-
What about the Sinking Ships!!!!!??????? No but seriously.....
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
-
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat? i mean come on it's absolutely retarded to believe that
-
you're all idiots.
as punishment, my personal army and i are going to rape your forum.
-
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
-
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
Then you, sir, are retarded. Please do humanity a favor and stop reproducing immediately. You're only hindering our progression and I think I speak for the rest of the world when I say that I'd appreciate it if you instead helped contribute to weeding out the stupid genes from the human genome.
-
Then you, sir, are retarded. Please do humanity a favor and stop reproducing immediately. You're only hindering our progression and I think I speak for the rest of the world when I say that I'd appreciate it if you instead helped contribute to weeding out the stupid genes from the human genome.
Why should I put my blind faith in NASA's data, when NASA was originally created in the 50's to foster the illusion of America's militaristic domination of space?
-
Then you, sir, are retarded. Please do humanity a favor and stop reproducing immediately. You're only hindering our progression and I think I speak for the rest of the world when I say that I'd appreciate it if you instead helped contribute to weeding out the stupid genes from the human genome.
Why should I put my blind faith in NASA's data, when NASA was originally created in the 50's to foster the illusion of America's militaristic domination of space?
you should damn well put your "faith" behind proof and science instead of absurd theories with countless holes in logic.
Also, NASA's former illusion of space domination was only to intimidate Russia. Are we still at war with Russia? No, so the government wouldn't even bother keeping NASA running if that were the case.
-
nitpicking, nitpicking.
Why are the stratellites up there? Who put them up, and what keeps them there?
-
If you don't think that humans have launched orbiting satellites then consider this:
If you live out in the suburbs (if you don't, then take a long drive out in the burbs) you'll see lots of houses with satellite dishes to get their pay TV. The dishes are aimed very precisely at satellites in geosynchronous orbit. If you have any doubt of that, try shifting one of those dishes a bit - the householder will probably rush out with a shotgun and try to do you some harm. If you have a very good telescope then around sunrise or sunset you might get a glimpse of the satellite.
-
Here you have a timelapse of (near-)geostationary satellites.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xCDHRBZ2EcNSJa/giphy.gif)
If you happened to miss them, here is another with few of them marked:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)
-
The earth has been round for millennia before NASA even existed. And USA launched rockets into space before NASA even existed.
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Except that anybody can look at them and see them, and look through a telescope and see details.
(http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Please provide evidence of how satellite tv reception works.
-
...
and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Is that a threat?
Shall I suffer from lead poisoning if I don't?
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Except that anybody can look at them and see them, and look through a telescope and see details.
(http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Please provide evidence of how satellite tv reception works.
You can find this explanation scrolling up and searching for Stratellites. It can be easily understood. In case of disagreement, please argue.
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
-
...
and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Is that a threat?
Shall I suffer from lead poisoning if I don't?
Believing that makes one easily upset, causing cognitive dissonance over time. It's true.
-
...
and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Is that a threat?
Shall I suffer from lead poisoning if I don't?
Believing that makes one easily upset, causing cognitive dissonance over time. It's true.
Been to my doctor, I don't have cognitive dissonance. Try diagnosing me with another mental disease
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.
-
...
and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Is that a threat?
Shall I suffer from lead poisoning if I don't?
Believing that makes one easily upset, causing cognitive dissonance over time. It's true.
Been to my doctor, I don't have cognitive dissonance. Try diagnosing me with another mental disease
You look upset to me. Anyway... look at the expression "over time".
-
And I know I'm fine. By the way, do you have an answer to how satellites are flying around the earth at orbital velocity yet?
-
...
and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Is that a threat?
Shall I suffer from lead poisoning if I don't?
Believing that makes one easily upset, causing cognitive dissonance over time. It's true.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
noun (PSYCHOLOGY)
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes,
especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
You mean like "Sun doesn't set, it's 'perspective' eating it from below"? (slowly, because of lag)
Or like "all midnight sun videos on Antarctica are fake, and product of conspiracy"?
Or like "all Moon landings are hoax, and those reflectors people use to bounce laser pulses off them don't exist"?
Or like "Sun is 3110 miles above ground... oops, it is 2401 mile... oops, actually 3851 mile... no... wait..."?
Or like "Moon is just light, see through, you can see stars through it, but not the Sun during eclipse"?
Or like "buildings don't sink behind horizon, this video is fake"? (Turning Torso (http://)).
Or like "gravity doesn't exist"? (Simplified Cavendish (http://)).
Shall I continue?
-
OK, I can no longer stand it. I made an account, and this is my first post.
About satellites.. There are many apps out there you can utilize, I prefer ISS Detector. It makes it so very easy to spot iridium flares, the ISS, and many others. It's amazingly accurate, too! I suggest for those who don't believe, to utilize this tool to help you see them. One doesn't need it, but it's useful if you want to catch iridium flares.
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Except that anybody can look at them and see them, and look through a telescope and see details.
(http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Please provide evidence of how satellite tv reception works.
You can find this explanation scrolling up and searching for Stratellites. It can be easily understood. In case of disagreement, please argue.
Tom is making up a story, actually just a word. Plenty of evidence and documentation for satellite operation.
-
...
and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Is that a threat?
Shall I suffer from lead poisoning if I don't?
Believing that makes one easily upset, causing cognitive dissonance over time. It's true.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
noun (PSYCHOLOGY)
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes,
especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
You mean like "Sun doesn't set, it's 'perspective' eating it from below"? (slowly, because of lag)
Or like "all midnight sun videos on Antarctica are fake, and product of conspiracy"?
Or like "all Moon landings are hoax, and those reflectors people use to bounce laser pulses off them don't exist"?
Or like "Sun is 3110 miles above ground... oops, it is 2401 mile... oops, actually 3851 mile... no... wait..."?
Or like "Moon is just light, see through, you can see stars through it, but not the Sun during eclipse"?
Or like "buildings don't sink behind horizon, this video is fake"? (Turning Torso (http://)).
Or like "gravity doesn't exist"? (Simplified Cavendish (http://)).
Shall I continue?
The thing is: when you have a question, you may resort to the easiest way to obtain a proper explanation. That's why you won't give chance for another shot. You've learned it wrong and is presenting dissonance here... take care. Cheers.
-
So, you don't have an answer.
Good to know.
-
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
Tommie boy, where have you been hiding?
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Except that anybody can look at them and see them, and look through a telescope and see details.
(http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Please provide evidence of how satellite tv reception works.
You can find this explanation scrolling up and searching for Stratellites. It can be easily understood. In case of disagreement, please argue.
Tom is making up a story, actually just a word. Plenty of evidence and documentation for satellite operation.
Of course you definitely need lots of evidence to fool people into that trap. Much more than just a word. What's the news?
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Except that anybody can look at them and see them, and look through a telescope and see details.
(http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Please provide evidence of how satellite tv reception works.
You can find this explanation scrolling up and searching for Stratellites. It can be easily understood. In case of disagreement, please argue.
Tom is making up a story, actually just a word. Plenty of evidence and documentation for satellite operation.
Of course you definitely need lots of evidence to fool people into that trap. Much more than just a word. What's the news?
Plenty of people who understand how satellites are used. Maybe not you. Check dish angles.
-
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Except that anybody can look at them and see them, and look through a telescope and see details.
(http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Please provide evidence of how satellite tv reception works.
You can find this explanation scrolling up and searching for Stratellites. It can be easily understood. In case of disagreement, please argue.
Tom is making up a story, actually just a word. Plenty of evidence and documentation for satellite operation.
Of course you definitely need lots of evidence to fool people into that trap. Much more than just a word. What's the news?
Plenty of people who understand how satellites are used. Maybe not you. Check dish angles.
I have Direct TV satellite service, and my dish definitely points up towards the southern sky. Which would be expected since I live in the USA and the geosynchronous satellites are over the equator.
-
...
The thing is: when you have a question, you may resort to the easiest way to obtain a proper explanation. That's why you won't give chance for another shot. You've learned it wrong and is presenting dissonance here... take care. Cheers.
LOL
September 22nd is closing.
Equinox.
Sun directly above equator the whole day.
Print Flat Earth map.
Find the place where you live.
Draw straight line east-west.
(Perpendicular to your meridian - line from
north pole through your place towards Ice Wall).
Ignore daylight savings, to skip adding or subtracting one hour.
Where your meridian intersects equator, there is the Sun at your noon.
90 degrees along equator to the east Sun is at your 6 am for sunrise.
90 degrees to the west along equator Sun is at your 6 pm for sunset.
I presume you live at about 40-ish degrees north.
With equator curved to fit Flat Earth map, sunrise at your latitude will be at azimuth of about 60 degrees.
30 degrees to the north of east at your east-west line.
Sunset at your latitude would be at azimuth around 300 degrees.
30 degrees to the north of west at your eas-west line.
If you were at equator, your sunrise would be at azimuth of 45 degrees,
and sunset at azimuth of 315 degrees.
Now, keep in mind all these numbers to compare with real life.
In real life, for equinox, anywhere in the world, when comes 6 am sun rises directly at east,
at azimuth of 90 degrees, and at 6 pm sets directly at west, at azimuth of 270 degrees.
(With Daylight Saving taken into account it is 7 am and 7 pm. Solar noon is at 1 pm.)
That is how "usable" can Flat model be versus Globe model.
Measure each azimuth for yourself on September 22nd, and report here.
Bear in mind, others can measure themselves. People will know if you are telling the truth.
So, let us (mortals) know when you figure out
WHO ACTUALLY LEARNED SOMETHING WRONG, AND WHAT WAS THAT.
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.
Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:
R ~ GM/V2
R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity
Sources: 1 (http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/orbital-velocity-formula.html), 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.
Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:
R ~ GM/V2
R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity
Sources: 1 (http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/orbital-velocity-formula.html), 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."
Where does it mention altitude?
-
Orbital radius is analogous to altitude.
-
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word
the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds
meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence
if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.
Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:
R ~ GM/V2
R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity
Sources: 1 (http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/orbital-velocity-formula.html), 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."
Where does it mention altitude?
Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.
Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:
R ~ GM/V2
R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity
Sources: 1 (http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/orbital-velocity-formula.html), 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."
Where does it mention altitude?
Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.
A wondrous explanation! I don't believe it.
-
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
How can we measure these things empirically? haha :D
-
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
How can we measure these things empirically? haha :D
Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant)
Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.
F = G * m1 * m2 / R2
F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)
We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.
If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.
Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:
R ~ GM/V2
R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity
Sources: 1 (http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/orbital-velocity-formula.html), 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."
Where does it mention altitude?
Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.
A wondrous explanation! I don't believe it.
You don't believe the definition of orbital radius? I guess the dictionary writers are in on the conspiracy too.
-
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
How can we measure these things empirically? haha :D
Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant)
Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.
F = G * m1 * m2 / R2
F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)
We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.
If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).
"Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth."
I see where this logic leads to. But I refuse the premise. Sorry.
-
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.
Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.
Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:
R ~ GM/V2
R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity
Sources: 1 (http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/orbital-velocity-formula.html), 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed)
from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."
Where does it mention altitude?
Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.
A wondrous explanation! I don't believe it.
You don't believe the definition of orbital radius? I guess the dictionary writers are in on the conspiracy too.
Problems with don'ts?
-
Orbital radius, along with other variables, are common in satellites because it allows you to work out where it is, how fast it is travelling and so on. Something travelling covering a ground path of 100 km is not going to travel 100km when it is at 200km altitude, in order to work out how far it has travelled you need to know the circumference of the circle it is following, for which you need the radius.
In this volume of support data for Apollo's mapping cameras:
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/SUPPORT_DATA/Apollo16_APE_Data_Book.pdf
You'll find various references to measurements from the moon's centre of mass.
-
in order to work out how far it has travelled you need to know the circumference of the circle it is following,
Earth is supposedly an oblate spheroid, yet all math used assumes it is a perfect circle.
R ~ GM/V2
R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity
Solving for M requires calculating Earth diameter, then dividing by 2 and pie, which is for a perfect circle.
Using 360 degrees to find the diameter is an assumption of a perfect circle.
Never once has Earth truly been measured to be globular, only assumed!
So, below is the method for "proving" Earth to be a globe.
I hope you the best of luck and Gods speed in finding suitable conditions to test this.
Nonetheless it was conducted in 240 BC, with no problem, and claims accuracy within 1% of "reality"!
"You will need to accurately measure the length of the shadow cast by two sticks that are several hundred miles north and south of each other on (or about) the same day."
"Make the measurements at local noon (when the sun is directly overhead). You can do this by looking in the local paper for the time of sunrise and sunset - local noon is half way between these times."
http://www.physics.usu.edu/coburn/Measurement%20Projects/Diameter%20of%20the%20Earth.html
After obtaining measurements dependent on a moving object, please plug them into a formula made for a circle.
(https://s18.postimg.org/k7hfij83d/Ratios.jpg)
-
I may not have been here long, but I've been here long enough to know that you've been told repeatedly what the oblate spheroid means and exactly how much Earth deviates from a perfect sphere. Earth has been measured, and photographed and filmed, as a sphere.
Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.
-
It's kind of funny how when there is a heavy storm blowing through my satellite tv services gets interrupted, almost as if something(heavy cloud cover) is blocking the signal. My ground based cell service doesn't get interrupted though, which is where the flat earthers claim satellite service comes from.
-
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.
Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.
They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.
-
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
How can we measure these things empirically? haha :D
Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant)
Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.
F = G * m1 * m2 / R2
F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)
We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.
If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).
"Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth."
I see where this logic leads to. But I refuse the premise. Sorry.
I am sorry to have to tell you this, but satellites don't need you understanding or permission to orbit the earth.
-
Here you have a timelapse of (near-)geostationary satellites.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xCDHRBZ2EcNSJa/giphy.gif)
If you happened to miss them, here is another with few of them marked:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)
I have posted that image and others more than once.
FE's consistently avoid addressing those images are just dismiss them as lights in the sky that appear not to move. They also tend to ignore the fact that those lights have never been recorded until the dates we are told those satellites where launched.
-
"...but satellites don't need your understanding..."
Then you, sir, are retarded.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Md2Jl2dxO9M/UN2fYGW9xUI/AAAAAAAAUTs/wpKtZBcgT98/s1600/Do+not+question+authority+they+don't+know+either.jpg)
-
"...but satellites don't need your understanding..."
Then you, sir, are retarded.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Md2Jl2dxO9M/UN2fYGW9xUI/AAAAAAAAUTs/wpKtZBcgT98/s1600/Do+not+question+authority+they+don't+know+either.jpg)
Yes, those satellites orbit around up there giving us GPS, satellite weather photos and satellite TV (for better or for worse!)
all without your understanding or permission.
No, don't question authority! ;D They are more ignorant on these things than the rest of us. ;D
You might get a lot further if you questioned the scientists and engineers who do know!
Here's a great place to start, this site is designed as a solid but not too technical introduction:
Welcome to Rocket and Space Technology.
This Web page can trace its roots to the author's project to write a computer program simulating the launch of a rocket to orbit. As I performed my research it became apparent that most information on the subject tended toward one of two extremes: it was either too simplistic to be very helpful, or it was advanced texts written for engineers. I could find little information suitable for the space enthusiast who wanted to progress beyond the beginner level but who lacked the advanced math and science skills needed to understand the more complex texts.
After spending months digging through books and Internet sites I finally found the information needed to complete my project. Not wanting others to go through the same frustrating search, I decided to organize all the information into a single resource. Thus, in 1996 this Web page was created.
More in Braenig, Rocket and Space Technology (http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm)
Jut consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively.
Instead of making yourself out to be more and more ignorant with each post!
Then you'll be arguing from strength, so much more effective!
-
Jut consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively.
I suggest listening to your own words, for your post had many of them, but little meaning.
-
Just consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively.
I suggest listening to your own words, for your post had many of them, but little meaning.
Please explain what words had "little meaning"? Maybe you simply cannot understand them, sorry for thinking you had some understanding of these things.
I did mean exactly what I said with
"Just consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively."
because from what you write, you don't seem to understand anything about orbits etc.
Though I guess I am doing a lot better than you then!
I suggest listening to your own words, for many your posts have no meaning at all.
-
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
How can we measure these things empirically? haha :D
Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant)
Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.
F = G * m1 * m2 / R2
F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)
We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.
If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).
"Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth."
I see where this logic leads to. But I refuse the premise. Sorry.
It leads to:
m1 = ( F * R2 ) / ( G * m2 )
You can refuse it as much as you want, but it will not change the mass of the Earth.
It will still be 5.972 × 1024 kg.
-
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.
Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.
They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.
I pick -2.
*2=-4
+10=6
/2=3
3=/=5
You might want to do some real math for a change.
-
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.
Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.
They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.
That might impress them in the playground, but it isn't what was asked of you.
-
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.
Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.
They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.
Hahaha... good one.
-
Here you have a timelapse of (near-)geostationary satellites.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xCDHRBZ2EcNSJa/giphy.gif)
If you happened to miss them, here is another with few of them marked:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)
I have posted that image and others more than once.
FE's consistently avoid addressing those images are just dismiss them as lights in the sky that appear not to move. They also tend to ignore the fact that those lights have never been recorded until the dates we are told those satellites where launched.
Why are you so sure these arrows are truer than this one drawn randomly by me:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ff/b0/66/ffb0667dc7dab156d62b2a7e795d70f7.jpg)
-
Because there are sattelites there. You can even see them.
-
That's you saying, origamiscienceguy. And there're also dots pointed by arrows and some codes written.
When I look up to the sky I can't see dots with arrows. If you have a better representation to show, feel free.
-
Just watch for their iridium flares. Only attracted do that.
Also, those stationary objects didn't exist until after they were launched.but I guess that's s just a coincidence.
A coincidence that happened hundreds of times by now.
-
That's you saying, origamiscienceguy. And there're also dots pointed by arrows and some codes written.
When I look up to the sky I can't see dots with arrows. If you have a better representation to show, feel free.
You've probably missed few things:
1. There's a timelapse with no arrows.
2. You can make such timelapse with proper equipment. You can see dots of light not moving.
3. The galaxy image is a visualization, not an actual photo. Hence comparing both images makes no sense.
-
That's you saying, origamiscienceguy. And there're also dots pointed by arrows and some codes written.
When I look up to the sky I can't see dots with arrows. If you have a better representation to show, feel free.
You've probably missed few things:
1. There's a timelapse with no arrows.
2. You can make such timelapse with proper equipment. You can see dots of light not moving.
3. The galaxy image is a visualization, not an actual photo. Hence comparing both images makes no sense.
The only big deal about that timelapse is that it is very nice and well done.
But the information... what does that mean? That these fixed dots are at the same altitude of the stars?
Even the arc you see, curving like part of a circle, might be an effect of the angle used to capture the "composition".
I'm not meaning you wouldn't see it with proper equipment, but the interpretation that they are outside the planet bugs me.
Let's assume you can't infer from this combination of images any solid argument.
Also notice the pointlike light emitted by these 'satellites', with little diffusion. Could you show me this picture without movement?
-
The arcs are St Arab that are moving across the sky relative to the camera due to the rotation of the earth.
The stationary dots are geosynchronous satalites that are orbiting at the same rate that the earth rotates.
-
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.
Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.
They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.
I pick -2.
*2=-4
+10=6
/2=3
3=/=5
You might want to do some real math for a change.
I really hate to be this guy origami, but you forgot to "subtract the original number", if you subtract -2 from 3, you get 5.
-
Ah. My mistake.
I chose infinity, long story short, result is undefined.
Ha.
-
That's you saying, origamiscienceguy. And there're also dots pointed by arrows and some codes written.
When I look up to the sky I can't see dots with arrows. If you have a better representation to show, feel free.
Assuming you have a smartphone or computer, there are several satellite tracking apps and websites out there. And they're amazingly accurate! As I've already stated, I use "ISS Detector" and catch Iridium Flares almost every night /morning. These apps will show you the precise path the satellite will move overhead, and when - down to the second! Even the magnitude of brightness. I highly encourage you to look into this. It's actually something I look forward to every evening..
-
ISS detector is only available for Android.
Do you suggest another one?
-
Is "heavens above" available on your phone?
-
Heavens above is THE website for satellite tracking. But as I only have android, I cannot suggest anything other than what a search would turn up. Here's a link
http://www.space.com/32387-satellite-space-station-skywatching-mobile-apps.html
ISS Spotter and iFlares look promising. Try them, and once you start watching iridium flares, you'll be amazed at the accuracy of prediction. They start out dim, get insanely bright, then go back to dim, til it's past overhead.
-
That's you saying, origamiscienceguy. And there're also dots pointed by arrows and some codes written.
When I look up to the sky I can't see dots with arrows. If you have a better representation to show, feel free.
I know its obivious, but those 'codes written' are satellite designations.
-
But the information... what does that mean? That these fixed dots are at the same altitude of the stars?
Even the arc you see, curving like part of a circle, might be an effect of the angle used to capture the "composition".
[...]
Also notice the pointlike light emitted by these 'satellites', with little diffusion. Could you show me this picture without movement?
1. It doesn't mean fixed dots are at the same altitude. On the other hand, there are no record of such fixed points pre-satellite era. In other words, they started showing there once poeple started sending satellites
2. The arc is arc because paths of stars are circular.
3. No, the source of that timelapse has timelapses only.
-
ISS detector is only available for Android.
Do you suggest another one?
yeah, get a grown ups phone!
iPhones are teenage girls phones, bottom end specs with no features whatsoever.. for the same price as top end phones
iPhones are a scam, even the shitty old blackberrys have a huge list of features iPhones STILL don't have
the latest greatest iPhone 7 has lower specs than a Samsung S4!
-
Yeah, don't get me started on why android is superior to iPhone! Most people with androids don't even realize the full capability of what they have. Once you root it, the possibilities of installing custom built software (ROMs) & kernels is near endless. Not to mention FREE wireless hotspot (unlimited data is a must).
But you can jailbreak an iPhone and get free apps!!
-
Yeah, don't get me started on why android is superior to iPhone! Most people with androids don't even realize the full capability of what they have. Once you root it, the possibilities of installing custom built software (ROMs) & kernels is near endless. Not to mention FREE wireless hotspot (unlimited data is a must).
But you can jailbreak an iPhone and get free apps!!
not my phone, can't find a rooting method :(
-
ISS detector is only available for Android.
Do you suggest another one?
yeah, get a grown ups phone!
iPhones are teenage girls phones, bottom end specs with no features whatsoever.. for the same price as top end phones
iPhones are a scam, even the shitty old blackberrys have a huge list of features iPhones STILL don't have
the latest greatest iPhone 7 has lower specs than a Samsung S4!
The new iPhone sucks. They removed the jack where you put your headphones or earbuds. And you have to rely on BluTooth which isn't reliable or safe.
-
Yeah, don't get me started on why android is superior to iPhone! Most people with androids don't even realize the full capability of what they have. Once you root it, the possibilities of installing custom built software (ROMs) & kernels is near endless. Not to mention FREE wireless hotspot (unlimited data is a must).
But you can jailbreak an iPhone and get free apps!!
not my phone, can't find a rooting method :(
XDA-Developers
RootzWiki
It's in one or the other. Or will soon be. I'd start in XDA.
-
ISS detector is only available for Android.
Do you suggest another one?
yeah, get a grown ups phone!
iPhones are teenage girls phones, bottom end specs with no features whatsoever.. for the same price as top end phones
iPhones are a scam, even the shitty old blackberrys have a huge list of features iPhones STILL don't have
the latest greatest iPhone 7 has lower specs than a Samsung S4!
The new iPhone sucks. They removed the jack where you put your headphones or earbuds. And you have to rely on BluTooth which isn't reliable or safe.
You can buy a decent Android phone for the price of Earbuds.
-
either way, pokemon works on both! :D
(yeah, I'm one of them :/ lol)
-
But the information... what does that mean? That these fixed dots are at the same altitude of the stars?
Even the arc you see, curving like part of a circle, might be an effect of the angle used to capture the "composition".
[...]
Also notice the pointlike light emitted by these 'satellites', with little diffusion. Could you show me this picture without movement?
1. It doesn't mean fixed dots are at the same altitude. On the other hand, there are no record of such fixed points pre-satellite era. In other words, they started showing there once poeple started sending satellites
2. The arc is arc because paths of stars are circular.
3. No, the source of that timelapse has timelapses only.
They're inside earth's atmosphere, a little high so you can think you're seeing something orbiting space.
The arc is just an effect of perspective. By that timelapse, you can't say otherwise.
It seems your source is not enough to prove it.
-
ISS detector is only available for Android.
Do you suggest another one?
yeah, get a grown ups phone!
iPhones are teenage girls phones, bottom end specs with no features whatsoever.. for the same price as top end phones
iPhones are a scam, even the shitty old blackberrys have a huge list of features iPhones STILL don't have
the latest greatest iPhone 7 has lower specs than a Samsung S4!
The new iPhone sucks. They removed the jack where you put your headphones or earbuds. And you have to rely on BluTooth which isn't reliable or safe.
You can buy a decent Android phone for the price of Earbuds.
Which is why I like Android to an extent.
-
I just read most of this thread and the subject of geosynchronous satellites, the kind that brings TV signals to a lot of paying customers around the world is mentioned a few times. We are told that the satellites are in perfect sync with the orbiting Earth directly above the equator and they send down to us crystal clear TV signals. I know the signals are crystal clear because I use to subscribe to DirecTV and the picture quality was nearly perfect. At the time I believed there were satellites up there beaming down the TV signals to my dish antenna. I also know that the dish has to be pointing spot on to a supposedly satellite in order to receive the signal. Off by almost any amount will cause the signal to pretty much go south. It is very critical getting the antenna position correctly if you want a good signal. Once the antenna is set correctly and the mounting bolts and nuts are tight, It never has to be repositioned, or at least mine never did. This thought leads me to ask the question, why not? I'm sure most of us has heard the Earth wobbles on it's axis as it rotates. This is like a spinning top will wobble a little as it spins around and the wobble increases as it slows down until it stops spinning and falls down. The Earth, we are told does the same thing. This wobble is called Chandler wobble, it was named after Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. He is credited with discovering it. Over a period of slightly more than a year (about 430 days), the Chandler wobble shifts the north-south spin axis of the Earth about three to six meters. In 2005 it actually shifted by 180o. This is where I have to wonder if geosynchronous satellites are really bring TV signals to our televisions or is it something else? I simply don't see how the Earth can wobble 3 to 6 meters per year and we never have to re-adjust our satellite dishes. Like I stated above, the dishes are very non forgiving. If you are off just a slight bit, the signal goes south.
The way I see it is, If the Earth wobbles or actually move six meters throughout the year, that to me is the same as your satellite dish moving six meters also, in reference to the stationary satellite beaming down TV signals. Anyone who has a dish knows you can't move your dish six inches let alone six meters and expect to receive a good TV signal. I've never heard of a method that compensates for this wobble, so I lean towards believing they must be using another method to beam TV signals to us or the Earth is not wobbling or rotating like we are told.
-
6 meters max compared to the circumference of over 40,000 kilometers is far, far, far less than even a tenth of a degree of movement. it is not anywhere near enough to knock the dish out of alignment. Or think of it this way. You have your dish aligned and then move it laterally 6 meters. It is still going to be pointing in almost exactly the same direction. You'd be off at most about a thousandth of a degree. Seeing as how you typically have to align your dish within half a degree I'm sure you'd be fine.
You said you can't move the dish "six inches" but that is measured as a rotation on its mount which changes its orientation by far more than a degree.
-
The earth's wobble (called precession)
Takes thousands of years to complete one wobble.
-
The earth's wobble (called precession)
Takes thousands of years to complete one wobble.
He's right about the Chandler wobble which has a period of 433 days. But it won't affect a satellite for the reason I already said. It amounts to less than a thousandth of a degree. Although the part he said about it shifting 180 degrees in 2005 is bogus. I think I would have noticed if the North Star was suddenly in the South.
-
I just read most of this thread and the subject of geosynchronous satellites, the kind that brings TV signals to a lot of paying customers around the world is mentioned a few times. We are told that the satellites are in perfect sync with the orbiting Earth directly above the equator and they send down to us crystal clear TV signals.
While Geostationary Satellites may be "in perfect sync", they are not perfectly stationary.
Geostationary Satellite
There are two other, less serious, problems with geostationary satellites. First, the exact position of a geostationary satellite, relative to the surface, varies slightly over the course of each 24-hour period because of gravitational interaction among the satellite, the earth, the sun, the moon, and the non-terrestrial planets. As observed from the surface, the satellite wanders within a rectangular region in the sky called the box. The box is small, but it limits the sharpness of the directional pattern, and therefore the power gain, that earth-based antennas can be designed to have.
From: Techtarget Definition Geostationary-satellite (http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/geostationary-satellite)
While a perfectly stationary position is highly desirable, it is not practical.
But it is not such a serious problem. For a 1 m diameter dish at 12 GHz an angular error of 0.5° with still give an acceptable signal (an antenna gain of about 39.4 dB compared to about 40.5 dB if perfectly aligned[1]).
Now 0.5° at the Geostationary altitude of 22,236 miles corresponds to the satellite being off location by 194 miles.
So forget about a few metres out mattering - accuracy like that is simply not necessary.
I know the signals are crystal clear because I use to subscribe to DirecTV and the picture quality was nearly perfect. At the time I believed there were satellites up there beaming down the TV signals to my dish antenna. I also know that the dish has to be pointing spot on to a supposedly satellite in order to receive the signal. Off by almost any amount will cause the signal to pretty much go south. It is very critical getting the antenna position correctly if you want a good signal. Once the antenna is set correctly and the mounting bolts and nuts are tight, It never has to be repositioned, or at least mine never did. This thought leads me to ask the question, why not? I'm sure most of us has heard the Earth wobbles on it's axis as it rotates. This is like a spinning top will wobble a little as it spins around and the wobble increases as it slows down until it stops spinning and falls down. The Earth, we are told does the same thing.
This wobble is called Chandler wobble, it was named after Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. He is credited with discovering it. Over a period of slightly more than a year (about 430 days), the Chandler wobble shifts the north-south spin axis of the Earth about three to six meters.
As above "three to six meters" is of no importance at all - the satellite can be miles out and not matter at all.
In 2005 it actually shifted by 180o. This is where I have to wonder if geosynchronous satellites are really bring TV signals to our televisions or is it something else? I simply don't see how the Earth can wobble 3 to 6 meters per year and we never have to re-adjust our satellite dishes. Like I stated above, the dishes are very non forgiving. If you are off just a slight bit, the signal goes south.
The Chandler wobble did not shift by 180° in 2005, it changed in phase by 180° in 2005, see Earth's Chandler Wobble Changed Dramatically in 2005 (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/415093/earths-chandler-wobble-changed-dramatically-in-2005/). If you travel to the Arctic and attempt to find the axis of Earth’s rotation, you’ll notice something odd. The position of this axis on Earth’s surface moves with a period of about seven years. This is the combined result of two effects. The one we’re interested today is called the Chandler Wobble, which has a period of 433 days and was discovered by American astronomer Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891.
The way I see it is, If the Earth wobbles or actually move six meters throughout the year, that to me is the same as your satellite dish moving six meters also, in reference to the stationary satellite beaming down TV signals. Anyone who has a dish knows you can't move your dish six inches let alone six meters and expect to receive a good TV signal. I've never heard of a method that compensates for this wobble, so I lean towards believing they must be using another method to beam TV signals to us or the Earth is not wobbling or rotating like we are told.
No, 6 inches, 6 metres or even 6 miles movement of the satellite is of no significance at all to receivers on the ground.
It is probably more significant for the much larger uplink dishes.
Really if you are going to be so cynical about everything to do with the Globe, you really should try to undertand what you read.
[1] From Satsig Antenna Beamwidth-Calculator (http://www.satsig.net/pointing/antenna-beamwidth-calculator.htm)
-
What you are saying may be true, an angular error of 0.5o may not hurt signal level enough to be noticeable. I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that if you get your dish set to nearly a perfect picture, then go outside and pick your dish up and move it 6 meters in any direction, not changing the azimuth or elevation, and set it back down, I feel your dish will now have to be realigned because the angle to the satellite will be more then .5o off and the signal will be much weaker. I've never tried this, so I may be wrong. Please, will someone with a dish try this for us to see what happens to the signal.
-
What you are saying may be true, an angular error of 0.5o may not hurt signal level enough to be noticeable. I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that if you get your dish set to nearly a perfect picture, then go outside and pick your dish up and move it 6 meters in any direction, not changing the azimuth or elevation, and set it back down, I feel your dish will now have to be realigned because the angle to the satellite will be more then .5o off and the signal will be much weaker. I've never tried this, so I may be wrong. Please, will someone with a dish try this for us to see what happens to the signal.
If it is still oriented the same then it will be fine. Or you do you really think that your dish and your neighbors are that far off from each other? And again, a movement of 6 meters is equal to about a thousandth of a degree.
-
What you are saying may be true, an angular error of 0.5o may not hurt signal level enough to be noticeable. I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that if you get your dish set to nearly a perfect picture, then go outside and pick your dish up and move it 6 meters in any direction, not changing the azimuth or elevation, and set it back down, I feel your dish will now have to be realigned because the angle to the satellite will be more then .5o off and the signal will be much weaker. I've never tried this, so I may be wrong. Please, will someone with a dish try this for us to see what happens to the signal.
You moving your dish 6 m (and "not changing the azimuth or elevation") has
exactly the same effect on the signal as the satellite moving 6 m in the other direction.
Surely you can see this without my having to draw a diagram.
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
Won't help: İntikam thinks that Google in Turkey is infiltrated by NASA.
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
Won't help: İntikam thinks that Google in Turkey is infiltrated by NASA.
Damn those fiends!!
Maybe Arthur C Clarke's 1945 paper will convince him...
http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want remind it me?
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?
OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".
And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?
OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".
And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite
All about sattelites are lie. All lie. Some sources shows sattelites about 200-600 kilometres and more. Some sites showing less. But some sites showint their altitude about 35 000 kilometres. But we see the rocket goes about 2 minutes so it should be about 200-300 kilometres or low. But if we calculate it by angles and distances, finding tens on tousends kilometres, like this site show:
(http://4.1m.yt/VZaOBds.png)
Turksat sattelite about on upper position to Tanzania and about 35.000 kilometres high. But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit! Where are they stays on? About 200-600 kilometres or 35.000-45.000 kilometres? There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said.
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?
OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".
And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite
All about sattelites are lie. All lie. Some sources shows sattelites about 200-600 kilometres and more. Some sites showing less. But some sites showint their altitude about 35 000 kilometres. But we see the rocket goes about 2 minutes so it should be about 200-300 kilometres or low. But if we calculate it by angles and distances, finding tens on tousends kilometres, like this site show:
(http://4.1m.yt/VZaOBds.png)
Turksat sattelite about on upper position to Tanzania and about 35.000 kilometres high. But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit! Where are they stays on? About 200-600 kilometres or 35.000-45.000 kilometres? There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said.
Which part of "use the internet to research geostationary satellites" is causing you a problem?
There are different types of orbits. Try looking for "polar orbital satellites" as well.
-
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit? ;D
Google 'geostationary'.
Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?
OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".
And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite
All about sattelites are lie. All lie. Some sources shows sattelites about 200-600 kilometres and more. Some sites showing less. But some sites showint their altitude about 35 000 kilometres. But we see the rocket goes about 2 minutes so it should be about 200-300 kilometres or low. But if we calculate it by angles and distances, finding tens on tousends kilometres, like this site show:
(http://4.1m.yt/VZaOBds.png)
Turksat sattelite about on upper position to Tanzania and about 35.000 kilometres high. But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit! Where are they stays on? About 200-600 kilometres or 35.000-45.000 kilometres? There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said.
When you hear "But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit!" this is probably for satellites going (at least initially) into a Low Earth Orbit of 200 to 400 km. I don't know the details of insertion into Medium or High Earth Orbit.
You claim "There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said." That is not right at all, there is very good agreement - see my explanations below.
Satellites can orbit at any altitude from about 200 km above sea-level, biy those this low lose altitude from atmospheric drag.
The ISS orbits in what is called Low Earth Orbit (or LEO). Being so low it avoids long-term crew exposure to the radiation of the first Van Allen Belt.
International Space Station
The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km (205 and 270 mi) by means of reboost manoeuvres using the engines of the Zvezda module or visiting spacecraft. It completes 15.54 orbits per day.
GPS Satellites are in Medium Earth Orbit GPS satellites
GPS satellites fly in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of approximately 20,200 km (12,550 miles). Each satellite circles the Earth twice a day.
The satellites in the GPS constellation are arranged into six equally-spaced orbital planes surrounding the Earth. Each plane contains four "slots" occupied by baseline satellites. This 24-slot arrangement ensures users can view at least four satellites from virtually any point on the planet.
From GPS.gov, Space Segment (http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/)
Geosynchronous and Geostationary satellites have to circle the earth in one sidereal day or approximately 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds and so are in High Earth Orbit or Geosynchronous Earth Orbit.
Geostationary orbit
A geostationary satellite above a marked spot on the Equator. An observer on the marked spot will see the satellite remain directly overhead unlike other celestial objects which sweep across the sky.
A geostationary equatorial orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth). A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level. It maintains the same position relative to the Earth's surface.
Usually the altitude of the satellite is given above sea-level simply because it's easier for us to picture ths for the lower satellites.
The orbital radius is the distance of the satellite from the centre of the earth, so for satellites in an equatorial orbit it is
(the altitude + the equatorial radius of earth) = altitude + 6,384 km).
You had this information about the TURKSAT 2A
TURKSAT 2A
Geostationary
TV
NORAD ID: 26666
Int'l Code: 2001-002A
Perigee: 35,857.1 km
Apogee: 35,883.1 km
Inclination: 0.6 °
Period: 1,440.0 minutes
Semi major axis: 42241 km
RCS: 3.9 m2 (large)
Launch date: January 10, 2001
Source: Turkey (TURK)
Launch site: FRENCH GUIANA (FRGUI)
32 Ku-band transponders; direct-to-home voice, video, and data transmissions to countries between central Europe and the Indian subcontinent.
Meaning that the orbit is slightly elliptical with the lowest altitude or perigee = 35,857.1 km and the highes altitude or apogee = 35,883.1 km.
The "Semi major axis: 42,241 km" means that the average radius (from the centre of the earth) is 42,241 km and
the "Inclination: 0.6°" means that the orbit is inclined from the equator by 0.6°.
Maybe you won't bother reading this, but I have tried explaining it as well as I can.
And please don't call people liars, when it is you that do not understand what is going on. Just having an IQ of 160 does not help unless you have the knowledge to go with it.
-
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word
the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds
meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence
if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning
Eight years past was a long, long time ago.
-
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word
the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds
meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence
if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning
Eight years past was a long, long time ago.
Sure is, and you would think that Tom Bishop might have updated his ideas, though from what he posts on TFES.org, I fear not! His ideas on satellites seem much the same - stratellites.
For Tom, it seems that if something is not in Robotham or the "Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" it doesn't exist!
Though i admit that he now supports the "Bipolar Flat Earth Map" and not the "Ice-Wall Map". It does have Antarctica as a continent, but in most other respects it is more ridiculous than the "Ice-Wall Map" - neither of which are in the hacked "Wiki" of "theflatearthsociety.org"
-
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word
the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds
meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence
if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning
Eight years past was a long, long time ago.
that means nothing here..
there's still FE's claiming the same, JRoweSkeptic and Jane's backing him up
the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..is the reason for my post
I'd say 'nice try', but it wasn't
-
That was Jane who said that, and she was right!
-
That was Jane who said that, and she was right!
do you not read what you quote?
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.
You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.
Satellites don't exist.
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?
No.
stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word
the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds
meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence
if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning
Eight years past was a long, long time ago.
I was trying to explain something to intikam (don't ask why)
speaking of intikam, if I was you I'd be trembling in my boots because I think what you've just done may be chargeable under the 'interrupting on conversation apples' offence (or whatever it's called) :/
either way, the evidence is not the same, so the question is still unanswered
-
John is really angry today. We can only hope he jiggles the stick.
-
angry? so making jokes means I'm angry?
you piped up with some nonsense again, so i just cleared it up for you.. again
-
It would seem that your idea of a joke and everyone else's idea of a joke are mutually exclusive.
-
yeah, like your idea of a debate, or a conversation, or evidence
bore off
-
So angry. Can I help you jiggle the stick?
-
why are you not offering kleenex again?
..used them all? ;)
-
So angry. Can I help you jiggle the stick?
The usual jroa "low content posting on the upper fora"!
-
when in Rome