky could be anything. But it's kind of a silly argument we are having here. You never, ever rely on just one single thing. At the very least is all the accumulated knowledge and experience you have of the world.
Bullwinkle's art is a good example. Just from the picture, what can you tell about the image? Well nothing. But we have so much more available to us. It's easy to see it's a silly drawing with some dots on it and not a real picture. We know this because of his it looks. We know this because it's Bullwinkle posting it. There is no doubt about what it is because we aren't limited to a tiny, narrow slice of reality.
-
You are quite right. My photo ìs not a faint white dot. It is what the bright white moving dot the naked eye sees when the ISS passes over becomes when it observed or imaged in a telescope. Hence it is directly relevant to proving my point.
If anything, it is additional information which refutes your point.
Again, the fact that you appeal to it shows the faint white dot is not enough.
Unlike your photo, with lots of resolvable detail, what Bullwinkle provided was a faint white dot, directly related to the question. It being a real photo or not is irrelevant.
Unlike your photo, with far too much detail, we can actually ask questions about Bullwinkle's (even if it is fake) directly related to the question.
Is this a photo of a satellite or not? (Again, regardless of if it is fake. People have been making artist renditions). And regardless, how do you know?
admissible as evidence.
Again, this is not about what is and is not admissible as evidence.
The issue is solely on if a faint white dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites.
You continually avoid this issue and divert with whatever else you can.
Stop with the distractions.
Explain the proof, without appealing to any additional evidence of satellites.
Explain how just the faint white dot alone is proof of satellites.
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
-
If all I know about my desk is how much it weighs, can I say it's a desk for sure?
If all you've done is seen a desk, do you know it is made of wood?
-
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
I will agree with you that the moving starlike points of light in the sky are not directly recognisable as satellites.
So if someone who didn't have any equipment such as binoculars or a telescope and who decided to put themselves in an information sterile bubble whereby they shut themselves off completely from all the readily available sources of information in the world today such as books, magazines and the Internet then sure they would personally have no means of finding out or proving that what they were looking at was a satellite. That much I will agree is true. I can't see water molecules directly and so I cannot prove that water consists of molecules with my eyes alone. But if I add droplets of water onto a coin and see the water pile up on top of the coin and cling to it then I can explain this as the surface tension that exists between the molecules of water.
But none of that changes the true identify of what they are looking at does it. It is still a satellite. You cannot deny the existence of something just because you personally cannot prove what it is or identify what it is. You can apply this logic to many things in life but life is simply too short to present proof of everything.
Many people say they have seen UFOs in the sky. But all that means is that it is unidentifiable to those who see it. It depends on the knowledge and the experience of the observer(s). I see documentaries on TV about UFOs and in one instance they label what is obviously to me an out of focus view of a star in a telescope as a UFO. That's because they (the makers of the documentary) want you to think or believe that it is a UFO.
-
Many people say they have seen UFOs in the sky. But all that means is that it is unidentifiable to those who see it. It depends on the knowledge and the experience of the observer(s).
Huh? You can tell the difference between a white dot satellite and a white dot UFO because you know a white dot from a white dot?
-
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
I will agree with you that the moving starlike points of light in the sky are not directly recognisable as satellites.
Am I meant to take that as an admission?
Because it seems like more avoidance. Notice that you say "are not directly recognisable as satellites" instead of "are not proof of satellites".
I'm also not requiring you to be in a complete vacuum of information. Instead it is just not using other evidence of satellites.
-
OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?' I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'
At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction. Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.
-
You really don't want to admit you were wrong do you?
Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove'
Notice how in your example, you aren't claiming it is proof of satellites.
Instead your example has them ask what it is and you just give them the answer.
You have your neighbour as someone who most likely already accepts that satellites exist and that Earth is round.
You are not using it to try and prove satellites are real, nor that Earth is round.
So why would they question you about it when they already accept satellites are real and they asked you what it was?
It is a completely different situation, so far divorced from the OP it isn't funny, which you are appealing to to deflect from the inadequacy of your "proof".
Why don't we try something more in line with the OP.
Your neighbour is a FEer and doesn't believe satellites are real.
When you are standing out there, you say, look see the dot, it is a satellite. That means satellites are real and Earth is round.
What do you think their reaction would be?
Do you think it would be more like:
"Oh yes, you are right, that is a satellite. How could I have been so stupid to think they didn't exist and think Earth is flat?"
Or do you think it would be more like:
"What, that tiny dot? It could be anything, a plane for example. I would have to be a moron to just accept that dot is a satellite. How big a fool do you think I am?"
I think it would be more in line with the latter.
So, are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
If not, stop with the deflection and actually justify it.
-
Your definition of proof (or perhaps I should say FEers definition of proof as I realise you are not a FEer) is obviously very different to mine. And I also think somewhere along the line I said that I accept that someone who is less clued up about what they are seeing in the sky than I am could not identify or prove that a moving 'star' in the sky was a satellite simply because to the naked eye is it not directly recognisable as a satellite.
If it suits FEers to deny that satellites exist until someone, somewhere can provide proof that they are willing to accept as proof then that's fine. But I won't be the person to provide that proof. FEers deny all sorts of things which most people outside of the FE community would deem ridiculous.
I'm sure FEers will continue to believe that the Earth is flat, that the Sun and Moon are just 32 miles across, that there is some sort of dome which surround the Earth and that satellites etc etc don't exist regardless of what evidence is put in front of them. But that's the nature of conspiracy theories.
I personally know a satellite when I see one and I will continue to observe them. No doubt in increasing numbers thanks to a certain Mr Musk. It may well be that the days (or nights) when the astrophotographers of the world can take a satellite free image are numbered!
-
Your definition of proof (or perhaps I should say FEers definition of proof as I realise you are not a FEer) is obviously very different to mine.
I don't think so.
Like I said before, if you honestly accepted that it was proof, you wouldn't be bringing up all this other evidence or making these horribly flawed analogies.
And I also think somewhere along the line I said that I accept that someone who is less clued up about what they are seeing in the sky than I am could not identify or prove that a moving 'star' in the sky was a satellite simply because to the naked eye is it not directly recognisable as a satellite.
You said that it wasn't directly recognisable, not that it wasn't proof. But that is okay. I will take it as an admission now.
And with that, there is little point in continuing the conversation.
If it suits FEers to deny that satellites exist until someone, somewhere can provide proof that they are willing to accept as proof then that's fine. But I won't be the person to provide that proof. FEers deny all sorts of things which most people outside of the FE community would deem ridiculous.
Yes, because they believe in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.
So they would see the faint dot as a plane to pretend satellites exist.
-
OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?' I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'
At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction. Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.
What if your neighbor says it's God's butt hole and his wife agrees.
That's 2 to 1. Do you concede?
-
OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?' I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'
At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction. Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.
This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:
Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."
Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.
-
OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?' I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'
At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction. Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.
This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:
Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."
Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.
My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:
Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."
At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.
-
OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?' I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'
At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction. Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.
This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:
Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."
Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.
My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:
Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."
At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.
However annoying, this exemplifies just why based on the observation of a moving dot in the night sky alone one can't claim definitively that it is a satellite.
By any chance is your stepdad Tom Bishop? ;)
-
OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?' I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'
At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction. Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.
This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:
Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."
Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.
My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:
Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."
At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.
However annoying, this exemplifies just why based on the observation of a moving dot in the night sky alone one can't claim definitively that it is a satellite.
By any chance is your stepdad Tom Bishop? ;)
No I am glad he is not!
-
Feel free to carry on arguing between yourselves about what the differences are between meteors, comets and satellites. The differences are obvious to anyone who knows what they are looking at and if you think a meteor, comet or a satellite can be confused with each other then you are admitting (unknowingly or not) that you don' spend much time watching the night sky.
I'm through with this one now so there will be no more replies in this discussion from me. It's up to you how you interpret that.
-
Feel free to carry on arguing between yourselves about what the differences are between meteors, comets and satellites. The differences are obvious to anyone who knows what they are looking at and if you think a meteor, comet or a satellite can be confused with each other then you are admitting (unknowingly or not) that you don' spend much time watching the night sky.
I'm through with this one now so there will be no more replies in this discussion from me. It's up to you how you interpret that.
I more than admit I don't spend enough time looking at the night sky - Too much light pollution where I live unfortunately. But you're also presuming that I would know that you do spend a lot of time looking at the night sky and that somehow affords you an ability to immediately discern that a moving point of light in the night sky is exactly what you say it is without any further information. You claiming expertise and your ability based upon one bit of observational information is not enough to convince even the laziest FEr of what you say something is. That's the point. That's all.
-
But you're also presuming that I would know that you do spend a lot of time looking at the night sky and that somehow affords you an ability to immediately discern that a moving point of light in the night sky is exactly what you say it is without any further information.
Ok... 40 plus years as an amateur astronomer. 8 telescopes (well 8 or 9 off the top of my head ranging from a 72mm refractor to 20" dobsonian).
Various cameras from DSLR through various high frame rate planetary/solar/lunar cameras plus a QSI 6120 DSO imaging CCD camera.
Specialist in imaging solar (esp at narrowband Ha and CaK wavelengths) and deep sky objects.
Degree in astronomy plus member of various local and national astronomy societies
I probably spend more time looking into the sky both day and night than I do anywhere else. So I know a satellite when I see one, I know a comet when I see one and I know a meteor when I see one.
-
But you're also presuming that I would know that you do spend a lot of time looking at the night sky and that somehow affords you an ability to immediately discern that a moving point of light in the night sky is exactly what you say it is without any further information.
Ok... 40 plus years as an amateur astronomer. 8 telescopes (well 8 or 9 off the top of my head ranging from a 72mm refractor to 20" dobsonian).
Various cameras from DSLR through various high frame rate planetary/solar/lunar cameras plus a QSI 6120 DSO imaging CCD camera.
Specialist in imaging solar (esp at narrowband Ha and CaK wavelengths) and deep sky objects.
Degree in astronomy plus member of various local and national astronomy societies
I probably spend more time looking into the sky both day and night than I do anywhere else. So I know a satellite when I see one, I know a comet when I see one and I know a meteor when I see one.
I don't doubt your credentials and knowledge. But if you were over at SDG's Mom's house for an evening BBQ hanging with his Stepdad looking up at the night sky, the conversation may go like this:
Stepdad: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Stepdad: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Stepdad: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead. And I have 40 plus years as an amateur astronomer. 8 telescopes (well 8 or 9 off the top of my head ranging from a 72mm refractor to 20" dobsonian).
Various cameras from DSLR through various high frame rate planetary/solar/lunar cameras plus a QSI 6120 DSO imaging CCD camera.
Specialist in imaging solar (esp at narrowband Ha and CaK wavelengths) and deep sky objects.
Degree in astronomy plus member of various local and national astronomy societies
Stepdad: (Now a little put off and irritated by your "expertise" and expression of such) "Well, Astronomy is kind of like a pseudoscience, there's nothing empirical about it. Observation only and we all know looks can be deceiving. So even with your background, I still don't see how you can say that was a satellite when it looked like a shooting star to me. And I've seen a lot of shooting stars in my life."
-
A satellite is typically visible for several minutes. A meteor is visible typically for a second or two. A comet can be visible for several weeks. Most don't brighten enough to see without telescopes. You really can't confuse them if you know what you are looking at. You'll have to trust me on that I'm afraid.
Ultimately of course it is up to the individual to choose or decide what they want to believe or accept as true. I can only 'prove' something is what it is if others are willing to accept that proof. If not I obviously can't. It follows then that perhaps what can or cannot be proved depends on what you believe it. It also depends on what you are or are not willing to accept as evidence. For instance we can bounce radiowaves off the cloud tops of the planet Venus and from that determine its distance. From that information we can use angles and simple geometry to calculate the distance of the Sun in literally seconds. All perfectly fine except that because the figure we get for the distance of the Sun from that method indicates it is far more distant that FEers believe they go into denial mode and dismiss it as faked, fabricated or whatever. Of course from a FEers point of view there is absolutely no chance that the FE figure could be wrong is there. Their figure is based on an assertion which itself cannot be proved, i.e that the Earth is flat. So if you can't prove that then you can't prove their figure for the distance of the Sun either.
I can appreciate that flat Earthers have their own views about what is real and and what is not and those ideas are clearly not compatible with what mainstream science says.
At the end of the day how do you prove something is what it is to the satisfaction of everyone? To Rowbotham counting flags in canal over a distance of a few miles was aaparently proof enough to him that the Earth is flat. Others I'm sure might have a different view.
(Now a little put off and irritated by your "expertise" and expression of such) "Well, Astronomy is kind of like a pseudoscience
Why would they be irrirated or put off by someone elses 'expertise' as you put it if they were confident that their version or opinion was right? Also I think you would be very hard pushed to find anyone who falls into the category of mainstream science agreeing that astronomy is some sort of pseudoscience. Astrology yes but certainly not astronomy. Most of what we know about the Universe today comes from the light we receive from it and there is a lot more information contained in light than immediately meets the eye.
-
A satellite is typically visible for several minutes. A meteor is visible typically for a second or two. A comet can be visible for several weeks. Most don't brighten enough to see without telescopes. You really can't confuse them if you know what you are looking at. You'll have to trust me on that I'm afraid.
And how about a plane?
Perhaps one where the white light was much brighter than the port and starboard navigation lights with them not noticeable from this distance?
Why would they be irrirated or put off by someone elses 'expertise' as you put it
Because with that dismissal way of putting it you make it seem like everyone else is an idiot for not understanding and that they should just accept whatever you say.
It is also an appeal to authority where you act like because you have this "expertise" you cannot be wrong.
It is quite a toxic attitude.
Especially when you appeal to that "expertise" rather than providing actual justification.
In my opinion, if you need to appeal to your expertise to prove your point, you have already lost.
-
And how about a plane?
Perhaps one where the white light was much brighter than the port and starboard navigation lights with them not noticeable from this distance?
Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope will always show the nav lights no matter how bright the other lights are or how high the plane is.
-
And how about a plane?
Perhaps one where the white light was much brighter than the port and starboard navigation lights with them not noticeable from this distance?
Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope will always show the nav lights no matter how bright the other lights are or how high the plane is.
Stepdad: "Too bad we don't have a pair of binoculars or a telescope handy. In the mean time, without which, we just have our eyes and your expertise. That dot of light going across the sky could just be a plane, not a satellite...Will you check that burger, I think it's done..."
-
Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars. They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe. Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more. Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite. Use all the information that's available to you now. Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...
-
Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars. They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe. Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more. Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite. Use all the information that's available to you now. Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...
Fair enough. Though I think Stepdad would be a little miffed by being told, "Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still..."
You probably wouldn't get a burger after that smackdown.
-
Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars. They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe. Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more. Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite. Use all the information that's available to you now. Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...
Fair enough. Though I think Stepdad would be a little miffed by being told, "Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still..."
You probably wouldn't get a burger after that smackdown.
It's totally something I would say to him after he's irritated me enough though!
-
Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars. They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe. Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more. Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite. Use all the information that's available to you now. Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...
Fair enough. Though I think Stepdad would be a little miffed by being told, "Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still..."
You probably wouldn't get a burger after that smackdown.
It's totally something I would say to him after he's irritated me enough though!
I agree. At a certain point, you have to take a stand against contrarian/frustrating/pedantic Stepdad!
-
Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope
Sorry, none are available at the moment.
Maybe you should have went to the trouble to bring your own.
Also, notice how you first rely upon your own expertise, and then you invent evidence rather than actually providing it?
You don't say to get a pair of binoculars and we can check if it is a plane or satellite, instead you still assume it is a satellite and assume that any extra evidence shows it will be.
So how about this hypothetical instead:
Okay, I'll get my binoculars. Hey I can see the red and green lights now.
Now what?
Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars. They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe. Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more. Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite. Use all the information that's available to you now. Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...
And how do you think he would take that? Seems rather insulting.
-
Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope
Sorry, none are available at the moment.
Maybe you should have went to the trouble to bring your own.
Also, notice how you first rely upon your own expertise, and then you invent evidence rather than actually providing it?
You don't say to get a pair of binoculars and we can check if it is a plane or satellite, instead you still assume it is a satellite and assume that any extra evidence shows it will be.
So how about this hypothetical instead:
Okay, I'll get my binoculars. Hey I can see the red and green lights now.
Now what?
Then it’s a plane, obviously.
That question makes no sense. Solarwind is saying that he (she) can identify whether it’s plane or a satellite with binoculars.
Are you asking how Solarwind is supposed to prove that a plane is a satellite? Maybe you’ve spent too long around here?
Also, reading back through all this, Solarwind has mainly been saying that satellites are visible from the ground and amateur astronomers can generally identify them. That’s all really. It’s everyone else talking about proving they are satellites. But why is that necessary?
According to real science, satellites should be there and if you can see something that looks like a satellite, there’s a very good chance it’s a satellite.
Solarwind already said earlier that you can get better confirmation by checking the trajectory with tracking software. What’s wrong with that answer?
Just to remind you, the OP was asking what flat earthers think these lights are, and how they fit with flat earth models. As usual though, it’s turned into complaining about a “round earther” not proving something that’s totally normal and expected.
-
That question makes no sense. Solarwind is saying that he (she) can identify whether it’s plane or a satellite with binoculars.
No, he is saying he can identify it by eyesight alone, as his expertise allows him to tell the difference, just by using his eyes.
Again, he didn't say to get a pair of binoculars to check, instead he dismissed the possibility of it being a plane and said you could use binoculars to confirm. So I gave an example where that wasn't the case, were he was wrong and that it was in fact a plane that just looked "like a satellite" due to the low resolution.
Also, reading back through all this, Solarwind has mainly been saying that satellites are visible from the ground and amateur astronomers can generally identify them. That’s all really. It’s everyone else talking about proving they are satellites. But why is that necessary?
The OP presented a faint dot of light moving through the sky as proof of satellites and that Earth is round.
Solarwind then chimed in saying that other things don't matter and you can still recognise this faint, unresolved dot as a satellite.
He then tried to justify it being a satellite, not by showing that it couldn't be anything else, but by saying that is what a satellite would look like.
And then after saying they look like moving stars, he "justified" knowing that they are satellites because he knows what they are and he knows what he is talking about.
And when confronted, he just doubled down, and even outright refused to accept that a faint dot moving across the sky was not proof of satellites, and repeatedly tried to shift the burden of proof onto showing satellites don't exist.
And rather than admit that the OP's argument was quite poor, he instead started attacking strawmen and pretending those he was arguing against were morons.
So it turned into a REer trying to defend a horribly flawed argument with lots of strawmen because they don't seem to want to admit that an argument in favour of a RE could be bad/wrong, and wanted to pretend anyone attacking it must be a FEer that denies the existence of satellites.
The OP has been answered, a faint dot could be lots of things. You need far more than just that faint dot to show it is a satellite.
According to real science
You mean the same science that shows Earth is round which FEers reject?
-
That question makes no sense. Solarwind is saying that he (she) can identify whether it’s plane or a satellite with binoculars.
No, he is saying he can identify it by eyesight alone, as his expertise allows him to tell the difference, just by using his eyes.
And do you actually know that’s not the case? I think you’ll find lots of amateur astronomers would say the say thing. Not mention people who make a hobby of spotting satellites.
Again, he didn't say to get a pair of binoculars to check, instead he dismissed the possibility of it being a plane and said you could use binoculars to confirm. So I gave an example where that wasn't the case, were he was wrong and that it was in fact a plane that just looked "like a satellite" due to the low resolution.
Aren’t checking and confirming pretty much the same thing?
Using binoculars should give you a better chance of correctly identifying if it’s a plane or satellite, particularly to the untrained eye. Seems perfectly reasonable that if you spend a lot of time looking at them, you’d find you’d need the binoculars a lot less, or maybe even not at all?
Either way, your hypothetical example is a fairly meaningless question. Basically just “well, what if you’re wrong?” You might as ask a bird watcher “what if the eagle you say you saw was really a pigeon?”
Also, reading back through all this, Solarwind has mainly been saying that satellites are visible from the ground and amateur astronomers can generally identify them. That’s all really. It’s everyone else talking about proving they are satellites. But why is that necessary?
The OP presented a faint dot of light moving through the sky as proof of satellites and that Earth is round.
Nope. Read it again. The OP claimed to have seen a satellite and asked what the flat earther explanation is.
Nothing was presented as proof of either satellites or a round earth. Big difference between asking for an explanation and presenting proof.
Solarwind then chimed in saying that other things don't matter and you can still recognise this faint, unresolved dot as a satellite.
He then tried to justify it being a satellite, not by showing that it couldn't be anything else, but by saying that is what a satellite would look like.
And then after saying they look like moving stars, he "justified" knowing that they are satellites because he knows what they are and he knows what he is talking about.
And when confronted, he just doubled down, and even outright refused to accept that a faint dot moving across the sky was not proof of satellites, and repeatedly tried to shift the burden of proof onto showing satellites don't exist.
And rather than admit that the OP's argument was quite poor, he instead started attacking strawmen and pretending those he was arguing against were morons.
So it turned into a REer trying to defend a horribly flawed argument with lots of strawmen because they don't seem to want to admit that an argument in favour of a RE could be bad/wrong, and wanted to pretend anyone attacking it must be a FEer that denies the existence of satellites.
Yeah, yeah. The endless merry go round of “bad arguments”. Pretty much all we do here now.
But do you actually know that Solarwind’s claim is wrong? Or are you just assuming that he/she can’t tell the difference? I’m not talking about proving anything, just correctly identifying the object.
I have very little experience, but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times, which I’ve been told is a bit of a giveaway.
The OP has been answered, a faint dot could be lots of things. You need far more than just that faint dot to show it is a satellite.
Things like confirming the trajectory, observing more closely with binoculars, etc. to confirm that a particular dot (or indeed a resolved image showing things solar panels) is actually a satellite?
So if we do all that and can identify a satellite, that still leaves the original question very inadequately answered, IMO.
According to real science
You mean the same science that shows Earth is round which FEers reject?
Of course.
-
but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times,
Sounds like a perfect description of an iridium flare to me. They no long happen now but they would appear to come out of nowhere, brighten up to magnitude -8 at maximum and then fade back to nothing again after a few seconds.
-
but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times,
Sounds like a perfect description of an iridium flare to me. They no long happen now but they would appear to come out of nowhere, brighten up to magnitude -8 at maximum and then fade back to nothing again after a few seconds.
Don’t know. Both times were many years ago. As I remember, they were faint dots moving against stars that got way brighter for a few seconds then faded again.
Mainly remember because first time I was camping in wilderness (slightly drunk and whatnot) with quite a keen stargazer who pointed it out. Or rather laughed at me for suggesting alien invasion.
I think before then I’d assumed anything like that was a plane.
BTW. It might help this conversation to put in words why you think they aren’t planes. Is it lack flashing?
-
but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times,
Sounds like a perfect description of an iridium flare to me. They no long happen now but they would appear to come out of nowhere, brighten up to magnitude -8 at maximum and then fade back to nothing again after a few seconds.
Don’t know. Both times were many years ago. As I remember, they were faint dots moving against stars that got way brighter for a few seconds then faded again.
Mainly remember because first time I was camping in wilderness (slightly drunk and whatnot) with quite a keen stargazer who pointed it out. Or rather laughed at me for suggesting alien invasion.
I think before then I’d assumed anything like that was a plane.
BTW. It might help this conversation to put in words why you think they aren’t planes. Is it lack flashing?
That is exactly what an Iridium flare looks like, I'd bet that is what you saw. They could get AMAZINGLY bright. Enough to light up the clouds.
Sad that they are gone now.
-
As I remember, they were faint dots moving against stars that got way brighter for a few seconds then faded again.
Yes from your description as it is I can tell that you observed iridium flares. A good one was bright enough to be seen in daytime. And again there were websites which provided predictions of timing and direction for your observing locations. I can well imagine anyone who didn't know what they were concluding that they had seen a UFO.
-
And do you actually know that’s not the case?
Yes. As it is not resolved enough to get any detail, you cannot tell from eyesight alone what it is.
You can make an educated guess that it is a satellite, and would be right most of the time, but that doesn't mean you know just by looking.
Aren’t checking and confirming pretty much the same thing?
You are ignoring the key distinction.
In his hypothetical scenario he didn't say "Oh you might be right, it might be a plane, lets check".
Instead he dismissed the idea of it being a plane and described evidence that you could use to see that it isn't.
It is no better than a FEer claiming Earth is flat based upon some observation which can't tell the difference, and then appealing to an experiment which could tell the difference and assuming the results would support them.
Either way, your hypothetical example is a fairly meaningless question. Basically just “well, what if you’re wrong?”
Again, the point is HE COULD BE WRONG yet he dismisses that possibility, as he "knows" without any rational justification, that it must be a satellite.
So I provided an example, where the experiment is done, and doesn't give him the result he needs.
I would say that is far from meaningless.
You might as ask a bird watcher “what if the eagle you say you saw was really a pigeon?”
No, that is going down his insane path of saying that it must be a satellite.
I'm not asking if the satellite he saw was a plane. I am asking if the faint dot in the sky is a plane. Big difference.
A more honest example would be asking a bird watcher if the blur they saw, which they couldn't resolve and actually see it properly, was actually a pigeon rather than the eagle they claim it was.
The point is that in both cases you don't have enough information to determine what it is.
Nope. Read it again. The OP claimed to have seen a satellite and asked what the flat earther explanation is.
Nothing was presented as proof of either satellites or a round earth. Big difference between asking for an explanation and presenting proof.
It was presented in the manner of an attack on FE by showing satellites consistent with a RE.
If he was asking for what it was, rather than trying to show FE is wrong, there would have been no need to say "I saw an artificial satellite."
Instead it would have just been a faint dot.
But do you actually know that Solarwind’s claim is wrong?
Which claim?
If you mean that he knows it is a satellite, just because he knows, then yes. I am sure.
If you mean his claim that it was a satellite, then no, the issue is that it is unsupported.
All the OP presented was a faint dot moving across the sky, with the claim that it was too fast for an airplane.
But that claim is entirely based upon the assumption of it being a satellite (and thus being very high). For example, the ~28000 km/hr of a satellite in LEO would produce the same angular velocity as a plane at 10 km (roughly 33 000 ft) travelling at 700 km/hr, below the cruising speed of most jets, for example the 747 with cruising speeds between 900 and 940 km/hr.
The OP didn't even present the colour of the dot, just that it was a dot.
There is simply far too little information to determine that what the OP saw was a satellite.
But Solarwind dismissed all that and acted like it must have been a satellite and stated that he would absolutely not admit that such a claim is not proof of satellites.
So according to Solarwind, an observation that is completely incapable of determining if the object in question is a satellite, is proof that satellites exist, all because he "knows" it is a satellite.
I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times
Things like confirming the trajectory, observing more closely with binoculars, etc. to confirm that a particular dot (or indeed a resolved image showing things solar panels) is actually a satellite?
None of which was presented by the OP.
So if we do all that and can identify a satellite, that still leaves the original question very inadequately answered, IMO.
No, it doesn't. Like I said, none of that was presented by the OP. He asked what the faint dot moving across the sky is if it isn't a satellite.
A plane fits that just fine.
So does a shooting star.
-
As much as it is hard for me to do nowadays I will try and put myself into the shoes of someone who (a) doesn't know that you can see artificial satellites with the naked eye and (b) doesn't believe (as some FE people don't apparently) that artificial satellites even exist.
So I am casually looking up into the night sky and admiring all the stars that I can see. Just random points of light, some noticeably brighter than others and some even showing subtly different shades of colour. Then my eye is drawn to one particular 'star' which is clearly moving among all the rest. Naturally I ask myself what this moving 'star' could be.
I can also see a couple of planes elsewhere in the sky. They are recognisable because I can see the accompanying red and green navigation lights. But this other moving light I saw first just seems to be a solitary white light source. I am with a couple of friends, one of which has a pair of binoculars with them and they confirm that even through the binoculars they can only see a single point of white light. So if this is a plane then it must be very high indeed since the binoculars have a much better resolution than the human eye. I decline their kind offer to have a look through the binoculars myself. Preferring instead to form my own conclusions purely on what I can see with my naked eye.
As I am watching the point of light I notice that it starts to fade rapidly. After a few seconds it disappears completely. Now I am completely at a loss. Why was it visible in the first place and why is it now completely invisible. Is was over 50 degrees in altitude over the horizon when it disappeared so it is not as if it has disappeared behind a tree or building. It is also a perfectly clear night with clean air and no clouds now after the heavy showers that passed through earlier in the day. It just apparently vanished into thin air.
This single moving point source of light was not a comet because you can't see them moving in real-time. My friends already told me there are no naked eye comets visible at the moment anyway. Such comets now apparently are very rare! It wasn't a meteor because those are only visible for a couple or few seconds and I watched this particular light for a few minutes. They also mentioned how during a meteor shower (when all meteors appear to come from a particular point on the sky) you can sometimes see 'point' meteors where a star like point of light appears and disappears quickly and suddenly without appearing to move. It is a meteor which is travelling directly along the observers line of sight. So clearly what I saw wasn't one of those either.
This is getting embarrassing now because my friends are laughing at me and making fun of me because they say they know exactly what I just saw. They are telling me I saw an artificial satellite passing over and then disappearing into the Earths shadow. They go on to explain that the satellite is only visible from sunlight reflected off the satellite. Mostly the solar panels. Planes have their own lights so they don't disappear even if they pass through the region of sky where the Earths shadow lies. They even look up the satellite based on the time, date and our location on their mobile phones using an app and tell me what the satellite was. But I don't accept any of that since I don't believe that artificial satellites exist. Nor do I accept their explanation about the Earths shadow because as far as I'm concerned the Earth doesn't have a shadow. How could it if my flat Earth beliefs are true?
In the end we all agree to draw our own conclusions. They maintain it was a satellite, I meanwhile have to say I saw a UFO. I just hope my friends don't label me as insane now and decide against inviting me out again for some of their future night sky watching outings. Because up to the time when I saw this moving point of light I was actually enjoying myself out there.
-
I can also see a couple of planes elsewhere in the sky....
seems to be a solitary white light source...
they confirm that even through the binoculars ...
As I am watching the point of light I notice that it starts to fade rapidly...
I watched this particular light for a few minutes...
None of that was in the OP.
From the description provided in the OP, there is not enough information to conclude it was a satellite.
Yet again, you are appealing to invented evidence which does not exist the OP's scenario.
I could likewise invent a bunch of evidence to show it is a plane.
Other than wise and sandokhan, no one here is arguing against the existence of satellites. They are just arguing against the observation in the OP needing to be satellites.
-
OK lets remind ourselves of what the OP said:
Flat earthers believe that satellites supposedly don't exist. But tonight when I was outside, I saw an artificial satellite fly by. It was a faint dot moving quickly through the night sky. Way too fast for being an airplane. But if this was not a satellite orbiting the earth, then what was it? How would flat earthers explain these things?
So the OP is clearly quite satisfied that artificial satellites exist and has even gone as far as saying 'I saw an artificial satellite fly by'. On the night in question the OP was observing the night sky and saw a faint dot moving quickly over. They don't specify a brightness or a colour but since they saw it against a black (or nearly black) background I think we can safely assume this 'dot' was in fact a source of emitted or reflected light. Many people use the words dot and point interchangeably when referring to a point source of light in the sky which is what a star is.
The OP is then asking well if FEers don't believe satellites exist, what could this moving point of light have been from the non-believing FEers point of view. I have given a scenario which describes how such a non-believing FEer might react to this situation. You will note that in my scenario I chose not to use any other sources of information beyond what my own eyes could tell me even though such sources were available to me.
If FEers choose not to use any equipment or modern sources of information available in the world today to help them become more informed about what they see, perhaps because they are obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is purposely lying to them about what is real or not real in the world around us then that is up to them. But whatever choices they make and whatever influences those choices, that doesn't stop that dot of light in the sky being what it really is. A satellite.
-
What was the altitude of this dot?
It's impossible to tell the altitude if you don't know the exact size of the object. But we can pretend that it was an airplane. The diameter of a small airplane is something like 20 meters. The angular diameter of that small dot was probably something like 30'' (I'm making an estimation of slightly bigger that Saturn). So if we do a quick calculation, that airplane would have been flying at an altitude of 137 kilometers. That's higher than the world record of airplane flight altitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record). And not only that, but the dot was moving at a speed of roughly one degree per second. That would be crazy speed for an airplane on such altitude.
(https://i.ibb.co/Yy5Lt1Y/nimet-n.png)
As a side note, saying that the angular diameter of the dot would not correspond to the diameter of the airplane is wrong because an airplane always has multiple lights. Whenever I see an actual airplane at night, it always appears as multiple lights separated by roughly the plane's diameter or wingspan. The only reason why it would appear only as a faint dot on a clear sky would be if it was making a world record of flight altitude.
-
What was the altitude of this dot?
It's impossible to tell the altitude if you don't know the exact size of the object.
It's entirely possible using two observers at known distances and a little parallax math.
-
Perhaps it was some sort of super high altitude secret surveillance plane that the governments of the world don't want us to know about !?!
-
OK lets remind ourselves of what the OP said:
Flat earthers believe that satellites supposedly don't exist. But tonight when I was outside, I saw an artificial satellite fly by. It was a faint dot moving quickly through the night sky. Way too fast for being an airplane. But if this was not a satellite orbiting the earth, then what was it? How would flat earthers explain these things?
Yes, none of the extra information you provided in your hypothetical situation.
Again, you add a bunch of extra information which was not there to establish it was a satellite.
FEers could likewise add in a bunch of extra information to establish it is a plane.
Again, it isn't about if the dot is a satellite or not.
It is about if the simple visual observation provided in the OP is enough to actually establish that it is a satellite rather than an alternative option.
It's impossible to tell the altitude if you don't know the exact size of the object. But we can pretend that it was an airplane. The diameter of a small airplane is something like 20 meters. The angular diameter of that small dot was probably something like 30'' (I'm making an estimation of slightly bigger that Saturn). So if we do a quick calculation, that airplane would have been flying at an altitude of 137 kilometers. That's higher than the world record of airplane flight altitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record). And not only that, but the dot was moving at a speed of roughly one degree per second. That would be crazy speed for an airplane on such altitude.
So an angular size below the standard limit of human resolution?
I find that hard to believe. How about we stick to the more reasonable size of 1 arc minute? (and even that is being generous for you unless you actually measured it).
The diameter being "something like 20 m" is also quite a broad range, with plenty under it.
What if we try something more generous like 10 m? That gives us an altitude of roughly 35 km.
And even that is still uncertain.
Aircraft do not necessarily have lights on the nose and tailplane, with the main length for it coming from the wing. But if you are looking at it side on, you are not going to see the full wingspan. Having multiple lights doesn't mean that the lights will be separated by the entire length of the aircraft.
And military jets are not necessarily going to have all their lights on (if any).
At that altitude, to match the ~28000 km/hr of a satellite in LEO it would need to go at roughly 2450 km/hr. Comparable to the F22's maximum speed.
If you want to try using your claimed angular speed of 1 degree/second to make it faster, you will run into issues for satellites, as they need to have a fairly constant speed, and the highest angular speed you could get is roughly 1.5 degrees per second from a satellite directly overhead at 300 km.
If instead we limit it to the reported 20 km ceiling of the aircraft, that would require either the dot to be larger (1.7 arc minutes, which is still tiny) or the visible size of the aircraft (which is not necessarily its actual size) to be smaller (5.8 m)
If you want to appeal to even better jets, there is the blackbird with a maximum speed of 3540 km/hr
If instead you want to base it on 1 degree per second, then at 35 km distance, i.e. assuming it is directly above you (so best case scenario), that would correspond to a speed of roughly 2200 km/hr.
So I would say based upon all that, it could still have been a military jet, i.e. a plane.
Then it comes down to if you want to follow the path of conspiracy or not.
Was this a normal plane acting as a plane, or was it part of a conspiracy to fake satellites? If the latter, do you think they would have all the lights of the plane on?
-
That is exactly what an Iridium flare looks like, I'd bet that is what you saw. They could get AMAZINGLY bright. Enough to light up the clouds.
Sad that they are gone now.
Even so, the ISS flare is second only to the moon in brightness. Also, SpaceX Starlink satellite trains are visible for a while after launch as they spread out and move onto their operational orbits.
-
Was this a normal plane acting as a plane, or was it part of a conspiracy to fake satellites? If the latter, do you think they would have all the lights of the plane on?
Well, the problem is not just the fact that it was a dot of light, but also the apparent magnitude of that dot. Even if an airplane had just one light on, it would still be extremely visible especially if it was directly overhead. Whereas satellites always look like faint stars except that they move really quickly. The only solution I can think of is that there would be an airplane flying on fairly low altitude, and having a faint spotlight on just to make it look like a satellite. And in that case, you would have the entire sky filled with these airplanes masqueraded as satellites and you would have to wonder where all those secret planes go and where they land, etc.
-
Well, the problem is not just the fact that it was a dot of light, but also the apparent magnitude of that dot. Even if an airplane had just one light on, it would still be extremely visible especially if it was directly overhead.
So now you are appealing to a magnitude, not reported before, and claiming to know exactly how it would look?
On what basis are you making that claim?
I still see no problem with the possibility of it being a military jet.
-
I probably spend more time looking into the sky both day and night than I do anywhere else. So I know a satellite when I see one, I know a comet when I see one and I know a meteor when I see one.
WooHooo, you win.
-
Can you explain to your readers the gravitational law used by these satellites to orbit at those altitudes? cartoonhd (https://cartoonhd.onl) 9apps (https://get-9apps.com.com/index/)
-
Can you explain to your readers the gravitational law used by these satellites to orbit at those altitudes?
They are the same gravitational laws we use to walk around down here on Earth. That's the beauty of having theories that work, they work everywhere.
-
A few months ago I watched a Starlink launch online. 20 minutes later, dead on time, the second stage flew over the top of me.
Wasn't an aeroplane as we were locked down and most aircraft were grounded. There weren't any aircraft flying nearby, as confirmed by https://globe.adsbexchange.com/
Those Falcon 9 first stages are amazing, they can be watched by telescope all the way up, while transmitting video of the curvature of the Earth from over 100km high and then they come back and land.
-
A few months ago I watched a Starlink launch online. 20 minutes later, dead on time, the second stage flew over the top of me.
A while back I watched a comedian on YouTube.
I laughed. Therefor he was obviously a comedian.
Did you actually see the second stage fly over you?
Was it daytime?
How are you so sure you were seeing a second stage of a rocket?
Do you have extensive training in identifying rocket second stages?
I am truly curious.
-
A few months ago I watched a Starlink launch online. 20 minutes later, dead on time, the second stage flew over the top of me.
A while back I watched a comedian on YouTube.
I laughed. Therefor he was obviously a comedian.
Did you actually see the second stage fly over you?
Was it daytime?
How are you so sure you were seeing a second stage of a rocket?
Do you have extensive training in identifying rocket second stages?
I am truly curious.
- Evening. The sky was dark for me but the spacecraft was high enough to catch the sun over the horizon.
- I know it was the second stage because that rocket only has two stages. The first stage doesn't have enough fuel to get this far, and besides, I watched the first stage land on the drone ship.
- As much as anyone who has an interest in such things. As mentioned, nothing else was on the aircraft tracker. I was watching the video feed from the second stage, so I know where it was. It tallied with third-party websites which also predict fly-over times, eg https://www.heavens-above.com/
-
- I know it was the second stage because that rocket only has two stages. The first stage doesn't have enough fuel to get this far, and besides, I watched the first stage land on the drone ship.
Dude, that's awesome. You watched it fly overhead AND witnessed it landing thousands of miles away moments later.
OR, you saw these things on TV?
-
I am truly curious.
Don't you mean you are truly 'sceptical' because you prefer to think you are always right?!?
-
I am truly curious.
Don't you mean you are truly 'sceptical' because you prefer to think you are always right?!?
No, you made a claim you can not back up.
I'm just pointing that out for you to clarify.
You personally witnessed a rocket second stage travel over your head
and personally witnessed it land on a barge.
Is that your claim?
Yes or No.
-
Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise people would be confused by the geometry of this. To clarify:
- I watched the launch and the landing on TV.
- I watched the second stage fly over the top of me.
Yes, I am aware that all photographic/TV evidence that conflicts with FET is inadmissable as evidence to FEers.
-
Yes, I am aware that all photographic/TV evidence that conflicts with FET is inadmissable as evidence to FEers.
It's a bit unfortunate when evidence that is admissible and perfectly acceptable to 99.9% of the population is not acceptable to FEers. Why would that be I wonder?
-
Yes, I am aware that all photographic/TV evidence that conflicts with FET is inadmissable as evidence to FEers.
It's a bit unfortunate when evidence that is admissible and perfectly acceptable to 99.9% of the population is not acceptable to FEers. Why would that be I wonder?
Flat Earthers only accept photographic evidence if it's formatted as a series of memes shown in slideshow format on a YouTube video.
-
Flat Earthers only accept evidence which is flat Earth 'compatible' if it isn't then it is either ignored or dismissed as faked. Because obviously there is no chance that the Earth might not be flat after all is there!?! Heaven forbid!
No, you made a claim you can not back up.
I'm just pointing that out for you to clarify.
You personally witnessed a rocket second stage travel over your head
and personally witnessed it land on a barge.
Is that your claim?
Yes or No.
It wasn't me making the claim. However when you can look up details and timings of satellite (or in this case rocket stages) passes from any location on Earth and then actually watch as they pass over then that is evidence backing up the observation. That is enough for most people. Obviously not for you put that's your problem not ours.
It's just like the iridium flares that could be predicted days in advance. The prediction would provide the time, date and direction the flare would be seen. I would then go out at the appropriate time and look in the direction mentioned and see the flare happen. However you like to dress it up, that is evidence.
-
There's another Starlink going up soon, probably on Tuesday.
You can all watch the launch and first stage landing live. Some of you might be able to watch the second stage fly over you shortly after the launch, or watch the Starlink train on the following orbits. It's viewable with the naked eye.
How do FEers explain a Starlink train?
-
There's another Starlink going up soon, probably on Tuesday.
You can all watch the launch and first stage landing live. Some of you might be able to watch the second stage fly over you shortly after the launch, or watch the Starlink train on the following orbits. It's viewable with the naked eye.
How do FEers explain a Starlink train?
The rockets would make a turn in mid-air and crash into the ocean along with the satellites on them. Haha
-
Since I have measured satellites with ground triangulation, they are at orbital heights and orbital speeds. And being an observational astronomer for 51 years, I can say we did not not see these dots, till we put them up there.
-
"Is it by any chance Newton's law of universal gravity?
Then, you got a huge problem, because this law of worth shit in outer space."
When I surveyed many different satellites, including the moon, they all followed the Newton's laws by the speed they traveled across the sky.
It also passed on Jupiter's 4 bright moons.
The laws stand their grounds.
-
"They look exactly like moving stars. How do I know they are not moving stars then I expect you will ask.. very simply because I know what I'm talking about. Unlike your good self it seems."
Why are the large ones, like ISS, have the ISS shape?
Why do they stay in full sunlight way after sunset, some are seen in the middle of the night?
Why when they do shut off, it matches where the sun's shadow should be for the supplied location of them?
The fastest moving star, move 1 degree per 360 years.
-
The Japanese propose to remove inactive satellites and dropped missile sections from orbit using a satellite with magnetic panels, which will attract such objects. The British offer space tug skyrora (http://www.skyrora.com/space-tug) for de-orbiting space debris or transferring space debris to disposal orbit.